If we are going to talk about “considerable debate” and “much that is unknown,” let’s consider the way underlying Darwinian fundamentalism skews discussion. We’ve touched on a few such issues recently. To name just two …
Marcos Eberlin’s new book is now available at Amazon. Digging through the files, we came across the fact that in 2017, a conference at which he was to speak had to flee Portugal for Spain.
A BBC journalist suggests it started as food-sharing among ape-like creatures (that’s not at all the recorded history of the Christian rite of holy communion but never mind).
At least, that’s the implication of the results of a maze test: How do the ETH Zurich researchers know this? They constructed a downward sloping maze with either more or less nourishment (chemoattractant) at each junction and most of it at the bottom. Each bacterium (wild Marinobacter adhaerens) had to make an individual decision at […]
Clearly, this helping behavior is a surprise to the researchers. But if both Darwinism and their suspicions are correct, it should be a principle of some kind instead. Yet can they afford to check it out?
Craig Venter: All living cells that we know of on this planet are “DNA software”-driven biological machines, comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA.
Steady on here. “Evolution” randomly evolved a number of complex and specified strategies that hit the same target? And we can achieve “intelligent crop design” by co-operating with it? Better take your Darwin pills before you talk about this with colleagues.
It would have been simpler to say that there is no consistent “island rule” but that would imply that current Darwinian theory does not have an answer for everything. Perhaps many island life forms don’t evolve very much or very fast but the ones that do attract attention.
They created a mathematical model that, they say, demonstrates: Live fast, die young, be prepared to abort.
Richard Weikart: In this [Darwinian ] view ethics is merely a tool—some evolutionists even say an illusion—that helps humans survive and reproduce. It is neither objective nor universal nor immutable.
At the BBC, a writer offers an explanation of the Christian practice of Communion, Darwinism-style. Along the way, he discovers that apes are spiritual.
What do we know? Well, we know what the science establishment has told us, that’s what. Previously, the science establishment spent a lot of time looking for the Darwinians’ subhumans. At all times, thin on the ground, it would seem. So they drafted the Neanderthals because, well, they were there. Now it seems, they have discharged them.
Bechly also critiques something said here at Uncommon Descent by J.R. Miller of More Than Cake.
Here’s an example of what Michael Behe is (actually) talking about in Darwin Devolves The evolution strategy “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain”: Eleven authors writing in PLOS Biology found that “γ-proteobacteria eject their polar flagella under nutrient depletion, retaining flagellar motor relic structures.” When there’s […]
Kirk Durston: An essential prediction of the Darwinian theory of common descent, for example, is that functional genetic information increases through a process of mutations, insertions, and deletions. Experimental science, however, consistently falsifies this prediction.