From Natalie Wolchover at Quanta: One of the oldest and biggest experiments hunting for dark matter particles, DAMA is alone in claiming to see them. It purports to pick up on rare interactions between the hypothesized particles and ordinary atoms. But if these dalliances between the visible and invisible worlds really do produce DAMA’s data, several other experiments would probably also have detected dark matter by now. They have not. Late last month, Rita Bernabei of the University of Rome Tor Vergata, DAMA’s longtime leader, presented the results of an additional six years of measurements. She reported that DAMA’s signal looks as strong as ever. But researchers not involved with the experiment have since raised serious arguments against dark matter Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: In a study published this week in Science Advances, an international team of researchers from Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins and School of Human Evolution and Social Change, New York University, University of Kent, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology found that a simple, straightforward developmental rule — the “patterning cascade” — is powerful enough to explain the massive variability in molar crown configuration over the past 15 million years of ape and human evolution. “Instead of invoking large, complicated scenarios to explain the majors shifts in molar evolution during the course of hominin origins, we found that simple adjustments and alterations to this one developmental rule can account for most of those changes,” Read More ›

John Horgan asks at Scientific American if science is hitting a wall: Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns The economists are concerned primarily with what I would call applied science, the kind that fuels economic growth and increases wealth, health and living standards. Advances in medicine, transportation, agriculture, communication, manufacturing and so on. But their findings resonate with my claim in The End of Science that “pure” science—the effort simply to understand rather than manipulate nature–is bumping into limits. And in fact I was invited to The Session because an organizer had read my gloomy tract, which was recently republished. I had lots of reactions to The Session. Here are a few: … In the realm of Read More ›

From George Dvorsky at Gizmodo: Over 150 experts in AI, robotics, commerce, law, and ethics from 14 countries have signed an open letter denouncing the European Parliament’s proposal to grant personhood status to intelligent machines. The EU says the measure will make it easier to figure out who’s liable when robots screw up or go rogue, but critics say it’s too early to consider robots as persons—and that the law will let manufacturers off the liability hook. This all started last year when the European Parliament proposed the creation of a specific legal status for robots … More. See also: Should chimpanzees be considered legal persons or things? Chimpanzees being considered legal persons is a step on the road to Read More ›

From George Dvorsky at Gizmodo: Though still technically human and featuring very human-like characteristics, they were shorter, more robust, and physically stronger. But they also featured distinctive faces, with heavy brows, weak chins, a large, forward-projecting face, and a wide nose. Some of these characteristics, such as the brow and chin, were likely acquired from their ancestors, but the other features are so distinctive that paleontologists figure they must’ve evolved for a special reason. New research published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B suggests this is very much the case, and that Neanderthals acquired a facial structure that made life during the Ice Age more bearable. More. Paper. (paywall) Faces really different from “ours”? One gets the impression Read More ›

From James Gallagher at BBC: Prof Rob Knight, from University of California San Diego, told the BBC: “You’re more microbe than you are human.” Originally it was thought our cells were outnumbered 10 to one. “That’s been refined much closer to one-to-one, so the current estimate is you’re about 43% human if you’re counting up all the cells,” he says.More. Well, if that’s true, human life is not at all what the lectern splinterers claim. See also: If viruses can evolve in parallel in related species… ? and Science fictions series 4: Naturalism and the human mind

From retired nuclear engineer Regis Nicoll at Salvo 44: We know from experience that when an object, like a car, absorbs energy by crashing into another object, it suffers damage. If I want my car repaired, I don’t just let it sit and expect it to return to its original condition by itself. Rather, I take it to a body shop, where it will be restored by the skillful hands of trained technicians. And yet, when one of my desk’s atoms gets damaged from bumping into one of its neighbors, it quickly returns to its original condition, all on its own. This is very strange. Equally strange is the phenomenon of the electrons’ “orbit.” Unlike the Earth, whose orbit is Read More ›

From Ratio Christi: Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler and Hitler’s Ethic. is also the author of The Death of Humanity. , From Darwin to Hitler and Hitler’s Ethic.

From ScienceDaily: Scientists from the universities of Exeter and Cambridge compared viruses that evolved in different species and found “parallel genetic changes” were more likely if two host species were closely related. … “This may explain in part why host shifts tend to occur between related species. However, we sometimes see the same mutations occurring in distantly related host species, and this may help explain why viruses may sometimes jump between distantly related host species. “At present we know very little about how viruses shift from one host species to another, so research like this is important if we want to understand and ultimately predict emerging viral diseases.” Paper. (public access) – Ben Longdon, Jonathan P Day, Joel M Alves, Read More ›

From Rush D. Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), at Scientific American: In the past few years, we have engaged in more forceful and frequent advocacy, rephrasing our motto from “the voice for science” to “the force for science,” and after decades of slow decline in membership, our rolls have turned around dramatically. Our new members, who like our longtime members clearly value Science magazine, now say that they value even more our public advocacy and efforts to fully integrate science and engineering into society and government. In short, we are seeing around the world—in marches, in scientific society membership, in civic participation—scientists joining with each other and turning outward. More and Read More ›

From Giorgia Guglielmi, Rodrigo Pérez Ortega, T. V. Padma, Holly Else, Quirin Schiermeier & Barbara Casassus at Nature: More than 250 cities around the world — from Mexico City to London to Mumbai — are hosting events. That’s fewer than last year, when marches in more than 600 cities drew about 1 million people. Still, this year’s overall turnout should be close to that of 2017, because many cities will host related events over the entire weekend, says Valerie Grover, satellite director of the main March for Science organization, who is based in Madison, Wisconsin. This year’s events range from rallies to festivals, and include musical performances, teach-in sessions and expos hosted by March for Science’s partner organizations. That should Read More ›

From Shawna Williams at The Scientist: TS: Do you think last year’s march, or other activism associated with it, have yielded results? RH: Some. The biggest effect was that scientists reminded themselves and each other that this is appropriate to do, that it’s important to do. I think many of the marchers last year were pleasantly surprised at the buoyant effect of being with thousands of other like-minded people to talk about the beauty of science, the relevance of science, the important place of science in society. . . . Maybe scientists shouldn’t need a reminder that it’s appropriate to go public, and in fact there’s an obligation to go public, but I think scientists do need that reminder, and Read More ›

      The aim of this OP is to discuss in some order and with some completeness a few related objections to ID theory which are in a way connected to the argument that goes under the name of Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy, sometimes used as a criticism of ID. The argument that the TSS fallacy is a valid objection against ID has been many times presented by DNA_Jock, a very good discussant from the other side. So, I will refer in some detail to his arguments, as I understand them and remember them. Of course, if DNA_Jock thinks that I am misrepresenting his ideas, I am ready to ackowledge any correction about that. He can post here, if he Read More ›

From Liqun Luo at Nautilus: Over the past decades, engineers have taken inspiration from the brain to improve computer design. The principles of parallel processing and use-dependent modification of connection strength have both been incorporated into modern computers. For example, increased parallelism, such as the use of multiple processors (cores) in a single computer, is a current trend in computer design. As another example, “deep learning” in the discipline of machine learning and artificial intelligence, which has enjoyed great success in recent years and accounts for rapid advances in object and speech recognition in computers and mobile devices, was inspired by findings of the mammalian visual system.8 As in the mammalian visual system, deep learning employs multiple layers to represent Read More ›

We told you so! Four horsemen. No waiting. From Brian Miller at ENST: One of the most significant projects for the intelligent design movement was Douglas Axe’s research testing the rarity of protein folds. Axe’s method represented the most accurate approach for addressing the problem to date, but his was actually one in a line of studies which concluded that amino acid sequences forming the stable proteins found in nature are exceedingly uncommon. As a consequence, most proteins seen in life could never have originated via random mutations and selection. One of the early online critics of Axe’s work was Arthur Hunt, who wrote a lengthy critique at the Darwinian advocacy site Panda’s Thumb. His area of expertise is not Read More ›