Darwinism Intelligent Design science education

At Oscillations: How the College Board skews students toward Darwinism

Spread the love

https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Overthrown-Mechanobiology-Suzan-Mazur/dp/0578452669

Suzan Mazur, an independent journalist and author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, takes aim at the outdated Darwinism of the College Board university preparation system:

At Oscillations, she notes that the content of its biology course and exam framework devotes 24 pages or 22% to Darwinian natural selection and describes it in the “Essential Knowledge” section as “a major mechanism of evolution.” The College Board, she reports, explicitly says that: “The principles of natural selection and its components appear throughout the course.”

She sees this as a “catastrophe” (Suzan Mazur, “College Board & The Natural Selection Racket” at Oscillations) because “the evolution paradigm has shifted” and – following Eugene Koonin – natural selection is not taken seriously any more as an explain-all.

The_Paradigm_Shifters_470

Is the stuff she identifies designed to insulate students from the ferment going on in biology or is just the outcome of educrats’ self-insulation…? Maybe both?

Mazur has got to be one of the best-connected people writing about evolution today. Her nose for haven’t-we-seen-this-show-before?, oh-not-THAT-again?, used-to-was, done-to-death, and this-will-wash-no-more is the outcome of having interviewed many movers and shakers (and maybe some slackers and fakers) and kept notes over the years. She should certainly be better known.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing ‘the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin’ is also a good introduction to what’s changing in biology.

195 Replies to “At Oscillations: How the College Board skews students toward Darwinism

  1. 1
    Mimus says:

    “No one in the mainstream scientific community now takes selection literally.”

    This was such an odd statement I had to look up its origin. It’s from Mazur’s own interview of Eugine Koonin . All Koonin is saying is that there is that selection doesn’t entail and actual selector. That does nothing to diminish the importance of natural selection at all.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Mimus, you might also want to look up some of the prominent promoters of what is termed ‘neutral theory’, i.e. Graur and Moran for example. A theory in which selection is rendered, for all practical purposes, null and void, in that they hold selection is apparently incapable of eliminating the vast amounts of junk DNA that they postulate must exist in DNA in order to make some type of naturalistic evolution feasible.

    In fact, Moran has claimed right here on UD, a couple of times that I’m aware of, that he is emphatically ‘not a Darwinist’ since he rejects natural selection as a major player in evolution.

    Just how random chance, all by its lonesome, can produce the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’, minus selection as the supposed ‘designer substitute’, Moran never explains and is apparently left for others to figure out.

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?

    Why have some of our genes evolved rapidly? It is widely believed that Darwinian natural selection is responsible, but new research suggests that a separate neutral (nonadaptive) process has made a significant contribution to human evolution.”

    “The researchers identified fast evolving human genes by comparing our genome with those of other primates. However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.

    “The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed,” says Matthew Webster of the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology at Uppsala University.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Natural selection is a process of elimination. If you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance (random) mutations, you have natural selection. The less fit get eliminated over time.

    It has never been shown to be the designing force Darwin envisioned.

  5. 5
    Truthfreedom says:

    F***ing “Natural Selection” is a human construct.
    We humans observe that some living things last more than others, and then we label that difference as “selection”.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    ‘Natural’ – Good luck with coming up with a scientific definition for that.

    ‘Selection’ – What’s doing the selecting here? The Grim Reaper? Death Himself choosing who goes?

    No science here. Evolutionists should go back to the land and take up farming. Do something constructive instead of wasting everyone’s time.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    ET says:

    If you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance (random) mutations, you have natural selection.

    How is that a human construct?

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    ET,

    ‘Natural’ itself is a human abstraction. It’s not detectable by any measuring device. It’s imaginary. It’s not science. It’s a philosophical position.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    Does it not signify either panentheism or animism ? Whatever aspect of nature does the selecting, is the subject doing the selecting, and must be intelligent after some fashion. How would sunflowers have the nous to continue to face the sun by a seamless sequence of rationally sequential coincidences – a product of design, and necessarily, of purpose ?

    We’re mad arguing with these people, aren’t we ? Where there had been one fool before, our interlocutors creating another fool to keep them company in the ‘secure unit’, known as the scientific-establishment consensus – if only to argue with them.

  10. 10
    Truthfreedom says:

    By the way, according to “naturalists”:

    A) Everything is “Nature”.
    B) We are the result of “Nature”.
    C) Hence, we humans, are “natural”.
    Conclusion: “If we select plants or animal breeds,”
    We are “Natural Selection” in action.

    Where did “daddy” Darwin get the term “artificial” selection then?
    Was he suggesting we are different than the “rest” of Nature?

    Was “daddy” Darwin suggesting human exceptionalism?

  11. 11
    ET says:

    So nothing exists in nature? Nothing is produced by nature? Really?

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    I liked Dembski’s dissection of the term ‘natural selection’:

    “,, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose.”
    – William Dembski – Science and the Myth of Progress – pg 294 – 2003

    As Adam Sedgwick pointed out to Charles Darwin himself about his ‘grand principle’ of natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, and yet,,, “You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.”

    From Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin? 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    Excerpt: As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study & comprehend— Acting by law, & under what is called final cause, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. ’Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, & the subsequent battle for life.—
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And indeed this faux power for nature to supposedly choose between options is woven throughout the ‘just-so story telling’ of Darwinists in which they give nature the power to supposedly ‘select’ whatever characteristic one is seeking to explain the origination of simply because they can imagine it had some sort of fitness advantage over not having that particular advantage.

    As Stephen Jay Gould explained, “Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    To repeat, “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

    Try telling that line to your physics professor and see what kind of response you get! 🙂

    Here are a few more quotes along that line:

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe – Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
    Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – Nov. 2009 – Originally published July 2000

    In fact fitness itself, which plays a central role in the concept of natural selection., and which also figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, lacks a rigid mathematical definition.

    In fact, many leading thinkers can’t even agree on exactly what fitness is suppose to be;

    An Open Letter to Teachers teaching Natural Selection – 2012-03-07
    Excerpt: Let’s look at the concept of “fitness” first. Fitness plays a central role in the concept of natural selection. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness argues that fitness is a probabilistic propensity while a statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view “deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power”.
    https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fitness/#FitSubPro
    It is an ongoing discussion and here are a few articles discussing the role of fitness in evolutionary biology.
    *Two ways of thinking about natural selection
    *Selection and Causation (argues against a causal view)
    *Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment?
    *Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia)
    *Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated (argues for a causal propensity view)
    *What fitness can’t be (argues against a causal view)
    https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/An-Open-Letter-to-Teachers-teaching-Natural-Selection-20120307

    The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild – David Berlinski – April 25, 2005
    Excerpt: Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.
    – Berlinski
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2531/

    Moreover, the more rigid one becomes in his mathematical definition of fitness, then the more obvious it becomes that the mathematics of population genetics actually falsifies Darwinian evolution, and does not support it:

    Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018
    Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,,
    Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....rs-impact/

    In short, fitness itself, when more properly defined mathematically in order to more accurately reflect biological reality, then fitness itself ends up falsifying Darwinian evolution in general and natural selection in particular.

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “So nothing exists in nature? Nothing is produced by nature? Really?”

    ET,

    You are not thinking about this clearly. Things exist, obviously. But what do you mean by ‘nature’? Can you explain to us what nature is and what it isn’t? Is it everything? What comes with a ‘not natural’ sign on it?

    Andrew

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Natural means “existing in or produced by nature”. Stonehenge exists in nature but nature did not produce it. It is artificial with respect to its origins. Hurricanes exist in nature and are produced by nature. They are natural through and through.

    It all depends on the context, Andrew.

  15. 15
    Truthfreedom says:

    According to brain-dead “naturalists”:
    WE are Nature.
    – There is not difference between Stonehenge and some randomly assembled group of rocks.
    – Our minds are “random”, there are neither purpose nor goals.
    BUT we know they are CRAZY LIARS. Our minds are goal-directed, different than a hurricane, or a storm or lightning bolts.

  16. 16
    asauber says:

    “Natural means “existing in or produced by nature”.

    ET,

    One of the first rules of definitions is that you should not use the word or a variant of the word you are trying to define in the definition. That results in circular reasoning which logical coherence excludes.

    Andrew

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    Anyway, why would you conclude that Stonehenge is not Natural? Humans are Natural. Why is what Humans assemble not Natural?

    Andrew

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Andrew thinks that all dictionaries are wrong because they all use the word “nature” in their definition of “natural”. But I digress. Nature is defined as ” the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans”. That means anything existing in that physical world is natural. Then there are the forces of nature. They seem to be limited in what they can create.

    We know that Stonehenge wasn’t produced by nature because it exhibits many signs of work/ intention. We know that humans weren’t produced by nature because all living organisms also exhibit many signs of work/ intention. We know this due to our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.

  19. 19
    PavelU says:

    This paper explains the evolution that led to the vertebrates:

    https://evodevojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13227-018-0099-9

  20. 20
    PeterA says:

    PavelU,

    The journal you took that paper from seems to need basic grammar editors:

    This statement in the abstract has a basic grammar error:

    “little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism.“

    If they do so bad with basic English grammar, what can we expect about their dealing with more difficult issues ?

    🙂

  21. 21
    jawa says:

    PeterA,

    I’m sick and tired of seeing this guy posting his nonsense and the moderators letting him get away with it.

  22. 22
    pw says:

    PeterA,

    Good catch! But that’s a common mistake. C’mon, be gracious.

    At least the statement seems to denote certain level of honesty.

    🙂

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “We know that Stonehenge wasn’t produced by nature because it exhibits many signs of work/ intention. ”

    ET,

    So when beez make beezhivez that’s not a production of nature? Beezhivez exhibit many signs of work/intention.

    You still keep deliberately missing the point. ‘Nature’ and ‘Natural’ fail as science. They cant be defined very well.

    Andrew

  24. 24
    asauber says:

    “” the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans”

    Does this include interplanetary space? Stars? Galaxies? Emotion? Calculation? Possibility? Potential?

    Andrew

  25. 25
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    I’m sick and tired of seeing this guy posting his nonsense and the moderators letting him get away with it.

    How is this any different than BA77’s posted links?

  26. 26
    Truthfreedom says:

    Ed George

    How is this any different than BA77’s posted links?

    Bornagain77 ‘s links are teleological (goal-oriented), the result of logical thought processes. They relate to the topics being discussed. And they are really interesting, by the way.
    PavelU’s ones are random garbage.
    See the difference?

  27. 27
    Seversky says:

    “Para-digms they are a-changin’! “

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George,
    Care to point out where any of my links in post 12 criticizing natural selection are ‘nonsense’?

    If you are going to resort to basically insulting me instead of ever engaging any of the substance of my arguments, I will seek to have you banned from UD. (as you have been banned numerous times before under various handles for the exact same type of trollish behavior).

    As to PavelU’s repeated ‘nonsense’, is does not take long to see where the papers that he cites do not support the claims he makes for them;

    For instance, he claims that “This paper explains the evolution that led to the vertebrates:”

    Yet in the actual conclusion of their paper we find that their findings merely “raise the possibility” that they may have an explanation for the evolution that led to the vertebrates:

    Conclusions
    Our data raise the possibility that the origin of stylopod and zeugopod lies much deeper in gnathostome evolution and that variation in meis and hoxa11 expression has played a substantial role in the transformation of appendage anatomy. Moreover, these observations provide evidence that the Meis/Hoxa11 profile considered a hallmark of stylopod/zeugopod patterning is present in Neoceratodus.

    Thus they admit in the abstract that “little is know(n) about the evolution of this patterning mechanism” that supposedly led to evolution of vertebrates, (which is certainly NOT a minor confession on their part), and in the conclusion of their paper they admitted that they merely raise the possibility that “meis and hoxa11 expression has played a substantial role in the transformation of appendage anatomy.”

    If you think raise the possibility is an adequate explanation of anything you are deluding yourself.

    In other words, it is the usual Darwinian storytelling and is a far cry from any actual hard science that would have actually demonstrated how the transformation of one species into another species, (say a mudskipper into a lizard), is even remotely feasible.

    Darwinists simply don’t have any such substantiating evidence now, nor, in my honest opinion, will they ever have any substantiating evidence in the future that the transformation of one species into a brand new species in possible.

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand how any particular species my acquire its particular shape and/or form.

    The failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Simply put, the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution is dead in so far as EVER giving us a adequate explanation as to how any particular organism may acquire its basic shape and/or form.

  29. 29
    jawa says:

    Ed George @25:

    The difference is huge:

    BA77’s contributions are very informative, interesting and make sense.

    PavelU’s comments make no sense and only show that the guy has no idea what the papers he cites are saying.

  30. 30
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Care to point out where any of my links in post 12 criticizing natural selection are ‘nonsense’?

    Sorry, but I stopped reading your complete posts after I found most of them to be irrelevant to the topics being discussed. If this has changed, I will try reading them again.

  31. 31
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    If you are going to resort to basically insulting me instead of ever engaging any of the substance of my arguments, I will seek to have you banned from UD. (as you have been banned numerous times before under various handles for the exact same type of trollish behavior).

    Sorry, but I have never been banned before. You should stop believing everything ET says. If you doubt me, feel free to ask the moderator. I’m sure he/she can check IP addresses.

  32. 32
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 2

    In fact, Moran has claimed right here on UD, a couple of times that I’m aware of, that he is emphatically ‘not a Darwinist’ since he rejects natural selection as a major player in evolution.

    Just how random chance, all by its lonesome, can produce the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’, minus selection as the supposed ‘designer substitute’, Moran never explains and is apparently left for others to figure out.

    Perhaps because when he says “Why I am not a Darwinist” he doesn’t mean random mutation without natural selection. No one does.

    We all know about evolutionary biology, but what is “Darwinism?” Ernst Mayr has an entire chapter devoted to the question (“What is Darwinism”) in his book One Long Argument (Mayr, 1991). At the end of that chapter he says

    After 1859, that is, during the first Darwinian revolution, Darwinism for almost everybody meant explaining the living world by natural processes. As we will see, during and after the evolutionary synthesis the term “Darwinism” unanimously meant adaptive change under the influence of natural selection, and variational change instead of transformational evolution. These are the only two truly meaningful concepts of Darwinism, the one ruling in the nineteenth century … and the other ruling in the twentieth century (a consensus having been reached during the evolutionary synthesis). Any other use of the term Darwinism by a modern author is bound to be misleading.

    I agree with Mayr on this point. Darwinism refers to evolution by natural selection. But a “Darwinist” is not just someone who accepts the fact of natural selection, it’s more than that. It’s someone who prefers this explanation to all other possible mechanisms of evolution. This is the point made by Stephen Jay Gould in his famous 1982 Science paper, “Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory.” (The Gould quote about semantics in the left sidebar is from that paper.) Gould defines modern Darwinism as …

    If we agree, as our century generally has, that “Darwinism” should be restricted to the world view encompassed by the theory of natural selection itself, the problem of definition is still not easily resolved. Darwinism must be more than the bare bones of the mechanics: the principles of superfecundity and inherited variation, and the deduction of natural selction thereform. It must, fundamentally, make a claim for wide scope and dominat frequency; natural selection must represent the primary directing force of evolutionary change.

    Richard Dawkins is a Darwinist and Daniel Dennett is a Darwinist. I am not a Darwinist. I prefer a modern pluralist view of evolution as I explain in Evolution by Accident.

    I am not a Darwinist, just as most of my colleagues in the Department of Physics are not Newtonists, and most of my friends who study genetics are not Mendelists. All three of these terms refer to the ideas of famous men (Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel) who made enormous contributions to science. But in all three cases, the modern sciences have advanced well beyond anything envisaged by their founders.

    Call me an evolutionary biologist.

    It seems there are some here at UD who haven’t caught up with what is currently understood as the theory of evolution in biology. There are also some here who have commented on the incoherence of worldviews founded on false premisses. Believing that their version of “Darwinism” represents the current state of evolutionary biology is arguably just such a false premiss so what does that say about their worldview?

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    PeterA @ 20 – I’m honestly struggling to see what’s grammatically incorrect about that clause, can you explain?

    On PavelU, my suggestion is just ignore him. His posts aren’t obnoxious, and they’re easy to scroll past.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George claims that “I found most of them (your posts) to be irrelevant to the topics being discussed.”

    And yet, in this very thread, my posts were directly on the subject of natural selection which is directly relevant to what was discussed in the OP:

    “At Oscillations, she notes that the content of its biology course and exam framework devotes 24 pages or 22% to Darwinian natural selection and describes it in the “Essential Knowledge” section as “a major mechanism of evolution.” The College Board, she reports, explicitly says that: “The principles of natural selection and its components appear throughout the course.”
    She sees this as a “catastrophe” (Suzan Mazur, “College Board & The Natural Selection Racket” at Oscillations) because “the evolution paradigm has shifted” and – following Eugene Koonin – natural selection is not taken seriously any more”

    Moreover, Ed George blatantly disregards his own criteria of ‘staying on the topic being discussed’.

    For example, in kf’s recent thread entitled “Thoughts On The Soul”, a thread which was discussing an article by John C Wright about the soul, Ed George, in his very first comment on the thread, tried to derail the topic of the thread with a reference to “Plato and Same-Sex Sexuality”. A topic which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic that kf had just opened the thread with.

    kf admonished Ed George thusly,

    EG, again, you would divert a key issue into what is now manifestly an obsession on your part.
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/thoughts-on-the-soul/#comment-691433

    Thus Ed George’s standard of being “relevant to the topics being discussed” apparently only applies to others and not to himself.

    The real reason that Ed George continually refuses to engage ID arguments in any forthright and substantial manner is that he simply can’t refute the arguments in any meaningful way. but he can only nitpick at the edges of the arguments, if he chooses to engage the arguments at all, (his ‘non’-exchange with Upright Biped being a prime example). This is not the tactic of someone who is trying to honestly search for the truth of a matter but is the tactic of someone who has a disingenuous intent.

    As to Ed George’s claim that he has never been banned from UD before. I don’t care whether he has been banned or not. I will seek to have him removed if he continues his trollish behavior towards me and/or towards others. Period! You can rest assured on that,

  35. 35
    Truthfreedom says:

    @30 Ed George

    Sorry, but I stopped reading your complete posts.

    So you are commenting on things you admit you do not read.
    A waste of time then.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 32 Seversky addresses the fact that Moran claims that he is ‘not a Darwinist”. He quotes Moran’s own words,

    Darwinism refers to evolution by natural selection. But a “Darwinist” is not just someone who accepts the fact of natural selection, it’s more than that. It’s someone who prefers this explanation to all other possible mechanisms of evolution.,,,
    “I am not a Darwinist,”

    I suppose that Seversky is trying to claim that Moran does not explicitly reject Natural Selection outright. But as I pointed out in post 2 of this thread, in Moran’s promotion of what is termed ‘neutral theory’, he has, for all intents and purposes, rendered natural selection itself null and void of any true explanatory power:

    Mimus, you might also want to look up some of the prominent promoters of what is termed ‘neutral theory’, i.e. Graur and Moran for example. A theory in which selection is rendered, for all practical purposes, null and void, in that they hold selection is apparently incapable of eliminating the vast amounts of junk DNA that they postulate must exist in DNA in order to make some type of naturalistic evolution feasible.
    – per post 2

    The following article by Moran goes into a bit more detail as to exactly why Moran rejects Natural Selection as a major player in evolution

    Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur – Larry Moran – July 14, 2017
    Excerpt: I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
    Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
    But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
    Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....-with.html

    In what should be needless to say, if you believe that Natural Selection is incapable of removing the 90% of the genome that you believe to be junk, then you cannot possibly believe, as Darwin believed, that “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing…every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.”

    “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing…every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.”
    – Charles Darwin

    I can see why Seversky (and Moran) would want to preserve some type of explanatory power for Natural Selection since, without Natural Selection, Darwinists are basically stuck with chance alone as a explanatory principle,

    As Austin Hughes explained ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    In short, with Natural selection being tossed to the side, by neutral theory’, as the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but instead are now reduced to arguing that the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.

    Even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone can build such wonderful design we see in life to be ‘absolutely inconceivable’. In the following video Dawkins states that the ‘appearance of design’, “cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,’

    4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,
    So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.”
    Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video
    https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267

    Contrary to what the proponents of neutral theory may want to believe beforehand, with natural selection out of the way as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ for explaining the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, then the explanation for that ‘appearance of design’ in life does not automatically default to pure chance, as they want to believe, but instead the explanation defaults to intelligent design.

    As Richard Sternberg states in the following video, (a video which found natural selection to be grossly inadequate for explaining the fixation of mutations in a genome), “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Verse:

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

  37. 37
    Truthfreedom says:

    @32 Seversky

    Perhaps because when he (Larry Moran) says “Why I am not a Darwinist” he doesn’t…

    Hehe.
    How can Larry Moran (a naturalist) know anything?

    … the naturalist claims to know an external physical cosmos billions of light years in extent, and yet, his materialism forces the conclusion that he cannot know the external physical world at all – only images or neural patterns inside his own brain.

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    Sorry, but I have never been banned before.

    Not as “Ed George”. But you have been banned when you posted as Acartia and William spearshake.

    IP addresses can be changed by using a VPN.

  39. 39
    ET says:

    Andfrew:

    So when beez make beezhivez that’s not a production of nature?

    No, it is a production of the bees. Nature cannot make beehives.

    You still keep deliberately missing the point. ‘Nature’ and ‘Natural’ fail as science.

    THAT is total nonsense. Perhaps you should read Newton’s Principia…

  40. 40
    ET says:

    seversky:

    It seems there are some here at UD who haven’t caught up with what is currently understood as the theory of evolution in biology.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. So your post is just nonsense.

  41. 41
    asauber says:

    Hate to beat this dead horse some more but…

    ET,

    The defintion you gave upthread

    “the physical world”

    should exclude beehives and stonehenge?

    What else?

    Andrew

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Unbelievable. Both exist in the physical world. Both were created by intelligent agencies. Neither one was produced by nature, acting freely* (Del Ratszch in “Nature, Design and Science”)

    There is a difference between existing in the physical world, ie nature, and being produced by the physical world.

  43. 43
  44. 44
    asauber says:

    “There is a difference between existing in the physical world, ie nature, and being produced by the physical world.”

    ET,

    This is a philosophical distinction. There are many different versions of ‘nature’ that differ from yours.

    Andrew

  45. 45
    ET says:

    Andrew:

    This is a philosophical distinction.

    No, it isn’t. Why do you think that we don’t consider every death to be murder? Why is it that no one thinks that every rock is an artifact?

    It’s all science, Andrew. And it has to o with knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships

    There are many different versions of ‘nature’ that differ from yours.

    Such as?

  46. 46
    PeterA says:

    Bob O’H @33:

    Is this statement grammatically correct?

    “little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism.“

  47. 47
    Mimus says:

    Just a heads up to anyone engaging, I am almost certain pavelU, jawa, PeterA and Pw are all accounts run by the same person (who once posted as Dionisio). They almost always post in quick sucession of each other, have some of the same peculiar obsessions (including grammar and spelling as above) and often talk to each other. Not sure they should be encouraged.

  48. 48
    Bob O'H says:

    PeterA – I can’t see anything wrong with that, can you explain?

    Mimus – ah, thanks for the heads up. Let’s see if I get an actual explanation of the grammatical issues.

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mimus @ 47

    I don’t know if you’ve been able to validate that, but I was wondering about those similarities also. If this is true, with all respect to Pavel-jawa … it can be confusing to have multiple discussions from the same person. You can bring up multiple points, even contrary to ID from a single user-name.

  50. 50
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Regarding “Nature” – some can argue that nature cannot produce anything on it’s own, without an intelligent, guiding power behind it. There is ordered purpose found in every part of the universe, from the smallest sub-particles. This is the first cause argument that where we find something acting in a functional manner, something else has to provide the power to do that. All of “nature” has to be supported continually, at every minute.
    Whatever function is occurring, is dependent at that moment on other processes and powers, and all of these derive their function from something else.
    So, there has to be a First Cause that possesses the power to give to all of these functions.

  51. 51
    ET says:

    There isn’t an ordered purpose to the wind-blown leaves or snow drifts.

  52. 52
    asauber says:

    ET,

    The most obvious version of nature that differs from yours is the definition the naturalist uses.

    “All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

    Even within naturalism, there are shifting sands.

    Andrew

  53. 53
    ET says:

    What? That doesn’t do anything to what I have said. The explanation of Stonehenge is found within nature itself. But it isn’t nature itself.

    And the explanation for nature cannot be found in nature itself. Natural processes only exist in nature and because of that cannot be responsible for nature.

  54. 54
    asauber says:

    ET,

    According to naturalist philosophy, you are incorrect. According to them, nature is everything there is. So, when an Evolutionist regurgitates ‘Natural Selection’ he means something different than you do. Which has been my point from the beginning. ‘Nature’ is defined by philosophy.

    Andrew

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    There isn’t an ordered purpose to the wind-blown leaves or snow drifts.

    From the ID perspective, we say that such things are “random nature”. ID is arguing against materialism and Darwinism, so ID takes the materialist view as the starting point. In materialism, there is the belief that nature is a random, mindless, independent force that requires no design. Everything in materialism is built from the bottom up – the smallest molecules accidentally combine and the result is the earth and various things.
    So, cloud formations, snow drifts, piles of leaves – these are claimed to be the product of random, mindless forces and they show no ordered design. Plus, these things can be replicated without need for a designing intelligence. So, it seems like there is “nature” versus “design intelligence”.
    But another view will say that’s an artificial distinction. “Nature” cannot operate by itself and all nature requires a designing intelligence. Plus, there is ordered function. Some would also say “ordered purpose” but I just said “function”, but in either case – both require a design intelligence.
    That would be the Thomistic view, for example, that sees nature as an integrated whole.
    In that view, nothing can be created from the bottom-up without a design intelligence.
    Snow drifts, for example, are not independent actions. They are completely dependent on ordered, predictable, unexplained phenomenon. Nature cannot create the order required for snow drifts. Nature does not create the chemical bonds of Hydrogen and Oxygen that make water. Nature does not create the effect of temperature on water causing snow, or the fact that snow predictably falls to the ground or that snowflakes have amazing patterns. All of these things require a designing intelligence to create. Snow drifts are ordered, predictable and follow laws.
    The question of “purpose” is difficult here, but we can ask “what is the purpose of survival”? For bees, for example, do they really “want to survive and make beehives and create honey”? They just do this by instinct. It’s part of their nature.
    From the ID perspective, we separate the intelligent activities of bees from what snowflakes do because bees have intelligence and snowflakes do not.
    But both bees and snowflakes and leaves are just acting according to their essence.
    Do snowflakes and blowing leaves exhibit “functions”?
    From the ID perspective we would say “no” – it’s not a complex intelligent function.
    However, another view would say “Yes”. It is just as complex to create a biosphere where there are chemical elements that bond, creating a substance called “water”, which can freeze solid, form into mist, create clouds, fall from the clouds as rain or snow, create rivers and lakes … and dozens of other “functions” that water performs.
    All of these functions of water are dependent on predictable, ordered processes that had to exist at the beginning. Nature cannot create the rules and laws that bind molecules together and which make water have the properties it does.
    The existence of water, and even the ordered process of any molecules requires a designing intelligence to not only create, but to sustain in an ordered succession continually.
    Because a truly blind, mindless “nature”, could not create any consistent patterns at all.
    Blind, mindlessness cannot create rules or laws.
    Without a design intelligence, there could be nothing but chaos – no laws, no order, no functions.

    For purposes of ID, we just forget that point and act as if nature could actually work as a blind, mindless process. Because that’s what materialists think. So, we just take their starting point and then show that “blind nature” can’t create beehives. But we give materialists the idea that “blind nature” could create the patterns of leaves blowing in the wind. But in reality, a truly mindless nature couldn’t create leaves or the consistent powers of wind to move objects. The wind appears random but it actually follows laws of the atmosphere, chemistry, gravity.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Andrew- You don’t know what you are talking about. Just because naturalists say something doesn’t make it so. They do NOT disagree with me on the definition of “nature” nor “natural”.

    Evolutionists have defined natural selection and I have just repeated it. Natural selection occurs whenever you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance, as in random, variation(s). And no, nature is not defined by philosophy.

  57. 57
    asauber says:

    “Just because naturalists say something doesn’t make it so.”

    ET,

    Obviously. But they say stuff. And its a philosophical position. I don’t know why you don’t get that.

    Andrew

  58. 58
    ET says:

    Oh my. I have never said that naturalism isn’t a philosophical position. I said that nature isn’t.

  59. 59
    asauber says:

    ET,

    Naturalism comes from how you define nature, philosophically.

    For instance, you can ask, does nature have capabilities? If so, what are they?

    If you say nature is everything, then of course it has every capability. We philosophically defined it that way!

    And that’s what naturalists do.

    Andrew

  60. 60
    ET says:

    Andrew, Naturalism comes from how you define nature’s capabilities, philosophically. Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans.

    How does Christianity define “nature”, Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines “nature”? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans?

  61. 61
    asauber says:

    ET.

    You are obviously not going to accept any information beyond your own framework. So, I quit. Have a nice rest of your day.

    Andrew

  62. 62
    asauber says:

    But for those interested in further reading, this was interesting to me:

    “The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

    Andrew

  63. 63
    ET says:

    Andrew- Your projection is duly noted, as in your avoidance of reality.

  64. 64
    ET says:

    For the record- There is a HUGE difference between naturalism and nature. Andrew wants to conflate the two.

  65. 65
    Silver Asiatic says:

    asauber

    They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit”

    That is a detailed article – informative. I didn’t read the whole thing but it explains “causal closure” where “nature” is believed to be nothing other than “the physical”. The two terms are the same.
    The “natural world” is the same as the “physical world” in that view.
    However, even some naturalists think that there are non-physical causes in nature. So, nature would not be only the physical world. So, in that case, anything governed by natural laws and forces would be “nature” even if such things were non-physical.

    Mental and other special forces were non-physical in the sense that they arose only in special circumstances and not throughout the spatiotemporal realm, but even so they fell within the realm of scientific law and lacked spontaneous autonomy.

  66. 66
    asauber says:

    “Andrew wants to conflate the two.”

    ET,

    That is a false accusation. I’m trying to inform you that your idea of Nature is not the the same as everyone’s. And that’s because **You don’t know what Nature is** and neither does anyone else who tries to use the term. What you have is a **philosophical position on what Nature is**.

    Lord, have mercy. 😉

    Andrew

  67. 67
    Silver Asiatic says:

    For those certain naturalists they have a hard time explaining “nature” because to do that you have to have something that is “non-nature”.
    In that case, it would be impossible to distinguish anything that is “nature” (physical) from its opposite, non-nature or non-physical.
    The term nature would be meaningless in that case.
    To identify something as “nature” in that worldview, it has to be separate from non-nature.
    All they can say is that nature is distinct from supernatural, and supernatural is something that is non-natural. But doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    Andrew:

    I’m trying to inform you that your idea of Nature is not the the same as everyone’s.

    And you are failing, miserably.

    AGAIN:
    Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans.

    How does Christianity define “nature”, Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines “nature”? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans?

    Please answer the questions. Also tell me how that definition is philosophical. You won’t because all you have are your false accusations, Andrew.

    Lord, have mercy, indeed.

  69. 69
    Truthfreedom says:

    1. EVERYTHING that exists= Nature.
    2. We are part of Nature.
    Conclusion: when e.g. we modify dog breeds across generations = we are “Natural Selection” in action.
    We are selecting traits that (usually) give us aesthetic pleasure (and those aesthetic traits have associated “free riders”).
    Am I wrong?

  70. 70
    ET says:

    Yes, you are wrong. From Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” page 117:

    What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

    He goes on to say:

    Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

    By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

    Artificial selection is an example of the former whereas natural selection is the latter.

  71. 71
    Truthfreedom says:

    A process of selection would have a concrete objective, …

    But according to “naturalists”:
    1. “Physics” is doing the “selection” (lots of quotation marks because these people say really weird things).
    2. “We” (an “illusion”) are “informed” after the fact.
    Conclusion: it is “physics” the thing bringing about a change.
    Now:
    3. “Physics” is natural.
    Therefore: Everything is “Natural Selection’.

  72. 72
    PeterA says:

    Bob O’H @48:

    Is the sentence (quoted @46) written correctly?

  73. 73
    Truthfreedom says:

    Everything is “Natural”.
    Natural deaths vs. Artificial deaths = non-sense.
    Once you get rid of the human mind :
    EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TROUBLE.

  74. 74
    Truthfreedom says:

    Me killing my children = A female bonobo killing its offspring.
    If we do not punish bonobos,
    WHY should I be punished?

  75. 75
    jawa says:

    Alexa Ranks for related websites:

    AiG:………………………44,300
    EN:……………………….219,566
    RTB:……………………417,037
    TO:………………………636,215
    UD:………………………662,429
    PT:…………………..2,522,379
    SW:…………………3,287,895
    TSZ:…………………3,605,624
    PS:……………………………….?

    I still don’t understand well what makes those internet traffic numbers vary so drastically on different days. Any clues?

  76. 76
    PavelU says:

    PeterA @72:

    Bob O’H is right. That sentence you seem so obsessed about is written correctly.

    You all ID fans don’t like evo-devo because this growing field of biology is weakening your ideas.

  77. 77
    Ed George says:

    EF

    Me killing my children = A female bonobo killing its offspring.
    If we do not punish bonobos,
    WHY should I be punished?

    If you can’t figure it out, remind me not to leave my granddaughter alone with you.

  78. 78
    Truthfreedom says:

    If you can’t figure it out, remind me not to leave my granddaughter alone with you.

    I knew it.
    No logical explanation.
    Evolution is the enemy of knowledge.
    “Just-so, “it happened”, “it might be”, “billions of years”, “randomness, you know”. That is what evolution means.
    Nothing that can stand logical scrutiny.

    @ PavelU: you just have wishful thinking.
    And regarding the OOL: 150 years of speculation. Or 150 years of nothing, if you prefer.
    What about the “warm little pond”? Has it dried up? “Once upon a time”…

    PavelU the “neuronal illusion” with his dubious existence 🙂
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-design-of-life-even-in-a-rats-whiskers/#comment-691896

  79. 79
    PavelU says:

    Here’s a very recent series of papers that explain animal body-plan evolution in details:

    https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/animalbodyplan

    ID proponents might benefit from reading these papers in order to educate themselves and stop believing in their “design” illusion.

  80. 80
    Truthfreedom says:

    PavelU, the “neuronal illusion”, keeps posting.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-design-of-life-even-in-a-rats-whiskers/#comment-691896

    How can an “illusory” entity know what “reality” is?
    Asylum is where you live. You materialists have locked your-“selves” (hehehe) in. Delusions of existence, living contradictions, absurdity and pretensions.

    Who won the prize for explaining the OOL in 2015? Oh wait, another materialist delusion.

    Alice in Wonderland. 🙂

  81. 81
  82. 82
    jawa says:

    Alexa Ranks for related websites:
    Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01……………………Top %
    AiG:………………………44,300…………………………44,269……………….0.1
    EN:……………………….219,566………………………218,250………………….1
    RTB:……………………417,037…………………………422,007…………………1
    TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771……………………1
    UD:………………………662,429……………………..661,806…………………..1
    PT:…………………..2,522,379…………………..2,520,054…………………..3
    SW:…………………3,287,895………………….3,284,894…………………..4
    TSZ:…………………3,605,624…………………3,602,299……………………4
    PS:……………………………….?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)

  83. 83
    PeterA says:

    PavelU @76:

    I see you agree with Bob O’H stating that there’s nothing wrong with the quoted sentence from the paper you cited. Are you sure? Think again.

  84. 84
    jawa says:

    This discussion thread made it into the top 5 most popular posts in the last month:

    Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)

    Karsten Pultz: Why random processes cannot produce… (1,320)
    Abortion, the leading cause of deaths worldwide in 2019 (1,147)
    Thinking More Deeply About Causation (1,130)
    At Oscillations: How the College Board skews… (1,003)
    Recognizing Design is to the Engineer, as Seafaring… (977)

    Susan Mazur continues to attract readers to her writings.

  85. 85
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    February 1, 2020 at 10:04 am
    This discussion thread made it into the top 5 most popular posts in the last month:

    That doesn’t speak well for this site. A discussion with a few people arguing what “nature” means, a tangent on the grammatical correctness of a sentence, some nonsense about bonobos, and another tangent about who I am and whether or not I have ever been banned at UD.

  86. 86
    Truthfreedom says:

    A few people arguing what “nature” means…

    Translation : Ed George has no idea what “nature” means. Definitions are difficult, let’s try some *attempt* at irony instead.

    Thank you jawa.

  87. 87
    Ed George says:

    EF

    Translation : Ed George has no idea what “nature” means. Definitions are hard, let’s try some *attempt* at irony instead.

    Translation: EF uses the “translation” deception rather than acknowledge that much of the discussion in this thread is lame.

  88. 88
    Truthfreedom says:

    Ed George

    Translation…

    Triggered 🙂
    * They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.*
    Dodging questions is deception.

    Enlighten us, Ed George. What does “nature” mean? (Not holding my breath).

  89. 89
    Ed George says:

    EF

    Enlighten us, Ed George. What does “nature” mean? (Not holding my breath).

    Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.

  90. 90

    .
    Ed,

    Physical dynamics cannot establish the measurement function. There, now you have compelling* physical evidence (which has been well known for your entire lifetime).

    *you have had vast amounts of compelling physical evidence … you simply choose to ignore that evidence, and assume your conclusions instead.

  91. 91
    Ed George says:

    UB

    Physical dynamics cannot establish the measurement function.

    So your are claiming that the measurement function would exist if the universe didn’t exist. I don’t see how. And, more importantly, I don’t see how you demonstrate this.

  92. 92
    Seversky says:

    “Naturalism”, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

    …has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

    “Physicalism” or “materialism”, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

    is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.

  93. 93
    Seversky says:

    Ed George @ 91

    Physical dynamics cannot establish the measurement function.

    So your are claiming that the measurement function would exist if the universe didn’t exist. I don’t see how. And, more importantly, I don’t see how you demonstrate this.

    Exactly. Just as the obvious objection to BA77’s claim that quantum mechanics shows nothing exists until it is observed is that, if that is the case, what is being observed in the first place?

  94. 94

    .

    So your are claiming that the measurement function would exist if the universe didn’t exist.

    No Ed, I said nothing like that.

    You see, unlike you Ed, I am not trying to find an undecidable to use as the means to ignore physical evidence. I take that stance from thoughtful scientists I have studied and read over the years. It represents an epistemological stance that is quite distinct from the one you regularly put on display here — your comment at #91 being just another prime example.

  95. 95

    .
    If either Ed or Sev can use dynamics (the equations of motion, etc) to explain a record of dynamics — then I am all ears.

    Note: assuming your conclusion is not an answer.

  96. 96
    Ed George says:

    UB

    If either Ed or Sev can use dynamics (the equations of motion, etc) to explain a record of dynamics — then I am all ears.

    I fail to see how this is in conflict with the definition I provided for nature.

    everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.

  97. 97
    jawa says:

    Ed George @85:

    That’s an interesting observation you wrote.

    However, i think that the main topic in the OP for this thread is about important educational issues the society confronts these days.

    If you look at the information posted @82, note that this website UD is doing much better in internet traffic than other websites that are openly anti-ID, except the case of TO, which is not too far ahead of UD. See how PT, SW, TSZ and PS are o far behind UD. They all have in common that deal with boring nerdy issues that most people out there don’t care much about. That’s why the numbers are so high. But we compare websites with related topics: science, evolution, ID.

    Why are the websites PT and SW doing so badly these days? Any clues? Not so long ago they were doing much better. Actually they were in the same top percentile that UD is. Something must have happened recently, but I have no idea what it could be.

    Could it be that they don’t provide enough serious discussions as we have here in UD?

    Yes, it’s true that sometimes we have nonsense posted, like the case of PavelU’s comments, but also we have very serious comments by other contributors. Fortunately the latter are the majority.

    I have argued for the banning of PavelU’s posts, but this website is open enough to allow folks like PavelU to express their opinions, even if they are nonsense.

  98. 98
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    Could it be that they don’t provide enough serious discussions as we have here in UD?

    The Westboro Babtist Church site (godhatesfags.com) has an Alexa ranking of 482597, better than UD’s. I only mention this because a web site’s ranking isn’t a good measure of the level of serious discussion taking place on the website.

  99. 99
    jawa says:

    Ed George @98:

    The example you used has nothing to do with seriously discussing fundamental scientific issues. Philosophical questions can be discussed too. But it has to be done with respect of the dignity of every person.

    You’re comparing apples and alligators. That wouldn’t work.

    We have to compare websites that deal with the same issues. In this case discussing the origin and evolution of biological systems in a serious way.

    Some of the websites in the list don’t have discussions. But they are in the same category explained above.

    If you know of another website that can be compared, let’s include it too.

    But let’s stay away from anything that promotes hatred to other people.

    I believe that we all share a given condition called Imago Dei which implies dignity and requires mutual respect.

    The questions posted @97 are still awaiting serious response. Your attempt wasn’t serious. You may try again. Thanks.

  100. 100
    pw says:

    Ed George,

    I think that what attracts visits is the OP, more than the follow up discussion.
    Note the proportion of visits to posts.

    The list provided by jawa seems correct.

    The example you presented doesn’t fit in the comparison.

  101. 101
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, I picked an anti-gay site because of the many discussions held here about homosexuality and same sex marriage.

    Another common subject here is abortion.

    Pro choice.org…… 595617

    Another subject discussed here frequently is atheism/materialism, etc.

    friendlyatheist.patheos.com….,,8750

    And, occasionally, the discussions revolve around evolution.

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php……….. 1704

    https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/…..1231

  102. 102
    Truthfreedom says:

    @89 EdGeorge

    Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.

    What “world”, Ed George?
    The one inside your head?

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  103. 103
    jawa says:

    Ed George @101:

    Your examples are invalid. Don’t qualify.
    You’re still comparing apples and alligators.
    I’ll explain why later.
    But maybe you’ll figure it out before I explain it.
    Hint: look carefully at the information provided by Alexa.

    Actually, to be consistent I should remove AiG and RTB from my list. Perhaps even TO should be removed.
    They don’t seem comparable according to Alexa.

  104. 104
    jawa says:

    Corrected list according to Alexa.
    Removed AiG and RTB.
    Alexa doesn’t show any (direct or indirect) relation to UD.
    Alexa Ranks for related websites:
    Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01……………………Top %
    EN:……………………….219,566………………………218,250………………….1
    TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771……………………1
    UD:………………………662,429……………………..661,806…………………..1
    PT:…………………..2,522,379…………………..2,520,054…………………..3
    SW:…………………3,287,895………………….3,284,894…………………..4
    TSZ:…………………3,605,624…………………3,602,299……………………4
    PS:……………………………….?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)

  105. 105
    jawa says:

    Ed George @101:

    Make sure that Alexa shows direct or indirect relation to UD.

    None of your examples meet that criteria.

    This is why I removed AiG and RTB from my list above.

    When you enter friendlyatheist.patheos.com
    note that what Alexa processes is really patheos.com instead of the longer name you enter.

    When you enter this:
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
    Alexa can’t find the page.
    The result you got was for berkeley.edu

    For this name
    https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com
    Alexa measures nature.com

    None of that is related to UD according to Alexa information.

  106. 106
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101?

    Basically all your examples were wrong.

    You may want to try again?

    🙂

  107. 107
    Truthfreedom says:

    @89 Ed George

    Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.

    TF asked:

    What “world”, Ed George?
    The one inside your head?

    Enter:
    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare (or, the “world” is inside my head).

    … “Thus, in knowing, ultimately, only changes inside himself, the materialist is logically forced into an epistemological idealism that contradicts his assumed starting point, the observation of external things.”

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  108. 108
    jawa says:

    Alexa Ranks for related websites:
    Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01…………………02/02……………….Top %
    EN:……………………..219,566………….……………218,250……………….219,482…………………1
    TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771………………652,972…………………1
    UD:……………………..662,429……………………….661,806……………….660,514………………….1
    PT:..…………….……..2,522,379……………..……..2,520,054…….……..2,515,293…………………..3
    SW:……………………3,287,895…………………….3,284,894…………..3,278,665…………………..4
    TSZ:…………………..3,605,624………………….…3,602,299…………..4,266,831…………………..5
    PS:…………………………?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)

  109. 109
    jawa says:

    Ed George:
    Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101?
    Basically all your examples were wrong. Based on a deep misunderstanding.

    The main reason UD attracts more visits than most of its Alexa-based peers is that UD has more interesting articles posted by News, KF, GP, BA, PaV, and other OP contributors, covering a wide range of scientific and philosophical topics. Obviously the follow-up discussions may provoke additional interest for repeated visits, but I think it’s mainly the actual OPs that have the magnetism.

  110. 110
    jawa says:

    Ed George:

    Here’s more information about the links Alexa shows between websites in my list:

    Alexa associations:
    EN:   TO, UD, 864 
    TO:   EN, 2,757
    UD:   EN, TSZ, 652
    PT:   UD, 1,022
    SW:   UD, 473
    TSZ:  UD, PS, 44
    PS:   TSZ, 15

    Again, UD seems more attractive than its Alexa-based peers because it has more articles covering interesting topics of science and philosophy. Only News produces more interesting topics than the other websites combined. On top of that we have KF, JB, PaV, GP, and other OP contributors.
    The Alexa ranks for these websites are in those relatively large numbers because many people aren’t attracted to read serious scientific or philosophical topics.

  111. 111
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    Also note that EN is much higher than UD in the Alexa ranking, but they don’t have any discussion in their website. However they have many interesting and serious articles on science and philosophy. That’s what attracts serious readers.

    That means you were barking up the wrong tree. You were criticizing a strawman that you built based on misunderstanding.

    Your examples were so bad that they weren’t even wrong. Complete nonsense. But don’t be discouraged. We all make mistakes, specially when we don’t pay attention to what we do or don’t take it seriously.

    Yo were comparing apples and alligators. That’s a no-no. I’m sure you’ll try better next time. 🙂

  112. 112
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, you are expending a lot of energy comparing internet rankings and trying to conclude that they are a measure of the level of seriousness of the discussions. UD posts more OPs than their “peers”. Quantity is not quality. News aggregators also have high rankings.

    I can’t really speak for the others because I seldom (if ever) frequent them. But I did make a point of checking them out and I did find something very unique about UD. It is the only one that is riddled with advertising. The one that popped up when I logged in this time was for “Hour of Power”. Not exactly a science or ID related site.

  113. 113
    bornagain77 says:

    E.G. “one that is riddled with advertising. The one that popped up when I logged in this time was for “Hour of Power”. Not exactly a science or ID related site.”

    LOL, says more about E.G. than UD

    Let’s say you’re shopping online for shoes. After browsing a few stores for just the right pair, you surf over to an article on your favorite news site. There, like magic, an advertisement appears for the very same shoes you were admiring just moments ago. “That’s funny,” you tell yourself before clicking through to a weather site for the weekend forecast. Then, wedged between sunny Saturday and stormy Sunday, you see yet another ad for the shoes. You’re not going crazy; you’ve just experienced the wonder of custom Internet advertising.
    Targeted advertising has been part of the Internet experience since the late 1990s.,,,
    Today, custom Internet advertising is widespread,,,,
    https://computer.howstuffworks.com/advertiser-custom-ads.htm

  114. 114
    Truthfreedom says:

    @89 Ed George said:

    Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.

    What “world”?

    “… the naturalist might object that sensation ends in the interior of the brain, making such direct knowledge of external reality impossible.”

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  115. 115
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    You keep getting it wrong, even though I have tried to explain it to you over and over. It seems like you haven’t read the explanations carefully. Too bad.

    Anyway, my main goal is not to persuade you, but to let the anonymous readers see for themselves what’s going on here and draw their own conclusions based on what they read, always testing it to hold what is good.

    In a way you’re unwittingly helping them to get the point right. Thanks.

  116. 116
    jawa says:

    BA77 @ 113:

    That’s an interesting observation you made about Ed George’s complaint.

  117. 117
    PeterA says:

    Bob O’H,

    Did you miss the question @72?

  118. 118
    Ed George says:

    Interesting indeed, from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible. 🙂

    If the adds are tailored to my browsing history, which I know they usually are, then the fact that I don’t frequent or search religious websites suggests that my frequent visits to UD are being classified in the religion category, not science.

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George complains “from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible.”

    The implication that he is trying to convey is, of course, that Christianity is somehow anti-science. Yet Christianity is the worldview that gave us modern science in the first place and thus I certainly see no reason to deny the tree that gave us the fruit of science in the first place!

    . In fact, science is simply impossible without presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded in Theistic and/or Christian metaphysics.

    One of the ironies of modern atheistic naturalism, whose proponents often posture as self-appointed defenders of science, is that naturalism, or its insane twin materialism, cannot provide an adequate basis for science. For example, the fact is we cannot even begin to do science unless we make some metaphysical assumptions about science. Another irony, at least according to physicist and theologian Ian Barbour, is that the assumptions that a scientist must make to do science are basically Biblical assumptions.

    “A good case can be made,” Barbour writes, “that the doctrine of creation helped set the stage for scientific activity.”

    Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams, who provides the above quote from Barbour in his on-line article, “Does Science Disprove God?” lists several presuppositions of science that he argues “derive warrant from the theistic doctrine of creation:

    • That the natural world is real (not an illusion) and basically good (and hence worth studying)
    • That the natural world isn’t divine (i.e. pantheism is false) and so it isn’t impious to experiment upon it
    • That the natural world isn’t governed by multiple competing and/or capricious forces (i.e. polytheism is false)
    • That the natural world is governed by a rational order
    • That the human mind is, to some degree, able to understand the rational order displayed by the natural world
    • That human cognitive and sensory faculties are generally reliable
    • That the rational order displayed by the natural world cannot be deduced from first principles, thus observation and experiment are required”

    Again, notice that these presuppositions themselves cannot be proven by empirical science. Therefore, a science based epistemology, i.e. “scientism,” of any kind cannot be true.

    Williams observes that, “There is thus a wide-ranging consonance between Christianity and the presuppositions of science.” He then goes on to quote Barbour again.

    “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation. Moreover, while nature is real and good in the biblical view, it is not itself divine, as many ancient cultures held, and it is therefore permissible to experiment on it… it does appear that the idea of creation gave a religious legitimacy to scientific inquiry.”

    http://www.bethinking.org/does.....scientific

    Barbour is not alone here. Both Alfred North Whitehead and American physicist Robert Oppenheimer understood that historically a Christian milieu was in fact necessary for the development of science. The famous Christian writer and University of Cambridge professor C.S. Lewis summarized the position this way: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a [Lawgiver.]”

    Indeed, all the early scientist who were part of the so-called scientific revolution: Galileo, Kepler, Newton were Christian theists.
    per – john_a_designer- UD blogger
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rodney-stark-a-social-scientist-who-begged-to-differ-with-the-distinguished-bigots-on-faith-and-science/#comment-669940

    Whereas on the other hand, presupposing atheism leads to the catastrophic failure of science itself. This catastrophic failure for science that is inherent in presupposing atheism is most clearly demonstrated in the atheist’s denial of his own free will:

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    In short, the claim from Atheists that they do not have free will leads to catastrophic epistemological failure for them. All rationality, reason, and therefore all of science itself, is completely undermined in the atheist’s claim that he does not have free will.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-why-jerry-coyne-cant-actually-deny-free-will/#comment-691809

    Don’t expect E.G to honestly admit that atheism is completely incoherent as to providing a solid basis for ‘doing science’. He NEVER engages the merits of Intelligent Design as a science with any of the integrity that would be expected from a person in an open discussion, but only seeks to attack Theism in general and Christianity in particular every chance he gets. In other words, E.G is a atheistic troll who could care less about the truth!

    As to E.G.’s browsing history, I note that web-trackers also take note of the words you write, and advertise in regards to that as well. And since E.G. never writes about any actual science, but spends most of his time bashing God, then that will, of course, effect his browsing history and will reflect in the advertising that he personally sees when he visits a site.

  120. 120
    Truthfreedom says:

    …not science.

    Science means knowledge .
    Interesting word indeed for a subjective idealist/solipsist who can not even be sure he has a brain…
    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  121. 121
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    The implication that he is trying to convey is, of course, that Christianity is somehow anti-science.

    No, the implication he is trying to convey is that the religious adds that he sees at UD are because the systems used to determine what adds to display characterize UD as a religious site.

  122. 122
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmm, I see advertising related to amazon, eBay, and a PDF site. Thus my personal browsing history is apparently playing a big part in what I see.

    What do others see?

    Also of note: it is clear that the overall broad bush implication is that you are trying to paint Christianity as being anti-science.

    My challenge to you is to prove it! Again, Christianity gave us modern science!

  123. 123
    Truthfreedom says:

    What do others see?

    Thank God we are not solipsists 🙂
    Is Ed George sure he has eyes to *see* anything?
    Maybe he does not reply most of the time because he is *hallucinating his own reality?*
    Who knows, materialism is very very weird…
    The Vampire Diaries makes more sense.

    “…the naturalist (insert materialism/physicalism) cannot logically justify his own position that the senses are reliable with respect to external sense objects, because he has already shot himself in the foot by describing the process of sensation in such a materialistic manner that its necessary inference is that he directly knows only neural patterns internal to his brain.”
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  124. 124
    jawa says:

    UD posts more science-related articles than PT, SW and TSZ together.

  125. 125
    jawa says:

    BA77 @122:

    I see ads for things I have bought or searched for online, totally unrelated from UD. For example, long ago I was reading about schools for my grandchildren and lately I’ve seen ads for schools displayed on my screen when I open UD.

  126. 126
    jawa says:

    Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites:

    EN:…………………….221,552 top 1%
    UD:……………………660,024 1%
    TO:……………………678,636 1%
    PT:…………………..2,513,241 3%
    SW:…………………3,276,542 4%
    TSZ:…………………4,263,969 5%

  127. 127
    jawa says:

    Ed George, FYI-
    In addition to Alexa’s associations posted @110, we can also consider the important contributors at PT, SW, TSZ and PS that have posted comments and actually engaged in discussions in UD. For example Dr Arthur Hunt of University of Kentucky and Dr Laurence A. Moran of University of Toronto.
    However, I’d rather stick to Alexa’s rules and that’s why I removed AiG and RTB from the list, even though I consider them somehow associated to UD, but they are not.
    Definitely the websites examples you presented were very wrong as I explained before. Hopefully you understood this.

  128. 128
    jawa says:

    Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites:
    EN:……………………….221,892
    UD:………………………653,083
    TO:………………………668,632
    PT:…………………….2,517,004
    SW:……………………3,281,511
    TSZ:…………………..4,270,691
    PS:……………………………….?

  129. 129
    PeterA says:

    Bob O’H,
    Did you miss the question @72?

  130. 130
    OLV says:

    The bioelectric code: An ancient computational medium for dynamic control of growth and form

    What determines large-scale anatomy? DNA does not directly specify geometrical arrangements of tissues and organs, and a process of encoding and decoding for morphogenesis is required. Moreover, many species can regenerate and remodel their structure despite drastic injury. The ability to obtain the correct target morphology from a diversity of initial conditions reveals that the morphogenetic code implements a rich system of pattern-homeostatic processes. Here, we describe an important mechanism by which cellular networks implement pattern regulation and plasticitybioelectricity. All cells, not only nerves and muscles, produce and sense electrical signals; in vivo, these processes form bioelectric circuits that harness individual cell behaviors toward specific anatomical endpoints. We review emerging progress in reading and re-writing anatomical information encoded in bioelectrical states, and discuss the approaches to this problem from the perspectives of information theory, dynamical systems, and computational neuroscience. Cracking the bioelectric code will enable much-improved control over biological patterning, advancing basic evolutionary developmental biology as well as enabling numerous applications in regenerative medicine and synthetic bioengineering.

     

     

  131. 131
    OLV says:

    Endogenous Bioelectrics in Development, Cancer, and Regeneration: Drugs and Bioelectronic Devices as Electroceuticals for Regenerative Medicine
    PMC 2019PMC 2019

    A major frontier in the post-genomic era is the investigation of the control of coordinated growth and three-dimensional form. Dynamic remodeling of complex organs in regulative embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer reveals that cells and tissues make decisions that implement complex anatomical outcomes. It is now essential to understand not only the genetics that specifies cellular hardware but also the physiological software that implements tissue-level plasticity and robust morphogenesis.

     
    hmm…

     

  132. 132
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks for related websites:

    EN:……….225,385
    TO:……….539,153
    UD:……….652,572
    PT:……..2,502,542
    SW:……3,075,045
    TSZ:……6,150,700

  133. 133
    OLV says:

    Optimality in the standard genetic code is robust with respect to comparison code sets

    The genetic code and its evolution have been studied by many different approaches. One approach is to compare the properties of the standard genetic code (SGC) to theoretical alternative codes in order to determine how optimal it is and from this infer whether or not it is likely that it has undergone a selective evolutionary process. Many different properties have been studied in this way in the literature. Less focus has been put on the alternative code sets which are used as a comparison to the standard code. Each implicitly represents an evolutionary hypothesis and the sets used differ greatly across the literature. Here we determine the influence of the comparison set on the results of the optimality calculation by using codes based upon different sub-structures of the SGC. With these results we can generalize the results to different evolutionary hypotheses. We find that the SGC’s optimality is very robust, as no code set with no optimised properties is found. We therefore conclude that the optimality of the SGC is a robust feature across all evolutionary hypotheses. Our results provide important information for any future studies on the evolution of the standard genetic code. We also studied properties of the SGC concerning overlapping genes, which have recently been found to be more widespread than often believed. Although our results are not conclusive yet we find additional intriguing structures in the SGC that need explanation.

    the idea of trade-offs could be very important in understanding the nature of SGC optimality. Every property has a cost versus some other property and assuming that the genetic code had some freedom in its evolution, some trade-offs were plausibly experienced as constraints. Finding further such trade-offs may launch future studies into this central topic in molecular biology which surprisingly remains unexhausted.

     
    Do these researchers see that their paper points to ID?

  134. 134
    OLV says:

    Error-correcting codes and information in biology

    A majority of biologists deny that information theory can be useful to them. It is shown on the contrary that the living world cannot be understood if the scientific concept of information is ignored.

    Incorporating the scientific concept of information and the science based on it in the foundations of biology can widely renew the discipline but meets epistemological difficulties which must be overcome.

     

     

     

     

  135. 135
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent

    This pretty much mirrors the trends in interest for ID. I think it is fair to say that UD and related sites have seen a declining trend for several years.

  136. 136
    Truthfreedom says:

    @135 Ed George:
    You conveniently *forgot* this part?
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent,Pandas%20Thumb,Sandwalk,Talk%20Origins
    I think it is fair to say that “evolutionist” sites have seen a declining trend for several years.
    We know evolution supporters have tremendous problems with the concept “comparison”.
    Just sayin’ 🙂

  137. 137
    jawa says:

    @135
    Ed George:

    “I think it is fair to say that UD and related sites have seen a declining trend for several years.”

    Does that include PT, SW, TSZ, PS too?

    Oh, never mind, my question was timely answered by Truthfreedom in his post right after yours.

    Interest over time
    Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.

    it seems like people in general don’t care much about this debate lately.

  138. 138
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    it seems like people in general don’t care much about this debate lately.

    I think that was the point I was making. The interest in ID, regardless of the site, has declined dramatically in the last several years.

  139. 139
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    Apparently you’ve misunderstood my point. It seems like many people in this post-truth age we’re going through don’t care about anything, that’s why all the websites in the list I posted have lower traffic than they used to. It’s a general trend. It’s not only UD. Amazon Alexa website stats seem more comprehensive than the Google trends. But both tools show the same trend. UD, TO, PT, SW, TSZ, are going down in traffic. It’s a general trend that hits all the websites dealing with the main worldview conflict.

    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent,Pandas%20Thumb,Sandwalk,Talk%20Origins

  140. 140
    Truthfreedom says:

    @138 Ed George

    I think that was the point I was making.

    And I think you are trying to equivocate and, again, you have failed miserably.

  141. 141
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    It’s a general trend that hits all the websites dealing with the main worldview conflict.

    The fact that we are seeing these trends strongly suggest that this is not the main worldview conflict, at least not for the vast majority of people.

    Although, I do find it interesting that while we are seeing a decline in interest in ID, we are also seeing a decline in interest in Christianity, homosexual, same sex marriage and transgendered,

  142. 142
    Truthfreedom says:

    @141 Ed George
    Your post does not make any sense (not surprising at all, by the way).
    You say things that you do not support and think you are “making a point”.
    Well, coming from someone who says that “killing your children increases their fitness”…

  143. 143
    pw says:

    Jawa and Ed George:

    What do you guys mean by “the main worldview conflict” ?

    What does that expression mean to each of you?

  144. 144
    kairosfocus says:

    Jawa, since c 2015 – 16, there has been a major cold civil war and culture conflict development in the USA. That has sucked Oxygen out of almost any specialised issue. It has not changed the foundational significance of worldviews, logic and first principles and linked foundations of science issues, or of origins issues. Indeed, going back to Plato in The Laws Bk X, guess where the radical relativism, amorality, perversity, nihilistic factionalism and general lawlessness are coming from? Further to this, it is quite clear that FSCO/I has just one credible source, design. Similarly, the cell has in it DNA, which implements machine code for building proteins, and is a linguistic phenomenon applied in key part to algorithms, which are inherently purposeful. Life, credibly, is designed. In our reasoning, we are inescapably morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice and fairness (so, rights) etc, constituting built in law and the framework for responsible bodies of knowledge and just civil law. Such moral government can only be founded in the root of reality, which is required to be inherently good and utterly wise, as well as capable of founding fine tuned universes fitted for cell based life, and more. These things of course cut clean across the intent and assumptions of the juggernaut of radical secularists and fellow travellers who wish to steamroller our civilisation. So, I am not particularly concerned on popularity trends; sooner or later foundational issues will have to be faced and we need to be ready for the unpredictable crisis that will trigger such a focus. One does not have to intentionally jump over a cliff to fall, cliffs by definition are prone to crumble and collapse underfoot. By ignoring the balance on merits and trying to impose a ruinous agenda — history warns, but is being ignored as usual — the radicals are pushing us to the brink of an abyss. KF

    PS: Plato’s warning:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  145. 145
  146. 146
    kairosfocus says:

    Pw, on worldviews issues, cf here. KF

  147. 147
    pw says:

    KF,

    “ Building a theistic Worldview: first principles and first truths”

    Excellent! Thanks.

  148. 148
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Jawa, since c 2015 – 16, there has been a major cold civil war and culture conflict development in the USA.

    Yes, we are slowly catching up with the rest of the world. We are slowly realizing that some of the Christian values that we have taken as “gospel” for the last couple centuries do not hold up to scrutiny. Men can no longer insist that their wives be subservient to them. We can no longer deprive homosexuals of happiness, employment, career advancement and equal treatment in society. We can no longer judge women who enjoy sex with multiple partners different than we do men. We can no longer treat pregnant teens as fallen women. We can no longer deny services to inter-racial couples or homosexual couples and claim religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate.

    This is a civil war that is long over due.

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    nope, as a civilisation we are re-learning a very old lesson (likely the hard way), as Plato warned us about ever so long ago:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    All that has changed is there is a strong push to move us to evolutionary materialist secularism and fellow travellers.

    As you know, a central test is the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, which per Guttmacher-UN figures is proceeding at about another million per week. That indicts us globally as utterly morally bankrupt.

    A sounder approach, less fraught with hazards for our civilisation would be to recognise that we are inescapably morally governed creatures. That starts with implicit premises in your argument, which your evolutionary materialism would overthrow: first duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness, to justice etc. Discard those and we don’t have a discussion or argument or even a quarrel. Just, a fight as to who will impose their will.

    Of course, nowadays, the idea that there is such built in law is “controversial,” but only because some people do not want to face the implication of our being under moral government. Having to bridge IS and OUGHT, only feasible at reality root. And requiring that the source of worlds is inherently good and utterly wise.

    But in the end, the choice is that or suicidal nihilism.

    KF

    PS: And since you have again specifically attacked the Christian faith, I point you here, to a discussion on its core warrant at 101 level. I suggest to you that unless you have a very good argument as to why that warrant fails, you are being dangerously irresponsible. Your grounds for such a confident manner dismissal are ______, and why they hold water in the teeth of evidence as just linked is _______ . Let’s hear your very good reasons, especially i/l/o the minimal facts considerations.

  150. 150
    pw says:

    KF @149:

    Excellent!

  151. 151
    OLV says:

    Multiple Rhythm-Generating Circuits Act in Tandem with Pacemaker Properties to Control the Start and Speed of Locomotion

    In vertebrates, specific command centers in the brain can selectively drive slow-explorative or fast-speed locomotion. However, it remains unclear how the locomotor central pattern generator (CPG) processes descending drive into coordinated locomotion.

    Here, we reveal, in adult zebrafish, a logic of the V2a interneuron rhythm-generating circuits involving recurrent and hierarchical connectivity that acts in tandem with pacemaker properties to provide an ignition and gear-shift mechanism to start locomotion and change speed. A comprehensive mapping of synaptic connections reveals three recurrent circuit modules engaged sequentially to increase locomotor speed. The connectivity between V2a interneurons of different modules displayed a clear asymmetry in favor of connections from faster to slower modules. The interplay between V2a interneuron pacemaker properties and their organized connectivity provides a mechanism for locomotor initiation and speed control. Thus, our results provide mechanistic insights into how the spinal CPG transforms descending drive into locomotion and align its speed with the initial intention.

  152. 152
    OLV says:

    Control of locomotor speed, arousal, and hippocampal theta rhythms by the nucleus incertus

    Navigation requires not only the execution of locomotor programs but also high arousal and real-time retrieval of spatial memory that is often associated with hippocampal theta oscillations. However, the neural circuits for coordinately controlling these important processes remain to be fully dissected.

    It is thus possible that different neuron populations within the NI synergistically regulate various behavioral processes by acting at specific cell types in distinct downstream brain areas. Dissecting the functionally relevant GABAergic and glutamatergic NMB outputs in a cell type- and brain area-specific manner will be an exciting topic to pursue in the future.

  153. 153
    Truthfreedom says:

    We are slowly realizing that some of the Christian values that we have taken as “gospel” for the last couple centuries do not hold up to scrutiny.

    Cute. Says the atheist materialist with his irrational self-defeating philosophy.
    Your atheist faith is nothing more than that, another faith. Another religion. Your nihilist cult.

  154. 154
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks for related websites today:

    EN:……….230,071……….1%
    TO:……….505,361…………1%
    UD:……….638,347…………1%
    PT:……..2,502,046………..3%
    SW:……3,076,179………….4%
    TSZ:……6,163,423…………7%

    TO’s rank has bounced back up lately, though still remaining far below EN.
    PS has sunk so deep that it has fallen off Alexa’s radar. No idea why.

    Note the Alexa associations:
    EN:   TO, UD, 864
    TO:   EN, 2,757
    UD:   EN, TSZ, 652
    PT:   UD, 1,022
    SW:   UD, 473
    TSZ:  UD, PS, 44
    PS:   TSZ, 15

    We shouldn’t compare apples and alligators, as Ed George suggested. 🙂

  155. 155
    Ed George says:

    TF

    Cute. Says the atheist materialist with his irrational self-defeating philosophy.

    Then I guess it is a good thing that I am neither an atheist nor a materialist. Did you have something of substance to say, or should I just ignore your comments? (Probably a rhetorical question).

  156. 156
    jawa says:

    I looked at TO website and found this:
    Copyright © 1998-2016 Archive
    And did not see posts after 2015
    But they have a very visible link to PT, which still runs.
    How can we explain that TO has a much higher Alexa rank than PT?

  157. 157
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, I may be mistaken but I believe that TO was hosted on a server by Larry Moran. He retired a couple years ago.

  158. 158
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    I think Dr Moran’s blog is SW, which is still active.

  159. 159
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, Sandwalk is his personal blog. But it is my understanding that TO was hosted on a server located in his office. When he retired, it was moved elsewhere.

  160. 160
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you have made several attacks against the Christian faith and have tried to use moral relativism as a motivation for further pushing questionable but fashionable trends being advanced under colour of law. Accordingly, I replied at 149 above, and have challenged you to respond substantially. KF

    PS: I see you disclaim being a materialist. However, that is not a necessary requirement for being involved in promoting evolutionary materialistic scientism, in a world where “fellow traveller” has significance. The core worldviews issue is, that we are inherently under moral government, starting with first duties of reason. Duties, such as to truth, right reason, prudence [so, to warrant], to sound conscience, to fairness and justice, etc. Duties, which are implicit premises in your argument (and for all serious discussion). That poses the issue of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, and post Hume such can only be resolved at reality root; on pain of ungrounded ought. There is just one serious candidate on the table, given that to bridge the gap, we need the root to be inherently good and utterly wise. What is at stake otherwise — as crops up often enough in discussions on roots of morality in contexts dominated by evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — is reduction of OUGHT to delusion, delusion that pervades our whole rationality. Grand delusion. Which, is absurd. In short, the issue is central.

  161. 161
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    Did professor Moran retire in 2016?

    I thought he retired more recently.

    Anyway, it’s interesting that TO, a website that hasn’t updated even their copyright stamp since 2016, has more traffic than PT which is still active and is linked very conspicuously from TO.

  162. 162
    jawa says:

    Also I may have to review the associations Alexa shows
    Maybe I missed some of them
    Because TO is explicitly linked to PT
    I would expect Alexa to show TO in PT stats.
    UD is shown in PT, but TO isn’t.

  163. 163
    jawa says:

    Apparently Alexa provides more information to the subscribers.
    But the connection between TO and PT seems so conspicuous that I would expect that association to show up in the free information.

    Could this be a misunderstanding or a bug in their software?

  164. 164
    Truthfreedom says:

    @155 EG

    Truthfreedom: Says the atheist materialist with his irrational self-defeating philosophy.

    EG: Then I guess it is a good thing that I am neither an atheist nor a materialist. Did you have something of substance to say, or should I just ignore your comments? (Probably a rhetorical question).

    And you are?

  165. 165
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, apparently this is where I found the link between TO and Larry Moran.

    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/03/does-talkorigins-still-exist.html

    And apparently, he retired in 2017.

    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/some-of-my-former-students.html

  166. 166
    Ed George says:

    TF

    And you are?

    Agnostic on both.

  167. 167
    jawa says:

    165. Ed George,

    Thank you for that interesting information. I wasn’t aware of it.

    I don’t understand why TO -which doesn’t seem updated lately- does so much better in Alexa stats than PT -which is very visibly linked from TO and still gets updated quite frequently.
    Also don’t understand why I don’t see any TO-PT association in Alexa stats.

  168. 168
    Ed George says:

    Jawa, sorry. I can’t help you with that. I’ve only been to TO and PT a couple times.

  169. 169
    jawa says:

    Ed George,

    That’s fine. No problem.
    I think only Alexa techies could explain it.
    🙂

  170. 170
    OLV says:

    ‘Textbook’ view of brain and spinal cord development revisited

    For decades, biology textbooks have taught that developing nerve cells initially form the brain and over time, some transform into spinal cord, but a new study from researchers at the Francis Crick Institute challenges this view.

     

    Fill-in the blanks:

    For decades, biology textbooks have taught that…

    but a new study…

    challenges this view.

    a critical decision is made earlier in cells than previously anticipated and this predetermines whether they form the brain or spinal cord.

    Running from head to tail in animals and humans, the central nervous system is divided into the brain, which contains the nerve cells responsible for complex information processing and decision making, and the spinal cord, containing nerve cells for sensing and moving the body. How the cells that make the two parts of the nervous system are formed in an embryo has been a long-standing question in developmental biology.

    the formation of the spinal cord is predetermined in cells before they become neural cells

    This challenges the textbook view of how the nervous system is formed, which suggested that neural cells progressively transition from brain to spinal cord.

    during early development, the activity of a set of proteins, known as CDX transcription factors, establishes which cells can form spinal cord by altering the organisation of the genome in cells.

    These proteins not only appear to activate genes needed for the development of spinal neurons but also repress genes specific for brain neurons

  171. 171
    OLV says:

    A design principle for floral organ number and arrangement in flowers with bilateral symmetry

    The bilateral symmetry of flowers is a striking morphological achievement during floral evolution, providing high adaptation potential for pollinators. The symmetry can appear when floral organ primordia developmentally initiate. Primordia initiation at the ventral and dorsal sides of the floral bud is differentially regulated by several factors, including external organs of the flower and CYCLOIDEA (CYC) gene homologues, which are expressed asymmetrically on the dorso-ventral axis. It remains unclear how these factors control the diversity in the number and bilateral arrangement of floral organs. Here, we propose a mathematical model demonstrating that the relative strength of the dorsal-to-ventral inhibitions and the size of the floral stem cell region (meristem) determines the number and positions of the sepal and petal primordia. The simulations reproduced the diversity of monocots and eudicots, including snapdragon Antirrhinum majus and its cyc mutant, with respect to organ number, arrangement and initiation patterns, which were dependent on the inhibition strength. These theoretical results suggest that diversity in floral symmetry is primarily regulated by the dorso-ventral inhibitory field and meristem size during developmental evolution.

     

     

  172. 172
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks for related websites today:
    EN:……..243,078………………1
    TO:……..467,275……………….1
    UD:……..602,970………………1
    PT:…..2,883,234………………3
    SW:…3,062,428……………….4
    TSZ:….6,147,325…………………7

  173. 173
  174. 174
  175. 175
    pw says:

    In the conclusions of the paper linked in the previous comment:

    “The developing spinal cord has served as a leading model system to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying cell fate specification and the establishment and function of neuronal circuits. Ground-breaking work by multiple groups has revealed how neuronal cell identities are established by GRNs that delineate NP identities along the DV and AP axes of the embryonic spinal cord by integrating the levels, duration and dynamics of multiple signalling pathways. Neurons further diversify in response to cell-cell interactions, diffusible signals and along a temporal axis. These mechanisms provide a general framework for understanding neuronal subtype diversification, but they are probably just the tip of the iceberg and other mechanisms likely exist that drive further neuronal diversification. ”

    “just the tip of the iceberg”?

    Wow!

  176. 176
    pw says:

    “Our results suggest a TF code composed of class-specific and region-specific TFs generates EE cell diversity.”

    “class- and region-specific TFs regulate subtype specification.”

    ”EE cellular diversity is generated by a combination of class-specific and region-specific TFs, with class-specific TFs regulated by Notch signaling and region-specific TFs determined by anterior-posterior body planning during early development. The local EE diversity could also be regulated by environmental changes and age-related cell plasticity, possibilities that remain to be explored in the future.“

    Another code?

    https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(19)31530-X

  177. 177
  178. 178
    pw says:

    @177:

    “Unexpected insights into the dynamic structure of mitochondria”

    Unexpected?

    What else did they expect?

    Why?

  179. 179
    pw says:

    @178:

    “In our opinion, this finding fundamentally changes the way our cellular power plants work and will probably change the textbooks,” says Prof. Dr. Andreas Reichert, Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I at the HHU. The results are described in a publication in EMBO Reports.

    “ change the textbooks”?

    Oh, no! Again?

    🙂

  180. 180
    pw says:

    Wow! More ID?

    “A novel self-organizing embryonic stem cell system reveals signaling logic underlying the patterning of human ectoderm“
    https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/20/dev179093.long

  181. 181
    pw says:

    Single cell transcriptomics reveals spatial and temporal dynamics of gene expression in the developing mouse spinal cord

    https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/12/dev173807

  182. 182
    jawa says:

    Interesting that ID objectors stay away from scientific discussions
    There was a time when Drs AH (UK) and LM (UT) stopped by to present their poor arguments, but not anymore.
    PW boldly proclaimed ID citing science papers. Are the ID objectors going to let PW get away with his claims?
    🙂

  183. 183
    OLV says:

    Warning:
    Potential ID overdose: this post may cause severe reactions in individuals who are allergic to ID. 🙂

    Embryonic development depends on accurate, timely and specific communication between cells. Our understanding of cell-cell communication has evolved* over many decades.

    developmental signaling systems are not passive transmitters of information from an extracellular ligand to an intracellular effector. The information they sense is represented in diverse ways, many of which could not be inferred from knowledge of molecular interactions alone.

    Currently, we represent pathways predominantly in molecular terms. But a complementary understanding will come from the ability to represent them as programs that address messages to specific cell types, control the ‘content’ (target program) of a message, and specify the precise spatial distribution of intercellular messages

    Paper: Communication codes in developmental signaling pathways

    (*) evolved? another indisputable evidence that evolution is true. 🙂

  184. 184
  185. 185
    OLV says:

    More evidences for ID

    A novel self-organizing embryonic stem cell system reveals signaling logic underlying the patterning of human ectoderm

    During development, the ectoderm is patterned by a combination of BMP and WNT signaling. Research in model organisms has provided substantial insight into this process; however, there are currently no systems in which to study ectodermal patterning in humans. Further, the complexity of neural plate border specification has made it difficult to transition from discovering the genes involved to deeper mechanistic understanding. Here, we develop an in vitro model of human ectodermal patterning, in which human embryonic stem cells self-organize to form robust and quantitatively reproducible patterns corresponding to the complete medial-lateral axis of the embryonic ectoderm. Using this platform, we show that the duration of endogenous WNT signaling is a crucial control parameter, and that cells sense relative levels of BMP and WNT signaling in making fate decisions. These insights allowed us to develop an improved protocol for placodal differentiation. Thus, our platform is a powerful tool for studying human ectoderm patterning and for improving directed differentiation protocols.

     

     

  186. 186
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks for related websites today:
    EN:……..244,566………………1
    TO:……..447,337……………….1
    UD:……..577,592………………1
    SW:…2,477,050………………3
    PT:…..3,518,082………………4
    TSZ:….8,888,977……………9

  187. 187
  188. 188
    JVL says:

    Jawa, 186:

    Can you interpret this data for me? I recognise two of the websites but what are the others? The numbers don’t represents hits or visits surely; I don’t believe TSZ has over 8 million visits!!

    Thanks!

  189. 189
    jawa says:

    JVL,

    Thank you for asking those questions.
    You’re correct that that information is too cryptic and could lead to misunderstanding. My fault.
    Let’s try to clarify it:
    The numbers are provided by Alexa as global ranks regarding internet traffic. The lower the number, the better. However, one must compare related websites. Alexa provides information that shows certain relation between websites. But one could argue that the criteria they apply to the website associations are not quite accurate. That’s debatable. But one must compare apples with apples. A while ago another commenter tried to compare apples and alligators. That doesn’t work.
    The % numbers are based on the top 100 million active websites. A given n% number indicates that the website is among the top n% of the top 100M active websites.
    The acronyms are:
    EN is Evolution News
    TO is Talk Origins
    UD is this website
    SW is Dr LM’s Sandwalk blog
    PT is Panda’s Thumb
    TSZ is The Skeptical Zone
    PS is Peaceful Science

    The rank numbers vary almost daily, sometimes quite drastically. TSZ does very poorly lately. PS was in the list but sank so low that it got off the Alexa radar. I don’t quite understand what’s exactly going on with those rank numbers.

    Please, let me know if this answered your questions or if you have other questions.

  190. 190
    jawa says:

    JVL,
    Let me correct my previous comment:

    The statement
    “ The lower the number, the better.”
    is not clear.
    It should say:
    “The smaller the number, the better.”
    Obviously ranks under 1M are much better than ranks over 1M.
    The % numbers help to clarify it.

  191. 191
    JVL says:

    Jawa, 189, 190:

    Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you!!

  192. 192
    OLV says:

    The 4 Ps of developmental biology morphogenesis:
    Pattern, Position, Precision, Proportion

    Neuronal differentiation influences progenitor arrangement in the vertebrate neuroepithelium

    Cell division, movement and differentiation contribute to pattern formation in developing tissues. This is the case in the vertebrate neural tube, in which neurons differentiate in a characteristic pattern from a highly dynamic proliferating pseudostratified epithelium.

    Simulations predict that tissue growth and the shape of lineage-related clones of cells differ with the rate of differentiation. Growth is isotropic in regions of high differentiation, but dorsoventrally biased in regions of low differentiation.

    global mechanical constraints are sufficient to explain the observed differences in anisotropy.

    This provides insight into how the tissue growth rate affects cell dynamics and growth anisotropy and opens up possibilities to study the coupling between mechanics, pattern formation and growth in the neural tube.

    The mechanisms that control the arrangement of cells in developing tissues involve both molecular and mechanical processes that spatially and temporally coordinate the division, shape, displacement and differentiation of cells. A central challenge is to understand the interplay between tissue growth, pattern formation and the mechanical forces that act to shape tissues during development.

    the difference in the growth regime between domains influences the degree of tissue anisotropy. Further theoretical investigation will be needed to understand the exact relationships between growth anisotropy, the rate of proliferation and differentiation.

    cell division orientation does not contribute to anisotropic tissue growth

    In future work, we wish to couple this tissue model to quantitative descriptions of the spread of morphogens that pattern the tissue and the gene regulatory networks that specify neuronal subtype identity. In this way, we hope to gain insight into the coupling of growth and patterning in the neural tube and understand how the position, precision and proportions of cell types are achieved.

     

  193. 193
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ OLV:
    Nice links! Thank you.
    Regarding ID, a few days ago I read comments saying that “complexity is a mark of no intelligence/ no designer”.
    What can we offer to counteract this claim?

  194. 194
    OLV says:

    Truthfreedom,

    What do they mean by “complexity”?

  195. 195
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks for related websites today:
    EN:……..249,823………………1
    TO:……..447,998……………….1
    UD:……..578,519………………1
    PT:……2,311,282………………3
    SW:…2,479,844…………..3
    TSZ:….8,917,217………….…9

Leave a Reply