Intelligent Design

Fisher’s theorem, reportedly proving Darwinism, is currently disputed in mathematical literature by William Basener and John Sanford.   (Paper.) The controversy is attracting quite some attention. Dr. Basener has kindly offered an explanation for one of the questions raised in a comment and, for reader convenience, we reproduce both the question and the response as a post: Question: Erasmus Wiffball at 7: William Basener (Bill B): Do you agree that ID proponents commonly mistake mathematical models of evolution as attempts to prove that evolution works? Would you please tell everyone here what Fisher’s objective was in formulating his model? What was he attempting to model? To what degree did he succeed or fail in what he was attempting to do? (Surely Read More ›

“The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. … some of the founding members of CSI include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others.” Those people should weep. Maybe. Read this: 8. With the current administration, how do you think science education, mainly evolution, will change? Americans are becoming more accepting of evolution. The people President Donald Trump has hired and the decisions being made (see for example Florida SB 989) will slow down this positive trend. Darwin said, “Ignorance begets confidence more often Read More ›

From Neuroskeptic at Discover: In a new paper in the Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Chris Drummond takes aim at the ‘reproducibility movement’ which has lately risen to prominence in science. … If we have multiple pieces of evidence for a hypothesis, but none of those pieces of evidence are reproducible, the hypothesis would have no support. Reproducibility of the primary evidence must be there first, before we can marshal the evidence to support our models. A model supported by lots of unreproducible evidence is a house built on sand. So I agree with Drummond that reproducibility, alone, is not sufficient to make strong science (I’m not sure if anyone thinks it is), but I stand by my Read More ›

From Evolution News & Views: Here we are in 2018, and we still don’t know who, when, or why ancient people left their marks in the Arabian desert in the form of large stone structures, some of them hundreds of meters long. But as we observed back in November, “All we know is that they were designed.” It’s a good example of intelligent design in action — the design science of archaeology. It’s one of many active areas of design-based research that clearly are propelling science forward. … What’s interesting is that there are very stunning natural structures in the same area: perfectly round volcanic craters that stand out vividly from their surroundings. So what’s the difference? We all know Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: To make the iconic, twisted double helix that accounts for the diversity of life, DNA rules specify that G always pairs with C, and A with T. But, when it’s all added up, the amount of G+C vs A+T content among species is not a simple fixed percentage or, standard one-to-one ratio. For example, within single-celled organisms, the amount of G+C content can vary from 72 percent in a bacteria like Streptomyces coelicolor while the protozoan parasite that causes malaria, Plasmondium falciparum, has as little as 20 percent. In single-celled eukaryotes, yeast contain 38 percent G+C content, plants like corn have 47 percent, and humans contain about 41 percent. The big question is, why? … Now that they’ve Read More ›

From Richard Gunderman at The Conversation: Wells, one of the founders of science fiction, was a staunch believer in science’s potential. Orwell, on the other hand, cast a much more skeptical eye on science, pointing to its limitations as a guide to human affairs. … Wells’ enthusiasm for science had political implications. Having contemplated in his novels the self-destruction of mankind, Wells believed that humanity’s best hope lay in the creation of a single world government overseen by scientists and engineers. Human beings, he argued, need to set aside religion and nationalism and put their faith in the power of scientifically trained, rational experts. … Orwell was not bashful about criticizing the scientific and political views of his friend Wells. Read More ›

From Will Storr at the Guardian, on how the obviously false “self-esteem” bunkum in education received the status of “science”: In the 1980s, Californian politician John Vasconcellos set up a task force to promote high self-esteem as the answer to all social ills. But was his science based on a lie? The flawed yet infectious notion that, in order to thrive, people need to be treated with unconditional positivity first gained traction in the late 80s. Since then, the self-esteem movement has helped transform the way we raise our children – prioritising their feelings of self-worth, telling them they are special and amazing, and cocooning them from everyday consequences. One manifestation of this has been grade inflation. In 2012, the Read More ›

Past time, really. From ScienceDaily: Maybe the ‘Boring Billion’ wasn’t so boring, after all The world’s oldest algae fossils are a billion years old, according to a new analysis by earth scientists at McGill University. Based on this finding, the researchers also estimate that the basis for photosynthesis in today’s plants was set in place 1.25 billion years ago. … The new findings also add to recent evidence that an interval of Earth’s history often referred to as the Boring Billion may not have been so boring, after all. From 1.8 to 0.8 billion years ago, archaea, bacteria and a handful of complex organisms that have since gone extinct milled about the planet’s oceans, with little biological or environmental change Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Researchers were surprised when sauropterygians with very different lifestyles had evolved inner ears that were very similar to those of some modern animals. “Sauropterygians are completely extinct and have no living descendants,” said Dr James Neenan, lead author of the study. “So I was amazed to see that nearshore species with limbs that resemble those of terrestrial animals had ears similar to crocodylians, and that the fully-aquatic, flippered plesiosaurs had ears similar to sea turtles.” The similarities don’t end there. Some groups of plesiosaurs, the ‘pliosauromorphs’, evolved enormous heads and very short necks, a body shape that is shared by modern whales. Whales have the unusual feature of highly miniaturized inner ears (blue whales have a similar-sized inner Read More ›

But share only eight gut microbes with their closely related cousins, the ringtail lemurs. This is not a neat Darwinian picture. From ScienceDaily: “The bamboo lemur’s evolutionary tree diverged from that of both panda species 83 million years ago — that’s 18 million years before dinosaurs went extinct,” says Erin McKenney, a postdoctoral researcher at North Carolina State University and lead author of a paper on the study. “These species are also separated by thousands of miles and the Indian Ocean. Red pandas and giant pandas aren’t closely related either, with their most recent ancestor coming 47.5 million years ago. Lemurs are primates, red pandas are related to raccoons, and pandas are related to bears. “Yet all three species share Read More ›

The paper, by William Basener and John Sanford, shows that the continuous flow of new mutations that would continuously replenish a population’s genetic variability and enable Darwinian evolution does not really happen.  (Paper.) Much discussion has followed here and here. Basener has replied to Bob O’H, and for reader convenience, we are reproducing the comments here: First, Bob O’H: tjguy – The maths isn’t troubling (except that I’ sure they could have gone further). The simulation section shows that fitness can decrease, but we already knew this. Basener & Sanford don’t say what mutation rate they use though. It’s obvious, I think, that the paper will be used to claim that mutations mean that evolution can’t work, so it’s a shame they Read More ›

From Jeff Wise at New York Magazine: The main article is decidedly short on specifics. There’s a brief reference to “footage from a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet showing an aircraft surrounded by some kind of glowing aura traveling at high speed and rotating as it moves.” A more detailed account is provided in an accompanying sidebar entitled “2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen.’” In it, former Navy F/A-18 pilot David Fravor relates his experience during a flight from the aircraft carrier Nimitz on November 14, 2004. While en route to a training mission he was vectored toward an unknown radar contact. Arriving on the scene, he witnessed a lozenge-shaped craft that moved over Read More ›

From Ken Francis, journalist and author of The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth, at New English Review: Isn’t it odd that the enormous volume of highly artistic works—from movies, drama, literature, poetry to music—are invariably bleak but give us immense joy? (This is especially evident in the yesteryear world of popular music, but I’ll come to that later.) One wonders are we better off living in a fallen world after all, as a perfect one without strife would lack in artistic excellence. But does a world with immense suffering justify moments of optimism through the transient pleasures of the arts, despite their dark themes? After all, one can’t have Shakespeare’s work without its tragedy, or W.B. Yeats without a Read More ›

Their method is data-driven rather than staff picks: Our methods are the same as always: We performed a Google search for “top science stories” lists, selecting only those from go-to RCS sources. Points were awarded to each story based on its ranking. For example, on a typical “top ten” list the #1 story earned ten points, #2 earned nine, #3 earned eight, and so on. Lists that had fewer than ten rankings were normalized to a 10-point scale. For the lists that did not rank the stories, each story earned 5.5 points, which is the average score if you add together all the digits from 1 to 10 and divide by ten. From Ross Pomeroy at RealClearScience: 4. Modern Humans Read More ›

In The New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards  I wrote: For Nietzsche nature is cruel and indifferent to suffering, and that cruel indifference is a good thing. The strong rule the weak and that is as it should be. And why should the strong rule the weak? Because that is the natural order of things of course. In a world where God is dead, objective morality is merely an illusion slaves have foisted on masters as a sort of self-defense mechanism. When Nietzsche urges us to go beyond good and evil, he is urging us to recognize the implications of God’s death for morality. God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms. If God does not exist then neither Read More ›