Ancient humans remain just as human according to the fossil record

 Fossil Friday: New Evidence for the Human Nature of Neanderthals

Gunter Bechly

The reconstruction of Neanderthal appearance and behavior has quite a checkered history. After an initial controversy over whether the fossils really represent ancient humans or just malformed modern humans, Neanderthals were described in 1864 as distinct hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis. For a long time they were considered as brutish cavemen with a club and almost gorilla-like appearance. Then the scientific opinion shifted and Neanderthals were more and more recognized as human-like and even as geniuses of the ice age (Husemann 2005, Finlayson 2019), based on an avalanche of new evidence for complex human behavior (Nowell 2023, Vernimmen 2023). We now know that Neanderthals used fire (Angelucci et al. 2023), buried their dead (Balzeau et al. 2020, Dockdrill 2020), created stone circles (Jaubert et al. 2016, Callaway 2016) and bone tools (Soressi et al. 2013), made jewellery from eagle talons (Radovčić et al. 2015, Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019) and used feathers as body decoration (Peresani et al. 2011, Finlayson et al. 2012), made cave art with paintings and engravings (Rodríguez-Vidal et al. 2014, Hoffmann et al. 2018a, Marquet et al. 2023), played music with bone flutes (Turk et al. 2018), used ochre as pigment (Roebroeks et al. 2012, Hoffmann et al. 2018b) and sophisticated fibre technology (Hardy et al. 2020), produced flour from processed plants (Mariotti Lippi et al. 2023), dived for seafood (Villa et al. 2020), cooked food and self-medicated with herbal painkillers and antibiotics (Hardy et al. 2012, Weyrich et al. 2017), and even produced glue from birch bark with a complex chemical procedure (Blessing & Schmidt 2021, Schmidt et al. 2023).

New Anatomic Data

But it is not just new evidence for Neanderthal behavior that overturned our previous crude image of Neanderthals as dumb brutes, but also new anatomic data. Contrary to earlier beliefs, more recent studies have demonstrated a fully upright posture with typical human spinal curvature called lordosis (Haeusler et al. 2019). The latter authors concluded that ”after more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neandertal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans.” There even exists compelling new evidence for hearing and speech capacities (Conde-Valverde et al. 2021), which “demonstrates that the Neanderthals possessed a communication system that was as complex and efficient as modern human speech” (Starr 2021).

Correlated with this fundamental rethinking of Neanderthals (Nowell 2023) in terms of their anatomy, culture, and mental capabilities, their classification has also changed over time. At first they were considered as a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, then they were just considered as a subspecies of modern humans, Homo sapiens, and since the late 1990s again as “an unambiguously demarcated morphospecies” (Tattersall & Schwartz 2006; also see Harvati et al. 2004, Márquez et al. 2014, and Wynn et al. 2016). The new field of paleogenomics brought insight into their DNA (Green et al. 2010), which was considered as sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate species status again (Clarke 2016), even though there was also evidence for hybridization and genetic admixture with modern humans (Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023). Paleogeneticist and Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo (2014) called the controversy of the species status of Neanderthals as unresolvable, because of the arbitrariness and fuzziness of species concepts (also see Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023, Nowell 2023, and Stringer 2023). The controversy still continues as is evident from a recent article titled “Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species?” (Heidt 2023), which discusses the fact that “scientists have been vollying the question back and forth for more than a century”. Nowell (2023) wrote: “From their initial discovery until today, Neandertals have shifted between “being recognized as human or being pushed to the constitutive outside of humanness,” what Drell (2000, p. 15) describes as “the oscillating dichotomy of Same and Other.”

Of course, the undeniable evidence for significant and common genetic admixture (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016, Villanea & Schraiber 2019, Callaway 2021), which makes up 1-4 percent of the modern human genome (Reilly et al. 2022), would suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common gene pool and belonged to the same biospecies. Even the skeptic and ID opponent Michael Shermer (2010) agreed in an article for Scientific American that the genomic evidence suggests that our Neanderthal brethren were not a separate species. Strong reproductive isolation barriers that limited the amount of introgression were proposed by Overmann & Coolidge (2013), but many experts remain

unconvinced. Paleoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto said (quoted in Vernimmen 2023): “Homo sapiens clearly recognized Neanderthals as mating partners, which suggests they thought of them as humans — maybe ‘the weird guys living behind the mountains,’ but still, fellow humans.”

But what do we make of the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans? Don’t they support a separate species status? Actually, this would not follow even if the differences lay outside the range of variability of modern humans, because that is also the case in many other subspecies of living animals. However, some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which lead Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare them with Neanderthals. Of course this also had some typical Darwinist racist connotations. Just like Neanderthals, native Australians were considered primitive and inferior. Nevertheless, the similarities are real and have been confirmed by modern anatomical studies (e.g., Wolpoff & Caspari 1996), which concluded that “the interpretation of Neanderthals as a different species is very unlikely.” Anatomical and cognitive differences between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were also affirmed by Wynn et al. (2016), who nevertheless emphatically rejected labeling these differences as implying inferiority or superiority. More recent research even suggests that the characteristic skull features may rather be based on phenotypic plasticity than an evolutionary heritage from ape-like ancestors (Curnoe 2011).

Why So Much Debate?

So, why is there still so much debate and controversy about the species status of Neanderthals? Well, what is at stake is not just some esoteric species problem in the scientific ivory tower of a few paleoanthropologists, but the very question of human nature and human uniqueness, thus what it even means to be human. The recognition of Neanderthals as a distinct species would make the uncanny valley a bit shallower, as Peeters & Zwart (2020) put it, and would challenge “longstanding ideas about the uniqueness of our species” (Seghers 2018). A so-called multiple species model was proposed for the origin of behavioral modernity (Moro Abadía & González Morales 2010). Even mainstream evolutionary biologists recognize that this is a “politically charged context” (Nowell 2023), and thus certainly subject to bias when you approach this question from either a Darwinist viewpoint of modern materialist and atheist science, or from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint of human exceptionalism, where humans are made in the image of God.

In my humble opinion, the evidence for symbolic thinking, language, and genetic admixture clearly suggests that Neanderthals belong to our very own species. They were no inhabitants of the uncanny valley of objects that just resemble humans (think of Sophia the robot or CGI characters), but they are fully human and should again be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The latest technical literature shows that such a view is well rooted in up-to-date mainstream science. McCrae (2023) concluded, in an article titled “Neanderthals might not be the separate species we always thought,” that even though “it’s unlikely we’ll finally see the classification of Homo neanderthalensis fade into obscurity any time soon. … Still, as more sibling than cousin, it seems the poor old Neanderthal deserves to sit right by our side in the Homo sapien[s] family portrait.”

References

Angelucci DE, Nabais M & Zilhão 2023. Formation processes, fire use, and patterns of human occupation across the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5a-5b) of Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal). PLoS ONE 18(10): e0292075, 1–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292075

Balzeau A, Turq A, Talamo S et al. 2020. Pluridisciplinary evidence for burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal child. Scientific Reports 10: 21230, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77611-z

Blessing MA & Schmidt P 2021. On the efficiency of Palaeolithic birch tar making. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 38: 103096, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103096

Callaway E 2016. Neanderthals built cave structures — and no one knows why. Nature News May 25, 2016. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19975

Callaway E 2021. Oldest Human DNA Reveals Recent Neanderthal Mixing. Nature 592, 339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00916-0

Clarke JLA 2016. Neanderthals: Species or Subspecies? Diversipede 2(1), 24–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/comp47

Conde-Valverde M, Martínez I, Quam RM et al. 2021. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens had similar auditory and speech capacities. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(5), 609–615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01391-6

Curnoe D 2011. A 150-Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on the Origin of Aboriginal Australians. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2011: 632484, 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/632484

Dockdrill P 2020. Child’s Bones Buried 40,000 Years Ago Solve a Longstanding Neanderthal Mystery. ScienceAlert December 10, 2020. https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-neanderthal-mystery-solved-by-a-child-s-bones-from-40-000-years-ago

Finlayson C 2019. The smart Neanderthal. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 240 pp. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-smart-neanderthal-9780198797524

Finlayson C, Brown K, Blasco R et al. 2012. Birds of a Feather: Neanderthal Exploitation of Raptors and Corvids. PLoS ONE 7(9): e45927, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045927

Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328(5979), 710–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188021

Hardy K, Buckley S, Collins MJ et al. 2012. Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculus. Naturwissenschaften 99, 617–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-012-0942-0

Hardy BL, Moncel M-H, Kerfant C, Lebon M, Bellot-Gurlet L & Mélard N 2020. Direct evidence of Neanderthal fibre technology and its cognitive and behavioral implications. Scientific Reports 10: 4889, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61839-w

Haeusler M, Trinkaus E, Fornai C & Frater N 2019. Morphology, pathology, and the vertebral posture of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neandertal. PNAS 116(11), 4923–4927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820745116

Harvati K, Frost SR & McNulty KP 2004. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. PNAS 101(5), 1147–1152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308085100

Heidt A 2023. Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species? LiveScience December 23, 2023. https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/are-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens-the-same-species?

Hoffmann DL, Standish CD, Garciá-Diez M et al. 2018a. U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science 359(6378), 912–915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap7778

Hoffmann DL, Angelucci DE, Villaverde V, Zapata J & Zilhão J 2018b. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 years ago. Science Advances 4(2): eaar5255, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar5255

Husemann D 2005. Die Neandertaler. Genies der Eiszeit. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. (DE), 263 pp. [In German]

Jaubert J, Verheyden S, Genty D et al. 2016. Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France. Nature 534, 111–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18291

Kuhlwilm M, Gronau I, Hubisz M et al. 2016. Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals. Nature 530, 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16544

Lyell C 1863. The Antiquity of Man. Dent and Sons, London (UK), 518 pp.

Mariotti Lippi M, Aranguren B, Arrighi S et al. 2023. New evidence of plant food processing in Italy before 40ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 312(6236): 108161, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108161

Marquet J-C, Freiesleben TH, Thomsen KJ et al. 2023. The earliest unambiguous Neanderthal engravings on cave walls: La Roche-Cotard, Loire Valley, France. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286568, 1–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286568

Márquez S, Pagano AS, Delson E, Lawson W & Laitman JT 2014. The Nasal Complex of Neanderthals: An Entry Portal to their Place in Human Ancestry. The Anatomical Record 297: 2121–2137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23040McCrae M 2023. Neanderthals Might Not Be The Separate Species We Always Thought. ScienceAlert October 22, 2023. https://www.sciencealert.com/neanderthals-might-not-be-the-separate-species-we-always-thought

Meneganzin A & Bernardi M 2023. Were Neanderthals and Homo sapiens ‘good species’? Quaternary Science Reviews 303: 107975, 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.107975

Moro Abadía O & González Morales MR 2010. Redefining Neanderthals and art: an alternative interpretation of the multiple species model for the origin of behavioural modernity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(3), 229–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2010.00346.x

Nowell A 2023. Rethinking Neandertals. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 52, 151–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052621-024752

Overmann KA & Coolidge FL 2013. Human species and mating systems: Neandertal– Homo sapiens reproductive isolation and the archaeological and fossil records. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 91, 91–110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344097/

Pääbo S 2014. Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes. Basic Books, New York (NY), p. 237.Peeters S & Zwart H 2020. Neanderthals as familiar strangers and the human spark: how the “golden years” of Neanderthal research reopen the question of human uniqueness. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 42: 33, 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00327-w

Peresani M, Fiore I, Gala M, Romandini M & Tagliacozzo A 2011. Late Neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. PNAS 108(10), 3888–3893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016212108

Radovčić D, Sršen AO, Radovčić J & Frayer DW 2015. Evidence for Neandertal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119802, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119802

Reilly PF, Tjahjadi A, Miller SL, Akey JM & Tucci S 2022. The contribution of Neanderthal introgression to modern human traits. Current Biology 32(18), R970–R983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.08.027

Rodríguez-Hidalgo A, Morales JI, Cebrià A et al. 2019. The Châtelperronian Neanderthals of Cova Foradada (Calafell, Spain) used imperial eagle phalanges for symbolic purposes. Science Advances 5(11): eaax1984, 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax1984

Rodríguez-Vidal J, d’ Errico F, Pacheco FG et al. (2014). A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. PNAS 111(37), 13301–13306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411529111

Roebroeks W, Sier MJ, Kellberg Nielsen T, de Loecker D, Parés JM, Arps CES & Mücher HJ 2012. Use of red ochre by early Neandertals. PNAS 109(6), 1889–1894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112261109

Schmidt P, Koch TJ, Blessing MA, Karakostis FA, Harvati K, Dresely V & Charrié-Duhaut A 2023. Production method of the Königsaue birch tar documents cumulative culture in Neanderthals. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 15: 84, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01789-2Seghers E 2018. A Tale of Two Species: The Origins of Art and the Neanderthal Challenge. Evolutionary Studies and Imaginative Culture 2(2), 83–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26613/esic.2.2.94

Shermer M 2010. Our Neandertal Brethren: Why They Were Not a Separate Species. Scientific American 303(2), 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0810-34

Soressi M, McPherron SP, Lenoir M et al. 2013. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. PNAS 110(35), 14186–14190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110

Starr M 2021. In a Momentous Discovery, Scientists Show Neanderthals Could Produce Human-Like Speech. ScienceAlert March 1, 2021. https://www.sciencealert.com/neanderthals-could-both-hear-and-produce-human-like-speech

Stringer C 2023. Are Neanderthals the same species as us? Natural History Museum 2023. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html

Tattersall I & Schwartz JH 2006. The distinctiveness and systematic context of Homo neanderthalensis. pp. 9–22 in: Hublin J-J, Harvati K & Harrison T (eds). Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht (NL), xiv+332 pp. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5121-0_2

Turk M, Turk I, Dimkaroski L, Blackwell BAB, Horusitzky FZ, Otte M, Bastiani G & Korat L 2018. The Mousterian Musical Instrument from the Divje babe I cave (Slovenia): Arguments on the Material Evidence for Neanderthal Musical Behaviour. L’Anthropologie 122(4), 679–706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2018.10.001

Vernimmen T 2023. Neanderthals: More knowable now than ever. Knowable Magazine November 28, 2023. https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2023/new-finds-about-neanderthal-brains-and-behaviorVilla P, Soriano S, Pollarolo L, Smriglio C, Gaeta M, d’Orazio M, Conforti J & Tozzi C 2020. Neandertals on the beach: Use of marine resources at Grotta dei Moscerini (Latium, Italy). PLoS ONE 15(1): e0226690, 1–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0226690

Villanea FA & Schraiber JG 2019. Multiple episodes of interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, 39–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0735-8

Weyrich LS, Duchene S, Soubrier J et al. 2017. Neanderthal behaviour, diet, and disease inferred from ancient DNA in dental calculus. Nature 544(7650), 357–361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21674

Wolpoff M & Caspari R 1996. An Unparalleled Parallelism. Anthropologie 34(3), 215–223. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44601502

Wynn T, Overmann KA & Coolidge FL 2016. The false dichotomy: a refutation of the Neandertal indistinguishability claim. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 94, 201–361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21674

Paul Sutter and the madness of multiverse?

 From Astrophysicist Paul Sutter — Multiverse Madness

Casey Luskin

Yesterday I commented on a fantastic article by astrophysicist Paul Sutter at Universe Today on “The Improbable Origins of Life on Earth.” Sutter now has a follow-up article there, “The Seeming Impossibility of Life,” which provides additional insights into the complexity of life — though I don’t agree with his attempts to dodge the design inference for fine-tuning of the universe. We’ll get to that in a moment. He starts by rightly marveling at the “complexity of the human brain” which he calls “remarkable”:

We are, to put it bluntly, remarkable. There is nothing in this cosmos that even begins to approach anything resembling the complexity of the human brain. There is no other world that we have discovered, within our solar system or without, that can support the dizzying array of chemical reactions that we call life, let alone consciousness.

No doubt life on Earth has impressive characteristics. But is life on this planet unique? Sutter thinks it probably is:

Sure, with enough planets around enough stars within enough galaxies, life is probably bound to happen one way or another, but it appears that life only happened here, once, billions of years ago, when it didn’t appear — or was snuffed out — even in our own solar backyard.

It’s no accident that Earth is home to the only known life in the universe. That’s because our planet appears to be special. Sutter recognizes this as well:

Even our planet is special. Take a look at the other planets of the solar system. If doesn’t matter if you’re using a backyard telescope or the latest NASA robotic gear, the answer is always the same. While every planet looks and acts (and probably smells) different from all the rest, they all share one thing in common: they’re dead.

Lifeless. Uninhabitable. Inhospitable. Barren balls of cold rock. Barren balls of molten rock. Barren balls of exceedingly hot rock buried under thick layers of atmosphere. Barren.

Doubting Fine-Tuning

So Earth is especially suited for life. But what about our universe? Sutter recounts the argument that the fine-tuning of the universe shows “divine intervention” — but then he goes on to disagree with it. Here’s how he frames the pro-fine-tuning position: 

Some argue that the way the universe is constructed is a little too particular. That if any one small thing were to change, from the speed of light to the amount of atomic matter assembled during the big bang, life as we know it would be outright impossible. Perhaps some other form of intelligence could rise up in that strange cosmos, shuddering at the impossible thought of creatures anchored to a planet and swimming in its water oceans. Perhaps not. Either way, it appears that our universe is especially tuned for the appearance of life as we know it, indicating either divine intervention or some conspiracy of physics too far beyond our comprehension to grasp.

But this is where I would have my first major disagreement with Sutter. Here’s how he responds to the design argument: 

To that line of thinking I have this response. We have but one universe for us to study; it is all we’ve had and all that ever will be. As peculiar as this universe of ours appears, we cannot access or interrogate other possibilities. We do not know how special or generic this cosmos is, the same way you could not measure the probability of the Queen of Diamonds appearing in your hand if you did not know the contents of the full deck. That stark reality does not rule out divinity or exotic physics, but it also does not demand them. If you wish to believe in either of those, I will not begrudge you.

This Seems Like a Dodge

Ironically, the rebuttal to Sutter’s skepticism is found in a comment he himself makes: “We have but one universe for us to study”. That’s right — and that’s why Sutter is wrong to dismiss the possibility that we can know our universe is fine-tuned: Science is based upon studying what we know. We know our universe exists, and we know that its laws are fine-tuned to allow life to exist. We know these facts to be true, and thus we can take them into account when asking whether our universe exhibits design. 

Sutter wants to avoid this conclusion through an analogy to a deck of cards. He argues that determining the probability of selecting a particular card requires knowing something about the deck of cards from which it came. That’s fair, but he then claims that if we can’t know anything about the “deck of cards” from which our universe came, then we can’t know whether it’s probable or improbable. For example, maybe that “deck” only includes universes fine-tuned for life (but then we’d have to ask why?), or maybe that “deck” is so large that it is likely that at least one “card” (i.e., one universe) would have the right parameters needed for life — just by chance. The latter argument is essentially the multiverse hypothesis. 

Sure, perhaps we don’t know that there isn’t a multiverse where untold numbers of other universes out there lack the right physics for life. But we shouldn’t assume that this is a realistic possibility that prevents us from making inferences to design based upon what we do know exists. If we can’t infer design from the fine-tuning of the universe, there may be other dangerous implications for science. 

A Hypothetical Cancer Cluster

In the past I’ve argued that “multiverse thinking” destroys scientific logic. My argument involves a hypothetical “cancer cluster” in a town with a chemical plant.

Imagine that 100 percent of an entire town of 10,000 people got cancer within one year — a cancer cluster. It turns out the chemical plant in the town produces carcinogenic chemicals, so the townspeople sue the chemical plant. 

During the trial, the townspeople hire scientists as expert witnesses who testify that the odds of this occurring just by chance are 1 in 1010,000. Under normal scientific reasoning, they argue, such low odds establish that chance cannot be the explanation, and that there must be some physical agent causing cancer in the town. In this case, the best explanation is that chemicals from the chemical plant caused the cancer. 

The chemical plant has a lot of money, and they hire a wily defense attorney who invokes the multiverse defense, saying: 

Yes, 1 in 1010,000 is a very low probability. But there could be 1010,000 universes out there in the multiverse, and our universe just happens to be the unlucky one where this unlikely cancer cluster arose — purely by chance! You can’t say there aren’t 1010,000 universes out there, right? That means you can’t conclude that my client’s chemical plant had anything to do with this — the whole thing could have happened as a chance occurrence!

Should the jury trust the scientists and conclude the cancer cluster is highly improbable and caused by chemical plant, or should they trust the lawyer and invent 1010,000 universes where this kind of cancer cluster becomes probable enough to happen by chance? 

The shady attorney deflects criticism saying: “You can’t say there aren’t 1010,000 universes out there, right?” Right — but that’s the point. There’s no way to test the multiverse, and science should not seriously consider untestable theories. Multiverse thinking makes it impossible to rule out chance, which essentially eliminates the basis for drawing many scientific conclusions. What we have before us is a cancer cluster and a chemical plant, and that’s enough to make a sound scientific conclusion. 

What We Have Before Us

In the same way, Sutter doesn’t argue that there is necessarily a multiverse. Rather, he argues that if we can’t know that there isn’t a multiverse then we can’t draw a conclusion of design. This isn’t all that different from the shady attorney who says, “You can’t say there aren’t 1010,000 universes out there, right?” But as the hypothetical cancer cluster shows, we could extend multiverse logic and appeals to unknown causes to destroy virtually any scientific conclusion. But that’s not how science works. What we have before us is a universe that is, to all appearances, finely tuned for life. That’s data, and that’s enough to draw a sound scientific conclusion: design. 

Once we allow the unknown or the unknowable to prevent us from making inferences to design that are justified based upon what we know, we’ve let philosophy — or personal preference — influence our science. 

Again, science doesn’t deal in speculations about what might exist. Science deals in what we know. And based upon what we know, our universe appears “a little too peculiar,” as Sutter puts it. We don’t know that there’s a multiverse because we can’t observe it. But we do observe that our universe exists, and we do observe that our universe has special properties that allow life to exist. We can conclude those properties point to design.

Britain's really bad year?

 

Newly revealed evidence for ID

 Hidden, Now Revealed: Amazonia, Fitness Landscapes, and Fibonacci Numbers

David Coppedge

Here are some news items of interest for those who have followed my previous articles about Amazonia, fitness landscapes, and Fibonacci numbers. They are united by the theme of “hidden” things now revealed.

Hidden Cities in the Jungle

In 2022 (here), I shared news about “mind blowing” discoveries made with LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) in the Amazon rainforest. The forest-penetrating technology uncovered “geoglyphs” (large structures) that were made by previously unknown people groups. Last fall (here) I updated the story with new estimates that there might be many thousands more to discover. This was a classic test of The Design Inference: eliminating chance by specified complexity and small probability.

Since then, a “huge ancient city” has been revealed by LIDAR, reports BBC News, and was explored by ground crews. Some 6,000 mounds are at the large site, probably foundations for homes. 

“It changes the way we see Amazonian cultures. Most people picture small groups, probably naked, living in huts and clearing land — this shows ancient people lived in complicated urban societies,” says co-author Antoine Dorison.

The city was built around 2,500 years ago, and people lived there for up to 1,000 years, according to archaeologists.

It is difficult to accurately estimate how many people lived there at any one time, but scientists say it is certainly in the 10,000s if not 100,000s. 

See New Scientist’s article on this find, with a LIDAR scan of the extensive site. It adds,

In 2015, Rostain’s team did an aerial survey with lidar, a laser scanning technique that can create a detailed 3D map of the surface beneath most vegetation, revealing features not normally visible to us. The findings, which have only now been published, show that the settlements were far more extensive than anyone realised….

The survey also revealed a network of straight roads created by digging out soil and piling it on the sides. The longest extends for at least 25 kilometres, but might continue beyond the area that was surveyed.

This month, Jay Silverstein, an archaeologist renowned for the detection of hidden artifacts in Amazonia and elsewhere, wrote in The Conversation about these amazing discoveries. The title of his essay promises big news ahead, “Valley of lost cities found in the Amazon — technological advances in archaeology are only the beginning of discovery.”

A valley of lost cities has been discovered in the Ecuadorian Amazon. When you hear of such a discovery you might think of archaeologists with chisels and brushes or explorers in pith helmets stumbling across sites deep in the forest. Instead, without needing to brave the hazards of the forest, Light Detection and Ranging (Lidar) has revealed networks of buried roads and earthen mounds.

The point of exploratory science is to reveal what has so far been hidden. Whether at the edge of the universe with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the bottom of the sea with Underwater Autonomous Vehicles (UAVs), or through the canopy of the densest forests with Lidar, we are discovering things that reshape our understanding of the world. 

It’s like finding the key to a cryptogram, or the figures in a stereogram, to see these city-scale structures under the forest canopy for the first time. Silverstein believes that scientists are nowhere near running out of things to discover. LIDAR and aerial search systems have revolutionized archaeology, but there will always be a need for ground-based searches and excavations — meaning, there will continue to be ample opportunities for design detection. (This is not to imply that design in the forest leaves, loaded with ATP synthase motors, does not warrant its own design inference.)

Hidden Assumptions in the Fitness Landscape

Like letters crossing in the mail, scientific papers can contradict one another. The authors of a paper in Oxford’s International Journal of Organic Evolution, blithely assuming there is wisdom in Wright’s “fitness landscape” metaphor, were apparently unaware of the PNAS paper the previous month that debunked it (see my post on that paper here). True, authors can innocently miss others’ work due to lag times between research, writing, and publication, even if they do a literature search, but this points to a problem in peer-reviewed scientific publications: wrong notions can persist even after they have been falsified.

The Oxford Evolution paper, “The fitness landscape of a community of Darwin’s finches,” by 18 authors, builds its case on the notion of a Gaussian landscape, not realizing that the landscape is flat with trapdoors (according to the PNAS authors), and that “holey landscapes” represent “the dominant evolutionary process.” 

The drivers of adaptive radiation have often been conceptualized through the concept of “adaptive landscapes,” yet formal empirical estimates of adaptive landscapes for natural adaptive radiations have proven elusive. Here, we use a 17-year dataset of Darwin’s ground finches (Geospiza spp.) at an intensively studied site on Santa Cruz (Galápagos) to estimate individual apparent lifespan in relation to beak traits.

Onward they go, eager to perpetuate this icon of evolution that Jonathan Wells debunked 24 years ago. Now, with the collapse of Wright’s “fitness landscape” metaphor (at least the smooth Gaussian kind with curving hills and valleys), their work has been doubly debunked. It’s kind of sad. They mention fitness peaks 90 times, fitness valleys 16 times, landscape 154 times, and “fitness” 194 times. It would be one thing if they argued that Dochtermann et al. were wrong in their assessment of the landscape metaphor being “holey” in their PNAS paper, but these authors seem oblivious to the problem that composite traits cannot gain fitness on a flat landscape. They can only disappear through one of the trapdoors.

One can only wonder how long it will take for the landscape myth — organisms gradually ascending to higher fitness by natural selection — to collapse. Since the “fitness landscape” metaphor has been extremely useful to Darwinians, as in this new paper, it is likely to continue as a useful lie for some time. Perhaps Dr. Wells can use it as another case of Zombie Science.

Hidden Glories in the Infrared

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission Team revealed a blockbuster set of images at the end of January: a catalog of spiral galaxies displayed in exquisite detail. Adding to the splendor of the gallery, NASA scientists combined images from the Hubble Space Telescope and data from other instruments, including the “the Very Large Telescope’s Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, including observations in ultraviolet, visible, and radio light.” The combined data sets provided a multicolored, high-resolution gallery of images that is sure to tantalize astronomers and delight the public.

The caption for one image of spiral galaxy NGC 628 (pictured at the top) includes this note: “The spiraling filamentary structure looks somewhat like a cross section of a nautilus shell.” This recalls posts here at Evolution News about the uncanny ubiquity of phenomena exhibiting the Fibonacci series (here, here, here, here, here). Why should a nautilus shell mimic the structure of a spiral galaxy differing in size by many orders of magnitude? As I remarked in this link, the question remains unanswered in spite of modelers’ attempts to explain one example in plant stems.

Darwinism's simple beginning nowhere in sight?

 Astrophysicist: “We Do Not Yet Know How, Where, or Why Life First Appeared”

Casey Luskin

A fantastic article at Universe Today reports on “The Improbable Origins of Life on Earth.” It opens with a striking admission of our ignorance about how life arose:

We do not yet know how, where, or why life first appeared on our planet. Part of the difficulty is that “life” has no strict, universally agreed-upon definition.

The author is Paul Sutter, an astrophysicist at Ohio State University — and he’s absolutely right: there’s presently no natural explanation for the origin of life. 

What Is Life?

Sutter provides some useful definitions of life, starting with what he calls a “simple statement”:

Life is that which is subject to Darwinian evolution. That is, life experiences natural selection, that unceasing pressure that chooses traits and characteristics to pass down to a new generation through the simple virtue of their survivability.

If we accept this definition at face value, life must be highly complex. That’s because Darwinian evolution requires both survival and replication. Survival requires the ability to metabolize materials from the surrounding environment into energy needed to power the chemical reactions of life, and replication requires the ability to make copies of yourself with some minimal level of fidelity. Both of these requirements entail highly complex systems.

Here’s how Walter Bradley and I described the minimal complexity of life in our chapter “Did Life First Arise by Purely Natural Means?” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, published in 2021:

[A]ll living systems (1) process energy, (2) store information, and (3) replicate. In nature, these processes are performed primarily by molecules from three families of large biopolymers: proteins, DNA, and RNA. The mystery of how life began is essentially the mystery of how these three types of biopolymers formed and congregated within a cell with a barrier made of lipids as a self-replicating system.

Sutter seems to unwittingly agree with this description of life, because he then elaborates on what is necessary to make Darwinian evolution possible, and lands on exactly the same three requirements for life (though listed in a different order):

To succeed at evolution and separate itself from mere chemical reactions, life must do three things. First, it must somehow store information, such as the encoding for various processes, traits, and characteristics. This way the successful traits can pass from one generation to another.

Second, life must self-replicate. It must be able to make reasonably accurate copies of its own molecular structure, so that the information contained within itself has the chance to become a new generation, changed and altered based on its survivability.

Lastly, life must catalyze reactions. It must affect its own environment, whether for movement, or to acquire or store energy, or grow new structures, or all the many wonderful activities that life does on a daily basis.

Again, this is exactly right. And doing these “three things” — “store information,” “self-replicate” and “catalyze reactions” — isn’t simple. The whole process requires complex DNA and RNA molecules and molecular machines. Sutter appreciates this fact and gives a decent sketch of the complexity of life:

[L]ife on Earth has evolved a dizzying array of chemical and molecular machines to propagate itself — a menagerie so complex and interconnected that we do not yet fully understand it. But a basic picture has emerged. Put exceedingly simply (for I would hate for you to mistake me for a biologist), life accomplishes these tasks with a triad of molecular tools.

Sutter is correct that life is full of molecular machines and that we’re still untangling its complexity. And the molecular triad he refers to is composed of DNA, RNA, and proteins. 

The Molecular Triad of Life

Regarding DNA, he says strikingly that, “The raw ability of DNA to store massive amounts of information is nothing short of a miracle.” 

Regarding RNA, Sutter says that it “stores information but, again speaking only in generalities, has the main job of reading the chemical instructions stored in the DNA and using that to manufacture the last member of the triad, proteins.” Of course he’s right that RNA stores (and transports) information that is used in manufacturing proteins, but I would argue he understates its other important functions. As we recently discussed, we can now identify “RNA genes” which produce RNAs as an end in themselves that perform numerous important cellular functions. 

As for proteins, Sutter provides a nice summary of their importance and their diversity:

“Proteins” is a generic catch-all term for the almost uncountable varieties of molecular machines that do stuff: They snip apart molecules, bind them back together, manufacture new ones, hold structures together, become structures themselves, move important molecules from one place to another, transform energy from one form to another, and so on.

But there’s a catch: proteins are also necessary for replicating DNA. Sutter explains: “DNA stores information, RNA uses that information to manufacture proteins, and the proteins interact with the environment and perform the self-replication of DNA.” 

The Irreducible Complexity of Life

But then Sutter closes with a powerful conclusion that the “interconnected” nature of this triad means that all aspects of the system must be present for life to function:

The interconnected nature of DNA, RNA, and proteins means that it could not have sprung up ab initio from the primordial ooze, because if only one component is missing then the whole system falls apart — a three-legged table with one missing cannot stand.

This almost sounds like a description of “irreducible complexity” — if “one component is missing then the whole system falls apart.” And once again, he’s absolutely right: Life as we know it requires DNA, RNA, and protein to function, and it can’t arise in a stepwise manner on the early earth.

A Potent Challenge to Chemical Evolution

What about his comment that life’s “interconnected nature” means “it could not have sprung up ab initio from the primordial ooze”? That sounds like a potent challenge to chemical evolution. 

Now make no mistake, Sutter clearly endorses evolution at multiple points in his article, and I have no idea what he thinks about intelligent design. And while he thinks that life “could not have sprung up ab initio from the primordial ooze,” it’s not entirely clear if that wording is intended to leave the door open to some other unspecified types of models for a natural origin of life. Nonetheless, his arguments here about obstacles to a stepwise explanation of chemical evolution — even alluding to the irreducibly complex nature of life’s fundamental biomolecules — are exactly right. 

It’s good to find another scientist — with no connections to intelligent design — who sees the issue so clearly

The great apostasy: The Watchtower society's commentary.

 

Man of Lawlessness

An expression used by the apostle Paul at 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3 in warning of the great anti-Christian apostasy that would develop before “the day of Jehovah.” The Greek word for “apostasy” here used, a·po·sta·siʹa, denotes more than a mere falling away, an indifferent sliding back. It means a defection, a revolt, a planned, deliberate rebellion. In ancient papyrus documents a·po·sta·siʹa was used politically of rebels.

A Religious Revolt. This rebellion, however, is not a political one. It is a religious one, a revolt against Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and therefore against the Christian congregation.

Foretold. Other forecasts of this apostasy were made by the apostles Paul and Peter both verbally and in writing, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself warned of its coming. In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds (Mt 13), Jesus said that the Devil would sow “weeds,” imitation Christians, “sons of the wicked one,” among the “wheat,” the “sons of the kingdom.” These would exist until the conclusion of the system of things, when they would be identified and ‘burned up.’

Paul warned the Christian overseers of Ephesus that after his going away “oppressive wolves” would enter in among true Christians and would not treat the flock with tenderness but would try to draw away “the disciples” after themselves (not just making disciples for themselves but trying to draw away the disciples, Christ’s disciples). (Ac 20:29, 30) He wrote, at 1 Timothy 4:1-3: “However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron [feelingless, seared, so that they do not feel any twinges of conscience because of hypocritically speaking lies]; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving.”

Paul later wrote to Timothy that “there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”​—2Ti 4:3, 4.

The apostle Peter drew a parallel between the apostasy from Christianity and that which occurred in the natural house of Israel. He said: “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” Peter goes on to point out that these would exploit the congregation but that “the destruction of them is not slumbering.”​—2Pe 2:1-3.

A composite “man.” The “man” of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is, therefore, not an individual, but a composite “man,” a collective group, as the foregoing scriptures show, and this “man” was to continue after the apostles’ death and exist down until the time of the Lord’s presence.

Treason against God. The “lawlessness” that this composite apostate “man” commits is lawlessness against Jehovah God the Universal Sovereign. This “man” is guilty of treason. He is called “the son of destruction,” as was Judas Iscariot, the traitor who betrayed the Lord Jesus Christ and who was instrumental in bringing about his death. He, like Judas, is to be annihilated, sent into extinction forever. This “man” is not “Babylon the Great,” who also fights against God, for she is a woman, a harlot. However, since he carries on a religious rebellion against God, he is evidently a part of mystic Babylon.​—Joh 17:12; Re 17:3, 5.

“The man of lawlessness” sets himself in opposition to God and is therefore a “satan,” which means “resister.” And, indeed, his “presence is according to the operation of Satan.” (2Th 2:9) In the days of the apostle Paul, there was “mystery,” or a religious secret, about the identity of this “man of lawlessness.” To this day mystery shrouds his identity in the minds of many persons, because his wickedness is practiced under the guise of godly devotion. (2Th 2:7) By his lying teachings contrary to or superseding, as it were, the law of God, “the man of lawlessness” sets himself up over Jehovah God and other ‘gods,’ mighty ones of the earth, and also against God’s holy ones, true spiritual brothers of Jesus Christ. (Compare 2Pe 2:10-13.) Since he is a hypocrite, a false teacher claiming to be Christian, he “sits down in the temple of The God,” that is, what such false teachers claim to be that temple.​—2Th 2:4.

A restraint. Paul speaks of “the thing that acts as a restraint.” (2Th 2:6) It appears that the apostles constituted this restraint. Paul had told the Ephesian overseers that after his going away wolflike men would enter in. (Ac 20:29) He repeatedly wrote admonitions about such apostasy not only here in Second Thessalonians but in many exhortations to Timothy. And he counseled Timothy to commit the things he had heard from Paul to faithful men who would be qualified to teach others. He spoke of the congregation of the living God as being “a pillar and support of the truth.” He wanted it built up as strongly as possible before the great apostasy blossomed out.​—2Ti 2:2; 1Ti 3:15.

Much later, at the command of Christ, the apostle John was told to write, warning against sects, mentioning especially the sect of Nicolaus and speaking of false prophets like Balaam and of the woman Jezebel who called herself a prophetess.​—Re 2:6, 14, 15, 20.

At work in apostles’ days. The apostle Paul said that the mystery was “already at work.” (2Th 2:7) There were those trying to teach false doctrine, some of these even disturbing the Thessalonian congregation, prompting, in part, the writing of his second letter to them. There were antichrists when John wrote his letters, and doubtless before that. John spoke of “the last hour” of the apostolic period, and said: “Just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists . . . They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”​—1Jo 2:18, 19; see ANTICHRIST.

Revealed. Following the apostles’ death, “the man of lawlessness” came out into the open with his religious hypocrisy and false teachings. (2Th 2:3, 6, 8) According to Paul’s words, this “man” would gain great power, operating under Satan’s control, performing “every powerful work and lying signs and portents.” Persons deceived by the operation of the composite “man of lawlessness” are referred to as “those who are perishing [literally, “destroying themselves”], as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved.” The apostle shows that they “get to believing the lie” and they will all “be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Th 2:9-12; see Int.) The judgment is therefore a condemnatory one.​—See RESURRECTION (Sin against the holy spirit).

Destroyed. This composite, hypocritical “man of lawlessness” is to be done away with by the Lord Jesus “by the spirit of his mouth” and brought to nothing “by the manifestation of his presence.” The annihilation of this wicked opposer of God will be visible, concrete proof that the Lord Jesus Christ is sitting and acting as Judge. He will not judge according to his own standards, hence the destruction “by the spirit of his mouth” evidently means in expression of Jehovah’s judgment against this wicked class of persons.​—2Th 2:8; compare Re 19:21, as to “the long sword . . . which sword proceeded out of his mouth.”

The formalizing of design detection and the case for ID

 

ID has made Darwin Skepticism less unfashionable?

 Dembski and Ruse Look Back on 20 Years of Debate — And a Special Anniversary

Subboor Ahmed

In 2004 Cambridge University Press published Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse, a brilliant landmark anthology showcasing the vibrancy of the debate between intelligent design and evolution. Contributors included Angus Menuge, Kenneth Miller, Elliott Sober, Robert Pennock, Stuart Kauffman, Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, Walter Bradley, and Stephen Meyer. In 2024, it seemed worthwhile to look back at the two intervening decades and see how the debate has developed. So with great pleasure I invited Dembski and Ruse for a conversation on my podcast: When Debating Design was published, an ambiguity hung over it. Was this the beginning of a new chapter for ID? Or was it a swansong? Critics believed there were good reasons to think ID would peter out. The New Atheism — new at the time, in the years immediately following 9/11 which called it into being — was on the rise, enjoying far more popularity than ID did. People read New Atheist books and came away feeling courageous and victorious. Yet the New Atheism has since turned passé. Nothing guaranteed that ID would not suffer the same fate. 

Intelligent Design in Two Senses

Twenty years later, ID is still here. How did it persevere? The secret, I think, has to something to do with ID being the flipside of discontent with Darwinian orthodoxy. Design can be thought of in two senses: a strict one, and an expansive one. The strict sense is design as advocated by ID proponents. It is the positive case for ID. Most atheist-leaning scientists remain averse to this. The expansive sense is design as a critique of current evolutionary theory, with the latter’s difficulties in explaining features of biology. That explanatory weakness is not, per se, evidence of design, but it does cause one to wonder about the possibility of intelligent design. Many scientists acknowledge the shortcomings of current neo-Darwinian theory. These two senses of design were discernible in Debating Design. 

Debating Design gathered essays arguing respectively for four different viewpoints: Darwinism, Complex Self-Organization, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design. As presented in the book, the ID viewpoint argued forcefully for design in nature. It is also true that out of the four viewpoints represented, three recognized that Darwinism by itself was an insufficient explanation for the sublime complexities in life. Seen this way, design in its expansive sense, reflected in a mass of pointed, well-reasoned criticisms, dwarfs Darwinism. By leveraging design in its expansive sense, ID proper provided a platform for scientific discussion. ID then became a viable option by championing the strict sense of design. Critics of ID who are nonetheless skeptical of Darwinism can be read as agreeing with ID that in principle evolutionary theory is not the end-all explanation for biological complexity. 

Growing Doubt About Darwin

Since 2004, doubts about neo-Darwinian mechanisms have only grown. In 2014, Laland, Uller, Feldman, et al.published in Nature an influential article calling for an urgent rethink of evolutionary theory. They wrote: 

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

…This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

LALAND, K., ULLER, T., FELDMAN, M. ET AL. DOES EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NEED A RETHINK? NATURE 514, 161–164 (2014)

The protest about the “spectre of intelligent design” was telling. When critics start talking that way, as if looking over their shoulder, you can’t help wondering if the ID program is onto something. Darwinian mechanisms, as they stand today, are widely recognized as out of tune with the latest scientific discoveries in a variety of fields. This lends credence to ID, in its expansive sense, as the passage above grudgingly let’s slip. The ID community can take it as a matter of pride that from the very beginning, it has consistently been pointing out the inadequacies of evolutionary thought. Contrast this with recent fledgling viewpoints popping up in the scientific community where weaknesses in the evolutionary narrative are belatedly recognized under the euphemistic terms of “puzzles” rather than “problems,” in need of “revisions” rather than a brand new perspective. It is this trend that has encouraged a certain conciliatory quality in the debate. 

Eschewing Polarization

As I listened to Dembski and Ruse, what struck me most is how their views today eschew the bitter polarization that characterized earlier discussions of ID. In the conversation, Ruse acknowledged that contemporary science has not explained how molecules could have led to mind. The mind-body problem is a fundamental question that science cannot answer. Ruse also explicitly distanced himself from the crude materialism championed by Daniel Dennett, one of the New Atheism’s Four Horsemen. While crucial differences between them remain, as Dembski aptly highlighted, overall the discussion was characterized by amiable restraint, cordiality, and even chumminess. Moreover, Dembski is a Christian, Ruse is an agnostic, and I am a Muslim, and it is significant that all three of us can take ID seriously as a topic deserving of critical engagement rather than dismissive caricaturing. It can be hoped that ID will continue making inroads in the evolution debate. Grand victories are not needed. Slow-but-steady will be far more productive than a quick-dash attempt to the finish line.

Any biological theory that cannot adequately explain the “appearance” (as Richard Dawkins puts it) of design cannot adequately explain life. ID positions itself as explaining this appearance — seen as actual, not illusory — while allowing ample space for competing non-ID theories to air their dissatisfaction with Darwinian orthodoxy. The stricter sense of design can thus be defended as a more reasonable, and a more intuitively straight-forward option amongst this plurality of the dissatisfied. Using this strategy, the ID community can hope to bolster its credibility and contribute to a greater push for a paradigm shift in origins science. 

The continuation of ID across two decades where New Atheism failed shows that ID is closer to the scientific enterprise than the New Atheism ever was. The debate is not over. But as of now, it is clear that ID is heading in the right direction. Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous saying, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” has gradually evolved into “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of design.” 

Why we wait in vain for the arrival of our AI overlords

Artificial General Intelligence: The Poverty of the Stimulus

William A Dembski

In this series so far at Evolution News about Artificial General Intelligence, my references to AGI worshippers and idolaters will be off-putting to those who think the claim that AGI will someday arrive, whatever its ultimate ETA, is an intellectually credible and compelling position. Accordingly, I’m just being insulting by using pejorative religious language to describe AGI’s supporters, to say nothing of being a Luddite for not cheering on AGI’s ultimate triumph. I want therefore to spend some space here indicating why AGI does not deserve to be taken seriously

       Let’s begin with a point on which the linguist Noam Chomsky built his career, which may be encapsulated in the phrase “the poverty of the stimulus.” His point with this phrase was that humans learn language with a minimum of input, and thus must be endowed with an in-built capacity (“hardwired”) to acquire and use language. Infants see and hear adults talk and pick up language easily and naturally. It doesn’t matter if the caregivers pay special attention to the infant and provide extra stimulation so that their child can be a “baby Einstein.” It doesn’t matter if the caregivers are neglectful or even abusive. It doesn’t even matter if the child is blind, deaf, or both. Barring developmental disorders (such as some forms of autism), the child can learn language.

But It’s Not Just the Ability to Learn Language

“The poverty of the stimulus” underscores that humans do so much more with so much less than would be expected unless humans have an innate ability to learn language with minimal inputs. And it’s not just that we learn language. We gain knowledge of the world, which we express through language. Our language is especially geared to express knowledge about an external reality. This “aboutness” of the propositions we express with language is remarkable, especially on the materialist and mechanistic grounds so widely accepted by AGI’s supporters. 

As G. K. Chesterton noted in his book Orthodoxy, we have on materialist grounds no right “to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.” Matter has no way to guarantee that when matter thinks (if it can think), it will tell us true things about matter. On Darwinian materialist grounds, all we need is differential reproduction and survival. A good delusion that gets us to survive and reproduce is enough. Knowledge of truth is unnecessary and perhaps even undesirable. 

The philosopher Willard Quine, who was a materialist, made essentially the same point in what he called “the indeterminacy of translation.” Quine’s thesis was that translation, meaning, and reference are all indeterminate, implying that there are always valid alternative translations of a given sentence. Quine presented a thought experiment to illustrate this indeterminacy. In it, a linguist tries to determine the meaning of the word “gavagai,” uttered by a speaker of a yet-unknown language, in response to a rabbit running by. Is the speaker referring to the rabbit, the rabbit running, some rabbit part, or something unrelated to the rabbit? All of these are legitimate possibilities according to Quine and render language fundamentally indeterministic.

Yet such arguments about linguistic indeterminacy are always self-referentially incoherent. When Quine writes of indeterminacy of translation in Word and Object (1960), and thus also embraces the inscrutability of reference, he is assuming that what he is writing on these topics is properly understood one way and not another. And just to be clear, everybody is at some point in the position of a linguist because, in learning our mother tongue, we all start with a yet-unknown language. So Quine is tacitly making Chomsky’s point, which is that with minimal input — which is to say with input that underdetermines how it might be interpreted — we nevertheless have a knack for finding the right interpretation and gaining real knowledge about the world.

Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus is regarded as controversial by some because an argument can be made that the stimuli that lead to learning, especially language learning, may in fact be adequate without having to assume a massive contribution of innate capabilities. Chomsky came up with this notion in the debate over behaviorism, which needed to characterize all human capacities as a result of stimulus-response learning. Language, according to the behaviorists, was thus characterized as verbal behavior elicited through various reinforcement schedules of rewarded and discouraged behaviors. In fact, Chomsky made a name for himself in the 1950s by reviewing B. F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. That review is justly famous for demolishing behaviorist approaches to language (the field never recovered after Chomsky’s demolition). 

If Chomsky Is Right

But suppose we admit that the controversy about whether the stimuli by which humans learn language has yet to be fully resolved. If Chomsky is right, those stimuli are in some sense impoverished. If his critics are right, they are adequate without needing to invoke extraordinary innate capacities. Yet if we leave aside the debate between Chomsky’s nativism and Skinner’s behaviorism, it’s nonetheless the case that such stimuli are vastly smaller in number than what artificial neural nets need to achieve human-level competence. 

Consider LLMs, large language models, which are currently the rage, and of which ChatGPT is the best known and most widely used. ChatGPT4 uses 1.76 trillion parameters and its training set is based on hundreds of billions of words (perhaps a lot more, but that was the best lower-bound estimate I was able to find). Obviously, individual humans gain their language facility with nowhere near this scale of inputs. If a human child were able to process 200 words per minute and did so continuously, then by the age of ten the child would have processed 200 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 10, or roughly a billion, words. Of course, this is a vast overestimate of the child’s language exposure, ignoring sleep, repetitions, and lulls in conversation. 

Or consider Tesla, which since 2015 has been promising fully autonomous vehicles as just on the horizon. Full autonomy keeps eluding the grasp of Tesla engineers, though the word on the street is that self-driving is getting better and better (as with a reported self-driving taxi in San Francisco, albeit by Waymo rather than Tesla). But consider: To aid in developing autonomous driving, Tesla processes 160 billion video frames each day from the cameras on its vehicles. This massive amount of data, used to train the neural network to achieve full self-driving, is obviously many orders of magnitude beyond what humans require to learn to drive effectively.

Erik Larson’s book The Myth of Artificial Intelligence (Harvard, 2021) is appropriately subtitled Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do. Whatever machines are doing when they exhibit intelligence comparable to humans, they are doing it in ways vastly different from what humans are doing. In particular, the neural networks in the news today require huge amounts of computing power and huge amounts of input data (generated, no less, from human intelligent behavior). It’s no accident that artificial intelligence’s major strides in recent years fall under Big Tech and Big Data. The “Big” here is far bigger than anything available to individual humans. 

Domain Specificity

The sheer scale of efforts needed to make artificial intelligence impressive suggests human intelligence is fundamentally different from machine intelligence. But reasons to think the two are different don’t stop there. Domain specificity should raise additional doubts about the two being the same. When Elon Musk, for instance, strives to bring about fully autonomous (level 5) driving, it is by building neural nets that every week must sort through a trillion images taken from Tesla automobiles driving in real traffic under human control. Not only is the amount of data to be analyzed staggering, but it is also domain specific, focused entirely on developing self-driving automobiles. 

Indeed, no one thinks that the image data being collected from Tesla automobiles and then analyzed by neural nets to facilitate full self-driving is also going to be used for automatically piloting a helicopter or helping a robot navigate a ski slope, to say nothing of playing chess or composing music. All our efforts in artificial intelligence are highly domain specific. What makes LLMs, and ChatGPT in particular, so impressive is that language is such a general instrument for expressing human intelligence. And yet, even the ability to use language in contextually relevant way based on huge troves of humanly generated data is still domain specific. 

The French philosopher René Descartes, even though he saw animal bodies, including human bodies, as machines, nonetheless thought that the human mind was non-mechanical. Hence, he posited a substance dualism in which a non-material mind interacted with a material body, at the pineal gland no less. How a non-material mind could interact with a material/mechanical body Descartes left unanswered (invoking the pineal gland did nothing to resolve that problem). And yet, Descartes regarded the mind as irreducible to matter/mechanism. As he noted in his Discourse on Method (1637, pt. 5, my translation):

Although machines can do many things as well as or even better than us, they fail in other ways, thereby revealing that they do not act from knowledge but solely from the arrangement of their parts. Intelligence is a universal instrument that can meet all contingencies. Machines, on the other hand, need a specific arrangement for every specific action. In consequence, it’s impossible for machines to exhibit the diversity needed to act effectively in all the contingencies of life as our intelligence enables us to act.

Descartes was here making exactly the point of domain specificity. We can get machines to do specific things — to be wildly successful in a given, well-defined domain. Chess playing is an outstanding example, with computer chess now vastly stronger than human chess (though, interestingly, having such strong chess programs has also vastly improved the quality of human play). But chess programs play chess. They don’t also play Minecraft or Polytopia. Sure, we could create additional artificial intelligence programs that also play Minecraft and Polytopia, and then we could kludge them together with a chess playing program so that we have a single program that plays all three games. But such a kludge offers no insight into how to create an AGI that can learn to play all games, to say nothing of being a general-purpose learner, or what Descartes called “a universal instrument that can meet all contingencies.” Descartes was describing AGI. Yet artificial intelligence in its present form, even given the latest developments, is not even close. 

Elon Musk Appreciates the Problem

He therefore is building Optimus, also known as the Tesla Bot. The goals is for it to become a conceptual general-purpose robotic humanoid. By having to be fully interactive with the same environments and sensory inputs as humans, such a robot could serve as a proof of concept for Descartes’s universal instrument and thus AGI. What if such a robot could understand and speak English, drive a car safely, not just play chess but learn other board games, have facial features capable of expressing what in humans would be appropriate affect, play musical instruments, create sculptures and paintings, do plumbing and electrical work, etc. That would be impressive and take us a long way toward AGI. And yet, Optimus is for now far more modest. For now, the robot is intended to be capable of performing tasks that are “unsafe, repetitive, or boring.” That is a far cry from AGI.

AGI is going to require a revolution in current artificial intelligence research, showing how to overcome domain specificity so that machines can learn novel skills and tasks for which they were not explicitly programed. And just to be clear, reinforcement learning doesn’t meet this challenge. Take AlphaZero, a program developed by DeepMind to play chess, shogi, and Go, which improved its game by playing millions of games against itself using reinforcement learning (which is to say, it rewarded winning and penalized losing). This approach allows the program to learn and improve without ongoing human intervention, leading to significant advances in computer game playing ability. But it depends on the game being neatly represented in the state of a computer, along with clear metrics for what constitutes good and bad play. 

The really challenging work of current artificial intelligence research is taking the messy real world and representing it in domain-specific ways so that the artificial intelligence created can emulate humans at particular tasks. The promise of AGI is somehow to put all these disparate artificial intelligence efforts together, coming up with a unified solution to computationalize all human tasks and capacities in one fell swoop. We have not done this, are nowhere close to doing this, and have no idea of how to approach doing this.

On accurately measuring the invisible.

 

JEHOVAH'S Favorite type of prayer?

 In your brother servant's very fallible an unauthoritative opinion:

2chronicles Ch.1:11,12NIV"God said to Solomon, “Since this is your heart’s desire and you have not asked for wealth, possessions or honor, nor for the death of your enemies, and since you have not asked for a long life but for wisdom and knowledge to govern my people over whom I have made you king, 12therefore wisdom and knowledge will be given you. And I will also give you wealth, possessions and honor, such as no king who was before you ever had and none after you will have.”"

Proverbs Ch.2:3NIV"indeed, if you call out for insight

and cry aloud for understanding,

4and if you look for it as for silver

and search for it as for hidden treasure,

5then you will understand the fear of the Lord

and find the knowledge of God."

Take it from one who knows.

James ch.1:5,6NIV"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind."