evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-22--Zombie History — Using Galileo to Whack Intelligent Design

A useful myth is hard to put down .
The Galileo myth gives a premiere illustration .
Ever since John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White fostered the “ warfare thesis ” of “ science vs religion ” in the late 19th century , appealing to the Galileo affair as the example par excellence , historians have had little luck convincing the scientific establishment that their version of the Galileo story is flawed .
Fortunately , we have the new book by Michael Keas to help set the story straight : Unbelievable : 7 Myths About the History and Future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the development of the warfare thesis through the 19th century .
Despite being largely discredited by historians , the warfare thesis lives on into our time .
For instance , Mario Livio has a new book out , Galileo and the Science Deniers , which Alison Abbott reviewed in Nature .
According to Livio , there are only two types of people in the world : those who “ believe in science , ” and those pesky “ science deniers ” who keep hindering progress .
Abbott comments : And who might those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt about consensus opinion on climate change , and evolution .
The book itself inveighs against a “ policy today that encourage the teaching of creationism as thinly veiled ‘ intelligent design , ’ ” which is wrong on multiple levels .
( Intelligent design isn ’ t creationism , whether “ thinly veiled ” or otherwise , and if the “ policy ” he has in mind is Discovery Institute ’ s , that policy warns against teaching either ID or creationism in public schools . )
In Nature ’ s podcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose in writing was to advance the warfare thesis .
The podcast speaks flippantly of the “ science denialism that we see today.
” Surely there is plenty of that in various quarters , but this broad-brush categorization needs clarification that never comes .
Livio : This is one of the main reasons why I decided to write the book .
We see science denial all over the place today… .
Interviewer : Do you think that there can be any lessons that can be learned ?
Livio : Well , the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not that science is always right , but science has this ability to self-correct .
So we have to believe in science , and we have to put the science first , and before any kind of political considerations , conservatism , religious beliefs and things like that .
This is a big lesson .
It seems ironic to advocate “ belief in science ” when science is about demonstration , not belief .
Does Livio mean to imply that belief in science means acquiescence to the scientific consensus at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of empirical research contradicts the consensus , would he advocate for denying the evidence to keep the consensus secure ?
Or alternatively , if he were to exercise the “ intellectual freedom ” he praises in Galileo , by critiquing a flawed consensus , would that not make him a science denier himself ?
To her credit , Abbott notes some weaknesses in the book ’ s evidential support : The reality of the events surrounding Galileo ’ s condemnation and house arrest in 1633 is far too complex to submit to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , a skilled debater could turn the tables on Livio , and show that the scientific establishment today is like the 17th-century Inquisition , condemning its own heretics .
If science were as self-correcting as Livio thinks , Darwinism would have been rejected by now .
Livio considers Galileo “ a symbol of the fight for intellectual freedom , ” but denies that freedom to the bold scientists who critique the consensus dogmas on some scientific issues .
Livio ’ s history needs some self-correction .
True , he corrects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story about his dropping weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa , and the myth about his saying “ And yet it moves ” at the end of his trial .
Those are minor matters for Livio as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy : portraying Galileo as the champion of “ science vs religion.
” Better historians quote Galileo to show he never doubted the providence of God , and actually believed his position would help the Church .
Michael Keas , in his excellent chapter on the Galileo affair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troubled Galileo but balances that with the many friends in the church who supported him .
He debunks myths about Galileo having been imprisoned and tortured and forced to confess to heresy , myths unfortunately fostered by 19th-century textbook writers , some of whom lacked access to primary sources .
Bad as it was , Galileo ’ s treatment was much more accommodating than these agenda-driven accounts suggested .
Keas concludes with a summary of the forces that led to the result : The Galileo affair was not a simple or inevitable instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliances and personal idiosyncrasies came into play .
Contingency , not historical inevitability , was at work .
The majority of Church leaders had allied themselves with the majority Aristotelian scientific viewpoint of the day .
Together they opposed Copernican astronomy , which a theological and scientific minority held .
If Galileo had been more tactful , modest , and patient in his attempt to reform his own church , there might have been no trial of 1633 .
Minority scientists such as Galileo argued that a heliocentric cosmos was scientifically superior .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ through 1633 , the Copernican system had not yet been shown to be superior to the Tychonic system of astronomy… .
He made the arguments for the Copernican system seem stronger than they were at the time .
This is part of what got him in trouble with the Inquisition… .
Rather than reflecting a fundamental conflict between science and Christianity , the Galileo affair is better characterized as the fruit of rapid scientific change , political turmoil , and personal vanity .
Blame to Go Around While few today would excuse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s plenty of blame to go around .
Galileo was a self-assured individual who mocked his opponents in his writings , portraying them as fools .
Pope Urban VIII — a former friend who had encouraged him — took this as a personal slight .
This all happened , furthermore , at a very inopportune time politically , during the Thirty Years War .
Galileo was advancing a view without sufficient observational evidence , which only became convincing to scientists decades later .
Leading scientists of Galileo ’ s day had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for the Tychonian model , which was preferred to both .
Galileo wasn ’ t opposing theologians as much as the establishment science of his day .
The church didn ’ t mind his holding to the Copernican theory as long as it was held tentatively , as an opinion or working hypothesis , as long as Galileo didn ’ t teach it as the truth .
Copernicus himself , who was a churchman supported by the church , had presented his model as attractive for its simplicity , not because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Modern astronomers have complicated both the Copernican view and the Galilean view .
The Earth moves about the sun only in the sun ’ s frame of reference .
The sun itself is in motion around the Milky Way .
The Milky Way , furthermore , is moving with respect to the Local Group and the local supercluster .
Looked at this way , without a preferred frame of reference , the Earth moves neither in circles ( as Copernicus and Galileo believed ) nor in ellipses ( as Kepler believed ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a universe of competing forces .
Knowing this to be the case in modern astrophysical thinking , Livio has grounds for condemning Galileo as a “ science denier.
” Absurd as that would be , it illustrates the historicity of science , the view that science is inextricably bound up with the information available at a given time .
Galileo and the Catholic Church in 1633 did not have access to all the information we have now .
Nor do astronomers in 2020 know everything .
There are profound mysteries still to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as the existence and nature of dark matter and dark energy .
Today ’ s astronomers believe they can only observe and describe some 5 percent of the universe .
Who are we to boast ?
In this light , Livio should be praising honest scientists willing to buck the consensus if they can make a better evidential case than what the establishment offers .
The “ deniers ” might just be the pioneers of a “ scientific revolution ” which , rejecting hoary dogmas , can bring fresh understanding to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to do that with the compelling evidence for design in genetics , molecular biology , and the fine-tuning of the universe .
Jonathan Wells calls attempts to keep discarded icons of evolution alive “ Zombie Science.
” Michael Keas could call the warfare thesis “ Zombie History.
” The pursuit of truth should be , contrary to Nature ’ s perpetuation of the Galileo myth , the primary value for which all honest investigators strive .

A useful myth is hard to put down. The Galileo myth gives a premiere illustration. Ever since John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White fostered the “warfare thesis” of “science vs religion” in the late 19th century, appealing to the Galileo affair as the example par excellence, historians have had little luck convincing the scientific establishment that their version of the Galileo story is flawed. Fortunately, we have the new book by Michael Keas to help set the story straight: Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion.
Keas traces the development of the warfare thesis through the 19th century. Despite being largely discredited by historians, the warfare thesis lives on into our time. For instance, Mario Livio has a new book out, Galileo and the Science Deniers, which Alison Abbott reviewed in Nature. According to Livio, there are only two types of people in the world: those who “believe in science,” and those pesky “science deniers” who keep hindering progress. Abbott comments:
In particular, he argues, the charges of heresy that Galileo faced for his scientific claims in the seventeenth century have their counterparts in science deniers’ condemnations today. [Emphasis added.]
And who might those deniers be? Those who hold any doubt about consensus opinion on climate change, and evolution.
And what of today’s science deniers? Livio briefly addresses how religion and business interests still conspire to attack evidence for evolution and anthropogenic climate change.
The book itself inveighs against a “policy today that encourage the teaching of creationism as thinly veiled ‘intelligent design,’” which is wrong on multiple levels. (Intelligent design isn’t creationism, whether “thinly veiled” or otherwise, and if the “policy” he has in mind is Discovery Institute’s, that policy warns against teaching either ID or creationism in public schools.)
Polemics
In Nature’s podcast, Livio makes it clear that his purpose in writing was to advance the warfare thesis. The podcast speaks flippantly of the “science denialism that we see today.” Surely there is plenty of that in various quarters, but this broad-brush categorization needs clarification that never comes.
Livio: This is one of the main reasons why I decided to write the book. We see science denial all over the place today…. Interviewer: Do you think that there can be any lessons that can be learned? Livio: Well, the real lesson is “believe in science.” It’s not that science is always right, but science has this ability to self-correct. So we have to believe in science, and we have to put the science first, and before any kind of political considerations, conservatism, religious beliefs and things like that. This is a big lesson.
It seems ironic to advocate “belief in science” when science is about demonstration, not belief. Does Livio mean to imply that belief in science means acquiescence to the scientific consensus at a given time? If the evidence of empirical research contradicts the consensus, would he advocate for denying the evidence to keep the consensus secure? Or alternatively, if he were to exercise the “intellectual freedom” he praises in Galileo, by critiquing a flawed consensus, would that not make him a science denier himself?
To her credit, Abbott notes some weaknesses in the book’s evidential support:
It’s a chillingly relevant theme, yet the parallels he draws between Galileo’s trial and contemporary science wars feel thin, and there’s a frustrating lack of examples to demonstrate the continuity of denialism through the centuries.
The Real Galileo
The reality of the events surrounding Galileo’s condemnation and house arrest in 1633 is far too complex to submit to the unnuanced “science vs religion” dichotomy. In fact, a skilled debater could turn the tables on Livio, and show that the scientific establishment today is like the 17th-century Inquisition, condemning its own heretics. If science were as self-correcting as Livio thinks, Darwinism would have been rejected by now. Livio considers Galileo “a symbol of the fight for intellectual freedom,” but denies that freedom to the bold scientists who critique the consensus dogmas on some scientific issues.
Livio’s history needs some self-correction. True, he corrects some minor myths about Galileo, like the story about his dropping weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the myth about his saying “And yet it moves” at the end of his trial. Those are minor matters for Livio as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy: portraying Galileo as the champion of “science vs religion.” Better historians quote Galileo to show he never doubted the providence of God, and actually believed his position would help the Church.
Michael Keas, in his excellent chapter on the Galileo affair in Unbelievable, describes the individuals who troubled Galileo but balances that with the many friends in the church who supported him.
He debunks myths about Galileo having been imprisoned and tortured and forced to confess to heresy, myths unfortunately fostered by 19th-century textbook writers, some of whom lacked access to primary sources. Bad as it was, Galileo’s treatment was much more accommodating than these agenda-driven accounts suggested. Keas concludes with a summary of the forces that led to the result:
The Galileo affair was not a simple or inevitable instance of science versus Christianity. Many complicated alliances and personal idiosyncrasies came into play. Contingency, not historical inevitability, was at work. The majority of Church leaders had allied themselves with the majority Aristotelian scientific viewpoint of the day. Together they opposed Copernican astronomy, which a theological and scientific minority held. If Galileo had been more tactful, modest, and patient in his attempt to reform his own church, there might have been no trial of 1633. Minority scientists such as Galileo argued that a heliocentric cosmos was scientifically superior. But given the scientific data available up through 1633, the Copernican system had not yet been shown to be superior to the Tychonic system of astronomy…. He made the arguments for the Copernican system seem stronger than they were at the time. This is part of what got him in trouble with the Inquisition…. Rather than reflecting a fundamental conflict between science and Christianity, the Galileo affair is better characterized as the fruit of rapid scientific change, political turmoil, and personal vanity.
Blame to Go Around
While few today would excuse the condemnation and house arrest of Galileo, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Galileo was a self-assured individual who mocked his opponents in his writings, portraying them as fools. Pope Urban VIII — a former friend who had encouraged him — took this as a personal slight.
This all happened, furthermore, at a very inopportune time politically, during the Thirty Years War. Galileo was advancing a view without sufficient observational evidence, which only became convincing to scientists decades later. Leading scientists of Galileo’s day had their own evidences for the geocentric theory, and for the Tychonian model, which was preferred to both. Galileo wasn’t opposing theologians as much as the establishment science of his day. The church didn’t mind his holding to the Copernican theory as long as it was held tentatively, as an opinion or working hypothesis, as long as Galileo didn’t teach it as the truth. Copernicus himself, who was a churchman supported by the church, had presented his model as attractive for its simplicity, not because he had superior evidence it was true.
Modern astronomers have complicated both the Copernican view and the Galilean view. The Earth moves about the sun only in the sun’s frame of reference. The sun itself is in motion around the Milky Way. The Milky Way, furthermore, is moving with respect to the Local Group and the local supercluster. Looked at this way, without a preferred frame of reference, the Earth moves neither in circles (as Copernicus and Galileo believed) nor in ellipses (as Kepler believed); it traces an erratic path in a universe of competing forces.
Knowing this to be the case in modern astrophysical thinking, Livio has grounds for condemning Galileo as a “science denier.” Absurd as that would be, it illustrates the historicity of science, the view that science is inextricably bound up with the information available at a given time. Galileo and the Catholic Church in 1633 did not have access to all the information we have now. Nor do astronomers in 2020 know everything. There are profound mysteries still to be solved that are hotly debated today, such as the existence and nature of dark matter and dark energy. Today’s astronomers believe they can only observe and describe some 5 percent of the universe. Who are we to boast?
In this light, Livio should be praising honest scientists willing to buck the consensus if they can make a better evidential case than what the establishment offers. The “deniers” might just be the pioneers of a “scientific revolution” which, rejecting hoary dogmas, can bring fresh understanding to the study of nature. ID advocates are trying to do that with the compelling evidence for design in genetics, molecular biology, and the fine-tuning of the universe.
Jonathan Wells calls attempts to keep discarded icons of evolution alive “Zombie Science.” Michael Keas could call the warfare thesis “Zombie History.” The pursuit of truth should be, contrary to Nature’s perpetuation of the Galileo myth, the primary value for which all honest investigators strive.
Image: Galileo interrogated, by Cristiano Banti [Public domain].


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-23--Listen: Lee Spetner Takes Aim at Natural Selection and Population Genetics

On a classic episode of ID the Future , Ira Berkowitz interviews MIT PhD Lee Spetner in Jerusalem .
Together @ @ @ @ @ Spetner ’ s books Not by Chance and The Evolution Revolution .
Spetner takes on @ @ @ @ @ it can and can not do .
He also reviews aspects of population genetics and @ @ @ @ @ s history imposes on evolving new species .
Download the podcast or listen to it @ @

Photo: Cafe Darwin, by Nathan Jacobson.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, Ira Berkowitz interviews MIT PhD Lee Spetner in Jerusalem. Together they explore key arguments from Spetner’s books Not by Chance and The Evolution Revolution. Spetner takes on natural selection, discussing what it can and cannot do. He also reviews aspects of population genetics and the constraints the Earth’s history imposes on evolving new species. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Coaster from Darwin’s Café Bar, Salzburg, Austria, by Nathan Jacobson.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-24--Doctor’s Diary: Fear Is a Gift from Our Designer

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .
As a physician , I have cared for many patients who were fearful .
Often with good reason , but not always .
Might fear actually be a purposeful design ?
Might it be present to protect a person ?
One might liken fear to pain , which is a similar gift .
How would we have survived as a species if running bare-footed across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irritated hive of yellow jackets ( or murder hornets ! )
didn ’ t hurt ?
Without pain how would a child learn not to touch a hot stove ?
Or , pull away immediately to lessen the damage ?
In 1997 , Gavin de Becker authored The Gift of Fear in which he cogently cited many examples of fear that can be protective .
For example , if you were to park on top of a five-story parking structure late at night and found a deranged-looking guy in the elevator , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s fear that tells you not to , just as fear rightly told primitive man to stay out of dark caves and not to play with angry monkeys .
Intense fear can trigger the sudden “ fight or flight ” response , a lifesaving reaction .
Under the influence of fear , we immediately gain strength .
We also sweat profusely , to become slippery , so as to escape another ’ s clutches .
Fear can be excessive .
What ’ s needed to moderate it are intelligence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gifts of our design .
The coronavirus pandemic has been very taxing for everyone .
It is scary .
It can , in the extreme , even be paralyzing .
But we must be capable of feeling fear just as we must be capable of feeling pain .
Both keep us alive .
We are given many emotions by our designer .
Among them are love , compassion , joy , serenity , and courage .
Fear is a different kind of emotion .
Only in its absence do we have the open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objectively and truly appreciate it .
It must be listened to when present .
Sometimes , it must be managed .
But , never ever fear fear .

Editor’s note: Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
As a physician, I have cared for many patients who were fearful. Often with good reason, but not always. Might fear actually be a purposeful design? Might it be present to protect a person?
One might liken fear to pain, which is a similar gift. How would we have survived as a species if running bare-footed across sharp rocks or being stung by an irritated hive of yellow jackets (or murder hornets!) didn’t hurt? Without pain how would a child learn not to touch a hot stove? Or, pull away immediately to lessen the damage?
In 1997, Gavin de Becker authored The Gift of Fear in which he cogently cited many examples of fear that can be protective. For example, if you were to park on top of a five-story parking structure late at night and found a deranged-looking guy in the elevator, would you go inside? Of course not. It’s fear that tells you not to, just as fear rightly told primitive man to stay out of dark caves and not to play with angry monkeys. Intense fear can trigger the sudden “fight or flight” response, a lifesaving reaction. Under the influence of fear, we immediately gain strength. We also sweat profusely, to become slippery, so as to escape another’s clutches.
Two Other Gifts
Fear can be excessive. What’s needed to moderate it are intelligence and common sense, which are two others gifts of our design.
The coronavirus pandemic has been very taxing for everyone. It is scary. It can, in the extreme, even be paralyzing. But we must be capable of feeling fear just as we must be capable of feeling pain. Both keep us alive.
We are given many emotions by our designer. Among them are love, compassion, joy, serenity, and courage. Fear is a different kind of emotion. Only in its absence do we have the open frame of mind to think about it objectively and truly appreciate it. It must be listened to when present. Sometimes, it must be managed. But, never ever fear fear.
Photo credit: Dieter K, via Flickr.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-25--Behe Vindicated Again: Sherpas Climb Everest Easier, Because Darwin Devolves

How can Tibetans survive high altitudes that leave lowlanders gasping ?
The answer is found in broken genes .
A new paper on the Tibetan genome vindicates what Michael Behe said in Darwin Devolves : evolution breaks things , but sometimes , like in the case of polar bears , the result can allow organisms to thrive in specific environments .
Yes , this follows on the heels of last week ’ s Behe vindication ; see here .
A team of 16 scientists , writing in PNAS , sought to understand the genetic basis for Tibetan high-altitude adaptation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of whom serve as guides for lowlanders wanting to conquer Mount Everest , routinely carry heavy burdens at altitudes above 14,000 feet , the average elevation on the Tibetan plateau .
In its entry on Sherpa people , Wikipedia notes , Many Sherpa are highly regarded as elite mountaineers and experts in their local area .
They were immeasurably valuable to early explorers of the Himalayan region , serving as guides at the extreme altitudes of the peaks and passes in the region , particularly for expeditions to climb Mount Everest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by foreigners to refer to almost any guide or climbing supporter hired for mountaineering expeditions in the Himalayas , regardless of their ethnicity .
Because of this usage , the term has become a slang byword for a guide or mentor in other situations .
Sherpas are renowned in the international climbing and mountaineering community for their hardiness , expertise , and experience at very high altitudes .
[ Emphasis added . ]
This sounds like a study in the evolution of higher fitness .
Wikipedia goes on to say , The news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , does not specify any random mutation that “ causes ” super-athletes to be born in the competition for survival , but rather that the “ super-athlete gene ” was “ named because some variants of the gene are associated with improved athletic performance.
” Association is not causation .
Those variants already existed in the human genome .
Wikipedia ’ s misleading statement that “ 30 genetic factors that make Tibetans ’ bodies well-suited ” needs to be qualified : Nowhere in the two papers published in this 2010 study did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ) and positive natural selection actually conferred the high-altitude adaptation.1,2 Their measures of “ positive selection ” are inferences relying on the assumption , “ if a gene persists , it must be under positive selection ” — whether or not it shows any benefit to the organism .
Even if an adaptation is demonstrated , the variations show association , not causation .
For instance : It is plausible that the diminished Hb levels found in Tibetans offset complications associated with sustained high Hb levels ( for instance , hyperviscosity ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alternatively , decreased Hb levels could be a side effect of other phenotypes that are the actual targets of natural selection .
The second paper2 touts the EPAS1 gene as the strongest case for positive selection , but they qualify that claim with , “ Selection may have acted directly on this variant , or another linked noncoding variant , to influence the regulation of EPAS1.
” Consider this nebulous conclusion : EPAS1 may therefore represent the strongest instance of natural selection documented in a human population , and variation at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human survival and/or reproduction in the Tibetan region .
The authors write with escape clauses like this , denying knowledge of “ actual targets ” of natural selection , hoping that “ further research ” will confirm them someday .
Does this research actually help Darwinism ?
All human beings are interfertile , members of a single species !
There is no origin of species going on .
We already know that some people are born with better athletic ability than others .
The 2010 study appears to speak of the sorting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , some of which worked out well for those living at high altitudes .
Moreover , this sorting occurred within the past 3,000 years .
Odd , isn ’ t it , how human families tend to move together and marry within the group .
Positive selection for fitness , though , is not what the current paper in PNAS found.3 In “ Tibetan PHD2 , an allele with loss-of-function properties , ” a team led by Daisheng Song found two broken genes that propped each other up .
Genome-wide studies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection in two genes of the Hypoxia Inducible Factor pathway , PHD2 and HIF2A .
The product of the former induces the degradation of the product of the latter .
Key issues regarding Tibetan PHD2 are whether it is a gain-of-function or loss-of-function allele , and how it might contribute to high-altitude adaptation .
Tibetan PHD2 possesses two amino acid changes , D4E and C127S .
We previously showed that in vitro , Tibetan PHD2 is defective in its interaction with p23 , a cochaperone of the HSP90 pathway , and we proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here , we report that additional PHD2 mutations at or near Asp-4 or Cys-127 impair interaction with p23 in vitro .
We find that mice with the Tibetan Phd2 allele display augmented hypoxic ventilatory response , supporting this loss-of-function proposal .
How can two defective genes confer a benefit to Tibetans , protecting them from hypoxia ?
Picture two walls in a construction project that fall in such a way as to prop each other up , protecting workers underneath from rain .
Another analogy might be a leak in a gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowdown in the gas supply line by an accidental shunt that diverts more of it elsewhere .
That ’ s a bit like this situation .
The two broken genes end up facilitating the intake of oxygen in the lungs .
At elevations that have only 60 percent of the oxygen present at sea level , that is beneficial to someone with the mutations .
It ’ s a bit like the story of polar bear evolution in Michael Behe ’ s book , Darwin Devolves .
Broken genes conferred on polar bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerate cold , which has worked well for them in Arctic regions , where fatty seal meat is more abundant than berries that brown bears eat .
Natural selection did not create these genes ; mutations broke them .
Sometimes things work out in certain environments , like Behe ’ s proverbial car that gets better gas mileage without the hood and rear seat when gas mileage is the most important concern at the time .
Nowhere do the authors argue for a gain-of-function genetic mutation .
There is no mention of positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine earlier claims , saying that loss of function is the primary reason the Tibetans gained an advantage .
The loss of function in PHD2 is hypomorphic ; in other words , it makes the protein weaker but not completely inactive .
Intriguingly , another loss-of-function mutation helps compensate for the first one by minimizing damage that would otherwise result from the first break .
Mistakes just work out sometimes .
Although this worked out for Tibetans , one could argue that fully functioning genes are there for a purpose , perhaps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high on mountains , which is not their ideal habitat .
Normally , human physiology responds by making them gasp for air and get sick .
Thus , the two genes conventionally used to illustrate adaptation by natural selection in Tibetans , PHD2 and HIF2A , are both loss-of-function genes .
This reinforces Behe ’ s thesis that Darwin “ devolves ” by breaking existing genetic information .
Darwin needs his magic wand of natural selection to create novelty and bring innovation to the world .
He won ’ t get very far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to help him get up Mount Everest , but not Mount Improbable .
• Xing Ji et al.
, “ Sequencing of 50 Human Exomes Reveals Adaptation to High Altitude , ” Science 02 Jul 2010 : Vol .
329 , Issue 5987 , pp .
75-78 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1190371 .
• Simonson et al.
, “ Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet , ” Science 02 Jul 2010 : Vol .
329 , Issue 5987 , pp .
72-75 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1189406 .
• Song et al.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss-of-function properties , ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , May 15 , 2020 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1920546117 .
Photo : Climbers on Mount Everest , by Lloyd Smith , via Wikimedia Commons .

How can Tibetans survive high altitudes that leave lowlanders gasping? The answer is found in broken genes. A new paper on the Tibetan genome vindicates what Michael Behe said in Darwin Devolves: evolution breaks things, but sometimes, like in the case of polar bears, the result can allow organisms to thrive in specific environments. Yes, this follows on the heels of last week’s Behe vindication; see here.
A team of 16 scientists, writing in PNAS, sought to understand the genetic basis for Tibetan high-altitude adaptation in more detail. Tibetans and Nepalese, many of whom serve as guides for lowlanders wanting to conquer Mount Everest, routinely carry heavy burdens at altitudes above 14,000 feet, the average elevation on the Tibetan plateau. In its entry on Sherpa people, Wikipedia notes,
Many Sherpa are highly regarded as elite mountaineers and experts in their local area. They were immeasurably valuable to early explorers of the Himalayan region, serving as guides at the extreme altitudes of the peaks and passes in the region, particularly for expeditions to climb Mount Everest. Today, the term is often used by foreigners to refer to almost any guide or climbing supporter hired for mountaineering expeditions in the Himalayas, regardless of their ethnicity. Because of this usage, the term has become a slang byword for a guide or mentor in other situations. Sherpas are renowned in the international climbing and mountaineering community for their hardiness, expertise, and experience at very high altitudes. [Emphasis added.]
This sounds like a study in the evolution of higher fitness. Wikipedia goes on to say,
Released in 2010 by U.C. Berkeley, a study identified more than 30 genetic factors that make Tibetans’ bodies well-suited for high-altitudes, including EPAS1, referred to as the “super-athlete gene” which regulates the body’s production of hemoglobin, allowing for greater efficiency in the use of oxygen.
Association and Causation
The news from UC Berkeley about the paper, however, does not specify any random mutation that “causes” super-athletes to be born in the competition for survival, but rather that the “super-athlete gene” was “named because some variants of the gene are associated with improved athletic performance.” Association is not causation. Those variants already existed in the human genome. Wikipedia’s misleading statement that “30 genetic factors that make Tibetans’ bodies well-suited” needs to be qualified:
The genome-wide comparison, performed by evolutionary biologists at the University of California, Berkeley, uncovered more than 30 genes with DNA mutations that have become more prevalent in Tibetans than Han Chinese, nearly half of which are related to how the body uses oxygen. One mutation in particular spread from fewer than 10 percent of the Han Chinese to nearly 90 percent of all Tibetans.
Nowhere in the two papers published in this 2010 study did the authors establish that beneficial mutation(s) and positive natural selection actually conferred the high-altitude adaptation.1,2 Their measures of “positive selection” are inferences relying on the assumption, “if a gene persists, it must be under positive selection” — whether or not it shows any benefit to the organism. Even if an adaptation is demonstrated, the variations show association, not causation. For instance:
It is plausible that the diminished Hb levels found in Tibetans offset complications associated with sustained high Hb levels (for instance, hyperviscosity) seen in non-Tibetans exposed to high-altitude conditions. Alternatively, decreased Hb levels could be a side effect of other phenotypes that are the actual targets of natural selection. The second paper2 touts the EPAS1 gene as the strongest case for positive selection, but they qualify that claim with, “Selection may have acted directly on this variant, or another linked noncoding variant, to influence the regulation of EPAS1.” Consider this nebulous conclusion: EPAS1 may therefore represent the strongest instance of natural selection documented in a human population, and variation at this gene appears to have had important consequences for human survival and/or reproduction in the Tibetan region.
The authors write with escape clauses like this, denying knowledge of “actual targets” of natural selection, hoping that “further research” will confirm them someday.
Does this research actually help Darwinism? All human beings are interfertile, members of a single species! There is no origin of species going on. We already know that some people are born with better athletic ability than others. The 2010 study appears to speak of the sorting out of existing alleles among populations of people, some of which worked out well for those living at high altitudes. Moreover, this sorting occurred within the past 3,000 years. Odd, isn’t it, how human families tend to move together and marry within the group.
The Last Gasp
Positive selection for fitness, though, is not what the current paper in PNAS found.3 In “Tibetan PHD2, an allele with loss-of-function properties,” a team led by Daisheng Song found two broken genes that propped each other up.
Genome-wide studies have consistently identified compelling genetic signatures of natural selection in two genes of the Hypoxia Inducible Factor pathway, PHD2 and HIF2A. The product of the former induces the degradation of the product of the latter. Key issues regarding Tibetan PHD2 are whether it is a gain-of-function or loss-of-function allele, and how it might contribute to high-altitude adaptation. Tibetan PHD2 possesses two amino acid changes, D4E and C127S. We previously showed that in vitro, Tibetan PHD2 is defective in its interaction with p23, a cochaperone of the HSP90 pathway, and we proposed that Tibetan PHD2 is a loss-of-function allele. Here, we report that additional PHD2 mutations at or near Asp-4 or Cys-127 impair interaction with p23 in vitro. We find that mice with the Tibetan Phd2 allele display augmented hypoxic ventilatory response, supporting this loss-of-function proposal.
How can two defective genes confer a benefit to Tibetans, protecting them from hypoxia? Picture two walls in a construction project that fall in such a way as to prop each other up, protecting workers underneath from rain. Another analogy might be a leak in a gas line that is compensated for by a slowdown in the gas supply line by an accidental shunt that diverts more of it elsewhere. That’s a bit like this situation.
We propose that Tibetans possess genetic alterations that both activate and inhibit selective outputs of the HIF pathway to facilitate successful adaptation to the chronic hypoxia of high altitude.
The two broken genes end up facilitating the intake of oxygen in the lungs. At elevations that have only 60 percent of the oxygen present at sea level, that is beneficial to someone with the mutations.
Remember the Polar Bear?
It’s a bit like the story of polar bear evolution in Michael Behe’s book, Darwin Devolves. Broken genes conferred on polar bears a better capacity to eat fat and tolerate cold, which has worked well for them in Arctic regions, where fatty seal meat is more abundant than berries that brown bears eat. Natural selection did not create these genes; mutations broke them. Sometimes things work out in certain environments, like Behe’s proverbial car that gets better gas mileage without the hood and rear seat when gas mileage is the most important concern at the time.
Nowhere do the authors argue for a gain-of-function genetic mutation. There is no mention of positive selection. In fact, the authors undermine earlier claims, saying that loss of function is the primary reason the Tibetans gained an advantage.
Previous studies examining Phd2 loss of function due to either point mutations in or genetic deletion of the Phd2 gene have consistently shown that Phd2 loss of function is associated with increases in either HVR or hypoxia-induced tidal volume, respiratory frequency, or minute ventilation, or a combination of these. These findings therefore support the notion that the Tibetan Phd2 allele is a loss-of-function allele, consistent with the biochemical studies demonstrating impaired interaction of Tibetan PHD2 with p23.
Another Loss-of-Function Mutation
The loss of function in PHD2 is hypomorphic; in other words, it makes the protein weaker but not completely inactive. Intriguingly, another loss-of-function mutation helps compensate for the first one by minimizing damage that would otherwise result from the first break.
We propose that the Tibetan PHD2 allele is a hypomorphic loss-of-function allele that leads to an augmented HVR, while the Tibetan HIF2A allele is a loss-of-function allele that provides protection against pulmonary hypertension and erythrocytosis (Fig. 5C). Lowlanders have a robust HVR [hypoxic ventilatory response], but after long-term acclimatization to high altitude, their HVR declines. Tibetans have an augmented HVR that approaches the ancestral response of lowlanders, which may allow them to maintain high oxygen delivery from the lungs. In contrast to Tibetans, Andeans exhibit a blunted HVR. Thus, this study provides evidence that Tibetans possess a distinct combination of PHD2 and HIF2A alleles that reconfigures the HIF pathway in a manner that facilitates adaptation to the chronic hypoxia of high altitude.
Mistakes just work out sometimes.
Tibetans display augmented hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR), resistance to pulmonary hypertension, and relatively low hemoglobin (Hb) levels. These are considered to be adaptive. For example, the resistance to pulmonary hypertension lessens the risk of right heart failure, while the relatively low Hb levels (which approach that of lowlanders) may decrease the risk of thrombotic events associated with blood hyperviscosity. The augmented HVR can facilitate the intake of oxygen into the lungs.
Although this worked out for Tibetans, one could argue that fully functioning genes are there for a purpose, perhaps to warn humans not to migrate up so high on mountains, which is not their ideal habitat. Normally, human physiology responds by making them gasp for air and get sick.
Thus, the two genes conventionally used to illustrate adaptation by natural selection in Tibetans, PHD2 and HIF2A, are both loss-of-function genes. This reinforces Behe’s thesis that Darwin “devolves” by breaking existing genetic information. Darwin needs his magic wand of natural selection to create novelty and bring innovation to the world. He won’t get very far by breaking things. Sherpas might be able to help him get up Mount Everest, but not Mount Improbable.
References:
Photo: Climbers on Mount Everest, by Lloyd Smith, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-26--Lewontin’s Confession and Mamet’s Principle

Jerry Coyne and his Darwinist/materialist/atheist brethren make public assertions that are nonsense on their face : they claim to be mindless meat machines , they deny the indisputable evidence for intelligent design in biology and for teleology in all of nature , they deny the obvious evidence for the supernatural in cosmological singularities such as black holes and the singularity at the origin of the Big Bang , and they deny the manifest corruption of modern science by materialism and arrogance and egotism .
Materialists tout determinism and deny free will , despite the fact that determinism in physics has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that free will is well supported by neuroscience and that denial of free will negates the ability to make a truth claim of any sort ( if a materialist ’ s opinion is forced by chemical reactions , there ’ s no reason to think it corresponds to truth .
Chemistry is not a propositional and can be neither true nor false ) .
Atheists deny the existence of God because of evil in nature , without realizing that the recognition of evil presupposes an objective moral standard that can only be grounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism/materialism/atheism ( the three are nearly always found together ) is beset with self-refuting non-sequiturs .
This triad is not even a genuine ideological perspective as much as it is an incoherent mistake .
Yet , ironically , many who tout it are quite intelligent people .
What to Make of All This ?
Playwright David Mamet noted a characteristic in politics that applies broadly to flawed belief systems .
It struck me as a key to understanding the philosophical perspective of those who deny free will , design in nature , God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mamet originally applied it to a particular political philosophy , but I apply Mamet ’ s principle to Darwinists et al : The pretense not to know things is at the root of Darwinist/atheist/materialist ideology .
It was stated with astonishing candor by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin , one of the past century ’ s leading Darwinists : Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural .
We take the side of science in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its constructs , in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life , in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories , because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world , but , on the contrary , that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce material explanations , no matter how counter-intuitive , no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated .
Moreover , that materialism is absolute , for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door… Lewontin ’ s confession is a remarkable invocation of Mamet ’ s principle : in order to maintain the Darwinist/materialist ideology , atheists have to pretend not to know a lot of things .
The fundamental reason that Darwinists have vented such fury at the intelligent design movement — even to the point that a prominent scientific journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that ID has forced Darwinists and other atheist and materialist ideologues to publicly explain themselves , and that has made their pretense that there is no design in nature so much harder to pull off .

Jerry Coyne and his Darwinist/materialist/atheist brethren make public assertions that are nonsense on their face: they claim to be mindless meat machines, they deny the indisputable evidence for intelligent design in biology and for teleology in all of nature, they deny the obvious evidence for the supernatural in cosmological singularities such as black holes and the singularity at the origin of the Big Bang, and they deny the manifest corruption of modern science by materialism and arrogance and egotism. Materialists tout determinism and deny free will, despite the fact that determinism in physics has been quite decisively refuted and the fact that free will is well supported by neuroscience and that denial of free will negates the ability to make a truth claim of any sort (if a materialist’s opinion is forced by chemical reactions, there’s no reason to think it corresponds to truth. Chemistry is not a propositional and can be neither true nor false). Atheists deny the existence of God because of evil in nature, without realizing that the recognition of evil presupposes an objective moral standard that can only be grounded in a Mind outside of man.
Darwinism/materialism/atheism (the three are nearly always found together) is beset with self-refuting non-sequiturs. This triad is not even a genuine ideological perspective as much as it is an incoherent mistake. Yet, ironically, many who tout it are quite intelligent people.
What to Make of All This?
Playwright David Mamet noted a characteristic in politics that applies broadly to flawed belief systems. It struck me as a key to understanding the philosophical perspective of those who deny free will, design in nature, God’s existence, and the like. Mamet originally applied it to a particular political philosophy, but I apply Mamet’s principle to Darwinists et al:
…in order for [Darwinists, atheists, materialists, etc.] to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things.
The pretense not to know things is at the root of Darwinist/atheist/materialist ideology. It was stated with astonishing candor by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, one of the past century’s leading Darwinists:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door…
Fury at Intelligent Design
Lewontin’s confession is a remarkable invocation of Mamet’s principle: in order to maintain the Darwinist/materialist ideology, atheists have to pretend not to know a lot of things.
The fundamental reason that Darwinists have vented such fury at the intelligent design movement — even to the point that a prominent scientific journal openly advocates government censorship of ID — is that ID has forced Darwinists and other atheist and materialist ideologues to publicly explain themselves, and that has made their pretense that there is no design in nature so much harder to pull off.
Photo: David Mamet, by David Shankbone / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-26--Book Excerpt: The Big Bang and the Fine-Tuned Universe

Editor ’ s note : The following is an excerpt from the the new book from Discovery Institute Press , Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
Robert A. Alston , PhD , is an electrical engineer with Picatinny Arsenal and a former NASA special projects engineer .
The Kalam cosmological argument , popularized by philosopher William Lane Craig , has two premises and a conclusion : • Whatever begins to exist has a cause .
• Therefore , the universe has a cause .
Is the first premise true ?
“ Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen anything come into existence without a cause ?
No .
And in this case , science and common sense have long agreed — whatever begins to exist does indeed have a cause .
How about the second premise ?
“ The universe began to exist.
” Scientific discoveries have put to rest the idea that the universe is infinitely old .
With Einstein ’ s theory of general relativity , the insights and observations provided by Lemaître and Hubble , and the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the universe began to exist .
As leading cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has stated , “ With the proof now in place , cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe .
There is no escape : they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
” And Vilenkin , it ’ s worth noting , is not religious and has looked for ways to avoid the theistic implications of the Big Bang .
To his credit , he has refused to deny the powerful evidence for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Kalam cosmological argument are correct , we can safely draw the conclusion : “ Therefore , the universe has a cause.
” So , what can we infer about the cause of the universe , about what brought it into being ?
Remember that when the universe began , the space and time of our universe came into being as well , since those too are part of the fabric of our universe , as demonstrated by Einstein ’ s general theory of relativity .
So whatever caused the universe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the limits of the time , matter , and space of our universe .
And it must be powerful enough , of course , to cause the entire vast universe to begin .
The cause appears to require another important capacity : the ability to fine-tune .
May the Forces Be with You Have you ever gone hiking in a forest ?
If so , more than likely you found yourself surrounded by a still calmness only trees can bring .
Birds were possibly singing and squirrels may have been scurrying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful that it appeared as though nature performed this work easily .
But the vastness of life surrounding you was being sustained by physical laws so precisely tuned that if they varied from their current strengths even a little , neither you nor the life surrounding you could exist .
With the birth of our universe some 13.8 billion years ago came not only matter and energy but a remarkable set of laws that govern how everything behaves .
So delicately balanced are these laws , constants , and initial conditions that small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is , they seem to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life .
This realization has reshaped the way scientists view the universe .
The universe is governed by four fundamental forces : gravity , electromagnetism , the strong nuclear force , and the weak nuclear force .
From the grandest to the smallest scale , these forces govern the way physical objects behave , and the strength of each one appears to be finely calibrated to allow for the possibility of life in the universe .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat stronger , stars would burn hotter , emitting far more sterilizing X-ray and gamma-ray photons , rendering the surface of a planet like Earth uninhabitable .
The stars would also burn much faster .
“ Typical stars would burn out in a matter of years , not tens of billions of years , ” explain cosmologists Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes , meaning that our sun would burn itself out too quickly , long before life had time to arise and diversify on one of its planets .
What if gravity were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supernova at all , Lewis and Barnes note , and even if one did “ and spilled its material into interstellar space , it would be mainly heavy elements such as silicon and iron , rather than life-supporting oxygen and carbon.
” No carbon and oxygen , no life .
The electromagnetic force is also fine-tuned .
Lewis and Barnes describe a sophisticated calculation by Fred Adams that takes account of the settings of gravity and electromagnetism together .
When it ’ s plotted on a two-axis graph , the result is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea of joint settings that result in unstable stars .
“ In this figure , ” the Fortunate Universe authors explain , “ the ‘ stable stars ’ region takes up less than one part in 1035 of the whole plot.
” In other words , the stable-star settings are one in a trillion times a trillion times a hundred billion .
Or consider the strong nuclear force .
“ If we nudge the strength of the strong force upwards by just 0.4 percent , stars produce a wealth of carbon , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lewis and Barnes note .
What if we go in the other direction ?
“ Decreasing the strength of the strong force by a similar 0.4 percent has the opposite effect : all carbon is rapidly transformed into oxygen , providing the universe with plenty of water , but leaving it devoid of carbon.
” The focus on carbon is not arbitrary or due to an unwillingness to imagine other live possibilities .
No other element appears remotely capable of replacing carbon as the central element in the buzz of information-processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the cooperation of electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force , precise energy levels exist that allow helium atoms to fuse together to make beryllium-8 and then carbon .
If these energy levels didn ’ t coincide , the particles would fly apart before they had time to form carbon .
This finely tuned carbon resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle , and after his prediction proved correct , he commented , “ A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics , as well as with chemistry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no blind forces worth speaking about in nature .
The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
” Hoyle wasn ’ t religious .
In fact , he long resisted the evidence of a cosmic beginning .
It seems apparent then that the scientific evidence led him to make the above remark , not religious belief .
This is just a quick and partial survey of how the fundamental forces of nature are fine-tuned to allow for life in the universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be fine-tuned to allow for life : the texture of the universe at the Big Bang .
Weird but true .
Imagine you are holding a ping-pong ball .
Pay close attention to the smoothness of the ball .
Now imagine you are holding a golf ball with its uneven , dimpled surface .
Now finally , imagine you are holding a jagged , unevenly shaped rock .
The universe at its inception had a texture akin to the golf ball , rather than to the ping-pong ball or the jagged rock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t extremely smooth like a ping-pong ball , or highly uneven like the jagged rock .
Instead it was relatively uniform but with some variation , akin to the surface of a dimpled golf ball .
And a good thing it was .
Our golf ball universe is like the baby bear ’ s porridge that Goldilocks ate — just right .
If the dips in the texture of the early universe had been deep beyond a certain narrow limit , there would be massive pockets of gravity .
Galactic structures would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of collisions and explosions lethal to life .
Alternately , if the texture of the universe were smooth like a ping-pong ball , there would have been too little gravitational pull to form galaxies and planets quickly enough , and thus again , no life .
And the margin for error is extremely tight .
For life to be possible in the universe , the degree of uniformity — not too much , not too little — had to be fine-tuned within a very narrow range .
• Alexander Vilenkin , Many Worlds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Universes ( New York : Hill and Wang , 2006 ) , 176 .
His analysis rules out various attempts to postulate a beginningless universe , including the idea that the universe has expanded and contracted eternally , in an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches .
As he and his co-author Audrey Mithani concluded in a 2012 paper , “ All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.
” Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin , “ Did the Universe Have a Beginning ?
” arXiv.org , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf .
See also a New Scientist article about his conclusions by Lisa Grossman , “ Why Physicists Can ’ t Avoid a Creation Event , ” New Scientist , January 11 , 2012 , https : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474-400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event/ .
• Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes , A Fortunate Universe : Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos ( Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press , 2016 ) , 108 .
As they further explain , “ If gravity were 1035 instead of 1040 times weaker than the strong force , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stars would not be possible at all ” ( 109 ) .
• Lewis and Barnes , A Fortunate Universe , 118 .
They add a caveat in the next paragraph .
Due to some complicating factors in calculating these hypothetical changes , “ it may take a slightly higher percentage to totally eradicate carbon or oxygen from the universe.
” The operative word here , though , is “ slightly higher.
” Even if this turns out to be the case , the degree of strong-force fine tuning for life will remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Universe : Past and Present Reflections , ” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics ( 1982 ) : 16 .
• Martin Rees , Just Six Numbers ( New York : Basic Books , 2000 ) , 127 .
Photo credit : “ High-Altitude Hazes on Jupiter , ” image via Juno space probe on February 17 , 2020 , by NASA/JPL/SwRI/MSSS ; image processing by Gerald Eichstädt .

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from the the new book from Discovery Institute Press, Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. Robert A. Alston, PhD, is an electrical engineer with Picatinny Arsenal and a former NASA special projects engineer.
The Kalam cosmological argument, popularized by philosopher William Lane Craig, has two premises and a conclusion:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Is the first premise true? “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Ask yourself, have you ever seen anything come into existence without a cause? No. And in this case, science and common sense have long agreed — whatever begins to exist does indeed have a cause.
How about the second premise? “The universe began to exist.”
Evidence for a Cosmic Beginning
Scientific discoveries have put to rest the idea that the universe is infinitely old. With Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the insights and observations provided by Lemaître and Hubble, and the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, along with other evidence, we can reasonably conclude that the universe began to exist. As leading cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has stated, “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” And Vilenkin, it’s worth noting, is not religious and has looked for ways to avoid the theistic implications of the Big Bang. To his credit, he has refused to deny the powerful evidence for a cosmic beginning.
Since the two premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are correct, we can safely draw the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause.”
So, what can we infer about the cause of the universe, about what brought it into being? Remember that when the universe began, the space and time of our universe came into being as well, since those too are part of the fabric of our universe, as demonstrated by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. So whatever caused the universe to begin must transcend our universe, existing beyond the limits of the time, matter, and space of our universe. And it must be powerful enough, of course, to cause the entire vast universe to begin.
The cause appears to require another important capacity: the ability to fine-tune.
May the Forces Be with You
Have you ever gone hiking in a forest? If so, more than likely you found yourself surrounded by a still calmness only trees can bring. Birds were possibly singing and squirrels may have been scurrying about. The forest may have felt so peaceful that it appeared as though nature performed this work easily. But the vastness of life surrounding you was being sustained by physical laws so precisely tuned that if they varied from their current strengths even a little, neither you nor the life surrounding you could exist.
With the birth of our universe some 13.8 billion years ago came not only matter and energy but a remarkable set of laws that govern how everything behaves. So delicately balanced are these laws, constants, and initial conditions that small changes would be catastrophic to life. That is, they seem to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life. This realization has reshaped the way scientists view the universe.
The universe is governed by four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. From the grandest to the smallest scale, these forces govern the way physical objects behave, and the strength of each one appears to be finely calibrated to allow for the possibility of life in the universe.
For instance, if the fundamental force of gravity were somewhat stronger, stars would burn hotter, emitting far more sterilizing X-ray and gamma-ray photons, rendering the surface of a planet like Earth uninhabitable. The stars would also burn much faster. “Typical stars would burn out in a matter of years, not tens of billions of years,” explain cosmologists Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes, meaning that our sun would burn itself out too quickly, long before life had time to arise and diversify on one of its planets.
What if gravity were somewhat weaker? Stars might not go supernova at all, Lewis and Barnes note, and even if one did “and spilled its material into interstellar space, it would be mainly heavy elements such as silicon and iron, rather than life-supporting oxygen and carbon.” No carbon and oxygen, no life.
The electromagnetic force is also fine-tuned. Lewis and Barnes describe a sophisticated calculation by Fred Adams that takes account of the settings of gravity and electromagnetism together. When it’s plotted on a two-axis graph, the result is a triangle-shaped zone of stability in a vast sea of joint settings that result in unstable stars. “In this figure,” the Fortunate Universe authors explain, “the ‘stable stars’ region takes up less than one part in 1035 of the whole plot.” In other words, the stable-star settings are one in a trillion times a trillion times a hundred billion.
Fortunate Indeed
Or consider the strong nuclear force. “If we nudge the strength of the strong force upwards by just 0.4 percent, stars produce a wealth of carbon, but the route to oxygen is cut off,” Lewis and Barnes note. What if we go in the other direction? “Decreasing the strength of the strong force by a similar 0.4 percent has the opposite effect: all carbon is rapidly transformed into oxygen, providing the universe with plenty of water, but leaving it devoid of carbon.”
The focus on carbon is not arbitrary or due to an unwillingness to imagine other live possibilities. No other element appears remotely capable of replacing carbon as the central element in the buzz of information-processing activity essential to all life. Due to the cooperation of electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, precise energy levels exist that allow helium atoms to fuse together to make beryllium-8 and then carbon. If these energy levels didn’t coincide, the particles would fly apart before they had time to form carbon.
This finely tuned carbon resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle, and after his prediction proved correct, he commented, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Hoyle wasn’t religious. In fact, he long resisted the evidence of a cosmic beginning. It seems apparent then that the scientific evidence led him to make the above remark, not religious belief.
This is just a quick and partial survey of how the fundamental forces of nature are fine-tuned to allow for life in the universe.
A Golf Ball Universe Is a Livable Universe
There is something else that had to be fine-tuned to allow for life: the texture of the universe at the Big Bang. Weird but true.
Imagine you are holding a ping-pong ball. Pay close attention to the smoothness of the ball. Now imagine you are holding a golf ball with its uneven, dimpled surface. Now finally, imagine you are holding a jagged, unevenly shaped rock. The universe at its inception had a texture akin to the golf ball, rather than to the ping-pong ball or the jagged rock. That is, it wasn’t extremely smooth like a ping-pong ball, or highly uneven like the jagged rock. Instead it was relatively uniform but with some variation, akin to the surface of a dimpled golf ball.
And a good thing it was. Our golf ball universe is like the baby bear’s porridge that Goldilocks ate — just right. If the dips in the texture of the early universe had been deep beyond a certain narrow limit, there would be massive pockets of gravity. Galactic structures would have clumped together, leading to a bedlam of collisions and explosions lethal to life. Alternately, if the texture of the universe were smooth like a ping-pong ball, there would have been too little gravitational pull to form galaxies and planets quickly enough, and thus again, no life. And the margin for error is extremely tight. For life to be possible in the universe, the degree of uniformity — not too much, not too little — had to be fine-tuned within a very narrow range.
References
William Lane Craig, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Reasonable Faith, 2015. Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176. His analysis rules out various attempts to postulate a beginningless universe, including the idea that the universe has expanded and contracted eternally, in an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. As he and his co-author Audrey Mithani concluded in a 2012 paper, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” arXiv.org, April 20, 2012. See also a New Scientist article about his conclusions by Lisa Grossman, “Why Physicists Can’t Avoid a Creation Event,” New Scientist, January 11, 2012. Anil Ananthaswamy, “Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?,” NOVA, PBS Online, March 7, 2012. Carl R. Nave, “Fundamental Forces,” HyperPhysics, accessed November 1, 2019. Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 108. As they further explain, “If gravity were 1035 instead of 1040 times weaker than the strong force, then the window would close completely. Stable stars would not be possible at all” (109). Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, 108. Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, 109–10. Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, 118. They add a caveat in the next paragraph. Due to some complicating factors in calculating these hypothetical changes, “it may take a slightly higher percentage to totally eradicate carbon or oxygen from the universe.” The operative word here, though, is “slightly higher.” Even if this turns out to be the case, the degree of strong-force fine tuning for life will remain striking. Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (1982): 16. Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 127.
Photo credit: “High-Altitude Hazes on Jupiter,” image via Juno space probe on February 17, 2020, by NASA/JPL/SwRI/MSSS; image processing by Gerald Eichstädt.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-26--“The Activity of a Cell Is Like That of a Factory”

It is always interesting to see how observations that we have been making for years are now a part of the general chatter .
From “ Science without Validation in a World without Meaning , ” by Edward R. Dougherty , Distinguished Professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A & M , writing in the journal American Affairs : “ At the cellular level , biology concerns the operation of the cell in its pursuit of life , not simply the molecular infrastructure that forms the physiochemical underpinnings of life .
The activity of a cell is like that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , energy is consumed , information is stored , information is processed , decisions are made , and signals are sent to maintain proper factory organization and operation.12 Once a factory exceeds a very small number of interconnected components , coordinating its operations goes beyond a commonsense , nonmathematical approach .
Cells have massive numbers of interconnected components.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
No one bats an eye when something like this is said in American Affairs ; but let it be said on Evolution News and the suspicion at once bursts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work , his fork tailed frisking .

It is always interesting to see how observations that we have been making for years are now a part of the general chatter. From “Science without Validation in a World without Meaning,” by Edward R. Dougherty, Distinguished Professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M, writing in the journal American Affairs:
“At the cellular level, biology concerns the operation of the cell in its pursuit of life, not simply the molecular infrastructure that forms the physiochemical underpinnings of life. The activity of a cell is like that of a factory, where machines manufacture products, energy is consumed, information is stored, information is processed, decisions are made, and signals are sent to maintain proper factory organization and operation.12 Once a factory exceeds a very small number of interconnected components, coordinating its operations goes beyond a commonsense, nonmathematical approach. Cells have massive numbers of interconnected components.” [Emphasis added.]
No one bats an eye when something like this is said in American Affairs; but let it be said on Evolution News and the suspicion at once bursts into flower that the devil himself is at work, his fork tailed frisking.
Photo credit: Ant Rozetsky via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-27--Evolving a Self-Replicating Molecule Is a “Purple Unicorn”

On a new episode of ID the Future , Eric H. Anderson reads from his newly co-authored book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell , written to provide a clear and simple introduction to the evolution/ID controversy , and a broad overview of the evidence for design in nature .
That evidence includes cosmic fine tuning and the Big Bang , the origin of life , irreducibly complex machines , and the Cambrian explosion .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
In this excerpt , Anderson tells of Richard Dawkins ’ s glib assurances that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one not far from being solved .
Not so , Anderson says .
Origin-of-life researchers haven ’ t found a pathway to a self-replicating biological entity , the beginning point for any sort of Darwinian evolution .
And it ’ s not for lack of time , effort , or funding .
The single cell that Darwin saw as a relatively simple blob has proven to be far more complex than anything anyone previously imagined .
What about a self-reproducing molecule , thought to be easier to evolve than a full-blown cell ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a purple unicorn , and for reasons that are perhaps most easily appreciated by looking at the ongoing attempts to build a self-reproducing 3D printer .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Eric H. Anderson reads from his newly co-authored book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell, written to provide a clear and simple introduction to the evolution/ID controversy, and a broad overview of the evidence for design in nature. That evidence includes cosmic fine tuning and the Big Bang, the origin of life, irreducibly complex machines, and the Cambrian explosion. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In this excerpt, Anderson tells of Richard Dawkins’s glib assurances that the mystery of the origin of life is one not far from being solved. Not so, Anderson says. Origin-of-life researchers haven’t found a pathway to a self-replicating biological entity, the beginning point for any sort of Darwinian evolution.
And it’s not for lack of time, effort, or funding. The single cell that Darwin saw as a relatively simple blob has proven to be far more complex than anything anyone previously imagined. What about a self-reproducing molecule, thought to be easier to evolve than a full-blown cell? As Anderson explains, the idea remains a purple unicorn, and for reasons that are perhaps most easily appreciated by looking at the ongoing attempts to build a self-reproducing 3D printer.
Image credit: Waldkunst via Pixabay.