Looking past the tabloid prose, they say they found that selection can occur at the level of the epigenome. So what becomes of neo-Darwinism if selection isn’t tied to the all-powerful but accidental gene?
My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?
That is, Darwinians argue that similar structures in life forms are powerful evidence of common ancestry. Is that so? It’s part of an occasional series called Long Story Short.
The Twitter mob must be at lunch or something. An entire industry of bestselling Darwindrivel is disrespected and this prof still has her JOB?
In an age when objectivity is becoming science’s enemy in the United States and massive corruption is a norm in its former science competitor Russia, scientists can still make a virtue out of being true to Darwin. Wherever that lands them.
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.
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?
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.
Prediction: The Darwinists will knuckle to the post-facts, post-objectivity rampage, leaving the non-Darwinists to defend science. This is your monkey brain on survival of the fittest: They will persecute Darwinians who speak out.
It’s remarkable that “nature” has “perfected” all this even though nature is mindless and the bear is not very smart. Yet people actually believe there is no design in nature.
Himmelfarb: Darwin usually engaged in rhetorical sleight-of-hand where “possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and probabilities into certainties, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge” (p. 335)
From 518 million years ago: The remains document the Cambrian explosion, a rapid flourishing of life-forms, and include many organisms never seen before — even at the most famous Cambrian fossil site, Canada’s Burgess Shale Carolyn Gramling, “Science News’ favorite fossils of 2019” at Science News So even more fossils just popped into existence, just Read More…
In general, National Geographic dances to Jerry Coyne’s tune where evolution is concerned and the decline he reports, if real, has continued during that same period. The only thing we really know is that the internet has drop kicked almost all magazines.
In this 2016 article, the authors tell it like it happened but then the information always falls into a black hole. This got fished out again recently, however.
We checked; it’s Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Harper One, 2016). But these sales don’t last.