Recently a commenter suggested that by not taking moderation action on an inappropriate comment, UD’s moderators had tacitly endorsed it.  I would like to set the record straight on this once and for all.  UD is no one’s day job.  We have no staff.  This is a 100% volunteer effort.  I have a job and my duties at that job ebb and flow.  When I have time, I am more active, both in posting and moderating.  And the converse is also true.  For example, on Monday I am leaving for China on a business trip.  I will be gone for a week and doubt I will have much time for UD during that time. Therefore, if you see an inappropriate Read More ›

This is from a new study published in Nature Communications, and talked about at Phys.Org. Oh, how difficult it is these days to be an “intellectually fulfilled” neo-Darwinian: Humans don’t like being alone, and their genes are no different. Together we are stronger, and the two versions of a gene – one from each parent – need each other. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin have analysed the genetic makeup of several hundred people and decoded the genetic information on the two sets of chromosomes separately. In this relatively small group alone they found millions of different gene forms. The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome Read More ›

In my recent post, On the impossibility of replicating the cell: A problem for naturalism, I argued that naturalism, even if true, cannot be shown to be true or even probable – in which case, I asked, why should rational people believe it? The responses of my critics reveal a real poverty of thinking on the part of those who believe evolution to be a totally unguided process. The “naturalism” that I criticized in my post was not methodological naturalism (which makes no claims about the nature of reality, but merely states that non-naturalistic explanations of reality don’t properly count as scientific ones). My target was a more robust kind of naturalism, which I termed “scientific naturalism”: namely, “the view Read More ›