This parody of evo devo makes it sound a lot like ID

_{News
December 19, 2017

Cell biology, Evolution, Evolutionary biology

1}_{Categories
Cell biology
Evolution
Evolutionary biology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“This is how we go from single cells to people.” Hmmm.

See also: From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned”

Comments

Sometimes one could find very good restaurants just from spotting nonsense written online by whiners*: “they are rude, the waiter said ‘hi’ instead of ‘hello'” (*) a.k.a. “tontos útiles” in Spanish. Someone I know provided this information: Here's a relatively popular website (much higher than UD in the Alexa ranking), apparently a hub of approximately 40 blogs (this may partially explain the hub website popularity): https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freethoughtblogs.com freethoughtblogs.com 76,655 Last April 17, in the blog named 'recursivity' within the mentioned hub, the blogger posted an article against UD (what else is new?). In the follow up discussion, someone else commented not being aware that UD was still active:
heddle says April 18, 2017 at 5:46 am I didn’t even know Uncommon Descent was still active.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/recursivity/2017/04/17/uncommon-descent-lies-again/#comment-376 That means that the 'whining' post about UD let someone know that UD is still up and running. Perhaps other readers (apparently they have many) heard of UD also for the first time in that article. BTW, I realize that perhaps some readers of this comment here had never heard of the mentioned hub website before. Maybe I've just returned the PR? :)Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Sorry, I'm not Russian.DiEb_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

DiEb, Ty umnitsa! Prosto molodyets! ;)Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @43:
A couple of years ago a distinguished biochemistry professor at a Canadian university stopped an incipient discussion we tried to have. He ran for the door after mistakenly answering a very simple biology-related question. Apparently he couldn’t stand the heat. I don’t know what happened him that day. Perhaps he had a brief mental lapse? He just said that he won’t discuss with me because it don’t ask honest questions. The simple question he failed was: Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients form? He answered ‘Yes’. Unbelievable! He later complained about the ‘tricky’ word ‘exactly’ embedded in the question. Some folks suggested that I should have highlighted the ‘tricky’ word ‘exactly’ in bold characters, smother it could be easily noticeable. Oh well, my fault. I’ll try better next time.
Perhaps he assumed (correctly) that you were the type of guy who would crow about a simply correctable mistake for years to come...DiEb_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Evo-devo despacito?
It has been argued here that the discontent is better understood as stemming from a few inescapable properties of living things, which lead to disappointment with evolutionary biology, and a nagging feeling that reform must be overdue. Evolutionary biology, like history, but unlike other natural sciences, raises issues of purpose and agency, alongside those of complexity and generality [...] It is remarkable, for example, that much of the funding for challenging current practice in evolutionary biology comes from The John Templeton Foundation (Pennisi 2016), which is committed to using science to reveal underlying purpose, and rejecting what Nagel (2012) calls “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature”. [...] claims that evolutionary biology is misguided or importantly incomplete are not harmless, but actively hinder progress in the field. [...] a field that urgently needs reform is a field “in crisis” (Mazur 2010), and when it fails to reform, this lends credibility to claims that scientists are, at best, hidebound and foolish, and at worst, guilty of ideologically-motivated deception (Mazur 2010; Teresi 2011).
What’s wrong with evolutionary biology? John J. Welch Biology & Philosophy March 2017, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 263–279

Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

Evo-devo despacito?
The characteristics of life also guarantee that the explanatory frameworks of evolutionary biology will be disappointing to some. Disappointment is caused partly by the sheer complexity of life’s dynamical processes. This means that our predictive power will always be weak in certain ways, and that our descriptions of evolution will always be enormous simplifications.
What’s wrong with evolutionary biology? John J. Welch Biology & Philosophy March 2017, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 263–279

Dionisio_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Evo-devo despacito?
Some problems for evolutionary biology are caused by the basic characteristics of life. Some banal practical problems are caused by the sheer scope of evolutionary biology. [...] new data appear at a very rapid rate, particularly, in recent years, from molecular biology.
What’s wrong with evolutionary biology? John J. Welch Biology & Philosophy March 2017, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 263–279

Dionisio_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Usually, evolutionary economists equate evolutionary theory with modern Darwinism. However, the rise of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) puts into question the monopoly of Darwinism in evolutionary biology. The major divergences between the two paradigms in evolutionary biology are drawn in the analysis of three trade-offs: population vs. typological thinking, creative role of natural selection vs. internal (inherent) change, and microevolution vs. macroevolution. It is argued here that the Evo-Devo breakthrough helps us to understand better the limits to Darwinism in the social realm and outline the contours of an alternative paradigm in evolutionary economics that favors structural macroevolution and what Schumpeter called “change from within”.
The challenge of Evo-Devo: implications for evolutionary economists George Liagouras https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0525-5 Journal of Evolutionary Economics September 2017, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 795–823

Dionisio_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

.Dionisio_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

DiEb, I'm glad you've posted your question here in this thread, which is not mine, but it's associated with a funny video about the evo-devo stuff that most people have no clue about and probably don't care much either. Thanks. Now we can chat, if you will. :) It seems like you've done a very thorough investigation on the website that I mentioned @22 and found that it's not active since a number of years ago. I appreciate you've caught that and warned us about it. Perhaps you've noticed that I've looked at other sources of that kind of information after you mentioned that problem. Actually, the discussion that followed your comments about the validity of the numbers made me look into internet-related stats that I wasn't aware of before. Actually, I don't recall ever thinking about how many websites are in the internet. Much less about the number of active websites at any given moment. Reading a little about this subject was interesting. As you can see, your warning comments had some side benefits too. :) Now let me answer the question you've been so anxiously asking. I'm going to say things that are off topic for the thread where you posted your question first. In my family education is a topic of conversation sometimes. My wife has an engineering degree and a master in business administration degree from a different university. She's been associated with business-oriented software development. I have an engineering degree in control systems and have worked on an engineering design software development project before switching career to different projects partially associated with biology research and education. That may explain why I look at some biology-related research papers, which sometimes I share in this website too. There's a cool software named Zotero that helps with that kind of information gathering. Perhaps you've used it too. One of my children got a master degree in finance from a known university and later got a CPA license from another. But the rest of my children pursued careers somehow associated with biology. One of them got a master degree in microbiology, others became medical doctors. Some of them graduated from the same university, but obviously few years apart (we don't have twins). They're all on their own. Don't depend on my wife and me anymore. However, sometimes we still talk about education among other things. Also we have relatives and friends who studied or work at universities in various countries, or whose children are going to the university soon. Now my wife and I enjoy having wonderful grandchildren God has graciously given to us. Education is an important subject when we think about our grandkids too. One topic I bring up to discussion with them sometimes is the worldwide ranking of universities. Sometimes I search for that information online. Usually the search tool I use most is Bing. But I use Google tools sometimes too. The website ranking.com just popped up in one of those searches. I played with it for a moment, then thought to post that comparative list just for fun, continuing the tone set by the funny musical video in the OP of this thread. Now you know the rest of the story. As you can see, there's no conspiracy theory whatsoever. Please, let me know if my answer satisfies your curiosity. If you have more questions, please ask them here in this funny evo-devo* thread. And please, do it 'despacito'. :) Have a good day. (*) if you want to discuss the current state of affairs in evo-devo or thoroughly analyze its fundamental formulation: Dev(d) = Dev(a) + Delta(a,d) and its implications for this growing field in biology, you're very welcome anytime! PS. As I stated in the 'ranking' discussion thread, the discussions I'm interested in are biology-related, like the excellent discussions gpuccio has with the a distinguished biology professor at the University of Kentucky, As you can see, their interesting discussion is on pause while gpuccio waits for the professor to come back and present a valid counterargument that could make a shallow dent or at least a minor scratch on gpuccio's presented case. I don't think that will happen, but we better wait and see. That's the kind of discussions where the ID folks (I don't count myself among them, though) can make a difference. Because every day in research is bringing bad news for the moribund neo-Darwinian ideas. The ranking stuff is for side entertainment, but it doesn't mean much in serious terms. It's just to take a break from the real stuff. A couple of years ago a distinguished biochemistry professor at a Canadian university stopped an incipient discussion we tried to have. He ran for the door after mistakenly answering a very simple biology-related question. Apparently he couldn't stand the heat. I don't know what happened him that day. Perhaps he had a brief mental lapse? He just said that he won't discuss with me because it don't ask honest questions. The simple question he failed was: Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients form? He answered 'Yes'. Unbelievable! He later complained about the 'tricky' word 'exactly' embedded in the question. Some folks suggested that I should have highlighted the 'tricky' word 'exactly' in bold characters, smother it could be easily noticeable. Oh well, my fault. I'll try better next time. As you can see, a nobody like me asked a simple question that made a distinguished scientist run for the door. Do you know why? Because it was really not me whom the distinguished scientist was running away from. Not at all. The explanation is in the below quoted text, which many people can't or don't want to understand:
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Footnotes: a.1 Corinthians 1:10 Or brothers and sisters. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters; also verses 11, 26 b.1 Corinthians 1:21 Or the folly of preaching c.1 Corinthians 1:26 Greek according to the flesh d.1 Corinthians 1:29 Greek no flesh e.1 Corinthians 1:30 Greek And from him
Dionisio_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @22: You are using a web-ranking by a site called "ranking.com", to which you link in your comment. Though this website seems to be up-to-date on a first glance, KF has shown that the data is at least five years out of date. Indeed, some deeper digging shows that ranking.com is affiliated with 7Search.com and 7MetaSearch.com and was using an application called 7FaSSt - advertised as "BrowserAccelerator" - to gather their data. In 2008, 7FaSSt was classified as malware or spyware by McAffee and other security providers. It seems that 7FaSSt was not spread on a larger scale at the end of the first decade of this century any longer. Today, the only left over purpose of the site "ranking.com" seems to be to fish for contact addresses. Therefore my question: How did you come up with “ranking.com”? Some possibilities: Your were mislead, or you did stumble over it innocently – then you should spare others this experience. Or perhaps you are linked to 7MetaSearch.com in some capacity – then you could explain to us why this out-of-date site should still be visited.DiEb_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Total number of Websites 1,318,086,225 10% = 131,808,622 or 132M Websites online right now http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/ January 2017 Web Server Survey In the January 2017 survey we received responses from 1,800,047,111 sites and 6,328,006 computers, reflecting a gain of 61 million sites and 159,000 computers. https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/01/12/january-2017-web-server-survey.html December 2017 Web Server Survey In the December 2017 survey we received responses from 1,734,290,608 sites across 212,870,632 unique domain names and 7,014,428 web-facing computers. This reflects a gain of 5.34 million domains and 121,000 computers. https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/12/26/december-2017-web-server-survey.html Search Web by Domain Explore 1,094,729 web sites visited by users of the Netcraft Toolbar https://searchdns.netcraft.com/?restriction=site+contains&host=uncommondescent.com&lookup=wait..&position=limitedDionisio_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com MIT.edu........................481 Nature.com.....................860 Harvard.edu....................873 Biblegateway.com.............1,001 Desiringgod.org.............10,908 Answersingenesis.org........28,882 Truthforlife.org............42,349 Gty.org.....................45,516 Samaritanspurse.org.........51,200 Icr.org.....................77,874 Religionnews.com............96,212 Royalsociety.org...........102,052 Rzim.org...................148,154 Evolutionnews.org..........168,380 Kodugamelab.com............311,217 Jamesmacdonald.com.........460,457 Uncommondescent.com........644,999 Pandasthumb.org............906,313 theskepticalzone.com.....5,147,609Dionisio_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Some Biology-related threads by gpuccio in 2017: The spliceosome: a molecular machine that defies any non-design explanation. December 21, 2017 Posted by gpuccio under Intelligent Design 347 Comments Visited 2,569 times https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/ What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world October 31, 2017 Posted by gpuccio under Intelligent Design 273 Comments Visited 2,877 times https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ What are the limits of Natural Selection? An interesting open discussion with Gordon Davisson October 5, 2017 Posted by gpuccio under Intelligent Design 349 Comments Visited 2,898 times https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/Dionisio_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Some biology-related threads in 2017: 1. Evolutionary Biology’s Wrong Turn November 29, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Darwinism, Intelligent Design 30 Comments Most people mistakenly think that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution. That is not correct. To understand Intelligent Design’s criticism of evolution, it is important to pinpoint specifically where we believe evolutionary biology made a wrong turn and why it matters. 2. Good question: What is an individual organism in biology? November 27, 2017 Posted by News under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life, speciation 1 Comment It ranks right up there with “What is a species?” From Derek J. Skillings at Aeon: Evolution itself is meant to tell us which entities count as individuals. Because natural selection is the engine of evolution, Hull said, we need to account for individuality in terms of what is required for selection. At their most […] 3. Rethinking biology: What role does physical structure play in the development of cells? November 10, 2017 Posted by News under Cell biology, Evolution, Intelligent Design 290 Comments That’s structuralism, in part. Further to Evelyn Fox Keller’s comment that the landscape of biological thought is being “radically reconfigured,” a cancer geneticist writes to say that a tumor’s physical environment fuels its growth and causes treatment resistance: The forces of cancer In vitro experiments showing that cancer cells actively migrate in response to fluid […] 4. Microbiology needs more math to help sort out the concept of “species”? Oh but wait… October 20, 2017 Posted by News under Cell biology, Genomics, Intelligent Design, speciation 4 Comments From Mikhail Tikhonov at The Scientist: More profoundly, microbial ecosystems are a strange world where many familiar concepts start to break down, including “species,” “fitness,” and maybe even “organism.” In our everyday experience, we are rarely in doubt whether a given creature is a fox or a rabbit. Further, it seems very easy to delineate […] 5. From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned” October 12, 2017 Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design 8 Comments Evolutionary biology, we are told, does not need a master theory. Researchers should think in terms of “contemporary mainstream thinking.” From Arlin Stoltzfus at Biology Direct: Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” Abstract:High-level debates in evolutionary biology often treat the Modern Synthesis as a framework of population genetics, or as an intellectual lineage with a […] 6. Darwinian philosopher asks: Do we need purpose in biology? October 9, 2017 Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy 4 Comments J. Scott Turner’s recent Purpose and Desire:What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It makes the case that life is not comprehensible without the concept of purpose and that Darwinism’s failure to explain is an “impending crisis.” Michael Ruse, author of many books on the triumph of Darwinism, tells us […] 7. Biology prof Bret Weinstein’s persecutors face sanctions from Evergreen State College October 3, 2017 Posted by News under academic freedom, Culture, Intelligent Design, News No Comments You know, that non-PC nerd who was warned that it wasn’t safe for him to go back to teach and eventually settled for $500k. From Eric Owens at Daily Caller: School officials at the 4,000-student school received approximately 120 incident reports involving 180 students during the days-long series of protests, reports The Olympian, the main […] 8. Astrobiology: Water can be corrosive to life forms so what about alternatives? October 1, 2017 Posted by News under Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life 3 Comments From Astrobiology: Life on early Earth seems to have begun with a paradox: while life needs water as a solvent, the essential chemical backbones of early life-forming molecules fall apart in water. Our universal solvent, it turns out, can be extremely corrosive. … In recent years the solvent often put forward as the eligible alternative […] 9. This just in: Evergreen U settles with biology prof over threat of harm due to non-PC stance September 17, 2017 Posted by News under academic freedom, Biology, Culture, science education 8 Comments From Ian Miles Cheong at Daily Caller: Evergreen State College has settled a tort claim with professor Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying for $500,000 in connection to the 2017 “Day of Absence” protests, which saw anarchy spread throughout the campus earlier this year. “Through a series of decisions made at the highest levels, […] 10. Special issue of Biology: Evolution Beyond Selection will be open access September 10, 2017 Posted by News under Biology, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design 7 Comments Here: The conventional NeoDarwinian appraisal of evolution is based on corresponding pillars of random genetic variation and selection via differential fitness. In the 21st century, a salient question arises. Is this a sufficient evolutionary narrative? This Special Issue will offer several differing perspectives on evolutionary development and phylogeny that extend beyond Darwinian selection. The role […] 11. Are there really few thought experiments in biology? September 8, 2017 Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design 2 Comments A friend writes to draw our attention to an interesting 2014 paper Thought Experiments in Biology, by Guillaume Schlaepfer and Marcel Weber: Unlike in physics, the category of thought experiment is not very common in biology. At least there are no classic examples that are as important and as well-known as the most famous thought […] 12. Philosopher of biology: Darwinian natural selection is a poor predictor of evolutionary success August 28, 2017 Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design No Comments From Bengt Autzen at the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: Musing on Means: Fitness, Expectation and the Principles of Natural Selection How to measure fitness in the theory of natural selection? A fitness measure that has been proposed in both the biological and the philosophical literature is the expected relative reproductive success. The […] 13. Philosopher of science: Are there laws in biology, as in physics? August 19, 2017 Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science 2 Comments From Massimo Pigliucci at Footnotes to Plato: Theoretical biology’ is a surprisingly heterogeneous field, partly because it encompasses ‘‘doing theory’’ across disciplines as diverse as molecular biology, systematics, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Moreover, it is done in a stunning variety of different ways, using anything from formal analytical models to computer simulations, from graphic representations […] 14. A note on that fired Google engineer (a biology major)… August 9, 2017 Posted by News under Culture, Evolutionary psychology, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism 8 Comments The one who got drowned in diversicrat social media politics. The story provides good illustration of the way in which traditional media today are not up to the job of newsgathering in a non-gatekeeper digital age and should not be trusted. From Bre Davis at the Federalist: Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying […] 15. rom Philip Cunningham: Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology July 31, 2017 Posted by News under Cell biology, Intelligent Design 5 Comments Sources here. See also: Ribosome precisely structured for cell growth 16. Evergreen biology prof Bret Weinstein’s shocking testimony at You Tube: July 27, 2017 Posted by News under academic freedom, Education, Intelligent Design, Science 16 Comments Here is his report. If his testimony is accurate (and we expect it is), American taxpayers are funding the equivalent of a prison riot: No wonder Weinstein is suing. So where are the science organizations that should be supporting him? Communing with their shoes? Added: Note: Crash course for sci nerds: How political correctness morphed […] 17. Alan Sokal, buy yourself a latte: “Star Wars” biology paper accepted July 27, 2017 Posted by News under Biology, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science No Comments Physicist Sokal perpetrated the first hoax paper over two decades ago, to prove a point. From Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience: Mitochondria: totally real cell organelles that convert sugars, fats and oxygen into usable energy for cells. Midi-chlorians: completely made-up and widely derided microscopic life-forms that give Jedi warriors their ability to use the Force in […] 18. From the Atlantic: Montana Trailer Park guy upends biology July 25, 2017 Posted by News under Cell biology, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Symbiosis 1 Comment Ed Yong tells us at the Atlantic: In the 150 years since Schwendener, biologists have tried in vain to grow lichens in laboratories. Whenever they artificially united the fungus and the alga, the two partners would never fully recreate their natural structures. It was as if something was missing—and Spribille might have discovered it. He […] 19. Cell atlases reveal extreme complexity at biology’s frontiers July 24, 2017 Posted by News under Cell biology, Intelligent Design 3 Comments From Jordana Cepelewicz at Quanta: For over a century, distinctions between types of cells relied on how they appeared under a microscope: their shapes, sizes, locations and their uptake of staining dyes. Recent decades, however, witnessed a shift to molecular methods that use fluorescently labeled antibodies to target protein markers on the cell’s surface. Although […] 20. Chalkman!! comes to biology prof’s rescue June 6, 2017 Posted by News under academic freedom, Science 5 Comments From William Hicks on Evergreen at Heat Street: The campus erupted in protest a two weeks ago when biology professor Bret Weinstein emailed a student criticizing their plans for the “Day of Absence.” Usually the event is conducted by students of color leaving the campus for the day, but this year they wanted to coerce […] 21. Konrad Lorenz Institute: Following through on non-Darwinian biology May 16, 2017 Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Epigenetics, Evolutionary biology, News 7 Comments Does anyone remember the Altenberg 16, a group of dissenting evolution theorists who met so nervously at the Konrad Lorenz institute in Austria that they locked a journalist out of the meeting?* They seem to be continuing to write papers, according to Massimo Pigliucci, I have just spent three delightful days at the Konrad Lorenz […] 22. Biology program without the Darwin worship April 10, 2017 Posted by News under Biology, science education 2 Comments Aimed, one guesses, at people who already have a religion or don’t think they need one. From a group of instructors at Wake Forest University: BioBook Basic Edition and its linked resources are available free to everyone. Click on the Table of Contents tab to browse topics. Registered users must log in here or in […] 23. Doug Axe: The culture of engineering vs. the culture of biology, and what Hidden Figures can tell us about that March 3, 2017 Posted by News under Biology, Culture, Darwinism, Engineering, Intelligent Design 2 Comments From Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable, at The Stream: Hidden Figures — the true story of three brilliant African-American women who proved themselves in a 1960s NASA culture dominated by white men — is sure to inspire. The film is filled with emotive lessons, most powerfully a vindication of the hope that those who persevere […] 24. AM-Nat Biology Abstracts Posted February 22, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Naturalism, Philosophy 1 Comment Just wanted to let everyone know that we have posted the abstracts for this weekend’s Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism in Biology conference online. 25. Online Biology Conference This Weekend February 20, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science No Comments The Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism in Biology conference is this Saturday February 25th. Since the conference is online, you can attend from anywhere in the world as long as you have an Internet connection. 26. Sign Up for the AM-Nat Biology Online Conference February 14, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Naturalism, Philosophy 5 Comments The second Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism online conference is right around the corner! On February 25th, we will convene AM-Nat Biology, focusing on biological applications for alternatives to methodological naturalism. 27. Deadline Today for Abstracts for AM-Nat Biology January 31, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism No Comments For those of you interested in the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism series of online conferences, I thought I’d let you know that today is the last day you can submit an abstract for the conference. 28. Darwinism: The steam engine of modern biology January 20, 2017 Posted by News under Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution No Comments In response to our Steampunk Darwin, David Klinghoffer observes, at Evolution News & Views, a classic example of the way in which mediocrities know they are right: Because they can attract a consensus of, mainly, themselves to end discussions of problematic new information: Shutting Down the Evolution Debate, the “Mainstream Science” Way We noted the other […] 29. Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism in Biology Submissions Starting to Come In January 12, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism 10 Comments We are excited to report that we have received a steady stream of submissions to AM-Nat Biology over the last few weeks. If you haven’t submitted your abstract, please do so soon. 30. Atheist Biology Professor Asks if There is a Role for Intelligence in Evolution January 4, 2017 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 8 Comments His answer is “Yes!”* _________ *so long as by “intelligence” you mean something other than “intelligence,” and by “evolution” you mean something other than “evolution.” In this article, atheist Kevin N. Laland, Professor of Behavioral and Evolutionary Biology at the University of St Andrews, argues that human culture affects evolution of the human genome. Here […] 31. Submission Deadline Approaching for AM-Nat Biology Conference January 2, 2017 Posted by johnnyb under Biology, Naturalism 7 Comments If you are interested in submitting a paper for the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism in Biology online conference, the deadline is fast approaching!Dionisio_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Netcraft estimates that there are 172 million active sites (those that get regular changes). The number of active sites has fallen slightly from 177 million in 2015. Despite the huge growth in websites only around 10% contribute fresh information to the Internet. http://tekeye.uk/computing/how-many-websites-are-thereDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/ http://tekeye.uk/computing/how-many-websites-are-thereDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

https://www.bing.com/search?q=how+many+active+websites+are+in+the+internet%3F&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=how+many+active+websites+are+in+the+internet&sc=2-44&sk=&cvid=72D5F10B1A9B4DF3A4A1B67D4F8E14F2Dionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

@26 addendum We look at the data, mit.edu has 890 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 9/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 181 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/mit.edu We look at the data, biblegateway.com has 1266 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 7/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 580 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/biblegateway.com We look at the data, desiringgod.org has 17002 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 6/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 578 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/desiringgod.org We look at the data, truthforlife.org has 0 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 4/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 499 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/truthforlife.org We look at the data, uncommondescent.com has 256260 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 5/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 1291 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/uncommondescent.com We look at the data, pandasthumb.org has 378043 rank in the world wide web. The Google page rank of this website is 7/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 187 ms. https://www.pagevisr.com/www/pandasthumb.orgDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Quantcast.com https://www.quantcast.com/uncommondescent.com?qcLocale=en_USDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Another one: https://www.similarweb.com/website/uncommondescent.com Global Rank Traffic rank of site, as compared to all other sites in the world Worldwide 338,765 Country Rank Traffic rank of site, as compared to all other sites in its leading country United States 86,770 United States 45.65% +11.09% Canada 12.57% +8.12% Spain 7.48% +138.7% Netherlands 4.76% -2.60% United Kingdom 4.06% -44.92%Dionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

This is interesting too: http://www.webometrics.info/en/worldDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

To see websites that link to this: Google link:www.uncommondescent.comDionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

UD is publicly presented as an ID website, hence ID topics should be discussed. And these days I think the main ID topic is biology research, where real complex functionally specified informational complexity is increasingly being revealed by dedicated scientists using more sophisticated technologies that allow the wet lab researchers to peek deeper within the biological systems “in vivo”, dumping an avalanche of data on the cloud servers for many dry lab researchers to process it using better computer systems and algorithms. Multilayered controls within marvelously designed biological systems are leaving researchers speechless. Multidisciplinary research teams are working hard in many scientific institutions trying to understand all that functional complexity. As outstanding questions get answered, new ones are raised. It’s beyond fantastic. But we ain’t seen nothing yet. The most fascinating discoveries are still ahead. The noise we’re hearing is just the cacophony produced by the orchestra musicians tuning their individual instruments separately. That’s why we read so many times expressions like “surprisingly” and “unexpectedly” in the research papers. That’s the result of their narrow-minded reductionist bottom-up research approach. But that’s most of the information available to us today, so we have to use it in our studies. We haven’t heard the orchestra playing the most wonderful symphony yet. The curtains are not quite open. The beautiful biological ballet choreography hasn’t been displayed with all its splendor. All that is still ahead. We should encourage more young students who like science to consider pursuing biology-related research careers. Then they’ll enjoy seeing true wonders beyond anything they ever imagined.Dionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

GP’s biology-related article, posted last December 21, about 21 days ago, has received over 2,000 anonymous visits so far. Over 100 anonymous visits daily? Not bad for such a highly technical topic, reserved for a reduced audience. Several people (DATCG, Eric Anderson, ET, PaV, Mung, and others) have commented in this discussion. Actually DATCG and other commenters provided very interesting information that made GP write a few additional comments for the benefit of his readers. A distinguished biology professor at the University of Kentucky, well respected in academic scientific circles, who has co-authored a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers, posted a comment @25 that started a serious discussion with GP. So far nobody has been able to make a dent in GP’s strong ID presentation. But we expected the professor, who kindly started the discussion, to present a valid counterargument to GP’s OP and follow up comments. Here’s a quick summary: Discussion between AH and GP Index of posted comments: AH @25 …….……. GP @28 AH @50 AH @51 …….……. GP @54 AH @56 * …….……. GP @60 …….……. GP @69 …….……. GP @75 …….……. GP @86 …….……. GP @98 …….……. GP @106 …….……. GP @118 ** …….……. GP @119 ** …….……. GP @127 …….……. GP @129 AH @130 …….……. GP @136 …….……. GP @138 …….……. GP @146 …….……. GP @162 AH @164 …….……. GP @167 …….……. GP @176 …….……. GP @182 …….……. GP @198 …….……. GP @200 …….……. GP @201 …….……. GP @210 …….……. GP @211 …….……. GP @212 …….……. GP @231 …….……. GP @242 …….……. GP @253 ** …….……. GP @254 ** …….……. GP @263 …….……. GP @268 …….……. GP @294 …….……. GP @295 …….……. GP @296 …….……. GP @297 …….……. GP @313 ** …….……. GP @317 ** …….……. GP @319 ** …….……. GP @330 ** AH is the distinguished biology professor Arthur Hunt at the University of Kentucky GP is the author of the excellent OP that started this discussion thread (*) first publicly admitted mistake @56 (**) related to the main discussion, but not addressed to professor A. Hunt directly (to be continued…) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/ the distinguished biology professor apparently tried to punch a hole in a very revealing ID case presented by gpuccio. The fact that their serious discussion hasn’t finished yet, but so far the distinguished visitor hasn’t ben able to make even a shallow dent on the presented ID case seems very indicative of the situation in biology today. That’s why former neo-Darwinian very respected scientists are jumping out of that anachronistic train and starting their own ‘third way’ attempt to keep their ball rolling. But as gpuccio has stated before, there’s only one game in town in the biology science arena: ID facts vs. the modern synthesis / neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific ‘just-so’ fairytales. a distinguished biology profesor at the University of Kentucky found an OP gpuccio posted last December 21 here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/#comment-647600 The visiting professor posted his first comment here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/#comment-646028 I don’t know when exactly gpuccio posted his OP that day, but the first comment was posted by mike1962 that same day December 21, 2017 at 10:44 am. The visiting professor posted his first comment @25 that same day December 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm. Assuming that all the time stamps are related to the same server in Denver, CO. then the visiting professor knew about the posting of GP’s OP the same day, less than 10 hours after the first comment had been posted. Is it only me or also you see something interesting in this case? To me that was pretty fast, no matter how we look at it. Unless someone tell me that this professor has commented here before and had an account in this site, where perhaps he could have some ways of getting notified when a particular topic is being posted. Could that be the explanation? Otherwise, this is kind of interesting to me. Perhaps the best way is to ask him directly. He shouldn’t mind telling us how he heard about the OP, right? At least I wouldn’t if I were in that case. That tells more than many stats provided by some companies in some obscure ways. Maybe I’m making a big deal out of something that isn’t? Maybe… PS. Here’s a piece of information obtained from Google search, where someone in this site commented about a 2007 article the given professor posted in another website: On the non-evolution of Irreducible Complexity – How Arthur Hunt … https://uncommondescent.com/…/on-the-non-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity-ho… Feb 24, 2011 – Recently, someone referred me to two articles (one, two) on the Panda’s Thumb website (from back in 2007), by Arthur Hunt (professor in Department of Plant and Soil Sciences at the …… Regarding Tierra, I suggest you re-read PaV’s original comment at https://uncommondescent.com…..ent-366926 Never mind. It’s much simpler than I thought. The U-KY biology professor posted comments in this site long before I came here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-day-another-bad-day-for-darwinism/#comment-357595Dionisio_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Google "uncommondescent.com" About 50,500 results 23 pages In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 230 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. "pandasthumb.org" About 8,540 results 15 pages In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 150 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. "theskepticalzone.com" About 6,300 results 8 pages In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 78 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.Dionisio_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

We look at the data, uncommondescent.com has 256260 rank in the world wide web. The website server is using IP address 216.70.69.190 and is hosted in United States. The Google page rank of this website is 5/10. Website ping to the server is timed at 1291 ms. . https://www.pagevisr.com/www/uncommondescent.comDionisio_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/evolutionnews.org Global Rank 169,652 ?up by 12,028 Rank in United States 51,389 https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com Global rank 648,783 ?down by 92,426 Rank in United States 227,899Dionisio_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

KF, Thank you for the clarifying information. I was glad to see that the second to the last in the list is much lower than UD. Also glad to see the ones I like so far above too. The universities, the journal, the Royal Society, and MSFT kodu are inserted for comparison.Dionisio_{January 8, 2018
January
01
Jan
8
08
2018
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, there are over 10^9 web sites, perhaps 1/4 of these active. So the top 1 percent would run out to the 2.5 millionth or thereabouts. All of the above are in the top 1% of global web sites that are active. KFkairosfocus_{January 8, 2018
January
01
Jan
8
08
2018
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply