evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-13--Guillermo Gonzalez Extends “Privileged Planet” Arguments to Space Travel

As outlined in the book The Privileged Planet , by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards , the Earth is not only fine-tuned for life , but is also well-designed to allow us to make scientific discoveries .
A new BIO-Complexity paper by Guillermo Gonzalez , “ The Solar System : Favored for Space Travel , ” extends privileged planet arguments to our ability to travel in space .
Gonzalez previously summarized some of his arguments here , but it ’ s worth outlining some of his arguments .
Many of the exoplanets that are being discovered are giant “ super-earths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 10X Earth ’ s mass .
These planets pose a problem for space travel .
As the gravity of a planet increases , so does the amount of fuel that is needed for a rocket to escape the gravity of the planet and reach space .
As Gonzalez puts it , “ mass fraction [ of fuel in a rocket ] is an exponentially increasing function of delta-V relative to the exhaust velocity.
” Thus , as the surface gravity of a planet increases , the amount of fuel needed for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an exponential rate until so much fuel would be needed that it would be impossible for the rocket to escape a planet ’ s gravity .
He finds “ that the maximum payload mass is reduced by about 40 % for a super-earth only about 20 % more massive than Earth .
Beyond 1.65 Earth masses the Saturn V could not launch anything beyond the planet ’ s atmosphere.
” In other words , a civilization on a planet larger than about 1.65 Earth masses would find it very difficult to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to the moon .
A skeptic might ask , “ Couldn ’ t a more technologically advanced civilization develop new sources of fuel that require less mass ?
” Perhaps — one can always appeal to hypothetical or unknown scientific discoveries to explain away just about any problem .
However , privileged planet arguments look at what we know , not what we don ’ t know .
Based upon what we know , the technological evolution of any civilization must presumably pass through “ lower tech ” phases like we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ higher tech ” phases .
It seems like we ’ re pretty “ lucky ” that less than 200 years from the start of the Industrial Revolution , we were able to explore space and land on the moon .
Gonzalez also asks how difficult it would be for a rocket to escape a solar system .
He finds that “ it is more difficult to launch interstellar missions from the circumstellar habitable zone of a low mass star.
” But our sun ’ s size makes the production of such rockets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ways of applying privileged planet arguments to find properties of earth that are “ fine-tuned , ” the sky is literally the limit .

Photo: Astronaut Peggy Whitson on a spacewalk, March 2017, by NASA.
As outlined in the book The Privileged Planet, by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, the Earth is not only fine-tuned for life, but is also well-designed to allow us to make scientific discoveries. A new BIO-Complexity paper by Guillermo Gonzalez, “The Solar System: Favored for Space Travel,” extends privileged planet arguments to our ability to travel in space. Gonzalez previously summarized some of his arguments here, but it’s worth outlining some of his arguments.
Many of the exoplanets that are being discovered are giant “super-earths,” planets with a mass up to 10X Earth’s mass. These planets pose a problem for space travel. As the gravity of a planet increases, so does the amount of fuel that is needed for a rocket to escape the gravity of the planet and reach space. As Gonzalez puts it, “mass fraction [of fuel in a rocket] is an exponentially increasing function of delta-V relative to the exhaust velocity.” Thus, as the surface gravity of a planet increases, the amount of fuel needed for a rocket to be blasted into space increases at an exponential rate until so much fuel would be needed that it would be impossible for the rocket to escape a planet’s gravity.
He finds “that the maximum payload mass is reduced by about 40% for a super-earth only about 20% more massive than Earth. Beyond 1.65 Earth masses the Saturn V could not launch anything beyond the planet’s atmosphere.” In other words, a civilization on a planet larger than about 1.65 Earth masses would find it very difficult to engage in planetary exploration as we have done going to the moon.
A Skeptic’s Question
A skeptic might ask, “Couldn’t a more technologically advanced civilization develop new sources of fuel that require less mass?” Perhaps — one can always appeal to hypothetical or unknown scientific discoveries to explain away just about any problem. However, privileged planet arguments look at what we know, not what we don’t know. Based upon what we know, the technological evolution of any civilization must presumably pass through “lower tech” phases like we’re in right now before they reach “higher tech” phases. It seems like we’re pretty “lucky” that less than 200 years from the start of the Industrial Revolution, we were able to explore space and land on the moon.
Gonzalez also asks how difficult it would be for a rocket to escape a solar system. He finds that “it is more difficult to launch interstellar missions from the circumstellar habitable zone of a low mass star.” But our sun’s size makes the production of such rockets feasible.
When it comes to finding new ways of applying privileged planet arguments to find properties of earth that are “fine-tuned,” the sky is literally the limit.
Photo: Astronaut Peggy Whitson on a spacewalk, March 2017, by NASA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-13--Louis Agassiz and the National Academy’s Secret

So entrenched is the Darwinian notion of organismal change over time that anyone questioning it will be quickly marginalized and condemned to a life outside the hallowed halls of true science .
But the scientific establishment has a dirty little secret they desperately want to keep quiet .
Back in March , when the people of my college community were scattering to their homes in the face of the coronavirus pandemic , I headed to my college library to stock up on some reading material for the long weeks ahead .
One of the books I checked out was Edward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agassiz , Louis Agassiz : A Life in Science .
I had just a passing familiarity with Agassiz and knew him only as one of Darwin ’ s chief critics , so I thought it would be interesting to learn more about this thorn in the side of the Darwinian revolution .
I learned far more than I expected .
Following a childhood spent in the Neuchatel region of Switzerland where he immersed himself in nature , Agassiz was educated in Germany and then found himself in Paris in the company of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , held a typological understanding of species that did not allow for organisms to change beyond the bounds of their ideal types .
Agassiz , who had been working on the taxonomy of both living and fossil fishes , adopted Cuvier ’ s typological thinking and made it his own .
He was impressed by the gaps between taxonomic groups as well as the gaps between fossil fishes and living forms .
Agassiz became convinced that species had been specially created in a series of events that followed catastrophic extinctions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Doubt , Agassiz , like Richard Owen , “ thought homologies reflected the common design plan of a creative intelligence.
” Through his work , Agassiz came to be viewed as the world ’ s expert on fossil fishes .
In addition to his research on fishes , Agassiz turned his attention to geology , especially the process of glaciation .
Based on the evidence of glaciation he observed in his native Swiss Alps , Agassiz began to see similar evidence in many other places around the world .
He would eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide glaciation events that wiped out life , each glaciation event being followed by a new period of creation .
This explained for Agassiz the gaps between fossil species and living forms .
There was no universal common descent .
While few today would adhere to Agassiz ’ s extreme catastrophist views , one thing is certain .
His contemporaries viewed him as fully a part of the scientific community of his day .
Some of his ideas may have seemed unorthodox , but they were not treated as being outside the bounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing , Agassiz was invited to Boston to give a series of lectures .
He endeared himself to many prominent American scientists , so much so that an offer to join the faculty at Harvard soon followed .
Agassiz would spend the remainder of his life based in Cambridge , working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe .
Agassiz quickly recognized the absence of a good natural history museum in America , and set about developing the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard .
Through the force of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all over the world and dedicated his life to making the museum one that could rival the great museums of Europe .
But Agassiz wasn ’ t done .
America had no national scientific society to rival the Royal Society of London or the French Academy of Sciences .
So with the help of several colleagues , he lobbied Congress to establish the National Academy of Sciences , a feat accomplished on March 3 , 1863 when Abraham Lincoln signed the Academy into law with Agassiz by his side ( Lurie includes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also invited to give an address at the October 1868 opening of Cornell University , and two of his best students were appointed the first teachers of natural history there .
Few people did more to advance the cause of science in 19th-century America than Agassiz .
He was a singular force in the world of natural history .
This does not mean that Agassiz was without flaws .
As Michael Flannery has pointed out,1 Agassiz ’ s typological thinking led him to support polygenist understandings of human creation , putting him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Josiah Nott , who used polygenism in support of racism .
But despite significant flaws , in 19th-century America , an aggressive critic of Darwinism could still stand at the very center of the American scientific establishment in a way that would be unthinkable today .
How do modern scientists square this circle ?
Here ’ s How They Do If you go to the website of the National Academy of Sciences and click on history , you will be told that the NAS was founded on March 3 , 1863 , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Massachusetts .
No names are given .
If you click on a link to see a list of charter members , Agassiz shows up .
Clicking further on a link to a brief biographical outline , you learn of Agassiz ’ s contributions to fossil fishes , but nothing about his views that today would be dismissed with the accusatory word “ creationist , ” even though the latter were in part based on the former .
It is only if you click on a link to a thirty-plus-page memoir of Agassiz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arnold Guyot that you find any reference to his design views ( and how many will mine that deeply into a website ! )
.
Then , Guyot makes clear that his estimation of Agassiz is not based on a denial of his thoughts on common design : No one holding views like Agassiz ’ s would be so eulogized in the hallowed halls of establishment science today .
But the irony is more apparent than ever .
One of the most important scientific organizations in the world was in part founded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the denial of scientific status to Darwin skeptics today , when they base their views on scientific grounds ?
The vaunted National Academy of Sciences was founded by a Darwin critic and a design proponent .
You can ’ t make this stuff up !
• Michael A. Flannery , “ Plato Meets Polygeny : Louis Agassiz ’ s Defense of Southern Medicine and the Anglo-American Race Debate , ” Journal for the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science 2 ( 2020 ) : 1-18 .

Editor’s note: Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms.
So entrenched is the Darwinian notion of organismal change over time that anyone questioning it will be quickly marginalized and condemned to a life outside the hallowed halls of true science. But the scientific establishment has a dirty little secret they desperately want to keep quiet.
Back in March, when the people of my college community were scattering to their homes in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, I headed to my college library to stock up on some reading material for the long weeks ahead. One of the books I checked out was Edward Lurie’s 1960 biography of Louis Agassiz, Louis Agassiz: A Life in Science. I had just a passing familiarity with Agassiz and knew him only as one of Darwin’s chief critics, so I thought it would be interesting to learn more about this thorn in the side of the Darwinian revolution. I learned far more than I expected.
Common Design by a Creative Intelligence
Following a childhood spent in the Neuchatel region of Switzerland where he immersed himself in nature, Agassiz was educated in Germany and then found himself in Paris in the company of the great taxonomist Georges Cuvier. Cuvier, of course, held a typological understanding of species that did not allow for organisms to change beyond the bounds of their ideal types. Agassiz, who had been working on the taxonomy of both living and fossil fishes, adopted Cuvier’s typological thinking and made it his own. He was impressed by the gaps between taxonomic groups as well as the gaps between fossil fishes and living forms. Agassiz became convinced that species had been specially created in a series of events that followed catastrophic extinctions. As Stephen Meyer summarizes in Darwin’s Doubt, Agassiz, like Richard Owen, “thought homologies reflected the common design plan of a creative intelligence.” Through his work, Agassiz came to be viewed as the world’s expert on fossil fishes.
In addition to his research on fishes, Agassiz turned his attention to geology, especially the process of glaciation. Based on the evidence of glaciation he observed in his native Swiss Alps, Agassiz began to see similar evidence in many other places around the world. He would eventually come to argue for a series of worldwide glaciation events that wiped out life, each glaciation event being followed by a new period of creation. This explained for Agassiz the gaps between fossil species and living forms. There was no universal common descent. While few today would adhere to Agassiz’s extreme catastrophist views, one thing is certain. His contemporaries viewed him as fully a part of the scientific community of his day. Some of his ideas may have seemed unorthodox, but they were not treated as being outside the bounds of science.
With his international reputation growing, Agassiz was invited to Boston to give a series of lectures. He endeared himself to many prominent American scientists, so much so that an offer to join the faculty at Harvard soon followed. Agassiz would spend the remainder of his life based in Cambridge, working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe. Agassiz quickly recognized the absence of a good natural history museum in America, and set about developing the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. Through the force of his considerable personality, Agassiz acquired specimens from all over the world and dedicated his life to making the museum one that could rival the great museums of Europe.
A Singular Force
But Agassiz wasn’t done. America had no national scientific society to rival the Royal Society of London or the French Academy of Sciences. So with the help of several colleagues, he lobbied Congress to establish the National Academy of Sciences, a feat accomplished on March 3, 1863 when Abraham Lincoln signed the Academy into law with Agassiz by his side (Lurie includes a painting depicting this event). Agassiz was also invited to give an address at the October 1868 opening of Cornell University, and two of his best students were appointed the first teachers of natural history there. Few people did more to advance the cause of science in 19th-century America than Agassiz. He was a singular force in the world of natural history.
This does not mean that Agassiz was without flaws. As Michael Flannery has pointed out,1 Agassiz’s typological thinking led him to support polygenist understandings of human creation, putting him in company with Southern scientists such as Josiah Nott, who used polygenism in support of racism. But despite significant flaws, in 19th-century America, an aggressive critic of Darwinism could still stand at the very center of the American scientific establishment in a way that would be unthinkable today. How do modern scientists square this circle?
Here’s How They Do
If you go to the website of the National Academy of Sciences and click on history, you will be told that the NAS was founded on March 3, 1863, by a group of scientists based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. No names are given. If you click on a link to see a list of charter members, Agassiz shows up. Clicking further on a link to a brief biographical outline, you learn of Agassiz’s contributions to fossil fishes, but nothing about his views that today would be dismissed with the accusatory word “creationist,” even though the latter were in part based on the former. It is only if you click on a link to a thirty-plus-page memoir of Agassiz read before the NAS in 1878 by Arnold Guyot that you find any reference to his design views (and how many will mine that deeply into a website!).
First, Guyot makes clear Agassiz’s standing by writing:
I am sure it is not in this Academy that we shall hear a dissenting voice as to the immense power he has exerted in this country in spreading the taste for natural science and elevating its standard.
Then, Guyot makes clear that his estimation of Agassiz is not based on a denial of his thoughts on common design:
Nature was his main teacher. From her he knew God as a personal mind; all wise, all powerful. Each specific form or plant or animal was to him a thought of God. The life system was God’s connected system of thought, realized by His power in time and space. These forms were not the result of blind physical forces.
No one holding views like Agassiz’s would be so eulogized in the hallowed halls of establishment science today. But the irony is more apparent than ever. One of the most important scientific organizations in the world was in part founded by a believer in intelligent design. So why the denial of scientific status to Darwin skeptics today, when they base their views on scientific grounds?
The vaunted National Academy of Sciences was founded by a Darwin critic and a design proponent. You can’t make this stuff up!
References:
Michael A. Flannery, “Plato Meets Polygeny: Louis Agassiz’s Defense of Southern Medicine and the Anglo-American Race Debate,” Journal for the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science 2 (2020): 1-18.
Photo: Louis Agassiz, about 1865, by Unknown author / Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-14--New Papers Explore the Utility of Active Information

William Dembski and Robert J .
Marks developed the concept of active information to measure the extent to which a search function appears pre-programmed to find some target .
Inspired by the theory of intelligent design , this metric has proved useful in exposing when genetic algorithms don ’ t truly model the power of Darwinian evolution , but rather “ cheat ” due to a programmer ’ s guidance , leading to a predetermined outcome .
As explained here , active information works as follows : Two new papers in the journal BIO-Complexity show how active information is useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better understand evolution and its limits .
In recent years proponents of non-Darwinian evolution have advanced ideas about “ natural genetic engineering , ” in which organisms can induce targeted , beneficial mutations in their own genomes in response to selection pressure .
Last month in BIO-Complexity , computer scientist Jonathan Bartlett published an article , “ Measuring Active Information in Biological Systems.
” He addressed an important related question : How can we determine if a mutation is random and undirected , or if it was directed ?
In address to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the concept of active information .
Active information tells us how much knowledge a search function has embedded in it about the location of the target .
In the context of studying the effects of mutations on an organism , Bartlett explains : “ What active information measures is the alignment of the genome itself to the problem of finding viable genetic solutions to selection pressures.
” Thus , in some cases a mutation may be completely “ random , ” meaning that it occurred due to mechanisms that were not preprogrammed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other cases , a mutation may not be entirely “ random , ” meaning that preprogrammed mechanisms internal to the organism directed the mutation to provide some potential benefit .
Bartlett explains that non-random , directed mutations are essentially a reflection of the presence of active information in a genome to produce beneficial mutations : This is wholly compatible with Behe ’ s “ First Rule of Adaptive Evolution , ” which states that evolution will “ break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is posed by active information is a separate one .
Does the genome contain information about what changes are likely to yield benefit ?
It may be that the most likely way to yield benefit is to blunt or break some particular system .
If active information is present , then the blunting and breaking will be measurably tilted towards blunting and breaking systems that are likely to yield selection benefit by doing so .
The goal of active information is not to be a universal quantification of all aspects of information in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow question of the information that cells contain that assist in their own evolution .
Bartlett notes that because living organisms tend to optimize across many variables over different timescales , measuring the amount of information could be difficult .
However , he explains that the well-defined system of the adaptive immune system provides an environment where active information measurements can be readily calculated .
He uses this observation to produce a general model for calculating active information in genomic mutations : Lastly , Bartlett applies his method to an example offered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power of random mutation and natural selection .
The example is Richard Lenski ’ s well-known E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment ( LTEE ) and the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype ( the ability of E. coli to update and metabolize citrate ) .
As Bartlett explains , the first time Lenski and his team observed the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype , it required 31,500 generations to appear .
However , in their paper , Hofwegen et al .
( 2016 ) witnessed the same trait arise in only about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection pressures .
Bartlett predicts that the trait arose due to active information in the genome , responding to selection and thereby predisposing E. coli to evolve such a trait .
Bartlett finds : Bartlett shows that it is not random mutation alone that generates such complex traits in E. coli .
What this indicates is that classical Darwinian evolution is not the mechanism at work here .
Instead , preprogrammed mechanisms are designed to allow an organism to rapidly adapt to increase selection pressures .
Were these preprogrammed mechanisms intelligently designed ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ another day , but what Bartlett has shown is that Darwinism didn ’ t produce this feature ; something far smarter did .
Intelligent design ideas are bearing fruit in our understanding of how evolution works .
A second paper in BIO-Complexity published just this week , “ Generalized Active Information : Extensions To Unbounded Domains , ” by Daniel Andres Diaz-Pachon and Robert J .
Marks , further explores the utility of the concept of active information .
They first respond to a criticism of active information made by Olle Häggström .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that the ‘ blind forces of nature ’ should produce a fitness landscape distributed [ uniformly ] .
” They reply by observing , “ It is not that out-of-equilibrium explanations are not allowed , it is that they must be accounted for.
” They then explain that active information can help us detect instances where probabilities depart from expected uniform distributions : As they observe , “ Active information can also be seen as a statistical complexity measure.
” That is because it meets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building such metrics , including the fact that “ Active information determines the information gap between the search of a target by pure chance and the input of an expert/dumb programmer.
” In light of these results , they predict that active information can be applied to build a useful model of population genetics .
Photo : From Richard Lenski ’ s terrific LTEE , by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [ CC BY-SA 1.0 ] , via Wikimedia Commons .

William Dembski and Robert J. Marks developed the concept of active information to measure the extent to which a search function appears pre-programmed to find some target. Inspired by the theory of intelligent design, this metric has proved useful in exposing when genetic algorithms don’t truly model the power of Darwinian evolution, but rather “cheat” due to a programmer’s guidance, leading to a predetermined outcome. As explained here, active information works as follows:
Exogenous Information (I ‡ ) represents the difficulty of a search in finding its target with no prior information about its location. Active Information (I + ) is the amount of information smuggled in by intelligence to aid the search algorithm in finding its target. Endogenous Information (I s ) then measures the difficulty the search will have in finding its target after the addition of Active Information. Thus, I + = I ‡ – I s .
Two new papers in the journal BIO-Complexity show how active information is useful in new areas, helping us to better understand evolution and its limits.
“Measuring Active Information”
In recent years proponents of non-Darwinian evolution have advanced ideas about “natural genetic engineering,” in which organisms can induce targeted, beneficial mutations in their own genomes in response to selection pressure. Last month in BIO-Complexity, computer scientist Jonathan Bartlett published an article, “Measuring Active Information in Biological Systems.” He addressed an important related question: How can we determine if a mutation is random and undirected, or if it was directed? In addressing this question, he finds new applications for the concept of active information.
Active information tells us how much knowledge a search function has embedded in it about the location of the target. In the context of studying the effects of mutations on an organism, Bartlett explains: “What active information measures is the alignment of the genome itself to the problem of finding viable genetic solutions to selection pressures.” Thus, in some cases a mutation may be completely “random,” meaning that it occurred due to mechanisms that were not preprogrammed to help the organism solve a problem. In other cases, a mutation may not be entirely “random,” meaning that preprogrammed mechanisms internal to the organism directed the mutation to provide some potential benefit. Bartlett explains that non-random, directed mutations are essentially a reflection of the presence of active information in a genome to produce beneficial mutations:
This is wholly compatible with Behe’s “First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,” which states that evolution will “break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.” [16] The question that is posed by active information is a separate one. Does the genome contain information about what changes are likely to yield benefit? It may be that the most likely way to yield benefit is to blunt or break some particular system. If active information is present, then the blunting and breaking will be measurably tilted towards blunting and breaking systems that are likely to yield selection benefit by doing so. The goal of active information is not to be a universal quantification of all aspects of information in biology, but rather to assess the narrow question of the information that cells contain that assist in their own evolution.
A Well-Defined System
Bartlett notes that because living organisms tend to optimize across many variables over different timescales, measuring the amount of information could be difficult. However, he explains that the well-defined system of the adaptive immune system provides an environment where active information measurements can be readily calculated. He uses this observation to produce a general model for calculating active information in genomic mutations:
The methodology described for the somatic hypermutation system can be generalized to any mutational system for which the following are reasonable parameters: The cell reduces the mutation space to an area that still fully contains (or almost fully contains) the solution space.
The number of mutations that are required are small enough so that they can be reasonably thought of as the smallest mutation to accomplish the effect.
Lastly, Bartlett applies his method to an example offered by proponents of Darwinian evolution to supposedly demonstrate the power of random mutation and natural selection. The example is Richard Lenski’s well-known E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) and the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype (the ability of E. coli to uptake and metabolize citrate). As Bartlett explains, the first time Lenski and his team observed the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype, it required 31,500 generations to appear. However, in their paper, Hofwegen et al. (2016) witnessed the same trait arise in only about 12 generations and 30 days because of selection pressures. Bartlett predicts that the trait arose due to active information in the genome, responding to selection and thereby predisposing E. coli to evolve such a trait. Bartlett finds:
E. coli contributes approximately 12.4 additional bits of information towards the search for the Cit+ mutation when under selection. This number is relative to the ordinary predisposition of E. coli to produce this mutation when not under selection, which has not been determined.
Bartlett shows that it is not random mutation alone that generates such complex traits in E. coli. What this indicates is that classical Darwinian evolution is not the mechanism at work here. Instead, preprogrammed mechanisms are designed to allow an organism to rapidly adapt to increase selection pressures. Were these preprogrammed mechanisms intelligently designed? That’s a separate question for another day, but what Bartlett has shown is that Darwinism didn’t produce this feature; something far smarter did. Intelligent design ideas are bearing fruit in our understanding of how evolution works.
“Generalized Active Information”
A second paper in BIO-Complexity published just this week, “Generalized Active Information: Extensions To Unbounded Domains,” by Daniel Andres Diaz-Pachon and Robert J. Marks, further explores the utility of the concept of active information. They first respond to a criticism of active information made by Olle Häggström. The Swedish mathematician claimed that “there is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that the ‘blind forces of nature’ should produce a fitness landscape distributed [uniformly].” They reply by observing, “It is not that out-of-equilibrium explanations are not allowed, it is that they must be accounted for.”
They then explain that active information can help us detect instances where probabilities depart from expected uniform distributions:
Active information can be viewed as a generalized instantiation of anomaly detection otherwise known as novelty filtering. The status quo of probabilistic uniformity is set and any significant deviation is flagged as novel. The degree of deviation from normalcy is measured by the active information. … [A]ctive information is the difference of the information for an event under equilibrium and nonequilibrium.
As they observe, “Active information can also be seen as a statistical complexity measure.” That is because it meets criteria previously laid out by mathematicians for building such metrics, including the fact that “Active information determines the information gap between the search of a target by pure chance and the input of an expert/dumb programmer.” In light of these results, they predict that active information can be applied to build a useful model of population genetics.
Photo: From Richard Lenski’s terrific LTEE, by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [CC BY-SA 1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-14--COVID-19, Random Mutations, and Aristotle’s Matrix of Design

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor about Dr. Egnor @ @ @ @ @ article , “ The Coronavirus Demonstrates How Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design.
” Download the podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Egnor notes that the coronavirus and other viruses are not , strictly speaking , @ @ @ @ @ if they depend on living hosts for their continued existence .
Egnor also discusses the @ @ @ @ @ viruses and draws upon Aristotle to argue that these and other random events only occur @ @ @ @ @ , against a backdrop of purpose and design — in this case , the designed @ @ @ @ @ that viruses invade .

On a new episode of ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor about Dr. Egnor’s recent Evolution News article, “The Coronavirus Demonstrates How Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Egnor notes that the coronavirus and other viruses are not, strictly speaking, considered living things, even if they depend on living hosts for their continued existence. Egnor also discusses the role of random mutations in viruses and draws upon Aristotle to argue that these and other random events only occur, and have their meaning, against a backdrop of purpose and design — in this case, the designed systems, the bodies, that viruses invade.
Image: Aristotle, by Francesco Hayez (1811) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-14--Prominent Biology Journal Demands Government Censorship of Intelligent Design

It was March 20 , 2020 , seven days after the U.S. Federal Government declared a national emergency over COVID-19 .
That was just one day after the country hit the dark milestone of 10,000 verified cases .
Most people were focused on coping with new lockdown regulations , social distancing , and radical changes to everyday life .
What the White House or the CDC could or should do to counter the virus was a subject of debate .
Some scientists , however , had identified a surprising object of needed government action .
Biologists at the prominent science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What was it , you ask ?
Try new experimental drugs ?
Rush a vaccine into development ?
Shut the schools ?
Open the schools ?
No — censor Evolution News !
Discovery Institute ’ s site offers daily analysis of evidence for intelligent design in life and the cosmos .
What had we done to spark such an emergency ?
The timeline seems to be this : The crisis got going after February 11 .
That day , philosopher of biology Paul Nelson penned a brief post here at Evolution News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fellow , asked “ Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology ?
” He was responding to an editorial , from which he borrowed his headline , in BioEssays .
Referring to the thought of influential philosopher Karl Popper , Nelson offered his opinion that Popperian falsification is indeed relevant in biology .
The author of the editorial , biologist Dave Speijer of the University of Amsterdam , read what Nelson had to say and disliked some of the ID proponent ’ s comments .
Speijer was also distraught about a staff-authored article at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
The latter commented on a piece by BioEssays editor Andrew Moore , which Moore titled “ That ‘ junk ’ DNA… is full of information !
” Speijer condemns the “ infamous Discovery Institute , a notorious ‘ intelligent design ’ ( aka ‘ creationism in a tuxedo ’ ) think tank.
” ( Normally they say “ creationism in a cheap tuxedo , ” so this represents a sartorial upgrade . )
A separate post here will respond to the details of Speijer ’ s objections , offered in justifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just say for now that they are bizarre .
With videos and other disfavored material being suppressed by YouTube and other social media platforms , where most Americans get our news , it was only a matter of time before would-be Internet censors turned their gaze on us .
Speijer submitted his article on February 29 , as , incidentally , the U.S. moved to stop travel from Iran and urged citizens to avoid visiting South Korea and Italy .
But again , Speijer ’ s focus was on other perils .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
From “ Bad Faith Reasoning , Predictable Chaos , and the Truth ” : Nowadays , such sites [ as Evolution News ] pose as “ objective ” sources of information .
Speaking more generally , spreading misinformation can be linked to climate science denial , vaccination avoidance , and a resurgence of pseudo‐scientific racism .
Internet regulations to counter these sources of pseudo‐science are urgently needed… .
We have identified the problem ; how about the solution ?
My favorite Thomas Paine quote : “ He that would make his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy from oppression ; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself , ” eloquently explains why I am not a great fan of taking down websites .
Only the most egregious ones ( for instance , those inciting racial violence or denying well‐documented genocide ) should be treated thus .
But what about the sites discussed in this article ?
In such cases search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content , masquerading as science .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The tech giants will never agree to that.
” Make them .
“ It is impossible to draw the line , so how will you make sure that you do not stifle healthy debate ?
” Whenever one proposes internet regulations along these lines , opponents use such arguments to stop us from doing anything .
Yes , the line might be difficult to draw , but below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply .
And by all means , let us contribute to debates about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mature complex society with evolving insight should have .
After all , scientists are not the ones afraid of complexity .
His proposal : “ [ S ] earch engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content , masquerading as science.
” And what if major technology companies shy from censorship ?
Then the government should take aggressive action : “ Make them.
” Let this sink in : the peer-reviewed journal BioEssays published an editorial pushing for government censorship policies to decide which websites the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action against , diminishing the reputation and accessibility of those websites .
Specifically , the scientists at BioEssays want to censor intelligent design websites like Evolution News .
There are a number of ironies here .
One is that BioEssays calls for censorship while having the chutzpah to quote from Thomas Paine , a foremost spokesman for free speech in Western democracy .
As Speijer notes , Paine said : Yet Speijer ’ s proposal is the epitome of oppressing and restricting the liberty of those with whom he disagrees .
Paine further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which governs least , ” but if put into action , the demand from BioEssays would hugely expand government power , creating government policies or even government-backed thought-police boards to determine which ideas are unfit for public consumption and must be censored .
No Need to Worry Here ’ s another irony : the article anticipates resistance from the “ tech giants.
” On that score , Dr. Speijer should stop worrying so much .
A glaring problem , completely off BioEssay ’ s radar screen , is that Big Tech seems eager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like .
Think of YouTube demonetizing Dennis Prager videos , Twitter deciding which tweets ought to come with COVID-19 warning labels , or Facebook appointing a “ Supreme Court ” to decide which kinds of posts will be tolerated .
Far from balking at censorship , the tech companies are already willing collaborators in efforts to squeeze out ideas that don ’ t fit their preferred perspective .
Be prepared .
There is no reason to think that this could not happen to Discovery Institute , Evolution News , and others who urge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here is Tom Paine again : “ If I do not believe as you believe , it proves that you do not believe as I believe , and that is all that it proves.
” But as for Dave Speijer , if you do not believe as he believes , then that proves you need to be censored .
Paine also said : “ These are the times that try men ’ s souls .
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will , in this crisis , shrink from the service of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by it now , deserves the love and thanks of man and woman .
Tyranny , like hell , is not easily conquered.
” Like most censors , Dr. Speijer thinks his proposals are entirely reasonable and warranted .
He writes , “ below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply.
” Wait until you see what triggered him .
You ’ ll be shocked at how benign and careful our original comments were , how unwilling ID-critics are to hear any form of criticism , and how the accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ striking irony , applicable to their own rhetorical tactics .
If Speijer ’ s thinking catches hold in this changing media and cultural environment , Western democracy is in bigger trouble even than it seems to be at the moment .
Photo : Death mask of Thomas Paine , displayed in the People ’ s History Museum , Manchester , England , by Hammersfan / CC BY-SA .

It was March 20, 2020, seven days after the U.S. Federal Government declared a national emergency over COVID-19. That was just one day after the country hit the dark milestone of 10,000 verified cases. Most people were focused on coping with new lockdown regulations, social distancing, and radical changes to everyday life. What the White House or the CDC could or should do to counter the virus was a subject of debate. Some scientists, however, had identified a surprising object of needed government action.
Biologists at the prominent science journal BioEssays issued an urgent call. What was it, you ask? Try new experimental drugs? Rush a vaccine into development? Shut the schools? Open the schools? No — censor Evolution News!
Discovery Institute’s site offers daily analysis of evidence for intelligent design in life and the cosmos. What had we done to spark such an emergency? The timeline seems to be this: The crisis got going after February 11. That day, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson penned a brief post here at Evolution News. Dr. Nelson, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, asked “Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology?” He was responding to an editorial, from which he borrowed his headline, in BioEssays. Referring to the thought of influential philosopher Karl Popper, Nelson offered his opinion that Popperian falsification is indeed relevant in biology.
The author of the editorial, biologist Dave Speijer of the University of Amsterdam, read what Nelson had to say and disliked some of the ID proponent’s comments. Speijer was also distraught about a staff-authored article at Evolution News, published back in November 2019. The latter commented on a piece by BioEssays editor Andrew Moore, which Moore titled “That ‘junk’ DNA… is full of information!”
Speijer condemns the “infamous Discovery Institute, a notorious ‘intelligent design’ (aka ‘creationism in a tuxedo’) think tank.” (Normally they say “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” so this represents a sartorial upgrade.) A separate post here will respond to the details of Speijer’s objections, offered in justifying his call for censorship. Let’s just say for now that they are bizarre.
A Matter of Time
With videos and other disfavored material being suppressed by YouTube and other social media platforms, where most Americans get our news, it was only a matter of time before would-be Internet censors turned their gaze on us. Speijer submitted his article on February 29, as, incidentally, the U.S. moved to stop travel from Iran and urged citizens to avoid visiting South Korea and Italy. But again, Speijer’s focus was on other perils. Here is the gist of what he wrote. From “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth”:
Nowadays, such sites [as Evolution News] pose as “objective” sources of information. Speaking more generally, spreading misinformation can be linked to climate science denial, vaccination avoidance, and a resurgence of pseudo‐scientific racism. Internet regulations to counter these sources of pseudo‐science are urgently needed…. We have identified the problem; how about the solution? My favorite Thomas Paine quote: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself,” eloquently explains why I am not a great fan of taking down websites. Only the most egregious ones (for instance, those inciting racial violence or denying well‐documented genocide) should be treated thus. But what about the sites discussed in this article? In such cases search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science. I can almost hear the strongly doubting voices. “The tech giants will never agree to that.” Make them. “It is impossible to draw the line, so how will you make sure that you do not stifle healthy debate?” Whenever one proposes internet regulations along these lines, opponents use such arguments to stop us from doing anything. Yes, the line might be difficult to draw, but below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply. And by all means, let us contribute to debates about the difficult instances: ongoing debates that a mature complex society with evolving insight should have. After all, scientists are not the ones afraid of complexity.
His proposal: “[S]earch engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” And what if major technology companies shy from censorship? Then the government should take aggressive action: “Make them.” Let this sink in: the peer-reviewed journal BioEssays published an editorial pushing for government censorship policies to decide which websites the tech giants should be forced to take action against, diminishing the reputation and accessibility of those websites. Specifically, the scientists at BioEssays want to censor intelligent design websites like Evolution News.
Paine-ful Irony
There are a number of ironies here. One is that BioEssays calls for censorship while having the chutzpah to quote from Thomas Paine, a foremost spokesman for free speech in Western democracy. As Speijer notes, Paine said:
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Yet Speijer’s proposal is the epitome of oppressing and restricting the liberty of those with whom he disagrees. Paine further said, “That government is best which governs least,” but if put into action, the demand from BioEssays would hugely expand government power, creating government policies or even government-backed thought-police boards to determine which ideas are unfit for public consumption and must be censored.
No Need to Worry
Here’s another irony: the article anticipates resistance from the “tech giants.” On that score, Dr. Speijer should stop worrying so much. A glaring problem, completely off BioEssay’s radar screen, is that Big Tech seems eager to squash ideas they don’t like. Think of YouTube demonetizing Dennis Prager videos, Twitter deciding which tweets ought to come with COVID-19 warning labels, or Facebook appointing a “Supreme Court” to decide which kinds of posts will be tolerated.
Far from balking at censorship, the tech companies are already willing collaborators in efforts to squeeze out ideas that don’t fit their preferred perspective. Be prepared. There is no reason to think that this could not happen to Discovery Institute, Evolution News, and others who urge a fair consideration of design evidence.
Here is Tom Paine again: “If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and that is all that it proves.” But as for Dave Speijer, if you do not believe as he believes, then that proves you need to be censored.
Paine also said: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.”
Like most censors, Dr. Speijer thinks his proposals are entirely reasonable and warranted. He writes, “below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply.” Wait until you see what triggered him. You’ll be shocked at how benign and careful our original comments were, how unwilling ID-critics are to hear any form of criticism, and how the accusations they make against us are, with striking irony, applicable to their own rhetorical tactics. If Speijer’s thinking catches hold in this changing media and cultural environment, Western democracy is in bigger trouble even than it seems to be at the moment.
Photo: Death mask of Thomas Paine, displayed in the People’s History Museum, Manchester, England, by Hammersfan / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-14--Louis Agassiz: Some Additional Thoughts

Louis Agassiz: Some Additional Thoughts

Robert F. Shedinger ’ s interesting post yesterday on Louis Agassiz brought to my mind some additional thoughts on this complex figure in the annals of American science .
Shedinger is quite correct in highlighting Agassiz ’ s staunch opposition to Darwin and his creationist perspective .
He is also correct in pointing out Agassiz ’ s tireless efforts at “ working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe.
” This , as he points out , includes his establishment of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard as well as his role in founding the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notable achievements .
Agassiz had his demons , however , and Shedinger cites my article , “ Plato Meets Polygeny , ” that discusses his rather benighted racial views ( available open access in the Journal of the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science ) .
In fact , those views make Agassiz a problematic figure in the complex intellectual terrain of mid-19th century Anglo-America .
( Since this essay is readily obtainable , I ’ ll not belabor the details here . )
But despite the significance of Agassiz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical baggage can not be lightly discarded or ignored .
First of all , his biblical exegesis of multiple Adams with its presumption of separate racial origins ( and hierarchies ) incurred the ire of the vast majority of the Christian community even in his own day , with only Southern sympathizers rushing to its defense more for political than religious reasons .
Orthodoxy was quickly cast aside by apologists for the South ’ s “ peculiar institution , ” a dubious alliance at best for a man of science like Agassiz .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more importantly , Agassiz ’ s racial views were not , in the final analysis , that far from Darwin ’ s own .
Like Darwin , Agassiz was convinced that craniometry was an accurate measure of racial difference and mental capacity .
Darwin ’ s approving references to the craniometric data of Paul Broca and Joseph Barnard Davis were matched by Agassiz ’ s embrace of Samuel George Morton ’ s Crania Americana ( 1839 ) and Crania Ægyptiaca ( 1844 ) .
Despite Agassiz ’ s vocal opposition to Darwinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin on the race question .
Thomas Henry Huxley largely echoed Darwin ’ s and Agassiz ’ s sentiments on race .
How could this be ?
It turns out Agassiz makes the same mistake Darwin did ; he failed to make an all-important distinction between human and animal .
Agassiz wrote , “ the differences existing between races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families , genera , and species of monkeys or other animals ; and that these different species of animals differ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other as the races of men , ” some even more so .
Agassiz emphasized that this is “ one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind.
” This is hardly different from Darwin ’ s own assertion in his Descent of Man ( 1871 ) that there is “ no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.
” Whatever Agassiz ’ s “ creationist ” commitments , he ( like Darwin ) made a cardinal error : he rejected human exceptionalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , Agassiz practiced heterodox religion and bad science .
If I had to praise a contemporary of both Agassiz and Darwin who did not share these untenable notions it would be Richard Owen , an opponent of Darwin who defended racial equality on scientific grounds and held to a structuralist formulation of nature fully compatible with purpose and human exceptionalism .
Owen ’ s courageous defense of racial equality and Huxley ’ s disingenuous Darwinian racism is carefully examined in Christopher E. Cosans ’ s Owen ’ s Ape & Darwin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agassiz I can only recall his statue buried in the pavement in front of the Stanford zoology building following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 , a tragicomic reminder of a once famous scientist who ended up irrelevant even to a fellow Darwin doubter like American science polymath James Dwight Dana .
As I conclude in my essay , “ Agassiz became a lamentable figure lost in the murky shadows of his own Platonist forms.
” And there he will likely remain .
Photo : Statue of Agassiz buried in the pavement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Davey / Public domain .

Photo: Statue of Agassiz buried in the pavement, 1906, Stanford University, by Frank Davey / Public domain.
Robert F. Shedinger’s interesting post yesterday on Louis Agassiz brought to my mind some additional thoughts on this complex figure in the annals of American science. Shedinger is quite correct in highlighting Agassiz’s staunch opposition to Darwin and his creationist perspective. He is also correct in pointing out Agassiz’s tireless efforts at “working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe.” This, as he points out, includes his establishment of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard as well as his role in founding the National Academy of Sciences. These are indisputably notable achievements.
Benighted Racial Views
Agassiz had his demons, however, and Shedinger cites my article, “Plato Meets Polygeny,” that discusses his rather benighted racial views (available open access in the Journal of the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science). In fact, those views make Agassiz a problematic figure in the complex intellectual terrain of mid-19th century Anglo-America. (Since this essay is readily obtainable, I’ll not belabor the details here.) But despite the significance of Agassiz’s scientific accomplishments, his heavy historical baggage cannot be lightly discarded or ignored.
First of all, his biblical exegesis of multiple Adams with its presumption of separate racial origins (and hierarchies) incurred the ire of the vast majority of the Christian community even in his own day, with only Southern sympathizers rushing to its defense more for political than religious reasons. Orthodoxy was quickly cast aside by apologists for the South’s “peculiar institution,” a dubious alliance at best for a man of science like Agassiz.
Not Far from Darwin
But second, and more importantly, Agassiz’s racial views were not, in the final analysis, that far from Darwin’s own. Like Darwin, Agassiz was convinced that craniometry was an accurate measure of racial difference and mental capacity. Darwin’s approving references to the craniometric data of Paul Broca and Joseph Barnard Davis were matched by Agassiz’s embrace of Samuel George Morton’s Crania Americana (1839) and Crania Ægyptiaca (1844). Despite Agassiz’s vocal opposition to Darwinian evolution, he ended up siding with Darwin on the race question. Thomas Henry Huxley largely echoed Darwin’s and Agassiz’s sentiments on race.
How could this be? It turns out Agassiz makes the same mistake Darwin did; he failed to make an all-important distinction between human and animal. Agassiz wrote, “the differences existing between races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals; and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men,” some even more so. Agassiz emphasized that this is “one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind.” This is hardly different from Darwin’s own assertion in his Descent of Man (1871) that there is “no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” Whatever Agassiz’s “creationist” commitments, he (like Darwin) made a cardinal error: he rejected human exceptionalism, a foundational Judeo-Christian concept. In short, Agassiz practiced heterodox religion and bad science.
Praise for Richard Owen
If I had to praise a contemporary of both Agassiz and Darwin who did not share these untenable notions it would be Richard Owen, an opponent of Darwin who defended racial equality on scientific grounds and held to a structuralist formulation of nature fully compatible with purpose and human exceptionalism. Owen’s courageous defense of racial equality and Huxley’s disingenuous Darwinian racism is carefully examined in Christopher E. Cosans’s Owen’s Ape & Darwin’s Bulldog.
Whenever I think of Agassiz I can only recall his statue buried in the pavement in front of the Stanford zoology building following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, a tragicomic reminder of a once famous scientist who ended up irrelevant even to a fellow Darwin doubter like American science polymath James Dwight Dana. As I conclude in my essay, “Agassiz became a lamentable figure lost in the murky shadows of his own Platonist forms.” And there he will likely remain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-15--Just-in-Time Delivery in Living Cells

Just-in-Time Delivery in Living Cells

During the coronavirus crisis , truckers have played an essential role in getting masks , medicines , and equipment to hospitals that were overwhelmed , and food to the grocery stores to prevent a starvation crisis as people obeyed stay-at-home orders .
Some of the truckers drove long all-night shifts to meet the critical demand .
Non-essential deliveries of goods from retail merchants like Amazon continued mostly uninterrupted , too .
Human delivery systems rely on distributed storage .
Cells know all about this .
A cell is a large place , like a city to the molecules inside ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from their work sites .
Within the cell , highways of microtubules grow in the directions that cargo carriers like kinesins need them .
Some new discoveries show that additional mechanisms supplement those well-known processes to provide just-in-time delivery .
Many health-conscious people monitor their triglycerides , knowing that high levels pose a risk factor for cardiovascular disease .
At the cellular level , a protein called LPL ( lipoprotein lipase ) is there to help regulate triglycerides .
Lipases are enzymes necessary for the proper distribution and utilization of lipids in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these enzymes can be dangerous if not handled carefully .
LPL , for instance , could hydrolyze useful lipids within the cell if turned loose , instead of going to work in the interstitial space in capillaries where the triglycerides need to be dismantled before they contribute to atherosclerosis .
Scientists publishing in PNAS found “ an unexpected twist ” in the way cells in the capillaries sequester these enzymes until they are called for : the cell bundles them into helical form and packages them in vesicles .
Upon translation in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Golgi apparatus for maturation and proper folding .
When ready , they are accompanied by another enzyme , SDC1 ( syndecan-1 ) , for sequestration into vesicles .
There , a third enzyme named HSPG stabilizes them , rendering them inactive , as two strands of LPL wind into a helical shape .
When they get the call for action , they emerge from their vesicles like firefighters at a station , unwind from their helical shape , separate , and hang onto HSPGs on the cell surface .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capillary endothelium , ready to put out the triglyceride fires .
The authors say , An inactive form of LPL is likely physiologically important for storage during trafficking .
LPL has been reported to have a cryptic state in cell lysate that is inactive and concentration-dependent .
This cryptic state shares many similarities to the helical LPL that we identified .
Cells store pools of LPL that can be released in response to nutritional signaling .
However , it is not ideal to have active LPL inside the cell , where it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inactive conformation would provide an appealing solution to the issue and give the cell flexibility to store LPL without concern for unwanted hydrolysis ( Fig .
8 ) .
A helical structure is also a stable way to pack an aggregation-prone protein , such as LPL , for efficient storage in a small compact space .
The authors ’ diagram of the helical shape looks very elegant , something like a symmetrical braided tube .
It is held together by disulfide bonds and N-linked glycans .
News from Vanderbilt University announced another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called retromers .
The catchy headline says , “ Biology researchers capture shape-shifting delivery structures in body ’ s cellular ‘ FedEx system.
’ ” Amazingly , the retromers are contortionists at their job .
How do they qualify as delivery personnel ?
They deliver “ parcels , ” the scientists explain .
Their jobs are essential , as seen by what happens when they fail to arrive with the goods .
Before enterprises such as FedEx , UPS , or the U.S. mail can deliver parcels , they need to sort them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in cells called endosomes , where this takes place .
The paper ’ s Abstract says , The retromers can take on a variety of forms , joining in complexes of “ heterotrimers ; dimers of trimers ; tetramers of trimers ; and flat chains.
” Imagine getting that ability by chance mutations .
Here ’ s another case where cryo-electron microscope allowed the researchers to watch the show .
It ’ s not just cargo that needs labeling .
Sorting operations must identify trash , too , and recycle what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a molecule called ubiquitin .
Cryo-electron microscopy at the Max Planck Institute reveals how one enzyme controls another enzyme that slaps the ubiquitin “ recycle me ” label on spent proteins .
The machine that does this is called NEDD8 , and it ’ s always “ in the right place , at the right time.
” Its job is to switch on other molecules , the E3 ligases , that attach the ubiquitin labels .
“ We discovered how NEDD8 induces an E3 molecular machine to bring the ubiquitin tag to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just in Time for Sex A last story about just-in-time delivery is quite interesting , seeing as it helped each of us get born .
Scientists at University of California wondered how sperm unpack Dad ’ s genome so that it can merge with Mom ’ s at the moment of fertilization .
Obviously a package like that requires special handling , but any parcel delivery system faces two issues : the package has to arrive with the train on time , and it has to be capable of being opened .
Imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a box you can ’ t open , or once opened , is so tangled with packing material you can ’ t get to the goods !
Consider how the male haploid genome arrives : Thankfully , the fertilized egg knows how to get to the precious genes that helped make you .
These stories are among many about just-in-time delivery in living cells .
They show intelligent design at work not only in the sequences of building blocks , and the shape of the machineries they build , but also the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right place at the right time .

During the coronavirus crisis, truckers have played an essential role in getting masks, medicines, and equipment to hospitals that were overwhelmed, and food to the grocery stores to prevent a starvation crisis as people obeyed stay-at-home orders. Some of the truckers drove long all-night shifts to meet the critical demand. Non-essential deliveries of goods from retail merchants like Amazon continued mostly uninterrupted, too.
Human delivery systems rely on distributed storage. Cells know all about this. A cell is a large place, like a city to the molecules inside; it is inefficient to store needed cargoes far from their work sites. Within the cell, highways of microtubules grow in the directions that cargo carriers like kinesins need them. Some new discoveries show that additional mechanisms supplement those well-known processes to provide just-in-time delivery.
LPL Warehousing
Many health-conscious people monitor their triglycerides, knowing that high levels pose a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. At the cellular level, a protein called LPL (lipoprotein lipase) is there to help regulate triglycerides. Lipases are enzymes necessary for the proper distribution and utilization of lipids in the human body, but some of these enzymes can be dangerous if not handled carefully. LPL, for instance, could hydrolyze useful lipids within the cell if turned loose, instead of going to work in the interstitial space in capillaries where the triglycerides need to be dismantled before they contribute to atherosclerosis.
Scientists publishing in PNAS found “an unexpected twist” in the way cells in the capillaries sequester these enzymes until they are called for: the cell bundles them into helical form and packages them in vesicles. Upon translation in the ribosomes, LPLs in adipocytes are sent to the Golgi apparatus for maturation and proper folding. When ready, they are accompanied by another enzyme, SDC1 (syndecan-1), for sequestration into vesicles. There, a third enzyme named HSPG stabilizes them, rendering them inactive, as two strands of LPL wind into a helical shape. When they get the call for action, they emerge from their vesicles like firefighters at a station, unwind from their helical shape, separate, and hang onto HSPGs on the cell surface. Then, they are moved to the surfaces of capillary endothelium, ready to put out the triglyceride fires. The authors say,
An inactive form of LPL is likely physiologically important for storage during trafficking. LPL has been reported to have a cryptic state in cell lysate that is inactive and concentration-dependent. This cryptic state shares many similarities to the helical LPL that we identified. Cells store pools of LPL that can be released in response to nutritional signaling. However, it is not ideal to have active LPL inside the cell, where it could potentially hydrolyze needed lipids. LPL in an inactive conformation would provide an appealing solution to the issue and give the cell flexibility to store LPL without concern for unwanted hydrolysis (Fig. 8). A helical structure is also a stable way to pack an aggregation-prone protein, such as LPL, for efficient storage in a small compact space.
The authors’ diagram of the helical shape looks very elegant, something like a symmetrical braided tube. It is held together by disulfide bonds and N-linked glycans.
The Cell’s FedEx System
News from Vanderbilt University announced another delivery mechanism, this time for proteins called retromers. The catchy headline says, “Biology researchers capture shape-shifting delivery structures in body’s cellular ‘FedEx system.’” Amazingly, the retromers are contortionists at their job.
A new cellular biology study, published last month in the journal Structure by scientists at Vanderbilt, reports a shape-shifting structure in the human body which plays an important role in the timely delivery of fats and proteins. Led by Lauren Jackson, assistant professor of biological sciences and biochemistry at Vanderbilt, the work is the first to visualize this structure — a type of protein complex found in human cells known as retromer — and report its unique ability to transfigure itself into a variety of different architectures and structures.
How do they qualify as delivery personnel? They deliver “parcels,” the scientists explain. Their jobs are essential, as seen by what happens when they fail to arrive with the goods.
The human body relies on this parcel delivery process (referred to by Jackson as a “biological FedEx system”) to deliver important protein and fatty lipid molecules to the right places at the right times. In the event of delivery failures or interruptions, cells lose what they need to function and human diseases and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s can emerge.
Before enterprises such as FedEx, UPS, or the U.S. mail can deliver parcels, they need to sort them. The article describes “sorting stations” in cells called endosomes, where this takes place. The paper’s Abstract says,
Our data suggest the metazoan retromer is an adaptable and plastic scaffold that accommodates interactions with different sorting nexins to sort multiple cargoes from endosomes their final destinations.
The retromers can take on a variety of forms, joining in complexes of “heterotrimers; dimers of trimers; tetramers of trimers; and flat chains.” Imagine getting that ability by chance mutations. Here’s another case where cryo-electron microscope allowed the researchers to watch the show.
“This flexible scaffold structure plays a key role in the sorting and delivery process,” said Jackson. “These structures reveal how one complex alone is able to sort and deliver cellular ‘cargo’ to different destinations.”
Labeling the Trash
It’s not just cargo that needs labeling. Sorting operations must identify trash, too, and recycle what they can. Cellular trash is marked by a molecule called ubiquitin. Cryo-electron microscopy at the Max Planck Institute reveals how one enzyme controls another enzyme that slaps the ubiquitin “recycle me” label on spent proteins.
Proteins are molecular work horses in the cell that perform specific tasks, but it is essential that the timing of protein activities is exquisitely controlled. When proteins have fulfilled their tasks, degradation of these proteins will end processes that are unneeded or detrimental. To control timing, a label — called “ubiquitin” — is attached to unwanted proteins, marking the protein for degradation. Although complex molecular machineries were known to attach ubiquitin, how these machines carry out the labeling process was unknown.
The machine that does this is called NEDD8, and it’s always “in the right place, at the right time.” Its job is to switch on other molecules, the E3 ligases, that attach the ubiquitin labels. “We discovered how NEDD8 induces an E3 molecular machine to bring the ubiquitin tag to its targets,” the researchers say.
Just in Time for Sex
A last story about just-in-time delivery is quite interesting, seeing as it helped each of us get born. Scientists at University of California wondered how sperm unpack Dad’s genome so that it can merge with Mom’s at the moment of fertilization. Obviously a package like that requires special handling, but any parcel delivery system faces two issues: the package has to arrive with the train on time, and it has to be capable of being opened. Imagine getting your essential order from Amazon in a box you can’t open, or once opened, is so tangled with packing material you can’t get to the goods! Consider how the male haploid genome arrives:
Sperm can be up to 20 times smaller than a normal cell in the body. And while sperm carry only half as much genetic material as a regular cell, it needs to be folded and packaged in a special way in order to fit. One way nature does this is by replacing histones — proteins around which DNA is wound, like beads on a necklace — with a different type of protein called protamines.
Thankfully, the fertilized egg knows how to get to the precious genes that helped make you.
Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have discovered that the enzyme SPRK1 leads the first step in untangling a sperm’s genome, kicking out special packing proteins, which opens up the paternal DNA and allows for major reorganization — all in a matter of hours.
These stories are among many about just-in-time delivery in living cells. They show intelligent design at work not only in the sequences of building blocks, and the shape of the machineries they build, but also the time element that assures they get to the right place at the right time.
Photo credit: Obi Onyeador via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-16--Stephen Meyer: Teach the (Coronavirus) Controversy

Our colleague and CSC director Stephen Meyer has a terrific article up now at The Federalist .
As readers will know , when it comes to evolution education , the Center for Science & Culture advocates “ teaching the controversy.
” Note Meyer ’ s application of the “ Teach the Controversy ” principle to how medical opinion is being given to U.S. leaders who make policy decisions about a national response to COVID-19 .
As Dr. Meyer observes , “ The administration ’ s virus taskforce has recommended only a gradual lifting of stay-at-home orders and has established criteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to satisfy in many states.
” His proposal is that rather than listen only to a group of experts with one set view , it would be productive to listen to another group as well , a “ Team B , ” or “ what the military calls a ‘ Red Team ’ to challenge the received view of an organization from within ” : Let this Red Team provide a counterpoint to the current taskforce and thus “ teach the controversy ” to top decision-makers .
If it works in the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in the White House ?
I think it would , and for the same reason : Students and Presidents make better decisions when they are exposed to competing views .
As Meyer says , allowing controversy and permitting it to be widely aired is how science makes progress and delivers understanding .
He outlines “ two conceptions of science ” : The media and official spokespersons for science often depict science primarily as a source of authoritative deliverances .
Whether about climate change , the comparative efficacy of embryonic and adult stem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of various diets , science is often portrayed as speaking with one voice .
This has many adverse consequences .
Of course , there are many widely accepted and well-supported scientific theories that are properly considered part of the body of established scientific knowledge .
But science also involves a deliberative process of testing and evaluating new evidence and competing interpretations of that evidence .
Moreover , scientists often disagree about how to interpret facts and even about what the facts are .
As the Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera has shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to interpret evidence .
Premature appeals to an alleged consensus , therefore , can short-circuit this necessary deliberative function and lead to unwarranted conclusions , impeding scientific advance .
The false perception of scientific consensus or certainty can , in turn , form the basis of rigidly enforced authoritarian public policy .
But Is There a Controversy ?
You can hear the objection already , one we ’ ve heard before in the Darwin debate .
When it comes to the coronavirus , do legitimate scientists really disagree ?
Or is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the media refer to with a definite article , not “ science ” but “ The Science ” ?
Meyer writes : Many eminent and dissenting medical , scientific and epidemiological experts would make an outstanding scientific “ Team B , ” perhaps as part of a new task force about how to open the economy .
Consider just a few of the experts who have publicly questioned key assumptions or aspects of current policies : • Professors Jay Bhattacharya , Eran Bendavid , and John Ioannidis of the Stanford University Medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center ; • Professor Knut Wittowski , biostatistician and former head of epidemiology , Rockefeller University ; • John Lee , former professor of pathology , Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom ; • Daniel G. Murphy , chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx ; • Douglas Axe , Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University and former research scientist at Cambridge University ’ s Medical Research Council Laboratory ; Collectively , this group has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge the wisdom of extending stay-at-home orders .
It ’ s an important perspective , and not for scientific or medical reasons alone .
In the never-ending lockdown , there is more at stake than health , including economic ruin , bringing its own threats to life , and perhaps above all , America ’ s future as a free country .
Read the rest at The Federalist , and hope that it ’ s read , too , by people with influence .
Photo : South Lawn of the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domain .

Our colleague and CSC director Stephen Meyer has a terrific article up now at The Federalist. As readers will know, when it comes to evolution education, the Center for Science & Culture advocates “teaching the controversy.” Note Meyer’s application of the “Teach the Controversy” principle to how medical opinion is being given to U.S. leaders who make policy decisions about a national response to COVID-19.
As Dr. Meyer observes, “The administration’s virus taskforce has recommended only a gradual lifting of stay-at-home orders and has established criteria for full re-opening that could take months to satisfy in many states.” His proposal is that rather than listen only to a group of experts with one set view, it would be productive to listen to another group as well, a “Team B,” or “what the military calls a ‘Red Team’ to challenge the received view of an organization from within”:
Since the outbreak, scientists have learned a lot about the often severe, and admittedly not flu-like, symptoms that can afflict those vulnerable to the virus. At the same time, mounting evidence shows that the early policy recommendations were based upon models that greatly exaggerated the threat to the overwhelming majority of the population.
“Two Conceptions of Science”
Let this Red Team provide a counterpoint to the current taskforce and thus “teach the controversy” to top decision-makers. If it works in the context of public school education, would it work in the White House? I think it would, and for the same reason: Students and Presidents make better decisions when they are exposed to competing views. As Meyer says, allowing controversy and permitting it to be widely aired is how science makes progress and delivers understanding. He outlines “two conceptions of science”:
The media and official spokespersons for science often depict science primarily as a source of authoritative deliverances. Whether about climate change, the comparative efficacy of embryonic and adult stem cell therapies, or the medical benefits of various diets, science is often portrayed as speaking with one voice. This has many adverse consequences. Of course, there are many widely accepted and well-supported scientific theories that are properly considered part of the body of established scientific knowledge. But science also involves a deliberative process of testing and evaluating new evidence and competing interpretations of that evidence. Moreover, scientists often disagree about how to interpret facts and even about what the facts are. As the Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera has shown, science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret evidence. Premature appeals to an alleged consensus, therefore, can short-circuit this necessary deliberative function and lead to unwarranted conclusions, impeding scientific advance. The false perception of scientific consensus or certainty can, in turn, form the basis of rigidly enforced authoritarian public policy.
But Is There a Controversy?
You can hear the objection already, one we’ve heard before in the Darwin debate. When it comes to the coronavirus, do legitimate scientists really disagree? Or is there only one valid position, represented by what the media refer to with a definite article, not “science” but “The Science”? Meyer writes:
Many eminent and dissenting medical, scientific and epidemiological experts would make an outstanding scientific “Team B,” perhaps as part of a new task force about how to open the economy. Consider just a few of the experts who have publicly questioned key assumptions or aspects of current policies: Professors Jay Bhattacharya, Eran Bendavid, and John Ioannidis of the Stanford University Medical School;
Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center;
Professor Knut Wittowski, biostatistician and former head of epidemiology, Rockefeller University;
John Lee, former professor of pathology, Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom;
Daniel G. Murphy, chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx;
Douglas Axe, Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University and former research scientist at Cambridge University’s Medical Research Council Laboratory;
Professor Martin Kulldorf, Harvard University Medical School. Collectively, this group has marshalled many scientific facts and arguments that challenge the wisdom of extending stay-at-home orders.
It’s an important perspective, and not for scientific or medical reasons alone. In the never-ending lockdown, there is more at stake than health, including economic ruin, bringing its own threats to life, and perhaps above all, America’s future as a free country. Read the rest at The Federalist, and hope that it’s read, too, by people with influence.
Photo: South Lawn of the White House, by PHC C.M. Fitzpatrick / Public domain.