evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-08--Ignoring the Obvious: Convergent Evolution in Strickberger’s Evolution

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 .
See also the earlier entries in this series : The phenomenon of convergent evolution is well documented in the literature of evolutionary biology .
In Strickberger ’ s Evolution , Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson make frequent reference to it .
But what does it mean ?
In the 19th century , St. George Jackson Mivart made convergence a central aspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Species .
If the variations on which natural selection acts are produced randomly , Mivart reasoned , one would expect different kinds of variations to arise in geographically isolated populations , leading to evolutionary divergence , not convergence .
But the latter is what we see .
Strickberger ’ s Evolution , while acknowledging the reality of convergence , tries mightily to ignore the non-Darwinian character of this phenomenon , leading to some striking inconsistencies .
In a chapter outlining evidence for evolution we read : But how and why do these similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural selection can preserve them ?
Hall and Hallgrimsson do not say .
They even note that air-breathing evolved 67 times , but ignore the larger implications of how such a complex series of similar mutations could occur repeatedly if the mutations are produced without reference to the needs of the organism , or randomly .
This problem becomes even more acute when Hall and Hallgrimsson write : But selection does not produce the “ independent genetic changes.
” It only preserves them once they arise .
The phenomenon of convergence thus raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetic changes are .
Also , by focusing so much on the environment as driving evolutionary change , do Hall and Hallgrimsson realize they sound a lot more like Lamarck than they do Darwin ?
Nevertheless , in a startling reversal on the very next page , Hall and Hallgrimsson contradict everything they have just said in a discussion of the work of Sandra Mitchell , a philosopher of science who proposed a scheme of hierarchical levels of complexity in organisms .
The third level of her hierarchy is called “ evolved complexity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adaptive challenges have resulted in a diversity of forms of organisms , not a single form.
” But I thought similar adaptive challenges drove evolution to produce similar adaptive forms !
Hall and Hallgrimsson ignore the contradiction .
In fact , just two pages later , seemingly unaware of Mitchell ’ s work which they cited , they write : So Much for Consistency !
Mitchell is correct that Darwin ’ s theory predicts evolutionary divergence .
Unfortunately for Darwin , evolutionary convergence is often what we observe .
Still , Hall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between theory and observation .
In a discussion of plant evolution we read : George Ledyard Stebbins , the biologist who brought botany into the fold of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s , also wrestled with the meaning of convergence among plants .
He saw convergence as evidence for some type of guiding force in plant evolution — either natural selection or orthogenesis .
As an orthodox Darwinian , Stebbins discarded orthogenesis as a possibility and opted for natural selection by default .
But observing how plants with primitive features continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ features , rather than the latter replacing the former , Stebbins wrote : I couldn ’ t agree more .
And this is the reason the phenomenon of convergence still stands as a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution , just as Mivart understood as early as the 1870s .
More recently , paleontologist Simon Conway Morris has made convergent evolution the focus of his work .
In a striking passage Conway Morris writes : Wherever one looks it seems as if evolution has very little choice .
If , then , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ map ” across which life must navigate to the very few available solutions , then are we not on the threshold of a predictive biology ?
This view of life cuts cleanly across one of the central areas of neo-Darwinian thinking , an area that insists on the randomness of evolution and the unpredictability of its outcomes .
Such an idea is , of course , anathema to the biological establishment .
According to Conway Morris , the best way to enrage an evolutionary biologist is to sidle up and suggest that evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are lucky , ” he quips , “ all you ’ ll need is a clean handkerchief to dab the spots of spittle , but sometimes the response is closer to foaming.
” Remarkably , even Ernst Mayr ( pictured above ) was forced to tacitly acknowledge the challenge to Darwinism posed by convergence .
Earlier in his career , Mayr agreed with Francois Jacob that a tinkerer made a better analogy for the action of natural selection than an engineer .
Engineering was just too teleological a comparison for a process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in his final book What Evolution Is , written in his nineties , Mayr positively marveled at the phenomenon of convergence : So much for the tinkerer bumbling about in his garage .
Natural selection , according to Mayr , does work more like the intelligent engineer after all .
Strickberger ’ s Evolution repeatedly acknowledges the widespread nature of the phenomenon of convergent evolution .
But by consistently ignoring the profound challenge convergence poses to Darwinian natural selection , the textbook denies students the opportunity to grapple with big and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Earth , questions that got the attention of Mivart in the 1870s , Conway Morris more recently , and that even did not escape the notice of Ernst Mayr .
This greatly undermines the very educational process a textbook should be designed to foster .

Photo: Ernst Mayr, by University of Konstanz / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5).
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. See also the earlier entries in this series:
The phenomenon of convergent evolution is well documented in the literature of evolutionary biology. In Strickberger’s Evolution, Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson make frequent reference to it. But what does it mean? In the 19th century, St. George Jackson Mivart made convergence a central aspect of his criticism of the Origin of Species. If the variations on which natural selection acts are produced randomly, Mivart reasoned, one would expect different kinds of variations to arise in geographically isolated populations, leading to evolutionary divergence, not convergence. But the latter is what we see. Strickberger’s Evolution, while acknowledging the reality of convergence, tries mightily to ignore the non-Darwinian character of this phenomenon, leading to some striking inconsistencies.
In a chapter outlining evidence for evolution we read:
The evolution of different organisms, or parts of organisms, in similar directions — convergent evolution (convergence) — indicates that selection for similar features in different evolutionary lineages can, and often does, lead to functionally similar anatomical structures.
But how and why do these similar features arise in different lineages so that natural selection can preserve them? Hall and Hallgrimsson do not say. They even note that air-breathing evolved 67 times, but ignore the larger implications of how such a complex series of similar mutations could occur repeatedly if the mutations are produced without reference to the needs of the organism, or randomly.
Lamarck and Darwin
This problem becomes even more acute when Hall and Hallgrimsson write:
As in parallelism, convergence derives from the exposure of different lineages to similar environmental factors evincing similar selective forces. Common adaptive features thus can be attained in each group through independent genetic changes.
But selection does not produce the “independent genetic changes.” It only preserves them once they arise. The phenomenon of convergence thus raises real questions about just how independent those genetic changes are. Also, by focusing so much on the environment as driving evolutionary change, do Hall and Hallgrimsson realize they sound a lot more like Lamarck than they do Darwin?
Nevertheless, in a startling reversal on the very next page, Hall and Hallgrimsson contradict everything they have just said in a discussion of the work of Sandra Mitchell, a philosopher of science who proposed a scheme of hierarchical levels of complexity in organisms. The third level of her hierarchy is called “evolved complexity,” the principle that “similar adaptive challenges have resulted in a diversity of forms of organisms, not a single form.” But I thought similar adaptive challenges drove evolution to produce similar adaptive forms! Hall and Hallgrimsson ignore the contradiction.
In fact, just two pages later, seemingly unaware of Mitchell’s work which they cited, they write:
When similar organisms are exposed to similar environments in different localities, evolution can produce strikingly convergent or parallel features, whether a structure, function, or behavior.
So Much for Consistency!
Mitchell is correct that Darwin’s theory predicts evolutionary divergence. Unfortunately for Darwin, evolutionary convergence is often what we observe.
Still, Hall and Hallgrimsson press on undeterred by this gap between theory and observation. In a discussion of plant evolution we read:
Not surprisingly, these beautiful adaptations reflect convergence as selection under similar environmental conditions produced similar plant phenotypes in different lineages residing in different geographical localities.
George Ledyard Stebbins, the biologist who brought botany into the fold of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s, also wrestled with the meaning of convergence among plants. He saw convergence as evidence for some type of guiding force in plant evolution — either natural selection or orthogenesis. As an orthodox Darwinian, Stebbins discarded orthogenesis as a possibility and opted for natural selection by default. But observing how plants with primitive features continue to exist alongside plants with more evolved features, rather than the latter replacing the former, Stebbins wrote:
The differentiation of orders and families of flowering plants through the action of natural selection under present conditions is well-nigh impossible to imagine.
I couldn’t agree more. And this is the reason the phenomenon of convergence still stands as a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution, just as Mivart understood as early as the 1870s.
More recently, paleontologist Simon Conway Morris has made convergent evolution the focus of his work. In a striking passage Conway Morris writes:
Wherever one looks it seems as if evolution has very little choice. If, then, we can discover the details of the metaphysical “map” across which life must navigate to the very few available solutions, then are we not on the threshold of a predictive biology? This view of life cuts cleanly across one of the central areas of neo-Darwinian thinking, an area that insists on the randomness of evolution and the unpredictability of its outcomes.
To Enrage an Evolutionary Biologist
Such an idea is, of course, anathema to the biological establishment. According to Conway Morris, the best way to enrage an evolutionary biologist is to sidle up and suggest that evolution has a remarkable directionality. “If you are lucky,” he quips, “all you’ll need is a clean handkerchief to dab the spots of spittle, but sometimes the response is closer to foaming.”
Remarkably, even Ernst Mayr (pictured above) was forced to tacitly acknowledge the challenge to Darwinism posed by convergence. Earlier in his career, Mayr agreed with Francois Jacob that a tinkerer made a better analogy for the action of natural selection than an engineer. Engineering was just too teleological a comparison for a process said to have no foresight or directionality. But in his final book What Evolution Is, written in his nineties, Mayr positively marveled at the phenomenon of convergence:
Convergence illustrates beautifully how selection is able to make use of the intrinsic variability of organisms to engineer adapted types for almost any kind of environmental niche.
So much for the tinkerer bumbling about in his garage. Natural selection, according to Mayr, does work more like the intelligent engineer after all.
Strickberger’s Evolution repeatedly acknowledges the widespread nature of the phenomenon of convergent evolution. But by consistently ignoring the profound challenge convergence poses to Darwinian natural selection, the textbook denies students the opportunity to grapple with big and important questions about the history of life on Earth, questions that got the attention of Mivart in the 1870s, Conway Morris more recently, and that even did not escape the notice of Ernst Mayr. This greatly undermines the very educational process a textbook should be designed to foster.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-09--Listen: Michael Behe Answers Your Questions About Intelligent Design

A new episode of ID the Future features Darwin Devolves author Michael Behe .
The Lehigh University biologist and Discovery @ @ @ @ @ to answer some of the most common questions put to him about evolution and intelligent @ @ @ @ @ collect his answers to three of those questions : ( 1 ) What are some @ @ @ @ @ systems ?
( 2 ) What are some objections to ID from well-known critics ?
@ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t you convinced by theistic evolution arguments ?
Download the podcast or listen @ @ @ @

Photo: Michael Behe, by Chris Morgan.
A new episode of ID the Future features Darwin Devolves author Michael Behe. The Lehigh University biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow sat down to answer some of the most common questions put to him about evolution and intelligent design, and here we collect his answers to three of those questions: (1) What are some new examples of irreducibly complex systems? (2) What are some objections to ID from well-known critics? And (3) Why aren’t you convinced by theistic evolution arguments? Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-11--Darwinism Paved the Way to Our Perilous Cultural Moment

The year so far has delivered a stunning lesson in the fragility of freedom and of civilization .
Endless lockdowns matched with urban chaos — it ’ s hard to believe these two shattering phenomena overlapped entirely by accident .
How exactly , though , do they relate ?
At Mind Matters , Michael Egnor suggests Darwinism as a missing link .
Egnor cites Plato , as analyzed by philosopher Edward Feser .
Plato charted a devolution in forms of government , from what he regarded as the best ( a sort of “ philosophical aristocracy ” ) to oligarchy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , followed by tyranny .
Egnor understands totalitarianism — Nazism and Communism — as the special modern iteration of tyranny , which received its “ scientific imprimatur ” from the theory of Darwinian evolution .
The transformation of tyranny to totalitarianism , as explained by philosopher Hannah Arendt ( 1906–1975 ) is Darwinian .
Arendt notes that “ Darwinism met with such overwhelming success [ in totalitarian systems ] because it provided , on the basis of inheritance , the ideological weapons for race and well as class rule … “ Underlying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the expression of the law of nature in man , is Darwin ’ s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human beings , just as under the Bolsheviks ’ belief in class-struggle as the expression of the law of history lies Marx ’ s notion of society as the product of a gigantic historical movement which races according to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.
” Nazism was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin ’ s theory and Arendt notes that Marx and Engels explicitly credited Darwin with insights essential to Marxism .
She points out , “ … the great and positive interest Marx took in Darwin ’ s theories ; Engels could not think of a greater compliment to Marx ’ s scholarly achievements than to call him the ‘ Darwin of history ’ … the movement of history and the movement of nature are on and the same.
” This is not to say that Darwin caused totalitarianism .
Totalitarians were on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also drew heavily from Hegel ’ s “ World-Spirit ” metaphysics and from Feuerbach ’ s atheism and materialist anthropology .
But Darwin provided a naturalist rationale — a scientific imprimatur — for the indispensable characteristic of totalitarian movements , which is the claim that their triumph is an inexorable natural movement .
In the Platonic scheme , totalitarians are tyrants ( thugs ) who rule not by their mere base lusts but by a fanatic devotion to an ideology of human evolution — biological/racial evolution ( Hitler ) or economic/class evolution ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In each totalitarian variant of tyranny , the pandemonium of late democracy is atomized , terrorized , and paralyzed , like a herd of unruly cattle stampeded in a single direction dictated by the alleged irresistible laws of nature .
Totalitarianism is , in short , the tyranny of guided evolution .
Thus , Darwin provided a scientific imprimatur for this modern mutation of ordinary Platonic tyranny .
In other words , Darwinism provides a framework and pretext for totalitarian thinking , which sees itself as fulfilling an evolutionary destiny .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of evolution paves the way .
Does this sound overstated ?
Melodramatic ?
It would be interesting to ask Cliff Mass .
The University of Washington climate scientist took a two-hour walking tour last week through largely abandoned and boarded up downtown Seattle .
From lockdown to looting and riot , our once-lovely city has been on a mad plunge to suicide .
On his blog , Mass compared what has happened to the city to Kristallnacht , the November 9 , 1938 “ Night of Broken Glass ” in Hitler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came for Professor Mass for that one , and he got cancelled from his gig commenting on the weather — the weather !
— for NPR .
Analogies are always risky , especially when they encompass anything to do with the Nazis .
But he wasn ’ t entirely off-base .
While Nazis rampaged against Jewish businesses , Antifa and other “ protestors ” have targeted all business and normal life in general .
The government in both cases winked at it , while good people were afraid to speak out .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poised on the edge of something still darker than what we ’ ve seen so far .
Antifa was at it again last night in Seattle , as Chicago again witnessed rampant looting and anti-police violence .
And then there is the ongoing chaos in Portland .
Hannah Arendt would not have seen such mayhem and the isolation and powerlessness of lockdown as separate and unrelated .
In Michael Egnor ’ s reading , neither would Plato .
The “ pandemonium of late democracy ” walks hand in hand with atomization , terror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary ideology in getting us here should not be neglected .

Photo: Portland riot, by Tedder / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
The year so far has delivered a stunning lesson in the fragility of freedom and of civilization. Endless lockdowns matched with urban chaos — it’s hard to believe these two shattering phenomena overlapped entirely by accident. How exactly, though, do they relate? At Mind Matters, Michael Egnor suggests Darwinism as a missing link.
Democracy and Tyranny
Egnor cites Plato, as analyzed by philosopher Edward Feser. Plato charted a devolution in forms of government, from what he regarded as the best (a sort of “philosophical aristocracy”) to oligarchy, timocracy, issuing in base democracy, followed by tyranny. Egnor understands totalitarianism — Nazism and Communism — as the special modern iteration of tyranny, which received its “scientific imprimatur” from the theory of Darwinian evolution.
The transformation of tyranny to totalitarianism, as explained by philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) is Darwinian. Arendt notes that “Darwinism met with such overwhelming success [in totalitarian systems] because it provided, on the basis of inheritance, the ideological weapons for race and well as class rule … “Underlying the Nazi’s belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human beings, just as under the Bolsheviks’ belief in class-struggle as the expression of the law of history lies Marx’s notion of society as the product of a gigantic historical movement which races according to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.” Nazism was clearly inspired in no small part by Darwin’s theory and Arendt notes that Marx and Engels explicitly credited Darwin with insights essential to Marxism. She points out, “… the great and positive interest Marx took in Darwin’s theories; Engels could not think of a greater compliment to Marx’s scholarly achievements than to call him the ‘Darwin of history’… the movement of history and the movement of nature are on and the same.” This is not to say that Darwin caused totalitarianism. Totalitarians were on the scene a century before Darwin. Marx also drew heavily from Hegel’s “World-Spirit” metaphysics and from Feuerbach’s atheism and materialist anthropology. But Darwin provided a naturalist rationale — a scientific imprimatur — for the indispensable characteristic of totalitarian movements, which is the claim that their triumph is an inexorable natural movement. In the Platonic scheme, totalitarians are tyrants (thugs) who rule not by their mere base lusts but by a fanatic devotion to an ideology of human evolution — biological/racial evolution (Hitler) or economic/class evolution (Marx, Lenin, Mao). In each totalitarian variant of tyranny, the pandemonium of late democracy is atomized, terrorized, and paralyzed, like a herd of unruly cattle stampeded in a single direction dictated by the alleged irresistible laws of nature. Totalitarianism is, in short, the tyranny of guided evolution. Thus, Darwin provided a scientific imprimatur for this modern mutation of ordinary Platonic tyranny.
A Framework and a Pretext
In other words, Darwinism provides a framework and pretext for totalitarian thinking, which sees itself as fulfilling an evolutionary destiny. You can have totalitarian tyranny without Darwin, but the idea of evolution paves the way.
Does this sound overstated? Melodramatic? It would be interesting to ask Cliff Mass. The University of Washington climate scientist took a two-hour walking tour last week through largely abandoned and boarded up downtown Seattle. From lockdown to looting and riot, our once-lovely city has been on a mad plunge to suicide. On his blog, Mass compared what has happened to the city to Kristallnacht, the November 9, 1938 “Night of Broken Glass” in Hitler’s Germany. An online mob came for Professor Mass for that one, and he got cancelled from his gig commenting on the weather — the weather! — for NPR. Analogies are always risky, especially when they encompass anything to do with the Nazis. But he wasn’t entirely off-base. While Nazis rampaged against Jewish businesses, Antifa and other “protestors” have targeted all business and normal life in general. The government in both cases winked at it, while good people were afraid to speak out.
In 2020, our culture could well be poised on the edge of something still darker than what we’ve seen so far. Antifa was at it once more last night in Seattle, as Chicago again witnessed rampant looting and anti-police violence. And then there is the ongoing chaos in Portland. Hannah Arendt would not have seen such mayhem and the isolation and powerlessness of lockdown as separate and unrelated. In Michael Egnor’s reading, neither would Plato. The “pandemonium of late democracy” walks hand in hand with atomization, terror, and paralysis. The contribution of evolutionary ideology in getting us here should not be neglected.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-10--For Fire and More, Humans Are Designed to Have Just the Right Strength

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
Standing up and maintaining our upright posture is only possible because we possess muscles of sufficient power to resist the downward pull of gravity .
Even a trained athlete finds it hard to lift much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head .
An ant , however , can easily lift many times its own weight , without training and seemingly without effort , and carry it back over all manner of obstacles to the nest .
How is it that an ant appears proportionately so much stronger than a trained human weight lifter ?
In his book Scaling , Knut Schmidt-Nielsen explains why : “ When we see an ant carrying in its jaws a seed that weighs more than the animal itself , we gain the impression that its muscles must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insect muscles show that they are not stronger .
In fact , they exert the same force per unit cross-sectional area as vertebrate muscles.
” 1 The answer is related to size .
With decreasing size of an animal , its volume , or mass : decreases in proportion to the third power of L [ its length measurement ] , but the cross-sectional area of muscles ( which determine the force they can exert ) decreases only as the square of L. Thus , the force exerted by muscles , relative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decrease in L. This is the reason that the ant appears to have muscles of unmatched strength.2 Again , it ’ s a matter of scaling !
As size increases , the mass or weight of an organism increases by the cube of its length , while muscle power only increases by cross-sectional area , i.e.
, the square of its length !
This means that the power of muscles imposes yet another limit on our size as an upright bipedal organism in addition to the fact that the strength of bones varies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out , as their cross-sectional area ( L2 ) while the kinetic force ( breaking force ) imposes another limit on possible height .
If the force exerted by muscles were not very close to what it is , large terrestrial organisms — our size and bigger — that must resist the downward pull of gravity and must face the L2/L3 “ scaling challenge ” would be impossible .
It is worth noting in this context that although the size range of organisms is enormous , we are just about as big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just about as big as an upright bipedal organism could be .
As Steven Vogel points out , “ Only a little more than an order of magnitude separates us from the largest living things , but six to seven orders lie between us and the smallest.
” 4 ( Emphasis added . )
• Knut Schmidt-Nielsen , Scaling : Why is Animal Size So Important ?
( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1984 ) , 210-211 .

Photo credit: Victor Freitas via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
Standing up and maintaining our upright posture is only possible because we possess muscles of sufficient power to resist the downward pull of gravity. Even a trained athlete finds it hard to lift much more than his own weight above his head. An ant, however, can easily lift many times its own weight, without training and seemingly without effort, and carry it back over all manner of obstacles to the nest. How is it that an ant appears proportionately so much stronger than a trained human weight lifter? In his book Scaling, Knut Schmidt-Nielsen explains why: “When we see an ant carrying in its jaws a seed that weighs more than the animal itself, we gain the impression that its muscles must be inordinately strong. However, measurements of insect muscles show that they are not stronger. In fact, they exert the same force per unit cross-sectional area as vertebrate muscles.”1
A Matter of Scaling
The answer is related to size. With decreasing size of an animal, its volume, or mass:
decreases in proportion to the third power of L [its length measurement], but the cross-sectional area of muscles (which determine the force they can exert) decreases only as the square of L. Thus, the force exerted by muscles, relative to mass, increases in proportion to the decrease in L. This is the reason that the ant appears to have muscles of unmatched strength.2
Again, it’s a matter of scaling! As size increases, the mass or weight of an organism increases by the cube of its length, while muscle power only increases by cross-sectional area, i.e., the square of its length! This means that the power of muscles imposes yet another limit on our size as an upright bipedal organism in addition to the fact that the strength of bones varies, as J. B. S. Haldane points out, as their cross-sectional area (L2) while the kinetic force (breaking force) imposes another limit on possible height.
If the force exerted by muscles were not very close to what it is, large terrestrial organisms — our size and bigger — that must resist the downward pull of gravity and must face the L2/L3 “scaling challenge” would be impossible. It is worth noting in this context that although the size range of organisms is enormous, we are just about as big as most organisms get,3 and certainly we are just about as big as an upright bipedal organism could be. As Steven Vogel points out, “Only a little more than an order of magnitude separates us from the largest living things, but six to seven orders lie between us and the smallest.”4 (Emphasis added.)
Tomorrow, “Appreciating the Design of Human Muscles.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-11--In Defiance of Evolution, Hierarchical Design Is Ubiquitous in Biology

Hierarchical design , as seen in engineering projects , takes foresight .
Neo-Darwinism has no foresight , as Marcos Eberlin explains in his book Foresight : How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose .
In Darwin ’ s Dilemma ( 2009 ) , animation portrayed construction of a computer network from the circuit design up .
This illustrated how body plans in Cambrian animals exhibited hierarchical design .
Some recent scientific papers have called attention to hierarchies in biological designs .
Are they able to Darwinize them ?
Water lilies thrive on water because of the hierarchical design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the AAAS Journal Science Advances , Ning Xu et al .
at Nanjing University in China1 describe how the leaf is constructed in layers that work together , then tell how the design gave them ideas : Water lily naturally ( Fig .
1A ) has an elegant system of transpiration with several features .
First , the upper epidermis absorbs sunlight and provides stomata for water vapor escape .
Its well-known hydrophobic surface has self-cleaning property .
Second , the water lily can float naturally on the surface of water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air chamber ) at the bottom of the leaf .
Third , there exists a confined water path provided by vascular bundles to pump up water and then spread it into the large surface of the water lily .
Taking advantage of these features , we propose a water lily–inspired hierarchical structure ( WHS ) , which can realize highly efficient , stable solar evaporation in high-salinity brine/wastewater until complete separation of water and solute is obtained .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Another Chinese team , at Peking University , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and found that hierarchical structures gave it properties of super-repellency to water by creating a kind of “ air mattress ” that bobs the leaf to the surface .
They also wrote about their findings in PNAS.2 The Chinese seem to be on a roll looking for hierarchical structures in organisms .
At Shanghai Jiao Tong University , another team examined photonic structures that confer a brilliant reflective white sheen in animals as diverse as beetles , butterflies , aquatic organisms , and mammals .
This sheen is important for thermal regulation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PNAS,3 the team saw that this trait required hierarchical organization at the nanoscopic level .
Biological hierarchical structures often go beyond getting the materials and shapes right ; they also optimize how they are interconnected .
The American Chemical Society took a closer look at nacre , or mother-of-pearl , which consists of layers of mineral and protein .
Chemists have tried to imitate its toughness , but so far have failed .
One reason is that chemists were simply layering the materials like bricks .
In the oyster shell , “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in intricate herringbone patterns , ” they found .
When the chemists imitated that , the strength of their mimic was multiplied fourfold .
It became “ almost ” as strong and tough as natural nacre .
Meanwhile , in the Netherlands , scientists investigated hierarchical design in relationships between genes .
Writing in Science Advances,4 they noticed that transcription factors for genes are not randomly distributed .
The caption for Figure 4 reads : A Rube Goldberg device may be irreducibly complex in the sense that removing one part destroys function , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to get a job done .
Should it really take twenty crazy steps to operate an automatic back scratcher ?
In human engineering , time-motion studies can determine the most efficient way to perform a task , using just-in-time delivery , route optimization , feedback regulation and other methods .
Many biological systems have already mastered hierarchical dynamics .
A good example is the mammalian nervous system .
Teng et al .
at the Beijing Academy of Sciences write in PNAS5 : One often-neglected feature of signal transmission in neurons is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why the sheath optimizes information transmission : it restricts ionic leakage through the membrane to specific points called Nodes of Ranvier .
This gives the axon a “ saltatory ” conduction mechanism : “ a unique action potential propagation pattern , which is limited in myelinated axons and demonstrates an ultrafast signal transmission ability.
” By reducing ionic spread in this way , the axon effectively makes the nervous system an AC ( alternating current ) system instead of DC ( direct current ) system .
DC transmits by sine waves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , converts its ion channels into a kind of FM ( frequency modulation ) , granting it much greater information-carrying capacity or bandwidth .
The researchers were inspired to imitate this electronically .
Once again , nature had it first .
And by using ions instead of electrons , biological signal conduction systems do not short out when the baby turtle dives into the water for the first time after hatching .
Random access through random bits would be a very inefficient way to find something .
Imagine if every house had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address ; the post office would go crazy .
A major reason the postman can find your house is that the address is hierarchically arranged : zip code ( itself a five-digit hierarchy ) , state , city , street , house number , apartment number .
Search engines provide rapid answers that way , too , using indexing methods .
It turns out that we humans have such a system inside our skulls .
The National Research University Higher School of Economics , reporting through Phys.org , finds that “ Visual working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the mass of neurons in the brain doesn ’ t outwardly appear that way .
In short-term memory , most people can only recall 3 or 4 objects that they have recently seen .
Neurologists have debated whether individual sights are stored independently or in a hierarchical manner , where each object is embedded in an ensemble of objects to be recalled .
Tests on participants asked to recall the orientations of triangles demonstrated the latter : The researchers found out that the precision of an individual orientation report depended on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a significant resemblance between how accurately participants could remember the orientations of the items in the display and how clustered the orientations to be remembered were .
“ This says for a fact that even as we try to memorize items individually , our working memory also stores the summary of the whole group , ” commented Igor Utochkin , professor at the HSE School of Psychology .
If precise information about a specific item isn ’ t in memory , one uses the ensemble statistics to recall the approximate characteristics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these statistics are , the more precise the response concerning that object is .
The “ ensemble statistics ” thus provide an indexing algorithm to get to the item in memory more rapidly .
The paper on these findings is published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.6 As neuroscience advances , it will be interesting to see what algorithms are used for long-term memory storage and recall .
Potentially everything one sees and experiences over a lifetime is stored in the brain .
Much of it can be recalled quickly ; some answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience of wondering , “ What was the name of that neighbor when we were kids ?
” and getting the answer moments later , sometimes after turning attention to something else .
Some type of search algorithm must be at work in the background that combs through a vast quantity of data that would challenge Google .
Is the information stored hierarchically ?
Does the algorithm use indexing methods ?
Based on what the above research shows about biological hierarchies , it would not be surprising to learn that optimized algorithms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biological systems .
These are merely a few recent examples noted by researchers .
By its very nature , hierarchical design defies the stepwise progress assumed to work by natural selection .
It requires foresight : the ability to envision a coordinated function in advance , and then the power to arrange materials and methods to achieve that function .
• Ning Xu et al.
, “ A water lily–inspired hierarchical design for stable and efficient solar evaporation of high-salinity brine.
” Science Advances 05 Jul 2019 : Vol .
5 , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10.1126/sciadv.aaw7013 .
• Yaolei Xiang et al.
, “ Superrepellency of underwater hierarchical structures on Salvinia leaf.
” PNAS February 4 , 2020 117 ( 5 ) 2282-2287 ; DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1900015117 .
• Laura Garcia-Perez et al.
, “ Functional definition of a transcription factor hierarchy regulating T cell lineage commitment.
” Science Advances 31 Jul 2020 : Vol .
6 , no .
31 , eaaw7313 .
DOI : 10.1126/sciadv.aaw7313 .
• Teng et al.
, “ Bioinspired nervous signal transmission system based on two-dimensional laminar nanofluidics : From electronics to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 117 ( 29 ) 16743-16748 ; July 1 , 2020 .
DOI:10.1073/pnas.2005937117 .
• Utochkin and Brady , “ Individual representations in visual working memory inherit ensemble properties.
” Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance , 46 ( 5 ) , 458–473 .
DOI : 10.1037/xhp0000727 .

Photo: A water lily, Hyderabad, India, by Premalatha Kalagara / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Hierarchical design, as seen in engineering projects, takes foresight. Neo-Darwinism has no foresight, as Marcos Eberlin explains in his book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. In Darwin’s Dilemma (2009), animation portrayed construction of a computer network from the circuit design up. This illustrated how body plans in Cambrian animals exhibited hierarchical design. Some recent scientific papers have called attention to hierarchies in biological designs. Are they able to Darwinize them?
Hierarchical Structures
Water lilies thrive on water because of the hierarchical design in the structure of their floating leaves. In the AAAS Journal Science Advances, Ning Xu et al. at Nanjing University in China1 describe how the leaf is constructed in layers that work together, then tell how the design gave them ideas:
Water lily naturally (Fig. 1A) has an elegant system of transpiration with several features. First, the upper epidermis absorbs sunlight and provides stomata for water vapor escape. Its well-known hydrophobic surface has self-cleaning property. Second, the water lily can float naturally on the surface of water because of the existence of lacunae (air chamber) at the bottom of the leaf. Third, there exists a confined water path provided by vascular bundles to pump up water and then spread it into the large surface of the water lily. Taking advantage of these features, we propose a water lily–inspired hierarchical structure (WHS), which can realize highly efficient, stable solar evaporation in high-salinity brine/wastewater until complete separation of water and solute is obtained. [Emphasis added.]
Another Chinese team, at Peking University, meanwhile, studied a floating fern named Salvinia, and found that hierarchical structures gave it properties of super-repellency to water by creating a kind of “air mattress” that bobs the leaf to the surface. They also wrote about their findings in PNAS.2
Beyond superhydrophobicity, here we find that the floating fern, Salvinia molesta, has the superrepellent capability to efficiently replace the water in the microstructures with air and robustly recover the continuous air mattress. The hierarchical structures on the leaf surface are demonstrated to be crucial to the recovery.
The Chinese seem to be on a roll looking for hierarchical structures in organisms. At Shanghai Jiao Tong University, another team examined photonic structures that confer a brilliant reflective white sheen in animals as diverse as beetles, butterflies, aquatic organisms, and mammals. This sheen is important for thermal regulation as well as species recognition. Writing in PNAS,3 the team saw that this trait required hierarchical organization at the nanoscopic level.
Very recently, our group reported that the white beetle Goliathus goliatus with an exquisite shell/hollow cylinder structure and the silvery butterfly Curetis acuta with irregular scales exhibit broadband reflectivity and radiative heat dissipation. Many of these biological photonic structures have evolved to be hierarchical ones characterized by distinct sizes and dimensionalities of structural building blocks. The building blocks, including nanoholes, nanorods, and nanobridges, are sequentially or randomly patterned to form integrated systems.
Biological hierarchical structures often go beyond getting the materials and shapes right; they also optimize how they are interconnected. The American Chemical Society took a closer look at nacre, or mother-of-pearl, which consists of layers of mineral and protein. Chemists have tried to imitate its toughness, but so far have failed. One reason is that chemists were simply layering the materials like bricks. In the oyster shell, “the natural material has wavy bricks that interlock in intricate herringbone patterns,” they found. When the chemists imitated that, the strength of their mimic was multiplied fourfold. It became “almost” as strong and tough as natural nacre.
Hierarchical Relationships
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, scientists investigated hierarchical design in relationships between genes. Writing in Science Advances,4 they noticed that transcription factors for genes are not randomly distributed. The caption for Figure 4 reads:
On the basis of the proven functional interactions shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Notch signaling (indicated by the open arrow symbols) induces Tcf1 expression that subsequently has two target genes: Gata3 and Bcl11b. Gata3 has a minor role in supporting development along the T cell linage but mainly acts to suppress the myeloid and B cell fates. In contrast, Bcl11b induces a T cell–specific program but has minor roles in suppressing alternative lineages with exception of NK cell development that is suppressed by Bcl11b. Collectively, there is a clear functional hierarchy of transcription factors.
Hierarchical Dynamics
A Rube Goldberg device may be irreducibly complex in the sense that removing one part destroys function, but it may not represent the optimum way to get a job done. Should it really take twenty crazy steps to operate an automatic back scratcher? In human engineering, time-motion studies can determine the most efficient way to perform a task, using just-in-time delivery, route optimization, feedback regulation and other methods. Many biological systems have already mastered hierarchical dynamics. A good example is the mammalian nervous system. Teng et al. at the Beijing Academy of Sciences write in PNAS5:
The mammalian nervous system, as the most powerful natural ionic circuitry, demonstrates specific functions, such as multiple responsive abilities and high-throughput ionic information transmission. The natural system employs ions rather than electrons as its carriers, due to the aqueous nature of the organism. Within this aqueous ionic system, billions of stimulus–response combinations help the daily activities of living beings, and specific biological structures guarantee high efficiency.
One often-neglected feature of signal transmission in neurons is the myelin sheath. This team found a reason why the sheath optimizes information transmission: it restricts ionic leakage through the membrane to specific points called Nodes of Ranvier. This gives the axon a “saltatory” conduction mechanism: “a unique action potential propagation pattern, which is limited in myelinated axons and demonstrates an ultrafast signal transmission ability.”
By reducing ionic spread in this way, the axon effectively makes the nervous system an AC (alternating current) system instead of DC (direct current) system. DC transmits by sine waves, but the neuron, using myelin sheaths, converts its ion channels into a kind of FM (frequency modulation), granting it much greater information-carrying capacity or bandwidth.
The researchers were inspired to imitate this electronically. Once again, nature had it first. And by using ions instead of electrons, biological signal conduction systems do not short out when the baby turtle dives into the water for the first time after hatching.
Hierarchical Storage
Random access through random bits would be a very inefficient way to find something. Imagine if every house had a random number instead of a proper street address; the post office would go crazy. A major reason the postman can find your house is that the address is hierarchically arranged: zip code (itself a five-digit hierarchy), state, city, street, house number, apartment number. Search engines provide rapid answers that way, too, using indexing methods. It turns out that we humans have such a system inside our skulls. The National Research University Higher School of Economics, reporting through Phys.org, finds that “Visual working memory is hierarchically structured,” even though the mass of neurons in the brain doesn’t outwardly appear that way.
In short-term memory, most people can only recall 3 or 4 objects that they have recently seen. Neurologists have debated whether individual sights are stored independently or in a hierarchical manner, where each object is embedded in an ensemble of objects to be recalled. Tests on participants asked to recall the orientations of triangles demonstrated the latter:
The researchers found out that the precision of an individual orientation report depended on the variability of all orientations. Furthermore, there was a significant resemblance between how accurately participants could remember the orientations of the items in the display and how clustered the orientations to be remembered were. “This says for a fact that even as we try to memorize items individually, our working memory also stores the summary of the whole group,” commented Igor Utochkin, professor at the HSE School of Psychology. If precise information about a specific item isn’t in memory, one uses the ensemble statistics to recall the approximate characteristics of the object. The more precise these statistics are, the more precise the response concerning that object is.
The “ensemble statistics” thus provide an indexing algorithm to get to the item in memory more rapidly. The paper on these findings is published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.6
As neuroscience advances, it will be interesting to see what algorithms are used for long-term memory storage and recall. Potentially everything one sees and experiences over a lifetime is stored in the brain. Much of it can be recalled quickly; some answers take longer. Everyone has had the experience of wondering, “What was the name of that neighbor when we were kids?” and getting the answer moments later, sometimes after turning attention to something else. Some type of search algorithm must be at work in the background that combs through a vast quantity of data that would challenge Google. Is the information stored hierarchically? Does the algorithm use indexing methods? Based on what the above research shows about biological hierarchies, it would not be surprising to learn that optimized algorithms are involved.
In Defiance of Evolution
Hierarchical design is ubiquitous in biological systems. These are merely a few recent examples noted by researchers. By its very nature, hierarchical design defies the stepwise progress assumed to work by natural selection. It requires foresight: the ability to envision a coordinated function in advance, and then the power to arrange materials and methods to achieve that function.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-11--Intelligent Design and the “Transformative” Summer Seminar: A Student Reflects

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Emily Kurlinski interviews “ Mary , ” a PhD biochemistry @ @ @ @ @ experiences at the annual Center for Science & Culture ’ s Summer Seminar program in @ @ @ @ @ relationships there developed into a community of friendship , professional connection , and support .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
What about the charge that ID is a “ curiosity killer @ @ @ @ @ answer every natural mystery with a shrug and a “ God did it ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ the opposite effect on her .
Her pro-design perspective actually led her to choose a @ @ @ @ @ the conviction that nature is a meaningful and purposeful affair makes her more eager and @ @ @ @ @ of order and elegance in the natural world than otherwise .
Why does she use @ @ @ @ @ ?
You may be able to guess , but listen in to hear her explanation @

Photo: Moon over Seattle's Space Needle, by Nathan Jacobson.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Emily Kurlinski interviews “Mary,” a PhD biochemistry student who tells about her experiences at the annual Center for Science & Culture’s Summer Seminar program in Seattle, and how her relationships there developed into a community of friendship, professional connection, and support. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
What about the charge that ID is a “curiosity killer,” tempting scientists to answer every natural mystery with a shrug and a “God did it”? Mary says ID had just the opposite effect on her. Her pro-design perspective actually led her to choose a career in research, and the conviction that nature is a meaningful and purposeful affair makes her more eager and optimistic about uncovering deeper layers of order and elegance in the natural world than otherwise. Why does she use a pseudonym in the interview? You may be able to guess, but listen in to hear her explanation.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-11--Appreciating the Design of Human Muscles

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
The muscles of all organisms have the same basic design , consisting of densely packed arrays of the basic contractile elements known as molecular motors .
Movement comes about as a result of a sequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described in Nature ’ s Destiny , Chapter Eleven : [ E ] ach basic working component in the muscle cell is an individual protein molecule consisting of a long tail and short head rather like an elongated tadpole , known as a myosin motor .
Movement comes about as a result of a sequence of three conformational changes .
First , the myosin head attaches itself to another long fibrillar molecule known as actin… Second… the head bends suddenly — the power stroke — and this bending causes the myosin molecule and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Third… the head unbends and attaches itself to the actin… The sequence is repeated again , and gradually , via a series of small steps , the two molecules slide past each other.1 Recent work has also shown that each myosin head moves about 8 nanometers with each power stroke and that the heads are stacked in the muscle fibrils in a helical conformation about 14 nanometers apart.2 Each of these tiny units has the same strength , so they exert the same “ pulling ” force per cross sectional area .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the size and movement of the myosin heads , it is likely that no further improvement in muscle power can be achieved by increasing the density of packing of the myosin motors .
They are packed as tightly as possible !
3 As Schmidt-Nielsen points out , it is unreasonable to expect that this mechanism could be improved to provide a greater force per cross sectional area , for the maximal force should be related to the number of filaments that can be packed within that area , and this again depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make up the filaments : All muscle contraction we know about is based on sliding filaments of actin and myosin , and if we could pack more filaments into a given cross-sectional area , the force would be increased .
This is most unlikely because the diameter of the filaments is determined by the size of protein molecules that make up the filaments , and their size is probably determined by the requirement of the molecular mechanism.4 Increasing the power of muscles by increasing the force of the individual power strokes that each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushes on the actin fiber is also difficult to envisage .
Recent measurements of the force of an individual power stroke show that this is about three piconewtons , and this is already several times greater than the strength of individual weak bonds.5 Because it is the weak bonds that hold all the cells constituents together , including the components of the myosin motor and the actin fiber on which it pushes , it is impossible to increase the force of the power stroke to any significant degree or each stoke would cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself but also to other delicate adjacent structures in the cell , including the actin fiber .
Tomorrow , “ What if Our Muscles Were Less Powerful ?
” • Steven M. Block , “ Nanometres and Piconewtons : the Macromolecular Mechanisms of Kinesin , ” Trends in Cell Biology 5 ( 1996 ) : 169-175 .
R. Anthony Crowther , Raúl Padron , Roger Craig , “ Arrangement of the Heads of Myosin in Relaxed thick Filaments from Tarantular Muscle , ” Journal of Molecular Biology 184 ( 1985 ) : 429-439 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motors : Single-molecule mechanics , ” Current Biology 6 , ( 1996 ) : 392-394 .
See also Block , op .
cit .
For strength of weak bonds see Bruce Alberts , Alexander Johnson , Julian Lewis , Keith Roberts , Martin Raff , Peter Walter , Molecular Biology of the Cell , 3rd ed .
( New York : Garland Publishing , 1994 ) , 90-92 .
For energy levels in kJ of myosin cross bridges see William F. Harrington , “ On the Origin of the contractile force in skeletal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy of Sciences USA 76 ( 1979 ) : 5066-5070 .
For energy levels of affinity bonds composed of multiple weak bonds , see J.M .
Batz , and R.A. Cone , “ The Strength of Non-Covalent Biological Bonds and Adhesions by Multiple Independent Bonds , ” Journal of Theoretical Biology 142 ( 1990 ) : 163-178 ; François Amblard , Charles Auffray , Rafick Sekaly , Alain Fischer , “ Molecular analysis of antigen-independent adhesion forces between T and B lymphocytes , ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 91 @ @ @ @ @ @

Photo credit: Steve Elliott / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0).
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
The muscles of all organisms have the same basic design, consisting of densely packed arrays of the basic contractile elements known as molecular motors. Movement comes about as a result of a sequence of three conformational changes.
As I described in Nature’s Destiny, Chapter Eleven:
[E]ach basic working component in the muscle cell is an individual protein molecule consisting of a long tail and short head rather like an elongated tadpole, known as a myosin motor. Movement comes about as a result of a sequence of three conformational changes. First, the myosin head attaches itself to another long fibrillar molecule known as actin… Second… the head bends suddenly — the power stroke — and this bending causes the myosin molecule and the actin to move in opposite directions. Third… the head unbends and attaches itself to the actin… The sequence is repeated again, and gradually, via a series of small steps, the two molecules slide past each other.1
Recent work has also shown that each myosin head moves about 8 nanometers with each power stroke and that the heads are stacked in the muscle fibrils in a helical conformation about 14 nanometers apart.2 Each of these tiny units has the same strength, so they exert the same “pulling” force per cross sectional area.
Tightly Packed Indeed
From consideration of the geometrical constraints on the size and movement of the myosin heads, it is likely that no further improvement in muscle power can be achieved by increasing the density of packing of the myosin motors. They are packed as tightly as possible!3 As Schmidt-Nielsen points out, it is unreasonable to expect that this mechanism could be improved to provide a greater force per cross sectional area, for the maximal force should be related to the number of filaments that can be packed within that area, and this again depends on the size of the protein molecules that make up the filaments:
All muscle contraction we know about is based on sliding filaments of actin and myosin, and if we could pack more filaments into a given cross-sectional area, the force would be increased. This is most unlikely because the diameter of the filaments is determined by the size of protein molecules that make up the filaments, and their size is probably determined by the requirement of the molecular mechanism.4
Increasing the power of muscles by increasing the force of the individual power strokes that each myosin head makes as it bends and pushes on the actin fiber is also difficult to envisage. Recent measurements of the force of an individual power stroke show that this is about three piconewtons, and this is already several times greater than the strength of individual weak bonds.5 Because it is the weak bonds that hold all the cells constituents together, including the components of the myosin motor and the actin fiber on which it pushes, it is impossible to increase the force of the power stroke to any significant degree or each stoke would cause damage not only to the myosin motor itself but also to other delicate adjacent structures in the cell, including the actin fiber.
Tomorrow, “What if Our Muscles Were Less Powerful?”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-12--When Cosmos Brought Pantheist-Atheist Mythology into the Open

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Jay Richards concludes his multi-episode conversation with science historian Michael @ @ @ @ @ Geographic Channel series Cosmos : Possible Worlds .
The two discuss the schizophrenia at the @ @ @ @ @ dour atheistic materialism one moment and gauzy , feel-good pantheism the next .
Download the @ @ @ @ @ here .
Richards and Keas agree that if there ’ s one good thing to @ @ @ @ @ final episode , it ’ s that it brings the pantheistic religious mythology of the @ @ @ @ @ .
Everything comes together in a message that includes a creation myth , a story @ @ @ @ @ ) , a salvation story , and even resurrection and ascension .
Keas , author @ @ @ @ @ About the History and Future of Science and Religion , emphasizes that while the new @ @ @ @ @ be all about the “ science , ” it ’ s remarkably free of scientific @ @

Image: Host Neil deGrasse Tyson glimpsed in a screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0, “Possible Worlds.”
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Jay Richards concludes his multi-episode conversation with science historian Michael Keas about the 2020 National Geographic Channel series Cosmos: Possible Worlds. The two discuss the schizophrenia at the heart of the series — dour atheistic materialism one moment and gauzy, feel-good pantheism the next. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Richards and Keas agree that if there’s one good thing to come of the series’ final episode, it’s that it brings the pantheistic religious mythology of the Cosmos franchise into the open. Everything comes together in a message that includes a creation myth, a story of sin (ecological sin), a salvation story, and even resurrection and ascension. Keas, author of Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion, emphasizes that while the new Cosmos series is supposed to be all about the “science,” it’s remarkably free of scientific evidence.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-12--What Intelligent Design Research on COVID-19 Would Look Like

Adam Shapiro , whom we ’ ve wrangled with before , is a historian who uses his modest scholarship to mislead about the history of Darwinism .
As noted here already , Shapiro has an essay in American Scientist magazine taking ID scientists to task for not pronouncing the COVID-19 virus an undesigned product of natural selection .
Shapiro : The COVID-19 pandemic could have been a crowning moment for intelligent design , but instead the crisis has really revealed its ultimate irrelevance .
With some U.S. political leaders speculating that the novel coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim is true or false would seem to be just what is needed at this time .
Shapiro assumes COVID-19 design research would show that COVID had a natural origin : Intelligent design ’ s advocates claim that through analysis of the genetic information encoded in the DNA of living species , one can determine whether an organism arose through the process of natural variation and selection or whether it was the product of intentional design by some deliberate creator .
Here at last is an opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the supernatural , legalistic , or culture-war baggage that have embroiled the idea for the past 30 years… And yet , intelligent design advocates have largely missed the call .
Let ’ s look at what intelligent design research on the origin of COVID-19 might look like .
According to the principles of fine-tuning and specified complexity , the specified functional complexity of a biological system can only be attributed to random ( undesigned ) natural selection if each step in the hypothetical evolutionary process produces a phenotype favored by selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these principles to what is known of the molecular structure of the COVID-19 virus , the natural occurrence and natural variation of this viral structure , and the specific circumstances of the emergence of the COVID pandemic .
ID research on COVID-19 would be , like all scientific research , an evidence-based inference to the best explanation .
For COVID-19 , the scientific question to be answered is this : Is there evidence for intelligent human agency in COVID-19 , given its structure and what is known about its emergence ?
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Do viruses in general indicate some form of intelligent design underlying their overall structure and functions ?
And ( 2 ) Does the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself show evidence of human design that distinguishes it from other known naturally occurring viruses ?
As to the former question ( 1 ) , we have already addressed it at Evolution News and answered in the affirmative ( see here and here ) .
My colleagues and I have also written a few posts clearing up some misunderstandings about the implications of viral pandemics for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the latter question ( 2 ) that Shapiro and so many others care about at the moment .
This ID question and these ID methods , Shapiro seems not to have noticed , are what the entire scientific community has been addressing and using in every lab in the world that studies the emergence of the virus .
This design science is , quite naturally , the cornerstone of all of the design research currently underway at the CDC , the NIH , the WHO , and in virology labs across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research , and it has been conducted with unparalleled vigor .
I will say more on the subject tomorrow .

Photo credit: US Navy Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sara Eshleman, via Wikimedia Commons.
Adam Shapiro, whom we’ve wrangled with before, is a historian who uses his modest scholarship to mislead about the history of Darwinism. As noted here already, Shapiro has an essay in American Scientist magazine taking ID scientists to task for not pronouncing the COVID-19 virus an undesigned product of natural selection. Shapiro:
The COVID-19 pandemic could have been a crowning moment for intelligent design, but instead the crisis has really revealed its ultimate irrelevance. With some U.S. political leaders speculating that the novel coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab, a way to prove whether this claim is true or false would seem to be just what is needed at this time.
Shapiro assumes COVID-19 design research would show that COVID had a natural origin:
Intelligent design’s advocates claim that through analysis of the genetic information encoded in the DNA of living species, one can determine whether an organism arose through the process of natural variation and selection or whether it was the product of intentional design by some deliberate creator. Here at last is an opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness of an intelligent design theory in molecular biology without any of the supernatural, legalistic, or culture-war baggage that have embroiled the idea for the past 30 years… And yet, intelligent design advocates have largely missed the call.
The Principle of Irreducible Complexity
Let’s look at what intelligent design research on the origin of COVID-19 might look like.
According to the principles of fine-tuning and specified complexity, the specified functional complexity of a biological system can only be attributed to random (undesigned) natural selection if each step in the hypothetical evolutionary process produces a phenotype favored by selection. ID researchers could apply something like these principles to what is known of the molecular structure of the COVID-19 virus, the natural occurrence and natural variation of this viral structure, and the specific circumstances of the emergence of the COVID pandemic. ID research on COVID-19 would be, like all scientific research, an evidence-based inference to the best explanation. For COVID-19, the scientific question to be answered is this: Is there evidence for intelligent human agency in COVID-19, given its structure and what is known about its emergence?
There are two distinct questions here: (1) Do viruses in general indicate some form of intelligent design underlying their overall structure and functions? And (2) Does the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself show evidence of human design that distinguishes it from other known naturally occurring viruses? As to the former question (1), we have already addressed it at Evolution News and answered in the affirmative (see here and here). My colleagues and I have also written a few posts clearing up some misunderstandings about the implications of viral pandemics for our understanding of evolution.
But obviously it’s the latter question (2) that Shapiro and so many others care about at the moment. This ID question and these ID methods, Shapiro seems not to have noticed, are what the entire scientific community has been addressing and using in every lab in the world that studies the emergence of the virus. This design science is, quite naturally, the cornerstone of all of the design research currently underway at the CDC, the NIH, the WHO, and in virology labs across the globe. This is implicit ID research, and it has been conducted with unparalleled vigor. I will say more on the subject tomorrow.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-12--What if Our Muscles Were Less Powerful?

What if Our Muscles Were Less Powerful?

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
The evidence overall suggests strongly that , for fundamental reasons , the maximum power stroke of any sort of molecular motor can not be much greater than it is .
And since the packing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually crystalline and just about as tight as possible , muscles can not be designed , on biological principles , to generate any greater degree of power .
If either the tightness of packaging or the power of the motors had to be less for some reason in a counterfactual world , then organisms of our size and weight would not be feasible because their muscles would be unable to generate the necessary mechanical forces to lift their bodies off the ground and perhaps no movement of any sort would be possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mass devoted to muscle is also not an option .
As it is , mammals invest 40 percent of their mass in muscle,1 and — as every medical student comes to learn when first dissecting the human body at medical school — our limbs are almost entirely composed of muscles .
It would be simply impossible to redesign the human body to compensate for muscles only half as powerful by increasing the proportion of muscles .
Such a strategy would be a matter of diminishing returns , because as the volume of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase proportional to L3 while their strength would only increase by L2 .
No large terrestrial organism built on biological principles could be designed to move with muscles much less than half as powerful as they are .
And muscles can not be redesigned to generated greater force per unit volume .
Even muscles only slightly less powerful would create major design problems .
For example , the strength of the grip of the human fingers is generated by extrinsic muscles in the forearm and not by the small muscles in the hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of muscle , this placement of the grip muscles in the forearm is not in the least bit gratuitous but of absolute necessity .
The muscle bulk necessary to provide the required strength of grip can not be accommodated in the hand .
The fact that it is necessary , even with the strength of muscles as they are , to place the muscle generating grip in the forearm indicates the tremendous difficulties that would be encountered in attempting to redesign the human frame to handle fire and to inhabit a planet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even slightly less powerful .
It is astonishing that the design of the musculature in the arm of man and even the placement of specific muscle groups can be explained to a very large degree from consideration of the force delivered by one individual molecular motor .
The Heart and Its Design The strength of muscles is not just relevant to the movement of our limbs and the maintaining of an upright posture .
Muscles based on the same basic design provide the heart with its ability and the strength to pump the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move the chest during respiration .
If the basic myosin power stroke was significantly less powerful , then the circulatory and respiratory system in beings of our size and weight would be impossible .
We would be unable to stand or breathe or pump the blood around the body .
The power stroke of the myosin motors must not only exert the force it does , but the energy requirements to drive it must also be close to what they are .
The delivery of oxygen to the tissues in an organism like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the danger of fire and oxygen toxicity if the partial pressure of 160 mm Hg of oxygen in the atmosphere were significantly higher ) and the necessity for an area the size of a tennis court ( about 100 square meters ) 2for gaseous exchange in the lungs , and the constraints on capillary design and function .
Based on these varied constraints , it is virtually impossible to envisage any sort of radical redesign of either the circulatory or respiratory systems in complex organisms which would double or triple the delivery of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of metabolic energy .
As it is , during strenuous activity , much of the volume of active muscles is made up of blood capillaries .
If the power stroke of our molecular motors was cut in half or was a third as efficient in terms of energy utilization , i.e.
, if they required two or three times more ATP or metabolic energy , then large complex forms of life dependent on muscles for motility would in all probability be impossible .
Given that muscle power ( force per cross sectional area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually the same throughout the animal kingdom , and given that mass increases proportional to L3 , it is clear that organisms of our size are near the limit of what is practical given the power of muscles .
Again , it ’ s a close call .
It is evident , then , that to stand upright our muscles and our dimensions must be very close to what they are .
A miniature human , built on the same biological principles but only one half or one-third our size ( possessed of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have considerable difficulty in cutting and manipulating logs of much more than a few kilos in weight .
Such a being would be restricted to making fires using small twigs and whether the heat and sustainability of such fires would have sufficed for the discovery of metals and for the development of metallurgy is open to question .
As we have seen , metallurgy necessitates high temperatures of many hundreds of degrees and this requires properly designed kilns and the use of large quantities of wood or charcoal.3 • Vogel , 390 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which occupy the same proportion of the body in mammals .
The circulatory system occupies approximately the same proportion of body mass in birds and mammals , see Vogel , 187 .
Heart size also occupies same proportion of body mass in small and large mammals , see Schmidt-Nielsen ( 1997 ) Chapter Three , fig 3.9 , and the lungs in mammals also occupy the same proportion of body mass in all mammals , see “ Mammalian Lungs , ” fig 1.15 .
• Arthur Wilson , The Living Rock : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their Impact on Civilization ( Cambridge : Woodhead Publishing Limited , 1994 ) , Chapter Two , 10-16 .

Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
The evidence overall suggests strongly that, for fundamental reasons, the maximum power stroke of any sort of molecular motor cannot be much greater than it is. And since the packing of the myosin motors in muscle tissue is virtually crystalline and just about as tight as possible, muscles cannot be designed, on biological principles, to generate any greater degree of power. If either the tightness of packaging or the power of the motors had to be less for some reason in a counterfactual world, then organisms of our size and weight would not be feasible because their muscles would be unable to generate the necessary mechanical forces to lift their bodies off the ground and perhaps no movement of any sort would be possible.
Diminishing Returns
Increasing the percentage of the body’s mass devoted to muscle is also not an option. As it is, mammals invest 40 percent of their mass in muscle,1 and — as every medical student comes to learn when first dissecting the human body at medical school — our limbs are almost entirely composed of muscles. It would be simply impossible to redesign the human body to compensate for muscles only half as powerful by increasing the proportion of muscles. Such a strategy would be a matter of diminishing returns, because as the volume of the muscles increased, their weight would increase proportional to L3 while their strength would only increase by L2. No large terrestrial organism built on biological principles could be designed to move with muscles much less than half as powerful as they are. And muscles cannot be redesigned to generated greater force per unit volume.
Major Design Problems
Even muscles only slightly less powerful would create major design problems. For example, the strength of the grip of the human fingers is generated by extrinsic muscles in the forearm and not by the small muscles in the hand itself. Given the existing contractile power of muscle, this placement of the grip muscles in the forearm is not in the least bit gratuitous but of absolute necessity. The muscle bulk necessary to provide the required strength of grip cannot be accommodated in the hand. The fact that it is necessary, even with the strength of muscles as they are, to place the muscle generating grip in the forearm indicates the tremendous difficulties that would be encountered in attempting to redesign the human frame to handle fire and to inhabit a planet the size of the Earth if muscles were even slightly less powerful. It is astonishing that the design of the musculature in the arm of man and even the placement of specific muscle groups can be explained to a very large degree from consideration of the force delivered by one individual molecular motor.
The Heart and Its Design
The strength of muscles is not just relevant to the movement of our limbs and the maintaining of an upright posture. Muscles based on the same basic design provide the heart with its ability and the strength to pump the blood. And it is muscles that move the chest during respiration. If the basic myosin power stroke was significantly less powerful, then the circulatory and respiratory system in beings of our size and weight would be impossible. We would be unable to stand or breathe or pump the blood around the body.
The power stroke of the myosin motors must not only exert the force it does, but the energy requirements to drive it must also be close to what they are. The delivery of oxygen to the tissues in an organism like man is constrained by atmospheric conditions (the danger of fire and oxygen toxicity if the partial pressure of 160 mm Hg of oxygen in the atmosphere were significantly higher) and the necessity for an area the size of a tennis court (about 100 square meters)2for gaseous exchange in the lungs, and the constraints on capillary design and function. Based on these varied constraints, it is virtually impossible to envisage any sort of radical redesign of either the circulatory or respiratory systems in complex organisms which would double or triple the delivery of oxygen to muscle tissues and the production of metabolic energy.
As it is, during strenuous activity, much of the volume of active muscles is made up of blood capillaries. If the power stroke of our molecular motors was cut in half or was a third as efficient in terms of energy utilization, i.e., if they required two or three times more ATP or metabolic energy, then large complex forms of life dependent on muscles for motility would in all probability be impossible.
Given that muscle power (force per cross sectional area) cannot be increased and is virtually the same throughout the animal kingdom, and given that mass increases proportional to L3, it is clear that organisms of our size are near the limit of what is practical given the power of muscles. Again, it’s a close call.
A Miniature Human
It is evident, then, that to stand upright our muscles and our dimensions must be very close to what they are. A miniature human, built on the same biological principles but only one half or one-third our size (possessed of only a fraction of our strength) would have considerable difficulty in cutting and manipulating logs of much more than a few kilos in weight. Such a being would be restricted to making fires using small twigs and whether the heat and sustainability of such fires would have sufficed for the discovery of metals and for the development of metallurgy is open to question. As we have seen, metallurgy necessitates high temperatures of many hundreds of degrees and this requires properly designed kilns and the use of large quantities of wood or charcoal.3
Tomorrow, “For Fire, Nature Obliges Us with Rapid Reflexes.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-13--There’s Implicit ID Research on COVID-19; What About Explicit?

As I noted here yesterday , historian Adam Shapiro has criticized intelligent design scientists for not pronouncing the COVID-19 virus an undesigned product of natural selection .
It ’ s true that explicit ID research , done by scientists who have the insight and integrity to publicly confirm their use of the inference to design , has as yet been mostly silent on the origin of COVID-19 .
In April a letter in Nature by Anderson et al .
briefly looked at a few amino acids in the spike protein that allow it to bind to our ACE2 receptor with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found “ the interaction is not ideal.
” They postulated that this interaction was therefore “ most likely the result of natural selection ” and “ not the product of purposeful manipulation.
” Yet their cursory analysis can hardly be considered a conclusive investigation of the question for the spike protein or for SARS-CoV-2 virus as a whole .
The reason for the relative silence on the origin of COVID by explicit ID scientists is simple .
It ’ s a reason that Darwinists like Dr. Shapiro may find hard to understand : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack the relevant evidence , have not drawn conclusions .
Explicit ID scientists , as far as I am aware , are not privy to the details about , for example , the exact circumstances in the Wuhan virology lab or to the details of the spread of the epidemic in China .
Presumably such evidence is available to the ( primarily government ) scientists working with the CDC and elsewhere .
Assessing the origin of COVID properly would likely require detailed experiments on the binding affinities of key proteins that give the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spike protein ) .
It would require asking whether their specialized features could arise naturally in a reasonable timescale for viral evolution .
An entire PhD thesis could be done on this topic .
Other questions could be asked related to the phylogenetic history of the virus and whether it has a natural source or looks artificially cobbled together .
Again , it would take time for such an important question to be addressed .
Such an investigation would be encumbered by the fact that we have a very limited knowledge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would require sampling many bat viruses to increase our knowledge of “ what ’ s out there ” in the bat coronavirus universe to possibly serve as the virus ’ s original source .
As another 2020 paper in Nature stated , “ further studies are needed to determine the natural reservoir and any intermediate hosts of WHCV.
” Or as a recent paper in Current Biology , commenting on the peculiar similarity in the spike protein to a pangolin coronavirus , noted , “ whether pangolins are natural reservoirs for these viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from bats or other wildlife , requires further sampling ” ( emphases added ) .
Likewise , a 2020 paper in Nature Microbiology highlights our “ knowledge gap ” regarding coronavirus diversity , which hampers our ability to answer key questions : Every year , additional CoV sequences are discovered .
However , there is a massive knowledge gap in the field , as very little work is performed after the viral sequences are published .
Therefore , it is unknown whether these viruses have the potential to emerge in human populations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding .
Viral isolation from field samples is rarely successful and reverse genetics recovery of recombinant virus is labour intensive and expensive , as the synthesis of a single genome can cost upwards of US $ 15,000 .
These limitations are prohibitive to studying CoVs at the scale at which they are discovered .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Looked at from a well-informed ID perspective , perhaps the virus would turn out to be of entirely natural origin .
But making this determination would require extensive field work and laboratory research and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place quickly .
It would be fundamentally irresponsible to speculate about answers to these questions before the research is done .
This is in marked contrast to Darwinian science , much of which is unencumbered by evidence and prone to sweeping pronouncements of evolutionary breakthroughs based on a bone fragment , a fossil or two , lice , moths glued to trees , irrelevant experiments , bushes misrepresented as trees , fake embryos , or spit .
Adam Shapiro notes that ( explicit ) ID scientists ’ modest statements about the COVID pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which we have insufficient evidence to draw a scientific inference : Shapiro laments : if only scientists were studying the possibility that COVID was designed by humans in a lab… Shapiro sets the bar for ID science : demonstrate its apolitical nature !
If only he would set the same bar for all of science !
More tomorrow .

Image source: CDC, via Unsplash.
As I noted here yesterday, historian Adam Shapiro has criticized intelligent design scientists for not pronouncing the COVID-19 virus an undesigned product of natural selection. It’s true that explicit ID research, done by scientists who have the insight and integrity to publicly confirm their use of the inference to design, has as yet been mostly silent on the origin of COVID-19.
In April a letter in Nature by Anderson et al. briefly looked at a few amino acids in the spike protein that allow it to bind to our ACE2 receptor with “high affinity.” However, they found “the interaction is not ideal.” They postulated that this interaction was therefore “most likely the result of natural selection” and “not the product of purposeful manipulation.” Yet their cursory analysis can hardly be considered a conclusive investigation of the question for the spike protein or for SARS-CoV-2 virus as a whole.
The reason for the relative silence on the origin of COVID by explicit ID scientists is simple. It’s a reason that Darwinists like Dr. Shapiro may find hard to understand: explicit ID scientists, insofar as they lack the relevant evidence, have not drawn conclusions. Explicit ID scientists, as far as I am aware, are not privy to the details about, for example, the exact circumstances in the Wuhan virology lab or to the details of the spread of the epidemic in China. Presumably such evidence is available to the (primarily government) scientists working with the CDC and elsewhere.
Assessing the origin of COVID properly would likely require detailed experiments on the binding affinities of key proteins that give the virus its pathogenic properties (such as the spike protein). It would require asking whether their specialized features could arise naturally in a reasonable timescale for viral evolution. An entire PhD thesis could be done on this topic.
A Natural Source or Cobbled Together?
Other questions could be asked related to the phylogenetic history of the virus and whether it has a natural source or looks artificially cobbled together. Again, it would take time for such an important question to be addressed. Such an investigation would be encumbered by the fact that we have a very limited knowledge of bat virus diversity. A proper analysis would require sampling many bat viruses to increase our knowledge of “what’s out there” in the bat coronavirus universe to possibly serve as the virus’s original source.
As another 2020 paper in Nature stated, “further studies are needed to determine the natural reservoir and any intermediate hosts of WHCV.” Or as a recent paper in Current Biology, commenting on the peculiar similarity in the spike protein to a pangolin coronavirus, noted, “whether pangolins are natural reservoirs for these viruses, or they acquired these viruses independently from bats or other wildlife, requires further sampling” (emphases added). Likewise, a 2020 paper in Nature Microbiology highlights our “knowledge gap” regarding coronavirus diversity, which hampers our ability to answer key questions:
Every year, additional CoV sequences are discovered. However, there is a massive knowledge gap in the field, as very little work is performed after the viral sequences are published. Therefore, it is unknown whether these viruses have the potential to emerge in human populations. Current methods for studying betacoronaviruses are technically demanding. Viral isolation from field samples is rarely successful and reverse genetics recovery of recombinant virus is labour intensive and expensive, as the synthesis of a single genome can cost upwards of US$15,000. These limitations are prohibitive to studying CoVs at the scale at which they are discovered. [Emphasis added.]
Looked at from a well-informed ID perspective, perhaps the virus would turn out to be of entirely natural origin. But making this determination would require extensive field work and laboratory research and financial investment. It would not take place quickly. It would be fundamentally irresponsible to speculate about answers to these questions before the research is done.
A Contrast with Darwinism
This is in marked contrast to Darwinian science, much of which is unencumbered by evidence and prone to sweeping pronouncements of evolutionary breakthroughs based on a bone fragment, a fossil or two, lice, moths glued to trees, irrelevant experiments, bushes misrepresented as trees, fake embryos, or spit.
Adam Shapiro notes that (explicit) ID scientists’ modest statements about the COVID pandemic haven’t addressed scientific questions for which we have insufficient evidence to draw a scientific inference:
…none of these address the question of whether the tools of their research can provide evidence for or against the accusation that a Chinese laboratory intelligently designed SARS-CoV-2.
Shapiro laments: if only scientists were studying the possibility that COVID was designed by humans in a lab…
The coronavirus presented an opportunity to demonstrate a practical application of intelligent design, one that it could credibly say was aligned with its work all along. How better to demonstrate its own apolitical nature than to apply its scientific process to debunk the Chinese lab myth…
Shapiro sets the bar for ID science: demonstrate its apolitical nature! If only he would set the same bar for all of science! More tomorrow.