Disinherited no more?

 Human Origins: All in the Family 

Casey Luskin 

Editor’s note: We have been delighted to present a series by geologist Casey Luskin asking, “Do Fossils Demonstrate Human Evolution?” This is the sixth and final post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

In contrast to the australopithecines, the major members of Homo — i.e., erectus and the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) — are very similar to us. Some paleoanthropologists have even classified erectus and neanderthalensisas members of our own species, Homo sapiens.1

Homo erectus appears in the fossil record a little more than two million years ago. Its name means “upright man,” and unsurprisingly, below the neck, they were extremely similar to us.2 An Oxford University Press volume notes erectus was “humanlike in its stature, body mass, and body proportions.”3 An analysis of 1.5-million-year-old Homo erectus footprints4 indicates “a modern human style of walking” and “human-like social behaviours.”5 Unlike the australopithecines and habilines, erectus is the “earliest species to demonstrate the modern human semicircular canal morphology.”6

Arrival by Boat 

Another study found that total energy expenditure (TEE), a complex character related to body size, diet, and food-gathering activity, “increased substantially in Homo erectus relative to the earlier australopithecines,” approaching the high TEE value of modern humans.7 While the average brain size of Homo erectus is less than the modern human average, erectus cranial capacities are within the range of normal human variation.8 Intriguingly, erectus remains have been found on islands where the most likely explanation is that they arrived by boat. Anthropologists have argued this indicates high intelligence and the use of complex language.9 Donald Johanson suggests that were erectus alive today, it could mate with modern humans to produce fertile offspring.10 In other words, were it not for our separation by time, we might be considered interbreeding members of the same species.  

A Neanderthal in Modern Clothing 

As for Neanderthals, though they have been stereotyped as bungling and primitive, if a Neanderthal walked down the street, appropriately dressed, you probably wouldn’t notice. Wood and Collard note that “skeletons of H. neanderthalensis indicate that their body shape was within the range of variation seen in modern humans.”11 Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus maintains that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than contemporary humans12 and argues, “They may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively they were all just people.”13 University of Bordeaux archaeologist Francesco d’Errico agrees: “Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way.”14

Though controversial, hard evidence backs these claims. Anthropologist Stephen Molnar explains that “the estimated mean size of [Neanderthal] cranial capacity (1,450 cc) is actually higher than the mean for modern humans (1,345 cc).”15 One paper in Nature suggested that “the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed” in Neanderthals.16 Indeed, Neanderthal remains have been found associated with signs of culture, including art, burial of their dead, and complex tools17 — including musical instruments like the flute.18 While dated, a 1908 report in Nature reports a Neanderthal-type skeleton wearing chain mail armor.19 Archaeologist Metin Eren said, regarding toolmaking, that “in many ways, Neanderthals were just as smart or just as good as us.”20 Morphological mosaics — skeletons showing a mix of modern human and Neanderthal traits — suggest “Neandertals and modern humans are members of the same species who interbred freely.”

Indeed, scientists now report Neanderthal DNA markers in living humans,22 supporting proposals that Neanderthals were a subrace of our own species.23 As Trinkaus says regarding ancient Europeans and Neanderthals, “[W]e would understand both to be human. There’s good reason to think that they did as well.”24

Darwin skeptics continue to debate whether we are related to Neanderthals and Homo erectus, and evidence can be mounted both ways.25 The present point, however, is this: Even if we do share common ancestry with Neanderthals or erectus, this does not show we share ancestry with any nonhuman-like hominins.

According to Siegrid Hartwig-Scherer, the differences between human-like members of Homo such as erectus, Neanderthals, and us reflect mere microevolutionary effects of “size variation, climatic stress, genetic drift, and differential expression of [common] genes.”26 Whether we are related to them or not, these small-scale differences do notshow the evolution of humans from nonhuman-like or ape-like creatures. 

A Cultural Explosion 

In 2015, two top paleoanthropologists admitted in a major review that “the evolutionary sequence for the majority of hominin lineages is unknown.”27 Despite the claims of evolutionary paleoanthropologists and unceasing media hype, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. The genus Homo appears in an abrupt, non-Darwinian fashion without evidence of an evolutionary transition from ape-like hominins. Other major members of Homo appear very similar to modern humans, and their differences amount to small-scale microevolutionary change — providing no evidence that we are related to nonhuman-like species. 

But there’s more evidence that contradicts an evolutionary model.

Many researchers have recognized an “explosion”28 of modern human-like culture in the archaeological record about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, showing the abrupt appearance of human creativity,29 technology, art,30 and even paintings31 — as well as the rapid emergence of self-awareness, group identity, and symbolic thought.32 One review dubbed this the “Creative Explosion.”33 Indeed, a 2014 paper coauthored by leading paleoanthropologists admits we have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved,” since “nonhuman animals provide virtually no relevant parallels to human linguistic communication.”34 This abrupt appearance of modern human-like morphology, intellect, and culture contradicts evolutionary models, and may indicate design in human history. 

Notes 

1)Eric Delson, “One Skull Does Not a Species Make,” Nature 389 (October 2, 1997), 445-446; Hawks et al., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution”; Emilio Aguirre, “Homo erectus and Homo sapiens: One or More Species?,” 100 Years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo erectus Problem 171 Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, ed. Jens Lorenz (Frankfurt, Germany: Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 1994), 333-339; Milford H. Wolpoff, et al., “The Case for Sinking Homo erectus: 100 Years of Pithecanthropus Is Enough!,” 100 Years of Pithecanthropus, 341-361.

2)See Hartwig-Scherer and Martin, “Was ‘Lucy’ More Human than Her ‘Child’?”

3)William R. Leonard, Marcia L. Robertson, and J. Josh Snodgrass, “Energetic Models of Human Nutritional Evolution,” Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable, ed. Peter S. Ungar (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 344-359.

4)Kevin G. Hatala et al., “Footprints Reveal Direct Evidence of Group Behavior and Locomotion in Homo erectus,” Scientific Reports 6 (2016), 28766.

5)Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, “Homo erectus walked as we do,” Science Daily (July 12, 2016), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160712110444.htm (accessed October 26, 2020).

6)Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion.”

7)William Leonard and Marcia Robertson, “Comparative Primate Energetics and Hominid Evolution,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102 (February 1997), 265-281. See also Leslie C. Aiello and Jonathan C.K. Wells, “Energetics and the Evolution of the Genus Homo,” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002), 323-338.

8)Moreover, “Although the relative brain size of Homo erectus is smaller than the average for modem humans, it is outside of the range seen among other living primate species.” William R. Leonard, Marcia L. Robertson, and J. Josh Snodgrass, “Energetics and the Evolution of Brain Size in Early Homo,” Guts and Brains: An Integrative Approach to the Hominin Record, ed. Wil Roebroeks (Leiden, Germany: Leiden University Press, 2007), 29-46.

9)Daniel Everett, “Did Homo erectus speak?,” Aeon (February 28, 2018), https://aeon.co/essays/tools-and-voyages-suggest-that-homo-erectus-invented-language (accessed October 26, 2020).

10)Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 144. 

11)See Wood and Collard, “The Human Genus.”

12)Marc Kaufman, “Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits,” The Washington Post (April 30, 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901101_pf.html (accessed October 26, 2020).

13)Michael Lemonick, “A Bit of Neanderthal in Us All?” Time (April 25, 1999), http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,23543,00.html (accessed October 26, 2020).

14)Joe Alper, “Rethinking Neanderthals,” Smithsonian (June 2003).

15)Molnar, Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, 5th ed., 189.

16)B. Arensburg et al., “A Middle Palaeolithic Human Hyoid Bone,” Nature 338 (April 27, 1989), 758-760. 

17)Alper, “Rethinking Neanderthals”; Kate Wong, “Who Were the Neanderthals?” Scientific American (August 2003), 28-37; Erik Trinkaus and Pat Shipman, “Neanderthals: Images of Ourselves,” Evolutionary Anthropology 1 (1993), 194-201; Philip Chase and April Nowell, “Taphonomy of a Suggested Middle Paleolithic Bone Flute from Slovenia,” Current Anthropology 39 (August/October 1998), 549-553; Tim Folger and Shanti Menon, “…Or Much Like Us?” Discover (January 1997), http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/ormuchlikeus1026 (accessed October 26, 2020); C.B. Stringer, “Evolution of Early Humans,” The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, 248.

18)Chase and Nowell, “Taphonomy of a Suggested Middle Paleolithic Bone Flute from Slovenia”; Folger and Menon, “…Or Much Like Us?” 

19)Notes in Nature 77 (April 23, 1908), 587.

20)Jessica Ruvinsky, “Cavemen: They’re Just Like Us,” Discover (January 2009), http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/008 (accessed October 26, 2020).

21)Rex Dalton, “Neanderthals May Have Interbred with Humans,” Nature News (April 20, 2010), http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html (accessed October 26, 2020).

22)Rex Dalton, “Neanderthals May Have Interbred with Humans,” Nature News (April 20, 2010), http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html (accessed October 26, 2020).

23)Delson, “One Skull Does Not a Species Make.” 

24)Kaufman, “Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits.”

25)Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005).

26)Hartwig-Scherer, “Apes or Ancestors,” 220. 

27)Wood and Grabowski, “Macroevolution in and around the Hominin Clade.”

28)Paul Mellars, “Neanderthals and the Modern Human Colonization of Europe,” Nature 432 (November 25, 2004), 461-465; April Nowell, “From a Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures (Introduction to Two Special Issues on ‘Advances in the Study of Pleistocene Imagery and Symbol Use’),” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13 (2006), 239-249. Others call this abrupt appearance a “revolution.” See Ofer Bar-Yosef, “The Upper Paleolithic Revolution,” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002), 363-393.

29)Randall White, Prehistoric Art: The Symbolic Journey of Humankind (New York: Abrams, 2003), 11, 231.

30)Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 104, 187, 194.

31)Robert Kelly and David Thomas, Archaeology, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), 303.

32)Bar-Yosef, “Upper Paleolithic Revolution.” 

33)Nicholas Toth and Kathy Schick, “Overview of Paleolithic Archaeology,” in Handbook of Paleoanthropology, 2441-2464.

34)Marc Hauser et al., “The Mystery of Language Evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (May 7, 2014), 401.

Darwinism: schooled by fish again?

 Without Hemoglobin, How Do Icefish Survive the Cold? By Design

Emily Reeves 

Dr. Gregory Sloop is a Montana physician who knows a thing or two about the cardiovascular system. He has a new article in the journal BIO-Complexity highlighting the sleek design of the Antarctic icefish that allows it to live in super-cold waters without freezing to death.

Icefish, aka the family Channichthydiae, survive at 0oC in the Southern Ocean by maintaining blood viscosity at the set point of 3.27 centipoise — a level nearly identical to human blood. They do this without hemoglobin, which is the primary determinant of human and other red-blooded animals’ blood viscosity.

Since icefish don’t have hemoglobin, how do they maintain blood viscosity? Also, how do they breathe? Turns out they maintain viscosity at freezing temperatures primarily by using a special type of glycoprotein: the antifreeze protein. And because oxygen has a higher solubility at lower temperatures, icefish don’t need an oxygen transport molecule like hemoglobin. 

Why Jack Froze 

In case you were wondering, blood viscosity is the technical reason why Jack (Rose’s buddy aboard the Titanic) froze in less than 23 minutes, but icefish can survive for 15 years in water of a freezing temperature. Viscosity increases at lower temperatures, and at 0oC human blood reaches a viscosity that is not compatible with life. This is because hemoglobin as a protein is not able to keep viscosity low enough at freezing temperatures. But the antifreeze protein can (think: custom design).

While a viscosity too high is incompatible with life, a low viscosity is also unsuitable for sustaining life. This is because a properly functioning cardiovascular system must have optimized laminar flow and low vascular resistance, which can be achieved only through coordinated control of blood viscosity and specification of vascular geometry.

Stop Criticizing Icefish 

Dr. Sloop says icefish have been criticized for expending nearly 22 percent of their basal metabolic rate pumping their hemoglobinless blood compared to at most 5 percent in temperate fish. But he reminds his readers that’s just the cost of doing business in the chilly — well technically, freezing — waters of the Southern Ocean.

Sloop also emphasizes that everything about the icefish is like a custom-fitted suit — appropriate for niche needs. Features included for dealing with the extreme cold are a high-output, low resistance vasculature where the diameter of muscle capillaries is 2-3 times larger than those of other fish.

These fish also have a heavy heart which delivers a larger stroke and therefore higher volume. Together these features enable a high-output, high-velocity, low-pressure, and low-resistance circulation.

Truly, every part of these incredible creatures is optimized for cold. Could all these custom changes be the result of random mutation? Dr. Sloop thinks that is very unlikely. What do you say?

And still even yet more on why ID is already mainstream.

 Search for Habitable Planets Is a Design Detection Exercise 

David Coppedge 

Astrobiology was born in 1996 when NASA held a lively press conference for excited journalists to show possible life forms in a Martian meteorite named ALH 84001. The worm-like structures in the meteorite, appearing as if ready to crawl out onto a lab table, were reproduced in newspapers around the world. They turned out to have inorganic explanations. 

Hardly any scientist believes anymore that the Mars meteorite had anything to do with life. The event served its purpose, though, and soon NASA was flush with funds to begin a new Astrobiology Institute which continues to this day — a science without a subject to study. I sometimes joke that astrobiology has no “bio” in it (reducing it to “astrology”) but the new science has not been entirely in vain. It is bringing clarity to requirements for life. Since 1996, thousands of exoplanets have been discovered, primarily by the Kepler mission (2009-2018). Expectations are high that the James Webb Space Telescope will find more exoplanets, and possibly detect biosignatures — indications of non-natural processes that could indicate life. 

Expanding Real Estate 

Philosophers and novelists have long imagined life in outer space on mythical worlds, but now we have some data on which to build sound hypotheses. The real estate at habitable planets has expanded enormously — and with thousands of exoplanets in the catalog now, astrobiologists are focusing on their properties. Simultaneously, information on physical conditions at potentially habitable bodies in our own solar system has grown. But as the realty has expanded, has the habitability kept apace? 

By analogy, we can compare this question with Douglas Axe’s work on functional protein space within the set of sequence space. Only polypeptides with the ability to fold and perform work are “interesting” with respect to life. Dr. Axe’s research demonstrated that functional space is a minuscule subset of sequence space. Expanding sequence space, therefore, can only go so far to extend probabilistic resources for an origin of life by chance. If that life must emerge on a single planet, where the lucky accidents can coexist, chance can be eliminated on probabilistic grounds.

Similarly, an abundance of exoplanets only supports astrobiology if the subset of “functional” planets (habitable ones) comprises a significant fraction of all planetary real estate in the universe. (We are assuming life is not to be found on or inside stars, agreeing with most astrobiologists that life will be carbon-based with liquid water. We are also assuming the universe is not physically infinite or infinitely old.) Constraining the conditions for habitability in the set of all exoplanets, a factor that Frank Drake labeled ne (the “mean number of planets that could support life per star with planets”), turns astrobiology into a design detection exercise.  

Entertaining Speculations 

A few types of exoplanets can be ruled out of serious consideration. The late Carl Sagan gave wings to his imagination at times, imagining life forms floating in the cloud tops of Jupiter. Star Trek portrayed creatures of silicon that ate rock. While entertaining as speculations, such tales are hardly useful. Scientists need to stay realistic, respecting the periodic table, the four fundamental forces, and the laws of physics. Thus, most of them do not include lava worlds or any world too hot or cold to sustain liquid water somewhere, either on a solid surface or in a subcrustal ocean. Those minimal requirements can be further constrained by reasonable exigencies about types of host stars (e.g., deadly flares, tidal locking), orbital parameters, availability of essential elements, and so forth. Casey Luskin on ID the Future recently made the case for magnetic fields and plate tectonics as requirements. Michael Denton’s Privileged Species books have amassed numerous constraints for complex life as well as for any conceivable life. Intelligent design advocates have narrowed the field since The Privileged Planet. But what do evolutionary astrobiologists say? 

Here Are a Few Recent Statements 

“How do we know distant planets are Earth-like?” appeared on an “Ask an Expert” episode of CORDIS from the European Commission. Their list of requirements included a solid surface — eliminating lava worlds and gas giants — a temperate climate that supports liquid water, and a “suitable atmosphere” (not specified).

On Space.com, Robert Lea reported that a “scorching super-Earth” named GJ 1252b, with a surface hot enough to melt gold, has probably lost its atmosphere. Not good. Eliminate that planet and any others like it.

The Harvard Gazette agreed that plate tectonics combined with a stable magnetic field laid the “geological groundwork for life on Earth.” Researchers believe they have found evidence of an early magnetic reversal in Australia. Geological factors combined to facilitate habitability: 

The reversal tells a great deal about the planet’s magnetic field 3.2 billion years ago. Key among the implicationsis that the magnetic field was likely stable and strong enough to keep solar winds from eroding the atmosphere. This insight, combined with the results on plate tectonics, offers clues to the conditions under which the earliest forms of life developed. 

At The Conversation, Joanna Barstow of the Open University offered four biosignatures the James Webb Space Telescope might detect for clues to alien life: (1) oxygen and ozone, (2) phosphine and ammonia, (3) methane plus carbon dioxide, and (4) chemical imbalances. She cautions against jumping to conclusions, though, suggesting that “rocky planets with mild temperatures and atmospheres dominated by nitrogen or carbon dioxide” might still be experiencing a “runaway greenhouse effect.” Her words hint at several requirements for habitability.

Liquid water may not be enough to infer life. A thought-provoking discovery from Hokkaido University revealed nuances of ocean currents that might be necessary to sustain a life-giving water cycle. They found evidence for an “ocean conveyor belt” initiated by melting sea ice, called frazil ice, that sinks in the North Atlantic. The dense freshwater ice flows under the salt water all the way to the Antarctic! Consider how this aids life: 

“It is important to learn that such a major process is occurring underwater, revealing an aspect of the circulation system that has been at least partially obscured from view,” Kay says.

The researchers also suggest that the frazil ice could incorporate the sediment at the sea bottom and release it as the ice melts. This may yield new understanding of the circulation of nutrients that fertilize plankton to influence the general biological productivity of Antarctic waters. 

SETI and UFO-logy go beyond astrobiology, but Phys.org reported on a design-related story with the title, “NASA announces 16 people who will study UFOs to see what’s natural — and what isn’t.” If it isn’t natural, what is it? Designed!

These articles suggest ways that astrobiologists and design scientists can bring data to bear on longstanding questions about life in space. It’s possible, of course, to go overboard on requirements for habitability, such as insisting there must be molybdenum on the surface. But by reasonably narrowing down the subset of habitable real estate in the set of all planetary surfaces in a universe of finite dimensions and limited time, astrobiology can help philosophers and theologians stand on more solid ground when representing the likelihood of life beyond the earth, and thereby argue whether the probabilistic resources available are sufficient to rule out chance. If so, design would prevail as the best explanation for life’s presence or absence. 

Justice delayed?

 Men exonerated in killing of Malcolm X to receive $36 million settlement after suing New York 

Two men who were exonerated in the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X will receive a $36 million settlement after lawsuits were filed on their behalf against both the city and the state of New York last year.

New York City agreed to pay $26 million in settling a lawsuit filed on behalf of Muhammad Abdul Aziz and Khalil Islam, Islam was exonerated posthumously in the killing. Meanwhile, the state of New York also agreed to pay an additional $10 million. 

A New York City Law Department spokesman told ABC News on Sunday evening that the settlement "brings some measure of justice to individuals who spent decades in prison and bore the stigma of being falsely accused of murdering an iconic figure."

"Based on our review, this office stands by the opinion of former Manhattan District Attorney Vance who stated, based on his investigation, that 'there is one ultimate conclusion: Mr. Aziz and Mr. Islam were wrongfully convicted of this crime,'" he added.

David Shanies, the attorney who represents Aziz and the late Khalil Islam, confirmed on Sunday evening the terms of the settlement to ABC News. 

The settlement comes after Aziz and the estate of Islam sued New York City on July 14, seeking $40 million for malicious prosecution, denial of due process rights and government misconduct. Aziz and the estate of Khalil Islam also filed two multimillion-dollar civil lawsuits in December 2021 aimed at New York state government.

Then-Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance moved to vacate the convictions of Muhammad Aziz, 84, and co-defendant Khalil Islam in November 2021, citing "newly discovered evidence and the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence."

"Muhammad Aziz and Khalil Islam were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for decades – 42 years between them – as the result of outrageous government misconduct and violations of their constitutional rights," Shanies said in July. "Justice delayed for far too long is justice denied. Mr. Aziz just turned 84 and Mr. Islam tragically died before seeing his name cleared."

"These men and their families should not be delayed compensation for the gross injustices they suffered," he added. 

Aziz, a U.S. Navy veteran and the father of six children, was 26 when he was arrested for the 1965 murder of Malcolm X at the Audubon Ballroom. He spent 20 years in prison.

Aziz was released on parole in 1985. Two years later, Islam was released after serving 22 years. They each appealed their convictions and always maintained their innocence. Islam died in 2009 at the age of 74. His estate filed a related claim.

Aziz and Islam were members of the Nation of Islam and belonged to Malcolm X's mosque #7 in Harlem.

Talmadge Hayer -- the confessed assassin of Malcolm X who was caught at the scene -- testified at trial that Aziz and Islam were not involved in the killing. In the late 1970s, Hayer signed an affidavit naming four other men who he said were involved in planning and carrying out the murder. 

But the case was not reopened until interest in the case was renewed in 2020 following the release of "Who Killed Malcolm X?" – a Netflix documentary that follows the work of independent historian Abdur-Rahman Muhammad who spent decades investigating the killing.

"After I had watched the Netflix documentary. I thought there was enough to look at this," Vance told ABC News' "Soul of a Nation Presents: X/onerated - The Murder of Malcolm X and 55 Years to Justice," which aired on Hulu in February.

Vance apologized last year on behalf of the NYPD and the FBI for what he called "serious, unacceptable violations of the law and the public trust."

In his first TV interview since his exoneration, Aziz opened up about the wrongful conviction and trauma of systemic racism to ABC News' "Soul of a Nation."

"If God is on your side. it doesn't matter who's against you. God's on my side," Aziz said in the interview that aired in February.

Both ABC and Hulu are divisions of Disney.

The real cost of that greener future?

 Electric cars: Running on child labour 

Leading electric car makers must come clean to their consumers about the steps they are taking to keep child labour out of their supply chains, and be open about any abuses that they do find...[specifically to ensure that] cobalt mined by child labourers as young as seven in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is not used in their batteries… Mark Dummett, Business and Human Rights Researcher at Amnesty, said…“Amnesty's research shows that there is a significant risk of cobalt mined by children ending up in the batteries of electric cars. These vehicles are presented as the ethical choice for environmentally and socially conscious drivers...” More than half of the world’s cobalt, which is a key component in the lithium-ion batteries which power electric vehicles, comes from the DRC, 20% of which is mined by hand. Research by Amnesty for its report, This Is What We Die For, released in January 2016, found that adults and children as young as seven work in appalling conditions in artisanal mining areas...

…Amnesty has identified five car companies at risk…South Korean battery manufacturer LG Chem provides batteries for…GM…Renault-Nissan…Tesla…Samsung SDI, also from South Korea, supplies BMW…and Fiat-Chrysler…the two car manufacturers acknowledged in letters to Amnesty…Amnesty used investor documents to show how cobalt mined in the DRC is bought by…Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt…which supplies battery component manufacturers…[T]hese component manufacturers sell to battery makers including LG Chem and Samsung SDI, that supply many of the world’s largest car companies…Under international guidelines set out by the…OECD…companies which use cobalt mined in high-risk areas should identify their smelters…as well as disclose their own assessment of the…smelter’s due diligence practices…Amnesty is calling on all multinational companies that use lithium-ion batteries to prove that they are implementing their policies…

[Includes comments from BMW, Daimler, Fiat-Chrysler, and Renault. Also refers to BYD and Volkswagen.] 

Immortality for sale?

John Lennox: Dante, Glaucus, and Transhumanism 

David Klinghoffer 

As Oxford mathematician John Lennox points out, the term “transhumanism” is not of recent or secular origin. While we define it as a creepy movement, inspired by Yuval Noah Harari and others, to transcend our humanity and achieve immortality through AI technology, it was first used by Dante, seven centuries ago. This is a translation from the Italian, of course, but in Canto 1 of Paradiso, Dante references the myth of Glaucus, a fisherman-turn-sea god who achieved immortality by consuming a certain herb. Dante, contemplating his own resurrection, writes, “As Glaucus, when he tasted of the herb / That made him peer among the ocean gods: / Words may not tell of that trans-human change.” 

These and other fascinating thoughts come up in Dr. Lennox’s bonus interview for the latest Science Uprising episode, which tackle the materialist-driven myths surrounding artificial intelligence. Will AI machines become conscious? Will humans someday be able to upload our consciousness to a computer? As Lennox notes, it’s a bit premature to entertain such imaginings when no one alive today can say what “consciousness” even is.

Meanwhile, the will to become gods — transhumanism in a nutshell — still beckons with its ancient glamour. The form may be modern, but the temptation, Lennox reminds us, is extremely old, as old as the serpent in the Garden and the Tower of Babel. He observes that modern transhumanism is a like a parody of Biblical promises of immortality. As always, John Lennox is a delight to listen to and learn from. If you missed the “Artificial Intelligence: Will Machines Take Over?” find it Here. 

The argument for design is in our blood?

Behe, Medved: Blood Clotting Reveals Purpose, Not Blind Evolution 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

On a new episode of ID the Future, Michael Medved interviews biologist Michael Behe about Behe’s stunning YouTube series, Secrets of the Cell. If you missed the most recent episode, “Blood Clotting: The Body’s Emergency Response System,” find it Here: 

In the conversation, Behe summarizes one of the key messages of the series: that everything from the life-essential blood clotting system to a myriad of crucial protein structures in our bodies increasingly appear to be far beyond the reach of blind evolutionary mechanisms to build. Instead they seem to reflect planning and purpose, which are the purview of mind. Meanwhile, even many mainstream evolutionists are growing skeptical of neo-Darwinism, Behe says, as biologists continue to uncover more and more layers of cellular sophistication. The emerging field of metagenomics, he says, is a case in point. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Medved also mentions a recent article in World Magazine in which Behe lays out a case for intelligent design. The piece is Here.