Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Topic

New Scientist

(Reformed) New Scientist 4: There is more to inheritance than just genes

At New Scientist: “Subsequent studies in plants and animals suggest that epigenetic inheritance is more common than anyone had expected. Whatʼs more, compared with genetic inheritance, it has some big advantages. Environments can change rapidly and dramatically, but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold.” Just think, within a few years, genetics might start to make some sense. You’ve got to hand it to the New Scientist gang; when they rethink, they really do. Read More ›

(Reformed) New Scientist 3: The Selfish Gene Is No Longer Cool

Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article three days ago on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.” Their Number 3 rethink is … Move Over, Selfish Gene. It’s replaced not just by kin selection now but by cultural group selection. Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #3: But kin selection cannot explain why humans are so nice to strangers… Some researchers think the solution lies in an idea called cultural group selection. Forget shared genes, they argue: selection can favour cooperative groups if the people within them share enough culture. The idea is controversial because to work it requires that groups remain culturally distinct. As critics point out, people Read More ›

Reformed New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence

At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.” Read More ›

At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature

If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren't selfish and don't come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start... Read More ›

Dave Coppedge comments on New Scientist’s “Big Bang” origin of life theory

Coppedge: Marshall and the evolutionists he marshals together know full well that any of the basic requirements for life – metabolism, a container and a code – are unlikely to spontaneously form separately, much less together at the same time and place. Read More ›

Human evolution changes dramatically—again!

The long article behind the paywall refers to the “increasingly outdated concept of what constitutes a species,” “just one of dozens of competing definitions.” Increasingly outdated and uncertain, yes. But remember, the Darwin revolution was about—wait for it!—On the Origin of SPECIES. Read More ›

New Scientist tries to undermine Cambrian explosion

The Ediacaran creatures are fascinating predecessors to be sure. They will likely turn out to be explosions of life, just like the Cambrian, but often not clearly related to it. Read More ›

Times a-changin’ New Scientist now hails mind over matter

No, really. Here’s what they say in 2018 about the placebo effect (you start to get better when you think you are getting better): “OUR minds aren’t passive observers simply observing reality as it is; our minds actually change reality. The reality we experience tomorrow is partly the product of the mindsets we hold today.” That’s what Alia Crum told global movers and shakers at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It may sound like New Age nonsense, but Crum, who heads the Mind & Body lab at Stanford University in California, can back up her claims with hard evidence showing the mysterious influence the mind has over our health and well-being.David Robson, “How a positive mind really Read More ›