Category Archives: Darwinism

Photo Credit: Dr. Pear

At the turn of the twentieth century, many immigrant and native-born Jews in the United States unyoked themselves from religious observance. However, the same period also witnessed a parallel phenomenon the forging of a distinctly American form of Orthodox Judaism.

At a particular moment in the 1920s, according to historian Jenna Weissman Joselit, this new breed of Jewish Americans had set before themselves a two-fold goal: to rebuke and repudiate the reformers and to deal effectively and happily with the great task of Americanization.

The Orthodox rabbis who spearheaded this effort were easily riled by descriptions of Orthodoxy as Old World, backward, or out of date. They sought to fashion an American Orthodoxy that was as aesthetic, cultured, and engaged with contemporary issues as it was rooted in tradition.

Quite naturally, then, a number of Orthodox leaders addressed the issue of Darwinism, made timely by the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. By the dawn of the twentieth century, major Reform exponents like Rabbis Emil G. Hirsch and Joseph Krauskopf had formulated well-known articulations of Judaisms compatibility with Darwinian thought, a consensus position in Reform Judaism that won out after initial debate in the 1870s and 1880s.

Orthodoxy remained equivocal about Darwinism, although significant rabbinic figures, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, for instance, wrote that it was compatible with Jewish belief, even if they did not embrace it outright.

However, despite the contention of American Orthodox rabbis that Judaism ought to respond to the issues of the day, there was no consensus about how to respond: was Darwinism part of the Reform program, in which case it should be combated? Or was it simply representative of Americanization and modernity, in which case it should be embraced?

The tension among Orthodox rabbis is exhibited in the pages of the communitys journal, The Jewish Forum. In 1926, two young and determined Manhattan-based rabbis published positions on the theory of evolution in that well-read monthly.

Rabbi Leo Jung of the Jewish Center was a capable scholar and lifelong leader of American Orthodox organizations. Rabbi David de Sola Pool, spiritual leader of Congregation Shearith Israel (also known as the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue) was similarly a leader within a number of important organizations and a skilled orator with a love of history. Both received ordination from the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin. Both carried strong attachments to British forms of intellectualism to boot. And their Upper West Side congregations were well within walking distance of one another.

Despite these similarities, their respective positions on Darwinism were far apart. Rabbi Jung questioned the very basis of the theory of evolution while Rabbi Pool readily espoused it.

In July 1925, John Scopes, in a rather theatrical and public legal case, was found guilty of violating Tennessees Butler Act that forbade the teaching of evolution, as it denie[d] the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible. Rabbi Jung made his position on the Scopes Trial clear in the March 1926 issue of The Jewish Forum. He provocatively wrote:

For the benefit of those whom the tragic-comedy of Tennessee may have disturbed, let me state here deliberately and publicly that there has hitherto been no single piece of incontrovertible evidence even to the effect that man lived more than 5686 years ago.

In contrast, Rabbi Pool drew a different lesson from the controversy. Writing in the April issue of the same periodical, he contended that: the theory of evolution [has] taught us to see the unity of God in the infinite variety of life, and even that the rabbis of ancient days caught a glimpse of the origin of species by means of natural selection as part of Gods plan for creation.

The differences between two rabbis who were otherwise so similar demands an explanation. There are several possible answers, but a consideration of these rabbinic leaders in their particular congregational settings can shed a good deal of light.

Rabbi Pool led the oldest Jewish congregation in the United States. Shearith Israels members took great pride in its long American history, probably dating back to the 1720s. In 1907, Rabbi Pool was called to help lead the synagogue by his cousin, Rabbi Henry Pereira Mendes.

Rabbi Mendes belonged to a group of young traditionalists who were well educated scientifically as well as religiously, and who came out in strong support of Darwinism in the 1880s, for instance, in the editorial pages of The American Hebrew.

They actually used Darwinism in their polemics against the Reform movement, arguing that Reform Judaism, in its eagerness to reinvent the religion, violated Darwins and philosopher Herbert Spencers principle of gradualism by suggesting that religion should progress rapidly, in great leaps, rather than incrementally.

Rabbi Mendes and his colleagues suggested that the American traditionalist camp better reflected Darwinian understandings of gradual evolution applied to a traditions adaptation to contemporary environments. Rabbi Pool, as well as many other young Orthodox rabbis, followed suit, seeing the embrace of Darwinism as in no way out of step with their religious sensibilities.

But while Rabbi Pool was leading a congregation that boasted a long history of stable Orthodox perspectives, Rabbi Jung found himself in a radically different situation. Rabbi Jungs Jewish Center was established just seven years before the Scopes Trial, in 1918. Rabbi Jung became the synagogues second rabbi only four years later in 1922. The congregation and its founding rabbi, Mordecai Kaplan, had parted ways due to Rabbi Kaplans expression of positions contrary to Orthodox theology, such as his hesitations on the principle of Divine Revelation.

Actually, Rabbi Kaplan had in fact felt alienated from the theological positions of Orthodoxy from the earliest years of his career. His biographer, Mel Scult, has argued that Rabbi Kaplan emphasized the import of biological and social evolution in his view of religion, and that it was at Columbia in the first years of the twentieth century that he integrated the work of his adviser, Franklin Giddings, as well as Herbert Spencers teachings, into his own thought.

While the full-blown transformation to Reconstructionism would take decades, Rabbi Kaplan began expressing his discomfort and disagreement with Orthodoxy in the years preceding the Scopes Trial.

As Rabbi Kaplan was still affiliated with Orthodox Judaism at the time, his radical theological notions stung other Orthodox rabbis. Rabbi Bernard Drachman, a former professor of Rabbi Kaplans at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the rabbi at Manhattans (Orthodox) Park East Synagogue, wrote a critique of the latters views in 1921, stating: The cause of causes in producing a breakdown of religious sentiment and practice is the growth of a materialist and naturalistic concept of the universe. He bemoaned not only Rabbi Kaplans famous denial of Divine Revelation, but also his assault on God as Creator.

Rabbi Jung realized that his young Manhattan congregation lacked the communal and theological stability that Rabbi Pool enjoyed sixteen blocks away. Rabbi Jung was at the eye of a storm, fighting for every congregant, and considered himself as a defender of an Orthodoxy under fierce attack in the 1920s.

While the defense against what he termed Kaplanism did not detract from Rabbi Jungs mission to display Orthodoxys sophistication and elegance, it likely made him hesitant to embrace concepts that seemed radical in their adjustments to Jewish thought, especially one like Darwinism, which Rabbi Kaplan himself had placed at the center of his reconstruction of Judaism.

The differences between Rabbis Jung and Pool with regard to Darwinism map onto the differences between their respective congregations. Rabbi Pool, in his rooted and stable community, was perpetuating a view that was put forward by his predecessor and mentor forty years earlier regarding the compatibility of Darwinism and Judaism. Rabbi Jung, in the midst of a crisis brought on by his predecessors revolt against traditional Jewish theology, which itself related to evolutionary concepts in the sociology of religion, expressed a rejectionist position toward evolution.

Therefore, somewhat ironically, Rabbi Pools support of Darwinism did not emerge despite tradition but because of the tradition of predecessors like Rabbi Mendes and teachers like his father-in-law, Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson, as embodied and stabilized by the 250-year old congregation he led.

Rabbi Jungs rejection of Darwinism, on the other hand, is not merely the preservation of old beliefs but a conscious reaction against what he viewed as a pressing danger to Orthodoxy in America.

In each case, questions of doctrine are addressed not in a theoretical vacuum but within the context of living, breathing communities whose histories shape their receptivity to new ideas.

Read the rest here:

How Two New York Rabbis Responded To The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

In the evolution debate, a key issue is the ability of natural selection to produce complex innovations. In a previous article, I explained based on engineering theories of innovation why the small-scale changes that drive microevolution should not be able to accumulate to generate the large-scale changes required for macroevolution. This observation perfectly corresponds to research in developmental biology and to the pattern of the fossil record. However, the limitations of Darwinian evolution have been demonstrated even more rigorously from the fields of evolutionary computation and mathematics. These theoretical challenges are detailed in a new book out this week, Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics.

Authors Robert Marks, William Dembski, and Winston Ewert bring decades of experience in search algorithms and information theory to analyzing the capacity of biological evolution to generate diverse forms of life. Their conclusion is that no evolutionary process is capable of yielding different outcomes (e.g., new body plans), being limited instead to a very narrow range of results (e.g., finches with different beak sizes). Rather, producing anything of significant complexity requires that knowledge of the outcomes be programmed into the search routines. Therefore, any claim for the unlimited capacity of unguided evolution to transform life is necessarily implausible.

The authors begin their discussion by providing some necessary background. They present an overview of how information is defined, and define the standard measures of KCS (KolmogorovChaitin-Solomonov) complexity and Shannon information. The former provides that minimum number of bits required to repeat a pattern the maximum compressibility. The latter relates to the log of the probability of some pattern emerging as an outcome. For instance, the probability of flipping five coins and having them all land on heads is 1/32. The information content of HHHHH is then the negative log (base 2) of 1/32, which is 5 bits. More simply, a specific outcome of 5 coin flips is equivalent to 5 bits of information.

They describe how searches in engineering for some design outcome involve the three components of domain expertise, design criteria, and iterative search. The process involves creating a prototype and then checking to see if it meets the criteria, which functions as a teleological goal. If the initial design does not, the prototype is refined and the test repeated. The greater the domain expertise, the more efficiently adjustments are made, so fewer possibilities need to be tested. Success can then be achieved more quickly.

They demonstrate this process with a homely example: cooking pancakes. The first case involves adjusting the times the pancakes were cooked on the front and on the backside. An initial pancake was cooked for two random times, and it was then tasted. Based on the taste, the temperatures were then adjusted for the second iteration. This process was repeated until a pancakes taste met some quality threshold. For future cases, additional variables were added, such as the amount of milk used in the batter, the temperature setting, and the added amount of salt. If each variable were assigned a value between 1 and 10, such as the ten settings on the stove burner, the number of possible trials increased by a factor of 10 for each new variable. The number of possibilities grows very quickly.

For several variables, if the taster had no knowledge of cooking, the time required to find a suitable outcome would likely be prohibitively long. However, with greater knowledge, better choices could be made to reduce the number of required searches. For instance, an experienced cook (that is, a cook with greater domain experience) would know that the time on both sides should be roughly the same, and pancakes that are too watery require additional flour.

This example follows the basic approach to common evolutionary design searches. The main difference is that multiple trials can often be simulated on a computer at once. Then, each individual can be independently tested and altered. The components of each cycle include a fitness function (aka oracle) to define that status of an individual (e.g., taste of the pancake), a method of determining which individuals are removed and which remain or are duplicated, and how individuals are altered for the next iteration (e.g., more milk). The authors provide several examples of how such evolutionary algorithms could be applied to different problems. One of the most interesting examples they give is how NASA used an evolutionary algorithm to bend a length of wire into an effective X-band antenna.

In this way, the authors demonstrate the limitations of evolutionary algorithms. The general challenge is that all evolutionary algorithms are limited to converging on a very narrow range of results, a boundary known as Baseners Ceiling. For instance, a program designed to produce an antenna will at best converge to the solution of an optimal antenna and then remain stuck. It could never generate some completely different result, such as a mousetrap. Alternatively, an algorithm designed to generate a strategy for playing checkers could never generate a strategy for playing backgammon. To change outcomes, the program would have to be deliberately adjusted to achieve a separate predetermined goal. In the context of evolution, no unguided process could converge on one organism, such as a fish, and then later converge on an amphibian.

This principle has been demonstrated both in simulations and in experiments. The program Tierra was created in the hope of simulating large-scale biological evolution. Its results were disappointing. Several simulated organisms emerged, but their variability soon hit Baseners Ceiling. No true novelty was ever generated but simply limited rearrangements of the initially supplied information. We have seen a similar result in experiments on bacteria by Michigan State biologist Richard Lenski. He tracked the development of 58,000 generations of E. coli. He saw no true innovation but primarily the breaking of nonessential genes to save energy, and the rearrangement of genetic information to access pre-existing capacities, such as the metabolism of citrate, under different environmental stresses. Changes were always narrow in scope and limited in magnitude.

The authors present an even more defining limitation, based on the No Free Lunch Theorems, which is known as the Conservation of Information (COI). Stated simply, no search strategy can on average find a target more quickly than a random search unless some information about that target is incorporated into the search process. As an illustration, imagine someone asking you to guess the name of a famous person, but without giving you any information about that individual. You could use many different guessing strategies, such as listing famous people you know in alphabetical order, or by height, or by date of birth. No strategy could be determined in advance to be better than a random search.

However, if you were allowed to ask a series of questions, the answers would give you information that could help limit or guide your search. For instance, if you were told that the famous person was contemporary, that would dramatically reduce your search space. If you then learned the person was an actor, you would have even more guidance on how to guess. Or you might know that the chooser is a fan of science fiction, in which case you could focus your guessing on people associated with the sci-fi genre.

We can understand the theorem more quantitatively. The size of your initial search space could be defined in terms of the Shannon Information measure. If you knew that one of 32 famous people was the target, the search space would correspond to log (base 2) of 32, which is 5 bits. This value is known as the endogenous information of the search. The information given beforehand to assist the search is known as the active information. If you were given information that eliminated all but 1/4 of the possible choices, you would have log (base 2) of 4, which is 2 bits of active information. The information associated with finding the target in the reduced search space is then log (base 2) of 32/4, which is 3 bits. The search-related information is conserved: 5 bits (endogenous) = 2 bits (active) + 3 bits (remaining search space).

The COI theorem holds for all evolutionary searches. The NASA antenna program only works because it uses a search method that incorporates information about effective antennas. Other programs designed to simulate evolution, such as Avida, are also provided with the needed active information to generate the desired results. In contrast, biological evolution is directed by blind natural selection, which has no active information to assist in searching for new targets. The process is not helped by changes in the environment, which alter the fitness landscape, since such changes contain no active information related to a radically different outcome.

In the end, the endogenous information associated with finding a new body plan or some other significant modification is vastly greater than that associated with the search space that biological offspring could possibly explore in the entire age of the universe. Therefore, as these authors forcefully show, in line with much previous research in the field of intelligent design, all radical innovations in nature required information from some outside intelligent source.

Image: Mandelbrot set, detail, by Binette228 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Original post:

Evolutionary Informatics: Marks, Dembski, and Ewert Demonstrate the Limits of Darwinism - Discovery Institute

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Today, nationwide, and also in our hometown, activists marched for science and against ignorance.And well they should have!However, these activists have an ignorant and virulent corruption in their own midst.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Jennifer Jones 10:56 a.m. ET April 27, 2017

Letter to the editor(Photo: File photo)

Last week, nationwide, and also in our hometown, activists marched for science and against ignorance.

And well they should have!

However, these activists have an ignorant and virulent corruption in their own midst. It's called social darwinism, and with it, people in the STEM fields can justify granting and withholding scientific and medical advancements to their adherents.

The social darwinist STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) crowd should fight back against the anti-intellectual wave sweeping our nation. But the same crowd should also take a close look at their own, very visible enemy, Donald Trump, and also at everyone and everything else that has permitted his rise to power.

STEM social darwinists: Don't you approve? Aren't you pleased? Trump and his ilk are the epitome of everything many of you embrace. Born rich, recipient of family wealth, Trump is the poster-child of social darwinism. For who deserves more in our society than the children of the successful oligarchs? Is he not what you requested? Is he not magnificient? Is he not the flower of natural selection?

No?

Well then, perhaps you'd better second guess more than the Bible-thumping religious right!

Jennifer Jones

Greer

Read or Share this story: http://grnol.co/2qaoIQw

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the article here:

LETTER: Trump and social darwinism - Greenville News

In college, Paul Roebber reveled in the interdisciplinary aspects of meteorology. This was a sign to come, as Roebber, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, would go on to apply biological aspects in his research as he became one of the foremost experts in meteorology forecasting.

Ten years ago, Roebber designed weather forecast simulations that were organized like networks of neurons in the brain. The computer programs formed a system of interconnected processing units that could be activated or deactivated. This artificial neural network tool proved especially proficient at predicting scenarios with large data gaps and reams of variables. It significantly advanced snowfall prediction effortsso much so that the artificial neural network is now used by the National Weather Service.

For me, creativity comes from being open to broad interests, said Roebber in a release from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Recently, that broad interest extended to Charles Darwins evolution theory based on the finches of the Galapagos Islandsspurring Roebbers next big weather innovation.

Metrology meets biology

Currently, weather forecasters use ensemble modeling, which predicts the weather based on the average of many weather models combined. But, ensemble modeling isnt always accurate as each model is so similar, they end up agreeing with each other, rather than the actual weather. Essentially, more data diversity is needed to distinguish relevant variables from irrelevant ones. However, its expensive to obtain and add new data.

The importance of a weather forecast goes beyond you bringing an umbrella to work, or planning to host a party outdoors. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of the U.S. economy is somehow dependent on weather prediction. Even a small improvement in the accuracy of forecasts could save millions of dollars annually for the industries that are affected mostnotably agribusiness and construction.

So, if the key to improving ensemble modeling is data diversityhow do you do it without first collecting new data?

Roebber found the answer in nature.

In 1835, Darwin observed what came to be known as natural selection in a population of finches inhabiting the Galapagos Islands. The birds divided into smaller groups, each residing in different locations around the islands. Over time, they adapted to their specific habitat, making each group distinct from the othersand all different from the original finches.

Applying this to weather prediction models, Roebber devised a mathematical method in which one computer program sorts 10,000 other ones, improving itself over time using strategies such as heredity, mutation andof coursenatural selection. The professor began by subdividing existing variables into conditional scenarios: the value of a variable would be set one way under one condition, but be set differently under another condition.

Then, his computer program picks out the variables that best accomplish the goal and recombines them. This means the offspring weather prediction models improve in accuracy because they block more of the unhelpful attributesjust as Darwin observed all those years ago.

One difference between this and biology is, I wanted to force the next generation [of models] to be better in some absolute sense, not just survive, Roebber said in a UWM press release.

He is already using the evolutionary methodology to forecast minimum and maximum temperatures for seven days out, and the technique is outperforming models used by the National Weather Service. In particular, Roebbers new model works well on long-range forecasts and extreme events, when an accurate forecast is most needed.

More here:

Meteorology Pioneer Borrows from Darwinism for Latest Forecast Innovation - Laboratory Equipment

HARTFORD, Conn. U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes its the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me, said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality. That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth, Himes said.

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year.

Such proposals, however, dont get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who dont call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking up the legislation, which only expresses the Houses support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earths people.

Darwin, who was a religious person, didnt let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. Thats a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but theres an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence, Holt said. Its really to Jims credit that hes speaking up for this. Its harder for a non-scientist to do that.

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a universally respected scientist to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause, Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being.

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe humans and other living things have evolved over time, while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesnt see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

No science can explain why human beings evolved, he said. But we shouldnt argue with the fact that they did evolve.

Read more:

Meet the congressman who is pushing for a Charles Darwin Day ... - Tulsa World

HARTFORD >> U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes its the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me, said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality. That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth, Himes said.

Advertisement

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states, South Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma, have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year. Such proposals, however, dont get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who dont call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking on the legislation, which only expresses the Houses support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earths people.

Darwin, who was a religious person, didnt let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. Thats a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but theres an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence, Holt said. Its really to Jims credit that hes speaking up for this. Its harder for a non-scientist to do that.

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a universally respected scientist to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause, Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being.

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe humans and other living things have evolved over time, while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesnt see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

No science can explain why human beings evolved, he said. But we shouldnt argue with the fact that they did evolve.

Visit link:

Connecticut congressman pushing for a Charles Darwin Day - New Haven Register

Wild Horizons/UIG via Getty

The shape of this chambered nautilus is one of many biological features that DArcy Thompson used maths to explain.

This year marks the centenary of what seems now to be an extraordinary event in publishing: the time when a UK local newspaper reviewed a dense, nearly 800-page treatise on mathematical biology that sought to place physical constraints on the processes of Darwinism.

And whats more, the Dundee Advertiser loved the book and recommended it to readers. When the author, it noted, wrote of maths, he never fails to translate his mathematics into English; and he is one of the relatively few men of science who can write in flawless English and who never grudge the effort to make every sentence balanced and good.

The Dundee Advertiser is still going, although it has changed identity: a decade after the review was published, it merged with The Courier, and that is how most people refer to it today. The book is still going, too. If anything, its title alongside its balanced and good sentences has become more iconic and recognized as the years have ticked by.

The book is On Growth and Form by DArcy Thompson. This week, Nature offers its own appreciation, with a series of articles in print and online that celebrate the books impact, ideas and lasting legacy.

Still in print, On Growth and Form was more than a decade in the planning. Thompson would regularly tell colleagues and studentshe taught at what is now the University of Dundee, hence the local media interestabout his big idea before he wrote it all down. In part, he was reacting against one of the biggest ideas in scientific history. Thompson used his book to argue that Charles Darwins natural selection was not the only major influence on the origin and development of species and their unique forms: In general no organic forms exist save such as are in conformity with physical and mathematical laws.

Biological response to physical forces remains a live topic for research. In a research paper, for example, researchers report how physical stresses generated at defects in the structures of epithelial cell layers cause excess cells to be extruded.

In a separate online publication (K. Kawaguchi et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22321; 2017), other scientists show that topological defects have a role in cell dynamics, as a result of the balance of forces. In high-density cultures of neural progenitor cells, the direction in which cells travel around defects affects whether cells become more densely packed (leading to pile-ups) or spread out (leading to a cellular fast-lane where travel speeds up).

A Technology Feature investigates in depth the innovative methods developed to detect and measure forces generated by cells and proteins. Such techniques help researchers to understand how force is translated into biological function.

Thompsons influence also flourishes in other active areas of interdisciplinary research. A research paper offers a mathematical explanation for the colour changes that appear in the scales of ocellated lizards (Timon lepidus) during development (also featured on this weeks cover). It suggests that the patterns are generated by a system called a hexagonal cellular automaton, and that such a discrete system can emerge from the continuous reaction-diffusion framework developed by mathematician Alan Turing to explain the distinctive patterning on animals, such as spots and stripes. (Some of the research findings are explored in detail in the News and Views section.) To complete the link to Thompson, Turing cited On Growth and Form in his original work on reaction-diffusion theory in living systems.

Finally, we have also prepared an online collection of research and comment from Nature and the Nature research journals in support of the centenary, some of which we have made freely available to view for one month.

Nature is far from the only organization to recognize the centenary of Thompsons book. A full programme of events will run this year around the world, and at the DArcy Thompson Zoology Museum in Dundee, skulls and other specimens are being scanned to create digital 3D models. Late last month, this work was featured in The Courier. One hundred years on, Thompsons story has some way to run yet.

See the rest here:

The 100-year-old challenge to Darwin that is still making waves in research - Nature.com

by SUSAN HAIGH/Associated Press

In this photo taken March 20, 2017, House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., questions FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers on Capitol Hill in Washington, during the committee's hearing regarding allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes it's the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

"I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me," said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because "science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality." That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth," Himes said.

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states, South Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma, have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year. Such proposals, however, don't get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who don't call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking on the legislation, which only expresses the House's support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as "a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's people."

Darwin, who was a religious person, didn't let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. That's a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

"Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but there's an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence," Holt said. "It's really to Jim's credit that he's speaking up for this. It's harder for a non-scientist to do that."

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a "universally respected scientist" to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office -- an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

"Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause," Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a "day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being."

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe "humans and other living things have evolved over time," while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a "supreme being guided the evolution of living things" for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesn't see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

"No science can explain why human beings evolved," he said. "But we shouldn't argue with the fact that they did evolve."

Read more here:

Meet the congressman who is pushing for a Charles Darwin Day ... - WJLA

Some stunning upsets in conventional thinking about evolution have hit the news in rapid succession, threatening Darwins famous tree icon.

Under the rules of neo-Darwinism, mutations must be random, providing fodder for the blind processes of natural selection. But heres a case where animals defy their own neo-Darwinism. Luke Dunning writes at The Conversation:

Are octopuses so clever because they ignore their genetic programming? Research has shown that octopuses and other cephalopods edit the messages sent from their DNA instead of following them almost exactly like most living things usually do.

Previously, scientists thought this process of molecular Chinese whispers was largely insignificant in animal evolution. But a new study published in the journal Cell shows this is certainly not true for these tentacled ocean dwellers.

It suggests that genetic editing may directly contribute to cephalopods remarkable intelligence, which enables them to solve complicated puzzles and visually communicate by changing their skin colour, making them the smartest of all invertebrates. However, the ability to alter genetic messages may come at a price, potentially reducing other more common forms of adaptive evolution. [Emphasis added.]

Lets translate the evo-speak into plain English. Neo-Darwinism did not make cephalopods what they are. These highly intelligent and well-adapted animals edited their own genes, so what possible need do they have for other forms of adaptive evolution presumably the blind, random, unguided kind? What does editing imply?

News from the University of Chicagos Marine Biological Laboratory implies that cephalopods were wise to choose the RNA editing bargain. Mutation is usually thought of as the currency of natural selection, and these animals are suppressing that to maintain recoding flexibility at the RNA level, says biologist Joshua Rosenthal. The lab identified tens of thousands of evolutionarily conserved RNA recoding sites in this class of cephalopods, called coleoid. Evolutionarily conserved is a euphemism for stability for non-evolution over long periods of time. Those squid are smart, all right: they seem to be able to prevent Darwinian evolution!

So far, news sources such as New Scientist are just calling this a special kind of evolution based on RNA editing instead of DNA mutations. Theyre restricting the phenomenon to squid, octopuses and cuttlefish. But usually when a new process is discovered in one group, scientists now alerted to it start finding it in other groups, too.

The implications for Darwins tree of life are clear. If animals are able to defy genetics central dogma (Phys.org) and take evolution into their own hands, no wonder the tree managers are scrambling.

Check out this talking point: Cephalopods probably chose to take this RNA bargain over genome evolution, and maybe vertebrates made the other choice they preferred genome evolution over editing. They chose? That sounds like intelligent design by the spirits of cephalopods, playing their own evolutionary strategy against the rules of the game established by Darwin. A better model would be pre-programmed software for stability in a dynamic environment.

Photo: California two-spot octopus, by Tom Kleindinst via Marine Biological Laboratory.

Originally posted here:

Octopus Genetic Editing Animals Defy Their Own Neo-Darwinism - Discovery Institute

We might as well just give up control over the planet right now. In recently published research, scientists detail a set of experiments in which robots real, physical machines improved themselves through a kind of digital Darwinism. The bots, each drawing from a collective "gene pool," competed with one another over multiple generations, gradually swapping genetic material in a process akin to sexual reproduction. The research articleappearedin the journalFrontiers in Robotics and AI. While this kind ofevolutionary roboticsresearch has been around a while, the new study presents an important step forward in assessing the evolutionary dynamics of physically embodied robots and it suggests that we're mashing the fast-forward button on the impending robotic revolution. Researchers from Vassar College set up an experiment in which 10 small-wheeled robots all of them a model of the Ana BBot, manufactured by Johuco Ltd. were issued the same task: to gather beams of light while avoiding certain obstacles. Each bot was also issued its own set of "genes" a specific pattern of wires connected to pins on a circuit board.

Ana BBot, a mobile robot that is programmable using jumper wires to connect sensors and motors.

RELATED: Stopping Killer Robots at the Source (Code) It turns out that the experiment didn't reveal anything particularly dramatic. The robots didn't evolve better light-capturing or object-avoidance skills. But the experiment did reveal the importance of tracking the developmental factor in evolutionary robotics. "It is important to note that our goal was not to show adaptive evolution per se, but rather to test the hypothesis that epigenetic factors can alter the evolutionary dynamics of a population of physically embodied robots," wrote Brawer and Hill. Notably, all the bots had lost mobility entirely by the end of the experiment, since the mating algorithm allowed low-fitness individuals to remain in the gene pool and reproduce. So maybe there's still hope for us after all.

Originally published on Seeker.

Read the original:

'Mating' Robots Take a Fast-Forward Leap in Digital Darwinism - Live Science