Most exoplanets, we are told, fall into this size range and it is not yet known if it has a rocky surface, considered important for life. Here’s a roundup of some things we know.
No? Does such a perfect pop culture anthropology theory even have a right not to be true? Let alone be called by a rival anthropologist “bizarre” and “weird,” as in the article at The Scientist?
Carroll: “The price we pay for such a powerful and simple unification of quantum dynamics is a large number of separate worlds.” Right. And the price you pay for suicide is that nothing you do in this world afterward matters.
Wouldn’t structuralism (pre-existing patterns) make better sense than Darwinism (it somehow evolved by trial and error)?
We owe a debt of honour to remember. So, in absence of the full 9 -hour CNN feed that seems to no longer be there, first NBC live: Here is a timeline: Let us remember, and let us remember that September 11, 2001 was the 318th anniversary of the lifting of the last, 1683 Ottoman […]
Russ White: It is not enough, as Turing proposed, to trick a person into thinking a computer is a person. Somewhere there must be a person who intends this result. If the artificial intelligence cannot provide that intent, then the person who designs the system must.
It sounds as though these researchers want to quietly abandon Darwinian randomness in favour of a structuralist approach to the unfolding of life but — understandably — do not want to hear from an army of Darwinian orcs.
Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?
Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?
While we of UD have but little interest as a blog in 2020 US election campaign tactics etc and endorse no candidate, the research by Dr. Robert Epstein on How Big Tech’s Algorithms Can Impact Opinions and Votes speaks far more broadly. We have cause to be concerned (and no, it’s not just Wikipedia’s notorious […]
It seems, this issue is on the table here at UD again, and it needs to be publicly corrected for record. As a first step, I link a discussion in response to the oppression thesis used to try to discredit and marginalise the historical contribution of the Christian faith (and to create the false impression […]
Not from Darwinism? A technique to reveal cells’ epigenetic features is detailed
The entire history of Kettlewell’s Peppered Moth experiment is littered with problems: doctored photographs, wrong assumptions and slim evidence, followed by genetic analysis revealing that the protein exons coding for color were not changed, but, rather, a transposon (non-random) was inserted in an intron (“junk DNA”). And now there’s this paper. It seems that the […]
A new study seems to substantiate Max Planck’s quip that new paradigms arise when the supporters of the old ones die.
Remember as you read about Gaia and “life’s ability to shape the universe,” that this op-ed appeared in Scientific American, not Mystic Waters News. Listen carefully and, somewhere in the background, you will hear Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne crooning, “I fought Woo-WOO and woo-WOO won.” Some North American readers will recognize a musical snatch here. In fairness, we warned them. ID isn’t the big enemy. ID proposes to reform evolution studies along real-world lines, not to dump the canon of science.