in greenhouse speciation

From ScienceDaily:
“The fact that the association is statistically significant despite the crudeness of our estimates suggests that the true biological association is very strong,” Funk says. “Darwin’s famous book was called ‘On the Origin of Species,’ but it was really about natural selection on traits rather than speciation. Since our study suggests that natural selection [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

nous avons en commun…

Je me demandais “qu’est-ce qu’ils ont en commun ?”, en dehors de ce qu’ils déclarent. Je parle des signataires du point de vue “Pour une science sans a priori”.
J’avais l’impression qu’un trait commun n’était pas déclaré. Il m’est difficile de comprendre comment l’Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris aurait pu agréger ces personnes. Il y a des [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

Science sans a priori

J’ai attentivement lu le Point de Vue : “Pour une Science sans a priori“.
Document vraiment intéressant pour au moins trois raisons

il a trouvé un chemin jusqu’à un journal national
il est d’une légèreté insoutenable, même par les signatures qui le suivent
il montre à peu de choses près qu’il est pour une science avec des a priori

Mais [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

please, update as soon as possible

post 813 of uncommondescent, by William Dembski himself:
Here is a brief essay on design by Darwin’s contemporary John Stuart Mill. Question: are the molecular machines identified by Michael Behe as decisive evidence for design merely analogous to human-built machines or do they fully instantiate the concept of machine?
What is the meaning of this post? That [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

simple questionnaire

While reading Daniel Dennett’s “Show me the science” I came through the example of creationist questionnaires that flourish:
A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:
Test Two
Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder? [YES] [NO]Do you know [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

The Intelligent Designers Emergence

I was first interested on the Intelligent Design buzz while working on a science-fiction novel dealing with the idea that Homo sapiens was preparing itself to take a giant leap, freeing itself from ‘darwinian’ evolution; if not freeing, at least radically changing its place in the process.
The first step of this journey was language, just [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

Intelligent Design FAQ

The following citation is from the Intelligent Design Society of Kansas Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. Quite interesting, quite scientific.

I’m confused about Intelligent Design’s stance on the theory of evolution, can you summarize it?
Of course. The evidence gathered by Intelligent Design proponents clearly shows that:

Evolution does not happen.
Evolution happens in some cases.
Some evolution is directed [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

On Behe’ responses to Kitzmiller #5

In remark 11 Behe set a list of points.
I’ll start with number 2:
I was given no chance to read them [ fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system], and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

On Behe’ responses to Kitzmiller #4

Nor do experiments exist that demonstrate the power of natural selection to make irreducibly complex biochemical systems, either directly or indirectly–proclamations of the National Academy notwithstanding.
He is perfectly right on this point. There is no experiment able to produce irreducible complex systems as those doesn’t exist
I suppose he wanted to say [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »

On Behe’ responses to Kitzmiller #3

(5) ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)).
In my remark here I will focus on the word “cannot.” [...]

Lire l'intégralité de l'article »