evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-16--Against the Tide: John Lennox on Discussions with Dave Rubin, Peter Atkins

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , with Kevin Sorbo , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , and 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
Is there anyone you ’ ve always wanted to debate but haven ’ t had the opportunity ?
Well , the big debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
The atheists don ’ t want them either .
What has happened is , those confrontational debates — 15 minutes , 15 minutes , 10 minutes , 10 minutes , 5 minutes — they are very expensive on time and energy .
My preparation for some of those debates took months , full time .
Now , nobody can afford that if you take it seriously as I do .
But what has come out of all this is the notion of a very well moderated discussion .
And it depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderator .
There are some very good moderators who don ’ t try to participate in the debate , but instead to control it .
And I enjoy those .
I feel we have a very good show in the UK , where I ’ ve appeared .
It ’ s called Unbelievable , and the moderator is Justin Brierley .
Have you heard of it ?
This is a marvelous show .
The most famous one I ’ ve done was with Dave Rubin .
I did it in California last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But I ’ ve done several with him , and the most pugnacious was where I was debating an atheist scientist , [ Oxford University chemist ] Peter Atkins — I mean , talk about going for the jugular .
That would give you a lot of fun .
It ’ s on YouTube .
[ See the videos below . ]
It was at Southampton University .
Talk about pugnacious .
It was unbelievable .
And the show is called Unbelievable !
Let me say , in passing , that show is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions between Christians and atheists that there is in the world .
[ Brierley ] has all the big players on , Americans as well as others .
It is very good .
I was pitched to debate Sam Harris .
That didn ’ t come off .
I ’ m a bit sorry that didn ’ t happen .
That was stymied , I think , by the presidential primaries .
I ’ ve had so many opportunities to do things and interviews about C. S. Lewis and lectures around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege , you see .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, with Kevin Sorbo, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, and 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the documentary’s release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
Is there anyone you’ve always wanted to debate but haven’t had the opportunity?
Well, the big debates have gone. I need to explain that. The atheists don’t want them either. What has happened is, those confrontational debates — 15 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes — they are very expensive on time and energy. My preparation for some of those debates took months, full time. Now, nobody can afford that if you take it seriously as I do.
But what has come out of all this is the notion of a very well moderated discussion. And it depends, of course, crucially on a moderator. There are some very good moderators who don’t try to participate in the debate, but instead to control it. And I enjoy those. I feel we have a very good show in the UK, where I’ve appeared. It’s called Unbelievable, and the moderator is Justin Brierley. Have you heard of it? This is a marvelous show. The most famous one I’ve done was with Dave Rubin. I did it in California last year. That was an amazing one. But I’ve done several with him, and the most pugnacious was where I was debating an atheist scientist, [Oxford University chemist] Peter Atkins — I mean, talk about going for the jugular. That would give you a lot of fun. It’s on YouTube. [See the videos below.] It was at Southampton University. Talk about pugnacious. It was unbelievable. And the show is called Unbelievable! Let me say, in passing, that show is one of the best sources for getting discussions between Christians and atheists that there is in the world. [Brierley] has all the big players on, Americans as well as others. It is very good.
I was pitched to debate Sam Harris. That didn’t come off. I’m a bit sorry that didn’t happen. That was stymied, I think, by the presidential primaries. I’ve had so many opportunities to do things and interviews about C. S. Lewis and lectures around the world. I’ve had a huge privilege, you see.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-16--Amid Covid, the Deadly Cost of Rule by Experts

Here in Washington State , another draconian lockdown against Covid goes into effect at midnight tonight .
It was announced yesterday morning by the governor , backed by an assortment of experts .
As of last night the toilet paper had already been emptied from supermarket shelves .
I ’ ve been shocked at the docile way in which so many Americans have responded to lockdowns , obediently panicking , because “ Follow the science !
” There ’ s a widespread assumption that government officials and public health scientists know what ’ s best and have our best interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really ?
Of course it ’ s the very same assumption at work in the evolution debate , on the part of those who dismiss the suppression of intelligent design dissidents , since as skeptics we ’ ve got it coming to us .
The scientists know !
We can trust them , always .
At Mind Matter , neurosurgeon Michael Egnor offers a scathing and important reminder that the science and government officials may not know what they ’ re doing after all .
And that ’ s the best case scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the New York State Department of Health early in the Covid pandemic .
From , “ Why Did New York Have Covid Policy That Killed Elderly Patients ?
” Why did New York State health authorities and the governor of New York State order nursing homes to admit potentially infectious patients , and order nursing homes to disregard COVID testing as a criterion for admission — in the midst of a pandemic that was known to be exceptionally lethal to elderly people in nursing homes ?
Please note that the directive was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation and not merely permission to overlook COVID status in admissions .
Nursing homes were legally required to admit these patients , and legally prohibited from using COVID tests — even positive COVID tests — as a criterion for refusal of admission .
Dr. Egnor , who himself practices and teaches in a hospital in New York State and has seen the pandemic up close , weighs possible explanations : negligence , incompetence , and triage .
He also considers another : deliberate , motivated action .
Again , he sees several possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for some reason , wanted to maximize the political impact of the pandemic .
Deliberate spread of COVID in nursing homes — nursing homes were known early to be the most deadly incubator of the disease — ran up the death toll enormously .
It probably doubled or tripled it .
It ’ s not what you ’ d do if your motive is to minimize the impact of the pandemic .
If the motive of the state was to maximize fear , panic , and opportunities for lockdowns and crackdowns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most New York residents would not immediately realize that the huge spike in deaths was coming largely from one specific source .
I personally would never underestimate the power of incompetence and confirmation bias to bring about catastrophe .
Humans are incorrigibly incompetent and we see what we want or expect to see .
For Dr. Egnor , the truth of what happened and why remains an open question but he has his suspicions .
Read the rest at Mind Matters .
It is disturbing and , if nothing else , compelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skepticism is warranted .
The Scientists and The Experts do not always know , or do , what is best .

Photo credit: Alexandra Koch via Pixabay.
Here in Washington State, another draconian lockdown against Covid goes into effect at midnight tonight. It was announced yesterday morning by the governor, backed by an assortment of experts. As of last night the toilet paper had already been emptied from supermarket shelves. I’ve been shocked at the docile way in which so many Americans have responded to lockdowns, obediently panicking, because “Follow the science!” There’s a widespread assumption that government officials and public health scientists know what’s best and have our best interests in mind, always. Do they really?
Of course it’s the very same assumption at work in the evolution debate, on the part of those who dismiss the suppression of intelligent design dissidents, since as skeptics we’ve got it coming to us. The scientists know! We can trust them, always.
A Case Study from New York State
At Mind Matter, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor offers a scathing and important reminder that the science and government officials may not know what they’re doing after all. And that’s the best case scenario! His study is of the behavior of the New York State Department of Health early in the Covid pandemic. From, “Why Did New York Have Covid Policy That Killed Elderly Patients?”
Why did New York State health authorities and the governor of New York State order nursing homes to admit potentially infectious patients, and order nursing homes to disregard COVID testing as a criterion for admission — in the midst of a pandemic that was known to be exceptionally lethal to elderly people in nursing homes? Please note that the directive was a legal order, not merely a recommendation and not merely permission to overlook COVID status in admissions. Nursing homes were legally required to admit these patients, and legally prohibited from using COVID tests — even positive COVID tests — as a criterion for refusal of admission.
Several Possible Explanations
Dr. Egnor, who himself practices and teaches in a hospital in New York State and has seen the pandemic up close, weighs possible explanations: negligence, incompetence, and triage. He also considers another: deliberate, motivated action. Again, he sees several possible motives. One is that
The authorities, for some reason, wanted to maximize the political impact of the pandemic. Deliberate spread of COVID in nursing homes — nursing homes were known early to be the most deadly incubator of the disease — ran up the death toll enormously. It probably doubled or tripled it. It’s not what you’d do if your motive is to minimize the impact of the pandemic. If the motive of the state was to maximize fear, panic, and opportunities for lockdowns and crackdowns, this DOH directive would be very effective. Most New York residents would not immediately realize that the huge spike in deaths was coming largely from one specific source.
I personally would never underestimate the power of incompetence and confirmation bias to bring about catastrophe. Humans are incorrigibly incompetent and we see what we want or expect to see. For Dr. Egnor, the truth of what happened and why remains an open question but he has his suspicions. Read the rest at Mind Matters. It is disturbing and, if nothing else, compelling evidence that, as a rule, skepticism is warranted. The Scientists and The Experts do not always know, or do, what is best.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-16--Wesley Smith: An Anti-Human Movement

Wesley Smith: An Anti-Human Movement

On a classic ID the Future episode , bioethicist Wesley J. Smith continues discussing his book and documentary The War @ @ @ @ @ how a good and worthwhile conservation movement is being corrupted into an anti-human movement , @ @ @ @ @ , especially in the developing world and among marginalized people groups .
Download the podcast @ @ @ @ @ .

Photo: Wesley J. Smith, in a scene from The War on Humans, via Discovery Institute.
On a classic ID the Future episode, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith continues discussing his book and documentary The War on Humans. Smith tells how a good and worthwhile conservation movement is being corrupted into an anti-human movement, and how this hurts humans, especially in the developing world and among marginalized people groups. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-17--Tomorrow: Behe Springs a Mousetrap on Darwin

Of all the fake criticisms of intelligent design theorists that have been offered over the years , one of the most ludicrous is that ID scientists don ’ t answer their critics .
The charge has been leveled at , among others , biochemist Michael Behe , author of Darwin ’ s Black Box , The Edge of Evolution , and Darwin Devolves .
Behe has been conducting a decades-long independent scientific audit of the evidence for unguided Darwinian evolution — the best evidence that ’ s said to be available for Darwinism .
Does he ignore challenges to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to believe ?
The critics ?
Or your own eyes ?
Tomorrow , we unveil the latest from Professor Behe , A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics .
It weighs in at 556 pages .
Yes , that ’ s a big book , collecting his past replies , all the answers and rebuttals that are said not to exist .
Dr. Behe is a delightful writer and you will enjoy this .
I ’ ll be sharing with you some thoughts on the book from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here , for example , is famed Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin .
Dr. Eberlin is a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences , among other distinctions : Over the years I have followed Michael Behe ’ s work in building an arsenal of arguments for intelligent design .
And I have followed the desperate attempts of mainstream evolutionists to discredit that work .
I ’ ve found that in their attacks , they have used fallacious logic and zombie science at every turn .
A few of the critiques are superficially persuasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t think too hard about the biochemical details of their evolutionary scenarios .
If you fear to doubt Darwinism , read further at your own peril .
Behe ’ s devastating rebuttals are here in spades .
If , however , you are ready and willing to follow the evidence , take heart : Behe guides us into state-of-the-art biochemistry — and into the case for intelligent design — with elegance , clarity , and good grace .
This collection is a delight .
Why wait till tomorrow ?
Order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

Image source: Discovery Institute.
Of all the fake criticisms of intelligent design theorists that have been offered over the years, one of the most ludicrous is that ID scientists don’t answer their critics. The charge has been leveled at, among others, biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves. Behe has been conducting a decades-long independent scientific audit of the evidence for unguided Darwinian evolution — the best evidence that’s said to be available for Darwinism. Does he ignore challenges to his work?
Well, who are you going to believe? The critics? Or your own eyes?
Tomorrow, we unveil the latest from Professor Behe, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics. It weighs in at 556 pages. Yes, that’s a big book, collecting his past replies, all the answers and rebuttals that are said not to exist. Dr. Behe is a delightful writer and you will enjoy this. I’ll be sharing with you some thoughts on the book from his fellow scientists in days to come. Here, for example, is famed Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin. Dr. Eberlin is a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, among other distinctions:
Over the years I have followed Michael Behe’s work in building an arsenal of arguments for intelligent design. And I have followed the desperate attempts of mainstream evolutionists to discredit that work. I’ve found that in their attacks, they have used fallacious logic and zombie science at every turn. A few of the critiques are superficially persuasive, but they hold up best if you don’t think too hard about the biochemical details of their evolutionary scenarios. If you fear to doubt Darwinism, read further at your own peril. Behe’s devastating rebuttals are here in spades. If, however, you are ready and willing to follow the evidence, take heart: Behe guides us into state-of-the-art biochemistry — and into the case for intelligent design — with elegance, clarity, and good grace. This collection is a delight.
Why wait till tomorrow? Order your copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin today.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-17--Are Galápagos Finches “Evolution in Action”?

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches1 “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts starting today , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Twenty-one years ago the National Academy of Sciences2 published the second edition of a book called Science and Creationism .
This and the following revised editions of 2008 and 20173 are now called Science , Evolution and Creationism.4 The book is widely accepted as an up-to-date guide providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution , defending it as the absolutely true and only scientific and realistic answer on the origin of species .
That is not only for the “ 76 million students enrolled in U.S. schools ” 5 in 2020 .
It is also thought to provide valuable information on the topic for the English-speaking public in general.6 In the second edition , the Galápagos finches ( aka , Darwin ’ s finches ) are addressed as follows ( 1999 , pp .
10/11 ) : A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Galápagos Islands , now known as Darwin ’ s finches .
The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos .
Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats , diets , and behaviors , but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate .
A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches .
Drought diminishes supplies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of plants that produce larger , tougher nuts .
Droughts thus favor birds with strong , wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds , producing populations of birds with these traits .
The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands , a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years .
[ Emphasis added . ]
An accompanying figure seeks to convince the students ad oculus with the note : “ The different species of finches on the Galápagos Islands , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have different-sized beaks that have evolved to take advantage of distinct food sources.
” 7 Let us emphasize especially , as quoted above : “ The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands , a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.
” Hall and Hallgrimsson comment in their textbook ( 2014 , p. 411 ) : “ By documenting evolution in action in natural populations , the work of the Grants has made profound contributions to our understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added ) .
In the words of Cressey in a Nature article of 2009 : “ Darwin ’ s finches ” were “ tracked to reveal evolution in action.
” 9 Or again : “ Evolution in action detected in Darwin ’ s finches.
” 10 Or Sangeet Lamichhaney of Harvard University ( 2020 ) : “ The results indicated that diversity in HMGA2 gene allowed for a rapid evolution of smaller beak size in medium ground finch , thereby providing an evidence of a gene behind ‘ evolution in action ’ recorded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such examples , simply google the phrases “ Galápagos finches ” and “ Evolution in action.
” You will receive many relevant hits .
• The generally used term “ Darwin ’ s finches ” is a paradigm of a misnomer .
See : Frank J. Sulloway ( 1982 ) : Darwin and His Finches : The Evolution of a Legend .
Journal of the History of Biology 15 : 1-53 .
In contrast , the more rarely used but definitely apt term “ Galapagos finches ” is correct as , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The National Academy of Sciences is a private , nonprofit , self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research , dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare .
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863 , the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
” “ Attractive in presentation and authoritative in content , Science and Creationism will be useful to anyone concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers , school boards and administrators , curriculum designers , librarians , teachers , parents , and students.
” https : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230204/ • https : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/ Already in its title the book confuses creationism with intelligent-design theory .
For a longer review of the 1999 edition see http : //www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1131 .
See also Behe , https : //evolutionnews.org/2016/10/philosophical_o/ .
• https : //www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.1089 : “ Whereas Darwin thought that a new species would take a considerable amount of time to appear , Keller says that this paper “ shows how rapidly reproductive isolation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t yet ready to call 5110 ’ s lineage a new species , a term fraught with difficulty for evolutionary biologists .
“ There is no non-arbitrary answer to the question of how many generations should elapse before we declare the reproductively isolated lineage to be a new species , ” they say .
“ For the present it is functioning as a [ separate ] species because its members are breeding only with each other .
”

Image: Darwin's finches, via Wikimedia Commons.
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches1 “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts starting today, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
Twenty-one years ago the National Academy of Sciences2 published the second edition of a book called Science and Creationism. This and the following revised editions of 2008 and 20173 are now called Science, Evolution and Creationism.4 The book is widely accepted as an up-to-date guide providing excellent information on the modern theory of evolution, defending it as the absolutely true and only scientific and realistic answer on the origin of species. That is not only for the “76 million students enrolled in U.S. schools”5 in 2020. It is also thought to provide valuable information on the topic for the English-speaking public in general.6
“A Particularly Compelling Example”
In the second edition, the Galápagos finches (aka, Darwin’s finches) are addressed as follows (1999, pp. 10/11):
A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. [Emphasis added.]
An accompanying figure seeks to convince the students ad oculus with the note: “The different species of finches on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches, have different-sized beaks that have evolved to take advantage of distinct food sources.”7
Let us emphasize especially, as quoted above: “The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.” Hall and Hallgrimsson comment in their textbook (2014, p. 411): “By documenting evolution in action in natural populations, the work of the Grants has made profound contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process”8 (emphasis added).
In the words of Cressey in a Nature article of 2009: “Darwin’s finches” were “tracked to reveal evolution in action.”9 Or again: “Evolution in action detected in Darwin’s finches.”10 Or Sangeet Lamichhaney of Harvard University (2020): “The results indicated that diversity in HMGA2 gene allowed for a rapid evolution of smaller beak size in medium ground finch, thereby providing an evidence of a gene behind ‘evolution in action’ recorded in real time.”11 For more such examples, simply google the phrases “Galápagos finches” and “Evolution in action.” You will receive many relevant hits.
Next, “Galápagos Finches and a Surprising Deletion.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-17--The Solution to Fake News about Intelligent Design

We ’ ve all seen this year how destructive fake news can be in politics .
In science it ’ s just as bad .
How many times have you heard claims like : • Science proves we are nothing but apes .
These kinds of false claims inflict devastating damage .
They drive people to despair , especially young people .
If you are like me , you may sometimes feel utterly powerless in countering this kind of fake news .
But I have good news : We aren ’ t powerless .
There is a great way we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others in the process .
It ’ s called Evolution News and Science Today .
You are reading it right now .
Discovery Institute started this online news outlet back in 2004 to counter all the fake news in the debate over intelligent design .
Since then , the audience for the English version has grown from a few thousand to more than 1.3 million users a year !
Another 60,000 users read our Spanish-language edition , translated for us by a fearless college student in Central America .
Our readership gets unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all-stars like biochemist Michael Behe , geneticist Michael Denton , philosopher Stephen Meyer , astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez , biologists Jonathan Wells and Ann Gauger , paleontologist Günter Bechly , and many more .
We counter fake news news not by complaining , but by providing a positive alternative .
Just a few days ago , a former atheist endorsed Evolution News as the “ best place ” to read about topics relating to science , design , Darwinism , and faith .
Evolution News played a key role in this man ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins .
Wouldn ’ t you like to have an impact on thousands of more people like this man in the coming year ?
You can by becoming a sponsor of Evolution News for 2021 .
Independent journalism costs money , and we don ’ t have deep pockets .
We don ’ t hide our content behind a paywall because we want to influence as many people as possible .
As we are finding out in the rest of society , free speech doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissenting ideas can be heard .
If you and other readers donate just $ 100 a year to sponsor Evolution News , together we can provide hope to more than a million people in 2021 .
Isn ’ t that something worth investing in ?
To thank you for sponsoring Evolution News at any level , we will send you a 16-page preview of Mike Behe ’ s new book , A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics .

Photo credit: Kelly Sikkema via Unsplash.
We’ve all seen this year how destructive fake news can be in politics. In science it’s just as bad. How many times have you heard claims like:
Science proves God doesn’t exist.
Science proves morality is a myth.
Science proves we are nothing but apes.
These kinds of false claims inflict devastating damage. They drive people to despair, especially young people.
If you are like me, you may sometimes feel utterly powerless in countering this kind of fake news. But I have good news: We aren’t powerless. There is a great way we can push back, giving hope to others in the process.
It’s called Evolution News and Science Today. You are reading it right now.
The Voice of Intelligent Design
Discovery Institute started this online news outlet back in 2004 to counter all the fake news in the debate over intelligent design. Since then, the audience for the English version has grown from a few thousand to more than 1.3 million users a year! Another 60,000 users read our Spanish-language edition, translated for us by a fearless college student in Central America.
Our readership gets unique reporting and analysis from an array of all-stars like biochemist Michael Behe, geneticist Michael Denton, philosopher Stephen Meyer, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, biologists Jonathan Wells and Ann Gauger, paleontologist Günter Bechly, and many more.
We counter fake news news not by complaining, but by providing a positive alternative.
A Reader’s Testimony
Just a few days ago, a former atheist endorsed Evolution News as the “best place” to read about topics relating to science, design, Darwinism, and faith. Evolution News played a key role in this man’s rejection of the “scientific” atheism pushed by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins.
Wouldn’t you like to have an impact on thousands of more people like this man in the coming year? You can by becoming a sponsor of Evolution News for 2021.
Independent journalism costs money, and we don’t have deep pockets. We don’t hide our content behind a paywall because we want to influence as many people as possible.
As we are finding out in the rest of society, free speech doesn’t mean much if there is no platform where dissenting ideas can be heard.
If you and other readers donate just $100 a year to sponsor Evolution News, together we can provide hope to more than a million people in 2021.
Isn’t that something worth investing in?
PLEASE DONATE NOW.
To thank you for sponsoring Evolution News at any level, we will send you a 16-page preview of Mike Behe’s new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-18--Behe’s Latest Gives the Lie to Critics’ Accusation

On a new episode of ID the Future , Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe reads from A Mousetrap for Darwin @ @ @ @ @ the case against blind evolution and for intelligent design .
The volume contains some brand @ @ @ @ @ collection of essays he ’ s written over the years in response to critics of @ @ @ @ @ books .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
His pro-Darwin critics have @ @ @ @ @ Some have even claimed he ’ s ignored their objections .
A Mousetrap for Darwin @ @ @ @ @ charge .
Behe has answered his critics , and done so decisively , in everything @ @ @ @ @ and prominent blogs to major science journals .
Listen in as he lays the groundwork @ @ @ @ @ , in his inimitably clear and winsome style .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe reads from A Mousetrap for Darwin, his latest book making the case against blind evolution and for intelligent design. The volume contains some brand new material alongside a substantial collection of essays he’s written over the years in response to critics of his three previous intelligent design books. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
His pro-Darwin critics have jumped all over Behe. Some have even claimed he’s ignored their objections. A Mousetrap for Darwin gives the lie to that charge. Behe has answered his critics, and done so decisively, in everything from the New York Times and prominent blogs to major science journals. Listen in as he lays the groundwork for his fourth fascinating book, in his inimitably clear and winsome style.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-18--Darwin Is on the Roof — New Book from Michael Behe, Available Now

There is a joke about a cat on a roof : A man left his cat with his brother while he went on vacation for a week .
When he came back , he called his brother to see when he could pick the cat up .
The brother hesitated , then said , “ I ’ m so sorry , but while you were away , the cat died.
” The man was very upset and yelled , “ You know , you could have broken the news to me better than that .
When I called today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the roof and wouldn ’ t come down .
Then when I called the next day , you could have said that he had fallen off and the vet was working on patching him up .
Then when I called the third day , you could have said he had passed away.
” The brother thought about it and apologized .
“ She ’ s on the roof and won ’ t come down.
” Jokes when analyzed lose their humor .
At the risking of my bludgeoning this particular joke , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept shocking news when it ’ s given to them in partial steps .
Not , “ The cat is dead , ” but first , “ The cat is on the roof.
” Something like that is going on in the debate about evolution .
As biochemist Michael Behe explains in the Introduction to his new book , out today — A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics — the public is being prepared very slowly for the demise of Darwinian evolutionary theory .
It wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how things are playing out .
All Is Still Well ?
As popular media and biology textbooks present the matter , all is still well with Darwin .
He is on the roof , but safe .
ID scientists , such as that scoundrel Michael Behe , may pose their “ anti-science ” challenges .
However , it is merely a gentle breeze on a cat ’ s fur .
But wait… Actually , the cat ’ s fate has advanced a step beyond that .
Behe writes : Since the turn of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have written books critically evaluating evolutionary theory .
None of them think that Darwin ’ s mechanism is the main driver of life .
It may surprise people who get their information about the state of science from gee-whiz puff pieces in the mainstream media , but , although strong partisans still hold out , the eclipse of Darwinism in the scientific community is well-advanced .
A few years ago the journal Nature published an exchange between two groups of scientists , one defending Darwin and the other saying it ’ s time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice to have defenders , but when an idea has been around for 150 years — wished well by all right-thinking people , investigated to death by the scientific community — and a piece appears in the world ’ s leading science journal saying it ’ s time to move on , then it ’ s time to move on .
The question of course is , move on to what ?
Those books by scientists dissing Darwin offer their own clever ideas , but so far the scientific community isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ideas — self-organization , facilitated variation , symbiosis , complexity theory , and more — are quickly concluded to be nonstarters , to have the same problems as Darwin ’ s theory , or both .
In the absence of an acceptable replacement — and because of its usefulness as a defensive talking point in fending off skepticism from the public — intellectual inertia maintains Darwinism as textbook orthodoxy .
Actually , for Darwinism , the situation is even worse than that .
Books by Behe , and other ID theorists doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , find devastating faults in the theory .
But hold on , the critics have their responses to the ID proponents .
They say Behe never answers their rebuttals !
As a trio of prominent scientist authors , Nathan Lents , Joshua Swamidass , and Richard Lenski , wrote in the journal Science last year in reply Dr. Behe ’ s book Darwin Devolves ( emphasis added ) : • “ Behe…ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled.
” • “ Behe doubles down on his claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by random mutations is exceedingly unlikely because at least two mutations are required , neither of which is beneficial without the other .
His calculations have already been refuted.
” • “ Ultimately , Darwin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because , once again , Behe does not fully engage with it.
” That sounds pretty bad .
He “ ignores ” critics .
He “ double down on his claims ” that “ have already been refuted.
” He fails to “ engage.
” Behe ’ s purported unresponsiveness was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack by Lents et al .
Surely the cat is safe after all .
It is on the operating table .
It may be under veterinary anesthesia but is expected to recover just fine .
Right ?
Unfortunately for Darwin ’ s partisans , no .
Dear Sir or Madam , we regret to inform you of the passing of your pet theory .
Claims that Mike Behe doesn ’ t answer critics are massively refuted now with the publication of his new book .
It is 556 pages of answers to critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customary wit and rigor .
The chapters cover the range of criticisms that have been aimed at his books .
Some , including devastating answers to Lents , Swamidass , and Lenski , were published first by us here at Evolution News .
This giant book is among the strongest indicators yet that the cat is dead .
The public hasn ’ t been informed yet and evolution theory ’ s loyal defenders are in denial .
It ’ s just a matter of time , though .
Michael Behe demonstrates as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your copy now !

Photo credit: Bruce Gendler via Unsplash.
There is a joke about a cat on a roof:
A man left his cat with his brother while he went on vacation for a week. When he came back, he called his brother to see when he could pick the cat up. The brother hesitated, then said, “I’m so sorry, but while you were away, the cat died.” The man was very upset and yelled, “You know, you could have broken the news to me better than that. When I called today, you could have said he was on the roof and wouldn’t come down. Then when I called the next day, you could have said that he had fallen off and the vet was working on patching him up. Then when I called the third day, you could have said he had passed away.” The brother thought about it and apologized. “So how’s Mom?” asked the man. “She’s on the roof and won’t come down.”
Jokes when analyzed lose their humor. At the risking of my bludgeoning this particular joke, the premise here is that people more readily accept shocking news when it’s given to them in partial steps. Not, “The cat is dead,” but first, “The cat is on the roof.” Something like that is going on in the debate about evolution. As biochemist Michael Behe explains in the Introduction to his new book, out today — A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics — the public is being prepared very slowly for the demise of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It wasn’t planned that way, but it is how things are playing out.
All Is Still Well?
As popular media and biology textbooks present the matter, all is still well with Darwin. He is on the roof, but safe. ID scientists, such as that scoundrel Michael Behe, may pose their “anti-science” challenges. However, it is merely a gentle breeze on a cat’s fur.
But wait… Actually, the cat’s fate has advanced a step beyond that. Behe writes:
Since the turn of the millennium a raft of distinguished biologists have written books critically evaluating evolutionary theory. None of them think that Darwin’s mechanism is the main driver of life. It may surprise people who get their information about the state of science from gee-whiz puff pieces in the mainstream media, but, although strong partisans still hold out, the eclipse of Darwinism in the scientific community is well-advanced. A few years ago the journal Nature published an exchange between two groups of scientists, one defending Darwin and the other saying it’s time to move on. It’s nice to have defenders, but when an idea has been around for 150 years — wished well by all right-thinking people, investigated to death by the scientific community — and a piece appears in the world’s leading science journal saying it’s time to move on, then it’s time to move on. The question of course is, move on to what? Those books by scientists dissing Darwin offer their own clever ideas, but so far the scientific community isn’t buying any of them. All the new ideas — self-organization, facilitated variation, symbiosis, complexity theory, and more — are quickly concluded to be nonstarters, to have the same problems as Darwin’s theory, or both. In the absence of an acceptable replacement — and because of its usefulness as a defensive talking point in fending off skepticism from the public — intellectual inertia maintains Darwinism as textbook orthodoxy.
An Independent Audit
Actually, for Darwinism, the situation is even worse than that. Books by Behe, and other ID theorists doing an independent of audit of evolutionary thinking, find devastating faults in the theory.
But hold on, the critics have their responses to the ID proponents. They say Behe never answers their rebuttals! As a trio of prominent scientist authors, Nathan Lents, Joshua Swamidass, and Richard Lenski, wrote in the journal Science last year in reply Dr. Behe’s book Darwin Devolves (emphasis added):
“Behe… ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled .”
the fact that some of his prior arguments have been .” “Behe doubles down on his claim that the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria by random mutations is exceedingly unlikely because at least two mutations are required, neither of which is beneficial without the other. His calculations have already been refuted .”
on his claim that the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria by random mutations is exceedingly unlikely because at least two mutations are required, neither of which is beneficial without the other. His calculations have .” “Ultimately, Darwin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because, once again, Behe does not fully engage with it.”
That sounds pretty bad. He “ignores” critics. He “double down on his claims” that “have already been refuted.” He fails to “engage.” Behe’s purported unresponsiveness was one of the main themes of the attack by Lents et al. Surely the cat is safe after all. It is on the operating table. It may be under veterinary anesthesia but is expected to recover just fine. Right?
Unfortunately for Darwin’s partisans, no. Dear Sir or Madam, we regret to inform you of the passing of your pet theory. Claims that Mike Behe doesn’t answer critics are massively refuted now with the publication of his new book. It is 556 pages of answers to critics, all written with Behe’s customary wit and rigor. The chapters cover the range of criticisms that have been aimed at his books. Some, including devastating answers to Lents, Swamidass, and Lenski, were published first by us here at Evolution News.
This giant book is among the strongest indicators yet that the cat is dead. The public hasn’t been informed yet and evolution theory’s loyal defenders are in denial. It’s just a matter of time, though. Michael Behe demonstrates as much in A Mousetrap for Darwin. Order your copy now!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-19--Galápagos Finches and a Surprising Deletion

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Please find the full series here .
In a post yesterday , I discussed the book Science and Creationism , published by the National Academy of Sciences .
I asked , “ Are Galápagos Finches ‘ Evolution in Action ’ ?
” In the next edition of the book ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evolution and Creationism , I noted something utterly surprising .
This “ particularly compelling example of speciation , ” the profound contributions of Peter and Rosemary Grant to our understanding of the evolutionary process , this example of evolution in action , all of it had now been completely deleted !
But why ?
How could the authors suddenly do this ?
Some of the following points may be considered , based on material from even years before 2008 .
See , for example , Lönnig 1993 , pp .
196/1971 ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2000 ) , pp .
159-176 .
In 2017 , Evolution News reported on the often limitless evolutionary extrapolation from the variation in the Geospizinae ( the subfamily to which the Galápagos finches belong ) to the origin of species and higher systematic categories in general .
See , “ Darwin ’ s Finches : An Icon Gets Retouched.
” Concerning hybridization in the Galápagos finches , see also an article from Science in 2018 , “ Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin ’ s finches.
” Evolution News goes on to say : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ king Sisyphus of Greek mythology , condemned by the gods to roll a stone up a hill that always escapes and rolls back down , requiring him to repeat the cycle forever , Darwin ’ s finches are going nowhere .
So , here ’ s what we know in 2017 about Darwin ’ s finches , one of Jonathan Wells ’ original ten Icons of Evolution .
● Some finches wound up on the Galápagos Islands sometime .
● Darwin captured some on his visit , but never used them to promote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference between them is the size and shape of the beak .
● When the weather is dry , bigger-beaked birds do better .
● When the rain returns , smaller-beaked birds return to previous levels .
● No speciation has occurred .
( This is called “ adaptive radiation.
” ) ● There exists a nebulous idea called “ fitness , ” measured by number of offspring .
● Fitness changes from year to year , as circumstances change .
● Varieties of finches exchange places as “ fittest ” from year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets priority , unless a fitter bird arrives later .
● Nobody can know in advance what bird will stay the fittest for how long .
● The NSF will let you use bacteria as a proxy for birds .
Yes , “ Adaptive radiation is an important evolutionary process , ” just like the paper begins .
Thanks for the money , NSF !
In Zombie Science , Wells points out that in a 1999 pro-evolution booklet for schools , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences called Darwin ’ s finches “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also points out that after 17 years since he exposed the flaws in this evolutionary icon , the “ zombie ” keeps coming back from the dead , reviving and stalking in biology textbooks .
Here , the zombie makes another appearance : research that goes nowhere , proves nothing , and yet pretends that Darwin ’ s finches , despite “ some important caveats , ” provide insight into the origin of species .
It ’ s hard to kill a zombie when the Federal Government funds its handlers .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wells ( 2016 ) , “ Darwin ’ s Finches : The Hype Continues ” : Consider a podcast with Wells , “ Galápagos Finches : A Failed Evolutionary Icon that Won ’ t Go Away.
” You may also wish to consult his book Zombie Science ( 2017 ) , pp .
67-71 .
Next , “ On the ‘ Sisyphean Evolution of Darwin ’ s Finches .
”

Photo: Geospiza fuliginosa, by Cayambe, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
In a post yesterday, I discussed the book Science and Creationism, published by the National Academy of Sciences. I asked, “Are Galápagos Finches ‘Evolution in Action’?” In the next edition of the book (2008/2017), now called Science, Evolution and Creationism, I noted something utterly surprising. This “particularly compelling example of speciation,” the profound contributions of Peter and Rosemary Grant to our understanding of the evolutionary process, this example of evolution in action, all of it had now been completely deleted!
An Evolutionary Icon, Reconsidered
But why? How could the authors suddenly do this? Some of the following points may be considered, based on material from even years before 2008. See, for example, Lönnig 1993, pp. 196/1971; and Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (2000), pp. 159-176. In 2017, Evolution News reported on the often limitless evolutionary extrapolation from the variation in the Geospizinae (the subfamily to which the Galápagos finches belong) to the origin of species and higher systematic categories in general. See, “Darwin’s Finches: An Icon Gets Retouched.”
The birds hybridize. No origin of species has occurred. The varieties of finches are “trapped in an unpredictable cycle of Sisyphean evolution,” according to McKay and Zink, quoted by Jonathan Wells in his new book Zombie Science (pp. 69-70).
Concerning hybridization in the Galápagos finches, see also an article from Science in 2018, “Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s finches.” Evolution News goes on to say:
This means that, like the old king Sisyphus of Greek mythology, condemned by the gods to roll a stone up a hill that always escapes and rolls back down, requiring him to repeat the cycle forever, Darwin’s finches are going nowhere. So, here’s what we know in 2017 about Darwin’s finches, one of Jonathan Wells’ original ten Icons of Evolution. ● Some finches wound up on the Galápagos Islands sometime. ● Darwin captured some on his visit, but never used them to promote his theory. ● The finches can freely hybridize. ● The only major difference between them is the size and shape of the beak. ● When the weather is dry, bigger-beaked birds do better. ● When the rain returns, smaller-beaked birds return to previous levels. ● No speciation has occurred. (This is called “adaptive radiation.”) ● There exists a nebulous idea called “fitness,” measured by number of offspring. ● Fitness changes from year to year, as circumstances change. ● Varieties of finches exchange places as “fittest” from year to year. ● The first arriver gets priority, unless a fitter bird arrives later. ● Nobody can know in advance what bird will stay the fittest for how long. ● The NSF will let you use bacteria as a proxy for birds. Yes, “Adaptive radiation is an important evolutionary process,” just like the paper begins. Thanks for the money, NSF! In Zombie Science, Wells points out that in a 1999 pro-evolution booklet for schools, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences called Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation.” He also points out that after 17 years since he exposed the flaws in this evolutionary icon, the “zombie” keeps coming back from the dead, reviving and stalking in biology textbooks. Here, the zombie makes another appearance: research that goes nowhere, proves nothing, and yet pretends that Darwin’s finches, despite “some important caveats,” provide insight into the origin of species. It’s hard to kill a zombie when the Federal Government funds its handlers. [Emphasis added.]
See also Jonathan Wells (2016), “Darwin’s Finches: The Hype Continues”:
Average beak size increased slightly during one drought, only to return to normal after the rains return. Then average beak size decreased slightly during another drought. A region of DNA is correlated with beak size. And somehow that tells us how finches evolved in the first place? As Winston Churchill might say, “Never in the field of science was so much based by so many on so little.
Consider a podcast with Wells, “Galápagos Finches: A Failed Evolutionary Icon that Won’t Go Away.” You may also wish to consult his book Zombie Science (2017), pp. 67-71.
Next, “On the ‘Sisyphean Evolution of Darwin’s Finches.”
Notes:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-19--On the “Sisyphean Evolution of Darwin’s Finches”

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Please find the full series here .
The evolutionary biologists Bailey McKay ( Chapman Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History ) and Robert Zink ( Bell Museum at the University of Minnesota ) have opposed the general extrapolation to macroevolution .
See their article “ Sisyphean evolution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reviews 90 : 689-698 ; 2014 ) , for which they were awarded the Katma Award .
About the award ceremony we read : They [ McKay and Zink ] present a detailed morphological analysis to complement previous genetic analyses of the six putative species of ground finch in the genus Geospiza that form the Darwin ’ s Finch complex , and report that there is insufficient genetic and morphological divergence among populations to support species-level taxonomic ranks for these finch populations .
Instead , in opposition to deep-rooted conventional thinking by evolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populations of Darwin ’ s finches are “ transient morph ” that have diverged in bill size and body size under strong selection for ability to use local seed resources , but that shifting adaptive landscapes and gene flow among islands constantly erode morphological and genetic differences among populations and thwart speciation .
McKay and Zink call this process of formation and dissolution of locally adapted populations “ Sisyphean evolution ” after the Greek king Sisyphus who was condemned to roll a boulder toward the top of a hill only to have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McKay and Zink make a strong case that there is only one species of ground finch , and that rather than unveiling the process of speciation , the Darwin ’ s Finch case study shows that local adaptation and morphological divergence under the influence of natural selection are not sufficient to initiate speciation.1 [ Emphasis added . ]
The authors themselves note in their contribution ( 2014 , p. 689 ) : We argue that instead of providing an icon of insular speciation and adaptive radiation , which is featured in nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ground finch represents a potentially more interesting phenomenon , one of transient morphs trapped in an unpredictable cycle of Sisyphean evolution .
Instead of revealing details of the origin of species , the mechanisms underlying the transient occurrence of ecomorphs provide one of the best illustrations of the antagonistic effects of natural selection2 and introgression .
As for genetics , see Michael J. Behe in 2019 : Standing variation consists of the mutant genes that are already present in a population and can be called upon by natural selection to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , obviating the need for a new mutation .
For example , the most highly selected mutant gene associated with thick-versus thin-beaked Galápagos finches did not first arise when Peter and Rosemary Grant were studying the finches in the 1970s .
It actually arose about a million years ago and has been present in the group ever since .
…For example , that mutant protein that is most strongly associated with thin- versus thick-beak genes in Darwin ’ s finches , ALX1 , has only two changed amino acid residues out of 326 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both of those are predicted by computer analysis to be damaging to the protein ’ s function .
Yet , apparently no better solution to the task of changing finch beak shape has come along in a million years , even though an enormous number of mutations would be expected to occur in the bird population during that time .
Why not ?
Well , consider that an army platoon that takes an unoccupied hill has a much easier task than an opposing force that later wants to displace them .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the quick and dirty mutations have already been established .
So , in order to supplant them a new mutation would have to be better right away than the fixed ones .
That is , its selection coefficient compared to mutation-free ALX1 would have to be greater than the damaging ones .
There is no known correlation , however , between the strength of the selection coefficient and whether a mutation is constructive or degradative .
Thus , we have no reason to think standing variation would be supplanted.3 For more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ALX1 may play a key role in beak morphology .
Two haplotypes4 for this gene are observed within the different species of finches .
The B haplotype is almost exclusively found in individuals with a blunt beak while the P haplotype is neatly associated with individuals having a peaked beak .
There are 335 fixed differences aggregated in the vicinity of the gene between B and P haplotypes including 2 missense mutations at positions 112 and 211 .
In the medium ground finch , Geospiza fortis , which exhibits high intraspecies variation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported but a significant association with beak shape has also been observed .
These scientific data are followed by the myth : “ Finch beak morphology observed on the Galápagos Islands was used by Charles Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution.
” See Jonathan Wells against this nonsense !
From Zombie Science ( 2017 ) , p. 67 : Although the Galápagos finches had little impact on Darwin ’ s thinking [ he doesn ’ t even mention them in The Origin of Species ] , biologists who studied them a century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finches ” and invented the myth that Darwin had correlated differences in the finches ’ beaks with different food sources ( he hadn ’ t ) .
According to the myth , Darwin was inspired by the finches to formulate his theory of evolution , though according to historian of science Frank Sulloway “ nothing could be further from the truth.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Next , “ A Paradigm of the Limits of Natural Selection ?
” • Strangely enough , the authors themselves try to explain even this example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection .
See for relativization of the selection , Lönnig , http : //www.weloennig.de/OmnipotentImpotentNaturalSelection.pdf .
Anyway , in this example , too , natural selection is by no means as strict as it is repeatedly claimed : “ The connection between beak shapes and feeding ecology in birds was much weaker and more complex than we expected and that while there is definitely a relationship there , many species with similarly shaped beaks forage in entirely different ways and on entirely different kinds of food ” ( emphasis added ) .
http : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finch species possessed different beak shapes to obtain different foods was central to the theory of evolution by natural selection , and it has been assumed that this form-function relationship holds true across all species of bird….However , a new study published in the journal Evolution suggests the beaks of birds are not as adapted to the food types they feed on as it is generally believed.
” Behe : “ Truth is , birds use their beaks for many functions besides just picking food — essentially , everything .
Linking beak shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How could such a myth survive for so long ?
Answer : by assumption , without empirical rigor.
” https : //evolutionnews.org/2019/02/a-theory-in-crisis-darwinian-anomalies-accumulate/ • https : //evolutionnews.org/2019/03/response-to-my-lehigh-colleagues-part-2/ .
https : //evolutionnews.org/2018/12/2-of-our-top- stories-of-2018-behes-darwin-devolves-topples-foundational-claim-of-evolution/ .
As for the many functions of the ALX1 gene , see https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALX1 and https : //www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl ?
gene=ALX1 .
https : //www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P0DMV5 .
Some points from the original article ( abstract ) : “ We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation .
Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry .
A 240 kilobase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a transcription factor affecting craniofacial development is strongly associated with beak shape diversity across Darwin ’ s finch species as well as within the medium ground finch ( Geospiza fortis ) , a species that has undergone rapid evolution of beak shape in response to environmental changes .
The ALX1 haplotype has contributed to diversification of beak shapes among the Darwin ’ s finches and , thereby , to an expanded utilization of food resources ” ( emphasis added ) .
https : //www.nature.com/articles/nature14181 .
“ …ALX1 , has only two changed amino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wild type protein .
Both of those are predicted by computer analysis to be damaging to the protein ’ s function ” ( emphasis added ) .
• “ A haplotype is a group of genes within an organism that was inherited together from a single parent .
The word ‘ haplotype ’ is derived from the word ‘ haploid , ’ which describes cells with only one set of chromosomes , and from the word ‘ genotype , ’ which refers to the genetic makeup of an organism .
A haplotype @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together from one parent on one chromosome , or it can describe all of the genes on a chromosome that were inherited together from a single parent .
This group of genes was inherited together because of genetic linkage , or the phenomenon by which genes that are close to each other on the same chromosome are often inherited together .
In addition , the term ‘ haplotype ’ can also refer to the inheritance of a cluster of single nucleotide polymorphisms ( SNPs ) , which are variations at single positions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //www.nature.com/scitable/definition/haplotype-haplotypes-142/ .
https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype .
The simplest but still imperfect definition : “ Haplotype : a set of genetic determinants located on a single chromosome .
”

Photo: Darwin's finch, by Victor Gleim, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
The evolutionary biologists Bailey McKay (Chapman Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History) and Robert Zink (Bell Museum at the University of Minnesota) have opposed the general extrapolation to macroevolution. See their article “Sisyphean evolution of Darwin’s finches” (Biological Reviews 90: 689-698; 2014), for which they were awarded the Katma Award. About the award ceremony we read:
They [McKay and Zink] present a detailed morphological analysis to complement previous genetic analyses of the six putative species of ground finch in the genus Geospiza that form the Darwin’s Finch complex, and report that there is insufficient genetic and morphological divergence among populations to support species-level taxonomic ranks for these finch populations. Instead, in opposition to deep-rooted conventional thinking by evolutionary biologists, McKay and Zink propose that populations of Darwin’s finches are “transient morph” that have diverged in bill size and body size under strong selection for ability to use local seed resources, but that shifting adaptive landscapes and gene flow among islands constantly erode morphological and genetic differences among populations and thwart speciation. McKay and Zink call this process of formation and dissolution of locally adapted populations “Sisyphean evolution” after the Greek king Sisyphus who was condemned to roll a boulder toward the top of a hill only to have it inevitably slide back to where it began. McKay and Zink make a strong case that there is only one species of ground finch, and that rather than unveiling the process of speciation, the Darwin’s Finch case study shows that local adaptation and morphological divergence under the influence of natural selection are not sufficient to initiate speciation.1 [Emphasis added.]
The authors themselves note in their contribution (2014, p. 689):
We argue that instead of providing an icon of insular speciation and adaptive radiation, which is featured in nearly every textbook on evolutionary biology, Darwin’s ground finch represents a potentially more interesting phenomenon, one of transient morphs trapped in an unpredictable cycle of Sisyphean evolution. Instead of revealing details of the origin of species, the mechanisms underlying the transient occurrence of ecomorphs provide one of the best illustrations of the antagonistic effects of natural selection2 and introgression.
Behe Addresses the Genetics
As for genetics, see Michael J. Behe in 2019:
Standing variation consists of the mutant genes that are already present in a population and can be called upon by natural selection to help a species adapt to changed environmental circumstances, obviating the need for a new mutation. For example, the most highly selected mutant gene associated with thick-versus thin-beaked Galápagos finches did not first arise when Peter and Rosemary Grant were studying the finches in the 1970s. It actually arose about a million years ago and has been present in the group ever since. …For example, that mutant protein that is most strongly associated with thin- versus thick-beak genes in Darwin’s finches, ALX1, has only two changed amino acid residues out of 326 compared to the wild type protein. Both of those are predicted by computer analysis to be damaging to the protein’s function. Yet, apparently no better solution to the task of changing finch beak shape has come along in a million years, even though an enormous number of mutations would be expected to occur in the bird population during that time. Why not? Well, consider that an army platoon that takes an unoccupied hill has a much easier task than an opposing force that later wants to displace them. Similarly, a likely big factor in finch evolution is that the quick and dirty mutations have already been established. So, in order to supplant them a new mutation would have to be better right away than the fixed ones. That is, its selection coefficient compared to mutation-free ALX1 would have to be greater than the damaging ones. There is no known correlation, however, between the strength of the selection coefficient and whether a mutation is constructive or degradative. Thus, we have no reason to think standing variation would be supplanted.3
For more information, see here:
Variations in ALX1 may play a key role in beak morphology. Two haplotypes4 for this gene are observed within the different species of finches. The B haplotype is almost exclusively found in individuals with a blunt beak while the P haplotype is neatly associated with individuals having a peaked beak. There are 335 fixed differences aggregated in the vicinity of the gene between B and P haplotypes including 2 missense mutations at positions 112 and 211. In the medium ground finch, Geospiza fortis, which exhibits high intraspecies variation in beak shape, both haplotypes have been reported but a significant association with beak shape has also been observed.
The Finch Beak Myth
These scientific data are followed by the myth: “Finch beak morphology observed on the Galápagos Islands was used by Charles Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution.” See Jonathan Wells against this nonsense! From Zombie Science (2017), p. 67:
Although the Galápagos finches had little impact on Darwin’s thinking [he doesn’t even mention them in The Origin of Species], biologists who studied them a century later called them “Darwin’s finches” and invented the myth that Darwin had correlated differences in the finches’ beaks with different food sources (he hadn’t). According to the myth, Darwin was inspired by the finches to formulate his theory of evolution, though according to historian of science Frank Sulloway “nothing could be further from the truth.” [Emphasis added.]
Next, “A Paradigm of the Limits of Natural Selection?”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-19--Against the Tide: Lennox on Filming in Israel

Yes , folks , it opens tonight !
Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , with actor Kevin Sorbo , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , and 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
Against the Tide was filmed in Oxford but also , in its second half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose those locations in Israel ?
Is there a favorite one that you particularly enjoyed ?
I didn ’ t chose the locations .
The film ’ s director at that stage , Iain Morris , is a very gifted person .
He ’ s a musician , and a writer , and he taught English earlier .
The locations were really determined by the issues we wanted to discuss .
I think my very first visit to that part of the world [ Israel ] occurred in 1966 .
There are two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called Garden Tomb , where we did some filming , although that was not the place of the tomb of Jesus from an archeological perspective .
But it gives an idea .
And it was such a thrill to go back .
My first visit was very unusual .
When we got out there , three of us as students from Cambridge , we drove a very small car around Israel .
And the guardian of that tomb area discovered we were living in a hotel that had a very bad reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to get out of there right away !
” And there was a tiny little shed in that garden and he gave it to us .
It was so narrow that we could put three camp beds beside each other , and that filled it completely .
For nearly two weeks , we lived in that garden .
And it is a very special memory .
The other thing was Galilee .
I find that the so-called holy sites turn me off because of all the religious excrescences and all this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And people lose the Christian message .
But Galilee is refreshing — the topography , the hills , and above all , being by the lake .
Those scenes by the lake evoked a lot of memory for me .
I ’ ve only been there twice actually in my life so it ’ s not that I have visited a great deal .

Yes, folks, it opens tonight! Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, with actor Kevin Sorbo, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, and 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the documentary’s release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News. Against the Tide was filmed in Oxford but also, in its second half, in Israel.
How did you chose those locations in Israel? Is there a favorite one that you particularly enjoyed?
I didn’t chose the locations. The film’s director at that stage, Iain Morris, is a very gifted person. He’s a musician, and a writer, and he taught English earlier. The locations were really determined by the issues we wanted to discuss. I think my very first visit to that part of the world [Israel] occurred in 1966. There are two places I remembered most. One was the so-called Garden Tomb, where we did some filming, although that was not the place of the tomb of Jesus from an archeological perspective. But it gives an idea. And it was such a thrill to go back. My first visit was very unusual. When we got out there, three of us as students from Cambridge, we drove a very small car around Israel. And the guardian of that tomb area discovered we were living in a hotel that had a very bad reputation and he said “You’ve got to get out of there right away!” And there was a tiny little shed in that garden and he gave it to us. It was so narrow that we could put three camp beds beside each other, and that filled it completely. For nearly two weeks, we lived in that garden. And it is a very special memory.
The other thing was Galilee. I find that the so-called holy sites turn me off because of all the religious excrescences and all this kind of thing — the commercialization of it. And people lose the Christian message. But Galilee is refreshing — the topography, the hills, and above all, being by the lake. Those scenes by the lake evoked a lot of memory for me. I’ve only been there twice actually in my life so it’s not that I have visited a great deal.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-19--Vacuous Attacks from Brilliant Scientists: Behe Will Discuss in a Webinar, Saturday, November 21

Darwin ’ s Black Box thrust Michael Behe to the forefront of the intelligent design movement .
The Lehigh University biochemist has haunted the dreams of Darwinists ever since .
Each of his three books sparked a firestorm of criticism , in everything from the New York Times and the journal Science to the private blogs of professional atheists .
Over the years , Behe has had a delightful time rebutting each attack , and now his responses are collected in a single volume entitled A Mousetrap for Darwin .
We are excited to celebrate the official release of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Behe himself , who will speak about the content of this new volume and answer audience questions .
Register here to join us online on Saturday , November 21 , 10:00 am Pacific time .
See also , “ Darwin Is on the Roof — New Book from Michael Behe , Available Now.
” The book ’ s title alludes to Behe ’ s homey illustration for his idea of irreducible complexity .
A mousetrap with a missing part doesn ’ t work just a little worse .
It doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the bacterial flagellum pictured on the cover of the new collection .
Ditto for an array of other ingenious molecular biological machines discovered in recent years .
Can mindless evolutionary processes arrange biochemical parts into these complex functional wholes one small step at a time ?
Behe argues that a raft of new evidence — from the study of evolving microbes to the mutations in animals from dogs to polar bears — suggests that blind evolution can not .
Rather , Darwin ’ s mechanism works principally by breaking things for short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build anything fundamentally new .
What does ?
Intelligent design .
According to Behe , one of the most powerful arguments that he is on the right track is the sheer vacuity of the attacks leveled against him , many offered by undeniably brilliant scientists .
But are those criticisms really as empty as he thinks , or has Behe met his match ?
Look for A Mousetrap for Darwin on Amazon now and decide for yourself !
For more information on Professor Behe and his prior publications , visit michaelbehe.com .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Darwin’s Black Box thrust Michael Behe to the forefront of the intelligent design movement. The Lehigh University biochemist has haunted the dreams of Darwinists ever since. Each of his three books sparked a firestorm of criticism, in everything from the New York Times and the journal Science to the private blogs of professional atheists. Over the years, Behe has had a delightful time rebutting each attack, and now his responses are collected in a single volume entitled A Mousetrap for Darwin.
We are excited to celebrate the official release of the book this weekend with a webinar featuring Dr. Behe himself, who will speak about the content of this new volume and answer audience questions. Register here to join us online on Saturday, November 21, 10:00 am Pacific time.
See also, “Darwin Is on the Roof — New Book from Michael Behe, Available Now.”
Behe’s Homey Illustration
The book’s title alludes to Behe’s homey illustration for his idea of irreducible complexity. A mousetrap with a missing part doesn’t work just a little worse. It doesn’t work at all. The same goes for the bacterial flagellum pictured on the cover of the new collection. Ditto for an array of other ingenious molecular biological machines discovered in recent years. Can mindless evolutionary processes arrange biochemical parts into these complex functional wholes one small step at a time? Behe argues that a raft of new evidence — from the study of evolving microbes to the mutations in animals from dogs to polar bears — suggests that blind evolution cannot. Rather, Darwin’s mechanism works principally by breaking things for short term benefit. It doesn’t build anything fundamentally new.
Has Behe Met His Match?
What does? Intelligent design. According to Behe, one of the most powerful arguments that he is on the right track is the sheer vacuity of the attacks leveled against him, many offered by undeniably brilliant scientists. But are those criticisms really as empty as he thinks, or has Behe met his match? Look for A Mousetrap for Darwin on Amazon now and decide for yourself!
For more information on Professor Behe and his prior publications, visit michaelbehe.com. More information about the webinar is here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-20--In the Evolution Debate, How Truth Can Prevail

In 1950 , sociologist Paul Kecskemeti described how totalitarian regimes control mass communications to ensure that the public only has access to their view of reality : Although a public opinion as we understand it can not exist in totalitarian states , its place is taken by an official image of the world expressed through the media of mass communications .
The individual may not believe this image to be true , and indeed often tries to look beyond it , since he sees it as an effort of the bureaucracy to control him .
Nevertheless , he usually is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want of something better and partly because of the power he knows stands behind it .
For in the totalitarian state both safety and advancement depend upon conformity , and the mass media provide the model with which the individual has to conform .
Kecskemeti ’ s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design in biology .
Those who control the centers of power in secular nations largely see the world through the lens of scientific materialism , which assumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blind forces of nature , chance , and time .
They might not fully accept that philosophy privately , but they operate within that framework publicly .
And , those who wish to advance in most academic settings must think and behave within the confines of scientific materialism lest they face enormous opposition from the enforcers commissioned to destroy their reputations and careers ( here , here , here , here , here ) .
A primary means of regulating public opinion by any autocratic institution is controlling mass communications ( e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources of information such as educational curricula , religious instruction , and academic journals .
In most secular nations those promoting the scientific status quo have nearly absolute control over official information outlets , and those who question that life is solely the product of undirected chemistry and physics are consistently misrepresented and vilified .
I have been struck by how most who reject intelligent design arguments have little or no understanding of the arguments or the underlying science .
Instead , they simply parrot the same empty sound bites , almost verbatim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news outlets .
When I ask people what they consider to be the most compelling evidence for an undirected origin of life and its subsequent evolution , they typically respond with examples that are either scientifically outdated ( here , here ) , factually inaccurate ( here , here , here , here ) , or founded on circular reasoning ( here , here ) .
Many are stunned to learn the stark contrast between what they were told and what the evidence demonstrates is actually true ( here , here , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the misinformation rarely had ill intent .
They were simply passing down a secular faith tradition that was passed down to them , which perpetuates the cycle of thought control .
Yet , hope still remains , for truth has the power to prevail if it can gain a hearing .
Therein lies one of the greatest threats to any totalitarian system : namely a free press .
Oppressive institutions fear that those under their sway will hear alternative viewpoints , for their ideas can only be sustained in an echo chamber , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason , Evolution News , for which I have the pleasure of writing , has proven to be an invaluable tool in disseminating the truth .
Readers around the world — 1.3 million users every year now — see it as a central source for accurate information regarding the true state of scientific theories and the ever-growing evidence for design in nature .
The articles here have been translated into other languages , as well , so their influence is spreading in ways that we can only imagine .
Would you please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going strong in 2021 ?
As the year approaches its close , now is the time .
We need you .
Please partner with us as we continue to present the truth around the world !

Photo: Mural portrait of Charles Darwin, Sidney Street, Sheffield cc-by-sa/2.0 © Neil Theasby via Geograph.
In 1950, sociologist Paul Kecskemeti described how totalitarian regimes control mass communications to ensure that the public only has access to their view of reality:
Although a public opinion as we understand it cannot exist in totalitarian states, its place is taken by an official image of the world expressed through the media of mass communications. The individual may not believe this image to be true, and indeed often tries to look beyond it, since he sees it as an effort of the bureaucracy to control him. Nevertheless, he usually is forced to accept it, partly for want of something better and partly because of the power he knows stands behind it. For in the totalitarian state both safety and advancement depend upon conformity, and the mass media provide the model with which the individual has to conform.
Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design in biology. Those who control the centers of power in secular nations largely see the world through the lens of scientific materialism, which assumes that everything is the product of the blind forces of nature, chance, and time. They might not fully accept that philosophy privately, but they operate within that framework publicly. And, those who wish to advance in most academic settings must think and behave within the confines of scientific materialism lest they face enormous opposition from the enforcers commissioned to destroy their reputations and careers (here, here, here, here, here).
Regulating Public Opinion
A primary means of regulating public opinion by any autocratic institution is controlling mass communications (e.g., newspapers and television) and other official sources of information such as educational curricula, religious instruction, and academic journals. In most secular nations those promoting the scientific status quo have nearly absolute control over official information outlets, and those who question that life is solely the product of undirected chemistry and physics are consistently misrepresented and vilified.
I have been struck by how most who reject intelligent design arguments have little or no understanding of the arguments or the underlying science. Instead, they simply parrot the same empty sound bites, almost verbatim, that are constantly repeated in official news outlets. When I ask people what they consider to be the most compelling evidence for an undirected origin of life and its subsequent evolution, they typically respond with examples that are either scientifically outdated (here, here), factually inaccurate (here, here, here, here), or founded on circular reasoning (here, here). Many are stunned to learn the stark contrast between what they were told and what the evidence demonstrates is actually true (here,here, here). Those who presented them with the misinformation rarely had ill intent. They were simply passing down a secular faith tradition that was passed down to them, which perpetuates the cycle of thought control.
Hope Still Remains
Yet, hope still remains, for truth has the power to prevail if it can gain a hearing. Therein lies one of the greatest threats to any totalitarian system: namely a free press. Oppressive institutions fear that those under their sway will hear alternative viewpoints, for their ideas can only be sustained in an echo chamber, constantly reinforcing the party line. For that reason, Evolution News, for which I have the pleasure of writing, has proven to be an invaluable tool in disseminating the truth. Readers around the world — 1.3 million users every year now — see it as a central source for accurate information regarding the true state of scientific theories and the ever-growing evidence for design in nature. The articles here have been translated into other languages, as well, so their influence is spreading in ways that we can only imagine.
Would you please consider donating to help keep Evolution News going strong in 2021? As the year approaches its close, now is the time. We need you. Please partner with us as we continue to present the truth around the world!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-20--Does Behe Ignore Critics? Find Out in a Live Webinar Saturday

As he summarizes in the recent video presentation below , Michael Behe in his books argues for two propositions : • “ Darwin ’ s mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the molecular structure of life.
” One of the weirdly persistent themes in attacks on him by other biologists is that he “ waves away ” opposing interpretations .
“ Behe waves away evidence ” for contrary views , as biologist Kenneth Miller said in a 2007 review of The Edge of Evolution in the journal Nature .
Sean Carroll , in the journal Science , demanded , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know this body of data ?
Or does he just choose to ignore it ?
” Paul Gross in The New Criterion complained that Behe “ ignor [ es ] important conflicting material in the primary literature.
” Is that true ?
Hardly !
But don ’ t believe me .
The proof is Behe ’ s new book , the 556-page A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics , collecting old and new replies to the likes of , well , Kenneth Miller , Sean Carroll , Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us tomorrow , Saturday , November 21 , at 10 am Pacific time , to celebrate the release of Professor Behe ’ s book .
He ’ ll discuss what ’ s in it , what ’ s new , what ’ s old , and what it all means for the debate about biological origins .
More information about the webinar is here .
And here is where you go to register — which you must do to participate .
Yes , he will be taking questions and challenges from the audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 hours away !
For your Behe fix in the meantime , enjoy this new video : The Lehigh University biochemist discusses “ Biological Truth & Myth : Insights from the Foundation of Life.
” Enjoy !
And we will see you tomorrow .

Photo: Michael Behe discusses “Biological Truth & Myth: Insights from the Foundation of Life" (screenshot).
As he summarizes in the recent video presentation below, Michael Behe in his books argues for two propositions:
“Darwin’s mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the molecular structure of life.”
“A firm conclusion of purposeful design is empirically justified.”
One of the weirdly persistent themes in attacks on him by other biologists is that he “waves away” opposing interpretations. “Behe waves away evidence” for contrary views, as biologist Kenneth Miller said in a 2007 review of The Edge of Evolution in the journal Nature. Sean Carroll, in the journal Science, demanded, “Is it possible that Behe does not know this body of data? Or does he just choose to ignore it?” Paul Gross in The New Criterion complained that Behe “ignor[es] important conflicting material in the primary literature.”
Is that true? Hardly! But don’t believe me. The proof is Behe’s new book, the 556-page A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics, collecting old and new replies to the likes of, well, Kenneth Miller, Sean Carroll, Paul Gross, and many others. Join us tomorrow, Saturday, November 21, at 10 am Pacific time, to celebrate the release of Professor Behe’s book. He’ll discuss what’s in it, what’s new, what’s old, and what it all means for the debate about biological origins.
More information about the webinar is here. And here is where you go to register — which you must do to participate. Yes, he will be taking questions and challenges from the audience, live. That’s just 24 hours away! For your Behe fix in the meantime, enjoy this new video:
The Lehigh University biochemist discusses “Biological Truth & Myth: Insights from the Foundation of Life.” Enjoy! And we will see you tomorrow.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-20--Galápagos Finches —  A Paradigm of the Limits of Natural Selection?

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Please find the full series here .
So , may the Galápagos finches even be called a paradigm of the limits of natural selection ?
My answer : The “ Darwin ” finches — those “ iconic birds whose facial variations have become a classic example of Charles Darwin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nala Rogers in Nature 2016 ) 1 — can indeed be seen as a prime example of the limits of natural selection , or “ Sisyphean evolution ” according to McKay and Zink .
They are not , per the National Academy of Sciences , a “ particularly convincing example for speciation.
” In this context I will mention that there is another phenomenon , at the DNA level , where natural selection fails almost completely as an explanation .
The authors Lamichhaney et al .
report ( 2015 , p. 371 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 45 million variable sites [ SNPs ] within or between populations ” ( emphasis added ) .2 What are SNPs , or single-nucleotide polymorphism ?
A single-nucleotide polymorphism ( SNP ; /snɪp/ ; plural /snɪps/ ) is a substitution of a single nucleotide at a specific position in the genome , that is present in a sufficiently large fraction of the population ( e.g .
1 % or more ) .
For example , at a specific base position in the human genome , the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the position is occupied by an A .
This means that there is a SNP at this specific position , and the two possible nucleotide variations — C or A — are said to be the alleles for this specific position.3 In my book on the relevance of dog breeds for the theory of macroevolution , I noted the following about the SNPs ( text adapted from my book ) : Regarding the “ approximately 45 million variable sites [ SNPs ] within or between populations ” in the Galápagos finches alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection question .
The synthetic theory of evolution ( = neo-Darwinism ) , which dogmatically postulated that all biological changes be controlled and directed by natural selection ( including , of course , the molecular genetic level ) , has been clearly refuted by two important molecular points : ( 1 ) The number of SNPs ( single-nucleotide polymorphisms ) with approximately 45 million in the Galápagos finches exceed anything that could be imagined even up to a few years ago in terms of variation .
For there is no natural selection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to controlling this totally unexpected , overwhelmingly enormous amount of variation .
( 2 ) The same applies to the CNPs , which may number in the thousands , but for which I do not yet have an exact number .
Some additional points are here ( 2017 , p. 1 ) : And note here in Science ( 2016 , p. 470 ) : Well , “ a strong selective disadvantage ” may be at odds with the idea of slow and smooth evolution as generally postulated by the synthetic theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other revealing points are noted by Nala Rogers : By analysing DNA from medium ground finches that lived around the time of the drought , the researchers found that the large-beak HMGA2 variant was more common in birds that starved to death , while the small-beak variant was more common in birds that survived .
This genetic shift is likely responsible for some of the reduction in beak size , the researchers say .
[ Emphasis added . ]
• Sangeet Lamichhaney , Jonas Berglund , Markus Sällman Almén , Khurram Maqbool , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Promerová , Carl-Johan Rubin , Chao Wang , Neda Zamani , B. Rosemary Grant , Peter R. Grant , Matthew T. Webster & Leif Andersson ( 2015 ) : Evolution of Darwin ’ s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing .
Nature518:371-375 .
In this paper I could not find the differentiation between the numbers of SNPs und CNVs ( the possibly thousands of CNVs may have been included there ) .

Photo: Geospiza fortis, by putneymark via Wikimedia Commons (cropped).
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
So, may the Galápagos finches even be called a paradigm of the limits of natural selection? My answer: The “Darwin” finches — those “iconic birds whose facial variations have become a classic example of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection” (Nala Rogers in Nature 2016)1 — can indeed be seen as a prime example of the limits of natural selection, or “Sisyphean evolution” according to McKay and Zink. They are not, per the National Academy of Sciences, a “particularly convincing example for speciation.”
Also Beyond Natural Selection
In this context I will mention that there is another phenomenon, at the DNA level, where natural selection fails almost completely as an explanation. The authors Lamichhaney et al. report (2015, p. 371): “Stringent variant calling revealed approximately 45 million variable sites [SNPs] within or between populations” (emphasis added).2 What are SNPs, or single-nucleotide polymorphism?
A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP; /snɪp/; plural /snɪps/) is a substitution of a single nucleotide at a specific position in the genome, that is present in a sufficiently large fraction of the population (e.g. 1% or more). For example, at a specific base position in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A. This means that there is a SNP at this specific position, and the two possible nucleotide variations — C or A — are said to be the alleles for this specific position.3
Dog Breeds and Darwin Finches
In my book on the relevance of dog breeds for the theory of macroevolution, I noted the following about the SNPs (text adapted from my book):
Regarding the “approximately 45 million variable sites [SNPs] within or between populations” in the Galápagos finches alone, the following can be said about the selection question. The synthetic theory of evolution (= neo-Darwinism), which dogmatically postulated that all biological changes be controlled and directed by natural selection (including, of course, the molecular genetic level), has been clearly refuted by two important molecular points: (1) The number of SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) with approximately 45 million in the Galápagos finches exceed anything that could be imagined even up to a few years ago in terms of variation. For there is no natural selection, however strict, that could even come close to controlling this totally unexpected, overwhelmingly enormous amount of variation. (2) The same applies to the CNPs, which may number in the thousands, but for which I do not yet have an exact number.
Some additional points are here (2017, p. 1):
We find that two of the most pronounced genomic islands contain the ALX1 and HMGA2 loci, which are associated with variation in beak shape and size, respectively, suggesting that they are involved in ecological adaptation.
And note here in Science (2016, p. 470):
Genotypes associated with large beak size were at a strong selective disadvantage in medium ground finches (selection coefficient s = 0.59).
Well, “a strong selective disadvantage” may be at odds with the idea of slow and smooth evolution as generally postulated by the synthetic theory — as I have repeatedly emphasized. Other revealing points are noted by Nala Rogers:
By analysing DNA from medium ground finches that lived around the time of the drought, the researchers found that the large-beak HMGA2 variant was more common in birds that starved to death, while the small-beak variant was more common in birds that survived. This genetic shift is likely responsible for some of the reduction in beak size, the researchers say. [Emphasis added.]
Next, “Galápagos Finches — An Exceptionally Strong Natural-Selection Event?”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-21--Funny and Thoughtful Intelligent Design-Themed T-shirts? We’ve Got Them!

For years now our supporters have been asking for Discovery Institute t-shirts .
Well , they ’ re here !
@ @ @ @ @ with our logo are now available at the Discovery Institute-CSC Zazzle store , as are @ @ @ @ @ , and t-shirts featuring thoughtful quotations by scientists willing to acknowledge design in nature .
@ @ @ @ @ t-shirt line to see all our wearable designs .
As we ’ ve mentioned before @ @ @ @ @ are in a vulnerable employment situation , please enjoy these shirts only in the privacy @ @ @ @ @

For years now our supporters have been asking for Discovery Institute t-shirts. Well, they’re here! Both long- and short-sleeved shirts with our logo are now available at the Discovery Institute-CSC Zazzle store, as are t-shirts featuring intelligent design humor, and t-shirts featuring thoughtful quotations by scientists willing to acknowledge design in nature. Take a look at our t-shirt line to see all our wearable designs.
As we’ve mentioned before, however, if you are in a vulnerable employment situation, please enjoy these shirts only in the privacy of your own home.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-23--Smith: Personhood for Animals? What About Plants?

On a classic episode of ID the Future , hear more from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith about The War on @ @ @ @ @ , Smith discusses the movement to establish legal rights for animals , and even plants @ @ @ @ @ of the term “ personhood ” and its implications for human rights .
Download the @ @ @ @ @ here .

Photo: A scene from The War on Humans.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, hear more from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith about The War on Humans. On this episode, Smith discusses the movement to establish legal rights for animals, and even plants. He examines the meaning of the term “personhood” and its implications for human rights. Download the podcast or listen to it here.