Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

What blocks new ideas in science?

Clancy: Wang, Veuglers, and Stephan, create a new category for “highly” novel papers, which cite a pair of journals that have never been cited together in the past, and also are not even in the same neighborhood. Here, we mean journals that are not well “connected” by some other pair of journals. Read More ›

Theoretical physicist on why she stopped working on black hole information loss

Hossenfelder: .... no one can tell which solution is correct in the sense that it actually describes nature, and physicists will not agree on one anyway. Because if they did, they’d have to stop writing papers about it. Read More ›

A search for the most complex thing in the universe?

At IAI.TV: "This synthesis of biology and cosmology required a shift away from reductionism and the belief that all systems can be understood by breaking them down into their constituent elements. Instead, the new way of thinking makes sense of complex systems and their evolution by considering the number of possible future states those systems could take." Read More ›

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?

Altschuler: The rise of psychiatry, he reminds us, was linked to the emergence of asylums based on the premise that a carefully calibrated regimen could restore lunatics to sanity. By the end of the 19th century, however, therapeutically inclined institutions had become “mausoleums with a mad, captive population.” Read More ›

What “delegitimizing science” has come to mean…

From Daily Wire: Berg claimed that the press had been pursuing a series of “rotating attacks” against universities that use fetal tissue derived from abortion, saying that Pitt was the latest target. The school had been under fire for experiments that involved grafting infant scalps onto lab rats and allegations about utilizing organs from full-term and past-term infants. Read More ›

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?

Darwin wrote a book about orchids — and it was better received than Origin of Species

Shedinger: Unlike with the Origin, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Reviewers were extremely impressed with Darwin’s detailed documentation of the variety of contrivances in orchids. But much to Darwin’s dismay, they did not see this as evidence of natural selection. Read More ›