Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

(Reformed) New Scientist 3: The Selfish Gene Is No Longer Cool

Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article three days ago on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.” Their Number 3 rethink is … Move Over, Selfish Gene. It’s replaced not just by kin selection now but by cultural group selection. Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #3: But kin selection cannot explain why humans are so nice to strangers… Some researchers think the solution lies in an idea called cultural group selection. Forget shared genes, they argue: selection can favour cooperative groups if the people within them share enough culture. The idea is controversial because to work it requires that groups remain culturally distinct. As critics point out, people Read More ›

Evolutionary computing cannot produce an AI superintelligence

Bartlett: “The interesting thing about this paper is that it shows that the principles demonstrated in the 1990s by Wolpert and Macready still have not really sunk in yet. As their “No Free Lunch” theorems point out, there is no universally good search through any search space. Read More ›

U-Haul a riot (where, lawless oligarchy is the “natural” state order)

Yes, it seems some connected Alinsky School Community Organiser groups have been videotaped in the act, by independent, viral video journalists. Caught, in the act of unloading telling messages and riot equipment — shields and shield walls are not normal, “peaceful”/lawful protest equipment (and no, shields are not purely defensive) — from a rental truck: Another . . . augmented . . . vid clip allows us to recognise the renter of the truck (black shorts girl), even as longer shields are being handed out: This is of course directly connected to the incident where two police officers were shot by rioters in Louisville. So, we can readily connect riots, red guard cannon fodder cultural revolution activism, the ecosystem of Read More ›

Reformed New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence

At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.” Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on Darwinism and the problem of why intelligent women marry less intelligent men

If regression toward the mean is a nearly universal tendency, how could evolution proceed via sexual selection? Outliers would tend to get reabsorbed far more often than not. Read More ›

SwiftKey co-founder: Computers can’t just “evolve” intelligence; cites James Shapiro’s self-organization

In a still-interesting 2017 paper, Ben Medlock talks about the way life forms self-organize: (which computers don’t, really). Read More ›

Surgisphere scandal results in change in editorial practices at The Lancet

At The Scientist: "Like Malički, Watson and other researchers note that the changes don’t address larger, more general issues highlighted by Surgisphere’s papers, including journals’ reluctance to push authors to share data and code for published studies, and an overall lack of transparency in how papers are reviewed before and after publication. " Read More ›

Mathematicians debate the war on math

Carlo Rovelli stops short of saying that 2+2=5 but the article gives every sense that many would love to go there if only they could get some kind of a nudge. It is far to say that the war on Platonism is just the war on math, PhD version. Read More ›

At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature

If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren't selfish and don't come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start... Read More ›

Michael Egnor: Darwinism as Hegel’s philosophy applied to biology

He sees that as a framework for much of the change around us: Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a revolutionary scientific theory. It was hardly a scientific theory in any meaningful sense. Natural selection, as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out, isn’t a meaningful level of scientific explanation. It’s barely more than a tautology. Natural selection is an “empty” theory — “survivors survive” has no genuine explanatory power. As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed, Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory. It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature. Purpose in biology, Darwin insisted, is an illusion. Differential survival alone can explain “purpose” in nature. Darwin proposed that all of Read More ›