One question mark is whether the stones are really tools. It’s hard to tell, especially because there are so few. A classic design inference problem.
It’s almost like the land plants were given a kit when they started out or something. But nah… 😉
The Atlantic writer professed herself “a little skeptical” of a claim made by a Darwin lobbyist. As if she has the right. Something’s changing for sure.
“And hybridization — long considered an evolutionary dead end — instead acts as a catalyst for combining old gene variants in new ways, fueling rapid diversification.” Surely, it was long considered a dead end because Darwinism was supposed to account for these changes.
If Darwinists had been in charge of Khazan’s education, she would mainly have a bunch of stuff to unlearn. As it is, she can start with Suzan Mazur’s Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology and Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves. Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is good on the Cambrian explosion…
David Gelernter was NOT flung out on his ear for doubting Darwin. And, how many people much care now what P.Z. Myers thinks? Is ultra-Darwinism past its sell-by date?
Just for fun, here is a pop sci headline we might not have expected.
The UD News Desk recently reported on obviously desperate origin of life researchers’ attempts to give themselves a leg up on the whole “how did life begin” issue. I had to chuckle when I read the article, because it reminded me of my second favorite* Steve Martin routine, “You can be millionaire and never pay […]
From the film: It soon became apparent that this monk was breathing at an extremely low rate, 6 to 7 breaths per minute. It was established that during his stabilization meditation, it was a decrease in metabolism of 64 percent from rest. Never before had such a decrease been documented.
Sheldon: … it isn’t just HEP theory, it is large swathes of all the sciences. They have painted themselves into a sterile, but formerly well-funded “consensus” corner, and are discovering that the younger generation (and the NYT) is quite flippant on their prospects for survival.
Her view: “Personally I think that the motivations for the holographic principle are not particularly strong and in any case we’ll not be able to test this hypothesis in the coming centuries. ” And in our next post, experimental physicist Rob Sheldon replies.
Maybe Darwinian naturalism can’t count as a motive in principle because it is Approved. That said, this story reminds some of us of two things: The Columbine massacre and Finnish massacre, where the shooters’ belief in Darwinism was even more explicit. And also the curious case of Eric Pianka.
It’s not so clear that simple complexity can produce anything. What is the organizing principle? If there is a goal, how does it come to exist?
How did that work out at Wikipedia?
Scientific American: ” At 44 pages of dense, technical mathematics, even leading mathematical minds need time to wrap their heads around the paper. The community, however, seems optimistic. “