Dotson: In a culture dominated by political scientism, citizens and policymakers forget how to listen, debate, and explore possibilities for compromise or concession with one another. Instead, we come to believe that our opponents only need to be informed of the “correct” facts or truths, harshly sanctioned, or simply ignored.
Cells getting them right is important in preventing disease. But all that stuff just sort of clumped together a long time ago and happened to work, right? Just like traffic signals.
Eva Jablonka’s team makes the daring case, repurposing Hungarian chemist Tibor Gánti’s origin of life studies. Where their approach differs from many is that they do not try to identify a mechanism of consciousness.
Of course Darwinism is nonsense. But it is profitable nonsense and easy to spout in an uncritical environment. The question of the day is, how do we get probing critiques to travel from the ivied walls to the pop science mag rack — where, it is fair to say, most writers and readers are unaware of any of the problems identified. So far as they know, Darwin brilliantly explained why men golf and women cheat and some people go to church…
One used to hear many people say “Cancel Culture is so ridiculous, it will go away soon.” Well, that’s not happening. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who usually writes about other matters, discusses two representative incidents.
From findings: Follow-up experiments in mice pointed to a potential explanation for why: the deletion appeared to limit male animals’ size when fed a calorie-restricted diet. This sort of growth limitation could help males survive lean times but limit their reproductive success in times of plenty.
Question: If someone proposed Darwinism for the first time today, now that we know all that we know about the hard-to-fathom complexity of life, would people as readily accept it?
So when Darwin came along and said, no, apes, he was playing to a sympathetic audience. Good to know.
A recent internet-savvy bionic hand, developed by an American neuroscientist and computer engineer, is the most flexible yet, with sensory feedback. But will we ever outdo nature? Why or why not?
Charlie Wood: The tetraquark now presents theorists with a solid target against which to test their mathematical machinery for approximating the strong force.
Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?
Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-
Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …
[Things became quite heated at this point.]
So far, no burial site has been found in the caves, and Finlayson speculated that digging down from the chamber at the apex of the cave could lead to side chambers and perhaps even a site where the Neanderthals placed their dead.
Michael Egnor: What I want to establish before that is that your arguments are not based on any actual knowledge. You don’t know the arguments for God’s existence. So your claim that they’re not true…
At Evolution News: “When both DNA strands break (the “double-stranded break” crisis, or DSB), a cell can die. Molecular machines fly into action as the strands flail about, threatening genomic catastrophe. The repair crew has an additional problem: unlike the bridge cable, the DNA strand is made up of a sequence of code that needs to match what was there before the DSB. In a process called homologous recombination, the machinery searches for a template to rebuild the broken sequence.”
Hossenfelder: There are two warnings I have to add when it comes to the “Big Bang”. First, I don’t know anybody who actually believes that this singularity is physically real. It probably just means that Einstein’s equations break down and must be replaced by something else.