The ID Report

In this episode of Human Evolution, written by Colin Barras (New Scientist, 28 July 2011), "Industrial revolution sealed Neanderthals' fate," and interbreeding didn't make much difference:

The last Neanderthals to live in the region are represented by the artefacts known as the Chatelperronian industry, which ended around 40,250 years ago. The first modern humans appeared immediately afterwards and are associated with the Aurignacian industry.

They claim the Neanderthal industry was less efficient.

Comparing the archaeological records of the two industries, Mellars and French found that there were about two-and-a-half times as many Aurignacian sites as Chatelperronian ones. What's more, the size of each Aurignacian site was, on average, twice as large - and in each the quantity of stone tools and animal food remains suggest population density increased about 1.8 times during the transition.

But if third-generation Neanderthal hybrids were moving in and marrying the Aurignacians, that would account ...

He suggests it was the sheer weight of numbers of modern humans - probably sustained by better technology and more sophisticated social interactions – that allowed them to muscle the Neanderthals out of existence.

Nits to pick with this episode: The technology was not better, only better adapted to modern human hands. And how do they know about the “more sophisticated social interactions”?

Has anyone noticed that this and the previous "we crowded them out" story of human evolution are just projections of current anxieties about industrialism and population density?

See also: Human evolution: Sadly, there were too many of us. We crowded them out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In the latest episode of Human Evolution: The Trooth, "Humans crowded out Europe's Neanderthals" (ABC News, July 29, 2011), we learn,

Researchers at the University of Cambridge found more sites where modern humans settled, larger settlement areas, greater densities of tools and bigger amounts of animal and food remains, suggesting Neanderthals were crowded out.

Homo sapiens also likely had more elaborate social networks and possibly sharper brains, as evidenced by the stone tools, jewellery and artwork they left behind which was much more advanced than Neanderthal creations.

Neanderthals did artwork and jewellery?

About the tools: It’s not true that the 'thals' tools were clumsy, but you needed bigger hands.

Human evolution theories help people vent their inner anxieties. Period. That's their big contribution to science. Or social work. Or therapy.

See also: She did SO marry a Neanderthal!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Recently Most Holy Icon of Evolution Archaeopteryx got reclassified as a feathered dinosaur rather than First Bird. Which presumably kept museum curators worldwide up all night long, repenning labels. So? Many thought the move was long overdue, and had been put off for PR reasons.

Now, from Creation-Evolution Headlines (July 28, 2011), we learn, “Archaeopteryx Reclassification Raises Fear of Creationists”:

Nature published the paper by Xing Xu et al.1 The fossil that knocked Archaeopteryx off its perch is named Xiaotingia zhengi, but it was not found in situ; Xing purchased it from a dealer. In the same issue of Nature,2 Lawrence Witmer [Ohio U] discussed the implications. "Given this iconic role, Archaeopteryx has also been in the cross-hairs of creationists, and remains a lightning rod for political debates and legal proceedings about teaching evolution in schools," Witmer remarked. "Of course, Xu and co-workers' finding only deepens the impact of Archaeopteryx by highlighting the rich evolutionary nexus of which it is a part, but how the ever-clever creationist community will 'spin' it remains to be seen."

So why these amazing levels of concern?

C-E H hints at the difficulty: "No problems; everything is under control, even if everything you thought you knew about Archaeopteryx is wrong. At least today."

Ah yes, because you could lose your job if you cited this very information in a way inconvenient to unproductive, tenured Darwin bores. C-E H, in particular, should know.

Follow UD News at Twitter!
Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Here.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

From "Does religion rot teenagers’ brains?" (MercatorNet, 25 July 2011):

Recently, we looked at a claim, published in a serious science journal, Intelligence, that belief in God correlates worldwide with lower IQ. From the same journal in the same year, we learned that religion correlates with lower IQ among American teenagers.

[ ...]

If half of the Catholics and Baptist teens are sporadically observant and doctrinally indifferent (no unusual state of affairs), religious orthodoxy collapses as a predictor of IQ. So it is not clear just what Nyborg is measuring. Social class is a possibility.

More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here. For some reason, that's left out of most accounts of who influenced the guy.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Their meet will be held on September 8, 2011, seeking to "reignite and reinvigorate the debate in light of current developments in the philosophy of science and of evolutionary
biology." The premise?

In scientific circles “The triumph of the Darwinian method” is generally accepted. In the wider world, however, at least 80% of the 6.5 billion
people currently alive on Earth have religious beliefs based on a non-material afterlife, and/or reincarnation. Although many intellectuals of religious conviction accept Darwinism, it seems likely that most people do not.

Translation:

Our meeting is about how to force people who are traditionally religious to sign onto Darwinism, which means giving up their most cherished beliefs. Fortunately, "many intellectuals of religious conviction accept Darwinism,"

which means that they do not "have religious beliefs based on a non-material afterlife, and/or reincarnation."

Presumably then, the Linnaean society believes that the Christian Darwinists at Francis Collins-founded BioLogos do not have such beliefs.

This Linnean Society of London meeting pursuing is a "middle way," in which "organisms can be proud to have been their own designers." It is sponsored by The Royal Entomological
Society, the British Ecological Society and the Natural History Museum.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Like any member of the tenured entitlement class, University of Texas microbiologist Andy Ellington, is entitled to facts that support his beliefs.

Providing such facts is easier than in the past, thanks to the great gains made by the science of citation bluffing. In "Andy Ellington's Citation Bluffs and the Scientific Debate Over the Miller-Urey Experiment," (Evolution News & Views, July 21, 2011), Casey Luskin
offers illustrations from his online testimony:

Ellington's testimony cites a 2008 paper, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres," co-authored by Jeffrey Bada, one of my own professors at UCSD. He claims this paper (herein referred to as Cleaves et al. (2008)) shows "significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures." However, Cleaves et al. (2008) does not show what Ellington claims it does:

(1) First, the paper contradicts pro-evolution curricula which Ellington is defending by observing that the early earth probably did not have a reducing atmosphere of methane and ammonia.

(2) Second, a close analysis shows the paper doesn't actually show that amino acids can be produced under actual natural conditions on the early earth.

Regarding Point 1, Cleaves et al. (2008) notes:

Instead, evidence strongly suggested that neutral gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor--not methane, ammonia, and hydrogen--predominated in the early atmosphere.

(H. James Cleaves, John H. Chalmers. Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, & Jeffrey L. Bada, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres," Origin of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 38:105-115 (2008).)

The paper further states that "it is now generally held that the early Earth's atmosphere was likely not reducing, but was dominated by N2 and CO2."

This directly contradicts a number of curricula up for adoption in Texas, such as ...

Sources argue, however, that the tenured entitlement class's FactsTM, presented to students, are above the rules governing plebeian facts in everyday life.

For one thing, they are subject only to the Central Dogma, "There is no contradiction in Darwin,"which means that any fact can be dealt with in any way that a tenured Darwinist wishes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

From skeptical mathematician Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, (July 21, 2011):

For results relevant to strings, black holes, extra dimensions, split supersymmetry, and other exotica, CMS has them appearing here, for ATLAS they're here. No such objects are being seen, with limits being pushed up dramatically from those coming from the 2010 data. Again, it's going to be very hard to argue that there’s a significant probability that such things will be seen in the rest of this run, or even later ones at full energy. Results from EPS-HEP 2011

Also, here's his take on Scientific American promoting the multiverse:

Things haven't changed at all. One might be tempted to criticize Scientific American for keeping this alive, but they just reflect the fact that this pseudo-science continues to have significant influence at the highest levels of the physics establishment. The Perimeter Institute recently ran a conference on Challenges for Early Universe Cosmology, which was dominated by multiverse mania. Unlike the case at SciAm, multiverse skepticism didn't get prominent play at Perimeter.

Guess Scientific American hasn't caught up yet; they haven't fired the orderlies from the asylum and put the patients in charge.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

That's non-theist Dennis Jones's challenge to the tenured Darwin bore who insists, "You can't talk about design unless you say who the designer is":

1. ID Theory has nothing to do with creationism or a designer. There is no philosophical contemplation as to a designer any more than the Big Bang theory has anything to say about a banger.

It is impossible to complain about the "designer" of Intelligent Design Theory without resolving the "banger" inferred by the Big Bang Theory. One cannot deny there is a "banger" if they insist there is a designer, and vice versa.

The request is as absurd as requiring cosmologists to explain the nature of the Banger. To assert that Intelligent Design requires a Designer is as ridiculous as demanding it is impossible to have a Big Bang without a Banger. A designer cannot be imposed upon ID Theory without likewise imposing one on the Big Bang theory. The study of the Big Bang has nothing to do with what existed at Time = zero. The same is true with the origin of information. We study how information operates and increases towards greater biological complexity, and assert that an artificial intervention is involved in addition to unguided natural processes.

- "Intelligent Design Theory Is About INFORMATION, Not Designers" (May19, 2011)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here, philosopher Ed Feser offers a flyswatter for weak cosmological arguments against the existence of God:

Most people who comment on the cosmological argument demonstrably do not know what they are talking about. This includes all the prominent New Atheist writers. It very definitely includes most of the people who hang out in Jerry Coyne's comboxes. It also includes most scientists. And it even includes many theologians and philosophers, or at least those who have not devoted much study to the issue. This may sound arrogant, but it is not. You might think I am saying "I, Edward Feser, have special knowledge about this subject that has somehow eluded everyone else." But that is NOT what I am saying. The point has nothing to do with me. What I am saying is pretty much common knowledge among professional philosophers of religion (including atheist philosophers of religion), who - naturally, given the subject matter of their particular philosophical sub-discipline - are the people who know more about the cosmological argument than anyone else does.

Presumably, he is talking about people like Victor Stenger's young new atheists. Here's a sample claim and a suggested response:

2. "What caused God?" is not a serious objection to the [cosmological] argument.

Part of the reason this is not a serious objection is that it usually rests on the assumption that the cosmological argument is committed to the premise that "Everything has a cause," and as I’ve just said, this is simply not the case. But there is another and perhaps deeper reason.

The cosmological argument in its historically most influential versions is not concerned to show that there is a cause of things which just happens not to have a cause. It is not interested in “brute facts” – if it were, then yes, positing the world as the ultimate brute fact might arguably be as defensible as taking God to be. On the contrary, the cosmological argument - again, at least as its most prominent defenders (Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al.) present it - is concerned with trying to show that not everything can be a "brute fact." What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things, then there must be a cause of everything else which not only happens to exist, but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that is why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merely happens to be uncaused, but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can even in principle be said to have had a cause, precisely because it could not even in principle have failed to exist in the first place. And the argument doesn't merely assume or stipulate that the first cause is like this; on the contrary, the whole point of the argument is to try to show that there must be something like this.

- "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" (July 16, 2011)

Feser's likely wasted on Coyne's trollbox, but many others can benefit.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

Denyse O'Leary
ARN reporter

In "First Person: The Bible as a Source of Testable Hypotheses"(Biblical Archaeology Review (Jul/Aug 2011) Hershel Shanks tells a story from Biblical arachaeology that explains more than I ever could about how materialism stifles science: In his new book Excavating the City of David, Ronny Reich of Haifa University treats archaeologist Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University "dismissively" and accuses her of acting “unethically.” What did she do? She used the Bible as a guide to where to excavate.

Let me unpack this: As Eilat read the Bible, it seemed to indicate just where King David’s palace might be buried in the City of David—at least, it did to her. On this basis, she decided to dig there.

This was highly improper and unscientific, according to Ronny. When he heard that Eilat was using reasoning like this to find King David’s palace, he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way, “she would certainly find that building” (emphasis in original).

If she found the building, using the Bible, she did wrong. Shanks adds,

I would have thought that Eilat would have been praised for proceeding quite scientifically—according to the vaunted scientific method that has produced so much for our civilization. As I understand it, you formulate a hypothesis and then you proceed to test it, either proving or disproving it. Eilat had a hypothesis and she wanted to test it by digging.

But you can’t do that in the case of the Bible, according to Ronny. The reason appears to be that you can’t trust the archaeologist to test his or her hypothesis in an unbiased way once he or she formulates a hypothesis based on the Bible. If the archaeologist proceeds in this way, he or she will “certainly” find what was hypothesized. Besides, in archaeology you can’t repeat the experiment; once a particular area of a site has been excavated, it cannot be re-excavated.

Will "certainly" find what was hypothesized? People looking for lost wallets should be so lucky. And generally, archaeology is not an experiment. Once you find a tomb or a city, you stop looking for it, same as you would if you find your wallet.

Here, materialism has substituted as a governing criterion that no method can be used that would support the idea that the Bible was written by truthful people. This criterion is irrelevant to whether a method that assumes so produces results. The materialist would as soon not have results as have results that support the Biblical account.

Are we entering a new "dark ages" of materialism where science decays by stages, illuminated by episodes like these?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

You didn't hear?

Professor Lynn and colleagues wrote a paper in 2008 in the journal Intelligence which has been widely discussed. Here is a summary of its claims:

"Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60 [a high correlation]."

The highlight of the paper is the chart of 137 nations. And it looks pretty convincing until you study it carefully. Then, picturing the data is a cart for the theory, wheels start wobbling.

I first became suspicious when Lynn et al. tried to explain why the United States is anomalous “in having an unusually low percentage of its population disbelieving in God (10.5 percent) for a high IQ country [98].”

[ ... ]

The reader may protest, after all, that these are individual cases. Very well, let's be daring. Let's drop from the list all nations where government either enforces or forbids religion or is known to be generally unrepresentative. Most such countries report lower average IQ. But the centralized thinking of authoritarian culture could well cause lower IQ.

More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Over at Design Matrix, Mike Gene defends the view that "Complex LECA [Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor] is no tautology":

Someone with the moniker DrREC replied to my posting about the complexity of the last eukaryotic ancestor as follows:

This is almost a tautology. The last Eukaryotic common ancestor had the defining features of a Eukaryote….which happen to be more complex than prokaryotic life.

There is no tautology at work here. Not even close. We can appreciate this by simply recognizing that scientists could very well have discovered that LECA was remarkably simple. For example, it could have been a cell with a nucleus, but lacking protein-coding introns, mitochondria, golgi bodies, ubiquitin, and flagella. And its nuclear pore complex, cytoskeleton, and endomembranous system could have been rather simple. But as it turned out, LECA had a level of complexity that rivals modern day cells.

In which case, Darwinism is wrong.

We may not know what's right but we can know that Darwinism is wrong - if it is indeed a theory in science.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Recently, we learn, ScienceDaily July 14, 2011), “High Social Rank Comes at a Price, Wild Baboon Study Finds”:

"An important insight from our study is that the top position in some animal -- and possibly human -- societies has unique costs and benefits associated with it, ones that may persist both when social orders experience some major perturbations as well as when they are stable," said lead author Laurence Gesquiere, an associate research scholar in Princeton's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. "Baboons are not only genetically closely related to humans, but like humans they live in highly complex societies."

"We've known for decades that alpha males have an advantage in reproduction, but these results show that life at the top has a real downside, and that being an alpha male comes at a real cost," said Alberts.

Which prompts the question: How do we know that alpha males have an advantage in reproduction? If recent epigenetics findings are right and these results are valid, the stress of being an alpha male could put a further limit on the probability of Darwinian evolution.

We can safely ignore the authors' proposed social and political advice:

Baboons are likely to be good models to provide insights for identifying the ideal position in a complex society under different conditions," Altmann said of the study's potential insights into research on human behavior.

See also: Antlers in heaven

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's a new, UK-based blog, The Darwin Deception,

Darwinism as an explanation for life is dead. The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin's own test of falsification. Dead, but it won't lie down. ...

Dude: Darwinism and a multitude of other current dead ideas are crowded so thick, they can’t fall down when they die.

Interesting post on John Sanford and genetic entropy:

Genetic entropy is the most catastrophic thing possible for Darwinians, robbing them as it does of their only mechanism, confirming that the idea of new meaningful genetic information arising from random mutations leading to new features and new creatures is a fanciful lie which runs directly counter to the empirical evidence.

We all know that most if not all mutations big enough to make a noticeable difference are harmful, the list is VERY long. Occasional 'blunted or broken genes' to use Mike Behe's phrase confer limited situational benefit at a high cost (as with sickle cell haemoglobin), but what of the effect of 'neutral' mutations? The materialist's hope is based on the idea that (no other designer-free scenario being even imaginable) these small 'lucky' mutations somehow accumulated over time to build new meaningful genetic information that could, for example, turn a fish into a land animal. Of course, this has never been observed. It is an article of the evolutionists' faith.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Uncommon Descent’s Barry Arrington, once lawyer for the families of murdered Columbine students, writes:

A couple of months ago a young university student contacted my law office seeking help in a dispute she was having with a university here in Colorado. [To protect my client's privacy, I am using neither her name nor the name of the university. ] The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class. After hearing her story I sent a demand letter to the university seeking redress. Good news. We resolved the matter on very favorable terms.

One of the terms we insisted on was a letter of apology from the professor. This is the full text of that letter: Here.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Charlie Jane Anders tells us "Zookeeper is a horror movie about evolutionary biology" (IO9, July 8, 2011), but she must mean "evolutionary psychology." Briefly, the zookeeper wants this girl, and the animals (who can talk, of course) advise him to use their mating strategies:

Griffin is encouraged to become an Alpha Male, to pee in public to mark his territory. (There is a lot of urination.) The Adam Sandler-voiced monkey tells him to fling poop. At various times, his mating seminar starts to seem like an episode of the Pick-Up Artist, as a lion tells him to throw some negs. He's encouraged to pick fights with competing males, to separate his desired mate from the pack, and to make his nerdy-but-gorgeous best friend pretend to be his girlfriend to make Stephanie jealous. There is much slapstick involving Griffin attempting to do a frog confrontation stance and making his pants split open.

Eventually, though, it starts to work — Griffin, implausibly, becomes an Alpha Male and everybody admires him. He becomes a kind of super-yuppie and God among ordinary shlubs.

The usual keenness of evolutionary psychology's insight into human nature is on display here; the screenwriter captures the quintessential truth that humans have evolved to consider this kind of behaviour sexy - just as animals evolved to have equivalent-to-human minds. From Anders:

Read more!

Prevent parasite infections by promoting "genetic variation" (Jul 7, 2011):

Sexual reproduction, then, serves as a way to keep introducing genetic variety, a process that has to constantly be repeated in order to continue staving off attacks the latest and deadliest parasites. This is known as the "Red Queen Hypothesis", taking its name from a line in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

But no, wait. According to another study, "Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue" (ScienceDaily, July 7, 2011):

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.
"If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place," said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction -- in which only one parent is needed to procreate -- leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex.

Okay. This is the real reason evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

Not

Right now, it's just a pack of warring media releases.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here.

Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations and the Phenotype-to-Fitness Map for a ssDNA Virus

Darin R. Rokyta1*, Paul Joyce2, S. Brian Caudle1, Craig Miller3, Craig J. Beisel2, Holly A. Wichman3

Epistatic interactions between genes and individual mutations are major determinants of the evolutionary properties of genetic systems and have therefore been well documented, but few quantitative data exist on epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations, presumably because such mutations are so much rarer than deleterious ones. We explored epistasis for beneficial mutations by constructing genotypes with pairs of mutations that had been previously identified as beneficial to the ssDNA bacteriophage ID11 and by measuring the effects of these mutations alone and in combination. We constructed 18 of the 36 possible double mutants for the nine available beneficial mutations. We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations. In an attempt to understand these results, we developed a simple model in which the phenotypic effects of mutations are completely additive and epistatic interactions arise as a result of the form of the phenotype-to-fitness mapping. We found that a model with an intermediate phenotypic optimum and additive phenotypic effects provided a good explanation for our data and the observed patterns of epistatic interactions.

Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

And the situation is far too important to justify stopping to find out what is going on.

Here, "Granite geek" David Brooks warns, "Creationism trying to sneak into New Hampshire laws" (July 4, 2011):

two possible bills may come up in the fall to get creatonism into the classroom. One would mandate teaching "intelligent design", the other would mandate teaching evolution “as a theory”.

Both lawmakers agree there are theological/philosophical elements to their proposals - one wants to examine how much atheism is being the push for evolution in classes; the other is concerned by the lack of a deeper meaning in evolution. I argue in the column that evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings, but I also note that the argument is irelevant: Science classes should teach science.

The Granite one seems unaware that just saying that "evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings" means that he has a definite theological position, and saying that "Science classes should teach science" only raises the question of what he means by "science."

Happily, he answers that: Interviewing the sponsor of one of the bills, he reports,

Rep. Gary Hopper, R- Weare, approaches the matter more directly with an LSR “requiring instruction in intelligent design in the public schools.”

In a phone interview, Hopper said his concern with evolution as a science involves the beginning of life.

“Darwin’s theory is basically antiquated,” he argued.

This is such a big unknown that some scientists would be happy to believe some unspecified Designer created life and then sat back to let evolution take over.

Hopper doesn’t agree with this idea, because of what he says are too many problems with evolutionary theory, which he thinks is fueled by scientific group-think, driven by research funding that ignores creationism.

Yeah, that's it. When Darwin is doubted, it must be those slimy creationists at work. Brooks, whose sci tech geekiness exempts him from keeping up with the news, probably doesn't know stuff like this: Darwinist David Penny (Massey University, New Zealand) is constructing a face-saving strategy for how how Darwinism can encompass non-Darwinian processes of evolution, provided we junk the central metaphor of the Tree of Life. Which means jettisoning Brooks' most sacred belief - common descent - so that Darwinism can continue in name only. And Penny pretends to find justification for this in the Sayings of the Master.

Whether he succeeds or not, the important thing to see is that he is doing it in Darwin's name, to save face and maintain perks and perches while the theory crumbles.

That's only to be expected. What's unexpected is the vast ignorance that envelops geeks like some kind of smoke bomb. They used to be "in the know" types.

Brooks finishes, predictably, with his theology of evolution. Given that he thinks that doubts about Darwin could be taught in

Religion or philosophy class? Of course. History class? You bet. Literature, too. But not science class.

, the only reasonable approach should be that his pro-Darwin philosophy should be taught in those venues too.

Given the current ferment, it's a good question whether science classes should teach very much about evolution at all.

My prescription? Move both origin of life and human evolution to social science class - not because they are controversial but because of their minimal, contradictory, highly politicized information streams.

In a study of biological evolution in science class, I would teach Darwinism as one theory among many, and focus on timelines for the history of life. Origin of life theory and human evolution would be great "across the curriculum" projects - solo, group, or for science fairs.

My nightmare? Students graduate knowing about the gay gene, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution, and that cell phones cause cancer, but they don't know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the science around radioactivity, or even how ecologies maintain stability. In other words, they're well set up to be passive recipients of junk science, without the tools to free themselves.

Worse nightmare: For many current lobbies, that's a solution, not a problem.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

And didn't star Ronald Reagan opposite a chimp.

On July 8, a documentary on the fate of Nim opens in U.S. theatres (trailer). In “Project Nim: A chimp raised like a human” (New Scientist 4 July 2011), Rowan Hooper tackles the question of why:

What on earth were they thinking of? Nim was put in diapers and dressed in clothes. He was breastfed by his human surrogate mother, Stephanie Lafarge. "It seemed natural," she says.

Lafarge's daughter, Jenny Lee, has a better explanation: "It was the seventies". Jenny was 10-years-old when Nim came to live with her family. The film, assembled from archive footage shot at the time, recreated scenes and interviews with the main characters, tells the story of Nim's chaotic life.

The purpose was to show that chimpanzees could learn American Sign Language, under the right conditions, and converse like a human. Nim learned 120 signs, but ... see the film.

The seventies? In context, celebrity skeptic Carl Sagan had written in The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Nature of Human Intelligence (New York: Random House, 1977),

Although a few years ago it would have seemed the most implausible science fiction, it does not appear to me out of the question that, after a few years in such a verbal chimpanzee community, there might emerge the memoirs of the natural history and mental life of a chimpanzee, published in English or Japanese (with perhaps an "as told to" after the byline). (p. 126.)

Skeptic: A person who is prepared to believe just about anything his engineer neighbour would doubt.

See also Evilicious?: Monkeys r' us prof Marc Hauser barred from Harvard lecture room

Slate reporter muses on Harvard's recent evolutionary psychology scandal

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

At ScienceDaily (July 1, 2011), we learn, "Adult Stem Cells Carry Their Own Baggage: Epigenetics Guides Stem Cell Fate":

Adult stem cells and progenitor cells may not come with a clean genetic slate after all. That's because a new report in the FASEB Journal shows that adult stem or progenitor cells have their own unique "epigenetic signatures," which change once a cell differentiates. This is important because epigenetic changes do not affect the actual make up in a cell's DNA, but rather, how that DNA functions. Epigenetic changes have been shown to play a role in a wide range of diseases, including obesity, and have been shown to be heritable from mother to child.

Here's an interesting take from a geneticist:

"Epigenetics has not replaced classical genetics. It has, however, provided the chemical and biological explanation for short-term, heritable changes that tell cells where their parents have been and where they themselves are going," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the FASEB Journal. "This study shows that adult stem and progenitor cells, like many human adults, come with baggage from family history that affects how they behave."

As noted earlier, epigenetics obviates the futile and destructive nature-nurture (gene vs. scene) debate. It's not "in yer genes" Nor is it "Ma's fault, for the way she raised you." Nor is it merely a face-saving "complex interplay."

Cells respond to a variety of signals from different sources at different times, and specific life stresses can trigger unwanted changes more readily in one person than in others. So health is often a matter of knowing one's own tolerances.

The real loser?: The fat gene, the gay gene, the crime-and-violence gene and the industries that fronted them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

At Eurekalert (June 29, 2011), we learn: "Finding showing human ancestor older than previously thought offers new insights into evolution." In the current episode, new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show that modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus. The find counters previous hypotheses - which it must, in order to qualify as an episode:

Read more!

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here:

The leaders are divided on evolution. Slightly more reject the idea of evolution (47%) than believe in theistic evolution, the notion that God has used evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life (41%). Few (3%) believe that human life has evolved solely by natural processes with no involvement from a supreme being.

Did the 3% understand the question?

Some wonder whether evangelical leaders should be asked less general questions, like "Do you believe that Adam and Eve were actual persons?" That's the divisive question just now, not pap about "evolution."

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Biologist and author Norbert Smith has never been a fan of Darwinism, and Evolution has Failed is his latest assessment. One of his areas of considerable experience is alligators, because his job included tagging them:

Having done well in electronics in the Air Force, Smith was interested in using telemetry on submerged alligators. He developed greatly improved telemetry equipment for monitoring rattlesnakes. He then acquired a large alligator at the Welder Refuge, fitted it with a collar, and released it into Big Lake.

He was attempting to test the way in which alligators regulate their body heat (thermoregulation) for his MS thesis. To do this he would follow the alligator for days, observing it from a blind or, when necessary, from a boat.

A great deal was riding on the experiment because, contrary to the widely accepted "reptilian brain" theory of intelligence, the alligator is intelligent. Once escaped, it is gone ... hard to recapture.

At first, things went well. The telemetered alligator behaved like two other large alligators Smith was able to observe, which meant that fitting the transmitter had not altered its behavior, thus the data would not be distorted. Indeed, the data coming back about the gator's temperature and heart rate looked normal.

The fight or flight response has been studied for over 70 years, and Smith simply assumed that alligators would follow this pattern. But something unusual happened. More.

If the new book is as good as this, think about it.

Also: Here's Smith on the reptile brain (not your average pop science TV), and here are some video illustrations. Includes "Alligator training" and "Crocodile mom releases baby from egg."

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Recently, Brandon Keim, presenting "11 Animal Wonders of Evolution" (June 28, 2011) at Wired says no,

After all, their lineages haven't survived ice ages and warm spells and every natural upheaval just to be visualized in amber by some upstart hairless ape. A better term is "evolutionarily distinct." They're simply, impressively unique.

One could say that of the Kha-Nyou

Until biologists found several at a Laotian food market, Kha-Nyou — less prettily known as Laotian rock rats — were thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago, along with the rest of their taxonomic family.

Genetic analyses show that they last shared a common ancestor with any living species 44 million years ago.

Actually, a good many supposed extinct animals turn up where they were not sought, including this one.

But Keim's right. It was never a good term. Can you think of a better one?

See all eleven here.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In 2009, University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. "If organisms were built from scratch by a designer," he argued, they would not have imperfections. "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; inf fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution." According to Coyne, "when a trait is no longer used or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: Evolution strops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there shoud be vestigial genes." In contrast, creationbydesignpredicts that no such genes would exist."

[ ... ]

According to Coyne, "the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled - amply. Virtually ever species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that some of those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome, - and that of other species - are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes."

(online)

- Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA, pp. 25-26

Jerry "Why Evolution Is True" Coyne here explicitly says that Darwinism beats design because so much DNA is junk. Does that mean that if most of it is not junk ... oh, surely it can't mean that!

Predictions based on Darwinism can't be wrong; we simply haven't read our Darwin correctly.

Also: "Who believed in the myth of junk DNA? Michael Shermer for one."

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.