11:30 AM: Dear Brig, ... News story: DID VIKING FIND LIFE AFTER ALL? A NEW STUDY SUGGESTS THE VIKING GCMS FOUND ORGANICS AT BOTH VIKING LANDING SITES

A new paper being published soon in the Journal of Geophysical Research "Reanalysis of the Viking results suggests perchlorate and organics at mid-latitudes on Mars" by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez et al now shows that the Viking gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) actually found a surprisingly significant amounts of organic material in Martian soil. This now opens the door to a biological interpretation of the Viking biology experiments - a door that has been largely closed for 34 years due to the misinterpretation of the Viking organic analysis by the GCMS that many claimed found no evidence of organics at the ppb level. To understand how this could have happened the new findings by Navarro-Gonzalez et al explain that the Viking GCMS instrument reported that only water at 0.1-1.0 wt% was detected with traces of chloromethane at 15 ppb in the Viking Landing site 1, and water at 0.05-1.0 wt% and carbon dioxide at 50-700 ppm with traces of dichloromethane at 0.04-40 ppb in the Viking Landing site 2. "These chlorohydrocarbons were considered to be terrestrial contaminants (pre-flight to Mars cleaning fluids) although they had not been detected at those levels in the blank runs." However, the discovery of perchlorate salts in the Martian soil by the 2008 Phoenix lander has cast a new re-interpretation of the Viking GCMS results suggesting that 0.1% perchlorate and 1.5-6.5 ppm organic carbon was found at Viking landing site 1, and 0.1% perchlorate and 0.7-2.6 ppm organic carbon at Viking landing site 2. A NASA news conference is planned for September 3rd.

Sincerely, Barry E. DiGregorio

Navarro-González, R., E. Vargas, J. de la Rosa, A. C. Raga, and C. P. McKay, "Reanalysis of the Viking results suggests perchlorate and organics at mid-latitudes on Mars," doi:10.1029/2010JE003599, J. Geophys. Res., in press, accepted 19 August 2010.
Life on Mars! is the related local webpage.

Largest molecules ever known in space found, by JR Minkel, Space on msnbc.com, 22 Jul 2010.
Jan Cami et al., "Detection of C₆₀ and C₇₀ in a Young Planetary Nebula" [abstract], doi:10.1126/science.1192035, Science, online 22 Jul 2010.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's Analysis of Interstellar Dust is a related local webpage.

Intergalactic legacy by Chandra Wickramasinghe, NewScientist, 9 Jun 2010.
31 May 2010: our What'sNEW notice of Ventner's project begins, "Nature asked eight experts...."
How Is It Possible? is a related local webpage.

14 Jun, 3:36 PM: Thanks for your note and for the review. I have some issues with the latter: First, we don't claim that we (the scientists examining the case) can't [tell] which of linked variables are free-riders; of course we can, very often; and when we can't the problem is often technical rather than logical or methodological. Our claim is that Natural selection (if it works the way Darwin says it does) can't distinguish causes of fitness from their free-riders. There's no contradiction here; we can do lots of things that NS can't because we've got minds and it doesn't.

I have no views about the origin of life or about what amendments physicists make in the theory of natural selection these days. My impression is that, as a matter of fact, many of them endorse a pretty crude version except when someone catches them. Anyhow, I'm pretty certain that the kinds of amendments they have in mind would not fix the problems that the intensionality of 'selection-for' produces for Darwin. These problems are the polemical center of the book; would that it's reviewers undersood that. Best, jf [Jerry Fodor, pictured]

15 Jun, 12:28 AM: Thanks for the reply. I am still puzzled why NS's lack of a mind disables it as you say. Is there any reviewer who gets it? ...If the problem is a serious as you say, the solution could be as serious as cosmic ancestry. Any hope of interesting you? ...In any case, thank you. Best regards. ...Brig

12:32 AM: NS's lack of a mind would not prevent it from culling the unfit ones at least. Right? (Maybe we agree!)

9:43 AM: The explanation of selection-against is exactly symmetrical with the explanation of selection-for. If there are problems about selection-for, there are exactly the same problems about selection-against.

10:46 AM: The point is that mental states (believing, wanting etc.) are typically intensional, so if evolution were mind driven, it would be no surprise that 'select for' and the like are intensional too. But it isn't, so it is. Actually, there's a lot of discussion of this and related points in the book.

BTW: I don't think the issues about the origins of life intersect importantly with problems about how evolution works: Evolution of a phenotype presupposes previous generations with a related phenotype. It starts in the middle of things; like Homer. Problems about evolution are impossible; problems about the origin of life are hopelessly impossible. ...je

11:16 AM: It sounds like you're saying that evolution needs a mind to do what it has done. But that can't be right. ...My computer can do lots of interesting things, but it has no mind. What it has is _programming_. Life also has programming in its DNA. Can't this, if supplied, do the job? Other questions follow, but only if this line of thought interests you. Thanks for responding. ...Brig
PS -- has any reveiwer understood you fully? Who?

11:53 AM: NO; I'm saying that if Darwin were right about how evolution works, (namely, by selecting-for adaptive traits) it would have to have a mind. ...Your computer seems to have a mind because you actually do have one. Perhaps it would have a mind if it had the right sort of program (the kind you have). But it doesn't, so it doesn't. ...jf

1:02 PM: OK, I'm maybe about to get it. But it might be "adaptive" for a cave-dweller to lose the eyes, right? NS could mindlessly do that I would think. But, if for "adaptive" you substitute "inventive," then I agree 100%. Are we getting anywhere?

1:38 PM: No ammendment required; the Darwinist's claim is not that all adaptation is the result of selection. nor even that whatever is selective is adaptive. Just that selection is adaptive in paradigm cases and vice versa. ...je

22 Jun, 12:16 PM: Dear Jerry -- Thanks for all yours [above] and for permission to post. I have been thinking about these issues and want to followup if you are still interested. In particular, I am curious to hear an example or two of the paradigm cases that you mention. Presumably these would show that the process would require a mind? The devil (for me at least) may be in the details.

And, finally, could I interest you in this logical point -- The origin of a genetic program for a major evolutionary step is an assumed event with no good supporting evidence, only supposed necessity based, ultimately, only on the big bang. (So's the origin of life.) At this point the lack of evidence is noteworthy, because it has been sought so diligently. But if genetic programs don't ever have to originate, all the big problems for evolution can be solved (with HGT), and the process demonstrated with computer models. ...Any response will be welcome. Thanks. Best regards. Brig

25 Jun, 10:33 AM: There's no lack of cases that illustrate the adaptivity of evolution: exposure to antibiotics produces antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the color of moths evolves in the direction of the color of their background (likewise polar bears, etc.) Cf any standard introduction to evolutionary theory. None of this requires appeal to minds *until you ask yourself 'which trait is selected-for' in such cases?. Are white polar bears selected for being white? Or for matching their surround? Or both? Or neither?) What typically raises such questions is trait-linkage; anything that has either trait has the other. Arches and spandrels all over again ...Best, jf

26 Jun, 12:37 PM: Dear Jerry -- Many thanks for your patience. I have now re-read pp 98-100, where you say, "...nobody intended or planned for long-necked giraffes...." No, but there is a natural variance in features like size; couldn't natural selection act on that, and favor the ones with longer necks? (Longer everything it seems.) Why can't this happen? You say, "...it's best to aproach the exposition indirectly." But would you directly answer this question? Else, your logic is too subtle for me. People will think you are denying an obvious truth and dismiss you too hastily.

Please remember, I want to agree with you. And I suspect there is agreement somewhere to be found. For example, I do not think that natural selection for longer necks is limitless. Rather it is strictly limited to the range of the natural variance that exists originally. (If there is a bell-curve distribtion, natural selection can move the peak rightward to the tail of the original curve, but not beyond.) But if the giraffe's long neck is enabled by genetic programs that were not installed originally (before they had long necks), those "new" genetic programs cannot be accounted for by natural selection among giraffes. I think this gets you where you want to be anyway. Furthermore, it points to experiments and analyses that could prove fruitful. Thanks! Brig

27 Jun, 1:47 PM: I do think you're missing the point; but so does almost everybody else, so you shouldn't feel bad about it. You take for granted that that the trait that is SELECTED-FOR is having a long neck. What rules out the hypothesis that the trait selected-for is, as it might be, maximal distance between nose and tail? Or any other coextensive trait? In particular, what in the theory of natural selection rules it out? Likewise with any pair of traits that are 'linked' in that selection for either produces both. ...It's because the point is so obvious that everybody missed it for a century and a half. ...jf

5:42 PM: Again, many thanks. But I am now simply curious to know your opinion or belief -- ...Say the forage-trees are to high for all but the tallest pre-giraffes, who have a distribution of heights. In any given generation, only the tall-enough ones will survive, regardless of any other traits that may or may not be free-riding with height. And height is to a sufficient extent genetic (inherited). So, natural selection could cause the average height of the pre-giraffes to rise over several generations.

Do you agree????? ...If not, could I reword the premise, for example ...over several generations the average height of pre-giraffes ...will increase because of a better survival rate??? ...I am seriously not sure where you are on this question. Your answer will help me understand where you're coming from. Forget about theories. Could the situation lead to the outcome? ...I apologize if this is tedious for you. (I am desperate for allies myself!) ...Brig

6:58 PM: But if the traits are linked, then selecting for maximum tail to nose distance will also get you long necks which allow you to forage in tree tops (and vice versa) . So again, the question arises, which (if either) was selected for? When the candidates are coextensive, Darwin doesn't say. In fact, nobody does. ..BTW, what on earth would you want allies for? ...jf

9:41 PM: Wanting not to seem rude -- I don 't care how you call it, tail to nose or whatever -- Could the situation described below lead to taller (plus or minus any other characteristics) pre-giraffes????? Are you able to answer? I don't *care* what the other dimensions are. I want to know if their mouthes can reach higher. I don't care if they are spotted or shiny. Could the situation make them taller? (Able to reach higher with their mouthes)? Please answer. ...I want allies because I think the standard theory of evolution is bullshit. So do you (think it's bullshit.) Let's see if we could find an alliance. Something major is wrong with Darwinism, but we opponents haven't said it well enough, yet, apparently. ...(Had 4 beers.)

28 Jun, 8:29 AM: I'm afraid one has to care which property is selected-for. Here's one reason: It's the consensus view that empirical theories should not only predict what does happen, but also what would have happened if.... (I won't go into why they should, but I doubt you'd find much disagreement among people who work in this area.) So now: consider the question whether what's selected-for is the length of the neck or the distance between the tail and the nose; and ask yourself what would have happened if the trees had been shorter: The first theory says the necks would have been shorter too; the second theory says it wouldn't have mattered. So, if you think that getting the counterfactuals right is important, then you should also think that getting it right about which property is selected-for is too. It's not an accident that people overlooked the problems about selection-for for more than a century. They are subtle and complex. ...BTW: there is some evidence that giraffes were not selected for long necks after all; it turns out they don't like to eat with their necks extended. ...jf

10:55 AM: The issue is still to subtle for me apparently. So I am muttering to myself, "I do not have to care." ...And I am also sorry that we anti-darwinists don't present a united front to the rest of the world! ...Thanks Jerry. May I append this recent exchange to the first one posted online? It may be helpful to someone.

29 Jun 10:31 AM: Dear Jerry -- I am still thinking about this. Your book was stimulating! If you get tired, it's OK to say so. ...Suppose there are two linked traits, but one of them is adaptive (helpful, beneficial, etc.) and the other is maladaptive (detrimental.) Then Natural Selction requires no mind whatsoever to selected-for the adaptive trait.

This is the case with resistance to malaria among some Africans. As you know, the trait is linked with increased susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. ...Do you see anything in this argument?

12:28 PM: If the linkage goes in both directions, then you don't need to choose; if you select either, you get both. ...jf

What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini is the related book review, posted 13 Jun 2010.

11:13 AM: Dear Mr. Klyce, I have been greatly moved and inspired by your work on Cosmic Ancestry. There are few times in life where I have the opportunity to be exposed to such insight. What I found astounding is the simple, readily graspable, and extemely powerful logic of your theses, particularly how comets can protect bacteria on their way to earth (the chorus to the song Woodstock started playing in my head) to propagate life.

If I was a master gardener with a limitless supply of land and seed, I would want to sow as far and wide as I could, makes perfect sense to me/ ...I have been lately deeply troubled with struggles of faith. I have read countless scientific articles back and forth on critiques of the odds of self-replicating DNA, and the hair splitting chemistry needed to demonstrate it one way or another. I thought earlier this week how absurd it is for me to hinge my belief in God on micro-biology, and as you have noted in your citation by Bertrand Russell and others, the depressing pointlessness of an existence all due to indifferent randomness. Your information is a total, wonderful, game changer.

Your work is a delight to read, and I am personally grateful for finding it.... Be Well, ...Jay Farquharson | Tonawanda, NY

What Difference Does It Make? is the local webpage containing Bertrand Russell's words.

The Aliens Among Us by Paul Davies, pA27, The New York Times, 14 May 2010.

Building blocks of life are found on asteroid by Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times, 29 Apr 2010.

3:06 AM: [Stan forwards an illustrated review, by Michael Ruse, of the book What Darwin Got Wrong, by Jerry A. Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010).]
Michael Ruse, "Philosophers Rip Darwin" [link], The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 Mar 2010.

Reply from Brig, 8:44 AM: "...Every example that supporters of intelligent design produce to suggest that natural causes are not adequate—the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade—has been shown to be the exquisite end result of evolution."
Stan, I have followed the bacterial flagellum question. The genes that code for the structure have identifiable predecessors that appear to be older than flagella (or their first appearance on Earth anyway). So the contention that "evolution" composed those programs is not supported by evidence.
...The Edge of Evolution... is a local book review with discussion of the bacterial flagellum, 18 Jun 2007.

"...Where, for example, is any discussion of the Grants' work on the Galápagos finches?..."
Changes in beak size and shape are examples of optimization, which computer programs can easily do. Speciation can result from randomness that causes incompatibility between genomes. Neither of these processes has been shown to be capable of composing new programs. In fact Ruse's whole list following this short quote is irrelevant to the question of where new genetic programs come from. Thanks for the alert. I wish I had seen the review when it was new. Probably too late to chime in at The Chronicle now.
Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm is a related local webpage.
Evolution vs Creationism is a related local webpage.
13 Jun 2010: What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini [Our own review of this book].

4:30 AM: Dear Brig, the article "hooked" to this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308151055.htm is very interesting! Kind regards.... Hans-Peter Wheeler | http://www.stmelf.bayern.de

Jesse H. Arbuckle et al., "The latent human herpesvirus-6A genome specifically integrates in telomeres of human chromosomes in vivo and in vitro" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0913586107, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 8 Mar 2010.
Viruses and Other Gene Transfer Mechanisms is the related local webpage.

1:51 PM: Brig - Re exoplanets referred to by Ken Jopp [below], following websites have definite significance:
Building Life-Centered Cosmologies www.forelawsonboard.net/CosmicGenealogy.html
Alternative Cosmology Group www.cosmology.info/
Journal of Cosmology www.journalofcosmology.com/
Best, Robert | Forelaws on Board | www.forelawsonboard.net

10:51 AM: Hello, Sorry to bother you, but I have been using your page with helpful references on Mars and the planets as guide for my science class.... It's a neat page; thanks for making it! I thought I would send you an additional page that you might want to add. It has tons of places where you can find pictures of planets, comets, the sun and more. It's a gem: Views of Our Solar System. My student's and I really liked the page - I hope you do too!     Sincerely, Melissa West | khsteachers.org

Life on Mars! is the referenced local webpage.

11:12 AM: Brig, hi, thought you'd be interested in this: [The detection of extra-terrestrial life and the consequences for science and society] even though you don't give exoplanets much coverage on your site.... Ken

Life on Europa, Other Moons, Other Planets? is the related local webpage.
Robert Cobb ("Forelaws on Board") recommends links, 10 Feb 2010.