evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-22--Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology

Many of us in the intelligent design movement have a sense of déjà vu when we watch the nightly news — censorship and intolerance of intellectual diversity have taken over our public square .
ID folks know well what it ’ s like to be on the receiving end of anti-intellectualism and censorship — we ’ ve been censored and professionally cancelled for decades merely for asking questions about Darwinism and for proposing science that didn ’ t fit the Darwinian narrative .
I have a friend who is an internationally respected biologist and Evangelical Christian who tells me that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not say a word about it publicly , because it would end his career .
Now cancel culture has moved out of the lab and the classroom and into our public square .
The ID experience with Darwinian repression seems like a dry run for the America ’ s metastasizing cancel culture .
Expelled has come to all Americans .
What is it that ties all of this together ?
Darwinism is framework for much of this change in our country .
Let me explain .
Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientific theory in any meaningful sense .
Natural selection , as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out , isn ’ t a meaningful level of scientific explanation .
It ’ s barely more than a tautology .
Natural selection is an “ empty ” theory — “ survivors survive ” has no genuine explanatory power .
As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed , Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory .
It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature .
Purpose in biology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Differential survival alone can explain “ purpose ” in nature .
Darwin proposed that all of the specified complexity in living things is the product of undirected differential survival .
Darwinism is the denial of purpose in nature .
Purpose , according to Darwin , is an illusion .
Biology appears to have purposes — hearts pump blood , kidneys excrete urine , etc .
— but the purposes are merely the outcome of natural selection — survival of the fittest .
Darwinism purports to explain how a story can be written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Darwinian natural selection is metaphysics , more than biology .
Darwin borrowed some of his metaphysics from Aristotle , without attribution and probably without understanding .
For Aristotle , nature is characterized by change , and change is actualization of potency — nature is the continuous realization of potentialities .
Trees can grow , and do grow .
Oxygen can catalyze respiration , and does so .
Mammals can give birth to offspring , and do .
Hearts can pump blood , and do .
Natural selection is the extension of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of potency to act — to the evolution of species .
A litter of pups is a litter of potential adaptations .
Natural selection makes potential adaptations real .
Natural selection actualizes potentialities generated by genetic variation .
Survival of the fittest is Aristotelian potency and act applied to evolution .
But Aristotle differed from Darwin in a fundamental way : for Aristotle , nature has purposes .
Nature is pulled along by purposes — by final causes built into nature .
For Aristotle , elevation of potency to act ( material and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherent direction in nature .
To understand a thing , you must know each of its causes — material , formal , efficient , and final cause .
In fact , for Aristotle , purpose — final cause — is the most important cause .
He called it the “ cause of causes.
” Hearts circulate blood ; they don ’ t secrete bile .
Eyes subserve vision , not hearing .
The cornerstone of biological knowledge is knowledge of the purpose a biological process serves .
Evolution , in Aristotelian terms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature is grounded on purpose — change in nature is directed to ends .
For Darwin , change in nature is undirected — for Darwin , “ chance and necessity ” completely explains life .
Natural selection is actualization ( survival ) of potency ( genetic variation ) — and variation and selection are the complete explanation for biological adaptation .
For Darwin , nature does what it does without the need for a Mind to give it purpose .
Darwin expropriated Aristotelian potency and act and stripped it of purpose .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Conductor .
For Darwin , nature is a casino .
Natural selection of random genetic variation is the cornerstone of Darwin ’ s theory .
Darwin borrowed from Aristotle , at least Implicitly — he never indicated that he understood that his theory of natural selection is an adumbration of Aristotelian potency and act .
Darwin also borrowed , in a profoundly important way , from Hegel .
Hegel proposed that the evolution of the history — evolution understood in a spiritual sense — is driven by a continuous struggle between ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antithesis .
This elemental struggle is resolved by synthesis — the adaptation , so to speak , gained by the outcome of the struggle of contraries .
This dialectical process , for Hegel , is the engine of change in the world .
Darwinism is Hegelian dialectics applied to biology — or you might say that Hegelian dialectics is Darwinism applied to history .
Hegel and Darwin explain history and biology as dialectics — as the process of struggle and survival .
Natural selection is materialist Hegelianism .
Hegel and Darwin proposed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a dialectic competition — a struggle of thesis with antithesis which yields synthesis ( adaptation ) , and repeats endlessly .
Yet Darwin was a materialist and a functional atheist .
Hegel was an idealist and a Christian .
How were they reconciled ?
The reconciliation was in Marxism .
Marx and Engels openly acknowledged their debt to Darwin — the Darwinian basis for Marxism is undeniable — they understood economic and class struggle as analogues of Darwinian natural selection Marx saw history primarily in terms of economics , but the predicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marx , who was a rabid atheist and materialist ( much of which he derived from Feuerbach ) , needed Hegel ’ s dialectic to explain history , but he also needed materialist metaphysics and scientific confirmation of the applicability of dialectical struggle to nature .
Marx obtained his scientific validation of dialectical materialism from Darwin .
Marx and Engels understood ( correctly ) that Darwin did to evolutionary biology what they did to economic history — they explained progress as a process of undirected struggle .
In the Darwinian and Marxist view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully explained as cycles of thesis-antithesis ( struggle ) resolved by synthesis ( survival ) .
No purpose — no God — is needed .
For Darwin , as for Hegel , all progress is violence .
Thesis and antithesis is a struggle — evolution and history red in tooth and claw—and adaptation and progress — synthesis — is inexorably the fruit of violent struggle .
Marx built his system on Darwin , Feuerbach , and Hegel .
But real history didn ’ t fit Marxist “ scientific ” theory — the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( contrary to Marxist theory ) from feudalism to communism , without a capitalist interlude .
Lenin understood this and proposed that Marxist dynamics could be moved along by a vanguard of intellectuals .
The similarity to the eugenic view — that Darwinian evolution can be moved along by artificial selection ( human breeding ) — is noteworthy .

Image: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, by Jakob Schlesinger / Public domain.
Many of us in the intelligent design movement have a sense of déjà vu when we watch the nightly news — censorship and intolerance of intellectual diversity have taken over our public square. ID folks know well what it’s like to be on the receiving end of anti-intellectualism and censorship — we’ve been censored and professionally cancelled for decades merely for asking questions about Darwinism and for proposing science that didn’t fit the Darwinian narrative.
I have a friend who is an internationally respected biologist and Evangelical Christian who tells me that he strongly supports ID but he dares not say a word about it publicly, because it would end his career. Now cancel culture has moved out of the lab and the classroom and into our public square. The ID experience with Darwinian repression seems like a dry run for the America’s metastasizing cancel culture. Expelled has come to all Americans.
What is it that ties all of this together? Darwinism is framework for much of this change in our country. Let me explain.
Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a revolutionary scientific theory. It was hardly a scientific theory in any meaningful sense. Natural selection, as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out, isn’t a meaningful level of scientific explanation. It’s barely more than a tautology. Natural selection is an “empty” theory — “survivors survive” has no genuine explanatory power. As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed, Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory. It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature. Purpose in biology, Darwin insisted, is an illusion. Differential survival alone can explain “purpose” in nature. Darwin proposed that all of the specified complexity in living things is the product of undirected differential survival.
Darwinism is the denial of purpose in nature. Purpose, according to Darwin, is an illusion. Biology appears to have purposes — hearts pump blood, kidneys excrete urine, etc. — but the purposes are merely the outcome of natural selection — survival of the fittest. Darwinism purports to explain how a story can be written without purpose and implicitly without an author.
Metaphysics More than Biology
Darwinian natural selection is metaphysics, more than biology. Darwin borrowed some of his metaphysics from Aristotle, without attribution and probably without understanding. For Aristotle, nature is characterized by change, and change is actualization of potency — nature is the continuous realization of potentialities. Trees can grow, and do grow. Oxygen can catalyze respiration, and does so. Mammals can give birth to offspring, and do. Hearts can pump blood, and do. Natural selection is the extension of this metaphysical principle of change — of actualization of potency to act — to the evolution of species. A litter of pups is a litter of potential adaptations. Natural selection makes potential adaptations real. Natural selection actualizes potentialities generated by genetic variation. Survival of the fittest is Aristotelian potency and act applied to evolution.
But Aristotle differed from Darwin in a fundamental way: for Aristotle, nature has purposes. Nature is pulled along by purposes — by final causes built into nature. For Aristotle, elevation of potency to act (material and formal cause) make no sense without inherent direction in nature. To understand a thing, you must know each of its causes — material, formal, efficient, and final cause.
In fact, for Aristotle, purpose — final cause — is the most important cause. He called it the “cause of causes.” Hearts circulate blood; they don’t secrete bile. Eyes subserve vision, not hearing. The cornerstone of biological knowledge is knowledge of the purpose a biological process serves. Evolution, in Aristotelian terms, is blind without purposes. For Aristotle nature is grounded on purpose — change in nature is directed to ends.
Chance and Necessity
For Darwin, change in nature is undirected — for Darwin, “chance and necessity” completely explains life. Natural selection is actualization (survival) of potency (genetic variation) — and variation and selection are the complete explanation for biological adaptation. For Darwin, nature does what it does without the need for a Mind to give it purpose.
Darwin expropriated Aristotelian potency and act and stripped it of purpose. For Aristotle, nature is an orchestra with a Conductor. For Darwin, nature is a casino.
Natural selection of random genetic variation is the cornerstone of Darwin’s theory. Darwin borrowed from Aristotle, at least Implicitly — he never indicated that he understood that his theory of natural selection is an adumbration of Aristotelian potency and act. Darwin also borrowed, in a profoundly important way, from Hegel. Hegel proposed that the evolution of the history — evolution understood in a spiritual sense — is driven by a continuous struggle between ideas and their negations — between thesis and antithesis. This elemental struggle is resolved by synthesis — the adaptation, so to speak, gained by the outcome of the struggle of contraries. This dialectical process, for Hegel, is the engine of change in the world.
Darwinism is Hegelian dialectics applied to biology — or you might say that Hegelian dialectics is Darwinism applied to history. Hegel and Darwin explain history and biology as dialectics — as the process of struggle and survival. Natural selection is materialist Hegelianism. Hegel and Darwin proposed that history and biological evolution (respectively) are a dialectic competition — a struggle of thesis with antithesis which yields synthesis (adaptation), and repeats endlessly.
Yet Darwin was a materialist and a functional atheist. Hegel was an idealist and a Christian. How were they reconciled?
Reconciled by Marxism
The reconciliation was in Marxism. Marx and Engels openly acknowledged their debt to Darwin — the Darwinian basis for Marxism is undeniable — they understood economic and class struggle as analogues of Darwinian natural selection Marx saw history primarily in terms of economics, but the predicate of Marxist theory is atheistic materialism.
Marx, who was a rabid atheist and materialist (much of which he derived from Feuerbach), needed Hegel’s dialectic to explain history, but he also needed materialist metaphysics and scientific confirmation of the applicability of dialectical struggle to nature. Marx obtained his scientific validation of dialectical materialism from Darwin. Marx and Engels understood (correctly) that Darwin did to evolutionary biology what they did to economic history — they explained progress as a process of undirected struggle. In the Darwinian and Marxist view, biological and economic progress can be fully explained as cycles of thesis-antithesis (struggle) resolved by synthesis (survival). No purpose — no God — is needed.
For Darwin, as for Hegel, all progress is violence. Thesis and antithesis is a struggle — evolution and history red in tooth and claw—and adaptation and progress — synthesis — is inexorably the fruit of violent struggle.
Marx built his system on Darwin, Feuerbach, and Hegel. But real history didn’t fit Marxist “scientific” theory — the first communist state was Russia, which jumped (contrary to Marxist theory) from feudalism to communism, without a capitalist interlude. Lenin understood this and proposed that Marxist dynamics could be moved along by a vanguard of intellectuals. The similarity to the eugenic view — that Darwinian evolution can be moved along by artificial selection (human breeding) — is noteworthy.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-22--A Bridge Too Far? In Search of Precambrian Sponges

In Günter Bechly ’ s very balanced and scholarly series about the Ediacaran hopeful monster Kimberella , one subtext pops out : some evolutionists seem very eager to make more of a fossil than it is willing to offer .
This is understandable , because ever since Darwin , the Cambrian explosion has been one of their biggest headaches .
You get the feeling of two guys without enough rope to build a makeshift bridge across a canyon .
One is pulling his rope from the south side to reach the north side .
The other is pulling his rope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ south side .
No matter how hard they pull , there ’ s not enough rope to meet in the middle .
They remain convinced , nonetheless , that there is enough rope in the kit because the instructions assure them as much .
There is even a picture of the bridge on the box top .
Darwinian paleontologists think they can alleviate the embarrassment of the Cambrian explosion by the same strategy .
Some stretch the interpretation of Ediacaran organisms to make them look more Cambrian ( like finding molluscan traits in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some keep looking for Cambrian transitional forms back in the Ediacaran .
The fossils are not cooperating , but the molecular clocks , like the instructions , assure them that the gap must not be real .
A key in this exercise is how to interpret sponges , as readers will recall from Dr. Bechly ’ s article here back in May , “ The Myth of Precambrian Sponges.
” There is one fossil that has generated a lot of discussion .
Before looking at the latest news about it , recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism by considering two newly discovered fossil specimens from other phyla .
Annelida .
Nature reported the earliest known member of this phylum which includes the familiar earthworms .
The paper by Chen et al.1 begins , The problem is that this is a complex crown annelid when what they need is a stem annelid ( i.e.
, a primitive one ) .
Already in the early Cambrian a complex ( derived , crown ) annelid is evident .
In the phylum Arthropoda , a new swimming scavenger has been found in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Live Science describes the shrimp-like Xiaocaris luoi as no slouch when it comes to dinner utensils : About 518 million years ago , a fierce shrimp-like creature didn ’ t brandish just one “ knife , ” it flashed more than 800 of them ; each of its 54 legs had up to 15 dagger-like spines on it , a new study finds .
The name of this newly discovered Cambrian period scavenger , Xiaocaris luoi , literally means “ Luo ’ s small shrimp ” — and it was small , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but its vicious weapons likely meant that its mealtimes were filled with frenzied cutting , the researchers said .
“ This is a tiny animal that is nevertheless pretty well equipped for scavenging , ” study co-lead researcher Javier Ortega-Hernández , assistant professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University , told Live Science .
This specimen doesn ’ t look like anything alive today , and it differs from other Cambrian arthropods , such as Anomalocaris .
Yet there it is , at the base of the Cambrian record , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the same time that the crown annelid Dannychaeta lived .
So , with the following look at a questionable sponge , remember that there are many other phyla with complex body plans appearing abruptly in the early Cambrian without any fossil ancestors .
Against this challenging backdrop , can Darwinians pull a bridge across the gap using sponges ?
Other than Kimberella , sponges seem to be their best hope for finding some continuity across the Ediacaran-to-Cambrian gap .
One sponge in particular , Namapoikia rietoogensis , found by Wood et al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million years ago , “ has been featured prominently , ” comments Shuhai Xiao from Virginia Polytechnic , “ because it is considered one of the oldest sponges that built biologically controlled aragonitic skeletons and contributed to the construction of the oldest animal reefs.
” The celebrations appear to have been premature .
Now , Mehra et al.
, publishing in PNAS,2 claim it is not a sponge at all .
In their view , it is only a “ microbial construction ” like stromatolites and thrombolites .
This means that the interpretation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ N. rietoogensis falls like a house of cards : Xiao , writing about this two weeks later in PNAS,3 seems disappointed if not upset by this interpretation .
He explains why it is important for evolutionary phylogeny to keep Namapoikia rietoogensis classified as a sponge .
Why does it matter whether N. rietoogensis is a sponge ?
We need to understand early sponge evolution in order to understand early animal evolution , because sponges are either a paraphyletic group at the base of the animal tree or a monophyletic clade constituting a sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossils or biomarkers indicate that one of the modern sponge classes , the demosponges , diverged no later than ca .
650 Ma in the Cryogenian Period .
Molecular clock estimates , including those independent of the aforementioned biomarkers as calibrations , place the divergence of sponge classes at 700 to 800 Ma in the Tonian and Cryogenian Periods .
The abundant evidence of Ediacaran eumetazoans and even bilaterian animals , which diverged after the sponges , also dictates the presence of at least total-group sponges in the Ediacaran Period or earlier .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xiao doesn ’ t want this prize fossil taken away from the Darwin trophy case , because there isn ’ t a better candidate .
In his discussion , Xiao further confesses the lack of evidence for Ediacaran sponges , compared to their clear identification after the Cambrian explosion .
This means that the most diagnostic aspect of sponges — spicules — appear at the base of the Cambrian , not before .
To rub it in , spicules ( tiny glassy shards characteristic of sponges ) are not much to brag about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or silicon dioxide give sponges their structural support but are otherwise unremarkable ; they are nothing like guts or articulated limbs and eyes found in the Cambrian bilaterian animals .
Sponges ( phylum Porifera , or “ pore-bearing ” animals known by their holes ! )
are not exactly the most exotic creatures to burst upon the evolutionary stage , although some later sponges , like the Venus Flower Basket , are quite beautiful .
Xiao chuckles , Take note of this predicament for Darwinists .
The annelid and the arthropod reported above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , burst onto the scene in the early Cambrian , fully operational from the beginning .
This is no help for Darwin ’ s doubt .
Then , the one hopeful candidate for an “ animal ” to have emerged earlier in the Ediacaran — a purported , putative sponge , an unassuming , non-bilaterian , sessile , boring pet — could well just be a colony of microbes .
The Cambrian explosion remains a canyon too wide for the short ropes evolutionists are desperately trying to stretch into a bridge .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vinther , J. et al .
A Cambrian crown annelid reconciles phylogenomics and the fossil record .
Nature 583 , 249–252 ( 11 June 2020 ) .
https : //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2384-8 .
• Mehra , Watters , Grotzinger , Maloof .
Three-dimensional reconstructions of the putative metazoan Namapoikia show that it was a microbial construction .
PNAS August 18 , 2020 , 117 ( 33 ) 19760-19766. https : //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009129117 .

Photo credit: Tony Webster, via Flickr (cropped).
In Günter Bechly’s very balanced and scholarly series about the Ediacaran hopeful monster Kimberella, one subtext pops out: some evolutionists seem very eager to make more of a fossil than it is willing to offer. This is understandable, because ever since Darwin, the Cambrian explosion has been one of their biggest headaches. You get the feeling of two guys without enough rope to build a makeshift bridge across a canyon. One is pulling his rope from the south side to reach the north side. The other is pulling his rope on the north side to reach the south side. No matter how hard they pull, there’s not enough rope to meet in the middle. They remain convinced, nonetheless, that there is enough rope in the kit because the instructions assure them as much. There is even a picture of the bridge on the box top.
Darwinian paleontologists think they can alleviate the embarrassment of the Cambrian explosion by the same strategy. Some stretch the interpretation of Ediacaran organisms to make them look more Cambrian (like finding molluscan traits in Kimberella). At the other end, some keep looking for Cambrian transitional forms back in the Ediacaran. The fossils are not cooperating, but the molecular clocks, like the instructions, assure them that the gap must not be real.
A key in this exercise is how to interpret sponges, as readers will recall from Dr. Bechly’s article here back in May, “The Myth of Precambrian Sponges.” There is one fossil that has generated a lot of discussion. Before looking at the latest news about it, recall how serious the Cambrian explosion is for Darwinism by considering two newly discovered fossil specimens from other phyla.
Oh Danny Boy
Annelida. Nature reported the earliest known member of this phylum which includes the familiar earthworms. The paper by Chen et al.1 begins,
The phylum of annelids is one of the most disparate animal phyla and encompasses ambush predators, suspension feeders and terrestrial earthworms. The early evolution of annelids remains obscure or controversial, partly owing to discordance between molecular phylogenies and fossils…. Here we describe a new fossil polychaete (bristle worm) from the early Cambrian Canglangpu formation that we name Dannychaeta tucolus, which is preserved within delicate, dwelling tubes that were originally organic. The head has a well-defined spade-shaped prostomium with elongated ventrolateral palps. The body has a wide, stout thorax and elongated abdomen with biramous parapodia with parapodial lamellae…. To our knowledge, Dannychaeta is the oldest polychaete that unambiguously belongs to crown annelids, providing a constraint on the tempo of annelid evolution and revealing unrecognized ecological and morphological diversity in ancient annelids. [Emphasis added.]
The problem is that this is a complex crown annelid when what they need is a stem annelid (i.e., a primitive one). Already in the early Cambrian a complex (derived, crown) annelid is evident.
Tiny Shrimp with Jumbo Knives
In the phylum Arthropoda, a new swimming scavenger has been found in China’s famous Chengjiang fossil beds. Live Science describes the shrimp-like Xiaocaris luoi as no slouch when it comes to dinner utensils:
About 518 million years ago, a fierce shrimp-like creature didn’t brandish just one “knife,” it flashed more than 800 of them; each of its 54 legs had up to 15 dagger-like spines on it, a new study finds. The name of this newly discovered Cambrian period scavenger, Xiaocaris luoi, literally means “Luo’s small shrimp” — and it was small, just 0.8 inches (2 centimeters) long — but its vicious weapons likely meant that its mealtimes were filled with frenzied cutting, the researchers said. “This is a tiny animal that is nevertheless pretty well equipped for scavenging,” study co-lead researcher Javier Ortega-Hernández, assistant professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University, told Live Science.
This specimen doesn’t look like anything alive today, and it differs from other Cambrian arthropods, such as Anomalocaris. Yet there it is, at the base of the Cambrian record, fully formed and operational. It thrived around the same time that the crown annelid Dannychaeta lived. So, with the following look at a questionable sponge, remember that there are many other phyla with complex body plans appearing abruptly in the early Cambrian without any fossil ancestors.
Sponge Bobbing
Against this challenging backdrop, can Darwinians pull a bridge across the gap using sponges? Other than Kimberella, sponges seem to be their best hope for finding some continuity across the Ediacaran-to-Cambrian gap. One sponge in particular, Namapoikia rietoogensis, found by Wood et al. in 2002 and dated at 550 million years ago, “has been featured prominently,” comments Shuhai Xiao from Virginia Polytechnic, “because it is considered one of the oldest sponges that built biologically controlled aragonitic skeletons and contributed to the construction of the oldest animal reefs.”
The celebrations appear to have been premature. Now, Mehra et al., publishing in PNAS,2 claim it is not a sponge at all. In their view, it is only a “microbial construction” like stromatolites and thrombolites. This means that the interpretation of putative “reefs” built by N. rietoogensis falls like a house of cards:
Given our reconstructions, which lack the regularity expected of sponges or, more generally, animals, we suggest that Namapoikia was not a metazoan. Namapoikia’s morphological expression, which can be summarized as widely spaced, meandering partitions that split and merge both transversely and longitudinally…, likely lacked the structural integrity to stay upright without external support (i.e., much like trying to stand playing cards up on their sides). As a result, Namapoikia probably had low emergent synoptic relief…. We suggest that such a morphological expression can be explained by the growth of partially or totally microbially mediated structures.
Xiao, writing about this two weeks later in PNAS,3 seems disappointed if not upset by this interpretation. He explains why it is important for evolutionary phylogeny to keep Namapoikia rietoogensis classified as a sponge.
Why does it matter whether N. rietoogensis is a sponge? We need to understand early sponge evolution in order to understand early animal evolution, because sponges are either a paraphyletic group at the base of the animal tree or a monophyletic clade constituting a sister group of all other animals. Molecular fossils or biomarkers indicate that one of the modern sponge classes, the demosponges, diverged no later than ca. 650 Ma in the Cryogenian Period. Molecular clock estimates, including those independent of the aforementioned biomarkers as calibrations, place the divergence of sponge classes at 700 to 800 Ma in the Tonian and Cryogenian Periods. The abundant evidence of Ediacaran eumetazoans and even bilaterian animals, which diverged after the sponges, also dictates the presence of at least total-group sponges in the Ediacaran Period or earlier.
Evolutionists need sponges to be there! Xiao doesn’t want this prize fossil taken away from the Darwin trophy case, because there isn’t a better candidate.
However, the first unequivocal sponge fossils do not appear until in the Cambrian Period, with disarticulated sponge spicules around ca. 535 Ma and fully articulated sponge bodies shortly after. Thus, there is a prominent gap in the sponge fossil record, and any bona fide sponge fossils from the Ediacaran Period (635 to 539 Ma) would help to fill this gap.
Putative or Purported?
In his discussion, Xiao further confesses the lack of evidence for Ediacaran sponges, compared to their clear identification after the Cambrian explosion.
N. rietoogensis is not the only purported sponge fossil from the Ediacaran Period. There are dozens of putative sponges from the Ediacaran Period, but their sponge affinity has been disputed. Certainly, none of the purported Ediacaran sponges have unambiguous spicules, in sharp contrast to Cambrian sponges that are mostly identified on the basis of their biomineralized spicules.
This means that the most diagnostic aspect of sponges — spicules — appear at the base of the Cambrian, not before. To rub it in, spicules (tiny glassy shards characteristic of sponges) are not much to brag about. These skeletal-like fragments of calcium carbonate or silicon dioxide give sponges their structural support but are otherwise unremarkable; they are nothing like guts or articulated limbs and eyes found in the Cambrian bilaterian animals.
Sponges (phylum Porifera, or “pore-bearing” animals known by their holes!) are not exactly the most exotic creatures to burst upon the evolutionary stage, although some later sponges, like the Venus Flower Basket, are quite beautiful. Xiao chuckles,
With an estimated 15,000 living species, the animal phylum Porifera (colloquially known as sponges) is not a biodiversity heavyweight as are arthropods, mollusks, and chordates.Unassuming in character, sponges barely move in their adult lifetime of up to several thousand years, and they passively strain food particles from water currents that they generate continuously around the clock. They would be one of the most boring pets to have.
Take note of this predicament for Darwinists. The annelid and the arthropod reported above, loaded with complex organs and systems, burst onto the scene in the early Cambrian, fully operational from the beginning. This is no help for Darwin’s doubt. Then, the one hopeful candidate for an “animal” to have emerged earlier in the Ediacaran — a purported, putative sponge, an unassuming, non-bilaterian, sessile, boring pet — could well just be a colony of microbes.
The Cambrian explosion remains a canyon too wide for the short ropes evolutionists are desperately trying to stretch into a bridge.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-22--New Book by Biologist Michael Denton on Nature’s Miraculous “Primal Blueprint”

The cynicism of our time poisons everything , from academic life to media coverage to personal relationships .
It instructs us to look at each other with suspicion or mockery , at the cosmos with indifference , at life itself with a shrug .
Onto the scene steps biologist Michael Denton , no conventional religious believer , who nevertheless announces that the basis of life , the cells that populate our bodies and those of all other organisms , bear evidence of a “ miracle.
” Dr. Denton is a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who received his PhD at King ’ s College , London .
His new book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published on Monday , September 28 .
It is a lyrical exposition of what might otherwise seem like daunting technical material .
In organisms like ourselves , we look to DNA with its coded messages as the “ signature in the cell , ” as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has put it .
Denton directs us to look still deeper to a “ unique fitness paradigm , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cellular functioning .
What makes the cell possible is the atoms that comprise the Periodic Table , especially its first quarter .
These were finely tuned by early in the history of the universe .
For the wildly complex functions of cells , these atoms are “ crafted with incredible precision.
” Life itself , as it is now and as it was at its mysterious origin , depends on these functions that in turn reflect a “ primal blueprint.
” There is no accident here , but , indeed , a miracle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Denton ’ s chapters cover the carbon atom , chemical bonds , the nonmetals elements hydrogen , oxygen , and nitrogen , the metal elements , and the “ matrix ” of life , water .
We can think of the design in nature at opposing poles : the “ infinitely large ” ( the design of universe ) and the “ infinitely small ” ( the atoms ) .
Denton asks us to consider cells as the “ infinitely complex.
” To see cells in action , he notes a remarkable video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in 1950s by a researcher at Vanderbilt University .
In the video , we observe a white blood cell ( a neutrophil ) as it pursues a fleeing Staphylococcus aureus bacterium .
The outcome ( a staph infection , should the body ’ s defenses fail ) can mean life or death for us .
Why Not the Neutrophil ?
We offer arguments for intelligent design when it comes to the cat , the mouse , the cheetah , the gazelle , the kudu , or the man .
Why not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existence hardly less complex than ours ?
While analogies are perilous , the cells in their enormous variety display gifts found in whole organisms .
Some , if we permit ourselves a bit of liberty in speaking of their realm , can “ see , ” “ smell , ” and of course self-replicate .
Long before the first cell , the atoms had been prepared , with exceeding care , to make life possible .
Whereas the first life on Earth , with its requisite intelligent coding , goes back perhaps 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atoms must extend to more like 13 billion years , not long after the Big Bang .
This places the locus of the design of nature firmly “ in the beginning , ” reinforcing other observations of fine-tuning at the start of physical existence .
This is a new frontier for intelligent design , but at the same time a very old one .
It offers powerful testimony of purpose and meaning , against nihilism and cynicism , a welcome gift from a great biologist .

Image credit: Brian Gage.
The cynicism of our time poisons everything, from academic life to media coverage to personal relationships. It instructs us to look at each other with suspicion or mockery, at the cosmos with indifference, at life itself with a shrug. Onto the scene steps biologist Michael Denton, no conventional religious believer, who nevertheless announces that the basis of life, the cells that populate our bodies and those of all other organisms, bear evidence of a “miracle.”
Dr. Denton is a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, a widely published biochemist who received his PhD at King’s College, London. His new book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published on Monday, September 28. It is a lyrical exposition of what might otherwise seem like daunting technical material. In organisms like ourselves, we look to DNA with its coded messages as the “signature in the cell,” as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has put it. Denton directs us to look still deeper to a “unique fitness paradigm,” the design of the chemical elements for cellular functioning.
The “Primal Blueprint”
What makes the cell possible is the atoms that comprise the Periodic Table, especially its first quarter. These were finely tuned by early in the history of the universe. For the wildly complex functions of cells, these atoms are “crafted with incredible precision.” Life itself, as it is now and as it was at its mysterious origin, depends on these functions that in turn reflect a “primal blueprint.” There is no accident here, but, indeed, a miracle, worked out far in advance.
Denton’s chapters cover the carbon atom, chemical bonds, the nonmetals elements hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, the metal elements, and the “matrix” of life, water.
We can think of the design in nature at opposing poles: the “infinitely large” (the design of universe) and the “infinitely small” (the atoms). Denton asks us to consider cells as the “infinitely complex.” To see cells in action, he notes a remarkable video, “Neutrophil Chasing Bacteria,” made in the 1950s by a researcher at Vanderbilt University. In the video, we observe a white blood cell (a neutrophil) as it pursues a fleeing Staphylococcus aureus bacterium. The outcome (a staph infection, should the body’s defenses fail) can mean life or death for us.
Denton observes:
What one witnesses there seems to transcend all our intuitions: A tiny speck of matter, invisible to the naked eye, so small that one hundred of them could be lined up across the top of a pin, is seemingly endowed with intention and agency. It’s like watching a house cat chasing a mouse, or a cheetah chasing a gazelle on the African savanna, or indeed a man chasing down a kudu on the Kalahari.
Why Not the Neutrophil?
We offer arguments for intelligent design when it comes to the cat, the mouse, the cheetah, the gazelle, the kudu, or the man. Why not the neutrophil, which seem to enjoy an existence hardly less complex than ours? While analogies are perilous, the cells in their enormous variety display gifts found in whole organisms. Some, if we permit ourselves a bit of liberty in speaking of their realm, can “see,” “smell,” and of course self-replicate.
Long before the first cell, the atoms had been prepared, with exceeding care, to make life possible. Whereas the first life on Earth, with its requisite intelligent coding, goes back perhaps 4 billion years, the design of the atoms must extend to more like 13 billion years, not long after the Big Bang.
This places the locus of the design of nature firmly “in the beginning,” reinforcing other observations of fine-tuning at the start of physical existence. This is a new frontier for intelligent design, but at the same time a very old one. It offers powerful testimony of purpose and meaning, against nihilism and cynicism, a welcome gift from a great biologist.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-23--Sleep on It: Design in the Subconscious Brain

Why do we sleep ?
It ’ s something we spend about a third of our lives doing , yet to this day scientists have debated why .
The period of torpor in which conscious awareness descends into a subconscious state is shared by all animals with a central nervous system , and is tied to the diurnal cycle .
Yet it can not be a matter of safety in the dark , because many animals are nocturnal , and most animals active in the daytime take naps .
Nighttime , furthermore , is a function of latitude .
Near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for months at a time .
Scientists have learned a lot about sleep ; they can measure brain waves , classify patterns of sleep such as REM ( rapid eye movement ) and NREM ( non-REM ) , and observe the effects of sleep deprivation .
They have hypotheses , but the purpose of sleep has remained elusive .
Five scientists from five institutions across America and the UK examined “ the most comprehensive published data on sleep throughout human development and across species ” to answer the question .
Publishing their results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they believe they have found patterns that constrain the possible functions .
In the statement above , the word “ evolve ” refers to intelligently designed searches for answers by scientists .
In the paper , the scientists clearly subscribe to another kind of evolution — Darwinism — believing that sleep , like everything else in biology , evolved by random mutation and natural selection .
And yet their sixth sense knows that a function must exist for sleep .
This is a common fallacy among evolutionists ; they think they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They follow a distorted Cartesian maxim : “ it exists , therefore it evolved.
” Experiments show that animals will die without sleep .
Tests of prolonged sleep deprivation show fruit flies , rats and dogs never waking up after a point .
Even humans , whether testing their limits in a dance marathon for a Guinness world record , escaping danger or being tortured , will collapse at a point , as if nature enforces the requirement to sleep .
Firefighters and other emergency first responders can be trained to wake up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they eventually must get long enough breaks to get the benefits of unbroken sleep .
From an evolutionary point of view , though , sleep is risky for fitness : a predator or enemy can attack when the prey is helplessly unaware .
Surely natural selection would weed out the unfit who fall prey in sleep and would favor those able to stay awake , wouldn ’ t it ?
Yet that is not the case in insects , reptiles , birds , mammals or humans .
Hypothesis # 1 about repair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article about circadian clocks .
This team found additional support for that function , but also for hypothesis # 2 about neural reorganization .
One major finding was that the function switches from # 2 to # 1 at a predictable stage in life that is quite sudden .
Combing through the data from animals and humans , they made these primary findings : We collate and integrate data for total sleep time , REM sleep time , brain weight , body weight , cerebral metabolic rate , and synaptic density based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The resulting dataset spans from 0 to 15 years of age and cumulatively represents about 400 data points .
We then use the empirical data to find patterns of sleep during ontogeny , compare them with phylogenetic patterns , and test predictions from our theoretical framework .
In so doing , we : 1 ) develop distinct quantitative theories for both neural repair/clearance and neural reorganization ; 2 ) use extensive human sleep and brain data from birth to adult to cleanly test and discriminate between these theories ; 3 ) provide strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 2.4 years of age in the primary purpose of sleep from being for neural reorganization that occurs during the active sleep/REM cycle in earlydevelopment to neural repair and metabolite clearance in late development .
In short , infants need sleep to organize their neurons .
After two years of age , when neural reorganization has completed sufficiently , the need for repair and waste removal predominates .
Those seem to be the main functions of sleep .
“ Neural signaling and computation in the brain are extremely costly , accounting for 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the team says .
When looking at functional brain development in humans , Johnson found that the first 2 years of life is the period that most of the pronounced advances in brain structure and behavior occur .
Brains develop extremely dynamically in the first 2 years , and most brain structures have the overall appearance of adults by the age of around 2 .
One notable exception is the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex , the onset of which perhaps corresponds with a surge in REM sleep around later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our theory .
Overall brain size increases markedly during the first 2 years of life and reaches 80 to 90 % of adult size by the age of 2 .
The team halfway expected to see hints of Haeckel ’ s recapitulation theory in the data : The major focus of this paper is to address the intriguing question as to whether these general relationships for sleep times remain valid during growth , implying that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny , or whether new patterns emerge during development , reflecting a different dynamical origin for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development and across species , sleep times systematically decrease with brain and body size .
But do they do so at similar rates ?
And are they attributable to the same underlying dynamics ?
If new patterns emerge , what do those patterns reveal about neurological development and the growth of the brain ?
To answer these questions , we derive a quantitative ontogenetic sleep model across species that combines both ontogeny and phylogeny in a single framework and use this model to guide the analysis of human sleep data from birth to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with previous empirical and theoretical results for how sleep changes across phylogeny to ask whether explanations for why a mouse sleeps roughly five times more than a whale can also be used to explain why babies sleep roughly twice as long as adults .
Alas , they did not find support for Haeckel ’ s “ law ” ( which was , for many years , considered strong evidence for Darwinian evolution in his long-debunked embryo drawings ) .
In the final Discussion section , they repeat this negative result more forcefully : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across development is thus a key indicator that the function of sleep , and particularly of REM sleep , is very different during development than in adults .
It shows that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny because ontogeny does not show qualitatively similar patterns to phylogeny for REM sleep .
Rather , it differs from it in the most fundamental of ways ( e.g.
, invariance versus rapid change ) and exhibits a phase transition between early and late development… .
Our ontogenetic findings differ markedly from previous phylogenetic findings both in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of changes and the corresponding scaling exponents .
These results are quite unexpected , yet by transitioning from our model for neural reorganization to one for repair and clearance , we are able to simultaneously explain the scaling of sleep time across species and across growth .
They looked in earnest but did not find Ernst ( as in Haeckel ) .
Actually , they didn ’ t find much of Charles , either ( as in Darwin ) .
They did find a lot about function , however — a word mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ purpose ” was used as well .
Those are design words .
ID science looks for evidence of functional information in biology .
Sleep has at least two important functions , as shown here .
ID science also looks for evidence of foresight in biology .
Considering the needs of infant brains to continue organizing for a time outside the womb , and the lifetime needs of repair and waste clearance , finding a brain state that performs both functions shows evidence that sleep was intended .
Knowing that Haeckel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ explanatory and predictive power ” of their model , they want to continue investigating if the same two functions of sleep , along with the sudden transition of function with age , occur as well in rats , zebra finches , fruit flies , roundworms , and many other species .
Design science can take the lead here .
• Poe et al.
, “ Unraveling why we sleep : Quantitative analysis reveals abrupt transition from neural reorganization to repair in early development.
” Science Advances 18 Sep 2020 : Vol .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
DOI : 10.1126/sciadv.aba0398

Photo credit: Kasper Rasmussen via Unsplash.
Why do we sleep? It’s something we spend about a third of our lives doing, yet to this day scientists have debated why. The period of torpor in which conscious awareness descends into a subconscious state is shared by all animals with a central nervous system, and is tied to the diurnal cycle. Yet it cannot be a matter of safety in the dark, because many animals are nocturnal, and most animals active in the daytime take naps. Nighttime, furthermore, is a function of latitude. Near the poles, the sun never sets for months at a time. Scientists have learned a lot about sleep; they can measure brain waves, classify patterns of sleep such as REM (rapid eye movement) and NREM (non-REM), and observe the effects of sleep deprivation. They have hypotheses, but the purpose of sleep has remained elusive.
Five scientists from five institutions across America and the UK examined “the most comprehensive published data on sleep throughout human development and across species” to answer the question. Publishing their results in the AAAS open-access journal Science Advances1, they believe they have found patterns that constrain the possible functions.
Comparative, developmental, physiological, and human studies have all been fruitfully used to address questions about the nature of sleep. However, because data are seldom analyzed in a way that connects them with mathematical models or quantitative predictions, conclusions about the function of sleep have remained slow to evolve. In this context, we develop a general theory for the function of sleep that provides a framework for addressing several fundamental questions, such as what are the relative roles of repair and reorganization during sleep? And do these change during ontogenetic development? [Emphasis added.]
In the statement above, the word “evolve” refers to intelligently designed searches for answers by scientists. In the paper, the scientists clearly subscribe to another kind of evolution — Darwinism — believing that sleep, like everything else in biology, evolved by random mutation and natural selection. And yet their sixth sense knows that a function must exist for sleep. This is a common fallacy among evolutionists; they think they can get purposeful ends from purposeless processes. They follow a distorted Cartesian maxim: “it exists, therefore it evolved.”
Sleep is such an engrained and necessary part of our lives that we often take its functions and origins for granted. Presuming that sleep evolved to serve some primary function, it is almost certain that multiple physiological functions have piggybacked onto this pervasive and time-consuming feature of animal life.
Dying to Rest
Experiments show that animals will die without sleep. Tests of prolonged sleep deprivation show fruit flies, rats and dogs never waking up after a point. Even humans, whether testing their limits in a dance marathon for a Guinness world record, escaping danger or being tortured, will collapse at a point, as if nature enforces the requirement to sleep. Firefighters and other emergency first responders can be trained to wake up suddenly out of a deep sleep, but they eventually must get long enough breaks to get the benefits of unbroken sleep. From an evolutionary point of view, though, sleep is risky for fitness: a predator or enemy can attack when the prey is helplessly unaware. Surely natural selection would weed out the unfit who fall prey in sleep and would favor those able to stay awake, wouldn’t it? Yet that is not the case in insects, reptiles, birds, mammals or humans.
The pervasiveness of sleep during development and throughout the animal kingdom suggests that it is a biological process that is necessary for survival. Although we spend approximately a third of our life asleep, its explicit physiological and evolutionary function remains unclear with myriad hypotheses being postulated. Two of the leading hypotheses are that sleep enables (i) the repair and clearance needed to correct and prevent neuronal damage and (ii) the neural reorganization necessary for learning and synaptic homeostasis. These hypotheses are compelling because neither of these processes can be easily achieved in waking states, and there is supporting empirical evidence that they occur during sleep.
Hypothesis #1 about repair and clearance was discussed in our recent article about circadian clocks. This team found additional support for that function, but also for hypothesis #2 about neural reorganization. One major finding was that the function switches from #2 to #1 at a predictable stage in life that is quite sudden. Combing through the data from animals and humans, they made these primary findings:
We collate and integrate data for total sleep time, REM sleep time, brain weight, body weight, cerebral metabolic rate, and synaptic density based on a systematic review of the literature. The resulting dataset spans from 0 to 15 years of age and cumulatively represents about 400 data points. We then use the empirical data to find patterns of sleep during ontogeny, compare them with phylogenetic patterns, and test predictions from our theoretical framework. In so doing, we: 1) develop distinct quantitative theories for both neural repair/clearance and neural reorganization; 2) use extensive human sleep and brain data from birth to adult to cleanly test and discriminate between these theories; 3) provide strong evidence of a remarkably sharp transition at about 2.4 years of age in the primary purpose of sleep from being for neural reorganization that occurs during the active sleep/REM cycle in earlydevelopment to neural repair and metabolite clearance in late development.
In short, infants need sleep to organize their neurons. After two years of age, when neural reorganization has completed sufficiently, the need for repair and waste removal predominates. Those seem to be the main functions of sleep. “Neural signaling and computation in the brain are extremely costly, accounting for 80 to 90% of its metabolic expenditure,” the team says.
When looking at functional brain development in humans, Johnson found that the first 2 years of life is the period that most of the pronounced advances in brain structure and behavior occur. Brains develop extremely dynamically in the first 2 years, and most brain structures have the overall appearance of adults by the age of around 2. One notable exception is the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex, the onset of which perhaps corresponds with a surge in REM sleep around later puberty, which would be predicted by our theory. Overall brain size increases markedly during the first 2 years of life and reaches 80 to 90% of adult size by the age of 2.
Does Ontogeny Recapitulate Phylogeny in Sleep?
The team halfway expected to see hints of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory in the data:
The major focus of this paper is to address the intriguing question as to whether these general relationships for sleep times remain valid during growth, implying that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or whether new patterns emerge during development, reflecting a different dynamical origin for sleep. More pointedly, during both development and across species, sleep times systematically decrease with brain and body size. But do they do so at similar rates? And are they attributable to the same underlying dynamics? If new patterns emerge, what do those patterns reveal about neurological development and the growth of the brain? To answer these questions, we derive a quantitative ontogenetic sleep model across species that combines both ontogeny and phylogeny in a single framework and use this model to guide the analysis of human sleep data from birth to adult. We compare our new findings with previous empirical and theoretical results for how sleep changes across phylogeny to ask whether explanations for why a mouse sleeps roughly five times more than a whale can also be used to explain why babies sleep roughly twice as long as adults.
Alas, they did not find support for Haeckel’s “law” (which was, for many years, considered strong evidence for Darwinian evolution in his long-debunked embryo drawings).
However, during early ontogeny, the brain is undergoing rapid changes in size and synaptogenesis that require a relaxation of the power optimization and other constraints that determine how metabolic rate scales with size for mature organisms. Therefore, the canonical theory for the scaling of metabolic rate needs to be reformulated for the brain to recognize that ontogeny may not recapitulate phylogeny.
In the final Discussion section, they repeat this negative result more forcefully:
The large change in percent REM sleep across development is thus a key indicator that the function of sleep, and particularly of REM sleep, is very different during development than in adults. It shows that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny because ontogeny does not show qualitatively similar patterns to phylogeny for REM sleep. Rather, it differs from it in the most fundamental of ways (e.g., invariance versus rapid change) and exhibits a phase transition between early and late development…. Our ontogenetic findings differ markedly from previous phylogenetic findings both in terms of the magnitudeand sometimes, the direction of changes and the corresponding scaling exponents. These results are quite unexpected, yet by transitioning from our model for neural reorganization to one for repair and clearance, we are able to simultaneously explain the scaling of sleep time across species and across growth.
In Search of Haeckel
They looked in earnest but did not find Ernst (as in Haeckel). Actually, they didn’t find much of Charles, either (as in Darwin). They did find a lot about function, however — a word mentioned 61 times in the paper. The word “purpose” was used as well. Those are design words. ID science looks for evidence of functional information in biology. Sleep has at least two important functions, as shown here. ID science also looks for evidence of foresight in biology. Considering the needs of infant brains to continue organizing for a time outside the womb, and the lifetime needs of repair and waste clearance, finding a brain state that performs both functions shows evidence that sleep was intended.
Knowing that Haeckel and Darwin did not contribute anything to the “explanatory and predictive power” of their model, they want to continue investigating if the same two functions of sleep, along with the sudden transition of function with age, occur as well in rats, zebra finches, fruit flies, roundworms, and many other species. Design science can take the lead here.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-24--Bechly Series: No Ancestors for Cambrian Animals; Darwin’s Doubt Remains

This week , paleontologist Günter Bechly concluded his epic 14-part series at Evolution News on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
The importance of the subject , heroically tackled by Dr. Bechly , more than justifies the length of the treatment .
You can find the entire series here in order : • “ Kimberella Is No Solution to the Cambrian Conundrum ” Charles Darwin ’ s famous doubt about the Cambrian explosion ( some 530 million years ago ) proceeded from the observation that , as far as the fossil record can tell us , the eruption of animal phyla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
It appeared to be a massive saltation event , taking place over a geologically brief period .
Darwin comforted himself with the thought that additional digging and new fossils would reveal that it was no saltation or jump at all .
The Cambrian creatures would be reunited with their ancestors in the seas of the Ediacaran Period .
One the most hopeful candidate ancestors was Kimberella .
But as Bechly has demonstrated , it can ’ t be recruited to that role : [ N ] one of the Cambrian animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record .
This is very significant , because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type ( Bechly 2020 ) , or in the Kimberella layers , which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism .
At best the only two relatively uncontroversial Ediacaran bilaterians , Kimberella and the recently described worm-like Yilingia ( Chen et al .
2019 , Evolution News 2019 ) , could document the existence of just two phyla of Bilateria of uncertain affinity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their unique specializations strongly suggest that they could only represent extinct side branches but could not be directly ancestral to any of the numerous Cambrian animal phyla , and thus do not resolve their enigmatic origin .
The upshot : “ Honest scientists can not any longer ignore this substantial conflicting evidence .
The fossil record speaks clearly and cries out loud : the history of life on Earth is a history of saltations.
” Thus the problem admitted by Darwin , and mercilessly pursued by philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains .
As Bechly concludes , if we are honest , evolution as a series of saltations can not be explained by textbook Darwinian theory .
But it can be explained by intelligent design .
Creativity and inventiveness , as we know them in our own experience as humans , act by saltations .
So it is , too , in the history of life .
I urge you to review this important series .
Humbly place it at the feet of your favorite Darwinist , atheist , or theistic evolutionist .
Students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with their biology teachers , and professors with their students .

Kimberella quadrata, an Edicaran organism, by Masahiro miyasaka / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
This week, paleontologist Günter Bechly concluded his epic 14-part series at Evolution News on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. The importance of the subject, heroically tackled by Dr. Bechly, more than justifies the length of the treatment. You can find the entire series here in order:
Charles Darwin’s famous doubt about the Cambrian explosion (some 530 million years ago) proceeded from the observation that, as far as the fossil record can tell us, the eruption of animal phyla could not be traced backward to Precambrian times. It appeared to be a massive saltation event, taking place over a geologically brief period. Darwin comforted himself with the thought that additional digging and new fossils would reveal that it was no saltation or jump at all. The Cambrian creatures would be reunited with their ancestors in the seas of the Ediacaran Period.
One the most hopeful candidate ancestors was Kimberella. But as Bechly has demonstrated, it can’t be recruited to that role:
[N]one of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record. This is very significant, because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type (Bechly 2020), or in the Kimberella layers, which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism. At best the only two relatively uncontroversial Ediacaran bilaterians, Kimberella and the recently described worm-like Yilingia (Chen et al. 2019, Evolution News 2019), could document the existence of just two phyla of Bilateria of uncertain affinity prior to the Cambrian era. However, their unique specializations strongly suggest that they could only represent extinct side branches but could not be directly ancestral to any of the numerous Cambrian animal phyla, and thus do not resolve their enigmatic origin.
Let’s Be Honest
The upshot: “Honest scientists cannot any longer ignore this substantial conflicting evidence. The fossil record speaks clearly and cries out loud: the history of life on Earth is a history of saltations.” Thus the problem admitted by Darwin, and mercilessly pursued by philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in his bestseller Darwin’s Doubt, remains. As Bechly concludes, if we are honest, evolution as a series of saltations cannot be explained by textbook Darwinian theory. But it can be explained by intelligent design. Creativity and inventiveness, as we know them in our own experience as humans, act by saltations. So it is, too, in the history of life.
I urge you to review this important series. Humbly place it at the feet of your favorite Darwinist, atheist, or theistic evolutionist. Students, too, may wish to share it with their biology teachers, and professors with their students.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-24--Racial Conflict and Scientific Racism

Racial Conflict and Scientific Racism

Discovery Institute Vice President John West sat down with host Eric Wallace to discuss intelligent design , theistic evolution , and scientific racism .
There is some very provocative material here .
West observes the uncomfortable parallel between certain strains in theistic evolutionary thinking , on one hand , and ancient gnosticism on the other : both designate a “ creator ” apart from God , whether that is unguided evolution or the gnostic demiurge .
In the case of evolution , the creator , at bottom , is “ mass death , ” says West : it is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , that biological novelty arises .
Wallace discusses West ’ s documentary Human Zoos , the story of African pygmy Ota Benga and his captivity in the Bronx Zoo , and how leading political voices at the time ( the New York Times , the Democratic mayor of New York City ) dismissed appeals from black and other clergy to free Ota Benga .
Wallace asks about the present cultural moment .
Race and racism are a burning issue this year .
As I write , protests are convulsing Louisville , KY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How , asks Wallace , is the legacy of scientific racism reflected in today ’ s unrest ?
West has a surprising answer : the inheritors of Darwinian attitudes on race include the modern Alt Right , thugs who openly cite evolution as a justification for their beliefs , and…today ’ s progressive Left : On the liberal progressive side , you see what Planned Parenthood is doing to black babies and targeting black communities .
Margaret Sanger was a leading eugenicist .
And I think among white progressives , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually think that blacks are less capable than whites and they are getting that from their science .
They won ’ t always admit that .
But some of the patronizing way that they argue shows that they think blacks really can ’ t live up to what other people are doing , which is preposterous .
All this is preposterous !
But the way that they argue shows that they ’ ve imbibed some of this past century ’ s very dehumanizing and false scientific claims .
I think that is true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the premise of unguided evolution , why would anyone expect the equality of the human races ?
If the races are equal in their capability , under Darwinism that would be a very surprising .
If the political movements most under Darwinism ’ s sway , Left and Right , were truly “ antiracist , ” that too would be a most surprising result .
Only in a Judeo-Christian perspective , where all human beings are imprinted with God ’ s image , would inherent racial equality make perfect sense .

Photo credit: Frankie Fouganthin / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Discovery Institute Vice President John West sat down with host Eric Wallace to discuss intelligent design, theistic evolution, and scientific racism. There is some very provocative material here. West observes the uncomfortable parallel between certain strains in theistic evolutionary thinking, on one hand, and ancient gnosticism on the other: both designate a “creator” apart from God, whether that is unguided evolution or the gnostic demiurge. In the case of evolution, the creator, at bottom, is “mass death,” says West: it is only through competition and carnage, in the end, that biological novelty arises.
Wallace discusses West’s documentary Human Zoos, the story of African pygmy Ota Benga and his captivity in the Bronx Zoo, and how leading political voices at the time (the New York Times, the Democratic mayor of New York City) dismissed appeals from black and other clergy to free Ota Benga.
A Burning Issue
Wallace asks about the present cultural moment. Race and racism are a burning issue this year. As I write, protests are convulsing Louisville, KY, over the death of Breonna Taylor. How, asks Wallace, is the legacy of scientific racism reflected in today’s unrest? West has a surprising answer: the inheritors of Darwinian attitudes on race include the modern Alt Right, thugs who openly cite evolution as a justification for their beliefs, and…today’s progressive Left:
On the liberal progressive side, you see what Planned Parenthood is doing to black babies and targeting black communities. Margaret Sanger was a leading eugenicist. And I think among white progressives, a lot of them in their heart of hearts actually think that blacks are less capable than whites and they are getting that from their science. They won’t always admit that. But some of the patronizing way that they argue shows that they think blacks really can’t live up to what other people are doing, which is preposterous. All this is preposterous! But the way that they argue shows that they’ve imbibed some of this past century’s very dehumanizing and false scientific claims.
I think that is true. You have to ask yourself, given the premise of unguided evolution, why would anyone expect the equality of the human races? If the races are equal in their capability, under Darwinism that would be a very surprising. If the political movements most under Darwinism’s sway, Left and Right, were truly “antiracist,” that too would be a most surprising result. Only in a Judeo-Christian perspective, where all human beings are imprinted with God’s image, would inherent racial equality make perfect sense.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-25--Behe on Denton’s Latest: “The Universe Miraculously Got [It] Right”

We ’ re just the few days out from the Monday , September 28 , release of Michael Denton ’ @ @ @ @ @ of the Cell .
Michael Behe comments : Michael Denton is the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ fundamental physical and chemical requirements for the existence of a humanoid species such as ourselves @ @ @ @ @ facts from an enormous range of scientific observations , Denton shows with overwhelming force that @ @ @ @ @ intelligent , technology-using beings of roughly our size — beings whose very existence depends precariously @ @ @ @ @ details that the universe miraculously got right .
Anyone who wonders whether nature shows any @ @ @ @ @ read The Miracle of the Cell .
Michael J. Behe , Lehigh University molecular biologist @ @ @ @ @ s Black Box , The Edge of Evolution , and Darwin Devolves .
You can @ @ @ @ @ Miracle of the Cell here .

We’re just the few days out from the Monday, September 28, release of Michael Denton’s new book The Miracle of the Cell. Michael Behe comments:
Michael Denton is the world’s most profound thinker about the fundamental physical and chemical requirements for the existence of a humanoid species such as ourselves. By gathering and synthesizing facts from an enormous range of scientific observations, Denton shows with overwhelming force that the universe was made for intelligent, technology-using beings of roughly our size — beings whose very existence depends precariously on a myriad of physical details that the universe miraculously got right. Anyone who wonders whether nature shows any signs of purpose needs to read The Miracle of the Cell.
Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University molecular biologist and author of Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-25--“Lifelikeness” Without Intelligent Design? Brian Miller Responds to Jeremy England

Jeremy England is a physicist and Orthodox rabbi who has a new book out this month , Every Life Is on Fire : How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things .
I always find England ’ s writing thoughtful and stimulating , so I am looking forward to reading the book .
He has debated on that subject — thermodynamics and the origin of life — with our physicist colleague Brian Miller in the past .
Today , Dr. England has a poetic and ingenious article in the Wall Street Journal reflecting on God ’ s commissioning of Moses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This caught my attention : Arguing that God had to have been there at the beginning seemingly would get harder if life ’ s very existence were to stop looking so miraculous .
Yet lately the science appears to point in that direction .
As a physicist and Orthodox rabbi , I sit right in the middle of this dilemma .
My colleagues and I have shown in our research that “ dumb ” collections of particles can spontaneously recapitulate impressive behaviors normally associated with life .
Such particles simply require the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
In other words , there are a variety of behaviors that life displays — making copies of itself , harvesting energy from its surroundings , predicting its future — that can emerge in initially lifeless and inchoate matter .
It ’ s reasonable to assume this perspective might chip away at my confidence that Scripture has anything accurate , let alone profound , to offer on the origin of life .
To my delight and amazement , I have found the opposite to be true .
Interestingly , the “ miraculousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell , is the theme of biologist Michael Denton ’ s new book that comes out on Monday , The Miracle of the Cell .
He discusses the origin of life in Chapter 8 .
Can , in fact , “ ‘ dumb ’ collections of particles…spontaneously recapitulate impressive behaviors normally associated with life ” ?
The key word there is “ spontaneously.
” That did not sound right to me , but Dr. England ’ s reading of Scriptural passages in Exodus turns upon the assertion he makes about experimentation in physics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view .
Brian replies , “ My response article to England on Evolution News specifically addresses this issue and experiment.
” Indeed it does : The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory .
A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces the uncertainty in an outcome .
In the case of the experiment , the highly specified construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information .
The applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty ) to effect a specific category of outcomes .
It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule .
The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide .
The particles are agitated by a continuous acoustic pressure exerted by speakers .
The particles ’ motion and the sound transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifelike ” behavior in the bandgap ( i.e.
, range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide ) : “ Remarkably , the lifelike behaviours often observed in non-equilibrium structures are here bestowed to the emergent bandgap itself .
This is manifested in its ability to self-heal to mechanical perturbations and self-adapt to changes in the drive wavelength.
” The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner , so a speaker acts as a highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions specify the precise shape and dimensions for the waveguide ; the size , shape , and physical properties of the particles ; the positions and orientations of the speakers ; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid .
These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results .
Here again , achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information .
Find the rest here .
I understand that to mean that there is no “ lifelikeness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without “ instructions , ” “ specifications , ” or “ information.
” Or in simple terms , no life , nothing like life , without intelligent design .
That is also Michael Denton ’ s point .

Photo credit: Ravi Roshan via Unsplash.
Jeremy England is a physicist and Orthodox rabbi who has a new book out this month, Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things. I always find England’s writing thoughtful and stimulating, so I am looking forward to reading the book. He has debated on that subject — thermodynamics and the origin of life — with our physicist colleague Brian Miller in the past. Today, Dr. England has a poetic and ingenious article in the Wall Street Journal reflecting on God’s commissioning of Moses to lead the Jews out from Egypt. This caught my attention:
Arguing that God had to have been there at the beginning seemingly would get harder if life’s very existence were to stop looking so miraculous. Yet lately the science appears to point in that direction. As a physicist and Orthodox rabbi, I sit right in the middle of this dilemma. My colleagues and I have shown in our research that “dumb” collections of particles can spontaneously recapitulate impressive behaviors normally associated with life. Such particles simply require the right kind of patterned energy in their environment. In other words, there are a variety of behaviors that life displays — making copies of itself, harvesting energy from its surroundings, predicting its future — that can emerge in initially lifeless and inchoate matter. It’s reasonable to assume this perspective might chip away at my confidence that Scripture has anything accurate, let alone profound, to offer on the origin of life. To my delight and amazement, I have found the opposite to be true.
Interestingly, the “miraculousness” of life, specifically the living cell, is the theme of biologist Michael Denton’s new book that comes out on Monday, The Miracle of the Cell. He discusses the origin of life in Chapter 8. Can, in fact, “‘dumb’ collections of particles…spontaneously recapitulate impressive behaviors normally associated with life”? The key word there is “spontaneously.” That did not sound right to me, but Dr. England’s reading of Scriptural passages in Exodus turns upon the assertion he makes about experimentation in physics. I asked Dr. Miller for his view. Brian replies, “My response article to England on Evolution News specifically addresses this issue and experiment.” Indeed it does:
The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory. A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces the uncertainty in an outcome. In the case of the experiment, the highly specified construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information. The applied information constrains the dynamics (reduces the uncertainty) to effect a specific category of outcomes. It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule. The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide. The particles are agitated by a continuous acoustic pressure exerted by speakers. The particles’ motion and the sound transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone. The researchers reported self-organization and “lifelike” behavior in the bandgap (i.e., range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide): “Remarkably, the lifelike behaviours often observed in non-equilibrium structures are here bestowed to the emergent bandgap itself. This is manifested in its ability to self-heal to mechanical perturbations and self-adapt to changes in the drive wavelength.” The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner, so a speaker acts as a highly calibrated energy converter. And the experimental instructions specify the precise shape and dimensions for the waveguide; the size, shape, and physical properties of the particles; the positions and orientations of the speakers; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid. These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results. Here again, achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information.
Find the rest here. I understand that to mean that there is no “lifelikeness,” as Jeremy England puts it, without “instructions,” “specifications,” or “information.” Or in simple terms, no life, nothing like life, without intelligent design. That is also Michael Denton’s point.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-25--Cancel Darwin? No, But Do Recognize How Evolution Boosted Racism

Cancel culture is becoming surreal .
Or should I say even more surreal ?
Plans are afoot , as I suppose was inevitable , to cancel Charles Darwin , whose famed statue adorns the Natural History Museum in London , and even to throw T.H .
Huxley under the bus for good measure .
“ Exotic birds ” are now judged to be offensive .
What next ?
Kurt Zindulka reports : In response to the iconoclastic Black Lives Matter movement , the Natural History Museum has launched a review into supposedly “ offensive ” and “ problematic ” collections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturalist Charles Darwin .
The review will audit rooms , statues , and items that the executive board deems offensive for possible renaming or removal , to show how “ science , racism , and colonial power were inherently entwined ” .
Documents revealed to The Telegraph from the review state that “ in light of Black Lives Matter and the recent anti-racist demonstrations around the world ” , the Natural History Museum will review “ whether any statues ( or collections ) or could potentially cause offence ” .
The review will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Galapagos Islands , which were instrumental in helping the naturalist form his Theory of Evolution .
A curator of the museum listed the pieces as an example of Britain ’ s many “ colonialist scientific expeditions ” … .
The review team argued that exotic birds collected by Darwin and Caption Robert Fitzroy on the islands served to “ enable greater British control ” throughout South America .
A statue honouring Thomas Henry Huxley — who promoted Darwin ’ s theory of evolution to such an extent that he is known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — has been targeted for removal as well due to his controversial views on race .
Let me be clear .
It ’ s the longstanding position of the Center for Science & Culture that , for all the problems with evolutionary theory , scientific and otherwise , and they are manifold , the right way forward is to teach and educate more about Darwinian evolution not less .
That is the polar opposite of cancel culture .
That having been said , Darwin ’ s science is indeed “ entwined ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost in the 19th and 20th centuries , and on into our own 21st century .
Our historian colleague Richard Weikart discusses just that fact on a new episode of ID the Future , hosted by science historian Michael Keas : The evil of racism was nothing new when Darwin and his evolutionary theory came on the scene , but according to Weikart , racist thinking , increased “ by orders of magnitude ” under the influence of Darwinism and evolutionary thinking , and became mainstream science .
The idea of a Malthusian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be winners and losers in the fight for population survival , and Darwin believed that the best , and inevitable , outcome would be that the supposedly superior European races would overcome the supposedly inferior black Africans .
Canceling history is never the solution .
Nor is canceling science , however burdened with weaknesses .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo: Darwin statute at the Natural History Museum, by Alan Perestrello, via Flickr (cropped).
Cancel culture is becoming surreal. Or should I say even more surreal? Plans are afoot, as I suppose was inevitable, to cancel Charles Darwin, whose famed statue adorns the Natural History Museum in London, and even to throw T. H. Huxley under the bus for good measure. “Exotic birds” are now judged to be offensive. What next? Kurt Zindulka reports:
In response to the iconoclastic Black Lives Matter movement, the Natural History Museum has launched a review into supposedly “offensive” and “problematic” collections, including exotic birds collected by English naturalist Charles Darwin. The review will audit rooms, statues, and items that the executive board deems offensive for possible renaming or removal, to show how “science, racism, and colonial power were inherently entwined”. Documents revealed to The Telegraph from the review state that “in light of Black Lives Matter and the recent anti-racist demonstrations around the world”, the Natural History Museum will review “whether any statues (or collections) or could potentially cause offence”. The review will reportedly include specimens collected by Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands, which were instrumental in helping the naturalist form his Theory of Evolution. A curator of the museum listed the pieces as an example of Britain’s many “colonialist scientific expeditions”…. The review team argued that exotic birds collected by Darwin and Caption Robert Fitzroy on the islands served to “enable greater British control” throughout South America. A statue honouring Thomas Henry Huxley — who promoted Darwin’s theory of evolution to such an extent that he is known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ — has been targeted for removal as well due to his controversial views on race.
Let me be clear. It’s the longstanding position of the Center for Science & Culture that, for all the problems with evolutionary theory, scientific and otherwise, and they are manifold, the right way forward is to teach and educate more about Darwinian evolution not less. That is the polar opposite of cancel culture.
“Entwined” with Racism
That having been said, Darwin’s science is indeed “entwined” with racism, and gave it a major boost in the 19th and 20th centuries, and on into our own 21st century. Our historian colleague Richard Weikart discusses just that fact on a new episode of ID the Future, hosted by science historian Michael Keas:
The evil of racism was nothing new when Darwin and his evolutionary theory came on the scene, but according to Weikart, racist thinking, increased “by orders of magnitude” under the influence of Darwinism and evolutionary thinking, and became mainstream science. The idea of a Malthusian “struggle for existence” meant there must be winners and losers in the fight for population survival, and Darwin believed that the best, and inevitable, outcome would be that the supposedly superior European races would overcome the supposedly inferior black Africans.
Canceling history is never the solution. Nor is canceling science, however burdened with weaknesses. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-25--The Gargoyle’s Challenge — Remembering Schützenberger on Darwinism

Eric Holloway at Mind Matters summarizes very well : In 1966 , an unusual symposium was hosted at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania .
The topic of the symposium was “ Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution ” where mathematicians and engineers presented what they saw as fundamental problems with the theory of evolution .
One of the mathematicians , Marcel-Paul Schützenberger ( 1920–1996 , pictured ) worked closely with Noam Chomsky ( 1928– ) on the intersection between linguistics and computer science .
Schützenberger ’ s fundamental objection to many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as modified by mutations , produces a very simple kind of language .
On the other hand , the organisms and the environment they live within is a very complex domain with very far-ranging interactions .
It seemed implausible to Schützenberger that such a simple structure could match the complexities of the real world to the extent that evolution based on natural selection acting on purely random mutation could produce highly complex new organisms .
Think of the word ladder game , where we transform one word into another by changing only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , each time we change a letter , the new sequence must itself be a valid word .
As an example , here is a word ladder that takes us from the word CAT to the word DOG .
Changing a three-letter word to another three-letter word is easy .
But transforming longer words rapidly becomes more difficult until it becomes impossible .
For example , there is no such transformation possible from the word TRANSMUTATION to the word PERAMBULATION .
And that was Schutzenberger ’ s point with respect to evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can reach .
Yet evolution , as described in approved textbooks , is more like turning TRANSMUTATION into PERAMBULATION than it is like turning CAT into DOG .
So , to justify the theory of evolution , biologists must explain the pathway from the simplest organism to the highly complex organisms of today .
It is not a scientific argument to merely assume that such a transformation is possible , especially when we can see with our example from the word ladder game how quickly a transition becomes impossible merely by changing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders of magnitude ( a great understatement ! )
simpler than transforming one DNA sequence into another .
Schützenberger offered the example of computer programs , which are extremely brittle and even more difficult than transforming English words .
A single character out of place will render an entire computer program invalid and inoperable .
His question is simple : What is it about DNA and evolution that makes the process so much more productive and robust than mutating computer programs or human languages ?
It is even more mysterious if this process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other words without any information regarding the environment nor what would benefit the organism .
As we know , the debate rages today as to whether the way evolution is supposed to have happened is even possible .

Eric Holloway at Mind Matters summarizes very well:
In 1966, an unusual symposium was hosted at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania. The topic of the symposium was “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” where mathematicians and engineers presented what they saw as fundamental problems with the theory of evolution. One of the mathematicians, Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920–1996, pictured) worked closely with Noam Chomsky (1928–) on the intersection between linguistics and computer science.
Schützenberger’s fundamental objection to many claims about evolution is that DNA, as modified by mutations, produces a very simple kind of language. On the other hand, the organisms and the environment they live within is a very complex domain with very far-ranging interactions. It seemed implausible to Schützenberger that such a simple structure could match the complexities of the real world to the extent that evolution based on natural selection acting on purely random mutation could produce highly complex new organisms.
Think of the word ladder game, where we transform one word into another by changing only one letter at a time. The rule is, each time we change a letter, the new sequence must itself be a valid word. As an example, here is a word ladder that takes us from the word CAT to the word DOG.
1. CAT
2. COT
3. COG
4. DOG
Changing a three-letter word to another three-letter word is easy. But transforming longer words rapidly becomes more difficult until it becomes impossible. For example, there is no such transformation possible from the word TRANSMUTATION to the word PERAMBULATION.
And that was Schutzenberger’s point with respect to evolution. There is no ladder that randomness can reach. Yet evolution, as described in approved textbooks, is more like turning TRANSMUTATION into PERAMBULATION than it is like turning CAT into DOG.
So, to justify the theory of evolution, biologists must explain the pathway from the simplest organism to the highly complex organisms of today.
It is not a scientific argument to merely assume that such a transformation is possible, especially when we can see with our example from the word ladder game how quickly a transition becomes impossible merely by changing one word into another. That is many orders of magnitude (a great understatement!) simpler than transforming one DNA sequence into another.
Schützenberger offered the example of computer programs, which are extremely brittle and even more difficult than transforming English words. A single character out of place will render an entire computer program invalid and inoperable. His question is simple: What is it about DNA and evolution that makes the process so much more productive and robust than mutating computer programs or human languages? It is even more mysterious if this process makes the modifications “randomly,” in other words without any information regarding the environment nor what would benefit the organism. As we know, the debate rages today as to whether the way evolution is supposed to have happened is even possible.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-26--Intention, Agency, Even in “Simple” Life Is No Illusion

What does it mean for something to be “ alive ” ?
Here is a classic episode of ID the Future that is very well timed with the release on Monday of Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell .
In the book , Dr. Denton urges readers to watch a short video , “ Neutrophil Chasing Bacteria ” : “ What one witnesses there seems to transcend all our intuitions : A tiny speck of matter , invisible to the naked eye , so small that one hundred of them could be lined up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is seemingly endowed with intention and agency.
” See it here : Is the appearance of “ intention and agency ” on the part of seemingly simple “ specks ” of life an illusion or is it real ?
Biologist Scott Turner sat down with host Robert Crowther to discuss just that question .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Turner , a biologist and physiologist , explains that the appearance is no illusion .
It ’ s very real , a fact from whose profound implications most scientists veil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry .
He is the author most recently of Purpose and Desire : What Makes Something Alive and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed To Explain It .

Photo credit: Maksim Shutov via Unsplash.
What does it mean for something to be “alive”? Here is a classic episode of ID the Future that is very well timed with the release on Monday of Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell. In the book, Dr. Denton urges readers to watch a short video, “Neutrophil Chasing Bacteria”: “What one witnesses there seems to transcend all our intuitions: A tiny speck of matter, invisible to the naked eye, so small that one hundred of them could be lined up across the top of a pin, is seemingly endowed with intention and agency.” See it here:
Is the appearance of “intention and agency” on the part of seemingly simple “specks” of life an illusion or is it real? Biologist Scott Turner sat down with host Robert Crowther to discuss just that question. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Turner, a biologist and physiologist, explains that the appearance is no illusion. It’s very real, a fact from whose profound implications most scientists veil their eyes. Professor Turner teaches at the State University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry. He is the author most recently of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something Alive and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed To Explain It.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-27--Eberlin: “Michael Denton Has Again Sent the Opponents of Cosmic Purpose Scurrying”

Biologist Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell , releases tomorrow !
The great Brazilian @ @ @ @ @ Michael Denton has again sent the opponents of cosmic purpose scurrying .
True , I @ @ @ @ @ that one day we may discover natural laws that would “ save the day ” @ @ @ @ @ life .
We know — experimentally and conceptually — that the meaning of chemical bites @ @ @ @ @ must be free of lawlike constraints for them to express the reams of life-essential information @ @ @ @ @ is much I find to celebrate in Denton ’ s new book .
The Miracle @ @ @ @ @ in vividly illuminating the evidence that the elements of life were selected and exquisitely fine-tuned @ @ @ @ @ and had to be before the first cell could exist .
Here we are confronted @ @ @ @ @ in favor of a powerful genius who foresaw and precisely orchestrated chemistry as a whole @ @ @

Biologist Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell, releases tomorrow! The great Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin comments:
Michael Denton has again sent the opponents of cosmic purpose scurrying. True, I do not share his hope that one day we may discover natural laws that would “save the day” for a naturalistic origin of life. We know — experimentally and conceptually — that the meaning of chemical bites such as CTA equals valine must be free of lawlike constraints for them to express the reams of life-essential information they do. But there is much I find to celebrate in Denton’s new book. The Miracle of the Cell is marvelous in vividly illuminating the evidence that the elements of life were selected and exquisitely fine-tuned by a master intellect, and had to be before the first cell could exist. Here we are confronted with undeniable and definitive findings in favor of a powerful genius who foresaw and precisely orchestrated chemistry as a whole for life.
MARCOS EBERLIN, PHD, MEMBER OF THE BRAZILIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, FOUNDER OF THE THOMSON MASS SPECTROMETRY LABORATORY, WINNER OF THE THOMSON MEDAL (2016), AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL MASS SPECTROMETRY FOUNDATION