Intelligent Design
Theoretical physicist on why she stopped working on black hole information loss
Would you believe? Time doesn’t really exist?
A search for the most complex thing in the universe?
Darwinians make their living off claims of bad design – eye division
But isn’t this an argument for divine creation?
Intelligent Design=Pattern Recognition
This Phys.Org press release isn’t about a particularly interesting scientific paper. However, what the authors tells us about how this paper came to be is very interesting. And, I may add, very revealing. Listen to what they have to say about their “aha” moment: Inside some of the data that a standard mapping algorithm normally clips out, Zhang and postdoctoral fellow Xiaolong Chen, Ph.D., recognized that the clipped pattern in the DNA looked like an L1 inside of the FOXR2 gene. In a moment of serendipity, Diane Flasch, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow who previously worked with L1s, recognized the signs of an L1 regulatory element. The researchers performed a special technique that sequences longer regions of DNA to decode the Read More ›
At Evolution News: Silence around Cambrian Brains
This was bound to come up eventually: First, notice the quote marks around “Cambrian explosion,” a subtle hint that the term is controversial. It’s not. They state clearly that it is “marked by the appearance of most major animal phyla.” Panarthropoda is a taxon that combines arthropods with tardigrades and onycophorans. The sentence means that yes, lots of different arthropods appear throughout the fossil record, revealing “extreme morphological disparities,” i.e. outward differences. Yet these Chinese specimens show that the brains are conservative — not that they vote Republican, but that CNS structures throughout the panarthropod collection are similar, not showing extensive evolution. They’re not just conservative; they are “remarkably conservative.” In terms of general body plan, it’s a picture of Read More ›
Have dominant paradigms failed psychiatry?
Another species of “hominin” still alive?
What “delegitimizing science” has come to mean…
Natural or artificial? How to tell?
You gotta see the graphic. It’s astonishing: “What’s good for something is tied to its nature … Nature is whatever a thing is supposed to be or become on its own,” Fr. Walshe says. “It’s important to distinguish a natural inclination from a conscious or emotional desire.” Ruth Institute, “How to Tell When Something is Natural or Artificial” at The Stream (April 20, 2022) How do we know the tree did not grow itself that way? Can someone come up with a concise explanation?