2016

From National Geographic: The strange rings are crafted from stalagmites and are roughly 176,000 years old, scientists report today in Nature. And if the rings were built by a bipedal species, as archaeologists suspect, then they could only be the work of Neanderthals, ancient human relatives that are proving to be much more “human” than anticipated. “This discovery provides clear evidence that Neanderthals had fully human capabilities in the planning and the construction of ‘stone’ structures, and that some of them penetrated deep into caves, where artificial lighting would have been essential,” says paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.More. And, from Nature, no one knows why they did it: “The big question is why they made Read More ›

At Hump of the Camel: Not that Denton’s thesis is entirely new. Perhaps the simplest summary is that it is a re-affirmation of his first book questioning the Neodarwinian Synthesis thirty years ago, now strengthened by much work in biology since, combined with a new structuralist viewpoint which he inherits from Richard Owen before and during Darwin’s time. I might add (because Denton doesn’t stress it) that structuralism – the idea that much of biological form depends on lawlike constraints, rather than adaptive contingency – was the prevalent theory of evolution, in the form of orthogenesis, at the time when Darwinism was found wanting in explanatory power at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was only the Neodarwinian Synthesis Read More ›

Every so often, Richard Dawkins hits the target. Here’s his take on the junior jackboots of Asshat U Washington Times: “There seems to be a tendency among some students – perhaps the less intelligent – to suppress free speech,” Mr. Dawkins said in an interview with the Australian on Monday. “I hope it doesn’t last long.” More. There are two reasonable opinions about whether the SJWs are dim. Some would say they know how to get on very well after the collapse of the traditional humanities, and aim at careers in enforcement of Correctness of some kind. Of course, one hardly need be a genius for that. In fact, a lack of genuine curiosity is a great asset. But what’s this Read More ›

The global warming hype, unlike the nutrition freakout or the far side of Darwinism, could actually be true. But the behaviour of the proponents tells against that. From Willie Soon and István Markó at : Increasingly, we are seeing more and more outrageous and aggressive anti-scientific claims that anyone who is not willing to embrace the dangerous global warming bandwagon and to condemn its culprit, CO2, is actually the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier. This sort of name-calling, loud self-promotion and fact twisting actions, closer to political rodeo than to healthy scientific debates, are simply telling us that our opponents have already lost their fallacious arguments and are getting short on any real scientific facts. Professor Albert Einstein had it Read More ›

CF’s objection to “we are inescapably under the government of ought . . . ” in WJM’s subjectivism privilege thread is revealing and worth headlining, as is the onward exchange, as it shows what we are dealing with. Remember, this is a live example of a now common mindset: CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what you have yet to cogently engage — and this is not personal disagreement it is a matter of warrant: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to Read More ›

In response to Vincent Torley’s Leading thinker on human evolution admits: we’re more than just an ape, Anaxagoraswrites at 2: I feel reassured that at least some scientists understand that humans are unique. Most laymen allready knew that. Yes, and that’s the critical mass of the stinking corruption that infests science media on this subject today: Everyone knows it’s true, yet science media continue to shovel garbage at us, such as that chimpanzees are entering the Stone Age or can handle high-level abstractions. No one is supposed to ask: If so, why are they still swinging in the trees? If the purveyors of this stuff are sane, they must realize that it cannot be true. But they must also know Read More ›

Dr. Ajit Varki is Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a confirmed evolutionist, but at the same time, interestingly, an ardent believer in human exceptionalism. Last April, Professor Varki and Professor S. Joshua Swamidass gave a presentation at the university, organized by the Veritas Forum, called, Common Ground in Science: A Conversation Between a Christian and an Evolutionist. Professor Swamidass has written a blog article about Dr. Varki’s presentation, in a recent post titled, More than just apes. Professor Varki highlighted two unique human traits during his talk: First (at 6:10), humans are the only known species that has out-competed all other sibling species (e.g. Neanderthals and Denisovans) Read More ›

Well, this’ll be interesting. Darwin vs. Boyle. From Suzan Mazur at Huffington Post: — In an attempt to do damage control, one of the organizers of the Royal Society paradigm shift meeting (not Denis Noble) sent me an email, which follows, asking that I stop referring to the Royal Society meeting as such. Why? Because he speaks for scientists who think they can control the scientific discourse as it was controlled at the time of Darwin. They are embarrassed. They don’t want to be seen as sitting on scientific evidence and feeding the public old science — which they are — and so they circle the wagons and deride those outside the circle who dare to point out that there is Read More ›

After devastating extinction. From the Guardian: The discovery of a toothless animal with a short snout and a long tail that roamed the seas around 247 million years ago, suggests early marine reptiles evolved more rapidly than previously thought after the the most devastating mass extinction event the planet has ever experienced, scientists have revealed. Dubbed Sclerocormus parviceps, a name that nods to its rigid body and small skull, the ichthyosauriform was unearthed by fossil hunters in China. But its appearance has surprised researchers. Sclerocormus is lacking a host of features seen in closely related marine reptiles: many ichthyosaurs had a long snout, teeth and a tail with big fins – none of which are present in the new find. Read More ›

From Jonathan Webb at New Scientist: Ten years earlier again, Dawkins’ pioneering account of the “gene-centric” view of evolution, The Selfish Gene, also won huge acclaim. It crystallised an argument that had been brewing since Watson and Crick’s beautiful DNA structure marked a new peak in our understanding of inheritance: these sequences would tend to accumulate and propagate mutations that were beneficial to the gene itself. Any given gene “wants” to be passed on to as many future offspring as possible. Forty years on, however, this concept faces some opposition among today’s biologists. More. Um, now that you mention it … But Dawkins sees no need to rethink evolution in the light of modern developments: Perhaps the most popular challenge raised Read More ›

More on Doug Axe’s Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed: Undeniable will be published on July 12 by HarperOne, but you can pre-order before then and participate in an exclusive, private conference call with Dr. Axe and talk-show host Michael Medved. Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #12,846 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #2 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic #2 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology #3 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism

Further to the Arizona State U study author’s demand for “acceptance” rather than mere “understanding” of evolution, two thoughts: 1. The difference between “accept” and “understand” becomes quite clear when we turn away from Darwinism and look instead at a fact-based field. Let’s say, sterile procedure in the operating room. One doesn’t really care whether health care personnel “accept” sterile procedure, as long as they understand and follow it. Indeed, “acceptance” is valueless by itself. It is in fact counterproductive by itself: Bimbette Fluffarelli, popular host on Airhead TV, knows that “evolution is true,” with a fervour that would shame Jerry Coyne. Fortunately for her (and everyone), she has never had to think about it. Brownell frets about a lack Read More ›

The philosopher Plato wrote in his work, Phaedrus, that successful theories should “carve nature at its joints.” Scientists have a special obligation to abide by this maxim, since the stated aim of science is to systematically describe Nature, as she really is. The worst kind of intellectual crime I can conceive of would be the imposition on the populace of a conceptual system which fails to carve Nature at its joints. When people are deceived into believing a false proposition, their error can be corrected by simply pointing out the truth; but when people are forced to adopt a totally wrong way of slicing and dicing reality, the very fabric of their thinking is warped, and intellectual progress is retarded. Read More ›

From New Scientist: It’s a tear-jerker worthy of Hollywood – and one of the first examples of compassionate care and grief in a wild monkey. The alpha male of a group of snub-nosed monkeys and his dying partner spent a final, tender hour together beneath the tree from which she had fallen minutes earlier, cracking her head on a rock. Before she succumbed, he gently touched and groomed her. And after she was dead he remained by her side for 5 minutes, touching her and pulling gently at her hand, as if to try and revive her (for a full account of what happened, see “A monkey tends to his dying mate – as it unfolded”, below). But why is Read More ›

By Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen  Here: The controversy over Intelligent Design (ID) has now continued for over two decades, with no signs of ending. For its defenders, ID is revolutionary new science, and its opposition is merely ideological. For its critics, ID is both bad science and bad theology. But the polemical nature of the debate makes it difficult to understand the nature of the arguments on all sides. A balanced and deep analysis of a controversial debate, this volume argues that beliefs about the purposiveness or non-purposiveness of nature should not be based merely on science. Rather, the philosophical and theological nature of such questions should be openly acknowledged. More. Free first pages. See also: New ID book from HarperCollins: Undeniable: Read More ›