In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must violate either the principle of locality or the form of philosophical realism known as counterfactual definiteness.

here

Was the principle of locality operative during the initial instant of the universe's existence? If locality has theoretical value for understanding the origin of the universe then how is "immediate surroundings" defined in that context?

Michael Ruse wrote, From a Curriculum Standpoint, Is Science Religion? Stephen Jay Gould's Non Overlapping Magisteria apears to be steadily losing ground in the secular community. At least that is the subjective evaluation of this writer. Ruse speaks of the interface between science and religion and embraces the "independence" position. Ruse:

Basically, I argue that science is inherently metaphorical, that today’s science has at its core the metaphor of a machine, that metaphors rule certain questions out of court—not wrong, just not asked—and that it is legitimate for religious people to try to provide answers. Religious answers not scientific answers, about ultimate origins and purposes, about morality, and perhaps also about consciousness.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a
Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations

HT: Paul Nelson

One thing IDists and their critics have in common is internet usage. Whether or not we all think the internet needs to be regulated is another matter. In fact it will be regulated. Who will do the regulating is not mysterious. The great and powerful federal bureaucracy had that privilege bestowed on it. That fact is no doubt a source of comfort to some who comment at TT. It's a tyrannical act to my way of thinking. It's not needed and opens up a door to full blown regulation and back door censorship. I see the gubby fish shrugging and thinking no big deal. Funny how the Patriot Act was a big deal until two years ago.

Imagine a future where the Internet is governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who rule at their own whim, regardless of legislators’ demands or judicial rule. Sadly, that future is now. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to make an unprecedented power grab and assert the authority to regulate the Internet, despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. And while it’s a story that has gone largely unnoticed amid Congress’ big-ticket lame duck decisions, it’s a tale of unchecked government expansion that must be told.

here

Stumbled upon this paper by Denis Noble. Title: "Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis, and Selfish Genes: are they of use in physiology?" Apparently due to appear/having appeared in the latest issue of The Journal of Physiology.

Interesting little paper. Some quotes below the cut, with minimal commentary. But before that, here's the abstract:

This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, form barriers to the integration of physiological science with evolutionary theory. A gene-centred approach analyses the relationships between genotypes and phenotypes in terms of differences (change the genotype and observe changes in phenotype). We now know that, most frequently, this does not correctly reveal the relationships because of extensive buffering by robust networks of interactions. By contrast, understanding biological function through physiological analysis requires an integrative approach in which the activity of the proteins and RNAs formed from each DNA template is analysed in networks of interactions. These networks also include components that are not specified by nuclear DNA. Inheritance is not through DNA sequences alone. The selfish gene idea is not useful in the physiological sciences, since selfishness cannot be defined as an intrinsic property of nucleotide sequences independently of gene frequency, i.e. the ‘success’ in the gene pool that is supposed to be attributable to the ‘selfish’ property. It is not a physiologically testable hypothesis.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Genes Arise Quickly

HT: Nick Matzke

Experimental Evolutionist Replies to Behe

A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism:
Identifying Sources of Active Information.

The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: A reply to Jerry Coyne

HT: Neddy

EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”

In the spirit of Grinch, insensitivity, crass advertising and a host of other liberal sins an atheist group has posted a billboard message in my home state. It was not cheap either. You would think they might have chosen to donate the $20,000 in costs to beleaguered New Jersey property tax payers, or underprivileged kids, or the federal treasury or scientific research, or Santa's bank account or some enlightened cause for goodness sake. The message:

You KNOW it's a Myth! This Season, Celebrate REASON!

Oh the mavens of sweet reason who think the watch in your Christmas stocking can be explained by natural laws. No intelligence required. Of course it was derived from the neural activity of the human brain which in turn was the inevitable outcome of the Big Bang. All a mindless series of unplanned events. Merry Christmas to all. Celebrate reason which reveals our flawed moral nature and the need to be saved from it.

here

"Not exactly", according to… well. The American Anthropological Association, apparently.

I link to Steve Sailer's blog on this one since he quotes the article in question at length, which otherwise seems to be behind a paywall. Nevertheless, some choice extractions below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here's the abstract of Behe's new paper. It may be a while before I have a chance to read the entire paper itself.

A few of weeks ago, Paul Nelson linked to He-who-must-not-be-named.

No, not this guy.

This guy.

Read the rest of this entry »

PDS asked some interesting questions, which I thought deserved their own thread:

Here is a question:

Which scientists (or other experts) should you trust in the area of biological origins and biological history and why?
How does a non-scientist decide who is reliable?
Why should someone trust Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe more than Francis Collins or Darrel Falk?
I have some thoughts, but I am curious to know how others would answer these questions.

I'm curious what PDS's thoughts are, but meanwhile, here are mine:
Read the rest of this entry »