Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How is that project of reintroducing lost species coming?

The interesting part will be to see whether—if both the animals and the environment have changed—reintroduction or recreation from advanced genomic techniques produces a viable independent species or a species that humans must indefinitely maintain. Read More ›

There, that’s it! Environment changes made humans more adaptable

Hey, this is a good theory as to why people needed to branch out and develop more networks. But we’re overlooking a key issue here: Humans could only do that if something already differentiated us from hyenas… It wasn’t just the environment. Read More ›

Crabs evolved separately at least five times

At Popular Mechanics: It’s not just superficial shape that unifies the five evolved crab forms. The paper details neurological commonalities, shared circulatory systems, and more, while also detailing the organ and systems that differ in shape and size. Read More ›

The Immense Negative Impact of External Physical World Theory

[ETA: The OMG TOO LONG I don’t know if I wanna read all that teaser: I have said before it’s impossible to deny the value of the external physical world theory. In one sense it’s true – we have made a lot of scientific progress under that model. However, in comparison to what MRT could have provided and prevented, the overall effect has been disastrous, not just for science, but for the human condition as well.] External physical world theory is the theory that an objective, physical world exists external of mind that causes a set of subjective personal experiences, thus explaining the difference between experiences we have in common with other people, and experiences that others don’t appear to Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on those curious DNA circles in the human body and the death of Common Descent

This little toolkit looks designed for horizontal gene transport (HGT), but there wasn't anything similar to it for eukaryotes. Then came this article. And apparently humans (a rather sophisticated eukaryote) have circular DNA as well, it just was overlooked for 30 years. Read More ›

Free will makes more sense of our world than determinism—and science certainly allows for it

Scientists weigh in on both sides but accepting free will allows us to avoid some serious problems around logic and personal freedom. Read More ›

One of those rare instances where science is self-correcting … Ioannidis is vindicated

Hey, that's good news. But what about all the people whose lives were turned upside down by the herd of stampeding buffalo otherwise known as our moral and intellectual superiors? Read More ›

Some researchers arrive at an important truth about “consensus science”

Researchers: “When individuals are fully independent, even under highly unfavorable circumstances a consensus provides strong evidence for the correctness of the affirmed position. This no longer remains the case once dependence, polarization, and external pressure are introduced. With such interventions, the probability of a false consensus increases dramatically. ” “Shut up, he explained” is not consensus, it’s false consensus. Read More ›

Karsten Pultz offers some thoughts on the flap over the now-famous Thorvaldsen and Hössjer paper

It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems... Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it. Read More ›

Judge Amy Barrett and positivist “constitutional jurisprudence” as usurpation, vs., the natural law (and the natural/original sense of a Constitution)

One of the almost amusing features of UD is to observe threads largely dodged by inveterate objectors (given the known, intense hostile scrutiny we face). One of those threads, recently, has been the discussion of Judge Amy Barrett and the hearings she faces. However, in the course of some discussion some themes were sounded that are worth further focus, so, let us headline some of these. A good start point is with a Washington Post Op Ed by Brian Leiter, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School: Let’s start telling the truth about what the Supreme Court does Opinion by Brian LeiterMarch 19, 2017 Ordinary Americans may be understandably perplexed by the controversy over nominating a judge to Read More ›

Science writer mourns the slow suicide of science

Alex Berezow: "Political partisanship. There was a time when scientists knew better than to deal in politics. That time is now gone. Openly cheering for one side of the political spectrum over the other, scientists and science media outlets are gambling with their reputation." Well, from an international perspective, here’s the obvious problem: If the US Prez is THAT important, science ain’t what it used to be. Read More ›

That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it's only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles. Read More ›