Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne bashes the Templeton Foundation, based on new information

The odd thing is that one part of the Templeton group is also funding things that should interest Jerry, for example the quest for an explanation of consciousness. Read More ›

At The Scientist: No, we did not kill off the Neanderthals but maybe we helped

If the Neanderthal woman was living and having kids with a non-Neanderthal man, she wasn’t living and having kids with a Neanderthal man. Perhaps, if non-Neanderthal men were more numerous, it was only a matter of time and only the usual amount of violence, rather than a big massacre. Read More ›

Question for readers: In a world where horizontal gene transfer is an important force, what becomes of Dawkins’s Selfish Gene?

The selfish gene is an entity driven by an unadmitted teleological force to replicate itself in offspring. But horizontal gene transfer—hardly taken seriously the day before yesterday—features genes that simply end up on a different string. Is a relentless force of selfishness driving them to do that? Or do they just drift and end up on that string? Read More ›

The bacterial flagellar hook as a universal joint

A friend points out that the paper just describes the intricate machinery of the hook, adding to what we know, without any resort to Darwinspeak. It seems to be getting safer all the time to just not talk that way any more. Read More ›

So then maybe we ARE privileged observers

Researcher: "Our analysis is data-driven but supports the theoretical proposal due to Christos Tsagas (University of Thessaloniki) that acceleration may be inferred when we are not Copernican observers, as is usually assumed, but are embedded in a local bulk flow shared by nearby galaxies, as is, indeed, observed. This is unexpected in the standard cosmological model, and the reason for such a flow remains unexplained. Read More ›

Once upon a time, scientists were allowed to think that Darwin might be wrong

Emily Morales: Adam Sedgewick, professor of biology and geology at Cambridge University, and a mentor to the young Darwin similarly concluded he had “. . . leaped beyond the evidence.” Read More ›

EG vs objective reality (pivoting on distinct identity)

In a current thread frequent objector EG comments — and yes, I am catching up: KF and others talk about “objective” as being something that is unchangeable. For example, homosexuality is objectively wrong. Always was, always will be. This doesn’t change with the times. But you argue that my preference of ice cream flavor is also objectively true. If my preference for ice cream is objective, and changeable, then other objective things, like moral values, are also changeable. Nope. For one, what I have said about objectivity (or rather, what Wikipedia has been forced to admit against obvious ideological inclination) is: Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A Read More ›

Researchers: Animal embryos evolved before animals

Well, now that Zhu mentions it, hadn’t we better be sure that there are no adult stages before we make such dramatic claims? Otherwise, what we really have is another early Ediacaran complex animal which, while a marvellous find, is not the one Darwinians would be hoping for. Read More ›

Talk about hope springing eternal: 2020 for our history-making alien life find?

It would be marvellous to find aliens out there to talk to, even if they turned to be an awful bore. But there is something suspicious about these statistics. With no single alien ever found, they offer us no history to go by. Read More ›

Sev and Ed Respond to Upright Biped (and Fail Spectacularly)

Ed George asserted that morality is based on societal consensus.  Upright Biped utterly demolished that argument.  See here.  Seversky and Ed tried to respond to UB’s arguments.  Let’s start with Sev:  I, like everyone else here, would also want [the rape] to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality. This is a muddled mashup of two of the materialists’ favorite dodges.  First Sev appeals Read More ›