Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Evolution

Poor, Poor Darwinists!

A new study is out trying to find the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Needless to say, things got even worse for those who place their belief in Darwinian thinking. Because the Concluding Remarks section is so devastating, I’m blockquoting the whole thing: Our work furnishes a new variable for the assessment of protein family evolution which compliments previous approaches based on conserved presence and phylogenetic topology. Using phylogenetic tree based approaches of the type used here, only limited information can be gained about the LUCA, leaving specific details on physiology largely speculative. Analysis of proteins such as the reverse gyrase, hydrogenase, and nitrogenase discussed here and elsewhere (Boyd et al., 2011a, b; Catchpole and Forterre, 2019) does not support Read More ›

Archaea discoverer Carl Woese’s theological reflections in old age

It’s a good question whether Woese would have recognized the Archaea for what they were, had he not been in the habit of thinking for himself. Maybe he would have just been satisfied to shoehorn them into the conventional scheme somewhere. Read More ›

Terry Scambray: A review of Mike Flannery’s book, Nature’s Prophet, on Alfred Russel Wallace

(Wallace, Darwin-s co-theorist, was a working-class stiff whom Darwin’s set elbowed out. He was not a materialist (naturalist) and he thought evolution could be consistent with meaning and spirituality. Darwin abhorred such ideas. This review was originally published at New Oxford Review.) Read More ›

The College Board Exams (Darwin-only evolution) meets COVID-19

Independent journalist Suzan Mazur followed up with the College Board testing on evolution knowledge among U.S. students, which seems to test mainly for familiarity with the Darwin sect’s interpretation. Well, we can spare you the suspense, dear readers, by revealing that they weren't thrilled to hear a critical question. Read More ›

Serious panpsychists are harder to ridicule now

For a long while, Darwinians have been able to get away with claiming that human consciousness evolved to increase our chances of survival. The trouble is, that’s unlikely. The relationship between intelligence and survival is unclear. Or that it is some kind of a “spandrel,” an accidental byproduct of useful qualities. But that’s merely a statement of faith in Darwinism as the total explainer. It’s evening and the chickens are coming home. Read More ›

Unexpected finding: Growth of brain cells and neurons is guided by a pattern

The researchers chose the flatworm, whch can grow a new head after amputation. They didn’t expect a pattern but they found “This unique arrangement means that no single neuron sits flush against its twin, while still allowing different types of complementary neurons to be close enough to work together to complete tasks.” "We surprised ourselves when we discovered there was, in fact, such a rule." You ain't seen nuthin' yet, folks. Read More ›

Tiny 99 mya bird (?) skull trapped in amber raises many questions

But get this: Benson goes on to explain that one of the “bizarre” features of Oculudentavis is qualities present in lizards but neither in birds nor in dinosaurs. It is smaller than most hummingbirds but had over a hundred teeth… The more research we do, one suspects, the more of this type of thing we'll find and the harder it would all be to explain to our old Darwinian schoolteacher. Read More ›

Michael Behe muses on design and COVID-19

Behe: … most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good. Read More ›

Beetle larvae (“superworms”) can survive on waste plastic

Recent evolution? Maybe. Doesn’t sound as though much evolution is needed, actually. Later in the article, it is suggested that the required enzymes may have existed for some time (that is, the plastic is what’s new). Read More ›

Michael Behe: New paper supports my “Darwin Devolves” thesis

The trouble with Darwin Devolves is that it is likely to be both quite right and a big problem for schoolbook Darwinism. Just as it is much easier to—without thinking much—throw something out than fix or adapt it, life forms will far more likely randomly mutate by dumping complex equipment than by reengineering it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation. And in these times, that’s the controversial part: design in nature. Read More ›