The claim couldn’t be replicated. But then how likely IS it that haywire fish would actually be attracted to predators instead of just behaving in weird ways, getting themselves eaten?
The authors of the paper, of course, avoid pointing out that the presumption of uselessness was anchored in the comfortable fit between useless junk in the genome and the idea of unintelligent evolution. Never mind, Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA seems to be holding up well.
This is not horizontal gene transfer; the fish are eating and repurposing the enzymes rather than incorporating the genes for producing them. But if the fish can in fact steal the enzymes, that’s something to keep in mind as we hear evolutionary biologists explain to us how this and other traits evolved via natural selection acting on the random mutations of the fish’s genome (Darwinism)…
It was determined to be 98.6 Fahrenheit back in 1851:
Researchers say that the body temperature (Fahrenheit) of men born in the 2000s is on average 1.06 degrees lower than men born in the early 1800s. Similarly, women born in the 2000s have an average body temperature that is 0.58 degrees lower than women born in the 1890s. All in all, these conclusions point to a decrease of 0.05 degrees among the U.S. population each and every decade.
John Anderer, “Human Body Temperature In The U.S. Has Decreased Over Time, Study Finds” at StudyFinds
In all 677,423 temperature readings were taken, dating back to the US Civil War era. The open-access paper was published in eLIFE.
From the discussion: “Our investigation indicates that humans in high-income countries have changed physiologically over the last 200 birth years with a mean body temperature 1.6% lower than in the pre-industrial era. The role that this physiologic ‘evolution’ plays in human anthropometrics and longevity is unknown.”
If “evolution” is going on all the time like that, and probably drifting back and forth, what becomes of the Facts of Evolution that are the Bedrock of Science and the Truths every schoolchild should be taught?
To the extent that the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby permits the discussion of epigenetics, we can be reasonably sure they restrict it to the narrower, less threatening sense. And what better stronghold for Darwinism than the public school, which all taxpayers are forced to fund and most parents obliged to send their kids to?
To the extent that science is global, tolerated fraud in one milieu taints an entire discipline. Recall the smug people who think that science is an infinitely superior way of knowing, Won’t that be an increasingly harder sell as more people become aware of these tip-of-the-iceberg “bombshell” revelations?
New discoveries don’t just add to old ones; they can greatly change or destroy their significance. That’s exactly what is happening to Darwinism today and we are living in the middle of it.
One wants to ask, how distinct ARE the genomes of these species that all look the same?
Would it be like mapping a cat’s genome and finding a German Shepherd’s GATTACA in there? What that level of distinction really tells us goes well beyond cats and German Shepherds. Or do the researchers really mean something less highly distinct? What? We search for analogies here.
What a good idea! Instead of getting shouted down by Darwinians, anxious to impose the “red in tooth and claw” on school curricula, perhaps we should long ago have adopted the practice of simply providing editions of Darwin’s works, detailing the worldview that lies behind this stuff. Accept or reject it, the worldview goes along with the package.
“The researchers point out that, although the kind of coordination shown in the present study may rely on more simple mechanisms than full, conscious cooperation, … ” Surely no one thinks that dogs or wolves have a theory of co-operation?
But first, wait a minute.We do not really know what consciousness is. That is true whether or not “our intelligence and our experiences are ineluctable consequences of the natural causal powers of our brain, rather than any supernatural ones.” as Christof Koch claims.
“Habitable zone” needn’t mean a whole lot. Abundant Earth is in a habitable one but so is the lifeless Moon, tidally locked.
The nested hierarchies we find in codes point to an intelligence behind nature.
It’s curious how space aliens are assigned to “science,” no matter what proposition is entertained with respect to them. Perhaps they reward sheer, blind faith.
So did Coyne not give Goff the right of reply? Apparently, he would need a beaker of antacid to read the guy’s book…