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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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 […]
There just weren’t very many Neanderthals to begin with so they were subject to a number of factors that diminished their numbers even further, say researchers.
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.
By the way, seriously, was your boss a Neanderthal too?
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.
What’s interesting here is that even though just regrowing teeth through life would seem like an advantage, for mammals, more complex teeth turned out to be a bigger advantage.
The trouble with these kinds of stories is, they write themselves. We don;t need data. If we like our history without much data, we should read epics instead of this stuff.
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 […]
But then the author turns and says something thoughtful.