News

A new reason? ET is HAL, but not psychotic. From Aeon: From the evolution side, a number of futurists are predicting the singularity: a time when computers will soon become powerful enough to simulate human consciousness, or absorb it entirely. In parallel, some visionaries propose that any intelligent life we encounter in the rest of the Universe is more likely to be machine-based, rather than humanoid meat-bags such as ourselves. These ruminations offer a potential solution to the long-debated Fermi Paradox: the seeming absence of intelligent alien life swarming around us, despite the fact that such life seems possible. If machine intelligence is the inevitable end-point of both technology and biology, then perhaps the aliens are hyper-evolved machines so off-the-charts Read More ›

But Simon Oxenham did, at Prime Mind: Let’s begin by looking at the most widely-read news website—Mail Online, which provides a perfect demonstration of what we’ll call the seesaw effect. Almost every week, the Mail publishes news stories illustrating scientific findings that—apparently—turn our understanding of the world upside down. If you believed everything you read in the Mail about cancer, for example, you’d have to believe that everything from taking aspirin to drinking beer both causes and prevents cancer. That’s according to The Daily Mail Ontological Oncology project, a tongue-in-cheek attempt to track “the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.” But it’s not just the Mail that’s Read More ›

Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, offers thoughts on Saturday’s debate in Toronto: Lamoureux’s role in the debate was largely to offer a robotic rolodex of tired cliché’s (e.g., “I find the evidence for evolution overwhelming, there is no debate on that,” and “biology only makes sense in light of evolution”). Among them was the classic, “show me one tooth in the Cambrian, and we’ll turn all the science upside-down.” Of course, we have good reason to doubt that he would be true to his ultimatum. After all, we didn’t think evolution could account for the massive diversification of animal life seen in a 5-8 million year sliver of the Cambrian period, Read More ›

From New Scientist: … That brings to the fore areas that are not part of the canon of evolutionary theory: epigenetics, for example, which studies how organisms are affected by changes in the ways in which genes are expressed, rather than in the genes themselves. Attempts to incorporate such elements into evolutionary theory have not always been welcomed, however. That is understandable, given how successful the theory has been without them. Occam’s razor applies: do not add complications unless they are absolutely necessary. But another motivating factor is undoubtedly the fear that if scientists themselves are seen to suggest that even small details of the theory of evolution could be improved upon, its detractors will seize upon them with avidity. Read More ›

A reader writes, to share this brief remembrance of Dr. Hughes  in Infection, Genetics and Evolution. Here’s a reminiscence from a friend as well: No one was exempt from his devastating critiques—friends, scientists, religious leaders. Jerry Coyne twice had the splendid misfortune of addressing topics better understood by Hughes, and from a conflicting point of view, resulting in chains of blogs, columns, and book reviews (for example, see “Faith, Fact, and False Dichotomies“). However, erroneous claims only seemed to bother him when tied to some metaphysical agenda, such as Coyne’s atheism. Conflict on other matters, such as hostile reviews of his work overturning well-accepted bird phylogenies, prompted easy resignation: “Oh well, I tried.” When it came to outlandish claims about evolution, Hughes Read More ›

But then we would need to replace a lot of science journalists. From Michael Schulson at Pacific Standard: Last May, when This American Life acknowledged that it had run a 23-minute-long segment premised on a fraudulent scientific study, America’s most respected radio journalists did something strange: They declined to apologize for the error. “Our original story was based on what was known at the time,” host Ira Glass explained in a blog post. “Obviously the facts have changed.” It was a funny admission. Journalists typically don’t say that “facts change”; it is a journalist’s job to define and publicize facts. When a reporter gets hoodwinked by a source, she does not imply that something in the fabric of reality has Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Researchers discover sophisticated alarm signaling in a primitive insect Many insect species respond to danger by producing chemical alarm signals, or alarm pheromones, to inform others. In a recent study, investigators found that their alarm may be even be context dependent. The researchers discovered that larvae of the Western Flower Thrips produce an alarm pheromone whose composition of 2 chemicals, decyl acetate and dodecyl acetate, varies with the level of danger they face. When pheromone is excreted with a predator present but not attacking, the percentage of dodecyl acetate increases, whereas when a predator does attack, the percentage of dodecyl acetate is low. “This type of communication was so far only known from vocal alarm calling in mammals, Read More ›

  From Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong: Erica Klarreich at Quanta has the story of a surprising new result about prime numbers from Kannan Soundararajan and Rober Lemke Oliver. They have found that, given a prime number with a certain last digit, there are different probability for the last digit of the next one (among the various possibilities). This violates usual assumptions that such things are in some sense “random”, indicating just how subtle this “randomness” is. More. From Klarreich at Quanta: Two mathematicians have uncovered a simple, previously unnoticed property of prime numbers — those numbers that are divisible only by 1 and themselves. Prime numbers, it seems, have decided preferences about the final digits of the primes that Read More ›

From Retraction Watch, interviewing John Ioannidis, John Ioannidis is perhaps best known for a 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” One of the most highly cited researchers in the world, Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford, has built a career in the field of meta-research. Earlier this month, he published a heartfelt and provocative essay in the the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology titled “Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Report to David Sackett.” In it, he carries on a conversation begun in 2004 with Sackett, who died last May and was widely considered the father of evidence-based medicine. We asked Ioannidis to expand on his comments in the essay, including why he believes he is a “failure.” Retraction Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: For decades, physicists have been working on the theory that dark matter is light and therefore interacts weakly with ordinary matter. This means that the particles are capable of being produced in colliders. This theory’s dark particles are called weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs), and they are theorized to have been created in an inconceivably large number shortly after the birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. “But since no experiments have ever seen even a trace of a WIMP, it could be that we should look for a heavier dark particle that interacts only by gravity and thus would be impossible to detect directly,” says Martin Sloth. Sloth and his colleagues call their version of such a Read More ›

From the BBC: Why there might be many more universes besides our own … The fundamental constants of the laws of physics seem bizarrely fine-tuned to the values needed for life to exist. … For example, if the strength of the electromagnetic force were just a little different, atoms would not be stable. Just a 4% change would prevent all nuclear fusion in stars, the process that makes the carbon atoms our bodies are largely made of. … This has made some people suspect the hand of God. Yet an inflationary multiverse, in which all conceivable physical laws operate somewhere, offers an alternative explanation.More. So there it is. Brits pay taxes for this, believing it is some kind of science. Read More ›

At his blog, Why Evolution Is True: I don’t know for sure, but would bet a lot of money, that Krauss plumps for physics while Lamoureaux and Meyer for the importance of either God or his euphemism, a “designer.” More. Prophecies are difficult, especially with respect to the future. In the event, Krauss hollered a lot about the Discovery Institute and Lamoureux testified to his faith. Meyer tried to keep things on track despite a migraine. Note: One of Coyne’s posters, Diana MacPherson announces, inter alia: Meyer drives me right crazy and I would have loved to tell him that I got his book moved out of the science section at Chapters but I can sympathize with someone having a Read More ›

With your coffee … what to make of this comment by “Charley Horse” on Michael Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016), comment appended to his review, Cashing in on the Oogity Boogity: Clother….you are not one of those militant Muslims that Denton’s fellow propagandists at the Discovery Institute kowtow to are you? For the record….the DI isn’t the only young earth creationist organization in the USA that has given aid and comfort to the militant Muslims…especially in Turkey. Les often quotes from one militant Muslim…..Adnan Oktar, also known as Harun Yahya. Wow. If Charley Horse has genuine information about “militants,” why doesn’t he go to the police? This is a long way from agnostic Denton or anything he can Read More ›

From David Klinghoffer, editor of Evolution News & Views: on the Toronto debate between Steve Meyer, Lawrence Krauss, and Denis Lamoureux It was not the ideal of a clash between ID and Lawrence Krauss’s atheism that one would hope for. However, the event was something else, in a way, of no less interest. It was a dramatic test and acting out of character. Almost as if it had been intelligently designed that way. Meyer’s courageous performance, while not his most articulate, was in a moral sense heroic. When all was said and done, Meyer with a migraine offered a whole lot more substance than either of his interlocutors. In addition, he was a gentleman throughout. His argument was about science Read More ›

From one Twitter feed, via a tipster: Kinesin (a motor protein) pulling a vesicle along cytoskeletal filament – the coolest thing I’ve seen in a long time! The accompanying commentary from people for whom design in nature is a shocking idea is revealing. Once the profanities, incoherence, and irrelevancies are deleted, it is typically along the lines of: “To think that natural selection just somehow does this over billions of years is just so [deleted] neat!” and, of course, “Don’t be deceived by illusions of design. The actual process isn’t that simple… “ Right, kiddos. And so where is my Boltzmann brain then? Follow UD News at Twitter!