Game over? Really? II

 Theory in Crisis? Redefining Science 

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We are a delighted to present a new series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the second post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn noted that scientific revolutions are often marked by disputes over the “standard that distinguishes a real scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation.” Newton’s theory of gravity was resisted because “gravity, interpreted as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter, was an occult quality” like the medieval “tendency to fall.” Critics of Newtonianism claimed that it was not science and “its reliance upon innate forces would return science to the Dark Ages.”1

Centuries later, some scientists claimed that the big bang was not science. In 1938, German physicist Carl F. von Weizsäcker gave a lecture in which he referred to the relatively new idea that our universe had originated in a big bang. Renowned physical chemist Walther Nernst, who was in the audience, became very angry. Weizsäcker later wrote 

He said, the view that there might be an age of the universe was not science. At first I did not understand him. He explained that the infinite duration of time was a basic element of all scientific thought, and to deny this would mean to betray the very foundations of science. I was quite surprised by this idea and I ventured the objection that it was scientific to form hypotheses according to the hints given by experience, and that the idea of an age of the universe was such a hypothesis. He retorted that we could not form a scientific hypothesis which contradicted the very foundations of science. 

Weizsäcker concluded that Nernst’s reaction revealed “a deeply irrational” conviction that “the world had taken the place of God, and it was blasphemy to deny it God’s attributes.”2 

Is Intelligent Design Science? 

Similarly, intelligent design has been criticized for not being science. In 2004, American Society for Cell Biology president Harvey Lodish wrote that intelligent design is “not science” because “the ideas that form the basis” of it “have never been tested by any scientific peer-scrutiny or peer-review.”3 In 2005, the American Astronomical Society declared, “Intelligent Design fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views.”4 And the Biophysical Society adopted a policy stating, “What distinguishes scientific theories” from intelligent design “is the scientific method, which is driven by observations and deductions.” Since intelligent design is “not based on the scientific method,” it is “not in the realm of science.”5

The claims about evidence and peer review in the statements quoted above are false. Nevertheless, the statements illustrate that critics of intelligent design, like the critics of Newtonianism and the big bang, claim that the new paradigm does not qualify as science.

Some pro-Darwin writers have argued that intelligent design is even anti-science. In 2006, philosopher Niall Shanks wrote that “a culture war is currently being waged in the United States by religious extremists who hope to turn the clock of science back to medieval times.” The “chief weapon in this war is…intelligent design theory.”6 In 2008, biologist and textbook writer Kenneth Miller claimed that “to the ID movement the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment, which gave rise to science as we know it, is the true enemy.” If intelligent design prevails, he wrote, “the modern age will be brought to an end.” For Miller, what is at stake “is nothing less than America’s scientific soul.”6 

A Different Definition of Science 

It’s true that intelligent design operates with a definition of science that differs from the definition used by pro-Darwin scientists. For the latter, science is the enterprise of seeking natural explanations for everything. Only material objects and the forces among them are real; entities such as a nonhuman mind (which would have to be the source of any intelligent design in nature) are unreal. In Darwinian science, any evidence that seems to suggest intelligent design is ignored or ruled out. In 1999, a biologist wrote in Nature that “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”7 But in an intelligent design paradigm, science seeks to follow the evidence wherever it leads. According to Kuhn, disputes such as this over the nature of science are common in scientific revolutions. 

Notes 

1)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 103-105, 163.

2)Carl F. von Weizsäcker, The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 151-153.

3)Letter from Harvey F. Lodish to Ohio Governor Bob Taft (February 24, 2004). https://www.newswise.com/articles/ascb-president-says-creationism-does-not-belong-in-ohios-classrooms (accessed August 22, 2020).

4)Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, American Astronomical Society (September 20, 2005). https://aas.org/press/aas-supports-teaching-evolution (accessed August 22, 2020).

5)Statement on Teaching Alternatives to Evolution, Biophysical Society (November 2005). https://www.biophysics.org/policy-advocacy/stay-informed/policy-issues/evolution-1 (accessed August 22, 2020).

6)Niall Shanks, God, the Devil, and Darwin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), xi–xii.

7)Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul (New York: Viking Press, 2008), 16, 190-191.

8)Scott Todd, “A view from Kansas on that evolution debate,” Nature 401 (1999), 423. 

Game over? Really?

 Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis? 

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We are a delighted to present a new series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the first post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

What does it mean to say that a theory is “in crisis”? It’s not enough to point out that a theory is inconsistent with evidence. Critics have been pointing out for decades that Darwinism doesn’t fit the evidence from nature. Biologist Michael Denton published Evolution: A Theory is Crisis in 1986.1 Thirty years later, he drove the point home with Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis.2

But Darwinism is still with us, for two reasons. First, Darwinism is not just a scientific hypothesis about specific phenomena in nature, like Newton’s theory that the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (17th century), Lavoisier’s theory that things burn by combining with oxygen (18th century), or Maxwell’s theory that light is an electromagnetic wave (19th century). Darwin called On the Origin of Species “one long argument,” and a central part of it was a theological argument against the idea that species were specially created.3

Second, established scientific research programs such as Darwinism are never abandoned just because of some problems with the evidence. The idea that all species are descendants of one or a few common ancestors that have been modified by mutation and natural selection will maintain its dominance until large numbers of scientists embrace a competing idea. Currently, the major competing idea is intelligent design (ID), which maintains (contra Darwin) that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. The shift, if and when it happens, will be a major scientific revolution. One way to approach this phenomenon is through philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.4

I will begin by summarizing some of Kuhn’s key insights. I will then apply those insights to the present conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design. As I do so, I point out some problematic aspects of Kuhn’s work, but I conclude that recent events fully justify calling Darwinism a theory in crisis. 

Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions 

According to Kuhn, “normal science” is “research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.” Those achievements were “sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity.” They were also “sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems” to be solved. Kuhn called achievements that share these two characteristics “paradigms.”5

Once a paradigm becomes dominant, the normal practice of science is simply to solve problems within that paradigm. In the process, an “institutional constellation” forms that includes “the formation of specialized journals, the foundation of specialist societies, and the claim for a special place in the curriculum.”6 The last is very important, because one “characteristic of the professional scientific community [is] the nature of its educational initiation.” In “the contemporary natural sciences…the student relies mainly on textbooks” until the third or fourth year of graduate work, at which point the student begins to do independent research. “It is a narrow and rigid education, probably more so than any other except perhaps in orthodox theology.”7 

A First Line of Defense 

Kuhn wrote,  

No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed, those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others.8 

Yet “no paradigm that provides a basis for scientific research ever completely resolves all its problems.” When anomalous evidence emerges, however, scientists’ first line of defense is usually to “devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.” They never simply renounce the paradigm unless another is available to take its place. Thus “the decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another,” and “the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.”9 

How Paradigms Originate 

The most effective claim that proponents of a new paradigm can make is that “they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis.”10 Even then, Kuhn wrote, 

The defenders of traditional theory and procedure can almost always point to problems that its new rival has not solved but that for their view are no problems at all…Instead, the issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise.11 

How does a new paradigm originate? Kuhn wrote, 

Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few individuals. It is they who first learn to see science and the world differently, and their ability to make the transition is facilitated by two circumstances that are not common to most other members of their profession.12 

First, Kuhn wrote, “their attention has been concentrated upon the crisis-provoking problems.” Second, these individuals are usually “so young or so new to the crisis-ridden field that practice has committed them less deeply than most of their contemporaries to the world view and rules determined by the old paradigm.”13

According to Kuhn

Paradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time. As a result, the reception of a new paradigm often necessitates a redefinition of the corresponding science.14 

Notes 

1)Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986).

2)Michael Denton, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2016).

3)Stephen Dilley, “Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species,” British Journal for the History of Science 45 (2012), 29-56.

4)Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

5)Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 10.

6)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 19, 93.

7)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 164-166.

8)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 24.

9)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 77-79.

10)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 153.

11)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 157-158.

12)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 144.

13)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 144.

14)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 103. 

Not meat machines either?

 Two-Headed Tortoise with Two Personalities? 

Denyse O'Leary 

Recently, a “two-headed” tortoise at the Geneva Museum of Natural History reached the remarkable age of 25, thanks to constant care by his handlers: 

Janus also has two hearts, two pairs of lungs, and two distinct personalities.

Sometimes the heads wish to go in different direction

“The right head is more curious, more awake, it has a much stronger personality,” Angelica Bourgoin, who leads the turtle’s care team, said. “The left head is more passive and loves to eat.

NEWS, “TWO-HEADED TORTOISE JANUS CELEBRATES 25TH BIRTHDAY” AT DW (SEPTEMBER 3, 2022) ”  

How Could the Tortoise Heads Have Different “Personalities”? 

Janus — despite the single name given — seems to be a set of conjoined tortoise twins. (Here’s a human example.) The handlers acknowledge that survival in the wild would be unlikely. For one thing, both heads can’t retract into the shell.

So it’s not surprising that the two heads would have different personalities — except insofar as a tortoise or turtle has any personality at all. And it turns out that they are smarter than we used to think.

For example, researchers have shown that some can learn. Here’s the abstract from a 2019 paper:Relatively little is known about cognition in turtles, and most studies have focused on aquatic animals. Almost nothing is known about the giant land tortoises. These are visual animals that travel large distances in the wild, interact with each other and with their environment, and live extremely long lives. Here, we show that Galapagos and Seychelle tortoises, housed in a zoo environment, readily underwent operant conditioning and we provide evidence that they learned faster when trained in the presence of a group rather than individually. The animals readily learned to distinguish colors in a two-choice discrimination task. However, since each animal was assigned its own individual colour for this task, the presence of the group had no obvious effect on the speed of learning. When tested 95 days after the initial training, all animals remembered the operant task. When tested in the discrimination task, most animals relearned the task up to three times faster than naïve animals. Remarkably, animals that were tested 9 years after the initial training still retained the operant conditioning. As animals remembered the operant task, but needed to relearn the discrimination task constitutes the first evidence for a differentiation between implicit and explicit memory in tortoises. Our study is a first step towards a wider appreciation of the cognitive abilities of these unique animals.

GUTNICK, T., WEISSENBACHER, A. & KUBA, M.J. THE UNDERESTIMATED GIANTS: OPERANT CONDITIONING, VISUAL DISCRIMINATION AND LONG-TERM MEMORY IN GIANT TORTOISES. ANIM COGN 23, 159–167 (2020). HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1007/S10071-019-01326-6 THE PAPERREQUIRES A FEE OR SUBSCRIPTION. 

According to the authors, the tortoises share resources in the wild.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. 

Compared to what?

 Our enemies have (as usual) been busying themselves on the net etc. portraying JWs as brainwashed weirdos. It all really begs the question though, weird compared to what exactly? Have any of these fools been reading the news. Regardless of your opinion of us I can furnish you with an ironclad guarantee that it will never be our police showing will never be our police showing up at your door because you dared to indulge in wrong think, nor our magistrates abusing their power to deny you your rights, nor our mobs attempting to intimidate you into conformity, nor our legislators attempting to legislate our religious or moral norms on you, nor our soldiers breaking your stuff and killing your people. None of our slanderers can honestly do the same.

On "new light"and old gloom.

  

"New Light" - Should Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses Really be Taken Seriously When They Can't Even Use the Correct Phrase

Everything that opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses believe to be so important really is comparatively inconsequential. While Jehovah's Witnesses still adjust minor understandings of prophecy and periphery beliefs, major doctrines will not be changed because the doctrinal knowledge has increased so much that any recent changes have not been to doctrine but simple refinements in knowledge.

Still, many opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly use the term "New Light" when attempting to ridicule them for any progressive understanding of Scripture despite the fact that "New Light" is not even the correct phrase:

Solomon declared: “But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” (Proverbs 4:18)

The truth gradually becomes clearer to us as we persist in studying the Scriptures patiently and diligently. The meaning or significance of Bible prophecies also unfolds progressively. Daniel's prophecy clearly said that true knowledge would "increase" during the time of the end (Dan. 12:4). Only at "the conclusion of the system of things" would "the righteous ones would then shine as brightly as the sun" (Mt.13:24- 30, 36-43; 24:45-47; Acts 3:20- 21).

Most other religions have proved that they will not change doctrines such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hell fire even though their own scholars admit these beliefs are not taught in Scripture. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change any belief in order to harmonize better with increased knowledge of Scriptural teaching.

So rather than rejecting Jehovah's Witnesses understandings of Scripture simply because they progress in their understanding of it, this should be recognized as a comendable effort! It is stupid to avoid accepting current knowledge which is solidly based on known facts just because we know there most likely will be changes or adjustments with increased knowledge. Every belief that is based on knowledge changes or is subject to change.

Do we refuse to believe our Doctor's life saving direction because of all the medical mistakes in the past? Such reasoning is clearly logically fallacious.

Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses' application of Prov. 4:18 is not new nor unique and in fact, criticism of Witnesses in this matter is hypocritical.

Both Protestant and Catholic commentators have applied the "expanding light" idea to an increase in Bible understanding regarding doctrine:

In his attempt to explain why the Trinity was not taught until the fourth century, Gregory Nazianzen in his 32nd Oration states that God used gradually increasing light to introduce the change to a belief in a Triune God.
Gill's Expositor says: "that shineth more and more...the light of the knowledge of Christ the way...is increased by means of the ministry of the word,.. Light into the Gospel, and the doctrines of it, increases yet more and more...when the light of knowledge will be clear and perfect."

Clarkes' Commentary Dan.11:1: "Bp. Newton, who is ever judicious and instructing, remarks: It is the usual method of the Holy Spirit to make the latter prophecies explanatory of the former; and thus revelation "is a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

Barnes' Notes: "And it need not be said, to anyone acquainted with the history of those times, that the Reformation was preceded and accompanied with a great increase of light."

This very same principle are found in Arthur Pink's principles of Bible interpretation: He lists the "law of progress" and says: "The path of Truth is like that of the just: it "shineth more and more." And he specifically mentions increasing light regarding prophecy.--A W Pink Interpretation of the Scriptures, p., 33-53, 56-62

We can also find this exact use of Proverbs 4:18 in many other reference works such as "The Pulpit Commentary," The Lutheran "Kretzmann Commentary," "Vincent's Word Pictures” 1Jo 1:7, "Girdlestone's Synonyms of the OT," Milton S. Terry's "Biblical Dogmatics," "Barnes' Notes on Rev. and Dan 12:4," R. Haldane's “Exposition on Romans,” Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary on the OT: and many others.

Below is a quote from the 19th century revivalist and theologian, Charles G.Finney. It is taken from the introduction to his 1878 edition of Systematic Theology:

Theologian Charles G. Finney said: "I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and have ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is preposterous. None but an omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of views and opinions. Finite minds, unless they are asleep or stultified by prejudice, must advance in knowledge. The discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world. True Christian consistency does not consist in...refusing to make any improvement lest we should be guilty of change, but it consists in holding our minds open to receive the rays of truth from every quarter and in changing our views and language and practice as often and as fast, as we can obtain further information...because this course alone accords with a Christian profession...It must follow, that Christian consistency implies continued investigation and change of views and practice corresponding with increasing knowledge. No Christian, therefore, and no theologian should be afraid to change his views, his language, or his practices in conformity with INCREASING LIGHT."

"The living truths of God can never be fully expounded. The Scriptures are a source of religious teaching so inexhaustible that each new generation of biblical scholars discovers therein treasures of knowledge unnoticed by previous research....so that we are not infrequently called upon to revise some of our former opinions and adjust them to the newly discovered facts. No old and permanent truth can ever suffer loss by the incoming of new light, but the weakness and unprofitableness of aged errors become thereby apparent...It is generally conceded that many subjects, which involve biblical exegesis and doctrine, call for revision and restatement."--Milton S. Terry; Biblical Dogmatics

Yet another rant against the brain eating idiocy of the trinity dogma.

   

Just as no man can mediate between himself and (the) God so to (the) God cannot be his own mediator  

The dictionary definition of mediate is:to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile. 

So as always to embrace Christendom's absurdities we must throw away our dictionaries. We choose to hold on to our dictionaries(and our capacity for clear thinking) and instead cast aside Christendom's stupidity.

How to not become a casualty in this war Christians must wage.

Matthew6:22KJV"22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light" 

While I do not believe that the faults of the student are a result of the failures of his teacher. I am grateful for the mature brothers and sisters that the Lord JEHOVAH put in my life. I was taught and I do believe that my dedication is not to a doctrine or a  work or the brothers but to the greatest person in the universe. 

John4:34NIV "34“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." 

Jesus Christ,our eldest brother, JEHOVAH'S chief servant sets the pattern,and why should it not likewise be the case with us that being the instrument of our heavenly Father and sensing his pleasure with our zealous service is our primary cause for joy ? Are we less in debt than the one who was without sin? 

For one who has come to be honored with such an intimate relationship with our heavenly Father when the end comes (the end of the present age or our own end) or not ,how much he possesses or not,the imperfections of the brothers, our own imperfections are neither here nor there re: our determination to fulfill our oath. We know that our vow of dedication is forever. We do not serve JEHOVAH to live we live to serve JEHOVAH. 

James4:8NIV"Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." 

When it becomes our heart's desire to be JEHOVAH'S instrument in the advancing of his righteous cause ,he will enlighten and empower us through his Son to wage victorious spiritual warfare. 

But know this, the cultivating of such a relationship (like every other worthwhile achievement) takes disciplined effort.

Luke13:24NIV"“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." 

How OOL science continues to be the weak link on design deniers' team.

 Game Over? Nick Lane Wants Another Inning 

David Coppedge 

The score is 36-0, but the Darwin Team isn’t ready to concede. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, writing for World Magazine (see our coverage here), described how he attended a conference of scientists to hear Nobel laureate John E. Walker, the world’s expert on ATP synthase, explain how it might have evolved. To design advocates, this rotary engine is a paragon of intelligent design. Walker, who shared a Nobel Prize for elucidating the motor’s rotary mechanism, spent his whole time describing the intricacies of this molecular machine, and never offered an evolutionary explanation for it until the Q&A session. Then, he was asked directly how a mindless process could produce such a stunning piece of work. Walker stumbled, offering only a fragment of speculation that it must have arisen “Slowly, through some sort of intermediate or other.” That’s when Behe, out of earshot, muttered two simple words, “Game over.”

Game over. The losing team heads for the showers with heads bowed. The Darwin Team’s MVP had just struck out at the bottom of the ninth. Calling the game in such an obvious wipeout would have been superfluous. The crowds file out of the stands. Suddenly, eight players run onto the field! “Wait! Wait!” they cry. “Let us have a time at bat!”

The rescue team, led by Nick Lane of University College London, waves a paper over their heads. It’s hot off the press from PLOS Biology, titled, “A prebiotic basis for ATP as the universal energy currency.” Lane shouts, We have the intermediate! It’s AcP! One of the refs eyeballs the paper for a minute. Will it be worth calling the teams back onto the field for another inning? 

A Plausible Scenario? 

The gist of the hypothesis is that acetyl phosphate (AcP), a simple molecule with the formula C2H5O5P, can phosphorylate ADP into ATP in water, if ferric ion (Fe3+) is present. The team believes their lab work offers a plausible scenario for prebiotic ATP formation without the need for ATP synthase. 

ATP is universally conserved as the principal energy currency in cells, driving metabolism through phosphorylation and condensation reactions. Such deep conservation suggests that ATP arose at an early stage of biochemical evolution. Yet purine synthesis requires 6 phosphorylation steps linked to ATP hydrolysis.This autocatalytic requirement for ATP to synthesize ATP implies the need for an earlier prebiotic ATP equivalent, which could drive protometabolism before purine synthesis. Why this early phosphorylating agent was replaced, and specifically with ATP rather than other nucleoside triphosphates, remains a mystery. Here, we show that the deep conservation of ATP might reflect its prebiotic chemistry in relation to another universally conserved intermediate, acetyl phosphate (AcP), which bridges between thioester and phosphate metabolism by linking acetyl CoA to the substrate-level phosphorylation of ADP. We confirm earlier results showing that AcP can phosphorylate ADP to ATP at nearly 20% yield in water in the presence of Fe3+ions. We then show that Fe3+ and AcP are surprisingly favoured.  

Sounds Impressive. Can It Work?  

The team tells the referee about additional surprising benefits of their intermediate. Visions of the Miller spark apparatus come to mind: 

Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that maximal ATP synthesis occurred at high water activity and low ion concentrations, indicating that prebiotic ATP synthesis would be most feasible in freshwater systems.Likewise, ferrous iron can be oxidized to ferric iron by photochemical reactions or oxidants such as NO derived from volcanic emissions, meteorite impacts, or lightning strikes, which also points to terrestrial geothermal systems as a plausible environment for aqueous ATP synthesis. 

Questions & Answers 

powers a disequilibrium in the ratio of ADP to ATP, which amounts to 10 orders of magnitude from equilibrium in the cytosol of modern cells. Molecular engines such as the ATP synthase use ratchet-like mechanical mechanisms to convert environmental redox disequilibria into a highly skewed ratio of ADP to ATP.” But we cannot say how that happened.

But how could a simple prebiotic system composed mostly of monomers sustain a disequilibrium in ATP to ADP ratio that powers work? Well, “One possibility is that dynamic environments could sustain critical disequilibria across short distances such as protocell membranes.”

Didn’t you just assume the existence of a protocell with a membrane? Where did those come from? Look, we’re not trying to come up with a complete picture of how life originated. We’re just trying to explain why ATP is the universal energy currency for life as it exists today, and how it might have emerged.

Emerged… by chance, you mean? Isn’t that circular reasoning? How so? What other possibility is there?

There’s intelligence, the only cause ever observed that is capable of assembling complex parts into a functional whole. Sorry; we thought this was a scientific baseball diamond.

It is. So what is your explanation for the functional information in the simplest life? Your paper admits that “ATP links energy metabolism with genetic information.” What is the source of that genetic information? Uh, some sort of intermediate or other.

The referees convene and shout out, “GAME OVER!” 

On reading the fossil record.

 Fossil Friday: Moniopterus — Snake, Beetle, or Mollusk?

Günter BechlyEgg-shaped fossils of about two inch size have been described as Moniopterus japonicus from the Miocene of Japan. It is a perfect showcase for how paleontologists play fast and loose with the over-interpretation of poorly preserved fossils. Moniopterus was initially described as the only known example of fossil sea-snake eggs by Hatai et al. (1974). Wow, that sounds interesting, if we gloss over the little lapse that the authors accidentally placed the fossils in the bony fish family Ophichthyidae instead of the sea-snake subfamily Hydrophiinae, because both animals have the same common name in Japanese. Ooops, that’s an embarrassing mistake for professional scientists writing a technical paper, but anyway, at least they found the first sea-snake eggs, or did they?

About twenty years later, another study recognized the same material as fossilized pupal chambers of a coleopteran insect (Johnston et al. 1996). Hmmm, that’s quite a different take on the same fossils, but it gets even better. A re-examination of the holotype specimen by Haga et al. (2010) provided no evidence in support of these previous interpretations. Instead the fossils turned out to be borings of a rock-boring mytilid bivalve of the genus Lithophaga. So, a trace fossil of a mollusk had been misidentified in different phyla as snake egg and as beetle pup

That this case of blatant misidentifications is not an isolated example is shown by the case of alleged vertebrate eggs from the Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert, which turned out to be fossilized pupal chambers of beetles (Johnston et al. 1996). But on the other hand, should we trust the latter study at all, given the blunder they made with Moniopterus? Scientists are only humans and many of them see what they want to see. Fossils often leave a lot of room for wild imagination and wishful thinking. Of course, they still prove Darwinian evolution beyond a reasonable doubt! Just follow the science and don’t ask silly questions.a. 

References 

1.Hatai K, Masuda K & Noda H 1974. Marine fossils from the Moniwa Formation along the Natori river, Sendai, northeast Honshu, Japan, part 2. Problematica from the Moniwa Formation. Transactions and Proceedings of the Paleontological Society of Japan NS 95, 364–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14825/prpsj1951.1974.95_364.

2.Johnston PA, Eberth DA & Anderson PK 1996. Alleged vertebrate eggs from Upper Cretaceous redbeds, Gobi Desert, are fossil insect (Coleoptera) pupal chambers: Fictovichnus new ichnogenus. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 33(4), 511–525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/e96-040.

3.Haga T, Kurihara Y, Kase T 2010. Reinterpretation of the Miocene Sea-Snake Egg Moniopterus japonicus as a Boring of Rock-Boring Bivalve Lithophaga (Mytilidae: Mollusca). Journal of Paleontology 84(5), 848–857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1666/09-126.1.

I rant some more against reductive spiritualism.

 Psalms139:13BSB"For You formed my inmost being;a

You knit me(Objective first person singular) together in my mother’s womb." 

Can a reductive spirit soul be the fruit of sexual reproduction. Note that natural processes occurring in the impregnated womb are not merely responsible for the impersonal tent that the ghost who is the real person(the real me) ,but are JEHOVAH'S instrumentalities in bringing the soul into being. 

John3:6NIV"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." 

So the human cannot give birth to the superhuman. 

Matthew22:17,18NIV"17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

18“A voice is heard in Ramah,

weeping and great mourning,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because they(objective third person plural) are no more.” d" 

Death for the bible writers resulted in a reversion to one pre life state not a progression to a high post life existence. This is why they can coherently present the resurrection of the dead as a hope and not an incoherent word salad as is the case with Christendom's theologians. Thus it was not merely the impersonal fleshly coverings of these children that was dissolved their personhood came to an end. Until the one who calls things that are not(including things that once we're) as though they are(see romans 4:17) calls them to mind. 

Can we talk about this? II

 Listen: Demonizers and Dehumanizers 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

A new episode of ID the Future brings the second half of a panel discussion at the 2022 Center for Science & Culture Insider’s Briefing. This portion begins with bioethicist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith making a surprising argument: His own field, bioethics, is at war with true medical ethics. Specifically, its most prominent figures — hailing from elite universities in the United States and Europe — are dedicated to emptying our medical culture of traditional ethical standards that protect human rights and are guided by a commitment to inherent human dignity.

Some leading bioethicists see human beings as of no more inherent value than yeast. Smith stands athwart this anti-human trend and urges listeners to wake up and resist. Then John West, managing director of Discovery Institute’s CSC, spotlights those who demonize people who have resisted demands to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus, with some even calling for such people to be restricted to house arrest, or imprisoned. West also notes that many of those calling for such strong-arm tactics make no distinction between those who have and haven’t already had COVID-19, despite the fact that there is abundant scientific evidence that having had COVID-19 is a more effective form of vaccination than any vaccination shot. West decries the demonizing and bullying tactics he references, calling such behavior anti-science and anti-reason. He urges supporters of vaccinations to meet the other side not with insults but with reasoned discourse and scientific evidence. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The seas testify against Darwin

 Secrets that Give Sea Lions and Jellyfish Their Edge as Swimmers 

David Coppedge 

The Illustra Media documentary Living Waters focuses on four marine organisms, each worthy of admiration: dolphins, sea turtles, salmon, and humpback whales. But before and after the detailed accounts, scenes of many other swimmers parade across the screen. Can you guess which of them wins the prize for most efficient swimmer? It may not be your first guess. It’s not necessarily the fastest, just the one that gets the most distance per expenditure of energy.

Neelesh Patankar, a mechanical engineer from Northwestern, and John Dabiri, a bioengineer from Caltech, measured the efficiency of a wide variety of organisms. They determined that top prize goes to: the jellyfish. In an article at The Conversation, Akshat Rathi explains why jellyfish “are the most efficient swimmers” in the world. That’s quite a distinction among the many other swimmers that are already at the top of their game: 

The new measure has two implications. First, among those that have typical swimming and flying actions, which includes most fish and all birds, each animal is as energy efficient as it can be. This means that, given their size and shape, each animal is able to spend the least amount of energy to move the most distance. Second, this measure confirms a previous finding that jellyfish are unusually energy efficient, beating all the thousands of fish and birds Patankar studied.

“Put another way, a whale and a tuna are equally energy efficient,” Patankar said. “Except jellyfish, which have an unusual action that makes them more efficient.” 

What’s the Secret? 

Beautiful images of these creatures flash by briefly in the Illustra film. Time did not allow producer Lad Allen to discuss their mechanics, but the subject was considered during the planning stages. We mentioned jellyfish efficiency in an earlier post. What’s the secret that gives jellies the edge? 

While working on the energy-consumption coefficient, he came across recent work done by Dabiri and his colleagues which showed that the unique contract-and-relax action of jellyfish allowed it to recapture some of the energy it spends on motion. This means a jellyfish can travel a lot more distance for the same amount of energy spent by other animals adjusted for its weight and size. 

The Cambrian Explosion 

It’s interesting to note, also, that jellyfish (phylum Cnidaria) are among the phyla that appear abruptly in the Cambrian explosion — see our article where an expert said, “The earliest widely accepted animal fossils are rather modern-looking cnidarians.” Given the high efficiency of these deceptively simple-looking animals, it’s not surprising that engineers are attempting to imitate their secrets. “Dabiri is already working on exploiting jellyfish propulsion,” Rathi says.

There’s another swimmer that might surprise you, this time for its stealth. These graceful animals make cameo appearances at the beginning and end of Living Waters. Phys.org reports: 

At a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour, sea lions may not be the fastest-swimming mammal in the sea. But they are unrivaled when it comes to stealth — their signature clap-and-glide flipper motion propels them through water and leaves virtually no wake. 

The benefits of turbulence-free motion underwater are obvious. Imagine submarines that glide stealthily beneath sensitive detectors. At George Washington University, mechanical engineers and students are attempting to “build a machine to mimic what sea lions naturally do.”  

It wouldn’t be easy to design a system from scratch that could match the sea lion’s specifications — they produce high levels of thrust while leaving little traceable wake structure. So it makes sense to learn as much as we can about how they do it — with the thought that someday we might be able to engineer something that mimics our biological model. 

The secret of wake-free swimming appears to be related to the sea lion’s use of its fore-flippers, rather than a tail (as with dolphins and fish). At The Conservation, Megan Leftwich describes in more detail how this mode of locomotion produces more thrust. A video shows how researchers at George Washington University are measuring carefully the flipper motions of California sea lions, mapping them into computer models that can inform the design of artificial flippers. This is an exercise in “Studying Nature’s Solutions,” the title says.

If the world’s best human designers are attempting to build machines to mimic what these animals “naturally do,” it’s a reasonable inference that sea lions and jellyfish originated from an intelligent cause — one with superior knowledge of propulsion, fluid mechanics, and optimization. 

The old God's Of the classics v. The new Gods of modernism v. The even newer God's of postmodernism?

Darwin and the Loss of the Enlightenment Paradigm .

Neil Thomas

In two articles so far (here and here), I have been exploring how justified the new atheists’ appropriation of Darwinian ideas is. This is the third and final post. As we’ve seen, Erasmus Darwin was a quintessential legatee of Enlightenment prepossessions. As its somewhat virtue-signaling name implies, the thinkers of the Enlightenment wished to distance themselves from anything that smacked of religious “superstition.” This led to the determination to declare a unilateral declaration of independence from the metaphysical sphere in favor of purely “scientific” modes of explanation. Yet in the face of the last century of scientific discoveries we have come to realize that hubristic expectations stemming from the Enlightenment dream of encompassing the whole of reality in some grand material theory of everything have been forced into a reluctant retreat.1

Almost Complete Ignorance

As a plethora of popular books, articles, and TV programs have recently intoned, our almost complete ignorance of the nature of ultimate reality has been laid bare by the work of Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Carlo Rovelli, and a host of microbiology specialists. Taken together, these scientific advances have united to challenge the Newtonian/Enlightenment paradigm. Scientists can no longer deliver certainty and predictability in the aftermath of such disconcerting advances in physics or in microbiology, which represent an unsuspected level of ultra-diminutive reality that has only revealed its bare existence in the last seven decades or so thanks to the invention of the electron microscope in 1944. Indeterminacy and probabalism have emerged to subvert the Enlightenment conception of a predictable clockwork universe. We have been forced to acknowledge that the dimension of reality we know of is merely the observable, superficial part and that this rests on and is sustained by invisible trestles of substrate reality of which we have little inkling and to which our Cartesian notions of predictability and comprehensibility do not, alas, apply. 

Whose Reality?  

In short, the bright new dawn of Erasmus Darwin’s Enlightenment world has been replaced by the hauntingly surreal specter of what is now routinely referred to as “quantum weirdness.” Like it or not, Erasmus’s simple and predictable world is no more, and we now find ourselves confronted by the truly vertigo-inducing predicament of being subject to an unpredictable cosmos we simply do not understand. It appears to me that the only intellectually defensible position to adopt in the light of such unanticipated scientific advances is to keep an open mind. The new atheists on the other hand continue to cling anachronistically to the same would-be omniscient paradigm of reality as that in which Erasmus Darwin reposed his faith. But whereas Erasmus had the extenuation of knowing nothing of the profounder reaches of reality into which modern scientific advances have given us at least some fleeting glimpses, the same excuse cannot be pleaded for the new atheists whose stance, either tacitly or wittingly, turns a blind eye to those hidden dimensions of existence. 

Under the illusion of being the “bright” (their term) or enlightened ones, they appear, on the contrary, to have become the doctrinaire victims of a peculiarly modern form of obscurantism. It is as if they are doggedly clinging to an obsolete worldview which denies the relevance of much cutting-edge science. Their outlook has little in common with that of Charles Darwin whose later years were marked by what Peter Vorzimmer once termed “frustrated confusion.”2 In that respect Darwin might be posthumously welcomed as an avatar of postmodern man in that he anticipated the decidedly non-omniscient spirit of our modern age. Such, needless to say, is not the mental universe inhabited by the new atheists whose philosophic stance seems more akin to that of Charles’s grandfather than to that of the grandson. 

Notes 

2)See on this point Marcus de Sautoy, What We Cannot Know: From Consciousness to the Cosmos (London: Fourth Estate, 2017) and Carlo Rovelli, Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity (London: Penguin, 2016).

2)Darwin: The Years of Controversy, p. 254.      

Atheism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Darwinist?

 Erasmus Darwin and Credible Denial. 

Neil Thomas 

In a post yesterday I began exploring how justified the new atheists’ appropriation of Darwinian ideas is. Consideration of Erasmus Darwin’s writings suggests that his unbelief could well have been father to the thought in the matter of his evolutionary speculations. He was certainly more prone to gratuitous displays of atheistical dissent than was his grandson Charles. This was clearly shown in what turned out to be an amusing “own goal” he scored against himself arising from the provocative inscription he once chose to have embossed on the exterior of his coach. The offending words, “E Conchis Omnia” (everything comes from seashells), suggested rather too unambiguously to many orthodox believers that humans had originally developed from creatures crawling along the seabed. One is here reminded irresistibly of Richard Dawkins paying to have atheistic messages emblazoned on the sides of London buses. 

Unsurprisingly, Erasmus’s all-too transparent subtext was not lost on a Lichfield neighbor of his, a Church dignitary by the name of Canon Seward. Seward, offended by the idea that sea shells could be thought to be the ancestors of humans, attacked the exhibitionistic show of (philosophical) materialism in a satirical poem, comparing Erasmus with Epicurus and Lucretius, the arch-materialists of the Classical past: 

He [=Erasmus] too renounces the Creator,

And forms all sense from senseless matter

Makes man start up from dead fish bones,

As old Deucalion did from stones.1 

Predictably, Erasmus was before long obliged to remove the inscription from his coach, fearing loss of revenue from his medical practice were he not to do so.

We have recently been made aware of the power of “cancel culture” even in our own day. Against the backdrop of a decidedly more persecuting age,2 Erasmus was thenceforth obliged to make the outward claim that he was a theist, but his abiogenetic conception of the beginning of the world and the subsequent wholly natural processes of evolution he postulated were advanced in suspiciously ambiguous terms which might (tactically) be termed “two-faced,” as the following words indicate: 

Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!3 

The passage advances an awkward, logically contradictory hybrid of spontaneous generation and divine creation. Erasmus wishes to assure readers that this process was initiated under God’s superintendence, yet the phrase “which THE FIRST GREAT CAUSE endued with animality” seems to be something of a parenthesis which might be omitted without injuring the flow of his sentence. This in turn indicates that it might have been an interpolation tacked on pro forma to avert clerical ire. The truthfulness of his theistic claims must then remain highly moot, all the more so since his philosophical conjectures were unorthodox and very often, in 18th-century terms, sacrilegious.

Erasmus Darwin thought a jaunty form of Augustan verse traditionally associated with lighter themes4 was the best cover for his rather outré poetical effusions on evolution. It became especially imperative for people holding views like those of Erasmus to dissemble after the French Revolution of 1789 and the Terror which followed it. From that time onward there grew up a genuine fear of any emulation of French science whose practitioners, rightly or wrongly, were suspected of instrumentalizing their science to further insurrectionary political goals. Understandably then, against the background of the climate of fear, we must often read between the lines in order to get to Erasmus’s true meaning. 

Atheism, Political Emancipation, Revolution 

age in which Erasmus Darwin grew to maturity and which became the crucible of so many revolutionary impulses. By dint of an “assimilation of Biblical and theological elements to secular frames of reference”6 progress was, in Enlightenment thinking, imagined as being achievable in historical time (as opposed to the distant chiliastic, on-the-stroke-of-Doomsday hope offered by Christian apocalyptic). The ultimate effect of this large change of perspective from divine to secular was to translate Scriptural prophecy rather freely into preemptive revolutionary action — people “doing it for themselves” to improve their condition by the form of direct action which could do away with the need for apocalyptic hopes. As the contemporary examples of the American and French revolutions showed, this could involve bloodshed, yet the pious hope was that the violence would have a cleansing effect which would ultimately lead to the greater good.

As the late Roy Porter observed, it was Erasmus whose “man-centred view of man making himself” resulted in his “Promethean vision of infinite possibilities. God had become a distant cause of causes; what counted was man acting in Nature. The theodicy, the master narrative, had become secularized.”7 His was a very new form of secular cosmogony in explicit opposition to the older European master narrative enshrined in the Bible and the 12 books of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. It is perhaps otiose to remark that the ancient Greeks might have called this hubris. 

Notes 

1)In Greek mythology Deucalion was the son of Prometheus. With his wife Pyrrha he survived a flood sent by Zeus to punish human wickedness; they were then instructed to throw stones over their shoulders, and these turned into humans to repopulate the world. By this reference Seward doubtless meant to arraign Erasmus for adhering to what Wordsworth would later refer as a ‘creed outworn’ (as opposed to Christianity). See Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin and Evolution (Sheffield: Stuart Harris, 2014), p. 153.

2)Erasmus had misgivings about publishing his poem Zoonomia or the Laws of Organic Life because he feared accusations of heresy, and, indeed, when it was published, it occasioned much ecclesiastical opprobrium. In 1817 the Italian translation was even placed on the Papal Index of proscribed books.

3)Zoonomia or the Laws of Organic Life, two volumes (London: J. Johnson, 1794-6), volume 1, p. 505.

4)Such as Alexander Pope’s mock-heroic “Rape of the Lock” (1712/14).

5)Jennifer Hecht, Doubt: A History (New York: HarperOne, 2003), p. 402.

6)M. H. Abrams, Natural Supernaturalism. Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature (New York: Norton, 1971), p.64.

7)Roy Porter, Enlightenment. Britain and the Creation of the Modern World (London: Penguin, 2001), p. 445.

The difference between artificial intelligence and actual intelligence is qualitative not quantitative.

 Jay Richards: Myths, Metaphysics, and Artificial Intelligence.

David Klinghoffer 

The myths of artificial intelligence are the theme of the latest Science Uprising episode. Philosopher Jay Richards is one of the scholars featured, discussing what he calls the metaphysics behind those myths. It isn’t a superior grasp of the technology involved that drives some (Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and others) to warn that AI will achieve superiority over human beings, drive us out of work, and finally out of existence. It’s the hidden premise that humans are just “meat machines” rather than spiritual beings in a creator’s image. If that were true, of course it would follow that other, faster machines would likely overtake and replace us.

Richards is the author of The Human Advantage: The Future of American Work in an Age of Smart Machines, among other books. If you missed the new Science Uprising episode, find it Here.

Darwinism schooled again by primeval tech.

Armed Forces in the Cell Keep DNA Healthy 

David Coppedge .

Science reporters struggle for metaphors to describe the complex operations they see going on in the cell. For example: 

The Orchestra 

News from the University of Geneva likens the human genome to a “complex orchestra.” Their research led to “unexpected” and “surprising” findings showing “harmonized and synergistic behavior” in the regulation of genes. The metaphor of a conductor keeping all the various players in harmony came to mind: 

A team of Swiss geneticists from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), and the University of Lausanne (UNIL) discovered that genetic variation has the potential to affect the state of the genome at many, seemingly separated, positions and thus modulate gene activity, much like a conductor directing the performers of a musical ensemble to play in harmony. These unexpected results, published in Cell, reveal the versatility of genome regulation and offer insights into the way it is orchestrated 

The Armed Forces 

Another metaphor popular among reporters is “armed forces.” This metaphor will prove instructive as we read about DNA protection and damage repair. Let’s look at some of the stages in this process where we will find soldiers, emergency medical technicians, ambulances and military hospitals in action, each well trained and equipped for defense. 

Surveillance and Inspection 

Any disciplined military operation requires high standards. Soldiers at boot camp know that drill sergeants can be ruthless when inspecting rifles, shoe shines, and barrack beds. Similarly, machines in the genome inspect DNA for errors and won’t tolerate less than perfection. A news item from North Carolina State University describes MutS, a machine that inspects unzipped DNA strands looking for errors. Any mismatch makes this drill sergeant stop and stare the recruit in the face, even if he is one in a million. 

Fortunately, our bodies have a system for detecting and repairing these mismatches — a pair of proteins known as MutS and MutL. MutS slides along the newly created side of the DNA strand after it’s replicated, proofreading it. When it finds a mismatch, it locks into place at the site of the error and recruits MutL to come and join it. MutL puts a nick in the newly synthesized DNA strand to mark it as defective and signals a different protein to gobble up the portion of the DNA containing the error. Then the nucleotide matching starts over, filling the gap again. The entire process reduces replication errors around a thousand fold, serving as our body’s best defense against genetic mutations and the problems that can arise from them, like cancer. 

First Response 

If casualties occur, they have to be detected. A protein named ATF3 is captain of a squad that acts as “first responder” to DNA damage, as this from Georgia Regents University explains. Let’s say a DNA strand breaks because of sunlight, chemotherapy or a cosmic ray. If not corrected quickly, the cell could become cancerous or die. What happens first? 

In the rapid, complex scenario that enables a cell to repair DNA damage or die, ATF3, or activating transcription factor 3, appears to be a true first responder, increasing its levels then finding and binding to another protein, Tip60, which will ultimately help attract a swarm of other proteins to the damage site. 

Combat Operations 

Viruses have invaded! The armed forces go into high alert. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies describes the flurry of activities that result, because every organism “must protect its DNA at all costs.” 

Before panicking, the cell’s commanding officers need intelligence. If a DNA break puts the cell in stress, was it a natural break, let’s say from a cosmic ray, or from a virus, like an insurgent tossing a grenade? A false move could lead to friendly-fire casualties. 

The researchers explain how the cell figures out if the DNA damage was internal or external. First, the MRN complex gives the “all hands on deck” signal. It stops replication and other cell operations until the break is mended.  

What’s interesting is that even a single break transmits a global signal through the cell, halting cell division and growth,” says O’Shea. “This response prevents replication so the cell doesn’t pass on a break.” 

The viral response begins the same way, but doesn’t give the global alarm. Instead, the alarm is localized, and sentries in the area dispatch the invaders. There’s a reason for this. “If every incoming virus spurred a similarly strong response, points out O’Shea, our cells would be frequently paused, hampering our growth.” But when the cell becomes preoccupied with DNA damage repair, the viruses can infiltrate.

A video in the article applies the armed forces metaphor: 

Govind Shah: “DNA repair proteins serve as security guards inside the nucleus. They catch virus DNA and escort them out of the cell. If a cell experiences a huge amount of DNA damage, then these security guards will be pulled away from the viral DNA and allow the viral DNA to replicate to high levels.”

Clodagh O’Shea: “We discovered that if you have DNA damage in your own genome, and the alarm goes off, actually that recruits in all of the forces: all of the police, national guard–everyone’s there. All the forces are dealing with your own DNA damage, and there’s nothing left to actually even see or actually turn off the virus.” 

This gave them an idea. Shah says, “So why not use this to kill cancer cells” with viruses engineered to enter tumor cells? The programmed response they discovered will cause the cell to let the viruses in while it’s preoccupied with fixing DNA breaks. “If the cell can’t fix the DNA break, it will induce cell death-a self-destruct mechanism that helps to prevent mutated cells from replicating (and thus prevents tumor growth).”  

Medics 

We’re all familiar with the images of battlefield helicopters delivering medics to give first aid to the wounded, or airlifting them to the nearest triage station or hospital. The cell nucleus has hospitals, an article at Biotechniques says, and “A molecular ambulance for DNA” knows how to get the casualties to the emergency room. 

Double-strand breaks in DNA are a source of stress and sometimes death for cells. But the breaks can be fixed if they find their way to repair sites within the cell. In yeast, one of the main repair sites resides on the nuclear envelope where a set of proteins, including nuclear pore subcomplex Nup84, serves as a molecular hospital of sorts. The kinesin-14 motor protein complex, a “DNA ambulance,” moves the breaks to repair sites, according to a new study in Nature Communications. 

Researchers at the University of Toronto found it “very surprising” that the ambulance driver is the well-known motor protein kinesin-14 

Hospital Staff 

News from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center introduces some of the specialists in the DNA repair hospital: fumarase, a metabolic enzyme; DNA-PK, a protein kinase; and histone methylation enzymes that regulate the repair process. These skilled doctors perform restorative surgery for “DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs),” which “are the worst possible form of genetic malfunction that can cause cancer and resistance to therapy.” 

Clean-Up Crew 

Cells invest a lot of energy in their ribosomes, the organelles that translate DNA. Ribosomes are assembled from protein and RNA domains. What happens with the leftovers? An item from the University of Heidelberg describes molecular machines that barcode the fragments for delivery to a barrel-shaped shredder called the exosome. Though not described in military terms, the agents are under strict orders and required to pass through checkpoints. 

According to Prof. Hurt, the production of ribosomes is an extremely complex processthat follows a strict blueprint with numerous quality-control checkpoints. The protein factories are made of numerous ribosomal proteins (r-proteins) and ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA). More than 200 helper proteins, known as ribosome biogenesis factors, are needed in the eukaryotic cells to correctly assemble the r-proteins and the different rRNAs. Three of the total of four different rRNAs are manufactured from a large precursor RNA. They need to be “trimmed” at specific points during the manufacturing process, and the superfluous pieces are discarded. “Because these processes are irreversible, a special check is needed,” explains Ed Hurt. 

The number of “armed forces” personnel involved in DNA defense and cell quality control is astonishing. It’s beyond a well-conducted orchestra. It’s like a military operation, with strict protocols, hierarchical command structure and trained specialists. These systems are goal-oriented: they exist to protect the genome. They are on duty inspecting components even when nothing is wrong. And when things do go wrong, they know just what to do, as if well-trained in following orders.

We aren’t surprised to notice that these articles say nothing about evolution. Why? Because we all know from our experience that phenomena characterized by hierarchical command and control systems with documented procedures and skilled agents are always intelligently designed. 

The new atheists: More Darwinian than Darwin?

 Darwin and the “New Atheists”  

Neil Thomas 

The somewhat superannuated 19th-century “conflict model” once used to define embattled evolutionary and religious claims to truth status has in our own time made an unheralded comeback in the writings of a diverse group of social commentators widely referred to as the “new atheists.”1 For much of the 20th century that older, conflict model, represented by the writings of the late Victorian era Andrew Dixon White2 and others, was modified in light of intellectual developments which came preponderantly to view science and religion as separate domains, each with its own sharply defined epistemological boundary.3 In the last few decades, however, some ideologically engaged scientific activists and commentators with erstwhile Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins at their head have seized the opportunity to weaponize Darwinism to push an atheist agenda against the backdrop of what they see as a dangerous uptick in global religious sentiment. In this and two subsequent posts I wish to explore how justified the group’s appropriation of Darwinian ideas is. 

Darwin’s Doubts 

ground zero as that advanced by Anaximander and his follower Anaximenes.5 And like the Greeks, Erasmus advanced no empirical evidence that would allow his claims to be tested. Not surprisingly then, evolution was widely regarded before 1859 as the minority preoccupation of a group of eccentrics rather than as a key to unlocking the mysteries of human existence.

Fast forward to a century later and we find that Charles Darwin was acutely aware of the checks and balances set up by modern science in order to establish any given theory as a demonstrable fact. Realizing that his grandfather’s ideas did not meet modern standards of proof, he looked for a sounder causal foundation for the Erasmian contribution to evolution. This he was to find in the theory of natural selection which he derived and developed from the writings of Thomas Malthus. It was via Malthus that Darwin thought to have discovered a mechanism or vera causa to underpin his grandfather’s ideas. In time, however, he began to harbor doubts about what he had first confidently hoped would be his game-changer with the capacity to bring evolutionary thought into a new era of acceptance and public prestige.

In later decades of his life, however, Charles began to doubt whether his postulated theory of natural selection would have been enough on its own to effect all the extraordinary transmutations evidenced by the world’s profusion of widely different species. This thought even led him to flirt with Lamarckian ideas of evolution which he had previously scorned.6

The upshot of the author’s second thoughts was that the sixth edition of the Origin was very different from the 1859 version and in some cases quite inconsistent with the first iteration of his ideas.7 Most strikingly, there arose within him a growing tension concerning his public postulation of an evolutionary theory dependent on natural selection and his claim in older age to be a “Theist” (Darwin’s own capitalization).8 It therefore appears that the more valid historical parallel for the new atheists is not Charles himself but Charles’s grandfather. The preoccupation of the Darwin family with evolutionary speculation was something which grew by stages9 and it is at a much earlier stage that a less ambiguous correlation emerges between evolutionary thought and atheism. 

Atheists Old and New 

What links Erasmus Darwin with the modern proponents of atheism is that the grandfather grew up against the background of that crypto-atheistical doctrine of deism according to which God had shrunk to the status of a deus absconditus or — to use the deprecatory contemporary cognomen — “absentee landlord.” Given such a backdrop of non-belief the question arises: Which came first in Erasmus’s thinking: the chicken or the egg? By which I mean: Was his desire to ponder possibilities of a purely material and naturalistic process of creation and evolution triggered by a deist conviction that, even if God had ever existed, he had now long since disappeared from human ken and was in that sense functionally irrelevant to human affairs? In other words, was his whole theory of evolution triggered by what is now called materialist confirmation bias (as one strongly suspects is the case of the new atheists)? For it is clear that if one has been convinced (or has convinced oneself) that there neither is nor can ever be evidence of divine direction in human affairs, then one is forced to speculate on some wholly material alternative, however illogical, impracticable, and physiologically improbable it might appear. 

Notes 

1)See The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens with a Foreword by Stephen Fry (London: Transworld/Penguin, 2019).

2)A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: Appleton, 1896).

3)James Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900 (Cambridge: CUP, 1979). 

4)See renowned quantum mechanics specialist Carlo Rovelli’s The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy (Yardley PA: Westholme, 2011).

5)See Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature, facsimile of 1803 edition (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1973), canto 1, ll. 295-315. 

6)Erasmus Darwin may have been first to put forward the suggestion of life having emerged from the depths of the oceans and evolving into different species in response to a striving for perfection in different environments. This was the somewhat simplistic (and erroneous) conception of physiological adaptation by sheer will-power he shared with Denis Diderot and the French biologist, Lamarck. 

7)See Peter J. Vorzimmer, Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy: The Origin of Species and Its Critics 1859-1882 (London: London UP, 1972).

8)As Neal C. Gillespie once pointed out, Darwin was successful in banishing God from his science but not from his worldview. See his Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1979). 

9)The absolute origin of the Darwin family’s abiding preoccupation can be traced as far back as the year 1719 when Erasmus Darwin’s father, Robert, discovered the fossilized skeleton of a large part of a plesiosaur, described in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of that same year and now on display in the Natural History Museum in London. For Erasmus the finding of an extinct organism was taken as proof that species over long ages must undergo quite radical morphological change, and this inference was to lead him to develop his theory of common descent for the world’s animal types. See Charles Darwin’s The Life of Erasmus Darwin, edited by Desmond King-Hele (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), Introduction, p. xiii.  

Yet more on Darwinism place in the alt-wrong's master race delusions.

 Darwinian Racism, Past and Present 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

 

A new episode of ID the Future spotlights Darwinian racism, past and present. In this first half of a panel discussion at the 2022 Center for Science & Culture Insider’s Briefing, Darwin Day in America author John West introduces the other panel members, notes an upcoming book, Darwin Comes to Africa, and discusses his experience visiting the Museum of Criminal Anthropology (pictured above) in Turin, Italy, where the work of infamous Darwinian criminologist Cesare Lombroso’s racist ideas about evolution and race are on dramatic display. Then historian Richard Weikart, author of Darwinian Racism, debunks the popular media claim that white nationalist racism in America is a Southern evangelical phenomenon. Weikart shows that the most prominent white nationalists demonstrate little if any interest in promoting Christianity, but they very consistently anchor their racist ideas of white superiority and the racial struggle for supremacy in Darwinism, with straightforward links to Charles Darwin’s own ideas and arguments in The Descent of Man.

Weikart emphasizes that Darwinism does not necessarily lead its adherents to racism and, in fact, most Darwinists today are not racists. But racist ideas were woven into modern evolutionary thinking from the beginning and do serve as a major inspiration for white nationalist writers and even for some recent mass shooters. Weikart ends his lecture with a twist. He says there is one strongly anti-racist component in Darwinian materialism: such materialism, if true, means that all humans are equally without value — just so many DNA survival machines in a world without higher purpose or meaning. A grim takeaway, but only for those who feel compelled to embrace modern Darwinism. If you are open to questioning it, there are a wealth of resources here and at intelligentdesign.org showing that the evidence points strongly in another direction. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Re: Human origins, the science is anything but.settled.

 New Nobel Laureate, Svante Pääbo, on the “Politics” of Paleontology and Humans Origins 

David Klinghoffer 

Congratulations to Swedish paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo, awarded a Nobel Prize today: 

…for his discoveries concerning the genomes of extinct hominins and human evolution

Humanity has always been intrigued by its origins. Where do we come from, and how are we related to those who came before us? What makes us, Homo sapiens, different from other hominins?

Through his pioneering research, Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. 

In the past, Ann Gauger and Denyse O’Leary have cited him for his acute remarks on the political aspects of human origins studies.  

“The Myth of 1 Percent” 

He commented on human-chimp genetic similarity, often said to be 99 percent identical, an idea that even Science magazine has conceded is a “myth.” From, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”: 

Could researchers combine all of what’s known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? “I don’t think there’s any way to calculate a number,” says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”  

The Myth of Objectivity  

In an interview with Edge, “Mapping the Neanderthal Genome,” he explained why paleontology can seem to be such a bitter field. It’s the sparsity of the data, and the politics. 

As an outsider to paleontologists, I’m often rather surprised about how much scientists fight in paleontology. And I am thinking about why that is the case. Why do we have less vicious fights in molecular biology, for example? I suppose the reason is that paleontology is a rather data-poor science. There are probably more paleontologists than there are important fossils in the world. To make a name for yourself is to find a new interpretation for those fossils that are extant. This always goes against some earlier person’s interpretation, who will not like it very much.

There are many other areas of science where we can agree to disagree, but at least we often generally agree on what data we need to go out and collect to resolve the issue and no one wants to come out too strongly on one side or the other because the data could, in a year or two, prove you are wrong.

But in paleontology you can’t decide what you will find. You cannot in most cases go out and test your hypothesis in a directed way. It’s almost like social anthropology or politics — you can only win by somehow yelling louder than the other person or sounding more convincing. 

These are welcome and candid observations, refuting notions that human origins is a fully objective area of research. They also echo things that our colleagues Günter Bechly and Casey Luskin have said here. 

Hope for the dead.

 Romans4:17KJV"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." 

No syncretism of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the dead with Greco Roman philosophical speculation about a purported afterlife of a reductive spirit soul is possible.  

Acts17:32KJV"32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter." 

So Paul's audience was sensible enough to understand that the concept of an afterlife and that of a resurrection of the dead were mutually exclusive. Thus while  there was a division between those willing to pursue truth no matter where that pursuit led and those dogmatically clinging to the old modes of thought,all understood that they were being presented with a new concept that was irreconcilable with their previous notions about death and what followed. 

As romans4:17 quoted above suggest the resurrection involves the bringing into being of what was not or to be more specific the restoring of what used to be. 

So rather than look to those denounced by scripture as being in darkness mentally for hope re: the state of the dead we chose to share brother Paul's hope 

Acts24:15KJV"And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."

On the multiverse as nontheist mythology.

 The Multiverse: From Epicurus to Comic Books and Beyond 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Andrew McDiarmid explores the roots of the idea that our universe is just one of many universes, an idea stretching back to the ancient atomists and given new life in the modern era, first by physicist Hugh Everett. McDiarmid looks at how the idea percolated into comic books and from there into other areas of popular culture. He caps off the episode with a reading of a recent article about the multiverse hypothesis by Stephen Meyer, author of the bestseller, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.

Meyer shows why some atheist scientists are attracted to the multiverse. As he explains, there is little if any good evidence for the idea, but atheists need it to explain away the fact that the laws and constants of the universe are exquisitely fined-tuned to allow for life. The fine-tuning smacks of intelligent design, and physicist Leonard Susskind has frankly remarked that the multiverse is needed to answer the arguments of design proponents. But as Meyer explains, not only does the multiverse hypothesis lack evidence, it doesn’t even remove the need for a fine-tuner, a point that the makers of recent comic book movies from Marvel and DC seem to grasp. Download the podcast or listen to it here.