evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-10--Namacalathus, Alleged Ediacaran “Animal,” Fails to Refute Abrupt Cambrian Explosion

Editor ’ s note : See also , “ Namacalathus , an Ediacaran Lophophorate Animal ?
“ Yesterday , in my series about alleged Ediacaran animals postulated as precursors of the Cambrian explosion , I began to consider Namacalathus , a problematic fossil organism from the Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna .
I referred readers to a sensational study by Zhuravlev et al .
( 2015 ) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and to a range of accompanying media coverage .
I asked whether the attribution of Namacalathus to lophophorate animals really is well justified and undisputed .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soft science ?
Doubts first arose because Namacalathus is very dissimilar to any early lophotrochozoans ( Zhuravlev et al .
2012 ) , and because of its hexaradial symmetry ( Warren et al .
2017 ) , as all modern lophophorates have a bilateral symmetry .
The authors were quite aware of this problem and therefore postulated that maybe only the skeleton of Namacalathus had a radial symmetry , but that its soft-part anatomy was bilaterally symmetrical .
Their only argument for this extraordinary claim was that Namacalathus shows an asexual growth with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to show if such bilateral budding is really absent in all cnidarians and present in all bilaterians with budding growth .
This might be the case , but it would have to be properly documented for this argument to have any merit .
As Cunningham et al .
( 2017 ) critically remarked : Another problem is that small individuals are randomly attached to larger individuals and thus do not show a bilateral budding pattern .
The authors subsequently had to take refuge in another ad hoc hypothesis that those specimens are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small individuals growing on abandoned skeletons of a larger specimen ( Penny et al .
2017 ) .
This would mean that the assumed planktonic larvae of Namacalathus did recognize and preferably settle on older skeletons of the same genus , as if intentionally mimicking budding growth .
The much more parsimonious hypothesis is that Namacalathus did not grow by obligatory bilateral budding , just like most sessile cnidarians with clonal growth .
Not Convinced ?
Neither Am I The only other evidence for the proposed lophophorate affinity is based on the supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foliated external outer layer with robust external wall spines , an internal ( middle ) organic-rich layer , and an inner foliated layer with columnar microlamellar inflections , which is similar to that in some brachiopod and bryozoan skeletons ( Zhuravlev et al .
2012 , 2015 ) .
However , there is a fatal problem with this argument : this similarity simply can not be based on homology , because brachiopod and bryozoan skeletons are independently derived ( Taylor et al .
2010 , Murdock et al .
2020 ) , actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thus do not belong to the common lophophorate ground plan .
Even worse , it is controversial if Lophophorata is a monophyletic group at all , as most modern phylogenomic studies did not consider Bryozoa ( = Ectoprocta ) as closest relative of brachiopods and phoronids , and rather unite Ectoprocta with Entoprocta and the enigmatic phylum Cycliophora in a clade Polyzoa ( e.g.
, Nielsen 2012 , Kocot 2016 , Kocot et al .
2017 ) , or even have Bryozoa as basal sister group to all other lophotrochozoans .
Therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) thoroughly rebutted the attribution of Namacalathus to Lophophorata and commented : In the most recent paper by Murdock et al .
( 2020 ) the authors agreed in their study of early biomineralization that the affinities of Namacalathus remain equivocal .
Obviously unaware of the simultaneous work of Zhuravlev et al .
( 2015 ) , Butler ( 2015 ) discussed Namacalathus but did not include it as putative lophophorate in his revision of early fossil lophophorates .
Also , the constantly updated Paleobiology Database lists Namacalathus hermanastes not as a lophophorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there any other potential relatives of Namacalathus ?
Indeed , there are .
There is an iconic Cambrian tulip organism called Siphusauctum from the famous Burgess Shale ( O ’ Brien & Caron 2012 ) and the Middle Cambrian of Utah ( Kimmig et al .
2017 ) , which was a sessile filter-feeder with hexaradial symmetry and a stalked cup with apical hole and aboral ring of six openings .
Sounds familiar ?
Together with other problematic Cambrian beasts like Dinomischus , Siphusauctum has recently been recognized as stem-group ctenophores close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cambrian comb jellies ( Zhao et al .
2019 ) .
A close relationship of Siphusauctum with Namacalathus was also proposed ( Zhao et al .
2019 , Giribet & Edgecombe 2020 : 32 ) and looks like a more reasonable hypothesis than a lophophorate affinity .
Thus , Namacalathus could be a coelenterate-grade organism after all , as was always thought until the mentioned work of Zhuravlev et al .
( 2015 ) , who did not even compare the ultastructure of the skeleton with that of sclerotized Cambrian ctenophorans .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be entirely non-mineralized ( O ’ Brien & Caron 2012 ) , and Scleroctenophora had a non-calcified organic skeleton .
So Is It an Animal ?
As in all the other cases we looked into with my previous articles in this series , the actual evidence does not support an uncontroversial identification of Namacalathus as an Ediacaran bilaterian animal .
Is it an animal ( e.g.
, a ctenophoran ) at all ?
Maybe yes , maybe no .
It could be anything , from a coelenterate-grade or sponge-grade organism to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until better evidence becomes available it must be considered as just another problematic Ediacaran organism .
Does it refute the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion , with its sudden appearance of at least 17 bilaterian animal phyla and their complex body plans , as was boldly claimed by Penny ( 2015 ) ?
Not even close !
• Amthor JE , Grotzinger JP , Schröder S , Bowring SA , Ramezani J , Martin MW , Matter A 2003 .
Extinction of Cloudina and Namacalathus at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary in Oman .
Geology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOI : 10.1130/0091-7613 ( 2003 ) 031 < 0431 : EOCANA > 2.0.CO ; 2 .
• Bauwens J 2015 .
Reinterpretation of the Ediacaran Namacalathus as a Lophophorate Animal .
Sciency Thoughts Nov. 11 , 2015 .
• Bechly G 2020a .
Did Cloudinids Have the Guts to be Worms .
Evolution News Jan. 17 , 2020 .
• Bechly G 2020b .
The Myth of Precambrian Sponges .
Evolution News May 12 , 2020 .
• Brasier MD , Antcliffe JB , Callow RHT 2011 .
Evolutionary trends in remarkable fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of metazoan mixing .
In : Allison PA , Bottjer DJ ( eds. )
.
Taphonomy : Process and Bias Through Time .
Topics in Geobiology , vol .
32 , 519–567 .
Springer , Dordrecht .
DOI : 10.1007/978-90-481-8643-3_15 .
• Butler , A. D. 2015 .
Decoding the fossil record of early lophophorates .
Systematics and phylogeny of problematic Cambrian Lophotrochozoa .
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 1284 , 65 pp .
Uppsala : Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis .
ISBN : 978-91-554-9327-1 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Liu AG , Bengtson S , Donoghue PCJ 2017 .
The origin of animals : Can molecular clocks and the fossil record be reconciled ?
BioEssays 39 ( 1 ) , 1–12 .
DOI : 10.1002/bies.201600120 .
• Grant SWF 1990 .
Shell structure and distribution of Cloudina , a potential index fossil for the terminal Proterozoic .
American Journal of Science 290−A .
261–294 .
PMID : 11538690 .
• Grazhdankin DV , Kontorovich AE , Kontorovich VA , Saraev SV , Filippov YF , Efimov AS , Karlova GA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AA , Fedyanin GO 2015 .
Vendian of the Fore-Yenisei sedimentary basin ( southeastern West Siberia ) .
Russian Geology and Geophysics 56 ( 4 ) , 560–572 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.rgg.2015.03.008 .
• Grotzinger JP , Watters WA , Knoll AH 2000 .
Calcified metazoans in thrombolite-stromatolite reefs of the terminal Proterozoic Nama Group , Namibia .
Paleobiology 26 ( 3 ) , 334–359 .
DOI : 10.1666/0094-8373 ( 2000 ) 026 < 0334 : CMITSR > 2.0.CO ; 2 .
• Grotzinger JP , Adams EW , Schröder S 2005 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Group ( c. 550–543 Ma ) , Namibia .
Geological Magazine 142 ( 5 ) , 499–517 .
DOI : 10.1017/S0016756805000907 .
• Joel L 2015 .
Small ‘ goblet ’ fossil found to be big piece of animal evolutionary history .
Washington Post Nov. 21 , 2015 .
• Kimmig J , Strotz LC , Liebermann BS 2017 .
The stalked filter feeder Siphusauctum lloydguntheri n. sp .
from the middle Cambrian ( Series 3 , Stage 5 ) Spence Shale of Utah : its biological affinities and taphonomy .
Journal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
DOI : 10.1017/jpa.2017.57 .
• Kocot KM , Struck TH , Merkel J , Waits DS , Todt C , Brannock PM , Weese DA , Cannon JT , Moroz LL , Lieb B , Halanych KM 2017 .
Phylogenomics of Lophotrochozoa with Consideration of Systematic Error .
Systematic Biology 66 ( 2 ) , 256–282 .
DOI : 10.1093/sysbio/syw079 .
• Kontorovich AE , Varlamov AI , Grazhdankin DV , Karlova GA , Klets AG , Kontorovich VA , Saraev SV , Terleev AA , Belyaev SY , Varaksina IV , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KE , Postnikov AA , Filippov YF 2008 .
A section of Vendian in the east of West Siberian Plate ( based on data from the Borehole Vostok 3 ) .
Russian Geology and Geophysics 49 ( 12 ) , 932–939 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.rgg.2008.06.012 .
• Kontorovich AE , Sokolov BS , Kontorovich VA , Varlamov AI , Grazhdankin DV , Efimov AS , Klets AG , Saraev SV , Terleev AA , Belyaev SY , Varaksina IV , Karlova GA , Kochnev BB , Nagavitsin KE , Postnikov AA , Filippov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendian deposits in the basement complex of the West Siberian petroleum megabasin ( resulting from the drilling of the Vostok-3 parametric borehole in the Eastern Tomsk region ) .
Doklady Earth Sciences 425 , 219–222 .
DOI : 10.1134/S1028334X09020093 .
• Murdock DJE 2020 .
The ‘ biomineralization toolkit ’ and the origin of animal skeletons .
Biological Reviews .
DOI : 10.1111/brv.12614 .
• National Geographic Kids 2015 .
Have scientists discovered the earliest ever animal ?
• Nielsen C 2012 .
Animal Evolution : Interrelationships of the Living Phyla .
Oxford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google Books ] • O ’ Brien LJ , Caron J-B 2012 .
A new stalked filter-feeder from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale , British Columbia , Canada .
PLoS ONE 7 ( 1 ) , e29233 , 1–21 .
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0029233 .
• Penny A 2015 .
A complex animal from the beginning of animal life .
Serious Science Dec. 8 , 2015 .
• Penny AM , Wood RA , Zhuravlev AY , Curtis A , Bowyer F , Tostevin R 2017 .
Intraspecific variation in an Ediacaran skeletal metazoan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Namibia .
Geobiology 15 ( 1 ) , 81–93 .
DOI : 10.1111/gbi.12205 .
• Seilacher A , Grazhdankin D , Legouta A 2003 .
Ediacaran biota : The dawn of animal life in the shadow of giant protists .
Paleontological Research 7 ( 1 ) , 43–54 .
DOI : 10.2517/prpsj.7.43 .
• Taylor PD , Vinn O , Wilson MA 2010 .
Evolution of biomineralization in ‘ lopho- phorates ’ .
Special Papers in Palaeontology 84 , 317–333 .
DOI : 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.00985.x .
• Terleev AA , Postnikov AA , Tokarev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2011 .
Cloudina-Namacalathus-Korilophyton association in the Vendian of Altai-Sayan Foldbelt ( Siberia ) .
in : Neoproterozoic sedimentary basins : stratigraphy , geodynamics and petroleum potential : Proceedings of the International Conference ( Novosibirsk , 30 July – 02 Aug. , 2011 ) , 96–98 .
• Warren LV , Quaglio F , Guimarães Simões M , Gaucher C , Riccomini C , Poiré DG , Tavares Freitas B , Boggiani PC , Noberga Sial A 2017 .
Cloudina–Corumbella–Namacalathus association from the Itapucumi Group , Paraguay : Increasing ecosystem complexity and tiering at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research 298 , 79–87 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.precamres.2017.05.003 .
• Wood RA 2011 .
Paleoecology of the earliest skeletal metazoan communities : Implications for early biomineralization .
Earth-Science Reviews 106 ( 1–2 ) , 184–190 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.011 .
• Wood R 2017 .
Palaeoecology of Ediacaran metazoan reefs .
in : Brasier AT , McIlroy D , McLoughlin N ( eds ) .
Earth System Evolution and Early Life : A Celebration of the Work of Martin Brasier .
Geological Society , London , Special Publications 448 ( 1 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wood R , Curtis A 2015 .
Extensive metazoan reefs from the Ediacaran Nama Group , Namibia : the rise of benthic suspension feeding .
Geobiology 13 , 112–122 .
DOI : 10.1111/gbi.12122 .
• Zhao Y , Vinther J , Parry LA , Wei F , Green E , Pisani D , Hou X , Edgecombe GD , Cong P 2019 .
Cambrian Sessile , Suspension Feeding Stem-Group Ctenophores and Evolution of the Comb Jelly Body Plan .
Current Biology 29 , 1112–1125 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.036 .
• Zhuralev AY , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Debrenne F , Fedorov AB 2012 .
New finds of skeletal fossils in the terminal Neoproterozoic of the Siberian Platform and Spain .
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57 ( 1 ) , 205–224 .
DOI : 10.4202/app.2010.0074 .
• Zhuravlev AY , Wood RA , Penny AM 2015 .
Ediacaran skeletal metazoan interpreted as a lophophorate .
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282 , 20151860 , 1– 10 .
DOI : 10.1098/rspb.2015.1860 .

Photo: Paleontologist examines Ediacaran fossils, Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve, by EOL Learning and Education Group / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
Editor’s note: See also, “Namacalathus, an Ediacaran Lophophorate Animal?“
Yesterday, in my series about alleged Ediacaran animals postulated as precursors of the Cambrian explosion, I began to consider Namacalathus, a problematic fossil organism from the Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna. I referred readers to a sensational study by Zhuravlev et al. (2015) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and to a range of accompanying media coverage. I asked whether the attribution of Namacalathus to lophophorate animals really is well justified and undisputed. Or is it just another piece of overhyped soft science?
Doubts first arose because Namacalathus is very dissimilar to any early lophotrochozoans (Zhuravlev et al. 2012), and because of its hexaradial symmetry (Warren et al. 2017), as all modern lophophorates have a bilateral symmetry. The authors were quite aware of this problem and therefore postulated that maybe only the skeleton of Namacalathus had a radial symmetry, but that its soft-part anatomy was bilaterally symmetrical. Their only argument for this extraordinary claim was that Namacalathus shows an asexual growth with bilateral budding. However, the authors failed to show if such bilateral budding is really absent in all cnidarians and present in all bilaterians with budding growth.
This might be the case, but it would have to be properly documented for this argument to have any merit. As Cunningham et al. (2017) critically remarked:
This latter interpretation is intriguing, but it is difficult to reconcile with the typically hexaradial symmetry of the cup, which is arguably more consistent with a cnidarian affinity. It is difficult to constrain the affinity of Namacalathus with confidence.
Another problem is that small individuals are randomly attached to larger individuals and thus do not show a bilateral budding pattern. The authors subsequently had to take refuge in another ad hoc hypothesis that those specimens are not due to budding but are just small individuals growing on abandoned skeletons of a larger specimen (Penny et al. 2017). This would mean that the assumed planktonic larvae of Namacalathus did recognize and preferably settle on older skeletons of the same genus, as if intentionally mimicking budding growth. The much more parsimonious hypothesis is that Namacalathus did not grow by obligatory bilateral budding, just like most sessile cnidarians with clonal growth.
Not Convinced? Neither Am I
The only other evidence for the proposed lophophorate affinity is based on the supposedly accretionary growth skeletal wall composed of a foliated external outer layer with robust external wall spines, an internal (middle) organic-rich layer, and an inner foliated layer with columnar microlamellar inflections, which is similar to that in some brachiopod and bryozoan skeletons (Zhuravlev et al. 2012, 2015). However, there is a fatal problem with this argument: this similarity simply cannot be based on homology, because brachiopod and bryozoan skeletons are independently derived (Taylor et al. 2010, Murdock et al. 2020), actually even independently derived twice within Bryozoa, and thus do not belong to the common lophophorate ground plan. Even worse, it is controversial if Lophophorata is a monophyletic group at all, as most modern phylogenomic studies did not consider Bryozoa (= Ectoprocta) as closest relative of brachiopods and phoronids, and rather unite Ectoprocta with Entoprocta and the enigmatic phylum Cycliophora in a clade Polyzoa (e.g., Nielsen 2012, Kocot 2016, Kocot et al. 2017), or even have Bryozoa as basal sister group to all other lophotrochozoans.
Therefore, Landing et al. (2018) thoroughly rebutted the attribution of Namacalathus to Lophophorata and commented:
Zhuravlev et al.’s (2015) use of skeletal histologic features to compare Namacalathus to two lophophorate groups is selective in not noting the variety of histologies in calcareous brachiopods and bryozoan. This comparative approach and conclusion that Namacalathus is a lophophorate assumes that conch ultrastructure is plesiomorphic in these groups although bryozoan biomineralization is apomorphic and arose independently twice from ctenostome-grade taxa. Similarly, features such as pseudopores are limited to strophomenides and acanthostyles to Palaeozoic stenolaematan bryozoans and not characteristic of all calcareous brachiopods and bryozoans.
In the most recent paper by Murdock et al. (2020) the authors agreed in their study of early biomineralization that the affinities of Namacalathus remain equivocal. Obviously unaware of the simultaneous work of Zhuravlev et al. (2015), Butler (2015) discussed Namacalathus but did not include it as putative lophophorate in his revision of early fossil lophophorates. Also, the constantly updated Paleobiology Database lists Namacalathus hermanastes not as a lophophorate but still as a cnidarian.
Reconstruction of Namacalathus hermanastes as lophophorate animal by Zhuravlev et al. (2015), Image: J. Sibbick, University of Edinburgh (no usage restrictions)
Other Potential Relatives
Are there any other potential relatives of Namacalathus? Indeed, there are. There is an iconic Cambrian tulip organism called Siphusauctum from the famous Burgess Shale (O’Brien & Caron 2012) and the Middle Cambrian of Utah (Kimmig et al. 2017), which was a sessile filter-feeder with hexaradial symmetry and a stalked cup with apical hole and aboral ring of six openings. Sounds familiar? Together with other problematic Cambrian beasts like Dinomischus, Siphusauctum has recently been recognized as stem-group ctenophores close to Scleroctenophora, a basal clade of sclerotized Cambrian comb jellies (Zhao et al. 2019). A close relationship of Siphusauctum with Namacalathus was also proposed (Zhao et al. 2019, Giribet & Edgecombe 2020: 32) and looks like a more reasonable hypothesis than a lophophorate affinity.
Thus, Namacalathus could be a coelenterate-grade organism after all, as was always thought until the mentioned work of Zhuravlev et al. (2015), who did not even compare the ultastructure of the skeleton with that of sclerotized Cambrian ctenophorans. A problem for this hypothesis is that Siphusauctum seems to be entirely non-mineralized (O’Brien & Caron 2012), and Scleroctenophora had a non-calcified organic skeleton.
So Is It an Animal?
As in all the other cases we looked into with my previous articles in this series, the actual evidence does not support an uncontroversial identification of Namacalathus as an Ediacaran bilaterian animal. Is it an animal (e.g., a ctenophoran) at all? Maybe yes, maybe no. It could be anything, from a coelenterate-grade or sponge-grade organism to even a protist or an alga. Until better evidence becomes available it must be considered as just another problematic Ediacaran organism. Does it refute the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion, with its sudden appearance of at least 17 bilaterian animal phyla and their complex body plans, as was boldly claimed by Penny (2015)? Not even close!
References:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-10--Cancel Caribou? Another Questionable Tribute at the American Museum of Natural History

John West has been documenting the failures of a wonderful institution in New York , the American Museum of Natural History ( AMNH ) , to properly confront its own past association with evolutionary racism .
( Most recently , see here and here . )
This is even as the museum plots to cancel President Teddy Roosevelt whose great equestrian statue stands outside on Central Park West .
Dr. West sought comment , in vain , from the AMNH about a bust of racist and eugenicist past museum president Henry Fairfield Obsorn and about “ a collection of skulls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps in southwest Africa , ” plunder from a horrific experiment in applied Darwinism .
( See Darwin , Africa , and Genocide : The Horror of Scientific Racism . )
When West was producing the documentary Human Zoos , the museum similarly evaded questions about its historical involvement in advancing the pseudoscience of eugenics .
Now my friend John Zmirak points out in a tweet that the museum has yet another questionable gem on display — at least indirectly honoring another hair-raising racist , Madison Grant ( 1865-1937 ) .
Grant was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work The Passing of the Great Race , a proponent of “ racial hygiene ” and “ Nordic theory.
” Today he ’ s a hero of the Alt-Right .
For more on him , see Human Zoos : Well , Grant is the namesake of a caribou species , Grant ’ s Caribou , Rangifer tarandus granti .
You can see them , prominently labeled in a display at the museum , pictured above .
Should these caribou be canceled , too ?
No , I don ’ t think so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments , “ Cancel NOTHING , tear down NOTHING .
This generation is drunk .
Take away its car keys.
” John West earlier noted one statue of a Darwinian racist that probably does deserve to come down , that of Democratic Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina , albeit in a lawful manner .
No statue has an automatic right to eternally adorn a public space .
More generally , it ’ s time for a rational discussion of the ideas behind some lamentable streams in U.S. history .
Discussing the Confederacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as all black lives , not just some , so too all of our history matters , not just some .
White nationalists today aren ’ t shy about acknowledging the roots of their own ideas in evolutionary thinking .
In 2013 , Alt-Right hero Richard Spencer wrote a new Foreword for a republished edition of Madison Grant ’ s The Conquest of Continent , noting that “ Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared since of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guess who wrote the original Foreword ?
Henry Fairfield Obsorn .
Kanye West was not wrong this week in acknowledging the ugliness behind the founding of Planned Parenthood , whose founder , Margaret Sanger , extolled planned human breeding and did not hesitate to address a KKK rally .
Some in the black community have objected to public statuary honoring her .
I can understand why , as much as I think now is the time to err on the side of preserving the past .
Crucially , though , there needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinian scientists and , yes , abortion advocates about the shadow of their own past .
The role of science , including evolutionary science , in justifying racism and eugenics is a subject that needs to be opened up wide , not decorously ignored any longer .

Photo: Display of Grant’s Caribou at the AMNH, by Ehblake / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
John West has been documenting the failures of a wonderful institution in New York, the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), to properly confront its own past association with evolutionary racism. (Most recently, see here and here.) This is even as the museum plots to cancel President Teddy Roosevelt whose great equestrian statue stands outside on Central Park West.
Dr. West sought comment, in vain, from the AMNH about a bust of racist and eugenicist past museum president Henry Fairfield Obsorn and about “a collection of skulls that included pieces gathered from German concentration camps in southwest Africa,” plunder from a horrific experiment in applied Darwinism. (See Darwin, Africa, and Genocide: The Horror of Scientific Racism.) When West was producing the documentary Human Zoos, the museum similarly evaded questions about its historical involvement in advancing the pseudoscience of eugenics.
Madison Grant’s Caribou
Now my friend John Zmirak points out in a tweet that the museum has yet another questionable gem on display — at least indirectly honoring another hair-raising racist, Madison Grant (1865-1937). Grant was a naturalist, author of the 1916 work The Passing of the Great Race, a proponent of “racial hygiene” and “Nordic theory.” Today he’s a hero of the Alt-Right. For more on him, see Human Zoos:
Well, Grant is the namesake of a caribou species, Grant’s Caribou, Rangifer tarandus granti. You can see them, prominently labeled in a display at the museum, pictured above. Should these caribou be canceled, too?
No, I don’t think so. Where does it all end? Zmirak comments, “Cancel NOTHING, tear down NOTHING. This generation is drunk. Take away its car keys.” John West earlier noted one statue of a Darwinian racist that probably does deserve to come down, that of Democratic Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, albeit in a lawful manner. No statue has an automatic right to eternally adorn a public space.
A Rational Discussion
More generally, it’s time for a rational discussion of the ideas behind some lamentable streams in U.S. history. Discussing the Confederacy and its legacy is important. But just as all black lives matter, not just some, so too all of our history matters, not just some.
White nationalists today aren’t shy about acknowledging the roots of their own ideas in evolutionary thinking. In 2013, Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer wrote a new Foreword for a republished edition of Madison Grant’s The Conquest of Continent, noting that “Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared sense of destiny with their extended kin group.” Guess who wrote the original Foreword? Henry Fairfield Obsorn.
Kanye West was not wrong this week in acknowledging the ugliness behind the founding of Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, extolled planned human breeding and did not hesitate to address a KKK rally. Some in the black community have objected to public statuary honoring her. I can understand why, as much as I think now is the time to err on the side of preserving the past.
Crucially, though, there needs to be some frankness on the part of Darwinian scientists and, yes, abortion advocates about the shadow of their own past. The role of science, including evolutionary science, in justifying racism and eugenics is a subject that needs to be opened up wide, not decorously ignored any longer.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-10--Honored by Statue, Democratic South Carolina Senator Said Some Blacks “Near Akin to Monkey”

As I ’ ve written previously , I generally don ’ t favor removing old statues of historical figures .
I ’ d prefer using the statues as an occasion for learning lessons about the past , including uncomfortable parts of the past .
However , if a person is despicable enough , I would make an exception .
For me , Benjamin Tillman is one of the exceptions .
From 1895-1918 , Tillman served as a Democratic United States Senator from South Carolina .
South Carolina still honors Tillman with a statue in its state capital .
Tillman was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He drew on evolutionary racism to preach black inferiority .
And he worked to subvert representative democracy .
During a U.S. Senate debate on January 21 , 1907 , Tillman boasted about how he and others successfully disenfranchised blacks after the Civil War through intimidation , killings , and fraud .
He revealed that depriving blacks of their newly accorded political rights was in fact his motivation for becoming involved in politics : “ We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank , and only one plank , namely , that ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and white men must govern it.
’ Under that banner we went to battle.
” He meant “ battle ” literally , recounting how he and others killed blacks in a series of armed conflicts : “ A month later we had the Ellenton riot , in which no one ever knew how many negroes were killed , but there were forty or fifty or a hundred .
It was a fight between barbarism and civilization , between the African and the Caucasian , for mastery .
It was then that ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then that ‘ we killed them ’ ; it was then that ‘ we stuffed ballot boxes.
’ ” Tillman justified his actions by drawing on the standard tropes of evolutionary racism .
As he explained , “ We had decided to take the government away from men so debased as were the negroes — I will not say baboons ; I never have called them baboons ; I believe they are men , but some of them are so near akin to the monkey that scientists are yet looking for the missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Tillman , it was the supposed biological inferiority of blacks that justified him in stealing elections : “ We saw the evil of giving the ballot to creatures of this kind , and saying that one vote shall count regardless of the man… Then it was that we stuffed ballot boxes , because desperate diseases require desperate remedies.
” Frankly , I am appalled that South Carolina would continue to honor such a man .
I definitely don ’ t favor illegally removing his statue ( let alone blowing it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removing it .
Here ’ s an idea : Replace Tillman ’ s statue with a statue honoring the nine black Republican congressmen from South Carolina during the 1870s-1890s .
Then move Tillman ’ s statue to a museum , and surround it with an exhibit exposing his racist record , including his promotion of scientific racism .

Photo: Statue of Benjamin Tillman, Columbia, South Carolina, by Billy Hathorn / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
As I’ve written previously, I generally don’t favor removing old statues of historical figures. I’d prefer using the statues as an occasion for learning lessons about the past, including uncomfortable parts of the past.
However, if a person is despicable enough, I would make an exception. For me, Benjamin Tillman is one of the exceptions. From 1895-1918, Tillman served as a Democratic United States Senator from South Carolina. South Carolina still honors Tillman with a statue in its state capital.
Tillman was a monster. He publicly defended lynchings. He drew on evolutionary racism to preach black inferiority. And he worked to subvert representative democracy.
Intimidation, Killings, and Fraud
During a U.S. Senate debate on January 21, 1907, Tillman boasted about how he and others successfully disenfranchised blacks after the Civil War through intimidation, killings, and fraud. He revealed that depriving blacks of their newly accorded political rights was in fact his motivation for becoming involved in politics: “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and only one plank, namely, that ‘This is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.’ Under that banner we went to battle.”
He meant “battle” literally, recounting how he and others killed blacks in a series of armed conflicts: “A month later we had the Ellenton riot, in which no one ever knew how many negroes were killed, but there were forty or fifty or a hundred. It was a fight between barbarism and civilization, between the African and the Caucasian, for mastery. It was then that ‘we shot them’; it was then that ‘we killed them’; it was then that ‘we stuffed ballot boxes.’”
Tropes of Darwinian Evolution
Tillman justified his actions by drawing on the standard tropes of evolutionary racism. As he explained, “We had decided to take the government away from men so debased as were the negroes — I will not say baboons; I never have called them baboons; I believe they are men, but some of them are so near akin to the monkey that scientists are yet looking for the missing link.” (Emphasis added.) According to Tillman, it was the supposed biological inferiority of blacks that justified him in stealing elections: “We saw the evil of giving the ballot to creatures of this kind, and saying that one vote shall count regardless of the man… Then it was that we stuffed ballot boxes, because desperate diseases require desperate remedies.”
Frankly, I am appalled that South Carolina would continue to honor such a man. I definitely don’t favor illegally removing his statue (let alone blowing it up), but I do favor legally removing it.
Here’s an idea: Replace Tillman’s statue with a statue honoring the nine black Republican congressmen from South Carolina during the 1870s-1890s. Then move Tillman’s statue to a museum, and surround it with an exhibit exposing his racist record, including his promotion of scientific racism.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-11--Nightmare at the Museum

Nightmare at the Museum

This week we ’ ve been taking a look behind the scenes at the American Museum of Natural History in @ @ @ @ @ here : • “ American Museum of Natural History Cancels Teddy Roosevelt ; Keeps Bust @ @ @ @ @ • “ Cancel Caribou ?
Another Questionable Tribute at the American Museum of Natural History @ @ @ @ @ leads the way in cancel culture , seeking to rid itself of a politically incorrect @ @ @ @ @ overlooking its Central Park West entrance , it has some problematic displays and holdings inside @ @ @ @ @ of ID the Future dealing with the AMNH ’ s past , Discovery Institute ’ @ @ @ @ @ to a shocking chapter of American history , drawing from his award-winning documentary , Human @ @ @ @ @ Forgotten History of Scientific Racism .
Learn about a time when this cherished American museum @ @ @ @ @ a master race .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

American Museum of Natural History, by Ingfbruno / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
This week we’ve been taking a look behind the scenes at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. See here:
Even as the AMNH leads the way in cancel culture, seeking to rid itself of a politically incorrect equestrian statue of Teddy Roosevelt overlooking its Central Park West entrance, it has some problematic displays and holdings inside.
On a classic episode of ID the Future dealing with the AMNH’s past, Discovery Institute’s John West introduces listeners to a shocking chapter of American history, drawing from his award-winning documentary, Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism. Learn about a time when this cherished American museum promoted Darwinian-inspired efforts to breed a master race. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-12--James Dwight Dana: Falsely Claimed Darwinist

Editor ’ s note : See also , “ Theistic Evolution : The Case of Theodore Munger.
” On Friday , I explored the case of theologian Theodore Munger , falsely characterized as having been “ won over ” to Darwinian evolution , becoming , in this misleading presentation , an early defender of the theory .
In reality , as I explained , Darwinian theism and theistic evolution need to be carefully distinguished .
Munger exemplifies theistic evolution not Darwinian theism .
Members of the scientific community are not immune to this confusion of terms .
Consider the example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an American geologist who held the editorship of the American Journal of Science from 1846 until his death .
Dana ’ s chief claim to authority was in the field of geology , in which his multi-editioned Manual of Geology became a standard .
Encyclopedia Britannica correctly notes Dana ’ s many achievements — his exploration of the South Seas , his extensive work in mineralogy , his leadership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science , the Geological Society of America , and the National Academy of Sciences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a correspondent of Charles Darwin .
While he resisted Darwin ’ s thoroughly naturalistic theory of evolution , the entry notes , “ Darwin ’ s impressive argument , coupled with Dana ’ s own zoological knowledge , was persuasive in the end , however , and he [ Dana ] adopted evolution theory in the last edition of his Manual.
” But is this true ?
The Facts Say Otherwise As William F. Sanford Jr. has pointed out : Although Dana accepted many of the Darwinian tenets , he continued to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objections was the failure of Darwin ’ s theory to explain what it had set out to demonstrate , namely the origin of species .
The doctrine of the survival of the fittest Dana admitted to be a fact .
However , Natural Selection , true to its title , could not satisfy him as to the origin of the fittest .
Dana remained disconcerted by the dearth of geological evidence supporting evolutionary theory .
He had come to recognize that the geological record was imperfect , in fact “ badly broken , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the record did indicate transitions in a very few cases : in particular those between birds and reptiles , and the horse and tapir .
Nevertheless , Dana was led to entertain the possibility that evolution may not always have been gradual .
[ Emphasis in the original . ]
Furthermore , Sanford summarizes Dana on Darwin thus : Finally , in direct contradiction to the Encyclopedia Britannica , it is clear that in the fourth and final edition of his Manual , Dana explicitly rejected a key feature of Darwinian evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature ’ s laws and can have none in nature-science , ” he writes in the Manual .
Whatever the results of further research , we may feel assured , in accord with [ Alfred Russel ] Wallace , who shares with Darwin in the authority of the theory of Natural Selection , that the intervention of a Power above Nature was at the basis of Man ’ s development .
Believing that Nature exists through the will and ever-acting power of the Divine Being .
.
.
or , in the words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Universe is not merely dependent on , but actually is , the Will of one Supreme Intelligence , Nature , with Man as its culminant species , is no longer a mystery .
There can be no greater statement rejecting the positivism and overweening naturalism of Darwinian evolution than this .
So here again , we have a major scientific figure falsely enlisted on behalf of Darwin when , in fact , like Munger , Dana clearly belongs in Wallace ’ s intelligent evolution camp .
As these disconcerting examples demonstrate , unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlets begin to treat the history of Darwinian evolution with the care and precision necessary , we should all be very wary of claims that any given historical figure was a Darwin supporter .
In the lame attempt to bestow a kind of halo effect upon all things Darwinian , attributions are frequently made largely out of ignorance of what Darwinian evolution really is , or what any given so-called “ evolutionist ” actually believed .
When it comes to claims of the “ nearly unanimous ” acceptance of Darwinian evolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only when corroborated with actual primary data about exactly what is accepted and by whom can such an assertion be validated .
As we ’ ve seen with the cases of Theodore Munger and James Dwight Dana , it clearly can not .
It is almost certain that other examples exist , and these can likely be exposed without too much difficulty .
The moral here is simple : Don ’ t buy everything manufactured by the Darwin Industry or by co-called “ experts ” who serve as its door-to-door sales team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or an entry heaping praise on the “ convincing ” evidence for Darwinism , a little “ Spam Risk ” alarm should go off in our head .

Editor’s note: See also, “Theistic Evolution: The Case of Theodore Munger.”
On Friday, I explored the case of theologian Theodore Munger, falsely characterized as having been “won over” to Darwinian evolution, becoming, in this misleading presentation, an early defender of the theory. In reality, as I explained, Darwinian theism and theistic evolution need to be carefully distinguished. Munger exemplifies theistic evolution not Darwinian theism.
Members of the scientific community are not immune to this confusion of terms. Consider the example of James Dwight Dana (1813-1895), an American geologist who held the editorship of the American Journal of Science from 1846 until his death. Dana’s chief claim to authority was in the field of geology, in which his multi-editioned Manual of Geology became a standard.
Encyclopedia Britannica correctly notes Dana’s many achievements — his exploration of the South Seas, his extensive work in mineralogy, his leadership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, and the National Academy of Sciences. It also points out that Dana was a correspondent of Charles Darwin. While he resisted Darwin’s thoroughly naturalistic theory of evolution, the entry notes, “Darwin’s impressive argument, coupled with Dana’s own zoological knowledge, was persuasive in the end, however, and he [Dana] adopted evolution theory in the last edition of his Manual.” But is this true?
The Facts Say Otherwise
As William F. Sanford Jr. has pointed out:
Although Dana accepted many of the Darwinian tenets, he continued to have several reservations. One of his leading objections was the failure of Darwin’s theory to explain what it had set out to demonstrate, namely the origin of species. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest Dana admitted to be a fact. However, Natural Selection, true to its title, could not satisfy him as to the origin of the fittest. […] Dana remained disconcerted by the dearth of geological evidence supporting evolutionary theory. He had come to recognize that the geological record was imperfect, in fact “badly broken,” in his own words. Furthermore, the record did indicate transitions in a very few cases: in particular those between birds and reptiles, and the horse and tapir. Nevertheless, Dana was led to entertain the possibility that evolution may not always have been gradual. [Emphasis in the original.]
Furthermore, Sanford summarizes Dana on Darwin thus:
Although Dana acknowledged the structural similarities between man and the ape, the great disparities in the cephalization of the two species, man’s capacity for reason, and the failure of geology to provide evidence of any “missing links” convinced him that the creation of man required special assistance from God. For Dana evolution in no way denied or obscured God’s purpose. He failed to see any “chance” in mutation.
A Key Feature of Darwinian Evolution
Finally, in direct contradiction to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is clear that in the fourth and final edition of his Manual, Dana explicitly rejected a key feature of Darwinian evolution: “Chance has no place in nature’s laws and can have none in nature-science,” he writes in the Manual.
Whatever the results of further research, we may feel assured, in accord with [Alfred Russel] Wallace, who shares with Darwin in the authority of the theory of Natural Selection, that the intervention of a Power above Nature was at the basis of Man’s development. Believing that Nature exists through the will and ever-acting power of the Divine Being . . . or, in the words nearly of Wallace, that the whole Universe is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the Will of one Supreme Intelligence, Nature, with Man as its culminant species, is no longer a mystery.
There can be no greater statement rejecting the positivism and overweening naturalism of Darwinian evolution than this. So here again, we have a major scientific figure falsely enlisted on behalf of Darwin when, in fact, like Munger, Dana clearly belongs in Wallace’s intelligent evolution camp.
Disconcerting Examples
As these disconcerting examples demonstrate, unless and until the academy and its popular media outlets begin to treat the history of Darwinian evolution with the care and precision necessary, we should all be very wary of claims that any given historical figure was a Darwin supporter. In the lame attempt to bestow a kind of halo effect upon all things Darwinian, attributions are frequently made largely out of ignorance of what Darwinian evolution really is, or what any given so-called “evolutionist” actually believed.
When it comes to claims of the “nearly unanimous” acceptance of Darwinian evolution, mere assertion cannot stand as fact. Only when corroborated with actual primary data about exactly what is accepted and by whom can such an assertion be validated. As we’ve seen with the cases of Theodore Munger and James Dwight Dana, it clearly cannot. It is almost certain that other examples exist, and these can likely be exposed without too much difficulty.
The moral here is simple: Don’t buy everything manufactured by the Darwin Industry or by co-called “experts” who serve as its door-to-door sales team. Every time we see an article or an entry heaping praise on the “convincing” evidence for Darwinism, a little “Spam Risk” alarm should go off in our head.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-14--Why C. S. Lewis Rejected the “Argument from Undesign”

On an episode of ID the Future we bring you a production by Discovery Institute about C. S. Lewis and @ @ @ @ @ by political scientist John West and philosophers Victor Reppert and Angus Menuge , we hear @ @ @ @ @ doubts about God based in part on an argument from undesign or “ poor design @ @ @ @ @ how he moved from this position to developing multiple arguments for intelligent design .
Download @ @ @ @ @ it here .
Another contribution Lewis made to the intelligent design project wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ example he set .
As John West explains near the end of the episode , @ @ @ @ @ was a commitment to free inquiry and open debate , one he modeled while a @ @ @ @ @

Photo: C. S. Lewis statue, by "Genvessel" / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
On an episode of ID the Future we bring you a production by Discovery Institute about C. S. Lewis and intelligent Design. With contributions by political scientist John West and philosophers Victor Reppert and Angus Menuge, we hear about Lewis’s early doubts about God based in part on an argument from undesign or “poor design” in nature, and how he moved from this position to developing multiple arguments for intelligent design. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Another contribution Lewis made to the intelligent design project wasn’t a specific argument but the example he set. As John West explains near the end of the episode, one of his greatest contributions was a commitment to free inquiry and open debate, one he modeled while a professor at Oxford University.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-13--On the Evolution of Automobiles

On the Evolution of Automobiles

In the second half of my new video Why Evolution is Different , I point out how similar the fossil record is to the history of human technology .
In automobile evolution , for example ( or in the evolution of software ) , as in the history of life , we see major new features appear suddenly , because gradual transitions would necessarily involve the development of new , but not yet useful , features .
I made this point at a meeting at Houston Baptist University in September 2015 , and at the end someone said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they can not reproduce.
” I believe I simply replied , that ’ s not really relevant to the main point I am making .
But in the new video I have a better answer ( beginning at the 19:39 mark ) , which makes an important but simple point not often discussed : Some people say , Of course cars can not evolve because they can not reproduce .
Well , designing any type of self-replicating machine is still far beyond our current technology .
When we add technology to such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the goal of reproduction , we only move the goalposts , because now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce .
So how could we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance ?
Nevertheless , imagine that we did manage to construct a fleet of cars that contained completely automated car-building factories inside , with the ability to construct new cars — and not just normal new cars , but new cars containing automated car-building factories inside them .
If we left these cars alone and let them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there any chance we would eventually see major advances arise through natural selection of the resulting duplication errors ?
Of course not !
We could confidently predict that the whole process would grind to a halt after a few generations without intelligent humans around to fix the mechanical problems that would inevitably arise , long before we saw duplication errors which held any promise of advances : devolution is natural , evolution is not .
That it seems even superficially plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awaiting rare favorable mutations , living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation , generation after generation .
We are so used to seeing this happen that we don ’ t appreciate how astonishing it really is .
But if we saw cars reproducing themselves , generation after generation , we might conclude that this actually made the development of cars even more difficult to explain without design .
Darwinists believe that the ability of living things to reproduce is what makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It actually makes them even harder to explain .
The movie now has Spanish subtitles , by the say .
Press CC to see them .
This translation was done by myself and Fabian Fuentes .

Photo: Tesla factory, by Steve Jurvetson / CC BY.
In the second half of my new video Why Evolution is Different, I point out how similar the fossil record is to the history of human technology. In automobile evolution, for example (or in the evolution of software), as in the history of life, we see major new features appear suddenly, because gradual transitions would necessarily involve the development of new, but not yet useful, features.
I made this point at a meeting at Houston Baptist University in September 2015, and at the end someone said, “But of course cars cannot evolve because they cannot reproduce.” I believe I simply replied, that’s not really relevant to the main point I am making. But in the new video I have a better answer (beginning at the 19:39 mark), which makes an important but simple point not often discussed:
Some people say, Of course cars cannot evolve because they cannot reproduce. Well, designing any type of self-replicating machine is still far beyond our current technology. When we add technology to such a machine, to get closer to the goal of reproduction, we only move the goalposts, because now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce. So how could we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance? Nevertheless, imagine that we did manage to construct a fleet of cars that contained completely automated car-building factories inside, with the ability to construct new cars — and not just normal new cars, but new cars containing automated car-building factories inside them. If we left these cars alone and let them reproduce themselves for many generations, is there any chance we would eventually see major advances arise through natural selection of the resulting duplication errors? Of course not! We could confidently predict that the whole process would grind to a halt after a few generations without intelligent humans around to fix the mechanical problems that would inevitably arise, long before we saw duplication errors which held any promise of advances: devolution is natural, evolution is not. That it seems even superficially plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed but inexplicable fact that while they are awaiting rare favorable mutations, living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation. We are so used to seeing this happen that we don’t appreciate how astonishing it really is. But if we saw cars reproducing themselves, generation after generation, we might conclude that this actually made the development of cars even more difficult to explain without design.
Harder, Not Easier to Explain
Darwinists believe that the ability of living things to reproduce is what makes it possible to explain them without design. It actually makes them even harder to explain.
The movie now has Spanish subtitles, by the way. Press CC to see them. This translation was done by myself and Fabian Fuentes.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-13--Awesome Recovery for Atheist Lawrence Krauss

Congrats to the PR team of Chutzpah , Cheek , and Insolence who scored big with the work they appear to have done for atheist Lawrence Krauss .
The cosmologist has now emerged , earlier than anticipated , from under a major # MeToo cloud that resulted in his forced departure from his university and temporary disappearance from a role as a public figure .
He “ retired ” from Arizona State in May of last year .
Time flies .
Here he is today in the Wall Street Journal decrying , “ The Ideological Corruption of Science.
” Fascinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antonyms of “ corruption ” include decency , goodness , honesty , honor , and purity .
That ’ s right , Lawrence Krauss of all people is now lecturing us about the importance of…decency , goodness , honesty , honor , and purity .
This is the same Krauss who palled around with the late Jeffrey Epstein of blessed memory , opining that Epstein was innocent based on scientific considerations .
He cited “ empirical evidence ” on the point : Besides his science-based defense , Dr. Krauss testified to feeling elevated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein : As to the Journal article , it ’ s hard to disagree with his conclusion about politicized science and censorship .
As I ’ m not the first to have pointed out , it ’ s been a really bad year for science .
Between fawning over BLM and the spinning color wheel of contradictions that expert scientific opinion has presented from the start on COVID-19 , reasonable laypeople greet what scientists say with increasing skepticism if not mockery .
On this score , last year wasn ’ t so good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein laying bare scientific corruption as never before , what Michael Egnor summarized here as the “ silence of the scientists.
” So , as bizarre as it is to see myself type these words , Krauss is right .
We ’ ve been saying much the same for years : As ideological encroachment corrupts scientific institutions , one might wonder why more scientists aren ’ t defending the hard sciences from this intrusion .
The answer is that many academics are afraid , and for good reason .
They are hesitant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they see what has happened to scientists who do .
They see how researchers lose funding if they can ’ t justify how their research programs will explicitly combat claimed systemic racism or sexism , a requirement for scientific proposals now being applied by granting agencies .
Whenever science has been corrupted by falling prey to ideology , scientific progress suffers .
This was the case in Nazi Germany , the Soviet Union — and in the U.S. in the 19th century when racist views dominated biology , and during the McCarthy era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ostracized for their political views .
To stem the slide , scientific leaders , scientific societies and senior academic administrators must publicly stand up not only for free speech in science , but for quality , independent of political doctrine and divorced from the demands of political factions .
But hold on , before his abrupt retirement and equally abrupt reemergence as a defender of free speech , silencing opponents with ideological bullying was among Krauss ’ s specialties .
The bio with his Journal article indicates he ’ s got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Climate Change .
Interesting — Krauss is among those who called for climate skeptics to be tarred as science “ deniers , ” a formulation applied many times over to proponents of intelligent design and intended , obviously , to create an association with Holocaust deniers .
The whole point of such an exercise is to deny skeptics , whether on biological origins or on climate change , an opportunity to address the public .
If “ many academics are afraid ” of speaking out , as Krauss correctly notes , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with skunk juice by the likes of Lawrence Krauss .
When Eric Metaxas published a wildly popular Christmas Day op-ed in the Wall Street Journal ( “ Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God “ ) , Krauss responded with ad hominems .
Metaxas , a bestselling historical biographer among other distinctions , never claimed to be a scientist .
But Krauss fumed that the article was “ written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda , ” “ a Christian apologist…masquerad [ ing ] as a scientist.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meyer in a debate in Toronto , Krauss offered a notable display of viciousness and dishonesty , falsely smearing the philosopher of science and Discovery Institute together as a “ rather moribund right-wing creationist group , ” seeking to push ID into public schools .
Thoroughly inane , he summarized our position as , “ Science is bad , ” “ Science is evil.
” Krauss ’ s own signature atheistic argument asserts the emergence of the universe from nothing .
How do you get something from nothing ?
Well , as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The word ‘ nothing ’ means a lot of different things to people.
” It does ?
As Prager commented to Steve Meyer in another radio interview later , “ That ’ s when I gave up.
” So there ’ s a bit of irony in Krauss — Epstein apologist , smear artist , and specialist in word games — reentering the public arena as a champion of truth , openness , goodness , and purity .
Only a little richer would be Jeffrey Epstein , had he not met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defender of child welfare .

Photo: Striped skunk, by USFWS Mountain-Prairie, via Flickr (cropped).
Congrats to the PR team of Chutzpah, Cheek, and Insolence who scored big with the work they appear to have done for atheist Lawrence Krauss. The cosmologist has now emerged, earlier than anticipated, from under a major #MeToo cloud that resulted in his forced departure from his university and temporary disappearance from a role as a public figure. He “retired” from Arizona State in May of last year.
Time flies. Here he is today in the Wall Street Journal decrying, “The Ideological Corruption of Science.”
Fascinating. According to the thesaurus, some antonyms of “corruption” include decency, goodness, honesty, honor, and purity. That’s right, Lawrence Krauss of all people is now lecturing us about the importance of…decency, goodness, honesty, honor, and purity. This is the same Krauss who palled around with the late Jeffrey Epstein of blessed memory, opining that Epstein was innocent based on scientific considerations. He cited “empirical evidence” on the point:
As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.
Besides his science-based defense, Dr. Krauss testified to feeling elevated by the relationship with his buddy Mr. Epstein:
I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.
Hard to Disagree
As to the Journal article, it’s hard to disagree with his conclusion about politicized science and censorship. As I’m not the first to have pointed out, it’s been a really bad year for science. Between fawning over BLM and the spinning color wheel of contradictions that expert scientific opinion has presented from the start on COVID-19, reasonable laypeople greet what scientists say with increasing skepticism if not mockery. On this score, last year wasn’t so good either, with the tale of Jeffrey Epstein laying bare scientific corruption as never before, what Michael Egnor summarized here as the “silence of the scientists.”
So, as bizarre as it is to see myself type these words, Krauss is right. We’ve been saying much the same for years:
As ideological encroachment corrupts scientific institutions, one might wonder why more scientists aren’t defending the hard sciences from this intrusion. The answer is that many academics are afraid, and for good reason. They are hesitant to disagree with scientific leadership groups, and they see what has happened to scientists who do. They see how researchers lose funding if they can’t justify how their research programs will explicitly combat claimed systemic racism or sexism, a requirement for scientific proposals now being applied by granting agencies. Whenever science has been corrupted by falling prey to ideology, scientific progress suffers. This was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union — and in the U.S. in the 19th century when racist views dominated biology, and during the McCarthy era, when prominent scientists like Robert Oppenheimer were ostracized for their political views. To stem the slide, scientific leaders, scientific societies and senior academic administrators must publicly stand up not only for free speech in science, but for quality, independent of political doctrine and divorced from the demands of political factions.
Skunked by Krauss
But hold on, before his abrupt retirement and equally abrupt reemergence as a defender of free speech, silencing opponents with ideological bullying was among Krauss’s specialties. The bio with his Journal article indicates he’s got a new book coming out on The Physics of Climate Change. Interesting — Krauss is among those who called for climate skeptics to be tarred as science “deniers,” a formulation applied many times over to proponents of intelligent design and intended, obviously, to create an association with Holocaust deniers. The whole point of such an exercise is to deny skeptics, whether on biological origins or on climate change, an opportunity to address the public. If “many academics are afraid” of speaking out, as Krauss correctly notes, that’s because they fear being sprayed with skunk juice by the likes of Lawrence Krauss.
When Eric Metaxas published a wildly popular Christmas Day op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (“Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God“), Krauss responded with ad hominems. Metaxas, a bestselling historical biographer among other distinctions, never claimed to be a scientist. But Krauss fumed that the article was “written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda,” “a Christian apologist…masquerad[ing] as a scientist.”
Smearing Steve Meyer
When he met intelligent design advocate Stephen Meyer in a debate in Toronto, Krauss offered a notable display of viciousness and dishonesty, falsely smearing the philosopher of science and Discovery Institute together as a “rather moribund right-wing creationist group,” seeking to push ID into public schools. Thoroughly inane, he summarized our position as, “Science is bad,” “Science is evil.”
Krauss’s own signature atheistic argument asserts the emergence of the universe from nothing. How do you get something from nothing? Well, as he explained on the radio to Dennis Prager, “The word ‘nothing’ means a lot of different things to people.” It does? As Prager commented to Steve Meyer in another radio interview later, “That’s when I gave up.”
So there’s a bit of irony in Krauss — Epstein apologist, smear artist, and specialist in word games — reentering the public arena as a champion of truth, openness, goodness, and purity. Only a little richer would be Jeffrey Epstein, had he not met an untimely end, resurrecting himself as a defender of child welfare.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-13--Mistakes Our Critics Make: Information In and Information About

Physicist Brian Miller recently contributed a series on common mistakes that critics of intelligent design make .
See here : @ @ @ @ @ not enough mistakes for you , here ’ s more !
On a classic episode @ @ @ @ @ science historian Mike Keas interviews attorney and engineer Eric Anderson about two mistakes ID antagonists @ @ @ @ @ nature .
One has to do with the fact that there is information to be @ @ @ @ @ like Saturn ’ s rings for example — but is there information actually in Saturn @ @ @ @ @ is that information produced by intelligent agents studying Saturn ’ s rings ?
The answer @ @ @ @ @ clear .
And it makes a huge difference in how we understand information and intelligence @ @ @ @ @ listen to it here .
Eric Anderson is a co-author of the new Discovery Institute @ @ @ @ @ Design in a Nutshell .

Physicist Brian Miller recently contributed a series on common mistakes that critics of intelligent design make. See here:
In case that’s not enough mistakes for you, here’s more! On a classic episode of ID the Future, science historian Mike Keas interviews attorney and engineer Eric Anderson about two mistakes ID antagonists often make regarding information in nature. One has to do with the fact that there is information to be gained about natural phenomena, like Saturn’s rings for example — but is there information actually in Saturn’s rings, or is that information produced by intelligent agents studying Saturn’s rings? The answer to that question should be clear. And it makes a huge difference in how we understand information and intelligence.
Download the podcast or listen to it here. Eric Anderson is a co-author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-13--In Cell Death, a Stunning Display of Intelligent Design

Some counselors try to comfort the grieving by saying that “ dying is a part of life , ” as if that would cheer up someone dealing with the loss of a loved one .
Because of our exceptional natures , people have thoughts of the soul , eternity , and love .
These far outstrip the physical necessity of disposing of a body that was housing a sentient being a short time ago .
Cells only have the physical disposal to contend with , so in the following discussion , one must not draw comparisons too tightly between human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell , dying really is a part of life .
There ’ s nothing to grieve about !
In fact , billions of cells die in the process of embryonic development , as our organs , fingers , and tissues are sculpted .
That ’ s a wonderful thing .
Nevertheless , tissues face real challenges in all stages of cell death , from deciding what cells need to bow out , to disposing of the “ corpses ” afterward .
The cellular morgue is exquisitely designed for the challenge .
Nature Molecular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by four medical researchers about cell death , titled “ The clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis.
” The term efferocytosis may be unfamiliar to those who have heard of apoptosis ( programmed cell death ) ; it ’ s a more general term meaning “ the phagocytosis of dead and dying cells ” ( where phagocytosis means , literally , “ cell-eating ” or cell-engulfing , and a phagocyte is a general term for any engulfing cell ) .
The researchers , three from St. Jude Children ’ s Research Hospital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Sciences , organize their presentation around these topics : ( 1 ) recognition of dying cells , ( 2 ) mechanisms of engulfment , ( 3 ) efferocytosis and disease , ( 4 ) conclusions and perspectives .
Each major category is subdivided into narrower topics .
Anyone reading the paper will have a difficult time keeping track of dozens of players in the drama .
Suffice it to say that the impression of sophistication and foresight is overwhelming .
Here , space allows for just a few simplified highlights .
Cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are experts at recycling .
Why let all those amino acids , sugars , and other building blocks go to waste ?
While living , the cell keeps its lysosomes and proteasomes ( molecular machines that recycle substrates ) busy dismantling spent proteins and sending the components to recycling centers .
Eventually , the whole cell ’ s work is done , or worse , has become infected and needs to commit hara-kiri .
There ’ s an app for that .
Apoptosis , programmed cell death , is a suite of tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like spies with poison pills for use if captured .
The poison pills consist primarily of the caspase family of proteins .
Numbered caspase-1 through -14 , these enzymes cut through ( “ cleave ” ) molecules like buzz saws .
They are stored in an inactivated form for safety , like chain saws with covers and batteries removed .
There ’ s more to the kit than that , though .
Numerous actors come onto the stage when the apoptosis signal is triggered .
In a sequence of steps , caspase-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find-me ” signals that are sent out to attract wandering macrophages .
A macrophage ( a type of white blood cell in the immune system ) knows how to engulf a target , which might be a pathogenic invader or a dying cell .
The find-me signal is more than a beacon .
It can even modify the macrophage ’ s behavior depending on the situation .
In addition to the “ find-me ” signal , cells can post “ eat-me ” and “ don ’ t-eat-me ” tags on their outer membranes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priority , these act as Boolean logic gates .
The eat-me signal only activates the macrophage if the don ’ t-eat-me tag has been removed .
Consequently , part of apoptosis includes removing the don ’ t-eat-me tags .
This ensures that macrophages do not destroy healthy cells .
Here is a brief taste of the complexity involved : No more of that , but one should emphasize that our account is vastly oversimplified .
The paper is full of details like this , at every step of cell death and recycling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell to eat , how does it engulf the dying cell ?
In other words , the phagocyte , such as a macrophage , needs to protect its own contents from the poison pills and buzz saws in the dying cell .
Numerous enzymes and molecular machines get involved .
A dizzying paragraph in the paper describes some 30 tools that create the “ phagosome ” ( eating-body ) that surrounds the dying cell or pathogen to engulf it safely without harming the phagocyte .
The phagosome then delivers the contents to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complexity in their description quickly overwhelms the reader .
Of interest to those who remember the rotary motor ATP synthase , another rotary motor called vacuolar ATPase gets involved here .
Vacuolar ATPase bears some similarities to ATP synthase .
It churns protons into the recycle bins to acidify the contents , just like stomach acid helps break down food in the stomach .
Uncanny the likeness at such a tiny scale .
The paper describes many kinds of modifications to the general picture .
For instance , efferocytosis may act differently in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or kidneys .
These special environments require even more players .
Additionally , signal tags on cell membranes can give phagocytes more information , like the signal PAMP ( “ I ’ m infected !
” ) or the signal DAMP ( “ I ’ m damaged !
” ) .
The immune system is prepared for each eventuality , and knows whether to send the paramedics or the morgue crew .
Every situation has its appropriate response .
Think of the foresight needed to handle so many variations !
After the phagocyte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has recycled what can be reused , another task remains : cleaning up , and restoring the phagocyte for its next job .
This is the resolution stage .
Efferocytosis is an amazing , complete , and efficient package .
People take little thought of what is going on inside their bodies at this scale all the time — until something goes wrong .
The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail .
Among them are autoimmune diseases , necrosis ( accumulation of dead cells ) , neurodegenerative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s disease , multiple sclerosis , blindness , inflammation , atherosclerosis , liver disease , diabetes , impaired wound healing , rheumatoid arthritis , infertility , and cancer .
Sometimes cell death is uncoupled from disposal , because the dead cell has another function to perform .
Think of fingernails , where “ cornification [ hardening ] of the outermost layer of the epidermis constitutes an extreme instance where the presence of the cell ’ s remnants has a biological role , serving as a physical barrier for environmental insults.
” How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it doesn ’ t occur in the eyeball ?
Everything works , and there ’ s a crew to handle every situation , at the right time , in the right place .
Companies sometimes take a group photo , where all the employees — the secretaries , the drivers , the administrators , the machinists , the janitors , everyone — come together and smile for the camera .
This brief look at the cellular mortuary with all its specialized “ employees ” deserves a group picture .
Congratulations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticking , and thanks to the authors who did not cloud their review with speculations on how the corporation evolved .

Some counselors try to comfort the grieving by saying that “dying is a part of life,” as if that would cheer up someone dealing with the loss of a loved one. Because of our exceptional natures, people have thoughts of the soul, eternity, and love. These far outstrip the physical necessity of disposing of a body that was housing a sentient being a short time ago. Cells only have the physical disposal to contend with, so in the following discussion, one must not draw comparisons too tightly between human death and cell death.
To a cell, dying really is a part of life. There’s nothing to grieve about! In fact, billions of cells die in the process of embryonic development, as our organs, fingers, and tissues are sculpted. That’s a wonderful thing. Nevertheless, tissues face real challenges in all stages of cell death, from deciding what cells need to bow out, to disposing of the “corpses” afterward. The cellular morgue is exquisitely designed for the challenge.
An Exceptional Review
Nature Molecular Cell Biology posted an exceptionally informative review by four medical researchers about cell death, titled “The clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis.” The term efferocytosis may be unfamiliar to those who have heard of apoptosis (programmed cell death); it’s a more general term meaning “the phagocytosis of dead and dying cells” (where phagocytosis means, literally, “cell-eating” or cell-engulfing, and a phagocyte is a general term for any engulfing cell). The researchers, three from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and another from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, organize their presentation around these topics: (1) recognition of dying cells, (2) mechanisms of engulfment, (3) efferocytosis and disease, (4) conclusions and perspectives. Each major category is subdivided into narrower topics. Anyone reading the paper will have a difficult time keeping track of dozens of players in the drama. Suffice it to say that the impression of sophistication and foresight is overwhelming.
Here, space allows for just a few simplified highlights.
I’m Dying; Eat Me
Cells are environmentally “green” — they are experts at recycling. Why let all those amino acids, sugars, and other building blocks go to waste? While living, the cell keeps its lysosomes and proteasomes (molecular machines that recycle substrates) busy dismantling spent proteins and sending the components to recycling centers. Eventually, the whole cell’s work is done, or worse, has become infected and needs to commit hara-kiri. There’s an app for that. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a suite of tools and operations. Cells contain self-destruction kits, like spies with poison pills for use if captured. The poison pills consist primarily of the caspase family of proteins. Numbered caspase-1 through -14, these enzymes cut through (“cleave”) molecules like buzz saws. They are stored in an inactivated form for safety, like chain saws with covers and batteries removed. There’s more to the kit than that, though.
Apoptosis is the archetypal form of ‘silent’ cell death (Box 1). Processing of the apoptotic cell by the actions of activated caspases and their substrates, encapsulation of the cell into apoptotic bodies, and its subsequent disposal and recycling by surrounding phagocytic cells prevent the release of proinflammatory cellular contents and inflammation. During apoptosis, the cell releases soluble signals into the milieu to attract macrophages and stimulate their scavenging potential. [Emphasis added.]
Numerous actors come onto the stage when the apoptosis signal is triggered. In a sequence of steps, caspase-3 activates two other enzymes that create “find-me” signals that are sent out to attract wandering macrophages. A macrophage (a type of white blood cell in the immune system) knows how to engulf a target, which might be a pathogenic invader or a dying cell. The find-me signal is more than a beacon. It can even modify the macrophage’s behavior depending on the situation.
Boolean Logic Gates
In addition to the “find-me” signal, cells can post “eat-me” and “don’t-eat-me” tags on their outer membranes. Because don’t-eat-me tags take priority, these act as Boolean logic gates. The eat-me signal only activates the macrophage if the don’t-eat-me tag has been removed. Consequently, part of apoptosis includes removing the don’t-eat-me tags. This ensures that macrophages do not destroy healthy cells. Here is a brief taste of the complexity involved:
Healthy cells decorate their plasma membranes with ‘don’t-eat-me’ signals that protect them from phagocytic targeting. Don’t-eat-me signals include CD47, which is recognized by signal-regulatory protein-α (SIRPα) on the phagocyte surface, and CD31, which homodimerizes with CD31 on phagocytes. Similarly, CD24 on viable cells engages SIGLEC10 on phagocytes to inhibit engulfment. Signalling in each case occurs through SHP1 and/or SHP2, mediating the suppression of pathways required for phagocytosis, including actin remodelling. MHC class I (MHC-I) can signal through LILRB1 to mitigate phagocytic activation, although the signalling cascade is not fully delineated. In combination, these signals regulate the initiation of efferocytosis.
No more of that, but one should emphasize that our account is vastly oversimplified. The paper is full of details like this, at every step of cell death and recycling.
Engulfment
Now that the phagocyte has found the cell to eat, how does it engulf the dying cell?
Efferocytosis is a tightly regulated process involving the coordinated engulfment of dead and dying cells, maturation of the phagosome and then breakdown of phagolysosomal contents. Each stage is governed by molecular mechanisms that allow rapid breakdown of the engulfed cell and recovery of the engulfing phagocyte.
In other words, the phagocyte, such as a macrophage, needs to protect its own contents from the poison pills and buzz saws in the dying cell. Numerous enzymes and molecular machines get involved. A dizzying paragraph in the paper describes some 30 tools that create the “phagosome” (eating-body) that surrounds the dying cell or pathogen to engulf it safely without harming the phagocyte. The phagosome then delivers the contents to the recycling machines.
Following recognition and entrapment of the dying cell, the phagosome and the cell corpse are destined for a well-orchestrated destructive end. The phagosome fuses with lysosomes, which contain a large variety of proteases, nucleases and lipases that digest the phagosome cargo. This fusion is promoted or impaired by modifications of the phagosome, as discussed below. The phagosome containing the cell corpse is targeted to lysosomes through a multistep maturation process, which begins immediately following the formation of the phagosome on dynamin-dependent membrane scission and is marked by multiple biochemical changes at the phagosomal membrane….
Once again, the complexity in their description quickly overwhelms the reader. Of interest to those who remember the rotary motor ATP synthase, another rotary motor called vacuolar ATPase gets involved here. Vacuolar ATPase bears some similarities to ATP synthase. It churns protons into the recycle bins to acidify the contents, just like stomach acid helps break down food in the stomach. Uncanny the likeness at such a tiny scale.
Theme and Variations
The paper describes many kinds of modifications to the general picture. For instance, efferocytosis may act differently in different organs, such as the liver or kidneys. These special environments require even more players. Additionally, signal tags on cell membranes can give phagocytes more information, like the signal PAMP (“I’m infected!”) or the signal DAMP (“I’m damaged!”). The immune system is prepared for each eventuality, and knows whether to send the paramedics or the morgue crew. Every situation has its appropriate response. Think of the foresight needed to handle so many variations!
Clean-Up
After the phagocyte has disposed of the cellular corpse and has recycled what can be reused, another task remains: cleaning up, and restoring the phagocyte for its next job. This is the resolution stage.
Once the phagosome has fused with lysosomes and its cargo has been degraded, a resolution phase restores homeostasis within the phagocyte, allowing further phagocytosis. Since dying cells are not the only phagocytic cargo, the outcome of phagocytosis can vary dependent on what cargo is internalized. In the context of efferocytosis, some of the components of the cell corpse can be recaptured and recycled for use by the phagocytic cell following lysosomal degradation. Sugars, amino acids, lipids and nucleotides are recycled to replenish cellular stores and can potentially be used as building blocks and an energy source by the phagocytic cell. The internalization and degradation of cargo can also influence the activation of signalling pathways.
Efferocytosis is an amazing, complete, and efficient package. People take little thought of what is going on inside their bodies at this scale all the time — until something goes wrong. The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail. Among them are autoimmune diseases, necrosis (accumulation of dead cells), neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, blindness, inflammation, atherosclerosis, liver disease, diabetes, impaired wound healing, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and cancer.
Efferocytosis is governed by a plethora of factors, including unique membrane lipids and multiple effector proteins, which mediate functions such as dead cell recognition, the activation of phagocytosis and, ultimately, the degradation of the cell corpse. As discussed, the multistep process from cell death to cell clearance is delicate, with multiple points of redundancy, indicating the importance of efferocytosis in development, homeostasis and pathophysiology.
Sometimes cell death is uncoupled from disposal, because the dead cell has another function to perform. Think of fingernails, where “cornification [hardening] of the outermost layer of the epidermis constitutes an extreme instance where the presence of the cell’s remnants has a biological role, serving as a physical barrier for environmental insults.” How does the fingertip know to do that, but it doesn’t occur in the eyeball? Everything works, and there’s a crew to handle every situation, at the right time, in the right place.
Companies sometimes take a group photo, where all the employees — the secretaries, the drivers, the administrators, the machinists, the janitors, everyone — come together and smile for the camera. This brief look at the cellular mortuary with all its specialized “employees” deserves a group picture. Congratulations to the whole company for keeping us all ticking, and thanks to the authors who did not cloud their review with speculations on how the corporation evolved.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-15--A Bayesian Approach to Intelligent Design

I have recently been interested in the field of epistemology , which is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we reliably form beliefs , or how we acquire knowledge .
In particular , I have been interested in how we can quantify the strength of a particular piece of evidence , and how a cumulative case , involving many different lines of evidence , may be modeled mathematically .
I have come to think of evidence in Bayesian terms and this has in turn impacted the way I think about the biological arguments for intelligent design .
Named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bayes , Bayes ’ Theorem is a mathematical tool for modelling our evaluation of evidences to appropriately apportion the confidence in our conclusions to the strength of the evidence .
Expressed in mathematical terms , small pieces of evidence , no single piece by itself of very great weight , can combine to create a massive cumulative case .
The strength of the evidence for a proposition is best measured in terms of the ratio of two probabilities , P ( E|H ) and P ( E|~H ) — that is , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given that the hypothesis ( H ) is true , and the probability of E given that H is false .
That ratio may be top heavy ( in which case E favors H ) , bottom heavy , or neither ( in which case E favors neither hypothesis , and we would not call it evidence for or against H ) .
Note that the probability of the evidence given your hypothesis does not need to be high for the data to count as evidence in favor of your hypothesis .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be higher on the truth of the hypothesis than on its falsehood .
To take an example , suppose that P ( E1|H ) = 0.2 , but P ( E1|~H ) = 0.04 .
Then the ratio P ( E1|H ) /P ( E1|~H ) has the value of 5 to 1 , or just 5 .
If there are multiple pieces of independent evidence , their power accumulates exponentially .
Five such pieces would yield a cumulative ratio of 3125 to 1 .
If the initial ratio were 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence would have a cumulative power of more than 1000 to 1 .
How might this way of approaching evidence relate to intelligent design ?
In 2004 and 2005 , Lydia McGrew ( a widely published analytic philosopher ) and her husband Timothy McGrew ( chairman of the department of philosophy at Western Michigan University ) published two papers in the journals Philosophia Christi and Philo , respectively .
They set out how the case for intelligent design might be formulated in terms of a Bayesian inference ( McGrew , 2004 ; McGrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lydia McGrew ’ s Philo article is the more accessible of the two .
While other approaches to constructing the design inference ( such as Stephen Meyer ’ s inference to the best explanation , or William Dembski ’ s explanatory filter , which works by elimination of the null hypothesis of chance and physical necessity ) have received widespread attention within the ID community , it is , in my opinion , unfortunate that the contributions of the McGrews are seldom discussed in the current conversation , at least as far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Certainly , the Bayesian approach to the design hypothesis has not received anything like the same level of adoption .
I believe , however , that the method they propose of articulating the case for design is worthy of serious consideration .
When it comes to the argument for design based on the physical sciences , a Bayesian approach is much more popular .
Luke Barnes ( a theoretical astrophysicist , cosmologist , and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University ) , for example , employs a Bayesian approach to the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe ( Barnes , 2018 ) .
This stands in contradistinction to the deductive formulation presented by William Lane Craig , which takes the following form : • Premise 1 : Fine-tuning is due to either necessity , chance , or design .
• Premise 2 : Fine-tuning is not due to either necessity or chance .
• Conclusion : Therefore , fine-tuning is due to design .
In contrast , the Bayesian formulation of the fine-tuning argument is typically presented along the following lines : Our universe shows extraordinary fine-tuning .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life of any form to exist seems to be as low as 1 in 10120 .
If it were to be modified even slightly either the universe would expand so rapidly we would only ever get the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium , or the universe would collapse in on itself , due to gravity , within picoseconds of the Big Bang .
Either way , no life could exist .
The likelihood of unguided blind and unintelligent mechanisms producing such a precise and finely tuned feature is incredibly low .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thinking ahead with will , foresight , and intentionality to rapidly find rare and isolated solutions for the physical laws and constants that fit the requirement of a life-friendly universe .
Therefore , the likelihood of an intelligent agent producing such precision in the physical laws and constants of our universe is much higher than the likelihood of blind , unintelligent mechanisms doing the same .
In view , therefore , of the top-heavy ratio of P ( E|H ) and P ( E|~H ) , the observation of fine-tuning counts as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothesis of cosmic intelligent design .
How can we apply this principle to the case for biological design ?
I will answer that question tomorrow .

Photo: Bayes' Theorem, by mattbuck (category) / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0).
I have recently been interested in the field of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we reliably form beliefs, or how we acquire knowledge. In particular, I have been interested in how we can quantify the strength of a particular piece of evidence, and how a cumulative case, involving many different lines of evidence, may be modeled mathematically. I have come to think of evidence in Bayesian terms and this has in turn impacted the way I think about the biological arguments for intelligent design.
What is Bayes’ Theorem?
Named for the 18th-century English Presbyterian minister Thomas Bayes, Bayes’ Theorem is a mathematical tool for modelling our evaluation of evidences to appropriately apportion the confidence in our conclusions to the strength of the evidence. Expressed in mathematical terms, small pieces of evidence, no single piece by itself of very great weight, can combine to create a massive cumulative case.
The strength of the evidence for a proposition is best measured in terms of the ratio of two probabilities, P(E|H) and P(E|~H) — that is, the probability of the evidence (E) given that the hypothesis (H) is true, and the probability of E given that H is false. That ratio may be top heavy (in which case E favors H), bottom heavy, or neither (in which case E favors neither hypothesis, and we would not call it evidence for or against H). Note that the probability of the evidence given your hypothesis does not need to be high for the data to count as evidence in favor of your hypothesis. Rather, the probability of the evidence only needs to be higher on the truth of the hypothesis than on its falsehood.
To take an example, suppose that P(E1|H) = 0.2, but P(E1|~H) = 0.04. Then the ratio P(E1|H)/P(E1|~H) has the value of 5 to 1, or just 5. If there are multiple pieces of independent evidence, their power accumulates exponentially. Five such pieces would yield a cumulative ratio of 3125 to 1. If the initial ratio were 2 to 1, ten pieces of independent evidence would have a cumulative power of more than 1000 to 1.
Application to Intelligent Design
How might this way of approaching evidence relate to intelligent design? In 2004 and 2005, Lydia McGrew (a widely published analytic philosopher) and her husband Timothy McGrew (chairman of the department of philosophy at Western Michigan University) published two papers in the journals Philosophia Christi and Philo, respectively. They set out how the case for intelligent design might be formulated in terms of a Bayesian inference (McGrew, 2004; McGrew, 2005). For non-technical readers, Lydia McGrew’s Philo article is the more accessible of the two.
While other approaches to constructing the design inference (such as Stephen Meyer’s inference to the best explanation, or William Dembski’s explanatory filter, which works by elimination of the null hypothesis of chance and physical necessity) have received widespread attention within the ID community, it is, in my opinion, unfortunate that the contributions of the McGrews are seldom discussed in the current conversation, at least as far as the life sciences are concerned. Certainly, the Bayesian approach to the design hypothesis has not received anything like the same level of adoption. I believe, however, that the method they propose of articulating the case for design is worthy of serious consideration.
When it comes to the argument for design based on the physical sciences, a Bayesian approach is much more popular. Luke Barnes (a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist, and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University), for example, employs a Bayesian approach to the question of fine-tuning of the initial parameters of our universe (Barnes, 2018). This stands in contradistinction to the deductive formulation presented by William Lane Craig, which takes the following form:
Premise 1: Fine-tuning is due to either necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: Fine-tuning is not due to either necessity or chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, fine-tuning is due to design.
In contrast, the Bayesian formulation of the fine-tuning argument is typically presented along the following lines: Our universe shows extraordinary fine-tuning. For the cosmological constant alone the variability for life of any form to exist seems to be as low as 1 in 10120. If it were to be modified even slightly either the universe would expand so rapidly we would only ever get the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium, or the universe would collapse in on itself, due to gravity, within picoseconds of the Big Bang. Either way, no life could exist.
The likelihood of unguided blind and unintelligent mechanisms producing such a precise and finely tuned feature is incredibly low. However, an intelligent agent is capable of thinking ahead with will, foresight, and intentionality to rapidly find rare and isolated solutions for the physical laws and constants that fit the requirement of a life-friendly universe. Therefore, the likelihood of an intelligent agent producing such precision in the physical laws and constants of our universe is much higher than the likelihood of blind, unintelligent mechanisms doing the same. In view, therefore, of the top-heavy ratio of P(E|H) and P(E|~H), the observation of fine-tuning counts as strong confirmatory evidence in favor of the hypothesis of cosmic intelligent design.
How can we apply this principle to the case for biological design? I will answer that question tomorrow.