evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-12--Origin Stories — RNA, DNA, and a Dose of Imagination

Editor ’ s note : Eric Anderson is an attorney , software company executive , and co-author of the recently released book , Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
A new paper in Nature seeks to shed light on life ’ s origins from non-life on the early Earth , that is , on abiogenesis .
Several outlets have picked up the story , including New Scientist .
Phys.org explains that the research , led by Cambridge scientists , “ shows for the first time how some of the building blocks of both DNA and RNA could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primordial soup ’ on Earth.
” My purpose is not to question the research protocol or the results .
No doubt the work is impeccable and the results as described .
I am willing to assume that the researchers recreated early Earth conditions and demonstrated realistic prebiotic synthesis of deoxyadenosine , deoxyinosine , cytidine , and uridine .
( Of course , early Earth conditions continue to be debated . )
This is fascinating , and it contributes to our understanding of these potential building blocks of RNA and DNA .
What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how research results get interpreted within a naturalistic framework and sometimes get presented without the critical context .
The paper mentions the ongoing debate about whether abiogenesis began with RNA as the first carrier of information , giving rise to DNA ( the “ RNA World ” hypothesis ) , or with RNA and DNA together at the same time .
One of the challenges with the RNA World has been the lack of a plausible scenario to produce DNA from RNA under realistic prebiotic conditions .
In addition , the genetic systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use both DNA and RNA , prompting some to suggest that a contemporaneous rise of DNA and RNA simplifies the abiogenesis scenario and , as the authors argue , “ streamlines the eventual ‘ genetic takeover ’ of homogeneous DNA from RNA as the principal information-storage molecule.
” On the other hand , one of the challenges facing this RNA/DNA World scenario is that it would have required the abiotic synthesis of building blocks of both DNA and RNA in close proximity and , preferably , under the same geochemical scenario .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek to make a contribution , demonstrating that certain building blocks of both RNA and DNA can be synthesized with “ prebiotically plausible reactions and substrates.
” From the Building Blocks to the Code They conclude that RNA and DNA building blocks may have coexisted on the early Earth before the emergence of life .
This is notable and seems , under the assumptions granted above , a reasonable conclusion .
However , the mere existence of RNA and DNA building blocks tells us little about the formation of life , with all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to build and maintain and self-replicate that life .
The ultimate goal of abiogenesis researchers is to explain the emergence of life from non-life .
John Sutherland , leader of the Cambridge group and one of the most accomplished origin-of-life researchers , observes , “ Our work suggests that in conditions consistent with shallow primordial ponds and rivulets there was a mixed genetic system with RNA and DNA building blocks co-existing at the dawn of life .
This fulfills what many people think is a key precondition for the spontaneous emergence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive statement , and if we are not careful we might get the impression that in fact “ there was a mixed genetic system with RNA and DNA building blocks ” under early Earth conditions .
We might get the further impression that because a “ key precondition ” had been fulfilled , we are moving steadily closer to explaining the “ spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.
” However , a closer look is warranted .
First , there was no “ mixed genetic system.
” In fact , there wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just molecules interacting under the normal tug-and-pull of physics and chemistry .
Furthermore , a genetic system requires a special kind of functional capability .
It requires not just DNA and RNA , but the information content that ebbs and flows between them .
Meaning , a symbolic code , pursuant to which a string of nucleotides in the primordial DNA would be interpreted and translated into another state — the symbolic and the immaterial being coaxed into the concrete and the material .
Such a system necessarily involves information processing , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also retrieval and translation mechanisms .
Such a system arising through unguided natural processes has never been observed , and we have theoretical and practical reasons to conclude it never will be .
Sutherland does not claim that their research demonstrates the existence of a primitive genetic system .
He is more thoughtful in his wording , talking about how the authors ’ work “ suggests ” a mixed genetic system .
But that suggestion gains traction only in the context of an a priori story that has been assumed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of simple , naturally occurring system that eventually gave rise to the “ spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.
” Take away that assumption , and the suggestion of an early primitive genetic system , arising through unguided natural processes , evaporates .
The authors demonstrated the production of potential building blocks .
Not all the building blocks needed for RNA and DNA as we know them , mind you , but some of the building blocks .
They then suggest that this reduced number of building blocks could have served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alphabet.
” The headline from Cambridge teases us with this very possibility : “ Primitive genetic alphabet based on RNA and DNA.
” Yet from an information-theoretic standpoint , having building blocks for a potential alphabet is unremarkable .
I can build an information storage system out of sticks and stones .
There are multiple elephants in this room : What is the functional context of that system ?
Where does the information come from ?
How it is retrieved ?
How is it interpreted and acted upon ?
What is the overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How does it become directed toward a comprehensive , integrated , cohesive end — producing a living organism ?
The mere existence of molecules that could hypothetically serve as physical carriers of hypothetical symbols as part of a hypothetical primordial alphabet tells us nothing in response to these questions .
The researchers understand this , no doubt .
The problem comes when we fail to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference in kind between having some building blocks on the one hand , and putting those building blocks to use in constructing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is a critical distinction , and we might begin to suspect that no amount of research into the former can solve the latter .
These are fundamentally different kinds of issues .
Are , then , research efforts toward forming the building blocks of RNA and DNA putting us on the path to a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation ?
I ’ ll do you one better than building blocks .
Let ’ s stack the deck heavily in favor of the naturalistic story .
I ’ ll give you all the nucleotides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to line up into nice polynucleotide chains .
I ’ ll even give them to you in just the right proportions for optimum effect .
I ’ ll give you the most hospitable environment for your fledgling structures to form .
I ’ ll throw in whatever type of energy source you want : just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions ; not too much to destroy the nascent formations .
I ’ ll spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location and at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even step in to prevent the inevitable interfering cross-reactions .
I ’ ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from both their natural rate of breakdown and from breakdown by other reagents in the environment .
Every one of the foregoing gifts represents an open question and a challenge to the abiogenesis account .
Now , what do you think the next step is ?
What is your theory about how life forms ?
There is no naturalistic answer .
But taking time to at least think through the myriad problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for anyone proposing a naturalistic scenario .
Sutherland mentions that the group ’ s research fulfills a “ key precondition for the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.
” What was fulfilled ?
His point is that many people believe life had to start with both DNA and RNA together , not the traditional RNA World scenario that slowly gave rise to DNA .
He is right .
There are good reasons for thinking life started with both DNA and RNA .
That ’ s both because ( as noted above ) no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plausible scenario that would produce DNA from RNA under real-world conditions , and also because the genetic systems we are familiar with in biology indeed include both DNA and RNA .
Yet the recent research did not demonstrate that such a genetic system can realistically arise by itself .
Nor did it bring us closer to demonstrating “ the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.
” After all , beyond a genetic system , to keep life going on the early Earth another capability is required : self-replication .
Many origin-of-life researchers view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection to build the rest of the systems for the first organism .
( See , for example , here and here . )
Yet as I demonstrate in my engineering analysis in Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell , self-replication is not the starting point for the origin of life .
Instead , it “ lies at the end of an extremely complicated , sophisticated , and specified engineering process.
” ( p.84 ) When we analyze what is required for the emergence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when we step back further and analyze what is required for that oft-imagined precursor to life — a single self-replicating molecule — we find that the abiogenesis story has set forth on the wrong path from square one .
Best of the Best Make no mistake .
This impressive work was performed by some of the most capable researchers in this field .
The authors deserve recognition for it .
Origin-of-life research doesn ’ t get any better .
Yet for anyone tempted to think we are on our way to explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what do we really have ?
Well , we now have building blocks on the early Earth that , potentially , could be used in some later process as part of the production of DNA and RNA .
Alternatively , as the authors suggest , perhaps the building blocks could have served as the initial information carrier and then later turned into modern RNA and DNA .
Either way , these would then need to be carefully strung together into information-rich molecules , based on a symbolic code .
That in turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to access , interpret , and utilize the information , which would further require a suite of hundreds of genes , components , and systems to survive in a prebiotic environment and self-replicate .
None of these steps is plausible by purely natural means .
All of them speak to the need for intelligent input .
Are We There Yet ?
Turning from the first life to a wonder of contemporary technology , consider a self-driving car .
A marvel of engineering , a self-driving car has copious systems and sub-systems and components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in just the right way , and humming along under the control of sophisticated software dancing through carefully designed circuit boards and integrated circuit chips made from silicon .
Yet , based on the engineering analysis I lay out in our book , we know that a self-replicating system requires much more than even all this .
Discovering how building blocks of RNA and DNA may have formed has about as much relevance to the “ spontaneous emergence of life on Earth ” as the discovery of naturally occurring silicon does to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These building blocks have no interest in turning into an organism nor any tendency to do so .
Instead , they will do what they always do , drifting in the primordial soup , suffering their normal rate of breakdown and unwilling to control their natural urges to cross-react with other interfering chemicals .
All the while they are unaware of and indifferent to the fact that they might have , in the right hands , served as carriers for a simple genetic alphabet .
The modesty of the result of producing building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is all we can get from unguided natural processes .
The result kind of , perhaps , with some imagination , might look like something that could be a precursor to life .
Forever lacking are the key elements required for life : coordinated activity , coherent function , regulated control , meaningful information , purposeful intent .
These things require intelligence .

Editor’s note: Eric Anderson is an attorney, software company executive, and co-author of the recently released book, Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell.
A new paper in Nature seeks to shed light on life’s origins from non-life on the early Earth, that is, on abiogenesis. Several outlets have picked up the story, including New Scientist. Phys.org explains that the research, led by Cambridge scientists, “shows for the first time how some of the building blocks of both DNA and RNA could have spontaneously formed and co-existed in the ‘primordial soup’ on Earth.”
My purpose is not to question the research protocol or the results. No doubt the work is impeccable and the results as described. I am willing to assume that the researchers recreated early Earth conditions and demonstrated realistic prebiotic synthesis of deoxyadenosine, deoxyinosine, cytidine, and uridine. (Of course, early Earth conditions continue to be debated.)
This is fascinating, and it contributes to our understanding of these potential building blocks of RNA and DNA. What we do have to watch out for is how research results get interpreted within a naturalistic framework and sometimes get presented without the critical context.
RNA, DNA, or Both?
The paper mentions the ongoing debate about whether abiogenesis began with RNA as the first carrier of information, giving rise to DNA (the “RNA World” hypothesis), or with RNA and DNA together at the same time. One of the challenges with the RNA World has been the lack of a plausible scenario to produce DNA from RNA under realistic prebiotic conditions. In addition, the genetic systems we are familiar with in biology today use both DNA and RNA, prompting some to suggest that a contemporaneous rise of DNA and RNA simplifies the abiogenesis scenario and, as the authors argue, “streamlines the eventual ‘genetic takeover’ of homogeneous DNA from RNA as the principal information-storage molecule.”
On the other hand, one of the challenges facing this RNA/DNA World scenario is that it would have required the abiotic synthesis of building blocks of both DNA and RNA in close proximity and, preferably, under the same geochemical scenario. It is in this area that the researchers seek to make a contribution, demonstrating that certain building blocks of both RNA and DNA can be synthesized with “prebiotically plausible reactions and substrates.”
From the Building Blocks to the Code
They conclude that RNA and DNA building blocks may have coexisted on the early Earth before the emergence of life. This is notable and seems, under the assumptions granted above, a reasonable conclusion.
However, the mere existence of RNA and DNA building blocks tells us little about the formation of life, with all its interrelated systems, including the information required to build and maintain and self-replicate that life.
The ultimate goal of abiogenesis researchers is to explain the emergence of life from non-life. John Sutherland, leader of the Cambridge group and one of the most accomplished origin-of-life researchers, observes, “Our work suggests that in conditions consistent with shallow primordial ponds and rivulets there was a mixed genetic system with RNA and DNA building blocks co-existing at the dawn of life. This fulfills what many people think is a key precondition for the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.”
This is an impressive statement, and if we are not careful we might get the impression that in fact “there was a mixed genetic system with RNA and DNA building blocks” under early Earth conditions. We might get the further impression that because a “key precondition” had been fulfilled, we are moving steadily closer to explaining the “spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.” However, a closer look is warranted.
First, there was no “mixed genetic system.” In fact, there wasn’t any kind of functional system, just molecules interacting under the normal tug-and-pull of physics and chemistry. Furthermore, a genetic system requires a special kind of functional capability. It requires not just DNA and RNA, but the information content that ebbs and flows between them. Meaning, a symbolic code, pursuant to which a string of nucleotides in the primordial DNA would be interpreted and translated into another state — the symbolic and the immaterial being coaxed into the concrete and the material. Such a system necessarily involves information processing, with not just bare DNA storage at hand, but also retrieval and translation mechanisms. Such a system arising through unguided natural processes has never been observed, and we have theoretical and practical reasons to conclude it never will be.
Sutherland does not claim that their research demonstrates the existence of a primitive genetic system. He is more thoughtful in his wording, talking about how the authors’ work “suggests” a mixed genetic system. But that suggestion gains traction only in the context of an a priori story that has been assumed. Namely, that there must have been some kind of simple, naturally occurring system that eventually gave rise to the “spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.” Take away that assumption, and the suggestion of an early primitive genetic system, arising through unguided natural processes, evaporates.
The authors demonstrated the production of potential building blocks. Not all the building blocks needed for RNA and DNA as we know them, mind you, but some of the building blocks. They then suggest that this reduced number of building blocks could have served as a kind of “alternative genetic alphabet.” The headline from Cambridge teases us with this very possibility: “Primitive genetic alphabet based on RNA and DNA.”
Yet from an information-theoretic standpoint, having building blocks for a potential alphabet is unremarkable. I can build an information storage system out of sticks and stones.
There are multiple elephants in this room: What is the functional context of that system? Where does the information come from? How it is retrieved? How is it interpreted and acted upon? What is the overall meaning and purpose of that information? How does it become directed toward a comprehensive, integrated, cohesive end — producing a living organism? The mere existence of molecules that could hypothetically serve as physical carriers of hypothetical symbols as part of a hypothetical primordial alphabet tells us nothing in response to these questions.
The researchers understand this, no doubt. The problem comes when we fail to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference in kind between having some building blocks on the one hand, and putting those building blocks to use in constructing a sophisticated functional system on the other. It is a critical distinction, and we might begin to suspect that no amount of research into the former can solve the latter. These are fundamentally different kinds of issues.
Stacking the Deck
Are, then, research efforts toward forming the building blocks of RNA and DNA putting us on the path to a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation? I’ll do you one better than building blocks. Let’s stack the deck heavily in favor of the naturalistic story.
I’ll give you all the nucleotides you want, formed and activated and ready to line up into nice polynucleotide chains. I’ll even give them to you in just the right proportions for optimum effect. I’ll give you the most hospitable environment for your fledgling structures to form. I’ll throw in whatever type of energy source you want: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location and at the same time. Shoot, I’ll even step in to prevent the inevitable interfering cross-reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from both their natural rate of breakdown and from breakdown by other reagents in the environment.
Every one of the foregoing gifts represents an open question and a challenge to the abiogenesis account. Now, what do you think the next step is? What is your theory about how life forms?
There is no naturalistic answer. But taking time to at least think through the myriad problems with abiogenesis should be a required exercise for anyone proposing a naturalistic scenario.
Spontaneous Generation of Life?
Sutherland mentions that the group’s research fulfills a “key precondition for the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.” What was fulfilled? His point is that many people believe life had to start with both DNA and RNA together, not the traditional RNA World scenario that slowly gave rise to DNA.
He is right. There are good reasons for thinking life started with both DNA and RNA. That’s both because (as noted above) no one has been able to propose a plausible scenario that would produce DNA from RNA under real-world conditions, and also because the genetic systems we are familiar with in biology indeed include both DNA and RNA.
Yet the recent research did not demonstrate that such a genetic system can realistically arise by itself. Nor did it bring us closer to demonstrating “the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth.”
After all, beyond a genetic system, to keep life going on the early Earth another capability is required: self-replication. Many origin-of-life researchers view self-replication as the key goal, relying on the Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection to build the rest of the systems for the first organism. (See, for example, here and here.) Yet as I demonstrate in my engineering analysis in Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell, self-replication is not the starting point for the origin of life. Instead, it “lies at the end of an extremely complicated, sophisticated, and specified engineering process.” (p.84)
When we analyze what is required for the emergence of the simplest form of life… No, when we step back further and analyze what is required for that oft-imagined precursor to life — a single self-replicating molecule — we find that the abiogenesis story has set forth on the wrong path from square one.
Best of the Best
Make no mistake. This impressive work was performed by some of the most capable researchers in this field. The authors deserve recognition for it. Origin-of-life research doesn’t get any better.
Yet for anyone tempted to think we are on our way to explaining the origin of life in naturalistic terms, what do we really have? Well, we now have building blocks on the early Earth that, potentially, could be used in some later process as part of the production of DNA and RNA. Alternatively, as the authors suggest, perhaps the building blocks could have served as the initial information carrier and then later turned into modern RNA and DNA.
Either way, these would then need to be carefully strung together into information-rich molecules, based on a symbolic code. That in turn would require multiple machines and interrelated systems to access, interpret, and utilize the information, which would further require a suite of hundreds of genes, components, and systems to survive in a prebiotic environment and self-replicate. None of these steps is plausible by purely natural means. All of them speak to the need for intelligent input.
Are We There Yet?
Turning from the first life to a wonder of contemporary technology, consider a self-driving car. A marvel of engineering, a self-driving car has copious systems and sub-systems and components, made of numerous materials, organized in just the right way, and humming along under the control of sophisticated software dancing through carefully designed circuit boards and integrated circuit chips made from silicon. Yet, based on the engineering analysis I lay out in our book, we know that a self-replicating system requires much more than even all this.
Discovering how building blocks of RNA and DNA may have formed has about as much relevance to the “spontaneous emergence of life on Earth” as the discovery of naturally occurring silicon does to the spontaneous emergence of a self-driving car.
These building blocks have no interest in turning into an organism nor any tendency to do so. Instead, they will do what they always do, drifting in the primordial soup, suffering their normal rate of breakdown and unwilling to control their natural urges to cross-react with other interfering chemicals. All the while they are unaware of and indifferent to the fact that they might have, in the right hands, served as carriers for a simple genetic alphabet.
The modesty of the result of producing building blocks is due to the fact that this is all we can get from unguided natural processes. The result kind of, perhaps, with some imagination, might look like something that could be a precursor to life.
Forever lacking are the key elements required for life: coordinated activity, coherent function, regulated control, meaningful information, purposeful intent. These things require intelligence.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-13--Billions of Missing Links: Electricity and Bioluminescence

On a classic episode of ID the Future , hear about electricity and bioluminescence , as highlighted in Dr. Geoffrey @ @ @ @ @ of Missing Links : A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can ’ t Explain @ @ @ @ @ about how a knee jerk reaction , eels , and the knife fish all use @ @ @ @ @ podcast or listen to it here .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, hear about electricity and bioluminescence, as highlighted in Dr. Geoffrey Simmons in his book Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain. Listen in to learn about how a knee jerk reaction, eels, and the knife fish all use electrical impulses. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo attribution: Aequorea victoria, a bioluminescent jellyfish, by Sierra Blakely.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-14--Weekend Reading: Heretics and Inquisitors

Years ago , reading Umberto Eco ’ s novel The Name of the Rose , I got bogged down early on and stopped .
Rereading it now , I can ’ t imagine what I found boring .
It ’ s great !
A learned crime-mystery about murders in a 14th-century Italian abbey , it deals in part with the relationship between heretics and inquisitors .
What Eco relates ( via his protagonist William of Baskerville ) has a lot of contemporary relevance .
Intelligent design is a heresy against the backdrop of conformist evolutionary thinking , and ID proponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( See the recent threat of censorship from the biology journal BioEssays . )
Eco observes that inquisitions generate heretics , rather than stamping them out .
That is true .
Many of the leading ID scientists ( Axe , Sternberg , Bechly , and others ) came to us because they were hunted by Darwinist colleagues who got wind of their doubts about evolution .
Plenty of other laymen ( including me ) have had our own doubts reinforced by observing how the inquisitors came after these scientific heretics .
Eco observes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how they class the various heresies .
And that is true again , as we know from the way ID critics habitually seek to smear design advocates by falsely equating intelligent design with creationism .
Finally he points out that the smug , bloated nature of the establishment is a magnet for drawing out people who have felt crushed by the establishment ’ s burden on them and its indifference .
In the case of ID , that might be the university or the media .
A heresy might be true or it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its attraction lies in offering a rallying cry against the smirk of the mighty .
Published in 1980 , The Name of the Rose is quite timely and maybe prophetic in some ways .
I first heard the phrase “ politically correct ” as a college student in the Eighties .
PC , whether in politics , culture , or science , has since then has only become increasingly smothering and inquisitorial .
I understand that Eco ’ s book is only a novel , not a work of history .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Very much recommended !

Years ago, reading Umberto Eco’s novel The Name of the Rose, I got bogged down early on and stopped. Rereading it now, I can’t imagine what I found boring. It’s great! A learned crime-mystery about murders in a 14th-century Italian abbey, it deals in part with the relationship between heretics and inquisitors. What Eco relates (via his protagonist William of Baskerville) has a lot of contemporary relevance.
Intelligent design is a heresy against the backdrop of conformist evolutionary thinking, and ID proponents must ever beware of Darwinist inquisitors. (See the recent threat of censorship from the biology journal BioEssays.) Eco observes that inquisitions generate heretics, rather than stamping them out. That is true. Many of the leading ID scientists (Axe, Sternberg, Bechly, and others) came to us because they were hunted by Darwinist colleagues who got wind of their doubts about evolution. Plenty of other laymen (including me) have had our own doubts reinforced by observing how the inquisitors came after these scientific heretics.
Eco observes that inquisitors tend to be sloppy about how they class the various heresies. And that is true again, as we know from the way ID critics habitually seek to smear design advocates by falsely equating intelligent design with creationism.
Finally he points out that the smug, bloated nature of the establishment is a magnet for drawing out people who have felt crushed by the establishment’s burden on them and its indifference. In the case of ID, that might be the university or the media. A heresy might be true or it might be false, but part of its attraction lies in offering a rallying cry against the smirk of the mighty.
Published in 1980, The Name of the Rose is quite timely and maybe prophetic in some ways. I first heard the phrase “politically correct” as a college student in the Eighties. PC, whether in politics, culture, or science, since then has only become increasingly smothering and inquisitorial. I understand that Eco’s book is only a novel, not a work of history. But it’s a shrewd and exciting one. Very much recommended!
Photo: Umberto Eco, in 2005, by Università Reggio Calabria / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-15--Scientific Racism and the Confederate Flag

The surreal quality of the present moment in American life is hard to miss .
One element in the dreamscape is discussions of the Confederate flag as a symbol still held dear by some Americans , 155 years after the Civil War .
NASCAR , for one , will now forbid displays of the flag at races , though it ’ s hard to see how that will be policed .
Who would fly such a thing in public , certain to cause pain to many who see it ?
No doubt a few diehard racists , but the rebel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the sneering coastal elite and with suffocating political correctness .
That seemed to be the significance when , on a recent family trip to the Oregon beaches , I noticed a surprising number of the flags , on poles and as bumper stickers , inland from the zone of vacation homes on the ocean .
The locals , it appeared , were communicating a message to the affluent Portland and Seattle progressives who drive through .
In my Seattle suburb , a near-neighbor had a Confederate flag on his dock , positioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag .
He prudently took it down when someone posted a photo on the social media app Nextdoor , and there were cries for doxxing him and setting fire to his property .
There are still other meanings to the symbol .
Some Southerners associate it with family history , “ Heritage not hate.
” A different and less familiar meaning , expressed in modern terms , would be “ Follow the science !
” Yes , that ’ s right .
It is interesting to remember the role of racial science in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Confederate politician .
Alexander H. Stephens was Vice President of the Confederacy .
In 1861 he delivered a famous oration , the so-called Cornerstone Speech , justifying slavery and rebellion on scientific grounds .
The name of the speech comes from Stephen ’ s ( arguably blasphemous ) appropriation of a verse from Psalms , “ The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief cornerstone.
” He took the corner “ stone ” to be the emerging scientific consensus , which America ’ s Founders had violated in holding all men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stephens argued , Africans were not equal , and science proved it .
The Confederacy was the first scientific government , he said .
The South , unlike the North , merely sought to follow the science !
And this was why they would prevail in the end .
He attacked the “ error ” in the Constitution : Those ideas , however , were fundamentally wrong .
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races .
This was an error .
It was a sandy foundation , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ storm came and the wind blew.
” Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ; its foundations are laid , its cornerstone rests upon the great truth , that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition .
[ Applause . ]
This , our new government , is the first , in the history of the world , based upon this great physical , philosophical , and moral truth .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its development , like all other truths in the various departments of science .
Stephens thought he saw justification for racism in science and religion , but he emphasized science .
It was the advance of science , in his mind , that secured his perverted reading of religion : As I have stated , the truth of this principle may be slow in development , as all truths are and ever have been , in the various branches of science .
It was so with the principles announced by Galileo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his principles of political economy .
It was so with [ William ] Harvey , and his theory of the circulation of the blood .
It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession , living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him , admitted them .
Now , they are universally acknowledged .
May we not , therefore , look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests ?
It is the first government ever instituted upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the ordination of Providence , in furnishing the materials of human society .
Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race ; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature .
Our system commits no such violation of nature ’ s laws .
With us , all of the white race , however high or low , rich or poor , are equal in the eye of the law .
Not so with the negro .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by nature , or by the curse against Canaan , is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system .
Stephens was an enthusiastic reader of current science works .
Which works , in particular ?
The historian and political scientist Harry Jaffa , in his book A New Birth of Freedom : Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War ( p. 224 ) , wrote that he “ surmised ” that Stephens had Darwin in mind : I ’ m not aware of evidence that Stephens was familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( full title : On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ) had come out two years before in England and in 1860 in America .
However , as Jaffa notes , the book contains no discussion of the human races .
That topic Darwin saved for The Descent of Man , published in 1871 , where he asserted a scientific racial hierarchy , with Africans at the bottom , that would have cheered Stephens and other Confederates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his idea of a gradually branching Tree of Life left no obvious place for a divine image imprinted equally on every human .
On the contrary , even before he wrote The Descent of Man , an evolutionist might logically expect that humans of various races would have achieved different levels of advancement from their shared primitive ancestry , just as Darwin later made explicit .
From Human Zoos to the Alt-Right Even if Stephens never heard of Darwin , there were scientific racists before Darwin such as French writer Arthur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of the scientific thinking of Darwin ’ s time , which was also Stephens ’ s time .
Darwin and Stephens were contemporaries and would have found much common ground , even as they disagreed about slavery .
In decades to come , at the very best universities , racist pseudoscience would gather even more strength and popularity with leading scientists and scholars .
As John West tells the story in the documentaries Human Zoos : America ’ s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism and The Biology of the Second Reich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time led to shaming Africans by displaying them in zoos , thus educating the public about the truths of evolutionary theory , to eugenics , and to genocide .
Only with the revelation of the Holocaust did prestige scientists step back in shock from what they had done and try to sweep this past decorously under the carpet .
Today ’ s Alt-Right is not so shy .
As I have reported ( see here and here , for example ) , the Alt-Right invokes neo-eugenic theory , Darwinian evolution , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America .
They have a twisted logic , or at least a consistency , on their side .
I don ’ t think you ’ ll see the Confederate flag floating overhead at the next March for Science .
But , from a historical perspective , it would not be out of place there , any more than at a rally of the Alt-Right .
It ’ s only because of a willed amnesia that we forget this .

The surreal quality of the present moment in American life is hard to miss. One element in the dreamscape is discussions of the Confederate flag as a symbol still held dear by some Americans, 155 years after the Civil War. NASCAR, for one, will now forbid displays of the flag at races, though it’s hard to see how that will be policed.
Who would fly such a thing in public, certain to cause pain to many who see it? No doubt a few diehard racists, but the rebel symbol may speak more to an impatience with the sneering coastal elite and with suffocating political correctness. That seemed to be the significance when, on a recent family trip to the Oregon beaches, I noticed a surprising number of the flags, on poles and as bumper stickers, inland from the zone of vacation homes on the ocean. The locals, it appeared, were communicating a message to the affluent Portland and Seattle progressives who drive through. In my Seattle suburb, a near-neighbor had a Confederate flag on his dock, positioned on a pole just below an American flag. He prudently took it down when someone posted a photo on the social media app Nextdoor, and there were cries for doxxing him and setting fire to his property.
The Cornerstone Speech
There are still other meanings to the symbol. Some Southerners associate it with family history, “Heritage not hate.” A different and less familiar meaning, expressed in modern terms, would be “Follow the science!”
Yes, that’s right. It is interesting to remember the role of racial science in the thinking of at least one prominent Confederate politician. Alexander H. Stephens was Vice President of the Confederacy. In 1861 he delivered a famous oration, the so-called Cornerstone Speech, justifying slavery and rebellion on scientific grounds.
The name of the speech comes from Stephen’s (arguably blasphemous) appropriation of a verse from Psalms, “The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief cornerstone.” He took the corner “stone” to be the emerging scientific consensus, which America’s Founders had violated in holding all men to be equal. On the contrary, Stephens argued, Africans were not equal, and science proved it. The Confederacy was the first scientific government, he said. The South, unlike the North, merely sought to follow the science! And this was why they would prevail in the end. He attacked the “error” in the Constitution:
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.” Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
Stephens thought he saw justification for racism in science and religion, but he emphasized science. It was the advance of science, in his mind, that secured his perverted reading of religion:
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo. It was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with [William] Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.
A Student of Science
Stephens was an enthusiastic reader of current science works. Which works, in particular? The historian and political scientist Harry Jaffa, in his book A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War (p. 224), wrote that he “surmised” that Stephens had Darwin in mind:
Stephens compares the great scientific discovery in regard to the Negro to the discoveries of Galileo, Adam Smith, and Harvey. He does not name the discoverer of Negro inferiority, nor does he even hint at what evidence had supposed this great discovery. One can only surmise that Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859, may have been on his mind. Yet there is nothing in that work bearing directly upon the question of Negro equality.
I’m not aware of evidence that Stephens was familiar with Darwin. The Origin of Species (full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) had come out two years before in England and in 1860 in America. However, as Jaffa notes, the book contains no discussion of the human races. That topic Darwin saved for The Descent of Man, published in 1871, where he asserted a scientific racial hierarchy, with Africans at the bottom, that would have cheered Stephens and other Confederates. True, Darwin was against slavery, but his idea of a gradually branching Tree of Life left no obvious place for a divine image imprinted equally on every human. On the contrary, even before he wrote The Descent of Man, an evolutionist might logically expect that humans of various races would have achieved different levels of advancement from their shared primitive ancestry, just as Darwin later made explicit.
From Human Zoos to the Alt-Right
Even if Stephens never heard of Darwin, there were scientific racists before Darwin such as French writer Arthur de Gobineau. Darwinian evolution emerged from the context of the scientific thinking of Darwin’s time, which was also Stephens’s time. Darwin and Stephens were contemporaries and would have found much common ground, even as they disagreed about slavery.
In decades to come, at the very best universities, racist pseudoscience would gather even more strength and popularity with leading scientists and scholars. As John West tells the story in the documentaries Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism and The Biology of the Second Reich, “following the science” of the time led to shaming Africans by displaying them in zoos, thus educating the public about the truths of evolutionary theory, to eugenics, and to genocide. Only with the revelation of the Holocaust did prestige scientists step back in shock from what they had done and try to sweep this past decorously under the carpet. Today’s Alt-Right is not so shy. As I have reported (see here and here, for example), the Alt-Right invokes neo-eugenic theory, Darwinian evolution, and, of course, the Confederate States of America.
They have a twisted logic, or at least a consistency, on their side. I don’t think you’ll see the Confederate flag floating overhead at the next March for Science. But, from a historical perspective, it would not be out of place there, any more than at a rally of the Alt-Right. It’s only because of a willed amnesia that we forget this.
Photo: Alexander H. Stephens, by Matthew Brady, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-15--The Human Body as a Biomimetic Inspiration

As symbols of the perfection of human form , one might consider the Venus de Milo or Michelangelo ’ s David .
But those don ’ t show the insides , where exceptional designs can be found .
As physiologists gain deeper knowledge at smaller and smaller scales , down to the cellular and molecular levels , they find an abundance of design inspirations .
Here are some of the most recent examples that have come to light .
Scientists at Queensland University have made carbon nanodots out of human hair .
Carbon nanodots are “ highly luminescent carbon nanomaterial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fabricated .
To produce the carbon nanodots , “ they developed a two-step process that involved breaking down the hairs and then burning them at 240 degrees Celsius.
” Now isn ’ t that a clever way to put wasted hair to use ?
Think of all that hair being swept up on the floors of barber shops and beauty salons .
Why not make light of it ?
“ Waste is a big problem , ” Professor Sonar said .
“ Human hair derived carbon dot-based organic light-emitting devices could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart packaging .
He continued , “ They could also be used where a small light source is required such as in signs or in smart bands and could be used in medical devices because of the non-toxicity of the material.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Medusa ’ s hair might be toxic , but not human hair .
That ’ s a benefit : “ there could be many uses for small and cheap flexible OLED displays on Internet of Things ( IoT ) devices , ” for instance .
Milk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of expired milk , too .
And water quality engineers could use such sensors to monitor chloroform levels in treatment centers .
But why use hair instead of other sources of carbon ?
Associate Professor Prashant Sonar of the QUT Centre for Materials Science answers , When burned , the keratin proteins in human hair break down into carbon and nitrogen in a molecular structure that gives it “ favorable electronic properties.
” If this catches on , the team says , industries could work “ towards a circular economy and sustainable material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or RBCs ) combine flexibility , to get through narrow capillaries , with high carrying capacity , to carry oxygen in hemoglobin proteins .
Health scientists would like to send medicine through the bloodstream in a similar fashion .
The design of nano-vessels that can take advantage of the circulatory system is a big trend in medicine these days .
Knowing that the membranes of RBCs can squeeze and then pop back into shape , six researchers at Johns Hopkins got inspired .
They published results of their work in Science Advances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association for the Advancement of Science , or AAAS ) , titled “ Biomimetic anisotropic polymeric nanoparticles coated with red blood cell membranes for enhanced circulation and toxin removal.
” The design of next-generation nanobiomaterials requires precise engineering of both physical properties of the core material and chemical properties of the material ’ s surface to meet a biological function .
A bio-inspired modular and versatile technology was developed to allow biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles to circulate through the blood for extended periods of time while also acting as a detoxification device .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemical biomimicry are combined to enhance the biological function of nanomaterials in vitro and in vivo .
The anisotropic shape and membrane coating synergize to resist cellular uptake and reduce clearance from the blood .
This approach enhances the detoxification properties of nanoparticles , markedly improving survival in a mouse model of sepsis .
The anisotropic membrane-coated nanoparticles have enhanced biodistribution and therapeutic efficacy .
These biomimetic biodegradable nanodevices and their derivatives have promise for applications ranging from detoxification agents , to drug delivery vehicles , and to biological sensors .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom up , they found .
So they tried a top-down approach : “ coating particles with naturally derived cell membranes circumvented this obstacle.
” Even so , it took some doing to get the right shapes and coat them with RBC membrane material .
But once they did were able to mimic both the shape and the surface membrane of RBCs , they “ determined that the combination of these two features achieves an enhancement of drug delivery efficacy that neither parameter can successfully attain on its own.
” The coated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to squeeze through the tiniest capillaries .
And by mimicking the anisotropic shapes of RBCs , the team was able to avoid the problem facing spherical vessels , that of elimination from the bloodstream .
The team ’ s RBC-mimicking vessels thus had three advantages : flexibility , non-toxicity , and longevity .
The result is “ a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile and greater therapeutic efficacy.
” It may seem odd that neural signals , being electrical , must pass repeatedly through chemical signals across gaps , called synapses .
The proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the system .
A lizard can skitter across a sidewalk several body lengths per second , moving its limbs like a blur , and then climb a brick wall without a break .
Elite athletes can run the high hurdles like a locomotive , making split-second decisions about limb movement from brain to toes , while keeping their eyes steady .
Remember the ID maxim , “ If it works , it ’ s not happening by accident.
” Two teams are researching the mimicry of synapses , using electronic switches called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute of Technology “ Engineers put tens of thousands of artificial brain synapses on a single chip , ” they boast : The team is translating synapses from a software concept to a hardware reality .
Memristors imitate synapses by moving strictly digital technology a bit back toward analog , combining the benefits of both : A transistor in a conventional circuit transmits information by switching between one of only two values , 0 and 1 , and doing so only when the signal it receives , in the form of an electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In contrast , a memristor would work along a gradient , much like a synapse in the brain .
The signal it produces would vary depending on the strength of the signal that it receives .
This would enable a single memristor to have many values , and therefore carry out a far wider range of operations than binary transistors .
Like synapses , memristors can “ remember ” prior states .
How can this be applied ?
MIT envisions artificial intelligence on the move .
“ Such brain-inspired circuits could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would carry out complex computational tasks that only today ’ s supercomputers can handle.
” Another group working on memristors as artificial synapses is the Jülich Aachen Research Alliance ( JARA ) and the German technology group Heraeus .
They also see gold in biomimicry : A diagram shows a comparison between a synapse and a memristor .
The caption explains one reason for biological synapses : Memristors achieve a similar effect by allowing “ the strength of the electrical transmission to be changed in a similar way to synaptic connections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human body design that garnered imitators recently is described by the University of Colorado , Denver .
The evolution-talk is forgettable , contributing nothing .
Skipping on to the meat of the article , they mention “ layers of complexity ” the researchers had to traverse in order to mimic some of the properties of cartilage .
With a 3-D printer , they succeeded partially by printing honeycomb-like lattice structures with a honey-like resin that cures under UV light .
As they learn more , they think they can produce shock-absorbing material for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable — customized biomedical implants for the spine .
These examples — and there are many more — should help us take a moment to reflect on the ingenuity of our earthly habitations , both inside and out , and use them for good .

As symbols of the perfection of human form, one might consider the Venus de Milo or Michelangelo’s David. But those don’t show the insides, where exceptional designs can be found. As physiologists gain deeper knowledge at smaller and smaller scales, down to the cellular and molecular levels, they find an abundance of design inspirations. Here are some of the most recent examples that have come to light.
Hair
Scientists at Queensland University have made carbon nanodots out of human hair. Carbon nanodots are “highly luminescent carbon nanomaterial from which flexible light-emitting devices” can be fabricated. To produce the carbon nanodots, “they developed a two-step process that involved breaking down the hairs and then burning them at 240 degrees Celsius.” Now isn’t that a clever way to put wasted hair to use? Think of all that hair being swept up on the floors of barber shops and beauty salons. Why not make light of it?
“Waste is a big problem,” Professor Sonar said. “Human hair derived carbon dot-based organic light-emitting devices could be used for some indoor applications such as smart packaging. He continued, “They could also be used where a small light source is required such as in signs or in smart bands and could be used in medical devices because of the non-toxicity of the material.” [Emphasis added.]
Medusa’s hair might be toxic, but not human hair. That’s a benefit: “there could be many uses for small and cheap flexible OLED displays on Internet of Things (IoT) devices,” for instance. Milk cartons of the future might inform you of expired milk, too. And water quality engineers could use such sensors to monitor chloroform levels in treatment centers.
But why use hair instead of other sources of carbon? Associate Professor Prashant Sonar of the QUT Centre for Materials Science answers,
Professor Sonar said the reason the researchers chose hair to extract carbon dots, rather than something else, was that hairs were a natural source of carbon and nitrogen, which are key elements to obtain light-emitting particles. Another factor was that finding a practical use for waste hair could keep it from ending up in landfill.
When burned, the keratin proteins in human hair break down into carbon and nitrogen in a molecular structure that gives it “favorable electronic properties.” If this catches on, the team says, industries could work “towards a circular economy and sustainable material technology.”
Red Blood Cells
Erythrocytes (red blood cells, or RBCs) combine flexibility, to get through narrow capillaries, with high carrying capacity, to carry oxygen in hemoglobin proteins. Health scientists would like to send medicine through the bloodstream in a similar fashion. The design of nano-vessels that can take advantage of the circulatory system is a big trend in medicine these days.
Knowing that the membranes of RBCs can squeeze and then pop back into shape, six researchers at Johns Hopkins got inspired. They published results of their work in Science Advances (an open-access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS), titled “Biomimetic anisotropic polymeric nanoparticles coated with red blood cell membranes for enhanced circulation and toxin removal.”
The design of next-generation nanobiomaterials requires precise engineering of both physical properties of the core material and chemical properties of the material’s surface to meet a biological function. A bio-inspired modular and versatile technology was developed to allow biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles to circulate through the blood for extended periods of time while also acting as a detoxification device. To mimic red blood cells, physical and chemical biomimicry are combined to enhance the biological function of nanomaterials in vitro and in vivo. The anisotropic shape and membrane coating synergize to resist cellular uptake and reduce clearance from the blood. This approach enhances the detoxification properties of nanoparticles, markedly improving survival in a mouse model of sepsis. The anisotropic membrane-coated nanoparticles have enhanced biodistribution and therapeutic efficacy. These biomimetic biodegradable nanodevices and their derivatives have promise for applications ranging from detoxification agents, to drug delivery vehicles, and to biological sensors.
It was too difficult to design RBC-like membranes from the bottom up, they found. So they tried a top-down approach: “coating particles with naturally derived cell membranes circumvented this obstacle.” Even so, it took some doing to get the right shapes and coat them with RBC membrane material. But once they did were able to mimic both the shape and the surface membrane of RBCs, they “determined that the combination of these two features achieves an enhancement of drug delivery efficacy that neither parameter can successfully attain on its own.”
The coated nano-vessels retained the flexibility that makes RBCs able to squeeze through the tiniest capillaries. And by mimicking the anisotropic shapes of RBCs, the team was able to avoid the problem facing spherical vessels, that of elimination from the bloodstream. The team’s RBC-mimicking vessels thus had three advantages: flexibility, non-toxicity, and longevity. The result is “a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile and greater therapeutic efficacy.”
Synapses
It may seem odd that neural signals, being electrical, must pass repeatedly through chemical signals across gaps, called synapses. The proof of the pudding is in the efficiency of the system. A lizard can skitter across a sidewalk several body lengths per second, moving its limbs like a blur, and then climb a brick wall without a break. Elite athletes can run the high hurdles like a locomotive, making split-second decisions about limb movement from brain to toes, while keeping their eyes steady. Remember the ID maxim, “If it works, it’s not happening by accident.”
Two teams are researching the mimicry of synapses, using electronic switches called memristors instead of traditional transistors. Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Engineers put tens of thousands of artificial brain synapses on a single chip,” they boast:
MIT engineers have designed a “brain-on-a-chip,” smaller than a piece of confetti, that is made from tens of thousands of artificial brain synapses known as memristors — silicon-based components that mimic the information-transmitting synapses in the human brain.
The team is translating synapses from a software concept to a hardware reality. Memristors imitate synapses by moving strictly digital technology a bit back toward analog, combining the benefits of both:
A transistor in a conventional circuit transmits information by switching between one of only two values, 0 and 1, and doing so only when the signal it receives, in the form of an electric current, is of a particular strength. In contrast, a memristor would work along a gradient, much like a synapse in the brain. The signal it produces would vary depending on the strength of the signal that it receives. This would enable a single memristor to have many values, and therefore carry out a far wider range of operations than binary transistors.
Like synapses, memristors can “remember” prior states. How can this be applied? MIT envisions artificial intelligence on the move. “Such brain-inspired circuits could be built into small, portable devices, and would carry out complex computational tasks that only today’s supercomputers can handle.”
Another group working on memristors as artificial synapses is the Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA) and the German technology group Heraeus. They also see gold in biomimicry:
The researchers’ design directions could help to increase variety, efficiency, selectivity and reliability for memristive technology-based applications, for example for energy-efficient, non-volatile storage devices or neuro-inspired computers.
A diagram shows a comparison between a synapse and a memristor. The caption explains one reason for biological synapses:
Synapses, the connections between neurons, have the ability to transmit signals with varying degrees of strength when they are excited by a quick succession of electrical impulses. One effect of this repeated activity is to increase the concentration of calcium ions, with the result that more neurotransmitters are emitted. Depending on the activity, other effects cause long-term structural changes, which impact the strength of the transmission for several hours, or potentially even for the rest of the person’s life.
Memristors achieve a similar effect by allowing “the strength of the electrical transmission to be changed in a similar way to synaptic connections, by applying a voltage.”
Cartilage
One more human body design that garnered imitators recently is described by the University of Colorado, Denver.
Biological tissues have evolved over millennia to be perfectly optimized for their specific functions. Take cartilage as an example. It’s a compliant, elastic tissue that’s soft enough to cushion joints, but strong enough to resist compression and withstand the substantial load bearing of our bodies: key for running, jumping, and our daily wear and tear. Creating synthetic replacements which truly match the properties and behaviors of biological tissues hasn’t been easy. But University of Colorado Denver scientists, led by mechanical engineer professor Chris Yakacki, PhD, are the first to 3D print a complex, porous lattice structure using liquid crystal elastomers (LCEs) creating devices that can finally mimic cartilage and other biological tissues.
The evolution-talk is forgettable, contributing nothing. Skipping on to the meat of the article, they mention “layers of complexity” the researchers had to traverse in order to mimic some of the properties of cartilage. With a 3-D printer, they succeeded partially by printing honeycomb-like lattice structures with a honey-like resin that cures under UV light. As they learn more, they think they can produce shock-absorbing material for football helmets, and — even more valuable — customized biomedical implants for the spine.
These examples — and there are many more — should help us take a moment to reflect on the ingenuity of our earthly habitations, both inside and out, and use them for good.
Photo: Venus de Milo, by Livioandronico2013 / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-16--New ID Book Zeroes in on Evolution’s Zero-Probability Problem

On a new episode of ID the Future , Andrew McDiarmid concludes his conversation with Eric Anderson , co-author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
Today they talk about Anderson ’ s second of two chapters in the book , in which he explores the challenges of building a self-replicating 3-D printer , and the light this sheds on the origin-of-life community ’ s search for their Holy Grail , a self-reproducing molecule that could have kickstarted the evolutionary process on the early Earth .
Download the podcast or listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson suggests that there are engineering principles involved in the origin of life that may mean that a naturalistic origin is less like winning a long-odds lottery , and more like the chances of an inventor successfully building a perpetual motion machine .
That is , it isn ’ t just a tough probability problem ; there are reasons for concluding that it ’ s impossible in principle .
Also , Anderson notes , the early Earth wasn ’ t the kinder , gentler place for simple self-replicators that Darwin or Dawkins has @ @

On a new episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid concludes his conversation with Eric Anderson, co-author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. Today they talk about Anderson’s second of two chapters in the book, in which he explores the challenges of building a self-replicating 3-D printer, and the light this sheds on the origin-of-life community’s search for their Holy Grail, a self-reproducing molecule that could have kickstarted the evolutionary process on the early Earth. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In their conversation, Anderson suggests that there are engineering principles involved in the origin of life that may mean that a naturalistic origin is less like winning a long-odds lottery, and more like the chances of an inventor successfully building a perpetual motion machine. That is, it isn’t just a tough probability problem; there are reasons for concluding that it’s impossible in principle. Also, Anderson notes, the early Earth wasn’t the kinder, gentler place for simple self-replicators that Darwin or Dawkins has imagined.


The Information Enigma

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is the first installment .
How do you @ @ @ @ @ books totalling 1,100+ pages into a 21-minute video ?
That ’ s what we were @ @ @ @ @ The Information Enigma , ” which seeks to present the core message of Stephen Meyer @ @ @ @ @ in the Cell and Darwin ’ s Doubt .
See if we succeeded !
If @ @ @ @ @ to create more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ @ @ @ @ @ to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is the first installment.
How do you condense the message of two books totalling 1,100+ pages into a 21-minute video? That’s what we were trying to accomplish with “The Information Enigma,” which seeks to present the core message of Stephen Meyer’s bestselling books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt. See if we succeeded!
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-16--Be a Movie Producer!

Be a Movie Producer!

A few years ago , a college student despaired when his professors insisted that pursuing science required embracing materialism .
Then the student discovered YouTube videos featuring Steve Meyer , Mike Behe , and other researchers at Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture ( CSC ) .
Those videos threw him a lifeline , and he embraced intelligent design .
Today he is enrolled in a science PhD program at a top-tier research university .
Before midnight tonight , people around the globe will have watched another one billion hours of videos on YouTube .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspiring hope , or provoking despair .
That ’ s why the CSC has invested so much time and effort in recent years to expand its YouTube presence .
We want to produce videos that will give people hope .
I ’ m happy to report that our investment is paying off : • In the last 90 days , 1.3 million unique viewers have watched our videos on YouTube .
• Between 2018 and 2019 , our annual views on YouTube increased over 400 percent .
• Since 2019 , our videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cell with Michael Behe , Human Zoos , and the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith have received more than 6.3 million new views .
• We now have more than 110,000 subscribers to our top three YouTube channels , with more being added daily .
Viewers are now posting thousands of comments on YouTube about how our videos are impacting their lives .
Here is a sampling : • “ Just finished watching and I am so stunned I can hardly move.
” • “ This should be shown in every school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole series gives me hope for humanity.
” • “ Watching this restores my awe and wonder of the natural world.
” • “ This was amazing and I want to hug you.
” • “ I love this video so much… Also my son is yelling that he liked it too.
” Will You Help Us ?
Many are pleading for more videos , posting comments such as : “ Please continue doing this !
” “ We need more of these !
!
” “ More , please !
” Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike Hollywood , we don ’ t have investors with deep pockets .
We need a special group of supporters who understand how videos change people ’ s minds and who will commit to becoming our “ movie producers.
” By donating now to our video production fund , you can help us reach millions of people with high-quality content about intelligent design , the value of human life , science and faith , and the corrosive impact of Darwinism .
If you ever wanted to be a movie producer , now is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
As a special thank you for donating at least $ 50 , we ’ ll send you a password-protected link to view an exclusive clip from a future episode of Science Uprising .
Movie producers , after all , deserve special access !
Just say : Yes , I ’ d like to donate !

Photo by Unsplash
A few years ago, a college student despaired when his professors insisted that pursuing science required embracing materialism. Then the student discovered YouTube videos featuring Steve Meyer, Mike Behe, and other researchers at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture (CSC). Those videos threw him a lifeline, and he embraced intelligent design. Today he is enrolled in a science PhD program at a top-tier research university.
Before midnight tonight, people around the globe will have watched another one billion hours of videos on YouTube. Many of those videos will change their lives — inspiring hope, or provoking despair.
Videos That Give Hope
That’s why the CSC has invested so much time and effort in recent years to expand its YouTube presence. We want to produce videos that will give people hope. I’m happy to report that our investment is paying off:
In the last 90 days, 1.3 million unique viewers have watched our videos on YouTube.
Between 2018 and 2019, our annual views on YouTube increased over 400 percent.
Since 2019, our videos like Science Uprising, Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Human Zoos, and the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith have received more than 6.3 million new views.
We now have more than 110,000 subscribers to our top three YouTube channels, with more being added daily.
Viewers are now posting thousands of comments on YouTube about how our videos are impacting their lives. Here is a sampling:
“Just finished watching and I am so stunned I can hardly move.”
“This should be shown in every school around the world.”
“This whole series gives me hope for humanity.”
“Watching this restores my awe and wonder of the natural world.”
“This was amazing and I want to hug you.”
“I love this video so much… Also my son is yelling that he liked it too.”
Will You Help Us?
Many are pleading for more videos, posting comments such as: “Please continue doing this!” “We need more of these!!” “More, please!”
Will you help us answer these pleas?
Unlike Hollywood, we don’t have investors with deep pockets. We need a special group of supporters who understand how videos change people’s minds and who will commit to becoming our “movie producers.”
By donating now to our video production fund, you can help us reach millions of people with high-quality content about intelligent design, the value of human life, science and faith, and the corrosive impact of Darwinism.
If you ever wanted to be a movie producer, now is your opportunity! Will you take it?
As a special thank you for donating at least $50, we’ll send you a password-protected link to view an exclusive clip from a future episode of Science Uprising. Movie producers, after all, deserve special access!
Just say: Yes, I’d like to donate!
Image credit: Jake Hills, via Unsplash.


Retirement ≠ Repudiation

Some critics of intelligent design seem to be taking my retirement to mean that I ’ ve repudiated , in whole or in part , my work on intelligent design .
So , in the recent recent video conversation by Sean McDowell with Doug Axe and Joshua Swamidass , Swamidass claims ( at the point 56:20 ) that I ’ ve “ backed off ” from the argument in my book The Design Inference ( 1998 ) .
Swamidass : “ Dembski himself backed off from his book The Design Inference .
He ’ s actually stated that he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you aware of that ?
” Axe : “ He ’ s not backed off from the basic… ” Swamidass : “ Yeah , I can show you the quotes later… .
He ’ s even stated , I ’ ll give you the quote , that there was a gap in his argument .
He doesn ’ t think the explanatory filter is the right way to make the ID case.
” In my book The Design Revolution , which appeared in 2004 , six years after The Design Inference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the filter to detect design is specified complexity .
The Explanatory Filter provides a user-friendly way to establish specified complexity .
For that reason , the only way to refute the Explanatory Filter is to show that specified complexity is an inadequate criterion for detecting design .
My position here hasn ’ t changed .
I ’ ve beefed up specified complexity and developed it further over the years : • “ Algorithmic Specified Complexity in the Game of Life ” ( 2015 , w/ Ewert and Marks ) As I said from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ rational reconstruction ” of how we infer design .
But ultimately , the Explanatory Filter depends on specified complexity being a valid criterion for detecting design .
And I continue to hold that specified complexity is a legitimate way of detecting design and that the Explanatory Filter is a legitimate way of identifying specified complexity .
In its characterization of specification , The Design Inference included a conditional independence condition that subsequently proved unnecessary ( that became clear already in the book ’ s sequel , No Free Lunch , published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of specified complexity , inherent in The Design Inference as specified improbability , needed some refinement and a fuller theoretical development , which it got over time ( these days , Conservation of Information in search does the work of specified complexity and with still greater theoretical power ) .
As I noted in my updated 2019 interview , “ I ’ m happy with the work I ’ ve done on intelligent design and repudiate none of it .
”

Some critics of intelligent design seem to be taking my retirement to mean that I’ve repudiated, in whole or in part, my work on intelligent design.
So, in the recent recent video conversation by Sean McDowell with Doug Axe and Joshua Swamidass, Swamidass claims (at the point 56:20) that I’ve “backed off” from the argument in my book The Design Inference (1998).
Here’s the dialogue:
Swamidass: “Dembski himself backed off from his book The Design Inference. He’s actually stated that he had it wrong in the explanatory filter. Are you aware of that?” Axe: “He’s not backed off from the basic…” Swamidass: “Yeah, I can show you the quotes later…. He’s even stated, I’ll give you the quote, that there was a gap in his argument. He doesn’t think the explanatory filter is the right way to make the ID case.”
In my book The Design Revolution, which appeared in 2004, six years after The Design Inference, I wrote:
Ultimately, what enables the filter to detect design is specified complexity. The Explanatory Filter provides a user-friendly way to establish specified complexity. For that reason, the only way to refute the Explanatory Filter is to show that specified complexity is an inadequate criterion for detecting design.
My position here hasn’t changed. I’ve beefed up specified complexity and developed it further over the years:
A Rational Reconstruction
As I said from the start, the Explanatory Filter was a “rational reconstruction” of how we infer design. But ultimately, the Explanatory Filter depends on specified complexity being a valid criterion for detecting design. And I continue to hold that specified complexity is a legitimate way of detecting design and that the Explanatory Filter is a legitimate way of identifying specified complexity.
In its characterization of specification, The Design Inference included a conditional independence condition that subsequently proved unnecessary (that became clear already in the book’s sequel, No Free Lunch, published in 2001). So the idea of specified complexity, inherent in The Design Inference as specified improbability, needed some refinement and a fuller theoretical development, which it got over time (these days, Conservation of Information in search does the work of specified complexity and with still greater theoretical power).
As I noted in my updated 2019 interview, “I’m happy with the work I’ve done on intelligent design and repudiate none of it.”
Cross-posted with permission from Dr. Dembski’s blog, “Freedom, Technology, Education.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-16--Intelligent Design YouTube Festival — June 16-30, 2020

Starting later today , we will be celebrating 15 YouTube videos produced by the Center for Science & Culture that @ @ @ @ @ views each .
For 15 days , we will be highlighting one video per day @ @ @ @ @ story behind each video .
We are highlighting these videos in the hope that you @ @ @ @ @ “ movie producers ” and provide funds to help us create even more videos in @ @ @ @ @ watch for the first video that will be posted later today .
Please donate now @ @ @ @ @ !

Starting later today, we will be celebrating 15 YouTube videos produced by the Center for Science & Culture that have received more than 100,000 views each. For 15 days, we will be highlighting one video per day and sharing something about the story behind each video. We are highlighting these videos in the hope that you might become one of our “movie producers” and provide funds to help us create even more videos in the months ahead. Keep watch for the first video that will be posted later today. Please donate now to our video production fund!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-18--Postscript on the Explanatory Filter

Postscript on the Explanatory Filter

Josh Swamidass wants to revisit some well worn paths : Click here .
I ’ ll pass except to cite @ @ @ @ @ design ) of The Design Revolution and to add , in light of the latter @ @ @ @ @ happy with the filter and think it holds up nicely .
Editor ’ s note @ @ @ @ @ s earlier post , “ Retirement ≠ Repudiation.
” Cross-posted with permission from “ Freedom @ @ @ @ @ ”

Josh Swamidass wants to revisit some well worn paths: Click here. I’ll pass except to cite Part II (on detecting design) of The Design Revolution and to add, in light of the latter, that I’m happy with the filter and think it holds up nicely.
Editor’s note: See Dr. Dembski’s earlier post, “Retirement ≠ Repudiation.” Cross-posted with permission from “Freedom, Technology, Education.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-17--Trapped in the Naturalistic Parabola

Trapped in the Naturalistic Parabola

Good advice , right ?
Trisecting an angle using only a compass and an unmarked straight edge , dividing by zero , using your cell phone inside a Faraday cage , reanimating a tin of smoked herring , finding a reasonably priced apartment in San Francisco…no , no , no , no , no .
Don ’ t even bother trying .
Speaking of impossibility , you may have noticed a strange loop which arises spontaneously in many sectors of the intelligent design debate .
This strange loop — which I describe below , with detailed examples left for another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also , like other intractable puzzles , a source of unending bewilderment .
It seems impossible , once one is caught up in the loop , to escape onto the plane where rational progress could be made .
The metaphor of a “ strange loop ” is helpful , but for this particular puzzle , I prefer another image : a parabola .
Figure 1 shows this familiar conic section , with its parts labeled .
As you may recall from high school geometry , parabolas extend infinitely along their axis of symmetry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that will be the defining property to keep in mind .
Consider next a representative dialogue between an evolutionist ( call him Evolver ) and an intelligent design proponent ( call him Designer ) about one aspect of the origin of life : the prebiotic formation of proteins .
Designer : The formation of proteins from amino acids can not occur in an aqueous prebiotic setting .
Hydrolysis will attack the peptide bonds — Evolver : Excuse me for interrupting , but that is not how proteins formed .
Evolver : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But their “ thin organic broth in a reducing atmosphere ” was the leading prebiotic scenario for much of the 20th century .
Evolver : Hello , it ’ s 2020 .
The field has moved on .
Proteins exist , so using a prebiotic soup model for their origin , when we already know that doesn ’ t work , can not be right .
You need to address the actual prebiotic pathway that occurred , not some old and erroneous hypothesis .
Designer : All right , what is the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re working on that .
The tour bus is leaving , try to keep up .
Okay , So What Is Going on Here ?
We could continue this dialogue indefinitely , with Designer critiquing as unworkable , or false , every prebiotic protein origins hypothesis put forward by Evolver — and yet Evolver stands there , untroubled , yawning and checking the messages on his iPhone .
And that is because Evolver is not committed to the causal sufficiency , or truth , of any particular scientific hypothesis about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is committed to finding an answer of a given philosophical form —namely , that the pathway , whatever it turns out to be , occurred via an undirected physical process .
That still-unknown pathway , once it is discovered and shown to work , will mark reaching the endpoint which defines success in the origin-of-proteins dimension of abiogenesis research .
Until then ?
Just keep looking .
If we dissect Evolver ’ s reasoning , therefore , and lay its pieces on the lab bench , they would look something like this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists from chemistry to proteins .
• The task of science is to find ( 2 ) , in order to explain ( 1 ) .
• Until that task is done , abiogenesis research goes on .
What do these propositions , ( 1 ) through ( 4 ) , mean for Designer ?
In his discussions with Evolver about the origin of proteins ( or any biological object or system , for that matter ) , Designer will be trapped forever inside the Naturalistic Parabola .
Designer is doomed to perpetual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — sheer impossibility .
Nothing he can say to Evolver , as long as Evolver holds consistently to his parabola-defining premise , will make the least bit of difference .
Sisyphus would understand .
Remember that property of parabolas noted above — their infinite extent ?
Suppose we tip the parabola in Figure 1 on its side , and lay it next to a timeline ( Figure 2 ) .
While the Naturalistic Parabola is defined nowadays by a philosophical rule , we can say that its temporal vertex — its starting point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located somewhere around 1859 , and the publication of Darwin ’ s Origin of Species .
Its end , however , is nowhere in sight .
Nowhere in sight— because no finite number of scientific falsifications ( that is , of individual hypotheses for events like the origin of proteins ) can refute the unconditional philosophical rule which defines the Naturalistic Parabola : Thus said the National Academy of Sciences in 1998 .
This is the rule of methodological naturalism ( MN ) .
MN is not a scientific proposition .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such , can not be refuted or tested by observation .
Now , you may think MN is unnecessary , or even unsound , for the practice of science .
( Another time , I hope to discuss the surprising fact that many atheist scientists and philosophers disagree strongly with MN , when MN is proclaimed as an unconditional rule . )
The National Academy , however , is not listening to you , nor are federal courts , nor are organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers — all official bodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for academic practice and public policy , in matters such as curricula , funding decisions , employment , and peer review .
All right : we ’ ve put a serious problem on the table for discussion .
It looks very much like the dialogue between Evolver and Designer , despite their apparent engagement of the same scientific questions — e.g.
, how did life start ?
— is not a genuine dialogue at all .
It is , rather , an exercise in futility .
One side , Designer , has convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific hypotheses put forward by Evolver , and that by focusing on that point — the disconfirming evidence — Designer is doing what counts .
If only I can persuade Evolver that his hypotheses don ’ t work , Designer thinks , Evolver will change his mind about the origin of proteins , and ultimately , the origin of life .
Poor deluded Designer , says Evolver to himself — he really is naïve .
There is no escaping the parabola .
It runs the show .
At this point , we could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution , and thereafter , to create the Naturalistic Parabola .
We could look at some examples of how the Parabola operates — common phrases that tell one , “ Hey , you ’ re trapped in the Parabola : stop kicking and get out.
” We could provide the Parabola Escape Instructions .
All in due time .
• Ludwik Fleck , Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact ( Chicago : University of Chicago Press , 1979 [ 1935 ] ) , p. 109 .
• Thomas S. Kuhn , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Chicago Press , 1970 ) , p. 94 .
• Trisecting an angle with a compass and unmarked straight edge , and dividing by zero , are mathematical impossibilities ; cell phone usage in a Faraday cage is a physical impossibility ; spontaneous generation ( bringing the herring back to life ) is a biological impossibility ; whereas finding an affordable apartment in San Francisco is not impossible at all , but only a practical nightmare which supplies grade-AAA material for musing about the inequities of life .
• Working Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sciences , Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science ( Washington , DC : National Academy Press , 1998 ) , p. 42 .
• If you doubt this , ask yourself what imaginable observation would refute MN .
Image : Detail from Sisyphus , by Titian , in the Prado Museum , Public domain .

The principles of an alien [thought] collective are, if noticed at all, felt to be arbitrary and their possible legitimacy as begging the question. The alien way of thought seems like mysticism. The questions it rejects will often be regarded as the most important ones, its explanations as proving nothing or as missing the point, its problems as often unimportant or meaningless trivialities. Ludwik Fleck, 1935
When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense. T.S. Kuhn, 1970
…a wide chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross from this side to you cannot do so, nor can they cross from your side to us. Luke 16:26
Don’t Attempt the Impossible
Good advice, right? Trisecting an angle using only a compass and an unmarked straight edge, dividing by zero, using your cell phone inside a Faraday cage, reanimating a tin of smoked herring, finding a reasonably priced apartment in San Francisco…no, no, no, no, no. Don’t even bother trying.
Speaking of impossibility, you may have noticed a strange loop which arises spontaneously in many sectors of the intelligent design debate. This strange loop — which I describe below, with detailed examples left for another occasion — is philosophically fascinating, but also, like other intractable puzzles, a source of unending bewilderment. It seems impossible, once one is caught up in the loop, to escape onto the plane where rational progress could be made.
The metaphor of a “strange loop” is helpful, but for this particular puzzle, I prefer another image: a parabola. Figure 1 shows this familiar conic section, with its parts labeled. As you may recall from high school geometry, parabolas extend infinitely along their axis of symmetry.
Extend infinitely — in what follows, that will be the defining property to keep in mind. Consider next a representative dialogue between an evolutionist (call him Evolver) and an intelligent design proponent (call him Designer) about one aspect of the origin of life: the prebiotic formation of proteins.
Designer: The formation of proteins from amino acids cannot occur in an aqueous prebiotic setting. Hydrolysis will attack the peptide bonds — Evolver: Excuse me for interrupting, but that is not how proteins formed. Designer: In the Oparin-Haldane model — Evolver: You mean the Oparin-Haldane strawman? Designer: But their “thin organic broth in a reducing atmosphere” was the leading prebiotic scenario for much of the 20th century. Evolver: Hello, it’s 2020. The field has moved on. Proteins exist, so using a prebiotic soup model for their origin, when we already know that doesn’t work, cannot be right. You need to address the actual prebiotic pathway that occurred, not some old and erroneous hypothesis. Designer: All right, what is the actual prebiotic pathway to proteins? Evolver: We’re working on that. The tour bus is leaving, try to keep up.
Okay, So What Is Going on Here?
We could continue this dialogue indefinitely, with Designer critiquing as unworkable, or false, every prebiotic protein origins hypothesis put forward by Evolver — and yet Evolver stands there, untroubled, yawning and checking the messages on his iPhone.
And that is because Evolver is not committed to the causal sufficiency, or truth, of any particular scientific hypothesis about the origin of proteins. Rather, he is committed to finding an answer of a given philosophical form —namely, that the pathway, whatever it turns out to be, occurred via an undirected physical process. That still-unknown pathway, once it is discovered and shown to work, will mark reaching the endpoint which defines success in the origin-of-proteins dimension of abiogenesis research.
Until then? Just keep looking.
If we dissect Evolver’s reasoning, therefore, and lay its pieces on the lab bench, they would look something like this:
Proteins exist. Thus, some natural pathway also exists from chemistry to proteins. The task of science is to find (2), in order to explain (1). Until that task is done, abiogenesis research goes on.
What do these propositions, (1) through (4), mean for Designer?
Trapped Like a Philosophical Rat
In his discussions with Evolver about the origin of proteins(or any biological object or system, for that matter), Designer will be trapped forever inside the Naturalistic Parabola.
Designer is doomed to perpetual frustration, of the very worst kind — sheer impossibility. Nothing he can say to Evolver, as long as Evolver holds consistently to his parabola-defining premise, will make the least bit of difference. Sisyphus would understand.
Remember that property of parabolas noted above — their infinite extent? Suppose we tip the parabola in Figure 1 on its side, and lay it next to a timeline (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
While the Naturalistic Parabola is defined nowadays by a philosophical rule, we can say that its temporal vertex — its starting point in the history of science — is located somewhere around 1859, and the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Its end, however, is nowhere in sight.
Nowhere in sight— because no finite number of scientific falsifications (that is, of individual hypotheses for events like the origin of proteins) can refute the unconditional philosophical rule which defines the Naturalistic Parabola:
The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.
Thus said the National Academy of Sciences in 1998. This is the rule of methodological naturalism (MN). MN is not a scientific proposition. It is an a priori dictum and, as such, cannot be refuted or tested by observation.
Now, you may think MN is unnecessary, or even unsound, for the practice of science. (Another time, I hope to discuss the surprising fact that many atheist scientists and philosophers disagree strongly with MN, when MN is proclaimed as an unconditional rule.) The National Academy, however, is not listening to you, nor are federal courts, nor are organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers — all official bodies whose remit includes defining “science” for academic practice and public policy, in matters such as curricula, funding decisions, employment, and peer review.
All right: we’ve put a serious problem on the table for discussion. It looks very much like the dialogue between Evolver and Designer, despite their apparent engagement of the same scientific questions — e.g., how did life start? — is not a genuine dialogue at all.
It is, rather, an exercise in futility. One side, Designer, has convinced himself that the evidence bears against the scientific hypotheses put forward by Evolver, and that by focusing on that point — the disconfirming evidence — Designer is doing what counts. If only I can persuade Evolver that his hypotheses don’t work, Designer thinks, Evolver will change his mind about the origin of proteins, and ultimately, the origin of life.
Poor deluded Designer, says Evolver to himself — he really is naïve. There is no escaping the parabola. It runs the show.
Prospectus
At this point, we could look at what happened during the Darwinian Revolution, and thereafter, to create the Naturalistic Parabola. We could look at some examples of how the Parabola operates — common phrases that tell one, “Hey, you’re trapped in the Parabola: stop kicking and get out.” We could provide the Parabola Escape Instructions. All in due time.
Notes:
Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [1935]), p. 109. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 94. Trisecting an angle with a compass and unmarked straight edge, and dividing by zero, are mathematical impossibilities; cell phone usage in a Faraday cage is a physical impossibility; spontaneous generation (bringing the herring back to life) is a biological impossibility; whereas finding an affordable apartment in San Francisco is not impossible at all, but only a practical nightmare which supplies grade-AAA material for musing about the inequities of life. Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 42. If you doubt this, ask yourself what imaginable observation would refute MN.
Image: Detail from Sisyphus, by Titian, in the Prado Museum, Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-17--The Workhorse of the Cell: Kinesin

The Workhorse of the Cell: Kinesin

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 2 , “ The Workhorse @ @ @ @ @ ’ s often said that a picture is worth a thousand words .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ Instead of simply talking about molecular machines inside our cells , we wanted to actually @ @ @ @ @ machine through new animation created by animator Joseph Condeelis .
Enjoy !
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ movie producers @ @ @ @ @ video production fund .

Image credit: Discovery Institute.
From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #2, “The Workhorse of the Cell.”
It’s often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. That’s the idea here. Instead of simply talking about molecular machines inside our cells, we wanted to actually show you an amazing molecular machine through new animation created by animator Joseph Condeelis. Enjoy!
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.