Search This Blog

Monday, 28 November 2022

On the measurement problem.

Measurement problem

In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe such a collapse directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.


The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution. The measurement problem is describing what that "something" is, how a superposition of many possible values becomes a single measured value.


To express matters differently (paraphrasing Steven Weinberg),[1][2] the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence  between quantum reality and classical reality?[3] 

Schrödinger's cat 

A thought experiment often used to illustrate the measurement problem is the "paradox" of Schrödinger's cat. A mechanism is arranged to kill a cat if a quantum event, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, occurs. Thus the fate of a large-scale object, the cat, is entangled with the fate of a quantum object, the atom. Prior to observation, according to the Schrödinger equation and numerous particle experiments, the atom is in a quantum superposition, a linear combination of decayed and undecayed states, which evolve with time. Therefore the cat should also be in a superposition, a linear combination of states that can be characterized as an "alive cat" and states that can be characterized as a "dead cat". Each of these possibilities is associated with a specific nonzero probability amplitude. However, a single, particular observation of the cat does not find a superposition: it always finds either a living cat, or a dead cat. After the measurement the cat is definitively alive or dead. The question is: How are the probabilities converted into an actual, well-defined classical outcome? 

Interpretations 

The views often grouped together as the Copenhagen interpretation are the oldest and, collectively, probably still the most widely held attitude about quantum mechanics.[4][5] N. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced.[6][7]


Generally, views in the Copenhagen tradition posit something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. This concept, though often attributed to Niels Bohr, was due to Werner Heisenberg, whose later writings obscured many disagreements he and Bohr had had during their collaboration and that the two never resolved.[8][9] In these schools of thought, wave functions may be regarded as statistical information about a quantum system, and wave function collapse is the updating of that information in response to new data.[10][11] Exactly how to understand this process remains a topic of dispute.[12]


Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or collapse; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".[13][14][15][16] 

Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation attempts to solve the problem by suggesting that there is only one wave function, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses—so there is no measurement problem. Instead, the act of measurement is simply an interaction between quantum entities, e.g. observer, measuring instrument, electron/positron etc., which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate how the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear in measurements, a work later extended by Bryce DeWitt. However, proponents of the Everettian program have not yet reached a consensus regarding the correct way to justify the use of the Born rule to calculate probabilities.[17][18]


De Broglie–Bohm theory tries to solve the measurement problem very differently: the information describing the system contains not only the wave function, but also supplementary data (a trajectory) giving the position of the particle(s). The role of the wave function is to generate the velocity field for the particles. These velocities are such that the probability distribution for the particle remains consistent with the predictions of the orthodox quantum mechanics. According to de Broglie–Bohm theory, interaction with the environment during a measurement procedure separates the wave packets in configuration space, which is where apparent wave function collapse comes from, even though there is no actual collapse.[19] 

A fourth approach is given by objective-collapse models. In such models, the Schrödinger equation is modified and obtains nonlinear terms. These nonlinear modifications are of stochastic nature and lead to a behaviour that for microscopic quantum objects, e.g. electrons or atoms, is unmeasurably close to that given by the usual Schrödinger equation. For macroscopic objects, however, the nonlinear modification becomes important and induces the collapse of the wave function. Objective-collapse models are effective theories. The stochastic modification is thought to stem from some external non-quantum field, but the nature of this field is unknown. One possible candidate is the gravitational interaction as in the models of Diósi and Penrose. The main difference of objective-collapse models compared to the other approaches is that they make falsifiable predictions that differ from standard quantum mechanics. Experiments are already getting close to the parameter regime where these predictions can be tested.[20] The Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory proposes that wave function collapse happens spontaneously as part of the dynamics. Particles have a non-zero probability of undergoing a "hit", or spontaneous collapse of the wave function, on the order of once every hundred million years.[21] Though collapse is extremely rare, the sheer number of particles in a measurement system means that the probability of a collapse occurring somewhere in the system is high. Since the entire measurement system is entangled (by quantum entanglement), the collapse of a single particle initiates the collapse of the entire measurement apparatus. Because the GRW theory makes different predictions from orthodox quantum mechanics in some conditions, it is not an interpretation of quantum mechanics in a strict sense. 

The role of decoherence 

Erich Joos and Heinz-Dieter Zeh claim that the phenomenon of quantum decoherence, which was put on firm ground in the 1980s, resolves the problem.[22] The idea is that the environment causes the classical appearance of macroscopic objects. Zeh further claims that decoherence makes it possible to identify the fuzzy boundary between the quantum microworld and the world where the classical intuition is applicable.[23][24] Quantum decoherence becomes an important part of some modern updates of the Copenhagen interpretation based on consistent histories.[25][26] Quantum decoherence does not describe the actual collapse of the wave function, but it explains the conversion of the quantum probabilities (that exhibit interference effects) to the ordinary classical probabilities. See, for example, Zurek,[3] Zeh[23] and Schlosshauer.[27]


The present situation is slowly clarifying, described in a 2006 article by Schlosshauer as follows:[28]


Several decoherence-unrelated proposals have been put forward in the past to elucidate the meaning of probabilities and arrive at the Born rule ... It is fair to say that no decisive conclusion appears to have been reached as to the success of these derivations. ... 

As it is well known, [many papers by Bohr insist upon] the fundamental role of classical concepts. The experimental evidence for superpositions of macroscopically distinct states on increasingly large length scales counters such a dictum. Superpositions appear to be novel and individually existing states, often without any classical counterparts. Only the physical interactions between systems then determine a particular decomposition into classical states from the view of each particular system. Thus classical concepts are to be understood as locally emergent in a relative-state sense and should no longer claim a fundamental role in the physical theory. 

Further reading: R. Buniy, S. Hsu and A. Zee On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics (2006)

Sunday, 27 November 2022

The la-5: a brief history.

 Lavochkin La-5 

The Lavochkin La-5 (Лавочкин Ла-5) was a Soviet fighter aircraft of World War II. It was a development and refinement of the LaGG-3, replacing the earlier model's inline engine with the much more powerful Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine. During its time in service, it was one of the Soviet Air Force's most capable types of warplane, able to fight German designs on an equal footing. 

The La-5 descended from the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3, aircraft designed by Vladimir Gorbunov before the Second World War. The LaGG-1 was underpowered, and the LaGG-3 - with a lighter airframe and a stronger engine did not solve the problem. By early 1942, the LaGG-3's shortcomings led to Lavochkin falling out of Joseph Stalin's favour, and LaGG-3 factories converting to Yakovlev Yak-1 and Yak-7 production.


During the winter of 1941–1942, Lavochkin worked unofficially to improve the LaGG-3. Design work was conducted in a small hut beside an airfield. In early 1942, Gorbunov replaced a LaGG-3's inline engine with the stronger Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine. The nose was replaced with the nose of the ASh-82-powered Sukhoi Su-2. The new engine required work to maintain the aircraft's balance. The prototype first flew in March, and demonstrated surprisingly acceptable performance; air force test pilots considered it to be superior to the Yak-7, and intensive flight tests began in April. The aircraft was named LaG-5; the change from LaGG was because Mikhail Gudkov, one of the original LaGG designers, was no longer with the programme. By July, it was called La-5, although Gorbunov was still involved. 

By July, the La-5 was ordered into full production, including the conversion of incomplete LaGG-3 airframes. Production based on the prototype began almost immediately in factories in Moscow and the Yaroslav region. Changes to the main production model included slats to improve all-round performance. The La-5 was inferior to the best German fighters at higher altitudes, but equal at lower altitudes; it was suitable for air combat over the Eastern Front which typically took place at altitudes under 5,000 m (16,404 ft).


The aircraft received further modifications. The La-5F improved the pilot's exterior visibility with a cut down rear fuselage. The definitive La-5FN had a fuel-injected engine, a different engine air intake, and was further lightened. A full circle turn took 18–19 seconds. Very late-production La-5FN had two 20mm Berezin B-20 cannon installed in the cowling in place of the heavier two 20mm ShVAK; both were capable of a salvo weight of 3.4 kg/s.


9,920 La-5s of all variants were built, including dedicated trainer versions, designated La-5UTI.


The La-5 was the basis for the further improved Lavochkin La-7.


A number of La-5s continued in the service of Eastern Bloc nations after the end of the war, including Czechoslovakia. 

Performance 

In mid-1943, a new La-5 was captured by the Germans after making a forced landing at a German airfield. The aircraft was assessed by Luftwaffe test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche.[1] Lerche noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which forced the pilot to make constant adjustments during combat or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft with the BMW 801 used the Kommandogerät engine computer system that automatically controlled all of these settings from a single throttle lever. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds. 

The La-5's top speed and acceleration were comparable to Luftwaffe fighters at low altitude. The La-5FN roll rate was slightly higher than the Messerschmitt Bf 109; the Bf 109 was slightly faster, and had higher climb and turn rates.[2] The La-5FN climbed slightly faster and had a smaller turn radius than the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-8. However, the Fw 190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance and a superior roll-rate. Lerche advised Fw 190 pilots to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, escape attacks by diving followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and avoid prolonged turning engagements. Both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes when using MW 50 fuel.


The most serious La-5 defects were the engine's thermal isolation, lack of cockpit ventilation, and a canopy that was impossible to open at speeds over 350 km/h. Furthermore, poor engine compartment insulation allowed exhaust gas to enter the cockpit; in response, pilots frequently ignored orders by flying with open canopies.[3] 

Soviet pilots were generally satisfied with the La-5. "That was an excellent fighter with two cannons and a powerful air-cooled engine", recalled pilot Viktor M. Sinaisky. "The first La-5s from the Tbilisi factory were slightly inferior, while the last ones from the Gorki plant, which came to us from Ivanovo, were perfect. At first we received regular La-5s, but then we got new ones containing the ASh-82FN engine with direct injection of fuel into the cylinders. It was perfected and had better maneuverability, acceleration, speed and climb rate compared to the early variants. Everyone was in love with the La-5. It was easy to maintain, too."[4]


Nevertheless, La-5 losses were high, the highest of all fighters in service in USSR, excepting those of the Yak-1. In 1941–45, VVS KA lost 2,591 La-5s: 73 in 1942, 1,460 in 1943, 825 the following year, and 233 in 1945.[5] 

Operational history 

The La-5F arrived at the frontline in February 1943. It was able to challenge the Bf 109G-2 and the Fw 190A-4 on more or less equal terms, while at tree-top height it was even faster. One of the most successful La-5 units was 5th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, that flew 3,802 combat sorties, claiming 128 enemy aircraft shot down while losing 52 Lavochkins.[6] 


Saturday, 26 November 2022

The quantum world v. reductive materialism

Quantum Physics Axed Materialism. Many Hope the World Won’t Know 

Denyse O'Leary 

Quantum mechanics, which developed in the early 20th century, has been a serious blow to materialism. 

There is no way to make sense of it if immaterial entities like information, observation, or the mind are not real. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder struggles against the effects of this fact.

In a recent video, she asks, “Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Effects?” (November 19, 2022). 

She asks, why did some physicists like von Neumann and Wigner think that consciousness is necessary to make sense of quantum mechanics, and can consciousness influence the outcome of a quantum experiment? (0:33)

Well, they had good reason. Any effort to exclude consciousness from reality fails. 

A Hostile Witness 


Hossenfelder, a hostile witness, kindly offers an example from the work of Irish physicist John Bell (1928–1990): 

John Bell used the following example: “When the Queen dies in London, the Prince of Wales becomes instantaneously king.” No matter where he is. So why wasn’t the speed of light limit broken when the queen died? Because we can update our *knowledge about what happened elsewhere without causing any event elsewhere. And this is how Bohr thought about the collapse of the wave-function. You can update it instantaneously because it just describes what we know. Einstein wasn’t convinced, but Bohr won the argument. (2:14 

But isn’t it reasonable to ask, what does it mean to say that “the Queen” “dies”? On September 8 of this year, Elizabeth II, head of state for the Commonwealth, which includes many countries, including Canada, Jamaica, and Nigeria, died, as is the fate of all mortals. 

The Nature of Consciousness 

Now, here is a question that more directly concerns the nature of consciousness, a topic that has rattled the pioneer quantum physicists, if not Hossenfelder: Did goats or termites in any of those environments notice or care?


The big question is, could those entities have cared? No. They could not. It is not a question of their opinion. They can’t grasp the matter. Something is happening in human consciousness that is not happening in theirs.


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




Apparently monogamy makes dollars as well as sense.

Moving In Together Doesn’t Match the Financial Benefits of Marriage, but Why? 

Married couples are four times as wealthy as unmarried couples who live together 

By Julia Carpenter 

A walk down the aisle can be a route to greater wealth and prosperity for couples in the U.S. Married people have higher net worths and are more likely to be homeowners than their unmarried counterparts their age are.  


The mystery, though, is why cohabitating but unmarried couples struggle to build wealth in the same way. As of 2019, the median net worth for cohabiting couples age 25 to 34 was $17,372, a quarter that of the $68,210 for married couples of that same age range, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. For singles it is $7,341.

“If you build an arch, the cornerstone is the first piece you put in and the capstone is the last,” he said. “What this means is people see an economic bar they need to clear before they get married. Couples wait until they have good jobs, a car that won’t break down, maybe even a house. Then, they get married.”


Melissa Mowery, a 30-year-old communications manager in Asheville, N.C., has been with her boyfriend for five years and living together for nearly four. The two don’t share a joint bank account, but they split the cost of rent and other bills. Even so, Ms. Mowery said she can’t make sense of the financial gap between her relationship and that of married couples. 

“We’re already saving a lot of money and splitting the cost on most things,” she said. “I don’t understand how married couples are accumulating wealth in a way we’re not doing.” 


While there are legal and tax benefits to marriage, research suggests the financial security and long-term mind-set of those who tie the knot may also be a powerful driver of wealth. More married couples pool their money—such as sharing savings accounts and investing together—to achieve certain goals, Ms. Kent said. Cohabiting couples are less likely to combine finances and investments.


Working with two incomes and combining their investments to maximize compound interest can significantly increase a couple’s financial prospects, said Emily Garbinsky, associate professor of marketing at Cornell University, who has studied couples’ financial behavior. Simply put, married people may be more likely to be on the same page financially, she said. 

“Married people may be much more likely to have these conversations around what goals they have for their financial future,” she said. “There seems to be something very special and unique about deciding to share finances.” 


Unmarried couples may be less willing to commingle their money, said Prof. Garbinsky.


“Our money, our income, represents a huge part of who we are,” she said. “[Sharing] that can be scary for people, so they tend to be very protective.”  

Both married and unmarried couples who do pool finances also experience greater relationship satisfaction and may even stay together for longer, Prof. Garbinsky said. 


Housing is one of the biggest factors in establishing a couple’s wealth. Compared with single people and cohabiting couples, married couples hold a larger concentration of housing wealth, according to data from the St. Louis Fed. 


“Most of my married friends have bought a house,” Ms. Mowery said, noting high housing costs in her area. “I just don’t know how they did it. Everyone talks about how when you get married, you accumulate wealth but I don’t know what that means.” 

In the current hypercompetitive housing market, as smaller, more affordable starter homes vanish and housing affordability declines, single people and cohabiting couples are often at a disadvantage. 















My problem with NDEs.

 Leviticus19:31ASV"Turn ye not unto them that have familiar spirits, nor unto the wizards; seek them not out, to be defiled by them: I am Jehovah your God." 

As then there are now some who claim to have the gift of being able to communicate with the departed spirits of our loved ones. If as some suggest death is merely an illusion in the case of humans, and that the real us is merely freed from captivity to a superfluous physical form by what we mistake for death. Why would God object to communication between those still trapped in their physical forms and those freed. Surely such communication would provide comfort for his people. 

1Corinthians10:20NIV"No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons." 

The occult and mystical practices of those worshiping any other God than JEHOVAH put said practitioners in contact with demons, malignant superhuman intelligences who promote false religious ideas. 

Speaking of their overlord our Lord declares 

John8:44KJV"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. " 

The prince of demons/unclean spirits is the speaker of the first lie. What was that first lie? 

Genesis3:4ASV"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: "  

Well it sure seems like they died, but typical of their modus operandi the prince of darkness and his lieutenants have been working assiduously to muddy the waters re: the truth of death. Note please it is only if death is real that a resurrection is necessary. 

1Corinthians15:36,37NIV"How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do NOT plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. " 

If we do not die there is no need for a resurrection. Note also that it is not the body that is to be raised up but the soul/self. 

The demons use the occult to keep the marvelous hope of resurrection from the people. Promoting the false notion that death is not real and as a necessary corollary that the resurrection as described in the bible is not real. 

A key tell that deception (either self-deception or something more sinister) is afoot with these "NDEs" is the physical nature of this alleged spirit world. See the article dated 13/11/2022 . We are being ask to believe that the spirit world is just a stylized mirror image of the physical complete with all the plants ,animals physical materials like gold that we are familiar with. That spirit forms are humanoid possessing human orientation like up or down front or back. Just a modicum of thought will expose all this as very unlikely. 









The design is real though the amber is fake.

Fossil Friday: Fake Amber and the Piltdown Fly  

Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features an apparent fossil wasp in Mexican amber. What it actually shows is a crude forgery, where a modern wasp has been embedded in artificial resin. Such simple forgeries are commonly sold to tourists in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Eastern Europe, and Eastern Asia. They can be easily recognised and hardly any real expert would fall for them (Poinar 1982, Ross 1998, Gröhn 2013). However, there exist much more sophisticated forgeries of amber inclusions that even fooled famous scientists (Grimaldi et al. 1994, Eriksson & Poinar 2015). They are crafted by using real pieces of amber.


Fossiliferous amber pieces usually were formed by several successive flows of tree resin and therefore have a layered composition that is called “Schlauben.” Cunning forgers split a piece of amber along these natural surfaces, carve a cavity in which they place a dead recent insect, fill the cavity with resin or Canada balsam, glue the two halves together again, and polish the piece to hide the fissure. Such sophisticated forgeries are hard to detect, because any test of the amber substance only confirms its authenticity. The considerable effort of course only makes sense to a forger in case of very rare inclusions that achieve a high market price among collectors, unless somebody only wants to play a trick on a scientist. Here is an interesting example (McAlister 2012). 

The Modern Latrine Fly 

Professor Willi Hennig was one of the most famous entomologists and biologists of the 20th century: founder of modern phylogenetic systematics (cladistics), one of the world’s leading experts on Dipteran systematics of his time, and a predecessor of mine as curator for the amber collection of the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart (Germany). In 1966 he described an inclusion of the modern latrine fly species Fannia scalaris in Baltic amber (Hennig 1966). The specimen had already been briefly mentioned by the German collector and dipteran researcher Herrmann Loew in 1850, but was now studied for the first time in detail by Hennig. His discovery seemed quite important because it featured one of the very few fossil representatives of the dipteran family Muscidae, with large implications for the phylogenetic and biogeographic history of flies. It also contributed to the textbook wisdom (e.g., Carpenter 1992) that some species apparently survived unchanged since the Oligocene.


In 1993 the young scientist Andrew Ross, who later became a well-known expert for amber fossils, studied the remarkable specimen at the Natural History Museum in London, where it had been deposited since 1922, after being acquired with other parts of the Loew amber collection. Ross was shocked when the amber piece overheated by the suboptimal microscope lighting and recognized a strange crack appearing above the fly. The supposed mishap turned out to be a lucky circumstance. A closer examination of the crack revealed to his big surprise that the apparent fossil fly was nothing but a clever forgery using a common recent latrine fly (Grimaldi et al. 1994, Ross 1998, Eriksson & Poinar 2015). Ross gave this forged fossil the fitting nickname “Piltdown fly” in his very first scientific publication (Ross 1993), alluding to the infamous Piltdown man hoax. The discovery of this forgery even made headlines in the tabloids (Anonymous 1993, Highfield 1993, Kellaway 1993) as well as popular science media (Palmer 1993). 

A Possibility of Forgery 

Was Hennig unaware of the possibility of a forgery? Or course not. He even quoted Crowson (1965), who had already suggested that in all cases of apparently recent species in amber the possibility of a forgery should be carefully evaluated and excluded. Hennig (1966)commented that there is zero evidence that any such case ever happened, and categorically dismissed this possibility as “totally unfounded” for his amber fly. That was not just a quite bold statement but actually pretty careless for such a distinguished expert.


Therefore, it was even speculated that Hennig might have been involved in a deliberate joke, because his paper was published on April Fools’ Day 1969, moreover in a non-peer-reviewed journal published by the Stuttgart museum, where he worked as curator. However, this possibility seems highly unlikely considering the serious style and far-reaching scientific conclusions of his manuscript, so that I rather think the publishing date is a mere coincidence, even though a very ironic one.


Unfortunately, forgeries still abound in the international fossil trade, and after some further scandals like the notorious Archaeoraptor case, scientists are nowadays very much aware of the risk. Therefore, important new finds from potentially dubious provenance are very carefully studied with highly sophisticated methods and the most modern technology to make sure the fossils are really authentic before any scientific studies are published on them. Hopefully, this will prevent further Piltdown fossils to make it into scientific literature. Nevertheless, some caution may still be advised. 

References 

Anonymous 1993. Student enttarnt Fossilien-Fälschung. Focus 47.

Carpenter FM 1992. Superclass Hexapoda. in: Moore RC & Kaesler RL (eds). Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part R Arthropoda 4, Volume 4. Geological Society of America & University of Kansas, Boulder (CO) & Lawrence (KS), pp. 398–399, 443.

Crowson RA 1965. Some Thoughts concerning the Insects of the Baltic Amber. p. 133 in: Freeman P (ed.). Proceedings XIIth International Congress of Entomology, London, 8-16 July, 1964, 842 pp.

Eriksson ME & Poinar GO Jr 2015. Fake it till you make it—the uncanny art of forging amber. Geology Today 31(1), 21–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gto.12083

Grimaldi DA, Shedrinsky A, Ross A & Baer NS 1994. Forgeries of Fossils in “Amber”: History, Identification and Case Studies. Curator The Museum Journal 37(4), 251–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1994.tb01023.x

Gröhn C 2013. Fälschungen — Wie erkenne ich eine Inklusenfälschung. pp. 106–109. in: Alles über Bernstein. Wachholtz, Neumünster (DE), 207 pp.

Hennig W 1966. Fannia scalaris Fabricius, eine rezente Art im Baltischen Bernstein? (Diptera: Muscidae). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 150, 1–12. https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Stuttgarter-Beitraege-Naturkunde_150_0001-0012.pdf

Highfield R 1993. Fossil hoaxer puts fly in the ointment for insect history. Daily Telegraph. 

Kellaway R 1993. Jura-fix Park fly. The Sun November 12, 1993, p. 3.

Loew H 1850. Über den Bernstein und die Bernsteinfauna. Programm der Königlichen Realschule zu Meseritz, 44 pp.

McAlister E 2012. Piltdown Fly. NHM December 21, 2012. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/diptera-blog/2012/12/21/piltdown-fly.html

Palmer D 1993. Fatal flaw fingers fake fossil fly. NewScientist November 13, 1993. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14018990-400-fatal-flaw-fingers-fake-fossil-fly/

Poinar GO Jr 1982. Amber-True or False? Gems and Minerals (April) 534, 80–84.

Ross AJ 1993. The ‘Piltdown Fly’ (abstract). Palaeontology Newsletter 20, p. 16.

Ross A 1998. Fake Amber. pp. 6–9 in: Amber — The Natural Time Capsule. The Natural History Museum, 73 pp.

Thursday, 24 November 2022

Be grateful for your eyes' flawless design once more.

Look: On Thanksgiving, Be Grateful for the Intelligent Design of Your Eyes

David Klinghoffer 

Happy Thanksgiving! If you’re looking for one more thing to express gratitude for, look no further than…eyes. As engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman write in their new book, Your Designed Body: 

Our eyes differentiate the nuances across an amazing spectrum of colors. The same eyes that work in painfully bright light can also see in almost total darkness. How do they turn light (photons) into information (electrical impulses), and how does our brain turn that into images? 

Eyes were quite the sudden, unanticipated gift in the history of life. Charles Darwin expected that they must have developed from simple forerunners through the usual (hypothesized) series of gradual steps. But at the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years ago, we find clear evidence of both compound (as in the trilobite pictured above) and camera eyes already in use by creatures among the first animals in the fossil record. BOOM: There they are. 

An Evolutionary Icon 

We take our own eyes for granted. However, our ability to interact with the world through vision — its beauty, its marvels, the information all around us — is beyond remarkable. At the same time, the eyes are an evolutionary icon, in two senses. In a powerful short video written and directed by Rachel Adams, we consider the scientific evidence around the question of eye evolution: 

To deal with and demote the exquisite sensitivity of our vision — the ability to detect a single photon — Darwinists claim that vertebrate eyes are built backwards in testimony to the haphazard ways of evolution. But as Discovery Institute biologist Jonathan Wells explains, evolutionists are working with outdated science. It’s not ID proponents, but entirely mainstream research, that increasingly reveals the optimal design of our eyes.


Don’t let the truth about life and its origins get canceled. If, like me, you are grateful for the courageous voices of Dr. Wells and other scientists with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, please take a moment now to donate to keep Evolution News — the daily voice of the intelligent design research community — going strong in 2023! 

 

Be thankful for your body's flawless design.

“Poor Design”? Actually, the Human Body Is Amazing; Here’s Why  

Howard Glicksman and Steve Laufmann 

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present this excerpt from Your Designed Body, the new book by engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman.


In the human body, even a cursory look shows us that a lot is going on. Hands that wield a sledgehammer during the day can play evocative piano sonatas in the evening. In a triathlon, the same body swims, bicycles, and runs — three very different activities — in rapid succession and with extreme endurance. The same body that completed that triathlon can also climb a mountain (though perhaps on a different day). 


Our bodies keep a constant internal temperature, manage our water levels effectively, and keep us going even when we eat the wrong foods. When we stand up, our blood pressure adjusts almost instantly to keep blood flowing to the brain. We know when we need food and water. Even with our eyes closed, we can sense the position of all our body parts and make detailed adjustments in movement. 


Our eyes differentiate the nuances across an amazing spectrum of colors. The same eyes that work in painfully bright light can also see in almost total darkness. How do they turn light (photons) into information (electrical impulses), and how does our brain turn that into images? 


Our ears face similar challenges, only they turn sound (pressure waves) into electrical signals. Further, they’re configured such that our minds can generate a three-dimensional understanding of the objects around us, just by the sounds those objects emit (or block). 


When we cut our finger, the blood quickly stops and the wound scabs over and heals. When we get sick, our bodies generally do an excellent job of fixing the problem and getting well again. 


While our bodies are neither the fastest, nor the biggest, nor the strongest in the animal kingdom, they are without question the most versatile. The human body’s range of capabilities boggles the mind. 


On top of all this, we can make new people. Anyone who has experienced the birth of a child knows that in this astonishing process something special happens. 

A Comparison with Human Design 

What is a fitting response to such wonders? 


Several years ago, I (Steve Laufmann) was perusing an online discussion board frequented by some fellow enterprise and systems architects when one post caught my attention. The writer observed that human-designed systems architectures can’t compare to the amazing architectures we see in living organisms. This comment sparked an energetic discussion. Of particular interest to me, one responder agreed that these biological systems would indeed be amazing architectures, but since they resulted from entirely random, unguided Darwinian processes, as he believed, they could not be considered architecture. After all, architects know that good architectural design takes hard work and never happens by accident. 

Huh? 

Surely the architecture — the quality of the engineering in any system, including a living system — is evident in the resulting system, independent of who, or what, did the architectural work. And from a systems perspective, it’s clear that living systems have extraordinarily hard problems to solve, else they can’t be alive. For example, many single-celled organisms can intake oxygen from the surrounding environment, but how do the cells in a large multi-cellular body (like a human’s) get oxygen when most of them have no access to the external environment? 


It takes complex, multi-part systems to solve problems of this kind — to make a large and complex body work. And such systems only happen when there’s a suitable architectural framework to define how they fit together — and how they work together. In the example above, a naïve architecture would likely fail to get the necessary oxygen to each and every cell, or would make any of a million other similar errors that would render life impossible. 


The human body is unquestionably a marvel of engineering, but what is the source of the engineering? We’ve all been told that we are cosmic accidents, built gradually over eons by the purposeless forces of nature. We also have been told that we are purposely made. 

Which Is It?  

To shed light on the question we intend a detailed examination of the human body. The exploration will benefit from two distinct, complementary perspectives: 


A medical perspective — to understand the sophisticated and extraordinarily precise functional capacities, dynamics, and coordination of the body’s many interconnected systems. 

An engineering perspective — to explore the exquisite engineering of these systems: the mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and electrical systems, the control systems, the internal signaling and coordination mechanisms, the information processing systems, and much more. 

Throughout, we’ll base our observations and arguments on incontrovertible medical and engineering knowledge. 


We’ll also consider claims that one or another part of the human body is poorly engineered. The past several years have seen a growing move to denigrate and demote the human body’s architecture. According to this argument, the human body is actually not so well designed. Rather, it’s filled with the many errors and evolutionary dead ends you’d expect if it resulted from billions of small, random, purposeless mutations threshed by natural selection. This argument for blind evolution is commonly known as the argument from poor design. We’ll look at a few examples of this line of argument in the course of the book and take a deeper dive into the matter in Chapter 23, after we’ve explored many recurring design principles and patterns in the human body. 


We will argue that the exquisite architecture and engineering-design of the human body reveal daunting hurdles to any causal explanation — hurdles that can no longer be ignored. In the final chapters we will detail a theory of biological causation rooted in the lessons of engineering and systems biology, and compare it to the modern evolutionary paradigm. 

Controversial? Definitely 

assumptions, a person may not let go of the assumption that is most reasonable to let go of. Instead, he may let go of the one he cherishes the least. 


As you examine the evidence laid out in these pages, our encouragement to you is, don’t be the guy in the story. Be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. 

Clever Solutions  

The question of human origins is also, of course, a question of biological origins generally. Organic life must overcome many thorny problems, both to be alive and to reproduce. While the laws of physics and chemistry are precisely tuned to permit life, they are incapable of causing it, and of course have no way to care whether life exists or not. 


And the matter calls for considerable care. Life depends on a delicate balance of forces, arranged with precision. As Richard Dawkins famously put it, “However many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive.”2 Life’s margin of error is small. But as we’ll show, jump-starting, sustaining, and reproducing life are enormously hard problems to solve. How is it possible to get so much right, to land within the margin of error again and again and again? 


Hard problems require ingenious solutions. Fortunately for us, ingenious solutions are everywhere in biology — and nowhere more so than in the human body. 


Virtually every one of the body’s ingenious solutions involves one or more systems (1) composed of various parts that (2) work together to achieve a function that none of the parts can perform on its own, (3) all of which are correctly arranged, assembled, and integrated, with (4) exactly the needed range of capacities, while (5) operating within tight tolerances and under tight deadlines. Most of us know from firsthand experience that when any one of these systems breaks down, bad things happen. 


Producing a next generation is even trickier. If something goes wrong, even something seemingly modest — and early in embryonic development, particularly — the result is that life simply ceases. Life never exists as a formless blob, but instead always exists in an architecturally complex form. Nor, of course, does life exist in the often- fertile imaginations of materialist scientists. Life is found in the real world, and reality has a way of humbling theories that are not grounded in the nitty-gritty details of what life requires. 

Coherent Interdependent Systems — Do or Die  

engineering marvel. An engineering perspective, then, should shed important light on how it works. 


Though their mistakes sometimes take longer to discover than those of physicians, engineers also must live in the real world. Engineers design, build, deploy, and operate complex systems that do real work in the real world. And it takes yet more work to keep these systems from failing, which is pretty much guaranteed to happen at the least opportune times. 


Engineers know that all the following are required to make systems that work: Systems require many parts. The parts are usually specialized to perform certain tasks under certain conditions. Systems are typically composed of other systems, constituting a hierarchy of systems — a system of systems. 

Systems must be coherent. A system’s parts must be precisely coordinated. They must fit together correctly, with the right interfaces and integrations for functional coherence. And they must be carefully orchestrated over time to achieve their overall function(s), for process coherence. Failure at either will prevent the system from working. 

Systems of systems usually exhibit complex interdependencies. Individual systems or subsystems often require other working subsystems in order to function. Many times, these dependencies go both ways. For example, your car’s engine won’t start without a charged battery, but the battery won’t charge unless the engine runs. 

For human engineers it takes a lot of ingenuity, hard work, and perseverance to achieve such things, typically including many iterations of the classic design-build-test cycle. Engineers know that working systems are never an accident. So if someone suggests that a coherent, interdependent system of systems (like the human body) arose by chance, they’ll need to back that up with a detailed engineering analysis. 

Notes 

Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. Frank Gaynor (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949), 33–34.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986), 9. 




 

Wednesday, 23 November 2022

It still looks like engineering because it still is.

New Book Offers a Fresh Test for Human Origins: Explain Your Own Body 

David Klinghoffer 

Whatever other challenges it may introduce in our lives, money has this virtue: it doesn’t lie. Bioengineer Stuart Burgess made this excellent point at the recent Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. The amount of money that investors are putting into biomimetics research — the quest for engineering solutions inspired by biology — is remarkable and telling. 


These investors don’t seek to make a philosophical statement about intelligent design or evolution. They’re trying to turn their money into more money. That’s all. The highest tribute to biological design is their recognition of the genius behind the design of life, most notably human life. Unlike Darwinists, in the grip of ideology or of group think, investors put their money where the solutions are. Money doesn’t lie. 

A “Panorama” of Errors? 

The new book Your Designed Body (Discovery Institute Press), by engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman, is a powerful, highly substantive, and delightfully written rebuttal to the ideology of “poor design.” The latter is the notion that our bodies are a “panorama of glitches,” as one Darwinist, biologist Nathan Lents, put it in the title of his own book. Such a conclusion is dictated to evolutionists by their premise that all life is only a product of chance winnowed by death. Of course, then, it follows that humans are a “panorama” of errors.


As Laufmann and Glicksman summarize in the introduction to Part Six of their book, “In these pages so far, we have gone beyond how the human body looks, to examine how it actually works. We find coherence, interdependencies, and finely tuned dynamics everywhere we explore. These characteristics present a vast array of formidable causal hurdles, sufficient to test any theory of human origins.” 


Laufmann and Glicksman, in other words, are proposing an evolutionary test: Does the evidence of our own bodies argue for a designed, or an undesigned origin? Evolutionary biologists ask this question, too, but without the professional background that these authors can bring to bear. Physicians know things that evolutionary biologist don’t appreciate in the same way, not remotely: “The body must follow the rules.” “The body must take control.” “The body must possess exactly the right functional capacities.” “The body must be finely tuned.”


Similarly, unlike evolutionary biologists, engineers are highly attuned to certain realities about complex systems: “Systems require many parts.” “Systems must be coherent.” “Systems of systems usually exhibit complex interdependencies.” 

No Equivalent of Malpractice 

Evolutionists who are neither physicians nor engineers can get away with failing to understand why things work in life. They can be satisfied by surface appearances. That’s a luxury that Howard Glicksman, Steve Laufmann, and their respective colleagues don’t have in their work. When systems fail, those who practice medicine and engineering know they can be held responsible — not just morally but legally. That tends to clarify your thinking. Imagine driving a car in a place where you could never get pulled over by the police or be issued a citation. That is evolutionary biology, with no equivalent of malpractice or negligence, in a nutshell.


Bringing these professional sensibilities, and sensitivities, together is the unique contribution of Your Designed Body, an important new addition to the debate about intelligent design. We’ll say more about that in coming weeks as we look more closely at the book. Meanwhile, you can get your copy here.

 

Tuesday, 22 November 2022

Recommended reading

 Darwin on trial by Phillip Johnson check it out here.  

The Philistines: a brief history.

Philistines 

 This article is about the ancient people. For their polity, see Philistia. For the derogatory term, see Philistinism. For other uses, see Philistines (disambiguation).

"Allophuloi" redirects here. For the modern term for a positive attitude towards a group that is not one's own, see Allophilia. For the plant genus, see Allophylus.

Not to be confused with Palestinians. 

The Philistines (Hebrew: פְּלִשְׁתִּים‎ Pəlīštīm) were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan from the 12th century BC until 604 BC, when their polity, after having already been subjugated for centuries by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, was finally destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.[1] After becoming part of his empire and its successor, the Persian Empire, they lost their distinct ethnic identity and disappeared from the historical and archaeological record by the late 5th century BC.[2] The Philistines are known for their biblical conflict with the Israelites. Though the primary source of information about the Philistines is the Hebrew Bible, they are first attested to in reliefs at the Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu, in which they are called Peleset[a] (accepted as cognate with Hebrew Peleshet);[3] the parallel Assyrian term is Palastu,[b] Pilišti,[c] or Pilistu.[d][4] 

Several theories are given about the origins of the Philistines. The Hebrew Bible mentions in two places that they originate from Caphtor (possibly Crete/Minoa).[5] The Septuagint connects the Philistines to other biblical groups such as Caphtorim and the Cherethites and Pelethites, which have been identified with the island of Crete.[6] This has led to the modern theory of Philistines having an Aegean origin.[7] In 2016, a large Philistine cemetery was discovered near Ashkelon, containing more than 150 dead buried in oval-shaped graves. A 2019 genetic study found that, while all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Semitic-speaking Levantine gene pool, the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture; this genetic signal is no longer detectable in the later Iron Age population. According to the authors, the admixture was likely due to a "gene flow from a European-related gene pool" during the Bronze to Iron Age transition, which supports the theory that a migration event occurred.[8]


Most scholars agree that the Philistines were of Greek origin,[9][10] and that they came from Crete and the rest of the Aegean Islands or, more generally, Greece.[11] 

Etymology 

The English term Philistine comes from Old French Philistin; from Classical Latin Philistinus; from Late Greek Philistinoi; ultimately from Hebrew Pəlištî (פלשתי‎; plural P'lishtim, פלשתים‎), meaning 'people of P'lesheth (פלשת‎)'; and there are cognates in Akkadian (aka Assyrian, Babylonian) Palastu and Egyptian Palusata;[12] the term Palestine has the same derivation.[13] The native Philistine endonym, assuming they had one, is unknown.


The Hebrew term Plištim occurs 286 times in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (of which 152 times are in 1 Samuel). It also appears in the Samaritan Pentateuch.[14] In the Greek version of the Bible, called Septuagint, the equivalent term Phulistieím (Φυλιστιείμ) occurs 12 times, again in the Pentateuch.[15]


In secondary literature, "Philistia" is further mentioned in the Aramaic Visions of Amram (4Q543-7), which is dated "prior to Antiochus IV and the Hasmonean revolt," possibly to the time of High Priest of Israel Onias II; Jubilees 46:1-47:1 might have used Amram as a source.[16]


Outside of pre-Maccabean Israelite religious literature, evidence for the name and the origins of the Philistines is less abundant and less consistent. In the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, ha-Plištim is attested at Qumran for 2 Samuel 5:17.[17] In the Septuagint, however, 269 references instead use the term allophylos ('of another tribe').[18

History 

During the Late Bronze Age collapse, an apparent confederation of seafarers known as the Sea Peoples are recorded as attacking ancient Egypt and other Eastern Mediterranean civilizations.[19] While their exact origins are a mystery, and probably diverse, it is generally agreed that the Sea Peoples had origins in the greater Southern European area, including western Asia Minor, the Aegean, and the islands of the Mediterranean.[20] Egypt, in particular, repelled numerous attempted invasions from the Sea Peoples, most famously at the Battle of the Delta, where the pharaoh Ramesses III defeated a massive invasion force which had already plundered Hattusa, Carchemish, Cyprus, and the Southern Levant. Egyptian sources name one of these implicated Sea Peoples as the pwrꜣsꜣtj, generally transliterated as either Peleset or Pulasti. Following the Sea Peoples' defeat, Ramesses III allegedly relocated a number of the pwrꜣsꜣtj to southern Canaan, as recorded in an inscription from his funerary temple in Medinet Habu,[21] and the Great Harris Papyrus.[22][23] Though archaeological investigation has been unable to correlate any such settlement existing during this time period,[24][25][26] this, coupled with the name Peleset/Pulasti and the peoples' supposed Aegean origins, have led many scholars to identify the pwrꜣsꜣtj with the Philistines.[27]


Typically "Philistine" artifacts begin appearing in Canaan by the 12th century BCE. Pottery of Philistine origin has been found far outside of what would later become the core of Philistia, including at the majority of Iron Age I sites in the Jezreel Valley; however, because the quantity of said pottery finds are light, it is assumed that the Philistines' presence in these areas were not as strong as in their core territory, and that they probably were a minority which had assimilated into the native Canaanite population by the 10th century BCE.[28]


There is little evidence that the Sea Peoples forcefully injected themselves into the southern Levant as many sites where Philistine material culture appears did so without an intervening destruction event. At Ashdod, only some ash was found in part of one area, but as David Ben-Shlomo, one of the site's excavators put it, "Sites like Ashdod display no evidence for destruction in the Early Iron Age levels."[29] The original assumed destruction of Ashkelon was only a lens of ash uncovered in 1921, as all excavations have shown that no destruction took place ca. 1200 BCE. As the former lead excavator from Ashkelon stated, "The only clear conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no evidence of destruction."[30] At Tell es-Safi/Gath, no evidence of a destruction has been uncovered in any area, as the cited evidence for a destruction were some pieces of restorable pottery uncovered on one floor.[31] For Ekron, only a single storage building dating to ca. 1200 BCE was destroyed, and after this destruction, the local Canaanite inhabitants rebuilt the site. It was only after this Canaanite phase that Philistine pottery appeared at Ekron though most importantly, there was no destruction upon the arrival of the Philistine material culture and the transition was peaceful.[32] The same can be said for Aphek where an Egyptian garrison was destroyed, likely in an act of warfare at the end of the 13th century, which was followed by a local Canaanite phase, which was then followed by the peaceful introduction of Philistine pottery.[33] The lack of destruction by the Sea Peoples in the southern Levant should not be surprising as Canaan was never mentioned in any text describing the Sea Peoples as a target of destruction or attack by the Sea Peoples.[34] Other sites such as Tell Keisan, Acco, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Dor, Tel Mevorak, Tel Zeror, Tel Michal, Tel Gerisa, and Tel Batash, have no evidence of a destruction ca. 1200 BCE.[35 By Iron Age II, the Philistines had formed an ethnic state centered around a pentapolis consisting of Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. This period of Philistine history is something of a gray area, as the majority of information regarding Philistia comes from the Hebrew Bible, and is of questionable historicity. The Bible depicts a series of conflicts between the Philistines and the Israelites during the period of the Judges, after which they were apparently subjugated by David, before regaining independence in the wake of the United Monarchy's dissolution, after which there are only sparse references to them. The accuracy of these narratives is questioned by many scholars.


The Philistines seemed to have generally retained their autonomy, barring a few periods of partial Israelite and Judahite suzerainty, up until the era of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[weasel words][citation needed] In the mid-8th century BC, Tiglath-Pileser III marched into the southern Levant, conquering Aram-Damascus, and occupying the remaining kingdoms in the area, including Philistia. Decades later, Egypt began agitating its neighbors to rebel against Assyrian occupation. A revolt in Israel was devastatingly crushed by 722 BC, resulting in the kingdom's total destruction. In 712 BC, a Philistine named Iamani ascended to the throne of Ashdod, and organized another failed uprising against Assyria with Egyptian aid. The Assyrian King Sargon II invaded Philistia, which effectively became annexed by Assyria, although the kings of the five cities, including Iamani, were allowed to remain on their thrones.[36] In his annals concerning the campaign, Sargon II singled out his capture of Gath, in 711 BC.[37] Ten years later, Egypt once again incited its neighbors to rebel against Assyria, resulting in Ashkelon, Ekron, Judah, and Sidon revolting against Sargon's son and successor, Sennacherib. Sennacherib squashed the revolt, and destroyed much of the cities in Phoenicia, Philistia, and Judah, though he was unable to capture the Judahite capital, Jerusalem. As punishment, the rebel nations paid tribute to Assyria, and Sennacherib's annals report that he exacted such tribute from the kings of Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ekron, but Gath is never mentioned, which may indicate that the city was actually destroyed by Sargon II.


The Philistines disappear from written record following the conquest of the Levant by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II towards the end of the 7th century BC, when Ashkelon, Ekron and many other cities from the region were completely destroyed.[38]

Origin 

The origin of the Philistines is still debated. The probable Aegean connection is discussed in the paragraph on "Archaeological evidence". Here-below are presented the possible connections between Philistines and various similar ethnonyms, toponyms or other philological interpretations of their biblical name: the "Peleset" mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions, a kingdom named as "Walistina/Falistina" or "Palistin" from the region near Aleppo in Syria, and older theories connecting them to a Greek locality or a Greek-language name. 

The "Peleset" from Egyptian inscriptions 

Since 1846, scholars have connected the biblical Philistines with the Egyptian "Peleset" inscriptions.[69][70][71][72][73] All five of these appear from c.1150 BCE to c.900 BCE just as archaeological references to Kinaḫḫu, or Ka-na-na (Canaan), come to an end;[74] and since 1873 comparisons were drawn between them and to the Aegean "Pelasgians."[75][76] Archaeological research to date has been unable to corroborate a mass settlement of Philistines during the Ramesses III era.[24][25][26] 


"Walistina/Falistina" and "Palistin" in Syria 

A Walistina is mentioned in Luwian texts already variantly spelled Palistina.[77][78][79] This implies dialectical variation, a phoneme ("f"?) inadequately described in the script,[80] or both. Falistina was a kingdom somewhere on the Amuq plain, where the Amurru kingdom had held sway before it.[81]


In 2003, a statue of a king named Taita bearing inscriptions in Luwian was discovered during excavations conducted by German archaeologist Kay Kohlmeyer in the Citadel of Aleppo.[82] The new readings of Anatolian hieroglyphs proposed by the Hittitologists Elisabeth Rieken and Ilya Yakubovich were conducive to the conclusion that the country ruled by Taita was called Palistin.[83] This country extended in the 11th-10th centuries BCE from the Amouq Valley in the west to Aleppo in the east down to Mehardeh and Shaizar in the south.[84]


Due to the similarity between Palistin and Philistines, Hittitologist John David Hawkins (who translated the Aleppo inscriptions) hypothesizes a connection between the Syro-Hittite Palistin and the Philistines, as do archaeologists Benjamin Sass and Kay Kohlmeyer.[85] Gershon Galil suggests that King David halted the Arameans' expansion into the Land of Israel on account of his alliance with the southern Philistine kings, as well as with Toi, king of Ḥamath, who is identified with Tai(ta) II, king of Palistin (the northern Sea Peoples).[86]


Contra

Edit

However, the relation between Palistin and the Philistines is much debated. Israeli professor Itamar Singer notes that there is nothing (besides the name) in the recently discovered archaeology that indicates an Aegean origin to Palistin; most of the discoveries at the Palistin capital Tell Tayinat indicate a Neo-Hittite state, including the names of the kings of Palistin. Singer proposes (based on archaeological finds) that a branch of the Philistines settled in Tell Tayinat and were replaced or assimilated by a new Luwian population who took the Palistin name.[87] 

Greece: "Palaeste" and phyle histia theories 

Another theory, proposed by Hermann Jacobsohn [de] in 1914, is that the name derives from the attested Illyrian-Epirote locality Palaeste, whose inhabitants would have been called Palaestīnī according to Illyrian normal grammatical practice.[88]


Allen Jones (1972) suggests that the name Philistine represents a corruption of the Greek phyle histia ('tribe of the hearth'), with the Ionic spelling of hestia.[89] 

Archaeological evidence 

According to Joshua 13:3[90] and 1 Samuel 6:17,[91] the land of the Philistines (or Allophyloi), called Philistia, was a pentapolis in the southwestern Levant comprising the five city-states of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, from Wadi Gaza in the south to the Yarqon River in the north, but with no fixed border to the east.[18]


Tell Qasile (a "port city") and Aphek were located on the northern frontier of Philistine territory, and Tell Qasile in particular may have been inhabited by both Philistine and non-Philistine people.[92]


The location of Gath is not entirely certain, although the site of Tell es-Safi, not far from Ekron, is currently the most favoured.[93]


The identity of the city of Ziklag, which according to the Bible marked the border between the Philistine and Israelite territory, remains uncertain.[94]


In the western part of the Jezreel Valley, 23 of the 26 Iron Age I sites (12th to 10th centuries BCE) yielded typical Philistine pottery. These sites include Tel Megiddo, Tel Yokneam, Tel Qiri, Afula, Tel Qashish, Be'er Tiveon, Hurvat Hazin, Tel Risim, Tel Re'ala, Hurvat Tzror, Tel Sham, Midrakh Oz and Tel Zariq. Scholars have attributed the presence of Philistine pottery in northern Israel to their role as mercenaries for the Egyptians during the Egyptian military administration of the land in the 12th century BCE. This presence may also indicate further expansion of the Philistines to the valley during the 11th century BCE, or their trade with the Israelites. There are biblical references to Philistines in the valley during the times of the Judges. The quantity of Philistine pottery within these sites is still quite small, showing that even if the Philistines did settle the valley, they were a minority that blended within the Canaanite population during the 12th century BCE. The Philistines seem to have been present in the southern valley during the 11th century, which may relate to the biblical account of their victory at the Battle of Gilboa.[28] 

Egyptian inscriptions 

Since Edward Hincks[69] and William Osburn Jr.[70] in 1846, biblical scholars have connected the biblical Philistines with the Egyptian "Peleset" inscriptions;[71][72] and since 1873, both have been connected with the Aegean "Pelasgians".[95] The evidence for these connections is etymological and has been disputed.[76]


Based on the Peleset inscriptions, it has been suggested that the Casluhite Philistines formed part of the conjectured "Sea Peoples" who repeatedly attacked Egypt during the later Nineteenth Dynasty.[96][97] Though they were eventually repulsed by Ramesses III, he finally resettled them, according to the theory, to rebuild the coastal towns in Canaan. Papyrus Harris I details the achievements of the reign (1186–1155 BC) of Ramesses III. In the brief description of the outcome of the battles in Year 8 is the description of the fate of some of the conjectured Sea Peoples. Ramesses claims that, having brought the prisoners to Egypt, he "settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes, hundreds of thousands strong. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year." Some scholars suggest it is likely that these "strongholds" were fortified towns in southern Canaan, which would eventually become the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistines.[98] Israel Finkelstein has suggested that there may be a period of 25–50 years after the sacking of these cities and their reoccupation by the Philistines. It is possible that at first, the Philistines were housed in Egypt; only subsequently late in the troubled end of the reign of Ramesses III would they have been allowed to settle Philistia.[citation needed]


The "Peleset" appear in four different texts from the time of the New Kingdom.[99] Two of these, the inscriptions at Medinet Habu and the Rhetorical Stela at Deir al-Medinah, are dated to the time of the reign of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BC).[99] Another was composed in the period immediately following the death of Ramesses III (Papyrus Harris I).[99] The fourth, the Onomasticon of Amenope, is dated to some time between the end of the 12th or early 11th century BC.[99] The inscriptions at Medinet Habu consist of images depicting a coalition of Sea Peoples, among them the Peleset, who are said in the accompanying text to have been defeated by Ramesses III during his Year 8 campaign. In about 1175 BC, Egypt was threatened with a massive land and sea invasion by the "Sea Peoples," a coalition of foreign enemies which included the Tjeker, the Shekelesh, the Deyen, the Weshesh, the Teresh, the Sherden, and the PRST. They were comprehensively defeated by Ramesses III, who fought them in "Djahy" (the eastern Mediterranean coast) and at "the mouths of the rivers" (the Nile Delta), recording his victories in a series of inscriptions in his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Scholars have been unable to conclusively determine which images match what peoples described in the reliefs depicting two major battle scenes. A separate relief on one of the bases of the Osirid pillars with an accompanying hieroglyphic text clearly identifying the person depicted as a captive Peleset chief is of a bearded man without headdress.[99] This has led to the interpretation that Ramesses III defeated the Sea Peoples, including Philistines, and settled their captives in fortresses in southern Canaan; another related theory suggests that Philistines invaded and settled the coastal plain for themselves.[100] The soldiers were quite tall and clean-shaven. They wore breastplates and short kilts, and their superior weapons included chariots drawn by two horses. They carried small shields and fought with straight swords and spears.[101]


The Rhetorical Stela are less discussed, but are noteworthy in that they mention the Peleset together with a people called the Teresh, who sailed "in the midst of the sea". The Teresh are thought to have originated from the Anatolian coast and their association with the Peleset in this inscription is seen as providing some information on the possible origin and identity of the Philistines.[102]


The Harris Papyrus, which was found in a tomb at Medinet Habu, also recalls Ramesses III's battles with the Sea Peoples, declaring that the Peleset were "reduced to ashes." The Papyrus Harris I, records how the defeated foe were brought in captivity to Egypt and settled in fortresses.[103] The Harris papyrus can be interpreted in two ways: either the captives were settled in Egypt and the rest of the Philistines/Sea Peoples carved out a territory for themselves in Canaan, or else it was Ramesses himself who settled the Sea Peoples (mainly Philistines) in Canaan as mercenaries.[104] Egyptian strongholds in Canaan are also mentioned, including a temple dedicated to Amun, which some scholars place in Gaza; however, the lack of detail indicating the precise location of these strongholds means that it is unknown what impact these had, if any, on Philistine settlement along the coast.[102]


The only mention in an Egyptian source of the Peleset in conjunction with any of the five cities that are said in the Bible to have made up the Philistine pentapolis comes in the Onomasticon of Amenope. The sequence in question has been translated as: "Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Assyria, Shubaru [...] Sherden, Tjekker, Peleset, Khurma [...]" Scholars have advanced the possibility that the other Sea Peoples mentioned were connected to these cities in some way as well.[102] 

Material culture: Aegean origin and historical evolution 

Many scholars have interpreted the ceramic and technological evidence attested to by archaeology as being associated with the Philistine advent in the area as strongly suggestive that they formed part of a large scale immigration to southern Canaan, probably from Anatolia and Cyprus, in the 12th century BCE.[105]


The proposed connection between Mycenaean culture and Philistine culture was further documented by finds at the excavation of Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon, and more recently Gath, four of the five Philistine cities in Canaan. The fifth city is Gaza. Especially notable is the early Philistine pottery, a locally made version of the Aegean Mycenaean Late Helladic IIIC pottery, which is decorated in shades of brown and black. This later developed into the distinctive Philistine pottery of the Iron Age I, with black and red decorations on white slip known as Philistine Bichrome ware.[106] Also of particular interest is a large, well-constructed building covering 240 square metres (2,600 sq ft), discovered at Ekron. Its walls are broad, designed to support a second story, and its wide, elaborate entrance leads to a large hall, partly covered with a roof supported on a row of columns. In the floor of the hall is a circular hearth paved with pebbles, as is typical in Mycenaean megaron hall buildings; other unusual architectural features are paved benches and podiums. Among the finds are three small bronze wheels with eight spokes. Such wheels are known to have been used for portable cultic stands in the Aegean region during this period, and it is therefore assumed that this building served cultic functions. Further evidence concerns an inscription in Ekron to PYGN or PYTN, which some have suggested refers to "Potnia", the title given to an ancient Mycenaean goddess. Excavations in Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath reveal dog and pig bones which show signs of having been butchered, implying that these animals were part of the residents' diet.[107][108] Among other findings there are wineries where fermented wine was produced, as well as loom weights resembling those of Mycenaean sites in Greece.[109] 

Further evidence of the Aegean origin of the initial Philistine settlers was provided by studying their burial practices in the so far only discovered Philistine cemetery, excavated at Ashkelon (see below).


However, for many years scholars such as Gloria London, John Brug, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Helga Weippert, and Edward Noort, among others, have noted the "difficulty of associating pots with people", proposing alternative suggestions such as potters following their markets or technology transfer, and emphasize the continuities with the local world in the material remains of the coastal area identified with "Philistines", rather than the differences emerging from the presence of Cypriote and/or Aegean/ Mycenaean influences. The view is summed up in the idea that 'kings come and go, but cooking pots remain', suggesting that the foreign Aegean elements in the Philistine population may have been a minority.[110][111]

Geographic evolution 

Material culture evidence, primarily pottery styles, indicates that the Philistines originally settled in a few sites in the south, such as Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron.[112] It was not until several decades later, about 1150 BC, that they expanded into surrounding areas such as the Yarkon region to the north (the area of modern Jaffa, where there were Philistine farmsteads at Tel Gerisa and Aphek, and a larger settlement at Tel Qasile).[112] Most scholars, therefore, believe that the settlement of the Philistines took place in two stages. In the first, dated to the reign of Ramesses III, they were limited to the coastal plain, the region of the Five Cities; in the second, dated to the collapse of Egyptian hegemony in southern Canaan, their influence spread inland beyond the coast.[113] During the 10th to 7th centuries BC, the distinctiveness of the material culture appears to have been absorbed with that of surrounding peoples.[114] 

Burial practices 

The Leon Levy Expedition, consisting of archaeologists from Harvard University, Boston College, Wheaton College in Illinois and Troy University in Alabama, conducted a 30-year investigation of the burial practices of the Philistines, by excavating a Philistine cemetery containing more than 150 burials dating from the 11th to 8th century BCE Tel Ashkelon. In July 2016, the expedition finally announced the results of their excavation.[115]


Archaeological evidence, provided by architecture, burial arrangements, ceramics, and pottery fragments inscribed with non-Semitic writing, indicates that the Philistines were not native to Canaan. Most of the 150 dead were buried in oval-shaped graves, some were interred in ashlar chamber tombs, while there were 4 who were cremated. These burial arrangements were very common to the Aegean cultures, but not to the one indigenous to Canaan. Lawrence Stager of Harvard University believes that Philistines came to Canaan by ships before the Battle of the Delta circa 1175 BCE. DNA was extracted from the skeletons for archaeogenetic population analysis.[116]


The Leon Levy Expedition, which has been going on since 1985, helped break down some of the previous assumptions that the Philistines were uncultured people by having evidence of perfume near the bodies in order for the deceased to smell it in the afterlife.[117 

           A study carried out on skeletons at Ashkelon in 2019 by an interdisciplinary team of scholars from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the Leon Levy Expedition found that human remains at Ashkelon, associated with Philistines during the Iron Age, derived most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool, but with a certain amount of Southern-European-related admixture. This confirms previous historic and archaeological records of a Southern-European migration event.[8] The DNA suggests an influx of people of European heritage into Ashkelon in the twelfth century BC. The individuals' DNA shows similarities to that of ancient Cretans, but it is impossible to specify the exact place in Europe from where Philistines had migrated to Levant, due to limited number of ancient genomes available for study, "with 20 to 60 per cent similarity to DNA from ancient skeletons from Crete and Iberia and that from modern people living in Sardinia."[118][8]


After two centuries since their arrival, the Southern-European genetic markers were dwarfed by the local Levantine gene pool, suggesting intensive intermarriage, but the Philistine culture and peoplehood remained distinct from other local communities for six centuries.[119]


The finding fits with an understanding of the Philistines as an "entangled" or "transcultural" group consisting of peoples of various origins, said Aren Maeir, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. "While I fully agree that there was a significant component of non-Levantine origins among the Philistines in the early Iron Age," he said, "these foreign components were not of one origin, and, no less important, they mixed with local Levantine populations from the early Iron Age onward." Laura Mazow, an archaeologist at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., said the research paper supported the idea that there was some migration from the west.[8] She added that the findings "support the picture that we see in the archaeological record of a complex, multicultural process that has been resistant to reconstruction by any single historical model."[120][121]

Modern archaeologists agree that the Philistines were different from their neighbors: their arrival on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in the early 12th century B.C. is marked by pottery with close parallels to the ancient Greek world, the use of an Aegean —instead of a Semitic— script, and the consumption of pork.[122] Nevertheless, Cretans were not too unfamiliar with the Levant, with connections being established since the Minoan era, as seen by their influence on Tel Kabri.[123] 

Population 

The population of the area associated with Philistines is estimated to have been around 25,000 in the 12th century BC, rising to a peak of 30,000 in the 11th century BC.[124] The Canaanite nature of the material culture and toponyms suggest that much of this population was indigenous, such that the migrant element would likely constitute less than half the total, and perhaps much less.[124] 

Language 

Nothing is known for certain about the language of the Philistines. Pottery fragments from the period of around 1500–1000 BCE have been found bearing inscriptions in non-Semitic languages, including one in a Cypro-Minoan script.[125] The Bible does not mention any language problems between the Israelites and the Philistines, as it does with other groups up to the Assyrian and Babylonian occupations.[126] Later, Nehemiah 13:23-24 writing under the Achaemenids records that when Judean men intermarried women from Moab, Ammon and Philistine cities, half the offspring of Judean marriages with women from Ashdod could speak only their mother tongue, Ašdōdīṯ, not Judean Hebrew (Yehūdīṯ); although by then this language might have been an Aramaic dialect.[127] There is some limited evidence in favour of the assumption that the Philistines were originally Indo-European-speakers, either from Greece or Luwian speakers from the coast of Asia Minor, on the basis of some Philistine-related words found in the Bible not appearing to be related to other Semitic languages.[128] Such theories suggest that the Semitic elements in the language were borrowed from their neighbours in the region. For example, the Philistine word for captain, "seren", may be related to the Greek word tyrannos (thought by linguists to have been borrowed by the Greeks from an Anatolian language, such as Luwian or Lydian[128]). Although most Philistine names are Semitic (such as Ahimelech, Mitinti, Hanun, and Dagon)[126] some of the Philistine names, such as Goliath, Achish, and Phicol, appear to be of non-Semitic origin, and Indo-European etymologies have been suggested. Recent finds of inscriptions written in Hieroglyphic Luwian in Palistin substantiate a connection between the language of the kingdom of Palistin and the Philistines of the southwestern Levant.[129][130][131] 

Religion 

The deities worshipped in the area were Baal, Astarte, Asherah, and Dagon, whose names or variations thereof had already appeared in the earlier attested Canaanite pantheon.[18] Another name, attested on the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription, is PT[-]YH, unique to the Philistine sphere and possibly representing a goddess in their pantheon,[132] though an exact identity has been subject to scholarly debate. The Philistines may also have worshipped Qudshu and Anat.[133]


Although the Bible cites Dagon as the main Philistine god, there is a stark lack of any evidence which indicates the Philistines had any particular proclivity to the worship of Dagon. In fact, no evidence of Dagon worship whatsoever is discernable at Philistine sites, with even theophoric names invoking the deity being absent from the already limited corpus of known Philistine names. A further assessment of the Iron Age I finds worship of Dagon in any immediate Canaanite context, let alone one which is indisputably Philistine, as seemingly non-existent.[134] Still, this does not imply that worship of Dagon was completely unheard of amongst the Philistines, and multiple mentions of a city in Assyrian, Phoenician, and Egyptian sources known as Beth Dagon may imply the god was venerated in at least some parts of Philistia.[134]


The most common material religious artefact finds from Philistine sites are goddess figurines/chairs, sometimes called Ashdoda. This seems to imply a dominant female figure, which is consistent with Ancient Aegean religion.[135] 

Economy 

Cities excavated in the area attributed to Philistines give evidence of careful town planning, including industrial zones. The olive industry of Ekron alone includes about 200 olive oil installations. Engineers estimate that the city's production may have been more than 1,000 tons, 30 percent of Israel's present-day production.[101]


There is considerable evidence for a large industry in fermented drink. Finds include breweries, wineries, and retail shops marketing beer and wine. Beer mugs and wine kraters are among the most common pottery finds.[136]


The Philistines also seemed to be experienced metalworkers, as complex wares of gold, bronze, and iron, have been found at Philistine sites as early as the 12th century BC,[137] as well as artisanal weaponry.[138] Further evidence of the Philistine domination of the metallurgical market lies in the Hebrew Bible, which claims that the Israelites relied heavily on Philistine blacksmiths for iron tools and weapons, despite the near-constant state of war between the two groups.[139]

Sunday, 20 November 2022

Darwinism and the Ghost in the machine.

Evolution of Human Consciousness Solved! — Yet Again 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

At Psychology Today, we read a bold and simple claim about the evolution of consciousness: “A type of information processing called unlimited associative learning (UAL) may be necessary and sufficient for very basic sentience.”


The article by University of Toronto psychiatrist Ralph Lewis begins on a very self-assured note:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.(in as much as Darwinism says nothing about the origin of life or that the fossil record is more heavily populated by ghosts than substance or that we are yet to see a plausible pathway to any irreducibly complex system ,this is all smug braggadocio meant to rally the base and or intimidate the mentally lazy) interpolation mine. ,The gradualism of evolution has explained and dissolved life’s mysteries — life’s seemingly irreducible complexity and the illusion that living things possess some sort of mysterious vitalizing essence. So, too, evolution is likely to be key to demystifying the seemingly inexplicable, ethereal nature of consciousness.

First, what does it even mean to say that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”? If the chosen topic is human consciousness, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa come quickly to mind. But then what does the term “evolution” contribute to the discussion of the origin of human consciousness? Is it something useful or something theorists are stuck with, come what may?


Science theories should make predictions. Who predicted either King or Mother Teresa? 

Whence Smarter Apes? A theory of evolution could, of course, predict the emergence of smarter apes, just as it might predict the emergence of faster carnivores. But, as everyone knows, that is not what we are talking about.


Consciousness is “ethereal” because that is its very nature. “Constitutional government” is ethereal too. Human consciousness means dealing in abstractions. We can’t “demystify” it and still make any sense.


At any rate, Dr. Lewis has written in defense of a theory proposed by neuroscientist Simona Ginsburg and evolutionary biologist Eva Jablonka, “unlimited associative learning” (UAL): 

UAL “refers to an animal’s ability to ascribe motivational value to a compound stimulus or action pattern and to use it as the basis for future learning.” UAL is a cumulative type of learning involving novel stimuli and actions, building on prior learning. It allows “open-ended behavioral adjustments” and can lead to complex goal-directed behavior(there you go the sheep recalls that munching on that green stuff on the ground gets rid of that gnawing in her stomach and makes the needed adjustment, once that's taken care of she can get around to pondering the meaning of life). It requires the capacity for representing, remembering, and evaluating goals, their predictive cues, and the ways of reaching them… The most primitive forms of learning and memory do not even require a nervous system and are entirely mechanistic at their molecular level. UAL requires a brain with particular types of networks).


RALPH LEWIS, “PSYCHOLOGY TODAY (NOVEMBER 3, 2022) 




RALPH LEWIS, “LEARNING MAY BE THE KEY TO THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS” AT PSYCHOLOGY TODAY (NOVEMBER 3, 2022) 


 Fair enough. Their concept of “minimal consciousness” — as applied to animals — helps us understand why the cat chases the mouse and why the mouse tries to get away.


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


 



Saturday, 19 November 2022

Why the OOL remains Darwinism's immovable object.

 Still a Mystery: Charles Thaxton on Life’s Origin 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a classic ID the Future episode, host Robert J. Marks interviews chemist Charles Thaxton about a seminal 1984 book he co-authored, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, foundational to the intelligent design movement. The main body of Mystery was generally praised, Thaxton explains. It was the epilogue that proved controversial. There the three authors reviewed five proposed explanations for life’s origins and suggested that the best explanation was that the first life originated through an act of creative intelligence. Thaxton also tells a little about the recently revised and expanded edition of the book, with new contributions from Stephen Meyer, Brian Miller, James Tour, and others. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 


Friday, 18 November 2022

To no one's surprise the fossil record continues to fossil record.

Fossil Friday: Florigerminis, Another Failed Candidate for a Jurassic Flowering Plant 

Günter Bechly 

Just a few weeks ago (Bechly 2022), I discussed Darwin’s abominable mystery and the consistently failed claims for Jurassic flowering plants (Sokoloff et al. 2019, Bateman 2020). I also showed that experts think a dubious new candidate, Dilcherifructus mexicana from the Middle Jurassic of Mexico (Wang 2021) was misidentified and rather represents a gymnosperm.


In January this year, the same author presented with colleagues a new candidate with Florigerminis jurassica from the Jurassic of China (Cui et al. 2022). It was again published in a somewhat obscure journal and suffers from the very same problems as the Dilcherifructus case. The press release announced the discovery as “world’s earliest fossil record of flower buds” (NIGPAS 2022), and other media reports uncritically agreed (e.g., Baker 2022) and predictably celebrated the find as possible answer to Darwin’s abominable mystery (Cassella 2022). 

A Botanist and His Colleagues 

Kew Garden botanist Professor Richard Buggs asked colleagues on Twitter what they think about Florigerminis and its affinities. Here is what they said:


Mario Coiro, an expert on plant evolution, commented on January 17, 2022 (https://twitter.com/Lepidodendron/status/1483047599447945221): “an ephedra-like cone bud. I really cannot see how it can be mistaken for an angiosperm …”

Julian Kiely responded the same day (https://twitter.com/JulianPalaeoART/status/1483112582361890816): “I’ve just had a read through and yeah, it seems very much like an ephedrale. Could the apical invagination they describe be the remnants of micropylar tube?”

Mario Coiro answered on January 19, 2022 (https://twitter.com/Lepidodendron/status/1483768385922084866): “hard to tell, could be the pollen chamber”

So, it is not a Jurassic angiosperm at all, but just another gymnosperm of the gnetopsid clade. There is clearly a pattern with these misidentifications, guided by wishful thinking. Some western paleobotanists even unofficially refer to the plethora of alleged Jurassic angiosperms from China as “Wangiosperms,” as in “Oh, it’s another Wangiosperm!”. It may be politically incorrect and a bit unkind perhaps, but expresses something of the frustration they feel. So, you are in good company if you are as skeptical about these claims as I am myself.

References 

Baker H 2022. 164 million-year-old plant fossil is the oldest example of a flowering bud. Live Science January 19, 2022. https://www.livescience.com/oldest-flower-bud-fossil

Bechly G 2022. Fossil Friday: Flowering Plants — Darwin’s Abominable Mystery. Evolution News October 21, 2022.

Bateman RM 2020. Hunting the Snark: the flawed search for mythical Jurassic angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany 71(1), 22–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz411

Cassella C 2022. A Newly Discovered Fossil Could Be The Answer to Darwin’s ‘Abominable’ Mystery. SienceAlert January 16, 2022. https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-found-the-oldest-flower-bud-fossil-yet/amp

Cui D-F, Hou Y, Yin P & Wang X 2022. A Jurassic flower bud from China. pp. 81–93 in: Chang S-C & Zheng D (eds). Mesozoic Biological Events and Ecosystems in East Asia. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1144/SP521-2021-122

NIGPAS 2022. The world’s earliest fossil record of flower buds. Press release January 13, 2022. http://english.nigpas.cas.cn/rh/rp/202201/t20220113_296983.html

Sokoloff DD, Remizowa MV, El ES, Rudall PJ & Bateman RM 2019. Supposed Jurassic angiosperms lack pentamery, an important angiosperm-specific feature. New Phytologist228(2), 420–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15974

Wang X 2021. The Currently Earliest Angiosperm Fruit from the Jurassic of North America. Biosis: Biological Systems (2(4), 416–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37819/biosis.001.04.0160


 

Where success is an orphan?

Orphan Proteins Spell Trouble for AlphaFold 2 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson further explores AlphaFold 2, a cutting-edge computer program from Google’s DeepMind designed to rapidly suss out important secrets in the realm of proteins, indispensable molecular biological workhorses that come in thousands of different shapes and sizes. Nelson enthuses about AlphaFold 2 but also explains why he is convinced that its creators have hit a series of immovable obstacles. The watchword here — orphans. Learn what these mischievous orphan proteins are about, and what they suggest for AlphaFold, evolution, and intelligent design. Download the podcast or listen to it here.