evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-27--Here Is How to Teach Intelligent Design to Young People

I recently had the opportunity to speak to an audience about how best to teach the evidence for design in nature to young people .
Here , I will summarize my talk by describing the approaches I have found most effective for communicating the evidence to nontechnical audiences .
The first principle is helping participants discover the evidence for design themselves .
This approach is particularly important for people who have been socially conditioned to suppress any evidence for design in nature they encounter .
The process of self-discovery can bypass implanted biases and mental barriers , so the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my favorite exercises is to show a series of objects or patterns and ask listeners to assign a score from 1 to 10 on their confidence that an image was designed versus simply the product of natural processes and chance .
A score of 1 corresponds to complete confidence in lack of design , and a score of 10 corresponds to complete confidence in design .
I often have audiences stand as I count up from 1 to 10 .
When participants hear the number corresponding to their score , they sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are highly ambiguous , and I conclude with an object or pattern that was clearly designed such as Mount Rushmore or a crashed spaceship .
I then ask the audience to list the reasons they knew the last object was designed as compared to the more ambiguous images .
Common responses include the following : • Improbability of the object forming by chance .
• Differences between the object and the surrounding environment .
• Inability of natural process to generate the pattern .
• Similarities between the object and other known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faces on Mount Rushmore and pictures of famous Presidents .
Inevitably , audiences arrive at some version of William Dembski ’ s Explanatory Filter .
By deriving the foundational principles of design detection themselves , participants gain a far deeper understanding of those principles and how they apply in different settings .
The final stage in the design detection exercise is to show an animation of some molecular machine such as ATP synthase .
I then ask participants to assess whether the object is the product of natural processes and chance or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criteria they just identified .
After participants choose design , I ask what led to their conclusion .
The answers are always the same as for the obviously designed object in the first part of the exercise .
In the end , participants never forget why the conclusion of design in life is self-evident .
In general , animations are one of the most effective tools to demonstrate the evidence for design in biological systems .
Imagery speaks simultaneously to the mind and to the emotions .
Animations also convey vast amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
And , they become fixed in the memory far easier than mere prose .
Today , several animations are readily available that demonstrate the wondrous engineering in life .
Here are but a few examples : Another effective technique is to use simple analogies illustrated by memorable images .
One of my favorite examples relates to the information in DNA or in the amino acid sequences comprising proteins .
To demonstrate how information points to design , I ask listeners to imagine having the flu and being called to the kitchen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue by describing a bowl of alphabet soup sitting on a table .
At the same time , I show a picture of the soup with the letters forming the message “ DRINK PLENTY OF FLUIDS AND REST UNTIL YOU ARE FEELING BETTER.
” I then explain how a short word might form by chance , but such a long message could never be explained by change or any natural process such as the chemistry of the pasta or the physics of the heated broth .
Large quantities of information can only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion is not simply falling into the concerned-parent-of-the-gaps fallacy .
This illustration conveys how information reliably points to design far more easily than deconstructing all of the junk science floating around the Internet claiming that natural processes can generate large quantities of information for free ( see here , here , and here ) .
Another helpful illustration is showing the predicted evolutionary tree of life next to the actual data from the fossil record corresponding to the Cambrian explosion .
The disparity between theory and reality is so stark that most immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I met a student at Charles Darwin University in Darwin , Australia .
He told me that he had decided to abandon belief in God because evolution proved that we were simply the product of blind natural processes .
I have to admit that for some reason I anticipated his comment .
I showed him the two images below .
After viewing the images for less than a minute , he said that he recognized that evolution could not be true , and he immediately renounced his atheism .
If he were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then told him that the time allotted by the fossil record for the complete transformation of one complex animal into another in most cases was only sufficient for two or three specific , neutral mutations to appear and spread throughout the population .
The difference between the amount of information that could have been generated in the available time and the amount required for a large-scale transformation is comparable to the difference between the maximum height a pole vaulter has ever cleared and the distance to the moon .
And the likelihood of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap is comparable to the likelihood of an athletic trainer devising some new training regimen and nutritional program that would make up the gap between a vaulter ’ s highest jump and the moon .
I might also show corresponding images to reinforce my point .
I often conclude my presentations by explaining the practical implications of recognizing that we are not the product of blind , undirected forces , but we are the creation of a designer .
As an illustration , I ask listeners to imagine finding a rock on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not come with a manual that instructs readers to place the rock in a slingshot , pull back the rubber band , and then release .
Since the rock was not designed , it has no particular purpose .
In contrast , if one finds a watch , one immediately recognizes that the watch was designed , so it should be used according to the intentions of its maker .
If one instead uses it to hammer a nail or to stir a cup of coffee , its potential and value would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who believe they are simply an accident of nature have no reason to believe that they have any intrinsic value or worth , that objective morality exists , or that they can live for any meaningful purpose .
In contrast , those who recognize that we were designed understand that we have inherent value , we should live by a moral standard corresponding to our design parameters , and our lives have inherent meaning and purpose .
I might also show images of a rock and a watch to reinforce this crucial @ @

Photo: Mount Rushmore, by National Park Service.
I recently had the opportunity to speak to an audience about how best to teach the evidence for design in nature to young people. Here, I will summarize my talk by describing the approaches I have found most effective for communicating the evidence to nontechnical audiences.
Self-Discovery
The first principle is helping participants discover the evidence for design themselves. This approach is particularly important for people who have been socially conditioned to suppress any evidence for design in nature they encounter. The process of self-discovery can bypass implanted biases and mental barriers, so the truth can fully engage the mind.
One of my favorite exercises is to show a series of objects or patterns and ask listeners to assign a score from 1 to 10 on their confidence that an image was designed versus simply the product of natural processes and chance. A score of 1 corresponds to complete confidence in lack of design, and a score of 10 corresponds to complete confidence in design. I often have audiences stand as I count up from 1 to 10. When participants hear the number corresponding to their score, they sit down. I deliberately use some images that are highly ambiguous, and I conclude with an object or pattern that was clearly designed such as Mount Rushmore or a crashed spaceship.
Figure 1-3: Images used for exercise in design detection. The first image is a picture taken of the Mars landscape. The second image is a naturally occurring mineral called Staurolite.
I then ask the audience to list the reasons they knew the last object was designed as compared to the more ambiguous images. Common responses include the following:
Improbability of the object forming by chance.
Differences between the object and the surrounding environment.
Inability of natural process to generate the pattern.
Similarities between the object and other known objects or patterns, such as between the faces on Mount Rushmore and pictures of famous Presidents.
Evidence of purposeful intent.
Inevitably, audiences arrive at some version of William Dembski’s Explanatory Filter. By deriving the foundational principles of design detection themselves, participants gain a far deeper understanding of those principles and how they apply in different settings.
Animations
The final stage in the design detection exercise is to show an animation of some molecular machine such as ATP synthase. I then ask participants to assess whether the object is the product of natural processes and chance or the product of intelligent design based on the criteria they just identified. After participants choose design, I ask what led to their conclusion. The answers are always the same as for the obviously designed object in the first part of the exercise. In the end, participants never forget why the conclusion of design in life is self-evident.
In general, animations are one of the most effective tools to demonstrate the evidence for design in biological systems. Imagery speaks simultaneously to the mind and to the emotions. Animations also convey vast amounts of information in a short span of time. And, they become fixed in the memory far easier than mere prose. Today, several animations are readily available that demonstrate the wondrous engineering in life. Here are but a few examples:
Analogies with Images
Another effective technique is to use simple analogies illustrated by memorable images. One of my favorite examples relates to the information in DNA or in the amino acid sequences comprising proteins. To demonstrate how information points to design, I ask listeners to imagine having the flu and being called to the kitchen by ones mother for lunch. I continue by describing a bowl of alphabet soup sitting on a table. At the same time, I show a picture of the soup with the letters forming the message “DRINK PLENTY OF FLUIDS AND REST UNTIL YOU ARE FEELING BETTER.” I then explain how a short word might form by chance, but such a long message could never be explained by chance or any natural process such as the chemistry of the pasta or the physics of the heated broth. Large quantities of information can only be generated by a mind. And that conclusion is not simply falling into the concerned-parent-of-the-gaps fallacy. This illustration conveys how information reliably points to design far more easily than deconstructing all of the junk science floating around the Internet claiming that natural processes can generate large quantities of information for free (see here, here, and here).
Figure 4: Bowl of alphabet soup with message.
Another helpful illustration is showing the predicted evolutionary tree of life next to the actual data from the fossil record corresponding to the Cambrian explosion. The disparity between theory and reality is so stark that most immediately recognize the tension. For instance, I met a student at Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia. He told me that he had decided to abandon belief in God because evolution proved that we were simply the product of blind natural processes. I have to admit that for some reason I anticipated his comment. I showed him the two images below. After viewing the images for less than a minute, he said that he recognized that evolution could not be true, and he immediately renounced his atheism.
Figure 5-6: Evolutionary tree versus actual data. The dotted lines represent series of transitional fossils that should exist according to the standard evolutionary model but have never been identified.
If he were not so quickly convinced, I would have then told him that the time allotted by the fossil record for the complete transformation of one complex animal into another in most cases was only sufficient for two or three specific, neutral mutations to appear and spread throughout the population. The difference between the amount of information that could have been generated in the available time and the amount required for a large-scale transformation is comparable to the difference between the maximum height a pole vaulter has ever cleared and the distance to the moon. And the likelihood of some new discovery compensating for the information gap is comparable to the likelihood of an athletic trainer devising some new training regimen and nutritional program that would make up the gap between a vaulter’s highest jump and the moon. I might also show corresponding images to reinforce my point.
Implications
I often conclude my presentations by explaining the practical implications of recognizing that we are not the product of blind, undirected forces, but we are the creation of a designer. As an illustration, I ask listeners to imagine finding a rock on the beach. That rock most likely did not come with a manual that instructs readers to place the rock in a slingshot, pull back the rubber band, and then release. Since the rock was not designed, it has no particular purpose. In contrast, if one finds a watch, one immediately recognizes that the watch was designed, so it should be used according to the intentions of its maker. If one instead uses it to hammer a nail or to stir a cup of coffee, its potential and value would be diminished.
In the same way, people who believe they are simply an accident of nature have no reason to believe that they have any intrinsic value or worth, that objective morality exists, or that they can live for any meaningful purpose. In contrast, those who recognize that we were designed understand that we have inherent value, we should live by a moral standard corresponding to our design parameters, and our lives have inherent meaning and purpose. I might also show images of a rock and a watch to reinforce this crucial lesson.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-27--Allostery: How Cells Do Remote Control

Allostery: How Cells Do Remote Control

To a space alien visiting Earth , it might seem like magic : the human flips a switch here , and a light goes on over there !
The more distant the light , the more magical it seems .
Is this “ spooky action at a distance ” that physicists wonder about when discussing gravity and quantum mechanics ?
No ; the alien quickly learns that there are physical connections between them that were designed for this ability : the switch was meant to turn on the light .
Traditional lighting is wired physically , but smart lights can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ server ( although they still need electrical wiring to the grid ) .
The light and the switch did not “ evolve ” to connect ; remote control shows that the signal and response required advance planning .
Human designers can get clever with remote control .
At the 1933 Chicago World ’ s Fair , light from the star Arcturus , thought to be 40 light-years away at the time , was focused on photoelectric cells that triggered floodlights at the exposition grounds .
Organizers boasted that light from the star had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fair ( Space.com ) .
Today , it is routine for NASA engineers to send coded messages via radio waves to activate processes on spacecraft on Mars or even across the solar system .
Now that ’ s foresight !
Cells perform remote control , too , using diverse methods .
Since Evolution News addressed the subject of allostery four years ago , more interesting examples have been discovered .
And like the 2016 example showed , remote control adds another layer of specificity to molecular machine design .
“ Allostery is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the authors of today ’ s first example explain , “ representing the essential process by which events occurring at one site are transmitted to distal sites to regulate activity.
” ( Emphasis added . )
The Ribosome : Allostery in RNA , Too Proteins were the first objects scrutinized for allostery .
Allison Walker and three colleagues have now found that RNA can also do tricks with remote control .
They say in PNAS1 : They measured a “ hierarchical organization ” of parts inside the 23S RNA portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups of nucleotides forming physically contiguous networks within the three-dimensional structure.
” They were able to demonstrate that two particular sectors of the RNA molecule “ contribute to ribosome function ” by showing that they “ map to distinct ribosome activities ” — performing remote control , in other words , just like allosteric proteins can .
“ RNA enzymes appear to share a common internal logic of interaction and assembly.
” How ’ s that for ID thinking !
Logical .
Too bad they attribute the precision of function to sectors “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , the sectors of the 23S RNA did not evolve , because changes would have broken its primary function : “ the templated polymerization of α-amino acids.
” Anyone know of templates that evolved by chance ?
They are speaking of how the ribosome matches amino acids attached to transfer RNAs to the codons on the messenger RNA template coming in for translation ; watch the animation here at minute 1:30 .
Mutations are not likely to improve a process like that !
Bypassing the evolutionary language in this paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary degree of allosteric cooperation in this RNA molecule .
Remember that RNAs tend to be floppier than proteins .
And yet the high-fidelity cooperative action between the RNA and protein parts in the ribosome require allostery over vast distances ( on the cellular scale ) .
This is astonishing .
How can they believe this level of remote control just happened ?
Assembly !
It ’ s not just the interaction to consider , but the assembly , too .
The ribosome parts had to be translated first , and then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different molecules ( RNA and protein ) , have to be assembled to work .
And that work involves remote controls , where “ molecular information ” is “ transferred between functional centers ” by means of “ allosteric pathways and conduits of communication.
” Those pathways , moreover , rely on “ specific residues in the structure ” that contribute to the communication .
The authors are clearly in awe of what they are seeing .
What does the talk about “ co-evolution ” contribute , other than fanciful storytelling ?
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” speak for itself .
In a recent article at Evolution News , remote control via water “ tsunamis ” was found in dynein , a molecular machine that walks on microtubules carrying cargo .
A team at Rockefeller University found allosteric remote control in a “ dynein-like ” AAA protein named Mdn1 , where AAA is short for “ ATPase associated with diverse cellular activities , ” and “ ATPase ” is any molecular machine using ATP for energy .
There are about 100 AAA proteins in humans ; many AAA proteins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at one end ( the hexamer ) where ATP is spent .
In their paper in PNAS2 , Mickolajczyk et al.describe Mdn1 as “ an essential mechanoenzyme that uses the energy from ATP hydrolysis to physically reshape and remodel , and thus mature , the 60S subunit of the ribosome.
” So here is another machine involved with the large ( 60S ) part of the ribosome that has remote control to learn about .
Mdn1 is an unusually large enzyme , weighing in at over 500 kilodaltons , where a dalton is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big machine , therefore , on the order of 500,000 hydrogen atoms in mass , with well over 5,000 amino acid residues in humans .
A mechanoenzyme converts chemical energy into motion .
The L-shaped enzyme looks something like a ring buoy ( the AAA hexamer ) with a back rest ( the linker ) .
Somehow this big device performs the job of removing assembly factor proteins from precursors for the 60S ribosomal subunit ( for information on assembly factors , see this paper from the journal RNA ) .
Surprisingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s amino acid residues form an “ intrinsically disordered ” domain — i.e.
, they do not fold into a permanent structure .
Sounds interesting .
“ This study provides insights into the regulation of Mdn1 function and into the design principles of large , multidomain mechanoenzymes , ” the authors begin .
They don ’ t know “ why Mdn1 has remained a single polypeptide , and one of the largest enzymes in the genome , throughout eukaryotic evolution , ” but spend no more time on that question .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allosteric interactions — remote control — in the enzyme .
Figures in the paper show Mdn1 ’ s disordered region looks like a tether .
It attaches to the top of the linker at one end and connects to its “ MIDAS ” domain ( “ metal ion-dependent adhesion site ” ) on the other end .
The MIDAS domain docks to the ring buoy , then attaches to an assembly factor on the “ pre-ribosome ” ( a large surface ) and pulls it off , using the tether .
It sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a big machine ?
The authors do not come to firm conclusions about this essential machine ’ s mode of action but suggest that the enzyme is sharing information between its parts .
It sounds like there is a lot more to learn about Mdn1 .
Suffice it to say that the machine does more than attach and pull on things ; it transmits information and force through remote controls .
To see why such a large machine is needed to remove assembly factors for the ribosome , consider this paragraph from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All these are necessary for a machine that translates proteins .
This sounds like a huge chicken-and-egg problem ; the ribosome needs all these assembly factors and subunits , but they need the ribosome to exist .
Here is one more example of allostery to briefly consider .
Before cell division , the genome needs to be compacted into dense supercoils to form the familiar chromosomes .
Coiling occurs around nucleosomes , which consist of histone proteins , which act like spools for DNA to wrap around .
In another PNAS paper4 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” allosteric effect between the nucleosome and two transcription factors .
They see Boolean logic in allostery : If anyone found a machine that operated another machine by remote control , they would not hesitate to conclude design .
This happens in cells at the molecular scale but is the same principle .
Molecular machines are already dazzling examples of intelligent design by reason of their precise functions .
To find that many of them also act as remote control devices that transmit information and force over long distances should amplify the design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al.
, “ RNA sectors and allosteric function within the ribosome.
” PNAS , August 3 , 2020 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1909634117 .
• Mickolajczyk et al.
, “ Long-range intramolecular allostery and regulation in the dynein-like AAA protein Mdn1.
” PNAS , August 4 , 2020 ; 117 ( 31 ) 18459-18469 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.2002792117 .
• Hu , Zhu and Ye , “ Structure and RNA recognition of ribosome assembly factor Utp30.
” RNA , 2017 Dec ; 23 ( 12 ) : 1936–1945 .
DOI : 10.1261/rna.062695.117 .

Photo credit: Piotr Cichosz, via Unsplash.
To a space alien visiting Earth, it might seem like magic: the human flips a switch here, and a light goes on over there! The more distant the light, the more magical it seems. Is this “spooky action at a distance” that physicists wonder about when discussing gravity and quantum mechanics? No; the alien quickly learns that there are physical connections between them that were designed for this ability: the switch was meant to turn on the light. Traditional lighting is wired physically, but smart lights can be controlled by wireless communications from a server (although they still need electrical wiring to the grid). The light and the switch did not “evolve” to connect; remote control shows that the signal and response required advance planning.
Human designers can get clever with remote control. At the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair, light from the star Arcturus, thought to be 40 light-years away at the time, was focused on photoelectric cells that triggered floodlights at the exposition grounds. Organizers boasted that light from the star had left in 1893 in order to launch the fair (Space.com). Today, it is routine for NASA engineers to send coded messages via radio waves to activate processes on spacecraft on Mars or even across the solar system. Now that’s foresight!
Cells perform remote control, too, using diverse methods. Since Evolution News addressed the subject of allostery four years ago, more interesting examples have been discovered. And like the 2016 example showed, remote control adds another layer of specificity to molecular machine design. “Allostery is a fundamental element of complex macromolecular function,” the authors of today’s first example explain, “representing the essential process by which events occurring at one site are transmitted to distal sites to regulate activity.” (Emphasis added.)
The Ribosome: Allostery in RNA, Too
Proteins were the first objects scrutinized for allostery. Allison Walker and three colleagues have now found that RNA can also do tricks with remote control. They say in PNAS1:
While multiple studies recognize that allostery contributes to complex function in RNAs such as riboswitches and the spliceosome, most studies of allostery focus on proteins. Thus, the capacity of RNA structures to support allosteric function remains underappreciated. Indeed, the fundamental discovery that small ribozymes populate unique and well-defined tertiary structures that support function and the more recent structure of the ribosome, revealing an active site composed entirely of RNA, reinforce the parity of protein and RNA structural and functional complexity.
They measured a “hierarchical organization” of parts inside the 23S RNA portion of the large ribosomal subunit “with near-independent groups of nucleotides forming physically contiguous networks within the three-dimensional structure.” They were able to demonstrate that two particular sectors of the RNA molecule “contribute to ribosome function” by showing that they “map to distinct ribosome activities” — performing remote control, in other words, just like allosteric proteins can. “RNA enzymes appear to share a common internal logic of interaction and assembly.” How’s that for ID thinking! Logical. Too bad they attribute the precision of function to sectors “co-evolving” within “functional constraints.” In other words, the sectors of the 23S RNA did not evolve, because changes would have broken its primary function: “the templated polymerization of α-amino acids.” Anyone know of templates that evolved by chance? They are speaking of how the ribosome matches amino acids attached to transfer RNAs to the codons on the messenger RNA template coming in for translation; watch the animation here at minute 1:30. Mutations are not likely to improve a process like that!
Bypassing the evolutionary language in this paper, what is most noteworthy is the extraordinary degree of allosteric cooperation in this RNA molecule. Remember that RNAs tend to be floppier than proteins. And yet the high-fidelity cooperative action between the RNA and protein parts in the ribosome require allostery over vast distances (on the cellular scale). This is astonishing. How can they believe this level of remote control just happened?
The size and complexity of its structure and the diversity of covalent and noncovalent interactions required to execute 10 to 20 translation cycles per second with high fidelity demand the coordinated interactions of bases that span more than 390,000 Å of molecular surface. But how does the ribosome actually work? How is molecular information transferred between functional centers? What are the allosteric pathways and conduits of communication, and how do specific residues in the structure contribute to this communication? In this work, we apply a global coevolution method (SCA) to show that, despite differences in fundamental chemistry, RNA and protein appear to use a common logic of interaction and assembly.
Assembly! It’s not just the interaction to consider, but the assembly, too. The ribosome parts had to be translated first, and then the building blocks, consisting of two very different molecules (RNA and protein), have to be assembled to work. And that work involves remote controls, where “molecular information” is “transferred between functional centers” by means of “allosteric pathways and conduits of communication.” Those pathways, moreover, rely on “specific residues in the structure” that contribute to the communication. The authors are clearly in awe of what they are seeing. What does the talk about “co-evolution” contribute, other than fanciful storytelling? Let the “logic of interaction and assembly” speak for itself.
Make Like Dynein: More Remote Control
In a recent article at Evolution News, remote control via water “tsunamis” was found in dynein, a molecular machine that walks on microtubules carrying cargo. A team at Rockefeller University found allosteric remote control in a “dynein-like” AAA protein named Mdn1, where AAA is short for “ATPase associated with diverse cellular activities,” and “ATPase” is any molecular machine using ATP for energy. There are about 100 AAA proteins in humans; many AAA proteins have a ring of six identical units at one end (the hexamer) where ATP is spent. In their paper in PNAS2, Mickolajczyk et al.describe Mdn1 as “an essential mechanoenzyme that uses the energy from ATP hydrolysis to physically reshape and remodel, and thus mature, the 60S subunit of the ribosome.” So here is another machine involved with the large (60S) part of the ribosome that has remote control to learn about.
Mdn1 is an unusually large enzyme, weighing in at over 500 kilodaltons, where a dalton is one atomic mass unit. This is a big machine, therefore, on the order of 500,000 hydrogen atoms in mass, with well over 5,000 amino acid residues in humans. A mechanoenzyme converts chemical energy into motion. The L-shaped enzyme looks something like a ring buoy (the AAA hexamer) with a back rest (the linker). Somehow this big device performs the job of removing assembly factor proteins from precursors for the 60S ribosomal subunit (for information on assembly factors, see this paper from the journal RNA). Surprisingly, though, about 1/10th of Mdn1’s amino acid residues form an “intrinsically disordered” domain — i.e., they do not fold into a permanent structure. Sounds interesting.
“This study provides insights into the regulation of Mdn1 function and into the design principles of large, multidomain mechanoenzymes,” the authors begin. They don’t know “why Mdn1 has remained a single polypeptide, and one of the largest enzymes in the genome, throughout eukaryotic evolution,” but spend no more time on that question. What they do look for is evidence of allosteric interactions — remote control — in the enzyme. Figures in the paper show Mdn1’s disordered region looks like a tether. It attaches to the top of the linker at one end and connects to its “MIDAS” domain (“metal ion-dependent adhesion site”) on the other end. The MIDAS domain docks to the ring buoy, then attaches to an assembly factor on the “pre-ribosome” (a large surface) and pulls it off, using the tether. It sounds like a relatively simple operation. Why such a big machine?
The authors do not come to firm conclusions about this essential machine’s mode of action but suggest that the enzyme is sharing information between its parts.
Mdn1 may not follow the canonical AAA mechanism of threading substrates through the central pore of its hexameric AAA ring. Here, we extend existing models to suggest that Mdn1 instead uses its MIDAS domain to (i) simultaneously bind to both an assembly factor and its own AAA ring, (ii) transmit information about substrate binding (mimicked by Rbin-1) to the AAA ring (Figs. 4 and 5), and (iii) transmit force produced in the AAA ring to the assembly factor. This MIDAS-mediated mechanism may be a more general alternative strategy utilized by a subclass of AAA proteins.
It sounds like there is a lot more to learn about Mdn1. Suffice it to say that the machine does more than attach and pull on things; it transmits information and force through remote controls. To see why such a large machine is needed to remove assembly factors for the ribosome, consider this paragraph from that paper in RNA cited earlier3:
Assembly of ribosome, the molecular machine for protein synthesis, is a fundamental and highly complex processthat involves transcription, modification, and processing of ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) and assembly of ribosomal proteins. More than 200 assembly factors (AFs) and many snoRNAs participate in ribosome assembly (Henras et al. 2008; Kressler et al. 2010; Woolford and Baserga 2013). A number of preribosomal particles are formed as the small 40S and large 60S subunit mature in the nucleolus, the nucleoplasm, and the cytoplasm.
All these are necessary for a machine that translates proteins. This sounds like a huge chicken-and-egg problem; the ribosome needs all these assembly factors and subunits, but they need the ribosome to exist.
Allostery in the Nucleosome
Here is one more example of allostery to briefly consider. Before cell division, the genome needs to be compacted into dense supercoils to form the familiar chromosomes. Coiling occurs around nucleosomes, which consist of histone proteins, which act like spools for DNA to wrap around. In another PNAS paper4, Tan and Takada found a “long-distance” allosteric effect between the nucleosome and two transcription factors. They see Boolean logic in allostery:
Upon binding of effectors, allosteric molecules change their structures and responses to the downstream molecules, which can be viewed as the molecular if−then device. Simulating binding of two pioneer transcription factors (TFs), Sox2 and Oct4, to a nucleosome, which is the fundamental unit of genome folding, we found that a nucleosome acts as a new type of allosteric molecule. Free nucleosomes exhibited rotation-coupled sliding of their DNA among metastable positions. The Sox2 binding on them selected a specific rotational phase of its motif, inducing global sliding of nucleosomal DNA. Consequently, the repositioned DNA affected the accessibility of another TF, Oct4, or the second molecule of Sox2 at a distant region within the nucleosome, which thus is a long-distance allosteric effect.
No Hesitation
If anyone found a machine that operated another machine by remote control, they would not hesitate to conclude design. This happens in cells at the molecular scale but is the same principle. Molecular machines are already dazzling examples of intelligent design by reason of their precise functions. To find that many of them also act as remote control devices that transmit information and force over long distances should amplify the design inference beyond reasonable doubt.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-26--Science and Scientism: The Prophetic Vision of C. S. Lewis

Editor ’ s note : Published on August 16 , 1945 , C. S. Lewis ’ s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020 , putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis ’ s non-fiction work , The Abolition of Man .
To mark the former book ’ s three-quarter century anniversary , Evolution News presents a series of essays , reflections , and videos about its themes and legacy .
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland , MI .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Spirituality : The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition .
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis on Science , Scientism , and Society , edited by John G. West .
See also , • “ The Abolition of Man and the Advent of the Posthuman “ • “ Why C. S. Lewis Wrote The Abolition of Man “ Is there a real threat about which we ought to be concerned in light of The Abolition of Man , a text now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen , C. S. Lewis harbored profound reservations about science operating independently of the Tao and driven by philosophies that claimed scientific support .
He believed that human nature itself was at risk , and that the entire subsequent history of the human race could be adversely affected by a small cadre of scientific and bureaucratic planners , his Conditioners .
This essay has argued that Lewis was prophetic as regards the advent of techniques powerful enough to bring about the effects he feared .
I also contend that the scientistic mythologies propelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notions of which Lewis cautions readers in The Abolition of Man — are contributing to conditions that encourage potential misuse of enhancement technologies .
The remaining question , then , is whether such technology will be used to bring about the ends Lewis feared .
Toward the end of The Abolition of Man Lewis argues that modern science requires restraint , and that such restraint is unlikely to come from within science .
While no one can question Western science ’ s great accomplishments , “ its triumphs may have been too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price.
” As a result , Lewis contends that science must be recalled to a position of submission to deeper and older human truths .
In a rebuke that sounds almost naïve in a 21st-century context , Lewis suggests that “ reconsideration , and something like repentance may be required.
” Only “ a regenerate science ” would recognize the wisdom in “ buy [ ing ] knowledge at a lower cost than that of life.
” 1 Lewis considered that the threat of coordinated technology , psychology and ethics to the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ if the scientists themselves can not arrest the process before it reaches the common Reason and kills that too , then someone else must arrest it.
” 2 Will Lewis ’ s prophecy of biotechnology ’ s misuse come to pass ?
It is my view that if the enhancement juggernaut continues to gain speed , financial power and cultural force , as it shows every sign of doing , a clash of two essentially religious worldviews is in the offing : Judeo-Christian theism and Transhumanist techno-futurism .
Religious traditionalists will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at creating new human beings at the expense of human nature , and human enhancement advocates will not yield their vision of a posthuman future to the obscurantist objections of opponents they dismiss as bio-conservatives .
If Lewis is right , this will be a battle for the future of the human race itself .
I am convinced he is right .
Currently , one side in the contest is preparing itself for a long cultural struggle , developing its resources , crafting its arguments , honing its public case .
The other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle is in the offing .
For too long people of faith have adored Lewis without hearing him , pursued adulation without reflection , allowed his brilliant imagination to entertain without allowing his piercing intellect to chasten .
We read Lewis as a friendly uncle ; we need to encounter him as a fiery prophet .
C. S. Lewis provides a model for responding in the public sphere to a mistaken understanding of science itself as a source of moral value , a view that moves both science and society dangerously outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science per se and the scientism that seeks to control nature itself , Lewis criticized scientists who functioned as prophetic visionaries , social programmers , and agents of human transformation .
In The Abolition of Man Lewis reveals the errors in ethical speculation that drove Western science from the is of discovery to the ought of moral prescription .
Technology now advances at a rate more rapid than even the most dedicated observer is capable of tracking .
Our contemporary moral guides offer us the astonishing speed of progress as assurance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change now equals rightness of change .
Lewis concludes The Abolition of Man curiously with a discussion of magic and science in the 16th and 17th centuries .
Referring to the two enterprises as “ twins ” born at the same time and under the same circumstances , he notes that magic eventually died while science grew and flourished .
Both , nevertheless , were seeking the same end , and by similar means .
The following comparison no doubt angered scientists in his day , as Lewis must have known it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men : the solution is a technique ; and both in practice of this technique , are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious — such as digging up and mutilating the dead.
” 3 Today we are on the verge of altering the living by manipulating their genetic structure , an activity that would strike Lewis as similarly magical in impulse and similarly wrong in moral intent .

Editor’s note: Published on August 16, 1945, C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020, putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis’s non-fiction work, The Abolition of Man. To mark the former book’s three-quarter century anniversary, Evolution News presents a series of essays, reflections, and videos about its themes and legacy.
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland, MI. His books include The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition.
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, edited by John G. West. See also,
Is there a real threat about which we ought to be concerned in light of The Abolition of Man, a text now seventy years old? As we have seen, C. S. Lewis harbored profound reservations about science operating independently of the Tao and driven by philosophies that claimed scientific support. He believed that human nature itself was at risk, and that the entire subsequent history of the human race could be adversely affected by a small cadre of scientific and bureaucratic planners, his Conditioners.
This essay has argued that Lewis was prophetic as regards the advent of techniques powerful enough to bring about the effects he feared. I also contend that the scientistic mythologies propelling contemporary calls for unhindered biotechnological research — the notions of which Lewis cautions readers in The Abolition of Man — are contributing to conditions that encourage potential misuse of enhancement technologies. The remaining question, then, is whether such technology will be used to bring about the ends Lewis feared.
Toward the end of The Abolition of Man Lewis argues that modern science requires restraint, and that such restraint is unlikely to come from within science. While no one can question Western science’s great accomplishments, “its triumphs may have been too rapid and purchased at too high a price.” As a result, Lewis contends that science must be recalled to a position of submission to deeper and older human truths. In a rebuke that sounds almost naïve in a 21st-century context, Lewis suggests that “reconsideration, and something like repentance may be required.” Only “a regenerate science” would recognize the wisdom in “buy[ing] knowledge at a lower cost than that of life.”1 Lewis considered that the threat of coordinated technology, psychology and ethics to the future of the human race was real, and “if the scientists themselves cannot arrest the process before it reaches the common Reason and kills that too, then someone else must arrest it.”2
A Battle for the Human Race
Will Lewis’s prophecy of biotechnology’s misuse come to pass? It is my view that if the enhancement juggernaut continues to gain speed, financial power and cultural force, as it shows every sign of doing, a clash of two essentially religious worldviews is in the offing: Judeo-Christian theism and Transhumanist techno-futurism. Religious traditionalists will not readily accept a biotechnological project aimed at creating new human beings at the expense of human nature, and human enhancement advocates will not yield their vision of a posthuman future to the obscurantist objections of opponents they dismiss as bio-conservatives. If Lewis is right, this will be a battle for the future of the human race itself. I am convinced he is right. Currently, one side in the contest is preparing itself for a long cultural struggle, developing its resources, crafting its arguments, honing its public case. The other side has yet to realize that a battle is in the offing. For too long people of faith have adored Lewis without hearing him, pursued adulation without reflection, allowed his brilliant imagination to entertain without allowing his piercing intellect to chasten. We read Lewis as a friendly uncle; we need to encounter him as a fiery prophet.
Science and Scientism
C. S. Lewis provides a model for responding in the public sphere to a mistaken understanding of science itself as a source of moral value, a view that moves both science and society dangerously outside the boundaries of the Tao. Differentiating between science per se and the scientism that seeks to control nature itself, Lewis criticized scientists who functioned as prophetic visionaries, social programmers, and agents of human transformation. In The Abolition of Man Lewis reveals the errors in ethical speculation that drove Western science from the is of discovery to the ought of moral prescription. Technology now advances at a rate more rapid than even the most dedicated observer is capable of tracking. Our contemporary moral guides offer us the astonishing speed of progress as assurance of the unquestionable correctness of progress; rate of change now equals rightness of change.
Lewis concludes The Abolition of Man curiously with a discussion of magic and science in the 16th and 17th centuries. Referring to the two enterprises as “twins” born at the same time and under the same circumstances, he notes that magic eventually died while science grew and flourished. Both, nevertheless, were seeking the same end, and by similar means. The following comparison no doubt angered scientists in his day, as Lewis must have known it would: “For magic and applied science the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both in practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious — such as digging up and mutilating the dead.”3 Today we are on the verge of altering the living by manipulating their genetic structure, an activity that would strike Lewis as similarly magical in impulse and similarly wrong in moral intent.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-25--C. S. Lewis and Critical Reactions to Transhumanism

Editor ’ s note : Published on August 16 , 1945 , C. S. Lewis ’ s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020 , putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis ’ s non-fiction work , The Abolition of Man .
To mark the former book ’ s three-quarter century anniversary , Evolution News presents a series of essays , reflections , and videos about its themes and legacy .
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland , MI .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Spirituality : The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition .
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis on Science , Scientism , and Society , edited by John G. West .
See also , • “ The Abolition of Man and the Advent of the Posthuman ” • “ Why C. S. Lewis Wrote The Abolition of Man “ Not surprisingly , contemporary Transhumanism has attracted a number of informed critics .
I will briefly review two prominent voices in the opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of C. S. Lewis ’ s own case .
Hava Tirosh-Samuelson , a skeptic as regards the Transhumanist vision , echoes one of the central arguments of The Abolition of Man — biotechnology now threatens to exercise control of nature itself : Due to genetic engineering , humans are now able not only to redesign themselves… but also to redesign future generations , thereby affecting the evolutionary process itself .
As a result , a new posthuman phase in the evolution of the human species will emerge , in which humans will live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cognitive abilities , and will be liberated from suffering and pain due to aging and diseases .
In the posthuman age , humans will no longer be controlled by nature ; instead , they will be the controllers of nature.1 The question of altering human nature also remains at the center of the developing case against Transhumanism and related proposals .
Famed historian Francis Fukuyama , for example , has argued that “ contemporary biotechnology ” raises “ the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility poses a real danger to individual rights and threatens the foundation of democratic institutions : Though the deeper dangers of biotechnological alterations of humans have not yet manifested themselves , Fukuyama adds , “ one of the reasons I am not quite so sanguine is that biotechnology , in contrast to many other scientific advances , mixes obvious benefits with subtle harms in one seamless package.
” 3 The essential correctness of Lewis ’ s case is evident in the duration of major components in his rebuttal to Bernal , Stapledon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his own day .
C. S. Lewis exhibited remarkable prescience in The Abolition of Man .
Was there anything that he failed to see ?
Writing in the war years of the early 1940s , Lewis ’ s perspective was understandably shaped by present circumstance and personal experience .
As a result , he did not anticipate certain cultural and historical developments that have become critical to the rise of posthumanity thinking .
As noted , Lewis harbored a deep antipathy for faceless state institutions where atrocities are plotted out according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in dingy meeting rooms .
In such settings was the banality of evil expressed in war-torn Europe .
Lewis does not appear to have anticipated the postwar power of the large corporation , the modern research university , and sophisticated mass media .
Such shapers of 21st-century American culture , not the cumbersome state agencies of mid-century Europe , have taken the lead in developing the biotechnologies , educational techniques and persuasive prowess Lewis cautioned against .
The user-friendly smile of the high-tech firm , not the icy stare of a government department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanity .
Moreover , justifications for enhancement research are not hammered out in centralized planning meetings , but tested on focus groups and winsomely presented in entertaining public lectures .
Financial support for posthumanity comes not come from Big Brother bureaucracies but from Silicon Valley boardrooms .
The scope of research related to human enhancement is incomprehensibly vast and accelerating at an incalculable rate .
Hundreds and perhaps thousands of university and corporate research facilities around the world are involved in developing artificial intelligence , regenerative medicine , life-extension strategies , and pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of media products including movies , video games and novels promote Transhumanist and evolutionist themes .
Each technological breakthrough is promoted as a matter of consumerist necessity despite the fact that personal electronic devices — and the companies marketing them — are increasingly intrusive and corrosive of personal freedoms .
Innovative educational organizations such as Singularity University are forming around the Transhumanist ideal .
Indeed , so immense , diverse and well-funded is the research network developing enhancement technologies that the collective financial and intellectual clout of all related projects is beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enhancement juggernaut is astonishingly large and powerful .
Tomorrow , “ Science and Scientism : The Prophetic Vision of C. S. Lewis.
” • Hava Tirosh-Samuelson , “ Engaging Transhumanism , ” in Transhumanism and Its Critics , ed .
Gregory R. Hansell and William Grassie ( Philadelphia PA : Metanexus Institute , 2011 ) , 19-52 , pp 19-20 .
Other criticisms of human enhancement include Michael Sandel , The Case against Perfection : Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering ( Cambridge MA : Harvard University Press , 2009 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ End : Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement ( Cambridge MA : MIT Press , 2010 ) ; Michael Hauskeller , “ Reinventing Cockaigne : Utopian Themes in Transhumanist Thought , ” The Hastings Center Report 42 , no .
2 ( April 2012 ) : 39-47 .
• Francis Fukuyama , Our Posthuman Future : Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution ( New York : Picador , 2002 ) , 7 .

Image: Screen shot from That Hideous Strength: C.S. Lewis's Prophetic Warning against the Abuse of Science.
Editor’s note: Published on August 16, 1945, C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020, putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis’s non-fiction work, The Abolition of Man. To mark the former book’s three-quarter century anniversary, Evolution News presents a series of essays, reflections, and videos about its themes and legacy.
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland, MI. His books include The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition.
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, edited by John G. West. See also,
Not surprisingly, contemporary Transhumanism has attracted a number of informed critics. I will briefly review two prominent voices in the opposition camp who reflect concerns at the heart of C. S. Lewis’s own case. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, a skeptic as regards the Transhumanist vision, echoes one of the central arguments of The Abolition of Man — biotechnology now threatens to exercise control of nature itself:
Due to genetic engineering, humans are now able not only to redesign themselves… but also to redesign future generations, thereby affecting the evolutionary process itself. As a result, a new posthuman phase in the evolution of the human species will emerge, in which humans will live longer, will possess new physical and cognitive abilities, and will be liberated from suffering and pain due to aging and diseases. In the posthuman age, humans will no longer be controlled by nature; instead, they will be the controllers of nature.1
The question of altering human nature also remains at the center of the developing case against Transhumanism and related proposals. Famed historian Francis Fukuyama, for example, has argued that “contemporary biotechnology” raises “the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a ‘posthuman’ stage of history.” This possibility poses a real danger to individual rights and threatens the foundation of democratic institutions:
This is important… because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species. It is, conjointly with religion, what defines our most basic values. Human nature shapes and constrains the possible kinds of political regimes, so a technology powerful enough to reshape what we are will have possibly malign consequences for liberal democracy and the nature of politics itself.2
Deeper Dangers of Biotechnology
Though the deeper dangers of biotechnological alterations of humans have not yet manifested themselves, Fukuyama adds, “one of the reasons I am not quite so sanguine is that biotechnology, in contrast to many other scientific advances, mixes obvious benefits with subtle harms in one seamless package.”3 The essential correctness of Lewis’s case is evident in the duration of major components in his rebuttal to Bernal, Stapledon, Haldane, Shaw and other enhancement proponents of his own day.
C. S. Lewis exhibited remarkable prescience in The Abolition of Man. Was there anything that he failed to see? Writing in the war years of the early 1940s, Lewis’s perspective was understandably shaped by present circumstance and personal experience. As a result, he did not anticipate certain cultural and historical developments that have become critical to the rise of posthumanity thinking.
As noted, Lewis harbored a deep antipathy for faceless state institutions where atrocities are plotted out according to cost-benefit pragmatism and inhuman schemes are hatched in dingy meeting rooms. In such settings was the banality of evil expressed in war-torn Europe. Lewis does not appear to have anticipated the postwar power of the large corporation, the modern research university, and sophisticated mass media. Such shapers of 21st-century American culture, not the cumbersome state agencies of mid-century Europe, have taken the lead in developing the biotechnologies, educational techniques and persuasive prowess Lewis cautioned against. The user-friendly smile of the high-tech firm, not the icy stare of a government department, is the face of the new humanity. Moreover, justifications for enhancement research are not hammered out in centralized planning meetings, but tested on focus groups and winsomely presented in entertaining public lectures. Financial support for posthumanity comes not come from Big Brother bureaucracies but from Silicon Valley boardrooms.
Vast and Accelerating
The scope of research related to human enhancement is incomprehensibly vast and accelerating at an incalculable rate. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of university and corporate research facilities around the world are involved in developing artificial intelligence, regenerative medicine, life-extension strategies, and pharmaceutical enhancements of cognitive performance. An ever-increasing number of media products including movies, video games and novels promote Transhumanist and evolutionist themes. Each technological breakthrough is promoted as a matter of consumerist necessity despite the fact that personal electronic devices — and the companies marketing them — are increasingly intrusive and corrosive of personal freedoms. Innovative educational organizations such as Singularity University are forming around the Transhumanist ideal. Indeed, so immense, diverse and well-funded is the research network developing enhancement technologies that the collective financial and intellectual clout of all related projects is beyond calculating. Suffice it to say that the enhancement juggernaut is astonishingly large and powerful.
Tomorrow, “Science and Scientism: The Prophetic Vision of C. S. Lewis.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-28--I Beg Your Pardon? More on “Mainstream Science”

Joshua Swamidass asked me to note his responses on his website to Paul Nelson ’ s critique of Dr. Swamidass @ @ @ @ @ Genealogical Adam and Eve .
I ’ m happy to do so .
See here @ @ @ @ @ , “ Adam and Eve and ‘ Mainstream Science.
’ ” I was struck by @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t let go without answering : “ Nelson really sees methodological naturalism as @ @ @ @ @ can not work with mainstream science.
” I beg your pardon ?
Paul thinks “ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream science ” ?
I didn ’ t see that anywhere in Dr. Nelson ’ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not what Paul believes .
His point , as I understood it @ @ @ @ @ folds into the phrase “ mainstream science ” a couple of tenets that needlessly constrain @ @ @ @ @ a historical first couple .
Of course , that ’ s a wholly different idea @

Photo: Paul Nelson, by Nathan Jacobson.
Joshua Swamidass asked me to note his responses on his website to Paul Nelson’s critique of Dr. Swamidass’s book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I’m happy to do so. See here and here. See also, “Adam and Eve and ‘Mainstream Science.’”
I was struck by the statement, which I can’t let go without answering: “Nelson really sees methodological naturalism as the fundamental reason why Christians cannot work with mainstream science.” I beg your pardon? Paul thinks “Christians cannot work with mainstream science”? I didn’t see that anywhere in Dr. Nelson’s article and I know it’s not what Paul believes. His point, as I understood it, was that Professor Swamidass folds into the phrase “mainstream science” a couple of tenets that needlessly constrain the search for truth about a historical first couple. Of course, that’s a wholly different idea.
Update: See also, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: A Rejoinder,” by Professor Swamidass.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-28--Journalist Finds a “Cover-Up” by the Bronx Zoo

Pamela Newkirk is a journalist and historian who has documented the life of Ota Benga , the African teenager displayed at the Bronx Zoo as a lesson in Darwinian evolution .
Thanks to Newkirk ’ s writing and to the documentary Human Zoos , by Discovery Institute political scientist John West , the Bronx Zoo recently apologized for its shameful treatment of a black man more than a century ago .
But as Newkirk writes in a remarkably tough and fitting commentary for the BBC , the apology doesn ’ t go far enough .
It fails , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ cover-up ” and “ stonewalling ” by the Bronx Zoo and , interestingly , by the New York Times .
The zoo has long been in denial of what it did , as Newkirk shows .
This is not reflected in the statement last month by Cristián Samper , who runs the Wildlife Conservation Society : Instead of capitalising on the episode as a teachable moment , the Wildlife Conservation Society engaged in a century-long cover-up during which it actively perpetuated or failed to correct misleading stories about what had actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter in the zoo archives reveals that officials , in the wake of growing criticism , discussed concocting a story that Ota Benga had actually been a zoo employee .
Remarkably , for decades , the ruse worked… .
Then , in 1974 , William Bridges , the zoo ’ s curator emeritus claimed that what actually occurred could not be known .
In his book The Gathering of Animals , he rhetorically asked : “ Was Ota Benga ‘ exhibited ’ — like some strange , rare animal ?
” a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presided over the zoo archives , would know best how to answer .
“ That he was locked behind bars in a bare cage to be stared at during certain hours seems unlikely , ” he continued , patently ignoring mountains of evidence in the zoological society archives that reveal just that .
An article about the exhibition , written by the zoo director , had in fact appeared in the zoological society ’ s own publication .
Nonetheless , Bridges wrote : “ At this distance in time that is about all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except that it was all done with the best of intentions , for Ota Benga was interesting to the New York public.
” He was an “ employee ” !
The Zoo acted from the “ best of intentions ” !
Amazing .
As Newkirk points out , after her book , Spectacle : The Astonishing Life of Ota Benga , came out in 2015 , the zoo refused to come clean about the past .
They similarly stalled when John West ’ s documentary appeared .
“ Zoo officials , ” writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regret or even respond to media inquiries.
” It wasn ’ t until they were forced by events — George Floyd ’ s death and BLM protests — that the Zoo and the Conservation Society admitted this black life mattered .
The apology by Samper understates how long Ota Benga was imprisoned , and it obscures the actions of a revered figure in the Zoo ’ s history : As I have shown , too , the apology leaves out the role of Darwinian theory : As for the New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of denial on the subject : Ota Benga died by his own hand in 1916 , in Virginia , completing a heartbreaking journey from freedom to captivity .
Today , his place of burial is unknown .
Pamela Newkirk advocates naming the Zoo ’ s education center in his memory .
That would be one step in the right direction .
For more information about Ota Benga , about human zoos ( not by any means limited to the Bronx Zoo ) , and about promoting Darwinian theory as the driving motivation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s multiple awards-winning film :

Photo: Pamela Newkirk in a scene from Human Zoos.
Pamela Newkirk is a journalist and historian who has documented the life of Ota Benga, the African teenager displayed at the Bronx Zoo as a lesson in Darwinian evolution. Thanks to Newkirk’s writing and to the documentary Human Zoos, by Discovery Institute political scientist John West, the Bronx Zoo recently apologized for its shameful treatment of a black man more than a century ago. But as Newkirk writes in a remarkably tough and fitting commentary for the BBC, the apology doesn’t go far enough.
An Inadequate Apology
It fails, among other things, to acknowledge the reality of a “cover-up” and “stonewalling” by the Bronx Zoo and, interestingly, by the New York Times. The zoo has long been in denial of what it did, as Newkirk shows. This is not reflected in the statement last month by Cristián Samper, who runs the Wildlife Conservation Society:
Instead of capitalising on the episode as a teachable moment, the Wildlife Conservation Society engaged in a century-long cover-up during which it actively perpetuated or failed to correct misleading stories about what had actually occurred. As early as 1906 a letter in the zoo archives reveals that officials, in the wake of growing criticism, discussed concocting a story that Ota Benga had actually been a zoo employee. Remarkably, for decades, the ruse worked…. Then, in 1974, William Bridges, the zoo’s curator emeritus claimed that what actually occurred could not be known. In his book The Gathering of Animals, he rhetorically asked: “Was Ota Benga ‘exhibited’ — like some strange, rare animal?” a question that he, as the man who presided over the zoo archives, would know best how to answer. “That he was locked behind bars in a bare cage to be stared at during certain hours seems unlikely,” he continued, patently ignoring mountains of evidence in the zoological society archives that reveal just that. An article about the exhibition, written by the zoo director, had in fact appeared in the zoological society’s own publication. Nonetheless, Bridges wrote: “At this distance in time that is about all that can be said for sure, except that it was all done with the best of intentions, for Ota Benga was interesting to the New York public.”
This Black Life Mattered
He was an “employee”! The Zoo acted from the “best of intentions”! Amazing. As Newkirk points out, after her book, Spectacle: The Astonishing Life of Ota Benga, came out in 2015, the zoo refused to come clean about the past. They similarly stalled when John West’s documentary appeared. “Zoo officials,” writes Newkirk, “inexplicably refused to express regret or even respond to media inquiries.” It wasn’t until they were forced by events — George Floyd’s death and BLM protests — that the Zoo and the Conservation Society admitted this black life mattered.
The apology by Samper understates how long Ota Benga was imprisoned, and it obscures the actions of a revered figure in the Zoo’s history:
Curiously, Mr Samper did not mention William Hornaday, the zoo’s founding director who was also the nation’s foremost zoologist and founding director of the National Zoo in Washington, DC. Hornaday had littered the cage housing Ota Benga with bones to suggest cannibalism and had brazenly boasted that Ota Benga had “the best room in the monkey house”.
As I have shown, too, the apology leaves out the role of Darwinian theory:
What’s missing…is any mention of where these evil ideas came from. What was the nature, the content, of the “pseudoscientific racism” that motivated Ota Benga’s treatment? To be accurate, the racism wasn’t “eugenics-based” it was “evolution-based.”
A Record of Denial
As for the New York Times, the newspaper of record likewise has a record of denial on the subject:
In 1916, following Ota Benga’s death, a New York Times article dismissed as urban legend tales of his exhibition. “It was this employment that gave rise to the unfounded report that he was being held in the park as one of the exhibits in the monkey cage,” the article said. The account, of course, contradicted the numerous articles that a decade earlier had appeared in newspapers across the country and in Europe.
Ota Benga died by his own hand in 1916, in Virginia, completing a heartbreaking journey from freedom to captivity. Today, his place of burial is unknown. Pamela Newkirk advocates naming the Zoo’s education center in his memory. That would be one step in the right direction. For more information about Ota Benga, about human zoos (not by any means limited to the Bronx Zoo), and about promoting Darwinian theory as the driving motivation behind the phenomenon, see John West’s multiple awards-winning film:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-28--Plant Galls, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

In The Origin of Species ( 1859 , 201 ) , Charles Darwin suggested the following test , among others , for his theory : Now , there are thousands of different plant galls triggered correspondingly by thousands of different insect ( and other ) species showing , indeed , that “ part of the structure of … one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species.
” Getting to Know Plant Galls But perhaps I should first answer the question : What is a plant gall ?
Joachim Illies , former Director at the Max-Planck-Institute for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor at the Universities of Gießen and Kiel , has commented on this phenomenon : For the plant , the entire effort involved in the gall formation is of no apparent benefit , it is more of a harm because it requires nutrients , reduces the assimilating leaf area and disrupts the normal course of growth , sometimes even the most valuable parts of the plants : buds and seeds .
Consequently , according to Darwin , the plants without galls should have an advantage over those with galls , and so in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the plants should have been chosen very soon and everywhere as the fittest ones… [ which is not the case ] .3 Illies goes on to discuss the attempted solutions given so far by neo-Darwinians known to him , and he proves them wrong .
Additionally , more than a hundred years ago , zoologist Otto Braun and philosopher Erich Becher formulated the basic question for all selection theories .
Despite the many discoveries made in the interim , their formulation remains up-to-date for any discussion on the origin of species by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But how are we to understand the appearance of entirely new formations that are completely absent from normal host plants ?
How did the plants achieve potentials for totally new structures [ exclusively ] serving other beings ?
Can the principle of selection help us ?
No , it fails completely — for how can a selection for altruistic potentials arise ?
In two articles I have focused on the attempts of Darwinists up to now to explain the gall phenomenon by natural selection .
They all fail miserably .
The interested reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new article : Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig ( 2020 ) , “ Plant Galls and Evolution ( II ) : Natural Selection , DNA , and Intelligent Design.
” As indicated there , I offer proof that the complex structures of thousands of species have been formed for the exclusive good of other species , thus annihilating Darwin ’ s theory .
In addition , the reader may see an earlier article , from 2017 : “ Plant Galls and Evolution ( I ) .
” There , again as indicated in the article ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 12,000 ugly facts are slaying Darwin ’ s beautiful hypothesis .
Also of interest is a post at Evolution News , by Granville Sewell , “ With Plant Galls , Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Falsifies Darwinism .
”

Agamous generation of red-pea gall of gall wasp Cynips divisa on oak leaf. Photograph by W-E L (14 June 2020 in Cologne).
In The Origin of Species (1859, 201), Charles Darwin suggested the following test, among others, for his theory:
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
Now, there are thousands of different plant galls triggered correspondingly by thousands of different insect (and other) species showing, indeed, that “part of the structure of … one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species.”
Getting to Know Plant Galls
But perhaps I should first answer the question: What is a plant gall?
A gall is a manifestation of the reprogramming of plant cellular growth and/or development … that begins at the colonization site of a specific foreign organism, which receives specialized services from the plant and continues to interact with the de novo plant tissue or organ as it develops and matures. Harris and Pitzschke 20201
Or again:
Plant galls represent a unique and complex inter-specific [as well as inter-kingdom] interaction between the inducer organism and the host plant. Insect galls are one such curious wonders of nature that attracts the attention of many naturalists. Galls are … developed cells that have proliferated in a region of the plant, causing an external swelling or modification of the plant as a result of a parasitic organism. Sahu et al. 20202
Joachim Illies, former Director at the Max-Planck-Institute for Limnology, Plön, Außenstelle Schlitz, Professor at the Universities of Gießen and Kiel, has commented on this phenomenon:
For the plant, the entire effort involved in the gall formation is of no apparent benefit, it is more of a harm because it requires nutrients, reduces the assimilating leaf area and disrupts the normal course of growth, sometimes even the most valuable parts of the plants: buds and seeds. Consequently, according to Darwin, the plants without galls should have an advantage over those with galls, and so in the course of evolution the gall-free variants among the plants should have been chosen very soon and everywhere as the fittest ones… [which is not the case].3
Illies goes on to discuss the attempted solutions given so far by neo-Darwinians known to him, and he proves them wrong.
A Basic Question for Evolutionary Theory
Additionally, more than a hundred years ago, zoologist Otto Braun and philosopher Erich Becher formulated the basic question for all selection theories. Because of the many discoveries made in the interim, their formulation remains up-to-date for any discussion on the origin of species by natural selection today. They asked:
But how are we to understand the appearance of entirely new formations that are completely absent from normal host plants? How did the plants achieve potentials for totally new structures [exclusively] serving other beings? Can the principle of selection help us? No, it fails completely — for how can a selection for altruistic potentials arise?
In two articles I have focused on the attempts of Darwinists up to now to explain the gall phenomenon by natural selection. They all fail miserably.
The interested reader is invited to see first the following new article: Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (2020), “Plant Galls and Evolution (II): Natural Selection, DNA, and Intelligent Design.” As indicated there, I offer proof that the complex structures of thousands of species have been formed for the exclusive good of other species, thus annihilating Darwin’s theory.
In addition, the reader may see an earlier article, from 2017: “Plant Galls and Evolution (I).” There, again as indicated in the article’s subtitle, I show how more than 12,000 ugly facts are slaying Darwin’s beautiful hypothesis. Also of interest is a post at Evolution News, by Granville Sewell, “With Plant Galls, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Falsifies Darwinism.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-28--Cells Reach Out and Touch, Providing Evidence of Foresight and Design

An article yesterday for Evolution News about allostery showed how an individual protein or RNA can send information to its distant domains .
Information sharing can also occur between chains of molecules arranged in a signaling cascade , where each one triggers action in the next .
This is a bit more like the Rube Goldberg technique , except that in cells , it is much more logical and reliable .
Here are new examples of mechanosensing ( the ability to sense a touch ) and mechanotransduction ( the ability to pass on touch information ) .
A paper on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical properties of their environment , translate them into biochemical signals and adapt their behaviour accordingly.
” One such system is the MAPK/ERK pathway that all eukaryotic cells use to get information from the cell surface into the nucleus .
A diagram on Wikipedia ’ s page makes it clear that many individual factors take part .
Once the EGFR receptor triggers ERK on the cell ’ s exterior membrane , a signaling cascade begins with at least 16 cofactors and proteins transporting the information to the cell nucleus , which responds by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signals can also spread throughout the cytoplasm , leading to a variety of responses depending on the nature of the triggering molecule .
Now , Japanese scientists have noticed a further response in neighboring cells .
When one cell ’ s ERK pathway is triggered , that cell shrinks .
Neighboring cells sense the change and respond by shrinking themselves , causing a chain reaction .
Researchers at Kyoto University likened this to how crowds do “ The Wave ” at sporting arenas , passing collective motion throughout the stadium .
The response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our work clearly shows that the ERK-mediated mechano-chemical feedback system generates complicated multicellular patterns , ” the lead author comments .
Another touch-sensitive mechanism is the so-called Hedgehog ( Hh ) pathway , so named because defects in its function cause fruit fly embryos to look like the spiny animals .
Hedgehog pathways are often associated with the primary cilium , an organelle that sticks out like an antenna from the cell membrane and senses its environment .
When triggered , it also causes a cascade of reactions inside the cell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Massachusetts , Amherst was curious why cichlid fish can “ evolve ” so quickly to environmental changes , including changing the shapes and densities of bone in their jaws .
This capacity for “ phenotypic plasticity ” is not evolution of a Darwinian kind , but rather a programmed response to environmental cues .
Albertson speculated that this capacity for rapid response to environmental cues might be associated with the Hedgehog signaling pathway .
By tuning the amount of Hh signal , his research team discovered that more bone was deposited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Hedgehog signaling pathway involves numerous factors that interact in chain reactions .
And it is triggered by a “ mechano-sensor ” on the cell , the primary cilium .
The team believes this kind of response to environmental cues could be responsible for other kinds of rapid “ evolution ” in other animals .
“ The Hh signal has also been shown to regulate plasticity in beetle horns , so there may be something special that positions it to be an environmental sensor across tissues and animals , ” Albertson says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pre-programmed response using molecular machines capable of sensing touch .
How does skin stretch when a body grows ?
The answers may rely on mechanosensitive factors .
Nature News and Views said recently , “ Stretching the skin of mice reveals that mechanical strain is communicated by a subpopulation of stem cells that proliferate and promote mechanical resistance , and so generate extra skin.
” One of the most remarkable examples of touch communication was announced this month in Nature .
Researchers at the University of Montreal confirmed the existence of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membranes and reach across comparatively large distances to touch other cells , affect their behaviors , and even share organelles with them .
They found these nanotubes in the retinas of mice , and believe they are responsible for controlling blood flow in the capillaries .
These nanotubes tunnel through the mass of retinal cells to distant capillaries , where they contact pericytes , “ cells that have the ability to control the amount of blood passing through a single capillary simply by squeezing and releasing it.
” This touch communication allows a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs more blood or less blood .
Video micrographs show that even mitochondria can be passed down these nanotubes .
The paper in Nature says : The cells literally “ reach out and touch ” other pericytes bound to other capillaries , and hand off signals and organelles .
This gives the retinal cells , dependent on a steady supply of oxygen and nutrients , a way to fine-tune their own blood supply .
The gap junctions act like filters : “ Small particles , such as ions , can pass through this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as organelles , can not .
” Tunneling nanotubes had been noted between cells in a petri dish before , but a companion article on Nature News and Views calls this “ the first in vivo evidence for the existence of a type of TNT-like protrusion.
” Maybe it won ’ t be the first for long .
The research team ’ s headline calls them , “ Nanotubes in the eye that help us see.
” These are just some of the ways that cells respond to mechanical forces .
The chains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreducibly complex .
But first , they have to be triggered by well-designed mechanosensors that can “ feel ” a factor in the environment and then pass along that information to downstream processes that can do something about it .
Undoubtedly many more examples of mechanosensing and mechanotransduction remain to be discovered .
It ’ s hard to conceive of any of these systems arising piecemeal by accumulated mistakes ( mutations ) .
Instead , they appear as systems of coordinated parts that were planned to adapt to changes , providing robustness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-programmed responses to environmental cues could trigger rapid adaptations , giving rise to some of the spectacular variations seen in birds , beetles , fish , and other organisms .
Prematurely attributed to Darwinian processes , these examples of phenotypic plasticity actually show foresight and design .

Photo: Cichlid fish, by Russell D. Fernald and Sabrina S. Burmeister / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5).
An article yesterday for Evolution News about allostery showed how an individual protein or RNA can send information to its distant domains. Information sharing can also occur between chains of molecules arranged in a signaling cascade, where each one triggers action in the next. This is a bit more like the Rube Goldberg technique, except that in cells, it is much more logical and reliable. Here are new examples of mechanosensing (the ability to sense a touch) and mechanotransduction (the ability to pass on touch information). A paper on bioRxiv explains, “Cells sense the physical properties of their environment, translate them into biochemical signals and adapt their behaviour accordingly.”
One such system is the MAPK/ERK pathway that all eukaryotic cells use to get information from the cell surface into the nucleus. A diagram on Wikipedia’s page makes it clear that many individual factors take part. Once the EGFR receptor triggers ERK on the cell’s exterior membrane, a signaling cascade begins with at least 16 cofactors and proteins transporting the information to the cell nucleus, which responds by transcribing code proteins or enzymes. ERK signals can also spread throughout the cytoplasm, leading to a variety of responses depending on the nature of the triggering molecule.
Doing the Wave
Now, Japanese scientists have noticed a further response in neighboring cells. When one cell’s ERK pathway is triggered, that cell shrinks. Neighboring cells sense the change and respond by shrinking themselves, causing a chain reaction. Researchers at Kyoto University likened this to how crowds do “The Wave” at sporting arenas, passing collective motion throughout the stadium.
“Cells are tightly connected and packed together, so when one starts contracting from ERK activation, it pulls in its neighbors,” elaborates [Tsuyoshi] Hirashima. This then caused surrounding cells to extend, activating their ERK, resulting in contractions that lead to a kind of tug-of-war propagating into colony movement. [Emphasis added.]
The response involves both chemical and mechanical factors. “Our work clearly shows that the ERK-mediated mechano-chemical feedback system generates complicated multicellular patterns,” the lead author comments.
Prickly Antennas
Another touch-sensitive mechanism is the so-called Hedgehog (Hh) pathway, so named because defects in its function cause fruit fly embryos to look like the spiny animals. Hedgehog pathways are often associated with the primary cilium, an organelle that sticks out like an antenna from the cell membrane and senses its environment. When triggered, it also causes a cascade of reactions inside the cell.
Craig Albertson, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst was curious why cichlid fish can “evolve” so quickly to environmental changes, including changing the shapes and densities of bone in their jaws. This capacity for “phenotypic plasticity” is not evolution of a Darwinian kind, but rather a programmed response to environmental cues.
Albertson works with a system — cichlid fishes — known throughout the scientific world as champions of phenotypic plasticity that can alter, in a single season, jawbone hardness or shape to match feeding conditions.They are also well known for their rapid evolution and diversity in jaw shapes, which has enabled cichlids to adapt to many different food sources, including algae, plankton, fish, snails and even the scales of other fishes.
Albertson speculated that this capacity for rapid response to environmental cues might be associated with the Hedgehog signaling pathway. By tuning the amount of Hh signal, his research team discovered that more bone was deposited, or vice versa.
Albertson, explains, “Bone cells in these fish are innately sensitive to different mechanical environments. But we were able to play with this system using a single molecular switch — you turn up the Hh signal and the cells become more sensitive to the environment, or you turn the molecular sensor down and the cells become almost deaf to the environment.”
Like ERK, the Hedgehog signaling pathway involves numerous factors that interact in chain reactions. And it is triggered by a “mechano-sensor” on the cell, the primary cilium.
An important clue came as Albertson learned more about how this molecular pathway works. He explains, “There is a well-known mechano-sensor on most cells, including those that make the skeleton, called the primary cilium. Cells that lack this organelle are unable to sense or respond to environmental input, including mechanical load. It turns out that several key protein components of the Hedgehog pathway are physically associated with this structure, making it an obvious candidate for an environmentally sensitive signal.”
The team believes this kind of response to environmental cues could be responsible for other kinds of rapid “evolution” in other animals. “The Hh signal has also been shown to regulate plasticity in beetle horns, so there may be something special that positions it to be an environmental sensor across tissues and animals,” Albertson says. This is not Darwinism; it is pre-programmed response using molecular machines capable of sensing touch.
Stretching Exercises
How does skin stretch when a body grows? The answers may rely on mechanosensitive factors. Nature News and Views said recently, “Stretching the skin of mice reveals that mechanical strain is communicated by a subpopulation of stem cells that proliferate and promote mechanical resistance, and so generate extra skin.”
Reach Out and Touch
One of the most remarkable examples of touch communication was announced this month in Nature. Researchers at the University of Montreal confirmed the existence of “nanotubes” that grow out of cell membranes and reach across comparatively large distances to touch other cells, affect their behaviors, and even share organelles with them. They found these nanotubes in the retinas of mice, and believe they are responsible for controlling blood flow in the capillaries.
“For the first time, we have identified a communication structure between cells that is required to coordinate blood supply in the living retina,” said Dr. Adriana Di Polo, a neuroscience professor at Université de Montréal and holder of a Canada Research Chair in glaucoma and age-related neurodegeneration, who supervised the study. “We already knew that activated retinal areas receive more blood than non-activated ones,” she said, “but until now no one understood how this essential blood delivery was finely regulated.“
These nanotubes tunnel through the mass of retinal cells to distant capillaries, where they contact pericytes, “cells that have the ability to control the amount of blood passing through a single capillary simply by squeezing and releasing it.” This touch communication allows a retinal cell to tell the capillary it needs more blood or less blood.
“Using a microscopy technique to visualize vascular changes in living mice, we showed that pericytes project very thin tubes, called inter-pericyte tunnelling nanotubes, to communicate with other pericytes located in distant capillaries,” said Alarcon-Martinez. “Through these nanotubes, the pericytes can talk to each other to deliver blood where it is most needed.“
Video micrographs show that even mitochondria can be passed down these nanotubes. The paper in Nature says:
Here we identify nanotube-like processes that connect two bona fide pericytes on separate capillary systems, forming a functional network in the mouse retina, which we named interpericyte tunnelling nanotubes (IP-TNTs). We provide evidence that these (i) have an open-ended proximal side and a closed-ended terminal (end-foot) that connects with distal pericyte processes via gap junctions, (ii) carry organelles including mitochondria, which can travel along these processes, and (iii) serve as a conduit for intercellular Ca2+ waves, thus mediating communication between pericytes.
The cells literally “reach out and touch” other pericytes bound to other capillaries, and hand off signals and organelles. This gives the retinal cells, dependent on a steady supply of oxygen and nutrients, a way to fine-tune their own blood supply. The gap junctions act like filters: “Small particles, such as ions, can pass through this junction, but larger objects, such as organelles, cannot.” Tunneling nanotubes had been noted between cells in a petri dish before, but a companion article on Nature News and Views calls this “the first in vivo evidence for the existence of a type of TNT-like protrusion.” Maybe it won’t be the first for long. The research team’s headline calls them, “Nanotubes in the eye that help us see.”
Foresight and Design
These are just some of the ways that cells respond to mechanical forces. The chains of reactions can be very elaborate and irreducibly complex. But first, they have to be triggered by well-designed mechanosensors that can “feel” a factor in the environment and then pass along that information to downstream processes that can do something about it. Undoubtedly many more examples of mechanosensing and mechanotransduction remain to be discovered. It’s hard to conceive of any of these systems arising piecemeal by accumulated mistakes (mutations).
Instead, they appear as systems of coordinated parts that were planned to adapt to changes, providing robustness. It is exciting to ponder how such pre-programmed responses to environmental cues could trigger rapid adaptations, giving rise to some of the spectacular variations seen in birds, beetles, fish, and other organisms. Prematurely attributed to Darwinian processes, these examples of phenotypic plasticity actually show foresight and design.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-29--C. S. Lewis Criticized Scientism, Not Science

On a new episode of ID the Future , we recognize the 75th anniversary this month of the publication of @ @ @ @ @ prophetic science fiction novel That Hideous Strength , with the first slightly abridged part of @ @ @ @ @ The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Several scholars were interviewed for the film , including Jay Richards @ @ @ @ @ Reppert , John West , and Michael Aeschliman .
Scientism is the idea that science @ @ @ @ @ knowledge and wisdom — the only sure path — and that the spiritual realm is @ @ @ @ @ criticized science , only scientism , the abuse of science that bears an unexpected twinship @ @ @

Image: C. S. Lewis, by Anca Budisan.
On a new episode of ID the Future, we recognize the 75th anniversary this month of the publication of C. S. Lewis’s prophetic science fiction novel That Hideous Strength, with the first slightly abridged part of John West’s documentary The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Several scholars were interviewed for the film, including Jay Richards, Angus Menuge, Victor Reppert, John West, and Michael Aeschliman. Scientism is the idea that science is the ultimate path to knowledge and wisdom — the only sure path — and that the spiritual realm is a mirage. Lewis never criticized science, only scientism, the abuse of science that bears an unexpected twinship with magic.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-30--C. S. Lewis Foresaw Scientism’s Totalitarian Potential

On a new episode of ID the Future , we bring you the second half of John West ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Twin : C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism .
Download the podcast or @ @ @ @ @ Lewis wrote with great concern about scientism ’ s totalitarian potential , but never more @ @ @ @ @ Strength , published 75 years ago this month , in which scientists forget the limits @ @ @ @ @ off ethical restraints , and assume control of public policy .
According to Lewis , @ @ @ @ @ bounds when it assumes it has all knowledge , especially moral knowledge .

Image: C. S. Lewis, by Anca Budisan.
On a new episode of ID the Future, we bring you the second half of John West’s documentary The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Lewis wrote with great concern about scientism’s totalitarian potential, but never more prophetically than in That Hideous Strength, published 75 years ago this month, in which scientists forget the limits of their discipline, cast off ethical restraints, and assume control of public policy. According to Lewis, science steps dangerously outside its bounds when it assumes it has all knowledge, especially moral knowledge.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-31--Answering Critiques of Specification in William Dembski’s Design Filter

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Robert Crowther interviews Eric Holloway , Associate Fellow at the @ @ @ @ @ and Artificial Intelligence , about Holloway ’ s recent article answering a common criticism of @ @ @ @ @ the podcast or listen to it here .
The criticism centers on William Dembski ’ @ @ @ @ @ design , especially Dembski ’ s crucial innovation , which was to include specification as @ @ @ @ @ step .
Critics say specification is an ad hoc addition , conjured up by ID @ @ @ @ @ except to prop up ID theory .
No one else uses it , they say @ @ @ @ @ , says Holloway .
Dembski accurately formalized a filter we use so often that we @ @ @ @ @ the sea .
We are unaware of it because it ’ s ubiquitous .
To @ @ @ @ @ comes armed with powerful examples from information theory , communication theory , and cryptography .

Photo credit: Jakob Owens via Unsplash
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Robert Crowther interviews Eric Holloway, Associate Fellow at the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, about Holloway’s recent article answering a common criticism of intelligent design theory. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The criticism centers on William Dembski’s explanatory filter for detecting design, especially Dembski’s crucial innovation, which was to include specification as the filter’s final step. Critics say specification is an ad hoc addition, conjured up by ID theorists for no good reason except to prop up ID theory. No one else uses it, they say. They’re wrong, says Holloway. Dembski accurately formalized a filter we use so often that we’re like fish in the sea. We are unaware of it because it’s ubiquitous. To prove his point, Holloway comes armed with powerful examples from information theory, communication theory, and cryptography.