In 2012, Italian theoretical biologist Marcello Barbieri resigned as editor of the journal Biosemiotics because he felt that research in this area had become unscientific.
“‘For a long time, we thought that having a lot of protocadherins was only found in vertebrates, so we were really surprised when we found more than 160 of them in the octopus genome,’ said Albertin, in reference to her 2015 paper on the subject.”
Jonathan Wells: I have consistently found that these two groups [home-schooled students or students from private Christian schools] are among the brightest and most interested of attendees, and they raise most of the best questions.
That is, Darwinians argue that similar structures in life forms are powerful evidence of common ancestry. Is that so? It’s part of an occasional series called Long Story Short.
At Quanta, it’s suggested they might be linked to extinction events.
Hossenfelder: What we have here in the foundation of physics is a plain failure of the scientific method. All these wrong predictions should have taught physicists that just because they can write down equations for something does not mean this math is a scientifically promising hypothesis.
Can you imagine that years ago? But the fact is, materialists are out of ideas about consciousness and don’t know where to go.
Most people (including experts) tend to have a one-level view of causation. That is, they have a static idea of what the subject matter is, and then they look to see how the pieces bounce around within that static structure. That more or less works for physics. It totally fails everywhere else.
The Twitter mob must be at lunch or something. An entire industry of bestselling Darwindrivel is disrespected and this prof still has her JOB?
In an age when objectivity is becoming science’s enemy in the United States and massive corruption is a norm in its former science competitor Russia, scientists can still make a virtue out of being true to Darwin. Wherever that lands them.
It will be interesting indeed if the legacy of the thought traditions that provided a basis for science in the western world ended up being carried on mainly by devout Christians. While the official science world continues to mires and beclown itself in a war on objectivity.
Thompson’s point is applicable beyond Buddhism. “Theistic” evolutionists, for example, start with the premise that God wouldn’t “create” anything. That is really a message about God, not about nature, and it is bound to be a church-closer.
The claim couldn’t be replicated. But then how likely IS it that haywire fish would actually be attracted to predators instead of just behaving in weird ways, getting themselves eaten?
The authors of the paper, of course, avoid pointing out that the presumption of uselessness was anchored in the comfortable fit between useless junk in the genome and the idea of unintelligent evolution. Never mind, Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA seems to be holding up well.
This is not horizontal gene transfer; the fish are eating and repurposing the enzymes rather than incorporating the genes for producing them. But if the fish can in fact steal the enzymes, that’s something to keep in mind as we hear evolutionary biologists explain to us how this and other traits evolved via natural selection acting on the random mutations of the fish’s genome (Darwinism)…