evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-28--Herd Immunity, Not Herd Mentality

Herd Immunity, Not Herd Mentality

Dr. Nathan Lents is a Darwinist biologist who has tangled with design science in the past .
His response to the coronavirus pandemic is , believe it or not , to chastise ordinary people who question the competence of public health experts .
On Twitter , Dr. Lents rants : Actually , the “ field of public health ” is complicit in the worst episode of scientific malfeasance in the 21st century .
WHO and the CDC have a major job — prevent pandemics .
They not only failed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic .
Worse , they failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was obvious that China was dealing with a highly contagious and deadly viral epidemic .
The WHO dissembled about the seriousness of COVID-19 , advised against closing borders , and basically did China ’ s bidding at the expense of the rest of the world .
The CDC was months behind the curve as well .
Experts like Dr. Fauci downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic , and local experts like the New York City health commissioner actually told people to gather in large crowds even as the pandemic spread .
Had scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. could have restricted travel from Wuhan earlier and dramatically reduced the transmission of the virus to their populations .
Scientific incompetence has cost many lives and trillions of dollars .
And Dr. Lents says “ How dare you not trust us !
” Actually , public health scientists didn ’ t understand the risks of COVID-19 .
That ’ s one reason that we have this pandemic .
That Lents would criticize people who question “ public health scientists ” in the wake of the most egregious failure of public health scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next tells us to trust the scientists ’ models : Epidemiological models have been worse than useless : they have caused panic and enormous damage to our economy .
They botched their most important job , which is to protect the public from pandemics .
Public Health 101 is to prevent pandemics .
Scientists knew ( or should have known — that was their job ) months ago what was brewing in Wuhan and they failed to act .
Any carpenter or electrician who did his job as badly as public health scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fired on the spot , if he ’ s lucky .
The analogue to public health scientists ’ conduct in the coronavirus pandemic would be a carpenter who built a house that collapsed and killed its occupants , or an electrician who burned a house down with his incompetent work .
He goes on : Questioning scientific opinions isn ’ t “ dangerous.
” Blindly trusting a scientific elite unworthy of trust is dangerous .
It would be great if the situation were otherwise , but it isn ’ t , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lents won ’ t be questioning scientists .
He ’ s already running cover for them .
Scientists will be covering their tracks and making excuses for years .
We can ’ t just “ let them do their jobs.
” Our scientific establishment has already done enough damage .
It would seem that the response of the scientific establishment to their worst failure in the 21st century would be “ We scientists are really sorry about our countless errors that led to this pandemic that has disrupted the lives and economies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgive us and help us to humbly revamp our science.
” Scientists at the WHO , the CDC , in the Chinese scientific establishment , and elsewhere permitted this pandemic .
If the virus arose naturally ( a big “ if ” in my view ) , it needed to be only a local outbreak in Wuhan .
But the scientific community stood by as infected people flew out of Wuhan to the world , even as Chinese experts closed down flights out of Wuhan within China .
Chinese scientists obviously knew the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own airports to travelers from Wuhan if the virus was harmless ?
Don ’ t say , “ Oh , but they didn ’ t know !
” It ’ s their job to know , and much of what was happening in China was public knowledge .
Public health experts have known for decades that China is the source for serial outbreaks of SARS-like viral pandemics .
It happens every few years .
What recommendations were made by our science elites to protect us from this ?
Did they provide the obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must close our borders to potentially infected travelers ” ?
Any middle school child knows that , but it was opaque to our experts .
Science experts left us open to a horrendous pandemic .
Yet public health scientists remain fully employed , and now Lents scolds us for doubting advice from the same hacks who botched things up to begin with .
Raw arrogance .
As this pandemic shows , we need to question scientific experts , constantly and rigorously .
We need scientific controversy , not “ consensus.
” On a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiology , but evolution , neuroscience , climate science , among others — we need to say to the scientific establishment : “ Show us .
Prove what you claim , to our satisfaction , because we don ’ t believe you.
” Never forget what the scientific “ consensus ” did to us .
Scientific “ consensus ” left us with overflowing morgues and wrecked economies .
In a rational society , scientists responsible for this would lose their jobs and face legal investigation for negligence .
Herd immunity is good , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be done with this scientific priesthood .
We should assume that every pronouncement of the scientific “ consensus ” — “ You must do as we order — all scientists agree !
” — is dubious at best until shown to be otherwise .
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash , via Unsplash .

Dr. Nathan Lents is a Darwinist biologist who has tangled with design science in the past. His response to the coronavirus pandemic is, believe it or not, to chastise ordinary people who question the competence of public health experts. On Twitter, Dr. Lents rants:
Something I have heard WAY TOO OFTEN from otherwise smart/thoughtful people: “What about all the harm to mental and physical health by saying home/alone this much?” Y’all need to STOP with the notion that #PublicHealth scientists at the CDC/NIH/WHO are just forgetting or ignoring the costs & dangers of all this sheltering-in-place. OF COURSE they know all that. The entire field of Public Health is about weighing multiple factors, balancing disparate health risks and benefits, calculating costs and dangers. THAT IS WHAT THE FIELD *IS*.
Actually, the “field of public health” is complicit in the worst episode of scientific malfeasance in the 21st century. WHO and the CDC have a major job — prevent pandemics. They not only failed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic. Worse, they failed to take appropriate action months ago when it was obvious that China was dealing with a highly contagious and deadly viral epidemic. The WHO dissembled about the seriousness of COVID-19, advised against closing borders, and basically did China’s bidding at the expense of the rest of the world. The CDC was months behind the curve as well. Experts like Dr. Fauci downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, and local experts like the New York City health commissioner actually told people to gather in large crowds even as the pandemic spread.
Had scientists done their job, Europe and the U.S. could have restricted travel from Wuhan earlier and dramatically reduced the transmission of the virus to their populations. Scientific incompetence has cost many lives and trillions of dollars. And Dr. Lents says “How dare you not trust us!”
Lents:
Yes, public health scientists actively monitor competing risks and they understand those risks WAY BETTER than the rest of us, especially better than all the newly minted amateur epidemiologists among us.
Actually, public health scientists didn’t understand the risks of COVID-19. That’s one reason that we have this pandemic. That Lents would criticize people who question “public health scientists” in the wake of the most egregious failure of public health scientists in this century is remarkable.
What Arrogance
Lents next tells us to trust the scientists’ models:
Those various risks & benefits are in the models that they are using. Don’t forget that CDC tracks depression, anxiety, suicide, obesity, stroke, heart attack, diabetes, malnutrition, and even domestic violence, just as actively as they track infectious disease. Those variables are in their calculations, and so is economic impact, because they understand that economic downturn brings harm to mental & physical health. I’m not saying we shouldn’t question scientists, but it is ignorant & insulting to suggest that they haven’t considered these extremely obvious concepts. Folks, this is Public Health 101.
Epidemiological models have been worse than useless: they have caused panic and enormous damage to our economy. They botched their most important job, which is to protect the public from pandemics. Public Health 101 is to prevent pandemics. Scientists knew (or should have known — that was their job) months ago what was brewing in Wuhan and they failed to act.
Lents continues his elitist rant:
Would you tell a carpenter that some kinds of wood are harder than others? Would you remind a soccer player that she can’t use her hands? Would you lecture your electrician about GFCI outlets and safety? Would you remind a chef not to use a dull knife?
Any carpenter or electrician who did his job as badly as public health scientists did theirs on the coronavirus pandemic would be fired on the spot, if he’s lucky. The analogue to public health scientists’ conduct in the coronavirus pandemic would be a carpenter who built a house that collapsed and killed its occupants, or an electrician who burned a house down with his incompetent work.
Lents Won’t Give Up
He goes on:
Yes, I’m ranting, but this is beyond frustrating. Imagine, if you can, someone with NO EXPERIENCE in your line of work asking you if you know something that you learned on your first day on the job. The utter contempt for expertise is not just annoying but DANGEROUS.
Questioning scientific opinions isn’t “dangerous.” Blindly trusting a scientific elite unworthy of trust is dangerous. It would be great if the situation were otherwise, but it isn’t, so we have to think for ourselves.
Lents:
We can question [scientists] later, and believe me, we will.
Lents won’t be questioning scientists. He’s already running cover for them.
Covering Tracks, Making Excuses
Lents:
Scientists will be studying the effectiveness of our countermeasures during this epidemic FOR YEARS. But for now, please LET THE EXPERTS DO THEIR JOBS. They are our best hope to minimize death and suffering.
Scientists will be covering their tracks and making excuses for years. We can’t just “let them do their jobs.” Our scientific establishment has already done enough damage. It would seem that the response of the scientific establishment to their worst failure in the 21st century would be “We scientists are really sorry about our countless errors that led to this pandemic that has disrupted the lives and economies of the West, perhaps permanently. Please forgive us and help us to humbly revamp our science.” Scientists at the WHO, the CDC, in the Chinese scientific establishment, and elsewhere permitted this pandemic. If the virus arose naturally (a big “if” in my view), it needed to be only a local outbreak in Wuhan. But the scientific community stood by as infected people flew out of Wuhan to the world, even as Chinese experts closed down flights out of Wuhan within China. Chinese scientists obviously knew the truth — why would China close its own airports to travelers from Wuhan if the virus was harmless?
Don’t say, “Oh, but they didn’t know!” It’s their job to know, and much of what was happening in China was public knowledge. Public health experts have known for decades that China is the source for serial outbreaks of SARS-like viral pandemics. It happens every few years. What recommendations were made by our science elites to protect us from this? Did they provide the obvious advice to prevent pandemics: “We must close our borders to potentially infected travelers”? Any middle school child knows that, but it was opaque to our experts.
Science experts left us open to a horrendous pandemic. Yet public health scientists remain fully employed, and now Lents scolds us for doubting advice from the same hacks who botched things up to begin with. Raw arrogance.
Controversy, Not “Consensus”
As this pandemic shows, we need to question scientific experts, constantly and rigorously. We need scientific controversy, not “consensus.” On a broad spectrum of issues — not only epidemiology, but evolution, neuroscience, climate science, among others — we need to say to the scientific establishment: “Show us. Prove what you claim, to our satisfaction, because we don’t believe you.”
Never forget what the scientific “consensus” did to us. Scientific “consensus” left us with overflowing morgues and wrecked economies. In a rational society, scientists responsible for this would lose their jobs and face legal investigation for negligence.
Herd immunity is good, but herd mentality is lethal. We need to be done with this scientific priesthood. We should assume that every pronouncement of the scientific “consensus” — “You must do as we order — all scientists agree!” — is dubious at best until shown to be otherwise.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash, via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-30--John West: How Evolution Drained Meaning from Nature

On a new episode of ID the Future , catch the first half of a talk that political scientist John @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism has poisoned Western culture .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
@ @ @ @ @ at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , West explores how Darwin ’ @ @ @ @ @ evolution drained meaning from nature , undercut the idea of inherent human dignity , and @ @ @ @ @ racism in the 20th century .
On that last point , if you are not @ @ @ @ @ have seen the multiple award-winning documentary Human Zoos , from Discovery Institute and Dr. West @ @ @ @ @

On a new episode of ID the Future, catch the first half of a talk that political scientist John West gave recently explaining how Darwinism has poisoned Western culture. Download the podcast or listen to it here. In the lecture, delivered at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, West explores how Darwin’s purely materialistic theory of evolution drained meaning from nature, undercut the idea of inherent human dignity, and fueled the rise of scientific racism in the 20th century.
On that last point, if you are not among the 600,000+ people who have seen the multiple award-winning documentary Human Zoos, from Discovery Institute and Dr. West, find it here:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-29--“Follow the Science”? Free Webinar, May 16, on Scientism and Society

Join Discovery Institute scholars on May 16 for a FREE online seminar that couldn ’ t be more timely or urgent .
The pandemic has been a lesson in many things , not least the overlap of science and culture .
In discussions of the virus , you probably have noticed the prominent use of strangely religious-sounding pleas — “ Follow the science !
” “ Listen to the scientists !
” The ancient Psalmist “ kept the ways of the Lord , ” but today ’ s politicians reverently invoke being “ guided by science , ” while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question science.
” Public policy must seek a rational response to the coronavirus , but scientism — the superstition that science alone can guide rational decision-making — spreads perilous confusion .
Two Discovery Institute programs , the Center for Science & Culture and the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence , are here to help you sort real science from scientistic mythology , whether about the COVID-19 lockdown , the promise or threat of artificial intelligence , or about the origin of life and the universe itself .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-at-home orders and everything in-between , what role should scientists play in the critical decisions that we must make on such controversial issues ?
” Participate in a provocative , surprising , but also hopeful conversation about timely and timeless questions , drawing on the latest science , the writings of C. S. Lewis , and much more .
Saturday , May 16 , at noon Pacific time , we will gather virtually to learn from political scientist John West , computer engineer Robert J .
Marks , and physicist Brian Miller .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their topics : • “ Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19 : Wisdom from C. S. Lewis ” ( West ) Find more information here .
Registration is required .
The last Discovery Institute webinar was oversubscribed and we unfortunately had to turn people away , so take a moment to register now !
The event is sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute .

Join Discovery Institute scholars on May 16 for a FREE online seminar that couldn’t be more timely or urgent. The pandemic has been a lesson in many things, not least the overlap of science and culture.
In discussions of the virus, you probably have noticed the prominent use of strangely religious-sounding pleas — “Follow the science!” “Listen to the scientists!” The ancient Psalmist “kept the ways of the Lord,” but today’s politicians reverently invoke being “guided by science,” while the media condemn the unrighteous who “publicly question science.” Public policy must seek a rational response to the coronavirus, but scientism — the superstition that science alone can guide rational decision-making — spreads perilous confusion.
Two Discovery Institute programs, the Center for Science & Culture and the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence, are here to help you sort real science from scientistic mythology, whether about the COVID-19 lockdown, the promise or threat of artificial intelligence, or about the origin of life and the universe itself. We’ll ask: “From AI to mandatory stay-at-home orders and everything in-between, what role should scientists play in the critical decisions that we must make on such controversial issues?”
Participate in a provocative, surprising, but also hopeful conversation about timely and timeless questions, drawing on the latest science, the writings of C. S. Lewis, and much more. Saturday, May 16, at noon Pacific time, we will gather virtually to learn from political scientist John West, computer engineer Robert J. Marks, and physicist Brian Miller. Pose your own questions and challenges. Their topics:
“Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19: Wisdom from C. S. Lewis” (West)
“AI: Menace or Savior?” (Marks)
“Hope from Science: Evidence for a Purposeful Universe” (Miller)
Find more information here. Registration is required. The last Discovery Institute webinar was oversubscribed and we unfortunately had to turn people away, so take a moment to register now! The event is sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Photo: A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-29--Are Cosmic and Planetary Fine-Tuning Constant?

Since Paul Dirac first wrote about the subject of cosmic coincidences in 1937 , many physicists have marveled at the specific values of natural constants , such as G , the constant in the law of gravity ( 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2 ) — an extremely low number .
This is an empirical value measured carefully in labs under controlled conditions ; it is not derived from equations .
One could imagine it taking a different value .
But it is balanced between two catastrophes .
If stronger , stars would burn hotter , and photosynthesis would be impossible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all under the crush of gravity , would have to take refuge underground .
If gravity were weaker , opposite problems ensue : stars would be unable to start fusion and form heavy elements , and would slowly burn out by convection giving off reddish light .
We would say goodbye to a sun with the white-yellow light just right for photosynthesis .
In his short book Children of Light ( 2018 ) , Michael Denton explored the amazing coincidences between the solar spectrum , elemental abundances , and earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but large , complex organisms like human beings ( hear him discuss this on ID the Future ) .
His previous book , The Wonder of Water ( 2017 ) , described additional coincidences regarding the varied roles of water on earth .
The blessings we get from light and water depend exquisitely on the values of physical constants .
These constants make the laws of nature work .
The constants must also be finely tuned relative to one another .
For instance , the constant of gravity for stable stars is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is about 1040 times larger .
The requirement that both constants must be “ just right ” constrains the possibilities even further .
Speaking of the balance between radiative stars and convective stars , Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards said , The gravitational and electromagnetic constants that affect stars are also linked to the strengths of the nuclear forces — the weak force and strong force .
Tinkering with the values of these constants does not open up more possibilities ; it reduces them drastically .
Martin Rees and John Gribbin remarked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Geraint Lewis and Luke A. Barnes : A Fortunate Universe : Life in a Finely-tuned Cosmos ( Cambridge , 2016 ) .
In this book ( p. 110 ) , and also in The Privileged Planet ( p. 207 ) , diagrams show the region of stable stars among possible values of electromagnetic and gravitational constants .
The region occupied by the actual values we measure that permit our habitable universe represents a tiny spot on the graph .
Lewis and Barnes show additional parameter spaces where the Goldilocks zones are even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to a dimensionless number called the fine-structure constant , also called the electromagnetic coupling constant , represented by the Greek letter alpha ( α ) .
This value , curiously measured to be almost precisely 1/137 ( NIST ) , relates the elementary charge , the magnetic constant , the speed of light and Planck ’ s constant .
In short , it relates electromagnetism to quantum mechanics .
A recent paper in the AAAS open-access journal Science Advances , by Michael R. Wilczynska and 16 others , using a spectrograph on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chile , attempted to measure the value of α in the distant reaches of the cosmos ( indicated by quasars with high redshift ) and compare it to the terrestrial value , called α .
They begin by stating that the fine-tuning question motivated their research .
The subject of variable constants could be divided into two questions : do any of the constants vary from place to place in the universe , or do they vary over time from the birth of the universe till now ?
The terrestrial value , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ” measurement .
Understandably , scientists would like to know the answer .
Those interested in the details can follow the references in the open-access paper .
The quest to determine whether the bare fine-structure constant , α , is a constant in space and time has received impetus from the recognition that there might be additional dimensions of space or that our constants are partly or wholly determined by symmetry breaking at ultrahigh energies in the very early universe .
The first proposals for time variation in α by Stanyukovich ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Gamow ( 3 ) were motivated by the large-number coincidences noted by Dirac ( 4 , 5 ) but were quickly ruled out by observations ( 6 ) .
This has led to an extensive literature on varying constants that is reviewed in ( 7–11 ) .
There are also interesting new problems that have been about extreme fine-tuning of quantum corrections in theories with variation of α by Donoghue ( 12 ) and Marsh ( 13 ) .
Accordingly , self-consistent theories of gravity and electromagnetism , which incorporate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scalar field with self-consistent dynamics that couple to the geometry of spacetime , have been formulated in ( 14–20 ) and extended to the Weinberg-Salam theory in ( 21 , 22 ) .
They generalize Maxwell ’ s equations and general relativity in the way that Jordan-Brans-Dicke gravity theory ( 23 , 24 ) extends general relativity to include space or time variations of the Newtonian gravitational constant , G , by upgrading it to become a scalar field .
This enables different constraints on a changing α ( z ) at different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it supersedes the traditional approach ( 25 ) to constraining varying α by simply allowing α to become a variable in the physical laws for constant α .
Further discussions relating spatial variations of α to inhomogeneous cosmological models can be found in ( 26 , 27 ) .
Surely there is value in going out and measuring things instead of speculating .
So what did they find ?
Answers in physics are rarely precise .
Usually , empirical measurements must take into account the degree of error — and there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these .
After all , the astronomers are not taking measurements in situ at quasars , but here on Earth , where the light had to pass through billions of light-years of external influences , such as dust , gas , gravitational lensing , atmospheric distortion and other things .
Moreover , the measurements are sensitive to the models used and the theories behind them .
Physicists attempt to account for all known and potential sources of error , but are only human .
There could be error in the assumptions and procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
Here is their answer : For non-specialists , this means that the fine-structure constant didn ’ t appear to change over time , but it might vary from place to place just slightly .
That ’ s at least according to the instrument used , and the models ( and assumptions ) used to interpret their measurements , and human error .
The problem with belief in varying constants is that all the laws of nature need to cooperate with the change .
Perhaps a self-consistent set of laws could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another time or place , but the universe will crash and burn unless everything holds together in a way consistent with the existence of stars , planets , and people .
Gonzalez and Richards quote astronomer Virginia Trimble , who commented on the debates about fine-tuning : The video version of The Privileged Planet shows a universe-making machine with dials for each constant set appropriately for habitability .
Disastrous consequences result when any one dial is turned a slight amount higher or lower .
Would anyone be foolhardy enough to turn several dials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are habitable ?
The most parsimonious approach seems to be to take the fine-tuning we actually observe as a given , and deal with its philosophical and theological implications in as unbiased and straightforward manner as possible .
Photo : Pillars of Creation , Eagle Nebula , by NASA , ESA/Hubble and the Hubble Heritage Team .

Since Paul Dirac first wrote about the subject of cosmic coincidences in 1937, many physicists have marveled at the specific values of natural constants, such as G, the constant in the law of gravity (6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2) — an extremely low number. This is an empirical value measured carefully in labs under controlled conditions; it is not derived from equations. One could imagine it taking a different value.
But it is balanced between two catastrophes. If stronger, stars would burn hotter, and photosynthesis would be impossible, and life, if it could exist at all under the crush of gravity, would have to take refuge underground. If gravity were weaker, opposite problems ensue: stars would be unable to start fusion and form heavy elements, and would slowly burn out by convection giving off reddish light. We would say goodbye to a sun with the white-yellow light just right for photosynthesis.
Amazing Coincidences
In his short book Children of Light (2018), Michael Denton explored the amazing coincidences between the solar spectrum, elemental abundances, and earth’s atmosphere that permit not just some life, but large, complex organisms like human beings (hear him discuss this on ID the Future). His previous book, The Wonder of Water (2017), described additional coincidences regarding the varied roles of water on earth. The blessings we get from light and water depend exquisitely on the values of physical constants. These constants make the laws of nature work.
The constants must also be finely tuned relative to one another. For instance, the constant of gravity for stable stars is tied to the constant of electromagnetism, which is about 1040 times larger. The requirement that both constants must be “just right” constrains the possibilities even further. Speaking of the balance between radiative stars and convective stars, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards said,
This dividing line is another razor’s edge, a teetering balance between gravity and electromagnetism. If it were shifted one way or the other, main-sequence stars would either be all blue or all red (convection resulting in red stars). Either way, stars in the main sequence with the Sun]’s surface temperature and luminosity would be rare or nonexistent. (The Privileged Planet, p. 204)
The gravitational and electromagnetic constants that affect stars are also linked to the strengths of the nuclear forces — the weak force and strong force. Tinkering with the values of these constants does not open up more possibilities; it reduces them drastically. Martin Rees and John Gribbin remarked,
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps for any form of organic chemistry. (Cited in The Privileged Planet, pp. 206-207)
Another remarkable book about fine-tuning is by Geraint Lewis and Luke A. Barnes: A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely-tuned Cosmos (Cambridge, 2016). In this book (p. 110), and also in The Privileged Planet (p. 207), diagrams show the region of stable stars among possible values of electromagnetic and gravitational constants. The region occupied by the actual values we measure that permit our habitable universe represents a tiny spot on the graph. Lewis and Barnes show additional parameter spaces where the Goldilocks zones are even tinier.
Can the Constants Vary?
Several physical constants can be related to a dimensionless number called the fine-structure constant, also called the electromagnetic coupling constant, represented by the Greek letter alpha (α). This value, curiously measured to be almost precisely 1/137 (NIST), relates the elementary charge, the magnetic constant, the speed of light and Planck’s constant. In short, it relates electromagnetism to quantum mechanics.
A recent paper in the AAAS open-access journal Science Advances, by Michael R. Wilczynska and 16 others, using a spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, attempted to measure the value of α in the distant reaches of the cosmos (indicated by quasars with high redshift) and compare it to the terrestrial value, called α 0 . They begin by stating that the fine-tuning question motivated their research.
What fundamental aspects of the universe give rise to the laws of Nature? Are the laws finely tuned from the outset, immutable in time and space, or do they vary in space or time such that our local patch of the universe is particularly suited to our own existence? We characterize the laws of Nature using the numerical values of the fundamental constants, for which increasingly precise and ever-distant measurements are accessible using quasar absorption spectra. [Emphasis added.]
The subject of variable constants could be divided into two questions: do any of the constants vary from place to place in the universe, or do they vary over time from the birth of the universe till now? The terrestrial value, α 0 , is a “here and now” measurement. Understandably, scientists would like to know the answer. Those interested in the details can follow the references in the open-access paper.
The quest to determine whether the bare fine-structure constant, α, is a constant in space and time has received impetus from the recognition that there might be additional dimensions of space or that our constants are partly or wholly determined by symmetry breaking at ultrahigh energies in the very early universe. The first proposals for time variation in α by Stanyukovich (1), Teller (2), and Gamow (3) were motivated by the large-number coincidences noted by Dirac (4, 5) but were quickly ruled out by observations (6). This has led to an extensive literature on varying constants that is reviewed in (7–11). There are also interesting new problems that have been about extreme fine-tuning of quantum corrections in theories with variation of α by Donoghue (12) and Marsh (13). Accordingly, self-consistent theories of gravity and electromagnetism, which incorporate the fine-structure “constant” as a self-gravitating scalar field with self-consistent dynamics that couple to the geometry of spacetime, have been formulated in (14–20) and extended to the Weinberg-Salam theory in (21, 22). They generalize Maxwell’s equations and general relativity in the way that Jordan-Brans-Dicke gravity theory (23, 24) extends general relativity to include space or time variations of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, by upgrading it to become a scalar field. This enables different constraints on a changing α(z) at different redshifts, z, to be coordinated; it supersedes the traditional approach (25) to constraining varying α by simply allowing α to become a variable in the physical laws for constant α. Further discussions relating spatial variations of α to inhomogeneous cosmological models can be found in (26, 27).
Surely there is value in going out and measuring things instead of speculating. So what did they find? Answers in physics are rarely precise. Usually, empirical measurements must take into account the degree of error — and there is much potential for error in measurements like these. After all, the astronomers are not taking measurements in situ at quasars, but here on Earth, where the light had to pass through billions of light-years of external influences, such as dust, gas, gravitational lensing, atmospheric distortion and other things. Moreover, the measurements are sensitive to the models used and the theories behind them. Physicists attempt to account for all known and potential sources of error, but are only human. There could be error in the assumptions and procedures used. One outlier can distort an average. Here is their answer:
Observations at z = 7:1 probe the physics of the universe at only 0.8 billion years old. These are the most distant direct measurements of α to date and the first measurements using a near-IR spectrograph. A new AI analysis method is employed. Four measurements from the x-shooter spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) constrain changes in a relative to the terrestrial value (α 0 ). The weighted mean electromagnetic force in this location in the universe deviates from the terrestrial value by Δα/α = (αz − α 0 )/α 0 = (−2:18 ± 7:27) × 10−5, consistent with no temporal change. Combining these measurements with existing data, we find a spatial variation is preferred over a no-variation model at the 3:9σ level.
For non-specialists, this means that the fine-structure constant didn’t appear to change over time, but it might vary from place to place just slightly. That’s at least according to the instrument used, and the models (and assumptions) used to interpret their measurements, and human error.
Here’s the Problem
The problem with belief in varying constants is that all the laws of nature need to cooperate with the change. Perhaps a self-consistent set of laws could be imagined with a slightly different α at another time or place, but the universe will crash and burn unless everything holds together in a way consistent with the existence of stars, planets, and people. Gonzalez and Richards quote astronomer Virginia Trimble, who commented on the debates about fine-tuning:
Efforts to avoid one problem by changing several of the constraints at once generally produce some other problem. Thus we apparently live in a rather delicately balanced universe, from the point of view of hospitality to chemical life. (The Privileged Planet, p. 206)
The video version of The Privileged Planet shows a universe-making machine with dials for each constant set appropriately for habitability. Disastrous consequences result when any one dial is turned a slight amount higher or lower. Would anyone be foolhardy enough to turn several dials simultaneously in a search for alternative universes that are habitable? The most parsimonious approach seems to be to take the fine-tuning we actually observe as a given, and deal with its philosophical and theological implications in as unbiased and straightforward manner as possible.
Photo: Pillars of Creation, Eagle Nebula, by NASA, ESA/Hubble and the Hubble Heritage Team.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-30--A Disappointing Decade for the Study of Human Evolution

The 2010s was a bad decade for the study of human evolution .
Smithsonian Magazine recently published an article titled “ These are the Decade ’ s Biggest Discoveries in Human Evolution.
” It opens by saying : What are the big discoveries of the decade ?
Did they reveal new and compelling evidence that humans evolved from lower primates ?
Some of these big discoveries actually turn out to be instances where the evidence for human evolution weakened , and the rest amount to slight revisions of previously held theories that don ’ t say much about the core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first big science breakthrough is the discovery of ancient DNA .
Indeed , this is an exciting development for the burgeoning field of paleogenetics — and it has shown that there were various sublineages of very modern human-like groups such as the Denisovans that have existed in the past million years .
Though a novel and intriguing form of evidence , at present ancient DNA is essentially silent on two crucial tenets of evolutionary paleoanthropology : ( 1 ) the hypothesis that modern humans are descended from decidedly non-human , subhuman , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) the claim that these newly revealed “ species of early humans ” were substantially different from us .
Yes we have Denisovan DNA , but at present for all we know the Denisovans were as human as we are .
The second big discovery of the last decade was Homo naledi , which is also exciting because it represents a humungous cache of hominid fossils that adds a lot to our knowledge of the fossil record .
Initially , news reports called Homo naledi a “ human ancestor.
” However in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a few hundred thousand years old — 10 times too young to be considered as one of our evolutionary ancestors .
This was a major bust for proponents of human evolution , as we reported here .
Another major claim about Homo naledi was that it buried its dead — the implication that this small-brained species was beginning to show glimmers of human-like behavior and intelligence .
But there are major doubts about this — see here for a review .
Homo naledi was a spectacular fossil discovery , but the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ species that was ancestral to humans simply did not pan out .
In fact , if there ’ s any major theme of paleoanthropology in the 2010s , it ’ s that new discoveries and analyses of fossil ages conflicted with the preferred evolutionary story .
Thus , the third big find of the decade listed by Smithsonian is the discovery of a near-complete skull of Australopithecus anamensis last year , dated to about 3.8 million years old .
Günter Bechly wrote an excellent review of this fossil find here at Evolution News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed scientists to understand , for the first time , what the species A. anamensis actually looked like .
However , its unexpectedly young age meant that it overlapped in time with its supposed descendants , the species A. afarensis .
Science Daily quoted one of the scientists involved with the find as saying , “ We used to think that A. anamensis gradually turned into A. afarensis over time.
” But because of the age of the fossil , they no longer think this .
Bechly explained : To retell the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of A. anamensisfossils that predated A. afarensis .
This generated quite a stir .
Paleoanthropologists decided it showed a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between the two species .
At that time Tim White and others wrote in Nature : “ The earliest described Australopithecus species is Au .
anamensis , the probable chronospecies ancestor of Au .
afarensis.
” The story was picked up by the media and touted as really powerful evidence for evolution .
For example , the Associated Press reported : This presumed example of the gradual evolution of a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just to media promoters of Darwinism , but also to paleoanthropologists .
That is because it is so rare that they think they have an example of such a thing .
In fact , a major 2015 review of hominid evolution , by Bernard Wood and Mark Grabowski , in the book Macroevolution : Explanation , Interpretation and Evidence admitted that bona-fide examples of ancestor-descendant sequences in hominin fossils are extremely rare : And guess what one of their two best examples was ?
It was A. anamensis gradually evolving directly into A.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ ancestor-descendant sequence ” can no longer be used because the A. anamensis skull discovered last year dates to 3.8 Ma , which is 100,000 years after the appearance of fossils of A. afarensis .
A gradualistic transition is no longer feasible .
Why Does This Matter ?
Well , as we all know evolutionary biologists prefer to show gradualistic direct evolution rather than punc eq .
That ’ s because the latter implies rapid evolution without fossil transitions whereas gradualistic evolution implies things evolve slowly , just as Darwin predicted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s paper touted the evolution of A. anamensis into A. afarensisas as a potentially great example of a form of “ gradualism ” or “ anagenesis ” over “ punctuated equilibrium ” : Gould suspected that “ punctuated gradualism ” was rare .
In contrast , punctuated equilibrium ( with speciation by “ budding cladogenesis ” ) is thought to be more common , but demonstrating it requires the verified contemporaneity and persistence of both the ancestral and daughter species .
As Gould noted , “ We can distinguish the punctuations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by invoking the eminently testable criterion of ancestral survival following the origin of a descendant species .
If the ancestor survives , then the new species has arisen by branching .
If the ancestor does not survive , then we must count the case either as indecisive , or as good evidence for rapid anagenesis — but , in any instance , not as evidence for punctuated equilibrium.
” ( p. 795 ) .
These requirements have rarely been met among fossil hominids .
For the origin of Australopithecus , phyletic evolution with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 200,000-yr period between 4.4 and 4.2Myr ago remains plausible given the geographic , temporal and morphological relationships of Ar .
ramidus and Au .
anamensis and our understanding of primate dental anatomy and development .
Indeed , given the available evidence , the origin of Australopithecus could well turn out to be a case of “ punctuated gradualism ” or “ punctuated anagenesis ” rather than rectangular evolution sensu Stanley .
So they admit that the requirements of gradual evolution “ have rarely been met among fossil hominids ” but White et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a case of gradualism .
They note that this is easy to test : “ If the ancestor survives , then the new species has arisen by branching ” — i.e.
, by punctuated equilibrium .
Well , this 2019 skull discovery shows the presumed ancestor survived , because A. anamensis was apparently still around at 3.8 Ma , 100,000 years after its supposed descendant A. afarensis was already in existence .
As the 2019 Nature paper about the discovery states : Even though they still think there ’ s a possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must now cross this example off the list of “ phyletic gradualism ” or what Wood and Grabowski called clear-cut “ examples of ancestor/descendant relationships ( i.e.
, are examples of anagenesis ) .
” Or , as Science Daily put it : Incidentally , in addition to A. anamensisi , A. afarensis , and Homo naledi , there ’ s a third example from the 2010s where the ages of hominid fossils posed problems for the standard evolutionary model .
We also reported last year that a study of Australopithecus sediba @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is less than a 0.1 percent chance that A. sediba could be a human ancestor .
That ’ s because it postdates the appearance of its would-be descendants in the genus Homo .
Somehow that study failed to make Smithsonian ’ s list of top discoveries of the decade .
There are three additional big discoveries of the decade listed by Smithsonian .
These pertain to slight revisions of ages that don ’ t greatly affect the overall evidence for human evolution : ( 1 ) that our species , Homo sapiens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ( 2 ) that stone tools now date back to 3.3 million year ago , and ( 3 ) that modern humans are now thought to have gone “ out of Africa ” earlier , due to a jawbone in Israel that was dated to 174,000-185,000 years old .
The first discovery is , again , just a slight modification of previously held dates , and the second age may very well be true although precise ages of tools are notoriously difficult to determine .
As for the third discovery , Smithsonian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 2018 , which was an “ annus horribilis ” ( “ terrible year ” ) for paleoanthropology , Günter Bechly wrote : The authors of this new study describe a re-dating of a modern human jaw discovered in 2001 in the Misliya cave at Mount Carmel in Israel .
After a very careful re-evaluation , using different high-tech methods , the large team of researchers confirmed the attribution to modern Homo sapiens .
However , they arrived at a surprising and solid new dating for this specimen at between 177,000 and 194,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it the oldest evidence for modern humans outside of Africa .
The problem is , that the standard narrative maintained that modern human originated about 200,000 years ago in Northeast Africa and only much later ( about between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago ) left Africa to spread around the globe ( Callaway 2018b ) .
Single discoveries of modern humans in the Levant before this time , like the 80,000-120,000-year-old remains from Skhul cave and Qafzeh in Israel , were considered to be failed early attempts to leave Africa that left no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other recent findings show that such ad hoc hypotheses to explain away conflicting evidence are no longer tenable .
That is why the Times of Israel cites Professor Israel Hershkovitz as saying , “ This has changed the whole concept of modern human evolution…The entire narrative of the evolution of Homo sapiens must be pushed back by at least 100,000-200,000 years.
” The author of the article comments , “ With this Misliya cave jawbone , however , the history of human evolution is being rewritten ” ( Borschel-Dan 2018 , emphasis added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before ?
Dienekes Pontikos ( 2018 ) , who hosts one of the most popular paleoanthropological blogs , notes the new results with the headline , “ Out of Africa : a theory in crisis , ” and remarks that it “ should cause a rethink of the currently held Out-of-Africa orthodoxy.
” Hear , hear !
Unfortunately Smithsonian Magazine ’ s list of top discoveries of the 2010s fails to recognize a much bigger story that answered a question of interest to a broad segment of the population : Did humans arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2019 , qualified scientists for the first time developed a model to rigorously test the long-assumed evolutionary viewpoint that modern humans originally descended from a large population composed of thousands of individuals .
This study resulted in three publications which ultimately found that it is possible that modern humans originated not from a this large population but from an initial pair that lived as recently as 500,000 years ago ( or more recently , if fewer assumptions are made ) .
According to the final paper of this study , published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ola Hössjer in the journal BIO-Complexity , within human origins research “ certain common assumptions used for convenience have been misinterpreted as if they were data-driven conclusions , without testing the single-couple origin hypothesis scientifically.
” Their model tries to test the question of whether humanity could have originated from an initial pair , and it seeks to do this by minimizing assumptions : Rather than forcing models to assume that genetic diversity must only derive from germline mutations and that population sizes must always be very large , their paper allows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been “ instantiated ” with “ primordial diversity.
” This study is a great example of how we must allow a model to be tested by fairly implementing its boundary conditions .
It shows precisely why it ’ s wrong to use circular reasoning to first assume that unguided evolutionary boundary conditions are the only options , and then conclude that other models must therefore be wrong .
After implementing their boundary conditions and applying the mathematics of population genetics , the authors conclude that , “ as far as we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human species could have come from as a single couple , so that all humans alive today could have descended uniquely from that first pair.
” They found that this initial couple could have lived as recently as 500,000 years ago .
For more details on this research , see Uniqueoriginresearch.org .
Of course the Smithsonian Institution is entirely wedded to an effectively unguided evolutionary view of human origins , as their Hall of Human Origins in Washington , D.C. , and their traveling human origins exhibit have made clear in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore studies that challenged prevailing evolutionary wisdom , and positively spun discoveries in the 2010s that actually weakened the evidence for human evolution .
If anything , these discoveries show that the 2010s were not a great decade after all for the paleoanthropological evidence for human evolution .
Perhaps in ten years we ’ ll be having this conversation again – and perhaps at that time the Smithsonian Institution will give us all a more objective analysis of the evidence .
Who knows what the next decade will bring ?
Photo : Foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Berger research team [ CC BY 4.0 ] , via Wikimedia Commons .

The 2010s was a bad decade for the study of human evolution. Smithsonian Magazine recently published an article titled “These are the Decade’s Biggest Discoveries in Human Evolution.” It opens by saying:
Human evolution is one of the most vibrant areas of scientific investigation. In the past decade we’ve seen many discoveries that add to our understanding of our origins. To mark the 10th anniversary of the Smithsonian’s “David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins,” here are some of the biggest discoveries in human evolution from the last 10 years.
What are the big discoveries of the decade? Did they reveal new and compelling evidence that humans evolved from lower primates? Some of these big discoveries actually turn out to be instances where the evidence for human evolution weakened, and the rest amount to slight revisions of previously held theories that don’t say much about the core tenets of paleoanthropology.
Ancient DNA
Smithsonian’s first big science breakthrough is the discovery of ancient DNA. Indeed, this is an exciting development for the burgeoning field of paleogenetics — and it has shown that there were various sublineages of very modern human-like groups such as the Denisovans that have existed in the past million years. Though a novel and intriguing form of evidence, at present ancient DNA is essentially silent on two crucial tenets of evolutionary paleoanthropology: (1) the hypothesis that modern humans are descended from decidedly non-human, subhuman, or otherwise primitive species, and (2) the claim that these newly revealed “species of early humans” were substantially different from us. Yes we have Denisovan DNA, but at present for all we know the Denisovans were as human as we are.
The second big discovery of the last decade was Homo naledi, which is also exciting because it represents a humungous cache of hominid fossils that adds a lot to our knowledge of the fossil record. Initially, news reports called Homo naledi a “human ancestor.” However in 2017 it was found that this species is only a few hundred thousand years old — 10 times too young to be considered as one of our evolutionary ancestors. This was a major bust for proponents of human evolution, as we reported here.
Bring Out Your Dead
Another major claim about Homo naledi was that it buried its dead — the implication that this small-brained species was beginning to show glimmers of human-like behavior and intelligence. But there are major doubts about this — see here for a review. Homo naledi was a spectacular fossil discovery, but the evidence that it was a small-brained but intelligent species that was ancestral to humans simply did not pan out.
In fact, if there’s any major theme of paleoanthropology in the 2010s, it’s that new discoveries and analyses of fossil ages conflicted with the preferred evolutionary story.
An Unexpectedly Young Age
Thus, the third big find of the decade listed by Smithsonian is the discovery of a near-complete skull of Australopithecus anamensis last year, dated to about 3.8 million years old. Günter Bechly wrote an excellent review of this fossil find here at Evolution News. He pointed out that this skull allowed scientists to understand, for the first time, what the species A. anamensis actually looked like. However, its unexpectedly young age meant that it overlapped in time with its supposed descendants, the species A. afarensis. Science Daily quoted one of the scientists involved with the find as saying, “We used to think that A. anamensis gradually turned into A. afarensis over time.” But because of the age of the fossil, they no longer think this is the case. Bechly explained:
Such anagenetic evolution by gradual species-to-species transitions (without branching events) is actually predicted by Darwin’s theory. Therefore, we should expect to find some fossil evidence for this crucial process. But such evidence turned out to be elusive (see below), and the case of the supposed transition from A. anamensis to A. afarensis was “one of the strongest cases for anagenesis in the fossil record” (Melillo quoted in Marshall 2019, Kimble et al. 2006, Haile-Selassie 2010). This strongest case has now evaporated, and it was not only the strongest case but also the last case…
To retell the story, in 2006 there was a discovery of A. anamensisfossils that predated A. afarensis. This generated quite a stir. Paleoanthropologists decided it showed a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between the two species. At that time Tim White and others wrote in Nature: “The earliest described Australopithecus species is Au. anamensis, the probable chronospecies ancestor of Au. afarensis.” The story was picked up by the media and touted as really powerful evidence for evolution. For example, the Associated Press reported:
The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far. … “We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,” study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. “One form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.
This presumed example of the gradual evolution of a direct ancestor-descendant relationship has been very important not just to media promoters of Darwinism, but also to paleoanthropologists. That is because it is so rare that they think they have an example of such a thing. In fact, a major 2015 review of hominid evolution, by Bernard Wood and Mark Grabowski, in the book Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence admitted that bona-fide examples of ancestor-descendant sequences in hominin fossils are extremely rare:
Most hominin taxa, particularly early hominins, have no obvious ancestors, and in most cases, ancestor-descendent sequences (fossil time series) cannot be reliably constructed — two possible exceptions are mentioned below.
And guess what one of their two best examples was? It was A. anamensis gradually evolving directly into A. afarensis:
At one time, or another, every early hominin discussed above has been presented as “the” ancestor of later hominins, but in our opinion, only two pairs of taxa, Au. anamensis and Au. afarensis (Kimbel et al. 2006), and P. aethiopicus and P. boisei (Wood and Schroer 2013), are plausible examples of ancestor/descendant relationships (i.e., are examples of anagenesis). In the case of the former pair, Au. anamensis and Au. afarensis are most likely time-successive taxa within a single lineage with the Laetoli hypodigm of the former taxon intermediate between Au. anamensis and the Hadar hypodigm of Au. afarensis. This hypothesis has been given support by the discovery of fossil evidence from Woranso-Mille in Ethiopia that is both temporally and morphologically intermediate between Au. anamensis and Au. afarensis (Haile-Selassie et al. 2010).
However, this example of an “ancestor-descendant sequence” can no longer be used because the A. anamensis skull discovered last year dates to 3.8 Ma, which is 100,000 years after the appearance of fossils of A. afarensis. A gradualistic transition is no longer feasible.
Why Does This Matter?
Well, as we all know evolutionary biologists prefer to show gradualistic direct evolution rather than punc eq. That’s because the latter implies rapid evolution without fossil transitions whereas gradualistic evolution implies things evolve slowly, just as Darwin predicted. White et al. (2006)’s paper touted the evolution of A. anamensis into A. afarensisas as a potentially great example of a form of “gradualism” or “anagenesis” over “punctuated equilibrium”:
Gould suspected that “punctuated gradualism” was rare. In contrast, punctuated equilibrium (with speciation by “budding cladogenesis”) is thought to be more common, but demonstrating it requires the verified contemporaneity and persistence of both the ancestral and daughter species. As Gould noted, “We can distinguish the punctuations of rapid anagenesis from those of branching speciation by invoking the eminently testable criterion of ancestral survival following the origin of a descendant species. If the ancestor survives, then the new species has arisen by branching. If the ancestor does not survive, then we must count the case either as indecisive, or as good evidence for rapid anagenesis — but, in any instance, not as evidence for punctuated equilibrium.” (p. 795). These requirements have rarely been met among fossil hominids. For the origin of Australopithecus, phyletic evolution with a burst of rapid directional change during the 200,000-yr period between 4.4 and 4.2Myr ago remains plausible given the geographic, temporal and morphological relationships of Ar. ramidus and Au. anamensis and our understanding of primate dental anatomy and development. Indeed, given the available evidence, the origin of Australopithecus could well turn out to be a case of “punctuated gradualism” or “punctuated anagenesis” rather than rectangular evolution sensu Stanley.
So they admit that the requirements of gradual evolution “have rarely been met among fossil hominids” but White et al.’s 2006 paper predicted this was a case of gradualism. They note that this is easy to test: “If the ancestor survives, then the new species has arisen by branching” — i.e., by punctuated equilibrium.
Well, this 2019 skull discovery shows the presumed ancestor survived, because A. anamensis was apparently still around at 3.8 Ma, 100,000 years after its supposed descendant A. afarensis was already in existence. As the 2019 Nature paper about the discovery states:
We further demonstrate that A. anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis differ more than previously recognized and that these two species overlapped for at least 100,000 years—contradicting the widely accepted hypothesis of anagenesis. … Most importantly, MRD shows that despite the widely accepted hypothesis of anagenesis, A. afarensis did not appear as a result of phyletic transformation. It also shows that at least two related hominin species co-existed in eastern Africa around 3.8 Myr ago, further lending support to mid-Pliocene hominin diversity.”
Even though they still think there’s a possible ancestor-descendent relationship between anamensis and afarensis, we must now cross this example off the list of “phyletic gradualism” or what Wood and Grabowski called clear-cut “examples of ancestor/descendant relationships (i.e., are examples of anagenesis).” Or, as Science Daily put it:
This temporal overlap challenges the widely-accepted idea of a linear transition between these two early human ancestors. … We used to think that A. anamensisgradually turned into A. afarensis over time. We still think that these two species had an ancestor-descendent relationship, but this new discovery suggests that the two species were actually living together in the Afar for quite some time. [Emphasis added.]
A Third Example
Incidentally, in addition to A. anamensisi, A. afarensis, and Homo naledi, there’s a third example from the 2010s where the ages of hominid fossils posed problems for the standard evolutionary model. We also reported last year that a study of Australopithecus sediba and the hominin fossil record published in Science Advances concluded that there is less than a 0.1 percent chance that A. sediba could be a human ancestor. That’s because it postdates the appearance of its would-be descendants in the genus Homo by about 100,000 years. Somehow that study failed to make Smithsonian’s list of top discoveries of the decade.
There are three additional big discoveries of the decade listed by Smithsonian. These pertain to slight revisions of ages that don’t greatly affect the overall evidence for human evolution: (1) that our species, Homo sapiens, now dates back to 300,000 years ago, (2) that stone tools now date back to 3.3 million year ago, and (3) that modern humans are now thought to have gone “out of Africa” earlier, due to a jawbone in Israel that was dated to 174,000-185,000 years old. The first discovery is, again, just a slight modification of previously held dates, and the second age may very well be true although precise ages of tools are notoriously difficult to determine. As for the third discovery, Smithsonian Magazine puts it this way:
[I]n 2018, researchers announced the discovery of an upper jaw in Israel that looked like that of our own species, Homo sapiens. The jaw ended up being 174,000-185,000 years old. This discovery — along with others from China and Greece—suggest that Homo sapiens wandered short-term into Eurasia well before the worldwide migration that began 70,000 years ago.
Commenting on 2018, which was an “annus horribilis” (“terrible year”) for paleoanthropology, Günter Bechly wrote:
The authors of this new study describe a re-dating of a modern human jaw discovered in 2001 in the Misliya cave at Mount Carmel in Israel. After a very careful re-evaluation, using different high-tech methods, the large team of researchers confirmed the attribution to modern Homo sapiens. However, they arrived at a surprising and solid new dating for this specimen at between 177,000 and 194,000 years before the present, which makes it the oldest evidence for modern humans outside of Africa. The problem is, that the standard narrative maintained that modern human originated about 200,000 years ago in Northeast Africa and only much later (about between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago) left Africa to spread around the globe (Callaway 2018b). Single discoveries of modern humans in the Levant before this time, like the 80,000-120,000-year-old remains from Skhul cave and Qafzeh in Israel, were considered to be failed early attempts to leave Africa that left no later descendants. The new results and other recent findings show that such ad hoc hypotheses to explain away conflicting evidence are no longer tenable. That is why the Times of Israel cites Professor Israel Hershkovitz as saying, “This has changed the whole concept of modern human evolution…The entire narrative of the evolution of Homo sapiens must be pushed back by at least 100,000-200,000 years.” The author of the article comments, “With this Misliya cave jawbone, however, the history of human evolution is being rewritten” (Borschel-Dan 2018, emphasis added). Where have we heard that before? Dienekes Pontikos (2018), who hosts one of the most popular paleoanthropological blogs, notes the new results with the headline, “Out of Africa: a theory in crisis,” and remarks that it “should cause a rethink of the currently held Out-of-Africa orthodoxy.” Hear, hear!
An Initial Couple?
Unfortunately Smithsonian Magazine’s list of top discoveries of the 2010s fails to recognize a much bigger story that answered a question of interest to a broad segment of the population: Did humans arise from an initial couple? Between 2016 and 2019, qualified scientists for the first time developed a model to rigorously test the long-assumed evolutionary viewpoint that modern humans originally descended from a large population composed of thousands of individuals. This study resulted in three publications which ultimately found that it is possible that modern humans originated not from a large population but from an initial pair that lived as recently as 500,000 years ago (or potentially even more recently, if fewer assumptions are made).
According to the final paper of this study, published in 2019 by biologist Ann Gauger and mathematician Ola Hössjer in the journal BIO-Complexity, within human origins research “certain common assumptions used for convenience have been misinterpreted as if they were data-driven conclusions, without testing the single-couple origin hypothesis scientifically.” Their model tries to test the question of whether humanity could have originated from an initial pair, and it seeks to do this by minimizing assumptions:
The SOC [Single-Origin Couple] model we consider differs from the prevailing interpretation of human ancestry in only two assumptions: (i) That we evolved continuously from non-humans in a large population. (ii) That genetic diversity is always due to germline mutations.
Rather than forcing models to assume that genetic diversity must only derive from germline mutations and that population sizes must always be very large, their paper allows that an initial couple of human beings could have been “instantiated” with “primordial diversity.”
This study is a great example of how we must allow a model to be tested by fairly implementing its boundary conditions. It shows precisely why it’s wrong to use circular reasoning to first assume that unguided evolutionary boundary conditions are the only options, and then conclude that other models must therefore be wrong. After implementing their boundary conditions and applying the mathematics of population genetics, the authors conclude that, “as far as we know scientifically from the genetic data, the human species could have come from as a single couple, so that all humans alive today could have descended uniquely from that first pair.” They found that this initial couple could have lived as recently as 500,000 years ago. For more details on this research, see Uniqueoriginresearch.org.
Of course the Smithsonian Institution is entirely wedded to an effectively unguided evolutionary view of human origins, as their Hall of Human Origins in Washington, D.C., and their traveling human origins exhibit have made clear in recent years. Thus it is unsurprising that they ignore studies that challenged prevailing evolutionary wisdom, and positively spun discoveries in the 2010s that actually weakened the evidence for human evolution. If anything, these discoveries show that the 2010s were not a great decade after all for the paleoanthropological evidence for human evolution.
Perhaps in ten years we’ll be having this conversation again — and perhaps at that time the Smithsonian Institution will give us all a more objective analysis of the evidence. Who knows what the next decade will bring?
Photo: Foot of Homo naledi, by Lee Roger Berger research team [CC BY 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-30--“MasterClass” with Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design; 25 Percent Discount Ends at Midnight

You ’ ve seen it promoted on Facebook and elsewhere : the highly produced series of online “ MasterClass ” programs with celebrities in a range of fields .
You can learn about Writing with Dan Brown , Film and TV with Ron Howard , Culinary Arts with Wolfgang Puck , Science & Technology with Neil deGrasse Tyson , Lifestyle with RuPaul , and many others .
That ’ s all fine , but what if you want to learn about something a little meatier — in fact about the ultimate questions that have troubled human beings from the inception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the universe manifest purpose ?
Does life give evidence of design ?
Is there a transcendent mind behind the veil of nature ?
For that , looking to the offerings of the MasterClass celebrities , you ’ d be out of luck .
To answer that need , Discovery Institute offers our own “ MasterClass , ” you could call it , with apologies to RuPaul , Neil Tyson , et al .
DiscoveryU is our answer to MasterClass .
Our latest is an 85-lesson online course with a star in the field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design , ” and I can offer you a special 25 percent discount on it but only through midnight Pacific time tonight .
For more information look here .
For the discount , just enter the code mgen25 when you check out .
Dr. Meyer is the Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science and New York Times bestselling author , whose next book is The Return of the God Hypothesis .
In his DiscoveryU online course he discusses the “ three discoveries that reveal the mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website , there is a free preview and a detailed course outline .
In compelling , accessible lectures , Dr. Meyer covers the origin of life , the origin of animal life , and the origin of our fine-tuned universe .
In his final lecture he answer what might be the most urgent question imaginable : “ Who Is the Designer ?
” Take a moment now to check out the DiscoveryU website and consider learning about the secrets of our world of life from a brilliant and charismatic scholar .

You’ve seen it promoted on Facebook and elsewhere: the highly produced series of online “MasterClass” programs with celebrities in a range of fields. You can learn about Writing with Dan Brown, Film and TV with Ron Howard, Culinary Arts with Wolfgang Puck, Science & Technology with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lifestyle with RuPaul, and many others.
That’s all fine, but what if you want to learn about something a little meatier — in fact about the ultimate questions that have troubled human beings from the inception of our species? Like: Does the universe manifest purpose? Does life give evidence of design? Is there a transcendent mind behind the veil of nature? For that, looking to the offerings of the MasterClass celebrities, you’d be out of luck.
To answer that need, Discovery Institute offers our own “MasterClass,” you could call it, with apologies to RuPaul, Neil Tyson, et al. DiscoveryU is our answer to MasterClass. Our latest is an 85-lesson online course with a star in the field of intelligent design. It’s “Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design,” and I can offer you a special 25 percent discount on it but only through midnight Pacific time tonight. For more information look here. For the discount, just enter the code mgen25 when you check out.
Dr. Meyer is the Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science and New York Times bestselling author, whose next book is The Return of the God Hypothesis. In his DiscoveryU online course he discusses the “three discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe.” At the DiscoveryU website, there is a free preview and a detailed course outline. In compelling, accessible lectures, Dr. Meyer covers the origin of life, the origin of animal life, and the origin of our fine-tuned universe. In his final lecture he answer what might be the most urgent question imaginable: “Who Is the Designer?”
Take a moment now to check out the DiscoveryU website and consider learning about the secrets of our world of life from a brilliant and charismatic scholar.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-01--How to Teach Evolution in a Public School — My Experience

A reader , Julie , emailed me with a question that I often hear from teachers and home educators .
For every teacher who asks , I infer that many other teachers have wondered the same thing but hadn ’ t thought to reach out .
Julie writes : I teach high school biology .
Would you advise me on a good high school biology textbook ?
I own a number of your publications , and love your products , in addition to attending your ID Education Day in March with my students .
I have successfully used Discovering Intelligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , I am looking for an actual complete textbook for the year .
Thank you for your time !
I assume Julie teaches in a private or Christian school setting , in which case there are various options , the best of which may be a piece-meal approach using a variety of supplemental resources alongside a standard core textbook .
Many of these , of course , would not work in a public school .
But the public school context is the one where my own experience lies .
I had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year , a few years ago , and I ended up doing quite a bit of research the summer beforehand on the best textbooks available .
Since this was a public school , I had to stick to purely orthodox choices .
For my purposes in preparing lessons , I found the college text Campbell ’ s Biology to be of the highest caliber .
That said , it was saturated with Darwinian assumptions .
What did I do ?
Well , I introduced the course by holding a lengthy discussion about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I warned the students that I was prepared to teach the former but ill-equipped to teach the latter .
Anytime we encountered a section stating Darwinian assumptions as fact , I would ask my class whether it fell under the heading of science or philosophy .
If the latter , we would either leave it for “ extra reading ” or ( more frequently ) we would agree to depart from the study of proper science for a few minutes to discuss the merits or weaknesses of the claims being made .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute ) in the classroom , I used it extensively at home to prepare for these discussions regarding evolution , and the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for it .
As long as universities insist on teaching Darwinian evolution as unquestionable truth , I believe it ’ s critical to ( a ) expose high school students to the arguments so that they aren ’ t blindsided or embarrassed when they get to college , ( b ) help them to recognize the difference between fact and theory , and ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and civil debates about the evidence , for the sake of the subject matter itself and to sharpen their argumentative skills .
That is my best advice for now , offered here with the caveat that I have yet to find a fully satisfying solution .
I hope this helps !

A reader, Julie, emailed me with a question that I often hear from teachers and home educators. For every teacher who asks, I infer that many other teachers have wondered the same thing but hadn’t thought to reach out. Julie writes:
I teach high school biology. Would you advise me on a good high school biology textbook? I own a number of your publications, and love your products, in addition to attending your ID Education Day in March with my students. I have successfully used Discovering Intelligent Design at the 9th grade level. However, I am looking for an actual complete textbook for the year. Thank you for your time!
I assume Julie teaches in a private or Christian school setting, in which case there are various options, the best of which may be a piece-meal approach using a variety of supplemental resources alongside a standard core textbook.
Many of these, of course, would not work in a public school. But the public school context is the one where my own experience lies.
I had an opportunity to teach high school biology for a year, a few years ago, and I ended up doing quite a bit of research the summer beforehand on the best textbooks available. Since this was a public school, I had to stick to purely orthodox choices. For my purposes in preparing lessons, I found the college text Campbell’s Biology to be of the highest caliber. That said, it was saturated with Darwinian assumptions.
Science and Philosophy
What did I do? Well, I introduced the course by holding a lengthy discussion about the difference between science and philosophy. I warned the students that I was prepared to teach the former but ill-equipped to teach the latter. Anytime we encountered a section stating Darwinian assumptions as fact, I would ask my class whether it fell under the heading of science or philosophy. If the latter, we would either leave it for “extra reading” or (more frequently) we would agree to depart from the study of proper science for a few minutes to discuss the merits or weaknesses of the claims being made.
While I never used Explore Evolution (from Discovery Institute) in the classroom, I used it extensively at home to prepare for these discussions regarding evolution, and the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for it.
As long as universities insist on teaching Darwinian evolution as unquestionable truth, I believe it’s critical to (a) expose high school students to the arguments so that they aren’t blindsided or embarrassed when they get to college, (b) help them to recognize the difference between fact and theory, and (c) train them to have intelligent and civil debates about the evidence, for the sake of the subject matter itself and to sharpen their argumentative skills.
That is my best advice for now, offered here with the caveat that I have yet to find a fully satisfying solution. I hope this helps!
Photo credit: SchoolPRPro, via Pixabay.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-01--The Scramble to Redeem The S-Blob

The Scramble to Redeem The S-Blob

My own medical profession , as I have described at Evolution News before , is at the forefront in a struggle against a plague .
Heroic doctors and nurses risk their lives daily .
Somewhere far back behind the front line , meanwhile , there is a policy-making Blob .
In the context of foreign policy , cynics refer to The Blob .
The Blob is the foreign policy of experts and hangers-on , and it takes on a life of its own .
The scientific profession has a Blob as well , consisting of myriad scientific experts in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other pilot fish .
The Science Blob ( hereafter “ The S-Blob ” ) is in a panic .
The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a very unwelcome spotlight on The S-Blob , and more than anything else , Blobs hate light .
This pandemic is unmasking the incompetence of the scientific establishment , particularly the failure of the massive public health bureaucracy .
The West is facing hundreds of thousands of deaths and economic and societal collapse because scientists who are trained and paid to protect us from pandemics failed to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal and others report , U.S. intelligence is investigating whether COVID-19 originated from scientific incompetence in a Wuhan research lab .
Denials aside , it spread to the local populace with historic loss of life , and was spread to the world by a Chinese scientific and political establishment that covered up the emerging pandemic and allowed international flights to leave Wuhan while restricting flights within China .
The World Health Organization covered up the local epidemic long enough to permit it to become a pandemic .
The American Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans were at risk and apparently made no effort to seal our borders until months after the epidemic in China began and spread to Europe .
American public health officials since then have thrown our nation into a virtual depression ( with unemployment levels not seen since the 1930s ) and have shown astonishing incompetence .
Our response to this entirely preventable pandemic was hindered by a lack of rudimentary credible science ( e.g.
, quickly changing statements about whether masks are to be recommended ) .
Never in this century has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display .
The Root of the Problem Blobs are slow .
They feed voraciously ( on your money ) and excrete voraciously ( e.g.
, evolutionary biology ) .
Blobs need tenders to protect them , and the S-Blob depends heavily on its Internet tenders .
Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella is one such tender .
Novella has made a career out of making excuses for the S-Blob .
Novella is , as you might imagine , in a frenzy as of late .
As we all face death and economic and societal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets to the root of the problem , in his view , and lays out the blame : This is difficult to quantify , but what is happening is that we are allowing to thrive a multi-billion dollar industry funneling money to charlatans , quacks , con-artists , pseudoscientists… Do you think they are just taking their money and staying quiet ?
No .
They are using some of those billions to lobby… and funnel taxpayer money into promoting their snake oil .
This multi-billion dollar industry is also engaged in a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation campaign , for their “ brand ” … They have spent decades misinforming the public about the relative significance of various health risks and benefits , the nature of disease , and the trustworthiness of scientists and experts… So we have allowed a system to fester in our society that… infiltrates scientific and professional institutions with pseudoscience and rank nonsense , forces government expenditure on fake medicine… Part of our pandemic preparedness has to be scientific hygiene – we need to keep pseudoscience out of our medical institutions .
Lest you misunderstand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The S-Blob .
He ’ s talking about what he sees as the real root of our national crisis… Reiki : With this COVID pandemic , Novella ’ s multi-year quest to protect the public from Reiki , an alternative medicine technique , is finally coming to fruition , just when we need it .
The S-Blob is increasingly under justifiable scrutiny for the most catastrophic scientific fiasco of the 21st century .
Its defenders are spewing chaff like there ’ s no tomorrow .
They will assiduously protect the homefolk from homeopaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots , lone surfers , and all the usual suspects .
This pandemic will keep the likes of Novella busy for the foreseeable future — there ’ s a lot of Blob-butt to cover .
A S-Blob tender ’ s job is never done , as long as there are excuses to peddle and accountability to shirk .
Photo : COVID-19 test kit , by U.S. Centers for Disease Control / Public domain .

My own medical profession, as I have described at Evolution News before, is at the forefront in a struggle against a plague. Heroic doctors and nurses risk their lives daily. Somewhere far back behind the front line, meanwhile, there is a policy-making Blob.
In the context of foreign policy, cynics refer to The Blob. The Blob is the foreign policy of experts and hangers-on, and it takes on a life of its own.
The Science Blob
The scientific profession has a Blob as well, consisting of myriad scientific experts in government and academia, with their accompanying bureaucrats and other pilot fish. The Science Blob (hereafter “The S-Blob”) is in a panic. The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a very unwelcome spotlight on The S-Blob, and more than anything else, Blobs hate light. This pandemic is unmasking the incompetence of the scientific establishment, particularly the failure of the massive public health bureaucracy. The West is facing hundreds of thousands of deaths and economic and societal collapse because scientists who are trained and paid to protect us from pandemics failed to protect us from this pandemic.
As the Wall Street Journal and others report, U.S. intelligence is investigating whether COVID-19 originated from scientific incompetence in a Wuhan research lab. Denials aside, it spread to the local populace with historic loss of life, and was spread to the world by a Chinese scientific and political establishment that covered up the emerging pandemic and allowed international flights to leave Wuhan while restricting flights within China. The World Health Organization covered up the local epidemic long enough to permit it to become a pandemic. The American Centers for Disease Control ignored the clear evidence that Americans were at risk and apparently made no effort to seal our borders until months after the epidemic in China began and spread to Europe. American public health officials since then have thrown our nation into a virtual depression (with unemployment levels not seen since the 1930s) and have shown astonishing incompetence. Our response to this entirely preventable pandemic was hindered by a lack of rudimentary credible science (e.g., quickly changing statements about whether masks are to be recommended). Never in this century has the nature of the S-Blob been so starkly on display.
The Root of the Problem
Blobs are slow. They feed voraciously (on your money) and excrete voraciously (e.g., evolutionary biology). Blobs need tenders to protect them, and the S-Blob depends heavily on its Internet tenders. Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella is one such tender. Novella has made a career out of making excuses for the S-Blob. Novella is, as you might imagine, in a frenzy as of late. As we all face death and economic and societal ruin thanks to the S-Blob, Novella gets to the root of the problem, in his view, and lays out the blame:
This is difficult to quantify, but what is happening is that we are allowing to thrive a multi-billion dollar industry funneling money to charlatans, quacks, con-artists, pseudoscientists… Do you think they are just taking their money and staying quiet? No. They are using some of those billions to lobby… and funnel taxpayer money into promoting their snake oil. This multi-billion dollar industry is also engaged in a massive advertising campaign, which amounts to a disinformation campaign, for their “brand”… They have spent decades misinforming the public about the relative significance of various health risks and benefits, the nature of disease, and the trustworthiness of scientists and experts… So we have allowed a system to fester in our society that… infiltrates scientific and professional institutions with pseudoscience and rank nonsense, forces government expenditure on fake medicine… Part of our pandemic preparedness has to be scientific hygiene – we need to keep pseudoscience out of our medical institutions.
Lest you misunderstand, Novella isn’t talking about The S-Blob. He’s talking about what he sees as the real root of our national crisis… Reiki:
…The implication is we should just let people use their Reiki or magic potions if it makes them feel like they are doing something, as long as the treatment is not directly physically harmful. As you can see, I have been addressing it for years, including the fact that I will have to address it for years…
With this COVID pandemic, Novella’s multi-year quest to protect the public from Reiki, an alternative medicine technique, is finally coming to fruition, just when we need it.
Protecting the Homefolk
The S-Blob is increasingly under justifiable scrutiny for the most catastrophic scientific fiasco of the 21st century. Its defenders are spewing chaff like there’s no tomorrow. They will assiduously protect the homefolk from homeopaths, Orthodox Jews, Christians in parking lots, lone surfers, and all the usual suspects. This pandemic will keep the likes of Novella busy for the foreseeable future — there’s a lot of Blob-butt to cover. A S-Blob tender’s job is never done, as long as there are excuses to peddle and accountability to shirk.
Photo: COVID-19 test kit, by U.S. Centers for Disease Control / Public domain.