Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Günter Bechly: Ediacarans are not animals

From Part II of the “Precambrian House of Cards”: Even Evans et al. (2021) themselves admit that “phylogenetic affinities for most of the Ediacara Biota remain enigmatic” and say that “Many Ediacara taxa may represent stem lineages of animal phyla but their diagnostic characters either were not preserved or had not yet evolved.” Hear, hear. Günter Bechly, “Ediacarans Are Not Animals” at Mind Matters News The rest of Gunter Bechly’s series is here. Maybe back then it just wasn’t as clear.

Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on: In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed. “It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that Read More ›

Gregory Chaitin on the dead hand of bureaucracy in science

Chaitin: I have a pessimistic vision which I hope is completely wrong, that the bureaucracies are like a cancer — the ones that control research and funding for research and counting how much you’ve been publishing. I’ve noticed that at universities, for example, the administrative personnel are gradually taking all the best buildings and expanding. So I think that the bureaucracy and the rules and regulations increases to the point that it sinks the society. Read More ›

Fine tuning of the universe: The strong force and the fine structure constant

Luke Barnes: What would happen in a hypothetical universe in which the fundamental constants of nature had other values? There is nothing mathematically wrong with these hypothetical universes. But there is one thing that they almost always lack — life. Read More ›

Another evidence-free whoop for the multiverse

Let’s be clear here. We have evidence for fine-tuning in the only universe we know to exist. To argue against it, we must posit universes for which we have no evidence and maybe cannot ever have any evidence. This makes sense, WHY again? Isn't it all becoming a bit of a scandal? Read More ›

Interact with your ID faves in the Trinity College webinars — but book soon!

Registrations were pretty heavy for the first webinar, the one with John Lennox,(“Has Science Buried God?”). We are told there are numbers constraints even for online stuff. So if you see something you like below, get your index finger moving around that Registration Link button! Read More ›

Michael Egnor’s thought experiment on partial brain transplants

Egnor: We tend to assume that there must be a medium of communication both between our eyes and our whole brain in order to see. But people who have had split brain surgery see quite well even though their hemispheres have been separated (thus there is no direct connection). If the eyes (and hemispheres) are separated by 4000 miles, would the principle be any different? Read More ›

Can cryogenics (freezing at death) preserve memories or consciousness?

The question cryogenics of the connectome raises is, can we freeze and then recover consciousness itself as opposed to simply saving imprints of a person’s memories? Dr. Frankenstein is now taking your calls. Read More ›

Wikipedia presents pseudo-“knowledge” [fake “knowledge”?] on ID, yet again

In discussing implication logic and first duties, Wikipedia on ID came up yet again. The lead’s manifest failure to be responsibly objective, descending into slander from the outset, speaks volumes: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”.[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank Read More ›

How Darwinism wound its way into various schemes for improving American society

Scambray: Hofstadter softened Darwin, making his a “conservative” force, supporting the laissez-faire status quo. Others classified Darwin as a change agent, a precursor to social planning. These intermural quarrels aside, Watson demonstrates that progressivism “aimed a dagger at the heart of the Constitution.” … Read More ›

Grand Darwinian experiment with 10,000 generations of yeast proves that Mike Behe is right

If the authors could have predicted adaptation through loss-of-function mutations, why didn’t they let high school textbook authors and pop science presenters in on the secret?: Michael Behe is right: Darwin devolves. Evolution is mostly about devolution. Does that maybe make sense in a universe where entropy is growing? But where does it leave Darwin? At the bus stop after the last bus has left? Read More ›

Taking aim at species classifier Carl Linnaeus for racism — but not Darwin

Now, how on earth did Haeckel get the idea of “social Darwinism”? Or is it “social Derwoodism.” Surely Haeckel can’t have been riffing of the celebrated Brit toff who wrote all this racist stuff? Whatever, Darwin still has an asbestos reputation among the Woke. Anyone can be blamed for the generally racist attitudes of 19th century scientists except the man who did so much to pass them on. Read More ›

At MMN: Columbia professor wants government to regulate news media (Don’t imagine these moves won’t affect ID)

Bassett: “[J]ournalists have bizarrely transformed from their traditional role as leading free expression defenders into the most vocal censorship advocates, using their platforms to demand that tech monopolies ban and silence others,” writes award-winning journalist and former attorney Glenn Greenwald. Read More ›