It sounded like such a great idea, right? Robert J. Marks: Well, actually, that’s very interesting because I think there’s a presupposition on Musk’s part that we are indeed algorithmic. That we can actually be represented by an algorithm, by a computer code… There’s good foundations and algorithmic information theory and computer science, which suggest Read More…
Treated as if it were a big surprise: For Martisius’ tiny lissoir fragments, the nondestructive plastic bag method seemed perfect. You get fewer molecules to analyze, says Frido Welker, who performed the ZooMS analysis for Martisius, but at least it provides the possibility of identifying a species without having to take a sample. “For bone Read More…
Shedinger: “ Darwinism… in more recent times has grown into a philosophical grand narrative designed to naturalize and normalize a fully materialist worldview.” Indeed. And that’s WHY there is so much controversy over teaching Darwinism in tax-supported schools with compulsory attendance.
If one is not an evolutionary psychologist, the answer is obvious.
It’s amazing what the Neanderthals have learned in the fifty years yer news writer has heard anything about them.
Here, in human mitochondrial DNA — note the BLUE code start and the RED code stop; all HT to Wiki publishing against known ideological interest: Complex interwoven code is of course doubly functionally specific, so it is exponentially harder to account for, other than by exceedingly sophisticated and creative intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, when I Read More…
At Wired: The wagon—and the wagon wheel—could not have been put together in stages. Either it works, or it doesn’t. And it enabled humans to spread rapidly into huge parts of the world.
Well, if Homo erectus invented language, we must intensify our search for that subhuman. In any proper Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman, right? Otherwise, we re playing a game of musical chairs where, when the music stops, there ARE actually enough chairs…
One reason it’s not been an especially “vibrant” decade is that the subhumans all turned into relatives, and reasonably smart ones at that. Paleontologists are still looking for the subhuman that would validate Darwinism.
Puzzle: However, the researchers also found significant fragments of genetic material from another archaic species of human, Denisovans, in the DNA of the Icelanders, and this was something of a surprise. Up to now, Denisovan genes have primarily been found in Australian Aborigines, East Asians and people in Papua New Guinea. So how did these genes end up in Islanders’ DNA? And when?
Egnor: Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.
If early man thought like modern man (and there seems no reason to doubt it), such insights would come rather quickly—followed by rather than preceded by a long, slow process of evolution.
So the worry is that we are more social than chimps and therefore can’t handle social distancing? Seriously, the big difference between being a human and being a chimp is that humans can actually decide to do something based on reason. It comes of having an intellect, something Darwinian evolution has never been able to assimilate.
Who apparently made the oldest known string. The thing is, they’re going to have to find another subhuman. The trouble is, Darwinism needs a subhuman; otherwise, the human race has no Darwinian beginning. Any thoughts as to who will be voted the next one?
We heard this “nearly human-like” stuff about the Neanderthals for decades and now we are catching up with all these stories about them braiding string, drawing symbols, and burying their dead. How do we know it’s true this time, as opposed to an artifact of not enough excavation yet?