How we can know that the engineering is real II.

 On the Miracles of Physiological Design

Neil Thomas 

Shortly before coming to the recently published volume Your Designed body, by systems engineer Steve Laufmann and veteran physician Howard Glicksman, I had happened to be reading an old interview with eminent medical academic Sir Roger Bannister (the first under-four-minute mile runner) whose specialism had been the autonomic nervous system. Said Bannister to his interviewer:

You have probably not heard of that system but it regulates the heart and circulation. These are functions of the brain which it probably thought wise to exclude from voluntary control. Are you with me? We don’t want to know what our heart is doing, we don’t want to know whether we are breathing or not. This part of the brain does it all for us.1

Neither history nor the wider context of the interview records what agency Bannister might have had in mind to account for the formation of this finely discriminating design feature, but it is a question which advances to front and center of the new Laufmann/Glicksman volume. A good part of the book is devoted to explaining the finely engineered features of human anatomy, and after reading those some three hundred dense and clearly illustrated pages I defy any open-minded reader to accept the old canard of Lucretius, David Hume, Darwin, and their modern apologists to the effect that the sublimely detailed and integrated structures of our bodies represent only the appearance of design (see discussion in Laufmann/Glicksman, pp. 20-21).

Such features, the two authors point out, must ultimately be the work of a designer-engineer transcending all observable dimensions and conventional categories of understanding (see esp. pp. 439-41). By comparison, we are obliged to come to the humble conclusion that human efforts at artificial automation and prosthetics, whilst being entirely commendable, are puny by comparison. Some few readers may remember the 1960s BBC TV series called Tomorrow’s World in which it was predicted that we would have biddable mechanical servants by the 1980s. Such hubristic prognostications were of course silently dropped as the decades wore on and we were left to ponder how organic creation must have occurred at some level we cannot even begin to fathom.

Not the Same as Generating

The authors are particularly good at unmasking the immoderate claims made for “natural selection” as a force with the power to shape the whole organic universe. Such claims, they point out, are “short on engineering details” and, most fundamentally, the authors point out that selecting is not the same as generating. This is a truly critical distinction and they point to the work of Gerd Műller of the University of Vienna whose research has led him to state categorically that neo-Darwinism simply has no theory of the generative and therefore no innovative capacity: nothing in Darwin’s theory can generate any nontrivial innovations (p. 370). 

Darwin, furthermore, should have known this. The authors point to the letter he sent to Charles Lyell in September 1860 in which he concedes that “natural preservation” would have been the better term to have used because selection in the way that intelligent animal breeders operate could not possibly be part of an unintelligent process (contrary to what Darwin had once insisted against the well-meaning counsels of friends and colleagues). Whether Darwin permitted himself to realize it or not,2 his concession to Lyell invalidates his claim that natural selection could produce innovation (new body parts/plans/species), hence the grand biological pathway from microbes to man is thereby invalidated. By every logical criterion, his rowing back on that point was absolutely fatal to his macromutational claims and this should by rights have stopped the accelerating Darwinian bandwagon dead in its tracks in the Fall of 1860.

An Interesting Hypothetical

It would make an interesting historical hypothetical to consider how history might have developed had Darwin and his legatees had the logical acumen or even fundamental honesty to acknowledge that the letter to Lyell signaled the logical death-knell of the theory of natural selection. Alas, that is not how things panned out as Darwin and his successors colluded to throw verbal smoke screens round the issue. He and his supporters were clearly too committed to the hope of natural selection coming through as a deus ex machina to provide a (claimed) mechanism or vera causa to justify the idea of evolution developed by Erasmus Darwin (alongside sundry 18th-century French philosophes). For more than a century that theory of evolution had been greeted with considerable skepticism by the generality of people and so it was vital to talk up the supposed “scientific” credentials of natural selection as a (claimed) bona fide mechanism. Only in that way would it be possible to rescue the idea of evolution from the scorn and ultimately the oblivion to which it was heading before 1859. Only in that way would it be possible to secure acceptance for the new, secular myth many wished to promote. 

The two authors chance their arm by advancing what they see as the probability that the sheer pressure of data will soon topple the Darwinian house of cards (p. 367, note 12). It should perhaps be added that this collapse would be more probable if we were dealing with dispassionate science — but we are not. If such were the case, then all those who read Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (UK 1985, USA 1986) and followed Denton’s “formal disproof” of Darwin’s work would have been forced by sheer weight of evidence to conclude that a major revaluation of evolutionary thinking was an urgent requirement. However, in Darwinism we are dealing not with science but with what anthropologists and folklorists term a “mythic universal” — in this case taking the form of an apparently ineradicable, millennia-old Lucretian thoughtway about the origin and evolution of the world. In its modern guise the narrative has of course reinvented itself by hitching a ride from the perceived prestige of science to strengthen its mythic force.

Nadir of the Irrational

The sequel is, of course, history. The Epicurean/Lucretian conjecture, which had chosen to see the world as a mindless collocation of atoms assembled by nothing more than chance, was regarded for literally thousands of years as the very nadir of irrational absurdity. Newly decked out in its now “scientific” livery, on the other hand, it has been able to deceive the beau monde for more than a century and a half under its portentous guise of “natural selection.” It is that wholly irrational belief system which would have to be overcome amongst a group of people who are not willing to leave the matter to the proper adjudication of hard evidence. That is the essential stumbling block we face. In the upper echelons of academic biology we are up against a protective screen of professional unity superintended by what has been memorably termed “the secular inquisition.”3 The result is that open dissent of the sort shown by such as Michael Denton and somewhat more recently by Michael Behe is rarely encountered (and even more rarely from the ranks of the untenured). 

It is an old and dismal story which need not be pursued any further here. On the plus side, the optimism of the two authors may be justified by the frequent whispers we overhear about some evolutionary scientists harboring private reservations about the truth-value of dogmas which they are constrained to defend ex officio. Laufmann and Glicksman mention the Viennese scientist Gerd Müller, but he is by no means the only one. I encountered further exceptions to the strictly policed omertà rule in the shape of a volume published under the conventionally respectable aegis of the New Scientist publishing house. I refer to the volume of collected essays entitled Chance,4 organized in a largely viva voce seminar format which appears to have encouraged a refreshing degree of candor from its distinguished contributors. I shall give a brief notice of that volume and its relevance to the issue at hand. 

Chance, Necessity — and Conjecture

Now as ever, the mystery of life having somehow appeared on earth in the midst of a dead outer cosmos remains a perennial enigma (cosmologists have the candor to admit that they can provide no empirically defensible pathway for our emergence). There has been exceedingly broad-brush speculation on the issue but nothing with any serious claim to empirically testable truth status. As noted in regard to the formation of life by one of the contributors, Paul Davies, it is not just the basic chemical ingredients of life which have proved unfathomable: even more challenging has been “the logical structure and organization of the molecules … which implies a certain sort of organized complexity.” He goes on to pose the still unanswerable question:

How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from?

P. 16

Bracketing off the unknown means and modalities by which life may have originated, Professor Nick Lane proceeds to the next question:

THEN what happens? It is generally assumed that once simple life has emerged, it gradually evolves into more complex forms, given the right conditions. But that’s not what happens on Earth … If simple cells had evolved slowly into more complex ones over billions of years, all kinds of intermediate forms would have existed and some still should. But there are none.

P. 16

Between the simplest and the more complex forms of cell life there is a gulf of billions of years since “simple cells just don’t have the right cellular architecture to evolve into more complex forms” (p. 29). Hence, Lane concludes, the emergence of complex life must have hinged not on slow Darwinian progression but on a single, fluke event:

This means that there is no inevitable trajectory from simple to complex life. Never-ending natural selection, operating on infinite populations of bacteria over millions of years, may never give rise to complexity. Bacteria simply do not have the right architecture.

P. 32

Davies concurs with this verdict when discussing the perennial riddle of abiogenesis:

Darwinism kicks in only when life is already under way. How can we appeal to natural selection in the prebiotic stage?

P. 19 

Dr. Bob Holmes then jumps in to continue the theme and support the opinions of other participants:

Surprisingly, natural selection may have little role to play in one of the key steps of evolution — the origin of new species. Instead it would appear that speciation is merely an accident of fate.

P. 33

Citing the work of Professor Mark Pagel, Holmes points out that Darwin, despite his chosen title of Origin of Species, offered no concrete suggestions as to how speciation actually occurred. What is more, even the discovery of Mendelian genetics has brought us little further enlightenment:

With the benefit of genetic hindsight, which Darwin lacked, you might think that they [modern biologists] would have cracked it. Not so. Speciation still remains one of the biggest mysteries in evolutionary biology.

P. 34

This conclusion, he points out with some understatement, “is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists” since “the unexamined view of natural selection leading to large-scale innovations is not true.” (p. 35) Concurring with Lane and Davies, he sees speciation as little more than “some single, sharp kick of fate that is, in the evolutionary sense, unpredictable. Speciation has nothing to do with natural selection since it can only shape existing species, not spawn new ones.” 

Not Minor Objections

The above views are not minor objections. Instead, cumulatively they point to the fact that humanity must go back to the drawing board to study the issue of its provenance and development on planet Earth. As of the present moment in time the contributors freely confess their ignorance. To ascribe something to mere chance, for instance, can only be accounted a major evasion. So how did animal and human life emerge? A decade ago Thomas Lessl wrote with some justice:

To declare that “Nature did it” without any information about HOW is hardly any more rigorous than than to assert that “God did it,” absent any scientific means for testing supernatural causation.5

The operative word in that sentence is “information,” for at the end of the day Darwinism gives us speculation rather than hard information. It is precisely the failure of any “scientific means” to provide convincing explanations of how Nature really functions that is increasingly preventing the full acceptance of Darwinian explanations by a modern populace educated to reject empirically ungrounded conjectures. This resistance to Darwinian theorizing typically proceeds not from any theistic bias or untutored “argument from incredulity” (as is often tendentiously implied) but rather from an extreme logical unease about Darwinian postulates and would-be explanations. The book under review is a splendid and uniquely well-informed contribution to the debate about what is by all available indices a theory in deep and quite possibly terminal crisis.

Home: the past and future of education?

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9kuNycfklN4" title="The Secret Power of Homeschoolers" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

What's so special about special relativity?

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZdrZf4lQTSg" title="Special Relativity: This Is Why You Misunderstand It" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

The animal kingdom's navigators v. Darwin.

 Intelligent Design in Animal Self-Location and Navigation

Eric Cassell

While much has been learned about animal navigation methods (see my book Animal Algorithms), not as much is known about how different animals actually determine a reference to the location of “self,” and how they use that information to navigate. It has been known for some time that mammalian brains include basic mechanisms for locating self. These include neurons that are so-called “place cells,” “grid cells,” and head-direction cells.1

Primarily in the Hippocampus

In mammals the self-locating neuron networks are found primarily in the hippocampus. It is theorized that these networks provide support for the ability of animals to form cognitive maps. The initial studies in mammals focused on rats and mice, and identified primarily “static” two-dimensional self-locating mechanisms. More recent studies have been conducted with bats during flight. In that case the self-location is three-dimensional in space. Even more intriguing is that the bat mechanism can be applied on a time continuum, representing past, present, and future. The authors of one study conclude, “These results reveal a positional representation in flying bats that extends along a continuum of space and time and could support a representation of remembered paths.”2 The mechanism may also be the source of a predictive map used in navigating flight paths.

An open question is whether such mechanisms exist in more ancient brain regions of other animals. A new study has identified a self-location mechanism in zebrafish.3 The study found a self-location mechanism in the fish hindbrain, which is the region that controls coordinated physical movements (action patterns) associated with orienting, feeding, and escape mechanisms. The specific function identified in the zebrafish is to enable positional homeostasis, which is a challenge since fish typically have to deal with currents in maintaining a constant position. Fish (as well as some other animals) are able to estimate velocity based on optical flow, which is the rate at which visual objects appear to move. Mathematically, position can be obtained by integrating velocity over time. 

Analogous to an Electronic Circuit 

One finding from the study is that, “Fish integrate visual flow into a representation of location change and correct for unintended location changes.” There are a number of other significant findings from the Yang study. One is that it is a complex distributed neural network within the brain, meaning it is not restricted to a small number of proximate neurons. The authors also describe this as a “circuit,” analogous to an electronic circuit. The network represents a classical closed loop engineering control system, where feedback is used to adjust and maintain a position. Another finding is that fish have the ability to store locations in memory for 15 to 20 seconds.

Taking a step back and assessing the significance of these recent findings, several observations can be made. One is that they provide more evidence that animal movement and navigation behaviors involve complex algorithms. Some include methods for performing or mimicking mathematical calculations. The algorithms appear to involve complex neural networks or circuits. All of these observations provide more evidence for the engineering design of these behaviors.

From tyrant king to philosopher king?

New Claim: Tyrannosaur Was as Smart as a Monkey

 Denyse O' Leary

Vanderbilt University neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel tells us, in a recent paper, that tyrannosaurs had similar numbers of brain neurons to “primates.”

But how would we know? Herculano-Houzel starts with the assumption that dinosaurs are descended from birds and makes a distinction between the theropod dinosaurs like the tyrannosaur and others:

From that assumption, Herculano-Houzel realized that theropods in particular had a similar correlation between body mass and brain size to pre-impact birds, or basal birds. From there, she used the neuron count of modern birds like emus and ostritches and applied the same rules of scaling to figure out how many neurons theropods like the T-Rex may have had. FRANK LANDYMORE, “IN TERRIFYING NEWS, BIG BRAINED T-REX MAY HAVE BEEN AS SMART AS PRIMATES” AT FUTURISM (JANUARY 9, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS 

In Other Research

Here are a few thoughts from other research:

First, we tend to think of the extinct vertebrate order of dinosaurs as very much like reptiles today and that reptiles cannot be smart. But reptiles today may be smarter than is generally believed. The limits may be practical rather than intrinsic.

Here’s an example: The anole lizard was found to be as capable as the tit (a small bird) in a problem-solving test for a food reward (a grub). But because anoles are exothermic (cold-blooded), they didn’t need many grubs. Not compared with the birds, anyway. Birds are endothermic (warm-blooded). So the anoles had the same problem-solving ability but didn’t need it nearly as often because they can simply shut down their metabolism instead. Of course, dinosaurs may have been endotherms like birds rather than exotherms like reptiles but the difference may not always play out as a difference in intelligence.

Intelligence tests for life forms should probably factor in issues like: How important is it for this life form to solve this problem soon?

Crocodilians (alligators, caymans, crocodiles) have been reported to use sticks as decoys, play, and work in teams.

All it really means is that endothermy and problem-solving intelligence are not the same thing.

And then there is the, by now famous, octopus: The invertebrate controls eight limbs and consequently has a huge amount of brain tissue. Perhaps that allows it to rival mammals in intelligence.

Plausible — Maybe Not Correct

None of this shows that Herculano-Houzel’s hypothesis is correct; only that it is plausible. Predators tend to be smarter than prey, after all, and exotherms can definitely be smart. In any event, the most widely accepted thesis as to why the entire order Dinosauria went extinct is not that they were all stupid but that the planet was hit by an asteroid 

NASA keeps track of possible asteroid hits today. We aren’t immune, though we do have a greater chance of creating defenses than the dinosaurs did. Whether or not dinosaurs ever used tools. 

You may also wish to read: Even lizards can be smart — if you catch them at the right time. But can we give machines what the lizard has by nature? What is it that we want machines to be and do under our guidance that these — often seemingly strange — life forms are and do spontaneously? The life forms do those things to stay alive. Does it matter then that machines are not alive?

Why Darwinism is destined to fail.

Evolution: How Darwin’s Four Causal Factors Fail

 Evolution News 

On a new episode of ID the Future, Your Designed Body co-author and systems engineer Steve Laufmann continues his conversation with host and neurosurgeon Michael Egnor. In this episode, Laufmann reviews four causal factors involved in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and explains why they lack the power to generate life’s great variety of forms (including the beetles pictured above that Charles Darwin collected). Download the podcast or listen to it here. To go deeper into the argument, check out Laufmann’s new book co-authored with physician Howard Glicksman.

On fake food.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-8xTVMtkqv4" title="How Americans Are Tricked Into Buying Fake Food" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On presentism.

Presentism;In literary and historical analysis, 

Wikipedia

presentism is a pejorative term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. The historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a fallacy also known as the "fallacy of nunc pro tunc". He has written that the "classic example" of presentism was the so-called "Whig history", in which certain 18th- and 19th-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs. This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. "Whig history" or "whiggishness" are often used as synonyms for presentism particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist.[2]erary and historical analysis)

 

Settled science's apostles' lack of self awareness.

No country for rich men?

 <iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q_Pjy9XYSaU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

Paul Johnson on the patron saint of the master race.

Remembering Paul Johnson’s Assessment of Darwin

Michael Flannery.

Editor’s note: The wonderful historian and journalist Paul Johnson died today at age 94. His 2012 biography Darwin: Portrait of a Genius provoked discussion and disagreement at Evolution News when it was published. We offer science historian Michael Flannery’s review below.

An eminent historian and author of numerous bestsellers, Paul Johnson has just published a book that is provoking hysterical responses. The book is Darwin: Portrait of a Genius. Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern calls it an “effort to smear evolution.” Stern complains, “He [Johnson] got it horribly, almost comically wrong.” But Stern isn’t laughing, and he concludes that “no thoughtful reader could possibly tolerate Johnson’s stunning intellectual dishonesty.” Similarly, Rowan Hooper, writing for the New Scientist (posted at Culture Lab), called the book “ludicrous . . . a vendetta, an agenda-driven hatchet job.”

Why all the fuss? What is “horribly wrong” and who is driving the “agenda”? Anyone familiar with the controversial nature of Darwin’s theory should immediately step back and at least ask, Who exactly is wielding the hatchet?

Johnson’s work is not strictly speaking a biography; it is a historian’s assessment of modern evolutionary theory and the man behind it. It takes the form not of an exhaustive account of the life and work of Charles Darwin but rather of an essay, a 151-page essay to be precise. There is much value in a work of this kind. After all, few but the most committed specialist or obligated graduate student would plod through Janet Browne’s 1,040-page (not counting references and index!) two-volume biography of the man. More serviceable is Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, but at 677 pages of text it too can be a daunting task. While a careful reading of both (especially the latter) will offer permanent rewards, the considered opinion of a seasoned historian on the importance and impact of Darwin’s theory of evolution, stripped of the minutiae, has real value.

Explaining Life’s Diversity

As Johnson emphasizes, Darwin produced an explanation for the diversity of life (common descent by means of natural selection) that was transformative of how people viewed themselves and the world. It was an idea whose time had come. From its publication on November 24, 1859, the Origin of Species quickly became the must-read volume for much of England, and not just the elite. The accession of five hundred copies by Mudie’s circulating library (an extraordinarily large order) helped to introduce Darwin to the rising middle class. In fact, Johnson correctly notes that Mudie’s enthusiastic acquisition and distribution of the Origin was tantamount to society’s seal of approval.

Despite the popularity of Darwin’s magnum opus, Johnson further explains that his complete theory was really contained in three books. First, of course, was the Origin (his best, a succinct and accessible exposition of his theory), then in 1871 the Descent of Man (the explicit connection of his evolutionary principles to humanity), and finally one year later his Expression of the Emotions (an odd compilation whose purpose was to provide “evidence” that man was different from animal by degree not kind).

Where Origin succeeded, Descent and Expressions failed. Darwin’s handling of human attributes was superficial and, when comparing mankind with other species, often naïvely anthropomorphic.

Much of Descent, writes Johnson, consisted of “rambling stuff of no scientific value whatever” (p. 105) while other parts merely served to justify racial stereotypes. Darwin’s handling of sexual selection when applied to Homo sapiens was patronizing and patriarchal. The reason that the Descent was such an inferior production, Johnson astutely observes, is that Darwin was a poor anthropologist. He “did not bring to his observation of humans the same care, objectivity, acute notation, and calmness he always showed when studying birds and sea creatures, insects, plants, and animals. He jumped to conclusion and believed gossip . . .” (p. 29). Darwin’s Expression book wasn’t any better, a strange collection of extrapolations of animal reactions to human emotions augmented with “photographs of hysterics, lunatics, savages, and other interesting mug shots” (p. 102).

Two Important Points

All of this may have passed with varying degrees of reviewer tolerance but for two important points made by Johnson. First, he links Darwin’s theory to the most unseemly aspects of social Darwinism. It’s not that Darwin is personally responsible for this; but the book proposed an idea that took on a life of its own. As Johnson puts it:

Origin is a book that, with total success, embodies an exciting idea and had a devastating intellectual and emotional impact on world society. The word devastating is accurate: It destroyed many comfortable assumptions, thus clearing space for new concepts and ideas to spring up in almost every subject. It acted like a force of nature itself, and by the end of January 1860, when the second edition sold out, it was quite beyond Darwin’s control.

Darwin’s idea of life emerging from the wholly random activity of natural selection driven by chance and necessity (emphasizing domestic breeding as a primary example and proof of this process) paved the way for eugenics, forced sterilizations, and even the “racial hygiene” of Nazi Germany. Richard Weikart has written in depth on these themes in From Darwin to Hitler and Hitler’s Ethic, but Johnson also brings up the influence of social Darwinism (direct or indirect) on the thought of Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, and Pol Pot, among others.

Social Darwinism Comes to America

As for its tragic effects in America, one need only read Samuel J. Holmes’s comments in 1939 to appreciate the influence of American eugenics on the eve of Nazi expansion and its overt Darwinian connection. Harry Bruinius has estimated that forced sterilizations of the “unfit” in America during the pre-World War II years may be modestly estimated at 65,000. Iowa-born Harry Laughlin would become America’s leading eugenicist, and his enthusiasm for “racial betterment” was matched only by his admiration for Germany in pursuing it. It was not by mere whimsy that Heidelberg University awarded him an honorary doctorate for his contributions to “race hygiene” in 1936 (see Bruinius, Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity).

Darwin’s apologists can engage in indignant handwaving but they cannot refute these sad facts. But their reaction is expected. Such is the response of ideologues faced with the baring of their favored patron saint’s gospel and its consequences.

Here is Johnson’s second offense. He correctly objects to 

the enthusiasm of the Darwinian fundamentalists, who over the last few decades have sought to give Darwin a quasi-divine status and to abuse those who subject him and his work to the continuing critical scrutiny that is the essence of true science. Darwin was the first to admit his limitations, and . . . they were numerous and sometimes important.

A Few Flaws

There are a few flaws in Johnson’s treatment. For example, he claims Wallace first read Thomas Malthus’s Essay on Population about the same time as Darwin did in 1836, but this is doubtful as Wallace would have been only 13 years old. Wallace states in his autobiography My Life that he read it in the town library at Leicester in 1844. More serious is Johnson’s assertion that Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were poor mathematicians (in fact, having once been a surveyor, Wallace was exceptionally good in math and geometry) and that their uncritical evaluation of Malthus’s poor statistical analysis caused them to accept a flawed economic “law” that claimed food supplies rise arithmeticallywhile population increase geometrically.

According to Johnson, this fit “the horror scenario” of Darwin’s view of nature’s struggle, a view that Johnson believes Wallace shared. But Johnson is apparently unfamiliar with how Wallace actually incorporated Malthus into his own evolutionary theory. I have pointed out that Wallace read Malthus quite differently from Darwin (Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, p. 63).

Johnson too readily lumps Wallace together with Darwin’s theory. Actually, Wallace presented a teleological view of evolution and of humanity’s place that was strikingly different from Darwin’s. Another error is Johnson’s mention at several points in the book of Darwin’s opposition to vaccination. This is simply false. Darwin did write in the Descent that vaccination helped to preserve weak members of society and thus permitted them to “propagate their kind.” Nevertheless, Darwin himself was a fastidious vaccinator when it came to his own children, and he never supported the growing and powerful anti-vaccination movement in Victorian England.

Johnson also errs in stating that Darwin handled the God question in the Origin with “fine judgment and exquisite tact” (p. 82). If duplicity may be counted as complementary to judgment and tact then perhaps this assessment may stand, but there is little question that Darwin was less than honest here. He told Joseph Hooker in a letter dated March 29, 1863, of his regret that he had “truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” For promotional reasons, however, he never removed the “Pentateuchal term of creation” from any subsequent edition. While this leaves Johnson’s appraisal dubious, it does substantiate his claim that Darwin had “stealthy self-promoting instincts” (p. 92).

Paul Johnson at His Best 

Despite these missteps, Johnson’s analytic powers are at their best when he is assessing the impact of Darwinian theory on society and indeed on Darwin himself. Darwin’s disciples can bemoan the connection all they want, but the materialistic chance-driven world ushered in by their Down House hero had devastating human consequences. “In the twentieth century,” Johnson concludes, “it is likely that over 100 million people were killed or starved to death as a result of totalitarian regimes infected with varieties of social Darwinism” (p. 136).

On a personal level the evolutionary theory that Darwin spent much of his life fostering — his “child” — weighed heavily on him in later years. Darwin’s genius — what “genius” there was — came from his powers of observation, not his ability to think abstractly or for that matter particularly deeply. Johnson astutely observes that Darwin “deliberately shut his eyes to the ultimate consequences of his work, in terms of the human condition and the purpose of life or the absence of one. Though he sometimes, in his published works, put in a reassuring phrase, his private views tended to be bleak” (pp. 144-145). It was a fate that his “Bulldog Defender” Thomas Henry Huxley also met over the question of morality in a blind, purposeless nature. Nihilism haunted them both.

The reviewers that insist this work is “ludicrous,” a “smear,” or a “hatchet job” are wrong; it is none of these. It is a book that follows some excellent and courageous scholars like Jacques Barzun, Gertrude Himmelfarb, R. F. Baum, Stanley Jaki, Phillip Johnson, and Benjamin Wiker in suggesting that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is built upon questionable premises and has had a deleterious effect upon every society it has touched. The Darwinian fundamentalists hate to admit it, but more than twenty years after attorney Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, the relentless questioning continues.

This time a different Johnson examines the witness. Darwin: Portrait of a Genius was certainly titled in a spirit of irony, but nonetheless it represents an interesting and valuable brief to an ever-expanding minority opinion.

 

 while population increase geometrically.

 

Yet another episode of Darwinism's real life horror serial: return of the fossil record.

 Fossil Friday: Fossil Hyraxes and the Abrupt Origin of Hyracoidea

Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features the giant hyrax Titanohyrax andrewsi from the Early Oligocene of Fayum in Egypt (Tabuce 2016), because today we look into the origins of the placental mammal order Hyracoidea. This order only includes the herbivorous Afro-Arabian hyraxes that look rather like marmots even though they are believed to be close relatives of elephants and manatees. Whereas the five living species of the single surviving family Procaviidae look very similar, fossil hyraxes especially in the Paleogene were much more diverse with five extinct families (Geniohyiidae, Namahyracidae, Pliohyracidae, Sagatheriidae, and Titanohyracidae), sometimes subsumed in a single paraphyletic family Pliohyracidae. These included forms from the size of a mouse to that of a rhino (Tabuce 2016), which occupied very different ecological niches (Rasmussen & Simons 2000). The strange genus Rukwalorax described by Stevens et al. (2009), based on a single tooth from the Late Oligocene of Tanzania, could represent another extinct family and the oldest small-bodied hyracoid from East Africa. The Paleogene fossil record of hyraxes is surprisingly rich and diverse (Rasmussen 1989, Fischer 1992: table 1, Tabuce et al. 2008, Barrow et al. 2010: fig. 16, Rasmussen & Gutiérrez 2010).

The possibly oldest fossil record of Hyracoidea is represented by an isolated molar tooth of Seggeurius spec. from the earliest Eocene of the Ouled-Abdoun basin in Morocco (Gheerbrant et al. 2003, Asher & Seiffert 2010: fig. 46.2, Seiffert 2010a), which is dated to 55.8 million years. The second oldest find is Seggeurius amourensis from the middle Ypresian (ca. 52 mya) El Kohol Formation of the southern Atlas in Algeria (Mahboubi et al. 1986, Court & Mahboubi 1993, Seiffert 2010a, Benoit et al. 2016). Some of the other oldest fossils of Hyracoidea were also found in the Early Eocene of Algeria at Gour Lazib (Sudre 1979, Court & Mahboubi 1993, Adaci et al. 2007, Tabuce et al. 2001, 2011, Seiffert 2010a), which have been dated to a late Ypresian / early Lutetian age (ca. 52-46 mya) and include the species Megalohyrax gevini, Microhyrax lavocati, and Titanohyrax mongereaui. Titanohyrax tantulus from the Early Eocene of Chambi in Tunisia (Hartenberger et al. 1985, Court & Hartenberger 1992, Hartenberger et al. 2001) is of about the same age (Barrow et al. 2010, Seiffert 2010a). Numerous other very old hyraxes have been found in Late Eocene (Early Priabonian) layers of the Fayum Depression in Egypt (Barrow et al. 2010), such as the 37 million-year-old Dimaitherium, and the Late Eocene (Lutetian and Bartonian) of Sperrgebiet in Namibia (Pickford et al. 2008, Pickford 2015).

Abrupt and Diverse

We can conclude that hyraxes appeared abruptly and with a surprising diversity about 56 million years ago in the very window of time when most other orders of placental mammals appeared for the first time as well. There are no fossils that show an assumed gradual development of hyraxes from Late Cretaceous stem eutherians via stem afrotherians etc. The diversity was most developed very early in the Middle to Late Eocene and is comparatively small today, which is about the opposite of what should be expected in a Darwinian scenario. Tabuce et al. (2011) therefore admitted: “To conclude, the diversity of hyracoids in the first part of the Maghrebian Eocene is remarkable and surprising at such an early age.” Words like “surprising” are code in the technical evolutionary literature for facts that disagree with Darwinian expectations and predictions, to avoid clearly stating the embarrassing fact of the matter.

Hyraxes were initially wrongly believed to be related to rodents. Since George Cuvier’s (1884: 120) time until relatively recently, hyraxes have often been considered to be more closely related to the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla) in a group called Altungulata or Pantomesaxonia (e.g., Fischer 1986, 1992, Fischer & Tassy 1993, Prothero & Schoch 1989, McKenna & Bell 1997, Halliday et al. 2015), while other researchers instead have followed George Gaylord Simpson (1945) in considering them as close relatives of manatees and elephants in a group called Paenungulata (Sale 1960). Studies disagreed about the precise position of hyraxes, with most studies suggesting a basal position, while others suggested a closer relationship with either elephants (Sale 1960) or more rarely with sea cows (Seiffert 2010b, Benoit et al. 2016). Modern phylogenomic studies confirmed the monophyly of Paenungulata and placed them in the Afrotheria clade of African mammals (Asher et al. 2003, Nishihara et al. 2005, Seiffert 2003, 2007, Asher & Seiffert 2010, O’Leary et al. 2013, Cooper et al. 2014, Heritage et al. 2020). Among the very few anatomical features that might support Afrotheria (Tabuce et al. 2007, 2008) is the increased number of thoracolumbar vertebrae (Sánchez-Villagra et al. 2007) and the lack of a scrotum, but the latter similarity is somewhat incongruent as it is absent in the aardvarks, which are supposed to be nested within afrotherians. Recently, genetic evidence has been found that indeed suggests that the reduction of the testicular descent happened independently within Afrotheria (Sharma et al. 2018).

Not Based on Common Ancestry

Once again, anatomical similarity turns out not to be based on common ancestry. This is supported even more by the striking fact that there are three groups of mammals that independently produced a hyracoid-like morphology, so that they were initially misidentified as hyraxes:

The Eocene early Hippomorpha (“horses”) like Hyracotherium.

The fossil elephant shrew family Miohyracidae (see Bechly 2022).

The family Archaeohyracidae of the South American ungulate clade Notungulata. A recent study by Avilla & Mothé (2021) suggested that notungulates are indeed related to afrotherian hyracoids, but this result was immediately disputed by Kramarz & MacPhee (2022), who found them nested within the unrelated Boreoeutheria instead. See why I got personally frustrated with phylogenetics as a wannabe science?

Of course, it is only we “nitpicking” intelligent design proponents who point out such incongruences, while Darwinists generally see no problem at all. The theory must be correct, therefore any conflicting evidence must be wrong and explained away, following the Procrustean solution of shoehorning the data until they fit.

Next Fossil Friday we will look into the early fossil history of another member of the Afrotheria, the order Sirenia, which includes manatees and dugongs.

Why we can know that the engineering is real

Wesley smith asks: is your body engineered?

Evolution News

With host Wesley Smith, a new episode of the Humanize podcast explores the human body. Is your body “engineered” or did it evolve through impersonal and random processes over countless millions of years of natural selection? And what difference does the answer to that question make? 

Wesley’s guests are the authors of Your designed body, the new book that explores the complexity of the human physical form, not just from a biological, but also, intriguingly, an engineering perspective. As the famous atheist proselytizer and biologist Richard Dawkins has written, “However many ways there may be to be alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead…” In other words, as the authors note, “Life’s margin of error is small,” and requires an intricate, complex, and integrated systems to maintain life. These could not have arisen by mere chance, no matter the time allowed, but must have been engineered to accomplish such myriad and sophisticated tasks.

Whatever your views on how life came to be — whether by creation, intelligent design, or via random evolutionary forces — this is a fascinating and provocative conversation you will not want to miss. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Steve Laufmann is a public speaker, author, computer scientist, and engineering consultant in the design of enterprise-class systems, with expertise in the difficulties of changing complex systems to perform new tasks. He was a founding member of the International Foundation for Cooperative Information Systems (IFCIS), and has published many juried papers and book chapters on information commerce and related topics. Several years ago, he began to apply his expertise to the study of living systems. He leads the Engineering Research Group at Discovery Institute.

Dr. Howard Glicksman is a primary care and hospice physician with more than forty years of practice in clinical and hospital settings. He is the author of The Designed Body series for Evolution News.

Another one of the fossil record's numerous explosions v. Darwinism

The Dinosaur “Explosion”

 Cornelius G Hunter

As Though They Were Planted There

In the famed Cambrian Explosion most of today’s animal phyla appeared abruptly in the geological strata. How could a process driven by blind, random mutations produce such a plethora of new species? Evolutionist Steve Jones has speculated that the Cambrian Explosion was caused by some crucial change in DNA. “Might a great burst of genetic creativity have driven a Cambrian Genesis and given birth to the modern world?” [1] What explanations such as this do not address is the problem of how evolution overcame such astronomical entropic barriers. Rolling a dice, no matter how creatively, is not going to design a spaceship.

The Cambrian Explosion is not the only example of the abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record, and the other examples are no less easy for evolution to explain. Nor has the old saw, that it’s the fossil record’s fault, fared well. There was once a time when evolutionists could appeal to gaps in the fossil record to explain why the species appear to arise abruptly, but no more. There has just been too much paleontology work, such as a new international Study on dinosaurs published this week, confirming exactly what the strata have been showing all along: new forms really did arise abruptly.

 The new study narrows the dating of the rise of dinosaurs in the fossil record. It confirms that many dinosaur species appeared in an “explosion” or what “we term the ‘dinosaur diversification event (DDE)’.” It was an “explosive increase in dinosaurian abundance in terrestrial ecosystems.” As the press release explains,

First there were no dinosaur tracks, and then there were many. This marks the moment of their explosion, and the rock successions in the Dolomites are well dated. Comparison with rock successions in Argentina and Brazil, here the first extensive skeletons of dinosaurs occur, show the explosion happened at the same time there as well.

As lead author Dr Massimo Bernardi at the University of Bristol explains, “it’s amazing how clear cut the change from ‘no dinosaurs’ to ‘all dinosaurs’ was.”

There just isn’t enough time, and it is another example of a failed prediction of the theory of evolution.

World war one redux(complete with mustard gas)?

The Iran v. Iraq war.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZjJpH34G1g" title="Iran-Iraq War: The Modern Day Holy War" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On the origins of our natural satellite.

The new science of moon  formation.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wnqPqV6DdFQ" title="The NEW SCIENCE of Moon Formation" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On the great war.

What is a woman? Well don't ask the red cross.

Darwinism's narrative re:mitochondria takes it on the chin?

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

Cornelius G Hunter  

There You Go Again

Why are evolutionists always wrong? And why are they always so sure of themselves? With the inexorable march of science, the predictions of evolution, which evolutionists were certain of, just keep on turning out false. This week’s failure is the much celebrated notion that the eukaryote’s power plant—the mitochondria—shares a common ancestor with the alphaproteobacteria. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell. And these two entities, as luck would have it, just happened to need each other. Evolution had just happened to create that early bacterium, and that early eukaryote, in such a way that they needed, and greatly benefited from, each other. And, as luck would have it again, these two entities worked together. The bacterium would just happen to produce the chemical energy needed by the eukaryote, and the eukaryote would just happen to provide needed supplies. It paved the way for multicellular life with all of its fantastic designs. There was only one problem: the story turned out to be false.

The story that mitochondria evolved from the alphaproteobacteria lineage has been told with great conviction. Consider the Michael Gray 2012 paper which boldly begins with the unambiguous truth claim that “Viewed through the lens of the genome it contains, the mitochondrion is of unquestioned bacterial ancestry, originating from within the bacterial phylum α-Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria).”

There was no question about it. Gray was following classic evolutionary thinking: similarities mandate common origin. That is the common descent model. Evolutionists say that once one looks at biology through the lens of common descent everything falls into place.

Except that it doesn’t.

Over and over evolutionists have to rewrite their theory. Similarities once thought to have arisen from a common ancestor turn out to contradict the common descent model. Evolutionists are left having to say the similarities must have arisen independently.

And big differences, once thought to show up only in distant species, keep on showing up in allied species.

Biology, it turns out, is full of one-offs, special cases, and anomalies. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work.

Now, a new Paper out this week has shown that the mitochondria and alphaproteobacteria don’t line up the way originally thought. That “unquestioned bacterial ancestry” turns out to be, err, wrong.

The paper finds that mitochondria did not evolve from the currently hypothesized alphaproteobacterial ancestor, or from “any other currently recognized alphaproteobacterial lineage.”

The paper does, however, make a rather startling claim. The authors write:

our analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria.

That is a startling claim because, well, simply put there is no evidence for it. The lack of evidence is exceeded only by the evolutionist’s confidence. Note the wording: “indicate.”

The evolutionist’s analyses indicate this new truth.

How can the evolutionists be so sure of themselves in the absence of literally any evidence?

The answer is, because they are evolutionists. They are completely certain that evolution is true. And since evolution must be true, the mitochondria had to have evolved from somewhere. And the same is true for the alphaproteobacteria. They must have evolved from somewhere.

And in both cases, that somewhere must be the earlier proteobacterial lineage. There are no other good evolutionary candidates.

Fortunately this new claim cannot be tested (and therefore cannot be falsified), because the “proteobacterial lineage” is nothing more than an evolutionary construct. Evolutionists can search for possible extant species for hints of a common ancestor with the mitochondria, but failure to find anything can always be ascribed to extinction of the common ancestor.

This is where evolutionary theory often ends up: failures ultimately lead to unfalsifiable truth claims. Because heaven forbid we should question the theory itself.

Planet of the monkeys?

Monkeys, Not Humans, Likely Made Ancient Brazilian Tools

 Evolution News 

There’s a danger in looking too hard for evidence of our ancient ancestors. Sometimes we could be seeing things that aren’t there. One group of stone tools from 50,000 years ago could, it is now suggested, have been made by monkeys:

Excavations at Pedra Furada, a group of 800 archaeological sites in the state of Piauí, Brazil, have turned up stone shards believed to be examples of simple stone tools. Made from quartzite and quartz cobbles, the oldest ones appear to be up to 50,000 years old, which would put them among the earliest evidence of human habitation in the Western Hemisphere.

However, the tools also bear a striking resemblance to the stone tools currently made by the capuchin monkeys at Brazil’s Serra da Capivara National Park. 

SARAH CASCONE, “ANCIENT STONE TOOLS ONCE THOUGHT TO BE MADE BY HUMANS WERE ACTUALLY CRAFTED BY MONKEYS, SAY ARCHAEOLOGISTS” AT ARTNET (JANUARY 3, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

But there’s a twist. Back in 2016, a similar point was raised at Nature:

In January, archaeologist Tomos Proffitt was examining a set of stone artefacts that his colleague Michael Haslam had brought to him. Some of the quartz pieces looked like sharpened stone tools made by human relatives in eastern Africa, some 2–3 million years ago.

But Haslam told Proffitt that the artefacts had been made the previous year by capuchin monkeys in Brazil. “I was pretty gobsmacked,” he says. “I did my PhD looking at hominin stone tools. I’ve learnt how to make these things. I was looking at this material, and it looked like it had been made by humans.” …

The capuchins make the fragments unintentionally while bashing rocks into dust, the researchers find. Some scientists say that the results call into question whether some stone tools have been incorrectly attributed to hominins — including 3.3-million-year-old artefacts from Kenya that are the oldest on record. 

EWEN CALLAWAY, “MONKEY TOOLS RAISE QUESTIONS OVER HUMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD ” AT NATURE (OCTOBER 19, 2016) THE PAPER REQUIRES A FEE OR SUBSCRIPTION.

Not Even Tools 

The twist is that those artifacts were not even tools. The monkeys were producing them accidentally…

Many life forms shape and use objects as tools: These include crows, dolphins, octopuses, alligators, and ants.

The casualty in this case is the contention — attractive to many researchers, of course — that humans were living in the Americas 50,000 years ago based on the presence of what are thought to be tools:

Coupled with the lack of other evidence of human habitation from 50,000 years ago, such as concrete traces of dietary remains or hearths — charcoal at the site could have originated from naturally occurring fires — the tools’ resemblance to rock fragments created by monkeys calls into question the likelihood that humans were responsible for their creation.

The new findings could have a major impact on our understanding of when the first humans arrived in the Americas. 

SARAH CASCONE, “ANCIENT STONE TOOLS ONCE THOUGHT TO BE MADE BY HUMANS WERE ACTUALLY CRAFTED BY MONKEYS, SAY ARCHAEOLOGISTS” AT ARTNET (JANUARY 3, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

A Calendar in the Mix?

We need to be clear about what part of the archeological record is under question. Another current dispute, for example, turns on whether the dots that accompany many Ice Age paintings from 20,000 years ago are evidence of a lunar calendar. It’s quite likely that the series of dots and symbols represent some form of record-keeping or communication. There may or may not be a lunar calendar in the mix but there is no possibility that these artworks were created by monkeys. We know that we are in a human world here. We just aren’t sure what its inhabitants were trying to say. 

If we are going to offer theories about ancient humans, it is best to be on ground as sure as that.

Darwinism's quest for a simple beginning rolls on.

Centrobin Found to be Important in Sperm Development

Cornelius G Hunter  

Numerous, Successive, Slight Modifications 

Proteins are a problem for theories of spontaneous origins for many reasons. They consist of dozens, or often hundreds, or even thousands of amino acids in a linear sequence, and while many different sequences will do the job, that number is tiny compared to the total number of sequences that are possible. It is a proverbial needle-in-the-haystack problem, far beyond the reach of blind searches. To make matters worse, many proteins are overlapping, with portions of their genes occupying the same region of DNA. The same set of mutations would have to result in not one, but two proteins, making the search problem that much more tricky. Furthermore, many proteins perform multiple functions. Random mutations somehow would have to find those very special proteins that can perform double duty in the cell. And finally, many proteins perform crucial roles within a complex environment. Without these proteins the cell sustains a significant fitness degradation. One protein that fits this description is centrobin, and now a new study shows it to be even more important than previously understood.

Centrobin is a massive protein of almost a thousand amino acids. Its importance in the division of animal cells has been known for more than ten years. An important player in animal cell division is the centrosome organelle which organizes the many microtubules—long tubes which are part of the cell’s cytoskeleton. Centrobin is one of the many proteins that helps the centrosome do its job. Centrobin depletion causes "strong disorganization of the microtubule network" and Impaired cell division .

Now, a New study shows just how important centrobin is in the development of the sperm tail. Without centrobin, the tail, or flagellum, development is “severely compromised.” And once the sperm is formed, centrobin is important for its structural integrity. As the paper concludes:

Our results underpin the multifunctional nature of [centrobin] that plays different roles in different cell types in Drosophila, and they identify [centrobin] as an essential component for C-tubule assembly and flagellum development in Drosophila spermatogenesis.

Clearly centrobin is an important protein. Without it such fundamental functions as cell division and organism reproduction are severely impaired.

And yet how did centrobin evolve?

Not only is centrobin a massive protein, but there are no obvious candidate intermediate structures. It is not as though we have that “long series of gradations in complexity” that Darwin called for:

Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.

Unfortunately, in the case of centrobin, we do not know of such a series. In fact, centrobin would seem to be a perfectly good example of precisely how Darwin said his theory could be falsified:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.  

Darwin could “find out no such case,” but he didn’t know about centrobin. Darwin required “a long series of gradations,” formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

With centrobin we are nowhere close to fulfilling these requirements. In other words, today’s science falsifies evolution. This, according to Darwin’s own words.

Let there be light

 The wave nature of light

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N85ft9WUlVQ" title="Chemistry and Our Universe: How it All Works | Wave Nature of Light | The Great Courses" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

These cavemen were men of letters?

Possible Cave “Proto-Writing” Challenges Slow Evolution of Human Consciousness

Denyse o'Leary  

London-based wood carving conservator Ben Bacon has, with academic colleagues, shaken up Ice Age paleontology by demonstrating that the marks on the 20,000-year-old cave paintings of animals found across Europe could be interpreted as a lunar calendar timing reproductive cycles:

Prof Paul Pettitt, of Durham University, said he was “glad he took it seriously” when Mr Bacon contacted him.

“The results show that Ice Age hunter-gatherers were the first to use a systemic calendar and marks to record information about major ecological events within that calendar.” 

NEWS, “LONDONER SOLVES 20,000-YEAR ICE AGE DRAWINGS MYSTERY” AT BBC (JANUARY 5, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

Bacon had spent many hours both on the Internet and in the British Library, studying the paintings, looking for repetitive numerical patterns — something we would expect to find more often in a calendar than in other types of record-keeping. A collaboration took place among Bacon, two Durham University profs, and one from University College London then working out birth cycles for similar animals today. Thus, the BBC reports, “they deduced that the number of marks on the cave paintings was a record, by lunar month, of the animals’ mating seasons.”

Of the 800 sequences of dots analyzed, no sequence contained more than 13 dots, which suggested to the researchers the 13 months of the lunar year. They also “found strong correlations between the number of marks and the lunar months in which the specific animal is known to mate.” (Live Science) The frequent “Y” sign was, they believe, connected to giving birth:

A Statistical Analysis

After conducting a statistical analysis of the database, Bacon and his colleagues were amazed to find that their lunar calendar seems to hold up well with the patterns.

“Overall, there is a remarkable degree of correlation between the numbers of lines/dots in sequences with and without Y and the position of Y and the mating and birthing behaviors of our analytical taxa,” the researchers said in the study. “Our data do not explain everything, but even taking imprecision and regional variability into account, the degree of support for our hypothesis is striking.” 

BECKY FERREIRA, “A TOTAL AMATEUR MAY HAVE JUST REWRITTEN HUMAN HISTORY WITH BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY” AT VICE (JANUARY 5, 2023)

Other researchers are not convinced, however:

Melanie Chang, a paleoanthropologist at Portland State University who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email that she agrees with the researchers’ assessment that “Upper Palaeolithic people had the cognitive capacity to write and to keep records of time.” However, she cautioned that the researchers’ “hypotheses are not well-supported by their results, and they also do not address alternative interpretations of the marks they analyzed.” 

KRISTINA KILLGROVE, “20,000-YEAR-OLD CAVE PAINTING ‘DOTS’ ARE THE EARLIEST WRITTEN LANGUAGE, STUDY CLAIMS. BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREES.” AT LIVE SCIENCE (DECEMBER 5, 2022)

The Big News

No doubt the paleontology community will be debating the exact significance of the marks for some time. For now, the big news is the fact that such ancient humans were apparently communicating via symbolic record-keeping as well as art ten thousands or more years earlier than we have thought:

It would be hard to overstate the magnitude of this discovery, assuming it passes muster in the wider archaeological community. It would rewrite the origins of, well, writing, which is one of the most important developments in human history. Moreover, if these tantalizing symbols represent an early calendar, they offer a glimpse of how these hunter-gatherers synchronized their lives with the natural cycles of animals and the Moon.

In short, if the new hypothesis is accurate, it shows that our Paleolithic ancestors “were almost certainly as cognitively advanced as we are” and “that they are fully modern humans,” Bacon told Motherboard. It also means “that their society achieved great art, use of numbers, and writing” and “that reading more of their writing system may allow us to gain an insight into their beliefs and cultural values,” he concluded. 

BECKY FERREIRA, “A TOTAL AMATEUR MAY HAVE JUST REWRITTEN HUMAN HISTORY WITH BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY” AT VICE (JANUARY 5, 2023)

The researchers, who plan further publications in this area, are careful to call their find “proto-writing” rather than “writing” because it simply marks seasonal patterns. If they or others were to find inscriptions or apparent histories, that would be an even more significant development.

The find certainly challenges the idea that human consciousness underwent a long, slow evolution in recent millennia. It was mainly the technology that evolved, it seems.

You may also wish to read: Why is Neanderthal art considered controversial? It makes sense that whenever humans started to wonder about life, we started to create art that helps us think about it. Science writer Michael Marshall reports that some researchers are accused of banning others from taking samples that would prove a Neanderthal was the artist.

Some more on the business of war.

 

An architectural icon examined.

The Chrysler building

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cif0FA1jHpo" title="Architect Breaks Down Hidden Details Of The Chrysler Building | Architectural Digest" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

Lamarck's revenge?

 On Lamarck

Cornelius G Hunter

In the twentieth century Lamarckian Inheritance was an anathema for evolutionists. Careers were ruined and every evolutionist knew the inheritance of acquired characteristics sat right along the flat earth and geocentrism in the history of ideas. The damning of Lamarck, however, was driven by dogma rather than data, and today the evidence has finally overcome evolutionary theory.

Indeed there is much contemporary discussion, observations and critical analysis consistent with this position led by Corrado Spadafora, Yongsheng Liu, Denis Noble, John Mattick and others, that developments such as Lamarckian Inheritance processes (both direct DNA modifications and indirect, viz. epigenetic, transmissions) in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields now necessitate a complete revision of the standard neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or “New Synthesis " that emerged from the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, we now know of a “plethora of adaptive Lamarckian-like inheritance mechanisms.

””

Samuel Clarke on the trinity.

 Stanford Encycloedia

In his lifetime, Clarke was infamous for his view of the trinity, and he sparked a vociferous debate (Ferguson 1974, 59–149; Pfizenmaier 1997, 179–216). Clarke was not officially censured (but nearly so), but it surely prevented his rising to higher office. Clarke’s writing on the trinity are relevant for understanding his other metaphysical positions, especially his identification of “person” with intelligent, acting agent rather than with a particular substance, which has not been sufficiently reconciled with his account of personal identity as wrapped up with an immaterial soul.

In Christian theology, God is represented as tripartite—three persons but one God. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, in use in England during Clarke’s lifetime, one of the liturgies draws from the Athanasian Creed, which includes the following discussion of the Trinity: “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one… So the Father is God, the Son is God : and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.” In his position as a cleric, Clarke was required to subscribe to this formulation. In 1712, against the advice of his friends, he published The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he diverged from what his opponents considered the plain sense of this formulation. The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity begins by collecting all the passages of the New Testament that relate to the Trinity. It then sets out a series of 55 propositions regarding the Trinity, each supported by references to the texts collected in the first section and writings from the early Christian church. However, the biblical texts do not primarily discuss God’s metaphysical attributes, according to Clarke, but ascribe dominion to God (W 4.150; Snobelen 2004, 265–275). The third section relates these propositions to the Anglican liturgy. This approach reflects Clarke’s general expectation that the correct theological doctrines are found in the Bible, are endorsed by the early church, and are compatible with reason. Through hundreds of years of what he considered bad metaphysics, the correct and intelligible doctrine of the trinity had become obscured, and Clarke hoped to return to a pre-Athanasian understanding of the trinity.

Clarke’s position in The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity was labeled by his opponents as “Arian,” “Socinian,” and “Sabellian.” Although they were commonly used as abusive terms for anyone holding non-traditional or anti-trinitarian views, they also have more precise meanings. An Arian holds that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) is divine but not eternal; he was created by God the Father out of nothing before the beginning of the world. A Socinian holds that the Son is merely human and was created at or after the conception of Jesus. A Sabellian holds that the Son is a mode of God. In the precise use of the terms, Clarke is none of these. Unlike the Arians, Clarke affirmed that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and not created (W 4.141). (Pfizenmaier 1997 provides further textual and historical arguments that Clarke should not be classified as an Arian.) From this it also follows that, contra the Socinians, the Son existed before the conception of Jesus. Unlike the Sabellians, Clarke denied that the Son was a mode of the Father. (This would have been very problematic given that he sometimes claimed that space is a mode of God.) Clarke’s claimed ignorance about substance made him reluctant to declare that the Father and the Son were the same divine substance, but the Son is endowed by the Father with all of the power and authority of the Father. He also called the manner of the Son’s generation from the father “ineffable.” So while Clarke denied that the trinity was a “mystery,” he did believe that the manner in which the Father’s power is communicated to the Son is “after a manner to us unknown” (Proposition 35; 4.159).

Clarke affirms that each member of the trinity is a person, but only the Father is self-existent, which means that the Father by essence (rather than by “office”) has a property that the Son does not. His views are best described as subordinationist but he could also be called a unitarian, in at least some senses of the term (Tuggy 2014; 204–205). See especially Prop. 25 (W 4.150); Prop. 27 (W 4.151); and Prop. 34 (“The Son, whatever his metaphysical essence of substance be, and whatever divine greatness and dignity is ascribed to him in scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinate to the Father, that he derives his being, attributes, and powers, from the Father, and the Father nothing from him”; 4.155). To the Father alone are ascribed “independence and supreme authority” (Proposition 27; 4.151). Every other attribute and power that can be ascribed to the Father can also be ascribed to the Son, “but the titles ascribed to the Son, must always carry along with them the idea of being communicated or derived” (4.153).