Well, if the embryos are shaping their development in response to warning cries, that puts a whole new spin on “evolution.”
We warned the Darwinians to take the racism and eugenics in their past seriously while there was time but they assumed that if they spoke in Darwin’s name, all would be forgiven.
“Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). ” When this stuff is happening, Darwinism is on the outs culturally.
Wait a minute! Wasn’t there cosmic Darwinism a decade ago? Yes, here. And quantum Darwinism whistled through in 2016 too.
Siegel: In order for inflation to end, that energy has to get converted into matter and radiation. The evidence strongly points to that happening some 13.8 billion years ago.
The bigger problem is overlooked. The basic philosophy of the people doing the science spins the story for them. We live in the age of the space detritus that was supposed to be an extraterrestrial lightsail and the conscious plants. And the talking apes. Oh yes, and the multiverse
But the real villain is hands and opposable thumbs, right? They’re part and parcel of all the bad stuff humans do. The back pain is incidental.
In pop science media, the End of All Things is the heat death of the universe, but some opt for stranger fates instead.
In short, he argues that it’s no surprise that cutting the brain in half has no effect on abstract thought, and then he argues that delicate complexity and interconnection is essential for abstract thought. Dr. Ali is debating Dr. Ali.
Abstract thought is qualitatively different from concrete thought. To understand this, consider a chiliagon. A chiliagon is a closed regular polygon with 1000 sides. It is very simple to understand abstractly. However, it cannot be imagined concretely
Forget “new physics”. Forget the Nobel Prize. Get some humility, especially us physicists, and realize that everything we possess is a gift. Show some gratitude by filling in one of the many textbook gaps.
Instead of doing a study on religious affiliation and science beliefs (yawn), why not do one, with all the rumty-tumty and trappings, of who the suckers are who actually believe all that stuff uncritically? What else do they believe?
If there apparently isn’t and never has been life on Mars, why should we assume it exists elsewhere? If there is/has been life on Mars and it looks like it came from Earth, well, that’s a game-changer in itself. If it doesn’t look like it came from Earth, that opens up whole new, *non-speculative* vistas.
He writes, “It is time for a temporary time out. Why not admit what we cannot yet explain: the mass transfer of starting materials to the molecules needed for life; the origin of life’s code; the combinatorial complexities present in any living system; and the precise non-regular assembly of cellular components?”
My own view is that we need to go back to 1950 and revisit the alternatives. Because solving today’s impasse doesn’t require any new physics, but old physics done differently.