This just in: No
The thesis is that much evolution consists in dumping rather than adding complexity. Details, details. Subtraction is just addition with minus numbers, right? 😉 Would it be legal to teach Darwin Devolves in a U.S. school system?
At ScienceDaily: “While some exoplanets that once orbited polluted white dwarfs appear similar to Earth, most have rock types that are exotic to our Solar System,” said Xu. “They have no direct counterparts in the Solar System.”
Richard Stevens: Cassell shows that animal algorithms must be designed top-down starting with a goal, fashioning the data input sensors, developing the necessary procedures, and implementing them in software to direct hardware. Yet the Quanta Magazine piece reported that Panamanian army ants’ procedures for building bridges of living ants is accomplished using a “simple algorithm.”
At Ars Technica: But the paper buried this in language that, at best, is overhyped, and the researchers aren’t even being technically accurate when describing this work to the press. At a time when trust in science seems to be at an all-time low, this isn’t likely to be helpful.
Look on the bright side. At least the money we spend supporting “higher education” is paying for entertainment. And, if you have got a subscription, get a screen shot while you can.
Hossenfelder: Inside a neutron and proton there aren’t just three quarks. There’s really a soup of particles that holds the quarks together, and some of the particles in the soup are anti-particles. Why don’t those anti-particles annihilate? They do. They are created and annihilate all the time. We therefore call them “virtual particles.” But they still make a substantial contribution to the gravitational mass of neutrons and protons.
Panpsychism eliminates the crudities of Darwinism. For example, if consciousness is assumed to be a natural development in the most complex life forms, human consciousness would have happened, whether it improved survival or not. Darwinian controversies on the topic become pointless or anyway, much less significant. Perhaps that’s why a classical Darwinian, who needs to see human consciousness as a simple but controversial accident, views panpsychism with hostility.
Casey Luskin: “When I was reading the rhetoric used by evangelical elites who advocated abandoning a historical Adam and Eve, I was struck by how much of it seemed driven by fear — fear of looking foolish before the world because you challenged evolution and were shown to be wrong.” Maybe being right, sticking with their tradition, would have been a bigger problem for them.
In Part 1, we look at evidence that the universe had a beginning, therefore it had a Beginner – a Creator. We look more deeply at the information in DNA that makes life possible. Part 2 applies the core concepts of irreducible complexity and functional coherence to one of the most important functions in each cell – energy production.
The problem is, if we assume that “the mind is nothing more than the brain,” there may be nothing we can discover about how it works. Gleiser wishes we could prove that that’s wrong but he can’t.
Dembski: I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined.
Researchers: Studying such a large new group of bodies could help scientists better understand how planets form and orbits evolve, and it could provide new insights about how unusual our solar system is.
Even on Earth, life forms of widely differing ancestry, arrive at the same solutions to physics problems, leading scientists note. On Simon Conway Morris’s view, life forms that fly on exoplanets will do what birds, bats, and insects do here, they say. Intelligent species may even look roughly like us.
Cambridge philosophy prof, Arif Ahmed, fills us in. If your alma mater isn’t following Cambridge’s lead, stop giving. We don’t need finishing schools for censorious ignoramuses and dunces, often on the verge of violence.