So different sets of genes can result in identical looking birds? This is getting as complicated as the butterflies.
“Now, a group of 44 researchers has written a strongly worded critique of the dating of these paintings … ” Stay tuned.
From the Abstract: The successful realization of quantum optics with this polypeptide as a prototypical biomolecule paves the way for quantum-assisted molecule metrology and in particular the optical spectroscopy of a large class of biologically relevant molecules.
Well, if the mind is an illusion and the computer simulations were wildly wrong, how would Hoffman even know? But does it matter, as long as he keeps the Darwinian faith? No wonder the scoffing grows—and increasingly, the thought police are always somewhere else.
A large-scale structure is thought to ”transcend local interactions.”
Pinker thinks that things are getting better all the time but Berlinski says, nah!, no real change.
That’s twice as long ago as previously thought. It is interesting how much theorizing depends on Darwinism rather than on sudden emergence and then stasis. And then suddenly there is no 50 million years to account for… A quite different set of problems appears.
Hossenfelder: But there is no reason to think that the forces of the standard model have to be unified, or that all the forces ultimately derive from one common explanation. It would be nice, but maybe that’s just not how the universe works.
This wonderful news come on the heels of the just as wonderful news about the opening of the ID centre in Austria, Zentrum für Biokomplexität und NaturTeleologie.
Denis Noble: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
In a new book: Accounts of miracles show common patterns, and those patterns are exemplified in this book.
Maybe BioLogos is more interested in climate change now. National Center for Science Education appears to have gone the same route. A reasonable choice for both, given how Darwinism is faring.
Einstein’s concept of God ruled out free will. At that point, the wheels come off.
Hot tip from a sometime talent scout: They seldom look like they should. That’s a sign of authenticity. Experience looks different from packaging.
Wells is the author of Zombie Science, about out-of-date Darwinian rubbish whacked from one edition of a given publicly funded textbook to another, often claiming the protection of law as if it were some kind of Holy Writ that founds a religious republic.