A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that Photosynthesis is not “Irreducibly Complex”

Some present may remember an entertaining (not to mention illuminating (pun intended) ) blog by Professor Larry Moran:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/04/fun-and-games-with-otangelo-grasso.html

I am a high school Biology teacher and Professor Moran threw out some challenges which cut me to the quick.

Here is a very brief and incomplete summary:

The dual photosystems of Blue-Green Algae clearly evolved late from a combination of a type I reaction center in species like Heliobacter and green sulfur bacteria and a type II reaction center from species like purple bacteria and green filamentous bacteria. The oxygen evolving complex was a late addition.

Both photosystems employ Porphyrins and Carotenoids which are important in various metabolic processes (not just photosynthesis) meaning their evolutionary history may reflect many other functions only to be co-opted later for photosynthesis. Meanwhile both can be demonstrated to have abiogenic origins.

Meanwhile RuBisCO is found in non-photosynthetic species…

According to Professor Moran, many misconceptions are perpetuated when teaching according to textbook orthodoxy. Instead we should consider Photoreduction and Photophosphorylation as two stand-alone processes, and that the capture of light energy to produce carbohydrates is a highly specialized phenomenon; which, from an evolutionary point of view is not really (at least not originally) part of “photosynthesis” (i.e. carbohydrate anabolism).

Even Flowering Plants not only can, but in fact most of the time do, decouple ATP/NADPH production from Carbon fixation. Indeed, much of the ATP & NADPH generated by Photosystems II & I respectively are in fact redirected to immediate energy needs, even in flowering plants.

Meanwhile, I heartily agree with Larry Moran’s thesis that it is important (nay, let’s say instead imperative) to teach students that there’s more to life than just flowering plants and humans?

Larry Moran (in very unsubtle and less than gentle terms) “suggests” such strategies should apply to teaching of all biochemistry; i.e. from simple pathways to more complex pathways.

A recent “must-read” article inspired me to respond to Larry Moran’s challenge,

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13924.pdf

… and I have cobbled together a worksheet, where I attempt to prove that photosynthesis is

1 – misunderstood (tis not really about Glucose and it’s not even about the Calvin Cycle) at least from a Biochemist’s evolutionary POV. Ecologists have justification to differ.
2 – NOT “irreducibly complex” but rather a hodge-podge cobbling by evolution over a long period of time. (cf https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/evolution-and-tinkering-1977-francois-jacob)

Larry Moran’s fingerprints are all over this work of mine, for which I really cannot claim any originality on my part.

I would be grateful for any constructive input and suggestions for improvement. Remember, the intended target audience remains high school students.

Thanks in advance and best regards,

Here it is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By6ZKSkkTEG-QXFtWVhKOWNwREE/view

374 thoughts on “A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that Photosynthesis is not “Irreducibly Complex”

  1. colewd: You write carefully keiths and you are smart so why did you put the term “fact” to describe an untested hypothesis. You worked in industry do you have any experience with the scientific method?

    I believe the sound of an irony meter exploding is “spang!”. Bill, you have no idea of the scientific method or what a test is. Perhaps you ought to ask a scientist about that. Do you know any?

  2. phoodoo: Every part Tom, every stinking part, caused by some new mutation, which causes some reproductive success, happening in exactly the right place at the right time! THAT IS THE CHALLENGE OF DEBUNKING IC!

    No, that is an utterly fatuous demand only someone with an irrational and hypocritical double-standard would erect. This idea that we have to give you mutation-by-mutation world-histories from the dawn of time, in order to show that some structure could plausibly have evolved despite being irreducibly complex, is total lunacy, and there is NO other area in science or your entire life where you demand that level of detail in order to find an explanation plausible. It’s like demanding a pebble-by-pebble acount of how the himalayas formed, otherwise Plate Tectonics must be false.

    Give me a single example of something else in science or history you believe, where the chronological chain of events is know to that resolution.

    Let me spare you here. There is no other such thing. And that is what makes your asking for it here the demand of a man with a double standard.

  3. phoodoo: What are the functioning “parts” of chloroquine resistance? What is their function?

    Mutations in a number of protein coding genes that make up a cellular membrane transport complex.

    I mean that is just such a pandas thumb bullshit talking point, and that’s your BEST example of irreducible complexity?

    No that’s the simplest example – Function due to espistasis. A mutual dependency between different mutations. If one is missing, the others fails to confer resistance to chloroquine in the Plasmodium parasite.

    To make matters even more insteresting, not only do specific mutations need to happen in order for the membrane transport complex to gain the funciton of chloroquine transport, they have to happen in a specific order for the function to evolve. It is irreducibly complex by any creationist criterion, and it evolved.

    Here’s a paper for you to utterly fail to read:
    Summers RL et al.: Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 29;111(17):E1759-67. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322965111.

    Being born with no legs also keeps you from getting frostbite on your toes, is that another example?

    What the fuck is this even supposed to be an analogy to?

    When evolutionists start trying to pull out this shit, then I know for sure they have nothing.

    I have to agree, when the evolutionists in your fever dreams start babbling about frostbite in their toes when they don’t have legs, then they have nothing.

    Back in the real world however…

  4. phoodoo:
    TomMueller,

    What are the functioning “parts” of chloroquine resistance?What is their function?

    I mean that is just such a pandas thumb bullshit talking point, and that’s your BEST example of irreducible complexity?Being born with no legs also keeps you from getting frostbite on your toes, is that another example?

    When evolutionists start trying to pull out this shit, then I know for sure they have nothing.

    Oh Wow!

    Of course, Chloroquine resistance is NOT the best example of irreducible complexity being “evolvable”? On that we can both agree…

    I presume Rumraket only brought it up because Behe bet the creationist farm on that particular “bullshit talking point”!

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/12/revisiting-michael-behes-challenge-and.html?m=1

  5. Rumraket: No, that is an utterly fatuous demand only someone with an irrational and hypocritical double-standard would erect. This idea that we have to give you mutation-by-mutation world-histories from the dawn of time, in order to show that some structure could plausibly have evolved despite being irreducibly complex, is total lunacy, and there is NO other area in science or your entire life where you demand that level of detail in order to find an explanation plausible. It’s like demanding a pebble-by-pebble acount of how the himalayas formed, otherwise Plate Tectonics must be false.

    Give me a single example of something else in science or history you believe, where the chronological chain of events is know to that resolution.

    Let me spare you here. There is no other such thing. And that is what makes your asking for it here the demand of a man with a double standard.

    But yet again the needle on the Irony-Meter is bent beyond repair, because (drum roll please)

    Regarding: “Give me a single example of something else in science or history you believe, where the chronological chain of events is know to that resolution.

    Rumraket did indeed do just that with his citation of Leniski’s Cit+ mutant strain which can metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions, [and which] is irreducibly complex.

    Of course even that is not good enough!

    The casuistic sophists present will keep on moving the goal posts until they eventually demand that some anaerobic laboratory reproduction of an alkaline thermal vent produces a hyperventilating blue-eyed blonde Adonis of Adam.. and then even that will not be good enough!

    That hapless laboratory specimen will then need to surrender a rib in order for the lab to produce a spouse.

    “fatuous”?! “Disingenuous” !? “Double standards”!?

    “Intellectual dishonesty” cannot begin to describe the creationist antics witnessed on this thread

  6. keiths:

    Now that your initial panic has subsided, do you recognize that Behe accepts common descent, including the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?

    colewd:

    You write carefully keiths and you are smart so why did you put the term “fact” to describe an untested hypothesis. You worked in industry do you have any experience with the scientific method?

    Dunning-Kruger for the win!

    There are some severe issues with this untested hypothesis including gene expression and alternative splicing patterns that cannot be explained by inheritance. When I mentioned this to Mike he said that I might be right but he had very little interest in this hypothesis. I published the conversation for you to review.

    In that conversation Behe told you directly that he thinks the evidence for common descent is strong. He says the same thing in the quotes I provided you from his book, including this one:

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    [emphasis added]

    Stare at that sentence for a while, Bill:

    It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    It’s time to acknowledge reality. Behe accepts common descent. He rejects the position held by you and Sal.

    Be a brave boy and face the truth.

  7. keiths,

    It’s time to acknowledge reality. Behe accepts common descent. He rejects the position held by you and Sal.

    Be a brave boy and face the truth.

    If you want to believe that Behe accepts common descent knock yourself out what ever supporting common descent means.

  8. John:

    Bill is not brave.

    Earlier, I characterized Bill’s fear this way:

    Reality-based people:

    Behe accepts common descent. He says so right here. And here.

    Bill:

    But I don’t want that. I don’t like it. I don’t want him to accept common descent!

    Bill’s response was telling:

    Difficult but I can learn to live with it 🙂

    Apparently Bill is still “learning to live with it.”

  9. Bill,

    What part of Behe’s sentence is baffling you?

    It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    Even Behe recognizes that. What’s your excuse?

  10. keiths,

    He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    You are really good at spinning a story I am impressed.

    Behe

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    keiths spin:

    He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    But keiths I showed you a paper where age related mutations in humans were concentrated in a very restrictive part of the genome making the evidence Mike was counting on much less powerful. Yet you come back and double down without addressing the evidence. I guess with masterful spin evidence is not important.

    The evidence does not equal a specific piece of evidence which can be overturned.

    But don’t worry I am sure the objective nested hierarchy will save the day 🙂

  11. keiths,

    He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    You are really good at spinning a story I am impressed.

    Behe

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    keiths spin:

    He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    But keiths I showed you a paper where age related mutations in humans were concentrated in a very restrictive part of the genome making the evidence Mike was counting on much less powerful. Yet you come back and double down without addressing the evidence. I guess with masterful spin evidence is not important.

    The evidence does not equal a specific piece of evidence which can be overturned.

    But don’t worry I am sure the objective nested hierarchy will save the day 🙂

  12. keiths: He not only believes that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, he finds it hard to imagine how the evidence could be stronger.

    I haven’t caught up on all the back and forth. What is the evidence that Behe was referring to and did he say why he thinks it means chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

  13. colewd: But keiths I showed you a paper where age related mutations in humans were concentrated in a very restrictive part of the genome making the evidence Mike was counting on much less powerful.

    Nope, for several reasons. First, those are age-related mutations in women, which if you paid any attention to Larry’s post are a very small percentage of mutations in women and an even smaller percentage of mutations in men. Second, the region in which they’re concentrated is, as you say, a very small part of the genome, and yet the evidence for human relationships to chimps is pretty much all of the genome. Third, this “small region” is still large enough that multiple hits are rare. Not only are you cherry-picking, you have mistaken a rabbit turd for a cherry.

  14. Here is the data John is commenting on. Any other comments are welcome.

    Altmetric: 521Citations: 1More detail
    Letter

    Parental influence on human germline de novo mutations in 1,548 trios from Iceland
    Hákon Jónsson, Patrick Sulem[…]Kari Stefansson
    Nature 549, 519–522 (28 September 2017)
    doi:10.1038/nature24018
    Download Citation
    Evolutionary geneticsGermline developmentRare variants
    Received:
    17 March 2017
    Accepted:
    20 August 2017
    Published online:
    20 September 2017
    Abstract
    The characterization of mutational processes that generate sequence diversity in the human genome is of paramount importance both to medical genetics1,2 and to evolutionary studies3. To understand how the age and sex of transmitting parents affect de novo mutations, here we sequence 1,548 Icelanders, their parents, and, for a subset of 225, at least one child, to 35× genome-wide coverage. We find 108,778 de novo mutations, both single nucleotide polymorphisms and indels, and determine the parent of origin of 42,961. The number of de novo mutations from mothers increases by 0.37 per year of age (95% CI 0.32–0.43), a quarter of the 1.51 per year from fathers (95% CI 1.45–1.57). The number of clustered mutations increases faster with the mother’s age than with the father’s, and the genomic span of maternal de novo mutation clusters is greater than that of paternal ones. The types of de novo mutation from mothers change substantially with age, with a 0.26% (95% CI 0.19–0.33%) decrease in cytosine–phosphate–guanine to thymine–phosphate–guanine (CpG>TpG) de novo mutations and a 0.33% (95% CI 0.28–0.38%) increase in C>G de novo mutations per year, respectively. Remarkably, these age-related changes are not distributed uniformly across the genome. A striking example is a 20 megabase region on chromosome 8p, with a maternal C>G mutation rate that is up to 50-fold greater than the rest of the genome. The age-related accumulation of maternal non-crossover gene conversions also mostly occurs within these regions. Increased sequence diversity and linkage disequilibrium of C>G variants within regions affected by excess maternal mutations indicate that the underlying mutational process has persisted in humans for thousands of years. Moreover, the regional excess of C>G variation in humans is largely shared by chimpanzees, less by gorillas, and is almost absent from orangutans. This demonstrates that sequence diversity in humans results from evolving interactions between age, sex, mutation type, and genomic location.

  15. Damn it all!

    Mike Behe not only believes that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor…

    … he believes ALL LIVING ORGANISMS SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR

    Behe bases this conclusion on a wide tapestry of irrefutable evidence which cannot be cogently explained any other way!!!

    So stop putting words in his mouth and stop twisting the Truth!!!!

    Behe in his own words:

    “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

  16. colewd:
    Here is the data John is commenting on.Any other comments are welcome.

    No more commentary is necessary!

    Keiths already summed it up:

    Dunning/Kruger

  17. Can one of the mods show Tom how to change the title of his OP?

    As it stands, it’s a monument to incompetence.

  18. TomMueller: Some context explaining what we are dealing with here

    Who said this?

    …there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creature on earth are biological relatives.

    The bottom line is this. Common descent is true…

  19. colewd:

    Here is the data John is commenting on. Any other comments are welcome.

    Translation: “Somebody help me!”

  20. colewd,

    But keiths I showed you a paper where age related mutations in humans were concentrated in a very restrictive part of the genome making the evidence Mike was counting on much less powerful.

    Try to concentrate, Bill. The question at hand is whether Behe accepts common descent. The evidence — both from his books and from the Youtube conversation you linked to — shows that he does.

    Whether you accept common descent is not the question. Whether you desperately want to find something — anything — to falsify common descent is not the question. The question is whether Behe accepts common descent.

    I repeat: the question is whether Behe accepts common descent, not whether you do. You and Behe are separate people with distinct personalities and beliefs. It is thus possible for Behe to disagree with you, and in fact he does. If you find this baffling, consult your nearest first grader for an explanation. He or she will tell you that Bert and Ernie are different Sesame Street characters, and that it is possible to tell them apart. Even their opinions can differ.

    You may break out in a cold sweat at the thought of common descent, and you may despair upon learning that your hero rejects your irrational belief in separate creation, but that doesn’t matter here.

    The question is whether Behe accepts common descent, and the answer is “Yes. Obviously.”

  21. Amusing that Bill can blithely reject the consensus view of the biological community, which accepts common descent as an obvious fact, but when he finds out that one person — his hero, Michael Behe — accepts common descent, it precipitates a full-blown crisis.

    It reminds me of CharlieM and his Steiner worship.

  22. Mung:
    Can one of the mods show Tom how to change the title of his OP?

    As it stands, it’s a monument to incompetence.

    OK – I’ll bite:

    I am always open to suggestions: what do you suggest? (he asks while chortling up his sleeve)

  23. keiths:
    Amusing that Bill can blithely reject the consensus view of the biological community,which accepts common descent as an obvious fact, but when he finds out that one person — his hero, Michael Behe — accepts common descent, it precipitates a full-blown crisis.

    It reminds me of CharlieM and his Steiner worship.

    LOL!

    Did you too hear the distinct sound of soap bubbles popping?

    That was Mung’s and colewd’s heads exploding to consider a defender of the Discovery Institute and champion of the “Wedge Strategy” and an avowed born again Christian to boot does… (drum roll please):

    … does in fact believe in Common Descent as accepted by those godless atheist scientists dontchya know!

    This is becoming wearisome: I mean, besting Mung and colewd in debate, is sort of like making an appearance at the “Special Olympics” and winning a Gold Medal. Yeah, the cheering from the side lines is nice, but: … really, when push comes to shove; who cares?

  24. TomMueller: That was Mung’s and colewd’s heads exploding to consider a defender of the Discovery Institute and champion of the “Wedge Strategy” and an avowed born again Christian to boot does… (drum roll please):

    … does in fact believe in Common Descent as accepted by those godless atheist scientists dontchya know!

    Tom, that is not really fair to Mung.

    Mung has previously stated to be aware of this:

    I come from the Michael Behe school if ID. I accept common descent, by which I mean universal common ancestry. It seems to be the consensus view in science, it seems reasonable to me, and I don’t have any compelling reasons to doubt it.

    Now, I agree that seeing Bill Cole come to grips with this piece of information has a high entertainment value.

  25. Problem is Mung has no idea why he accepts common descent. Apparently it’s because rejecting CD would put him in YEC territory, YEC implies hyper-evolutionism, so if evolutionism is evil, hyper-evolutionism is hyper-evil

  26. Corneel: Tom, that is not really fair to Mung.

    Mung has previously stated to be aware of this:

    Now, I agree that seeing Bill Cole come to grips with this piece of information has a high entertainment value.

    Thank you for alerting me to Mung’s other thread.

    I still suspect you are giving Mung too much credit. Mung’s posts are simultaneously incohate and incoherent.

    I suspect Mung’s acceptance of “common descent” goes something along the lines of :

    I concede donkeys and horses had a common ancestor, just don’t tell me I am descended from a Chimpanzee!

    … of course the nuances of evolution are lost on Mung who fails to appreciate we would be loathe to insult a Chimpanzee so!

  27. TomMueller,

    And you suspect that, because you are just an atheist brainwashed dipshit?

    Not everyone is a preacher like you-you clearly have an over-compensating desire to tell everyone all about your religion. What makes you think he would care who believes in common descent?

  28. TomMueller: I suspect Mung’s acceptance of “common descent” goes something along the lines of :

    I concede donkeys and horses had a common ancestor, just don’t tell me I am descended from a Chimpanzee!

    I would be a bit disappointed in Mung if that were the case, but frankly I don’t know. Best to let him clarify that himself.
    But I do hope you can appreciate the irony of your surprise at the discovery of Mungs acceptance of common descent. 🙂

  29. dazz: Problem is Mung has no idea why he accepts common descent. Apparently it’s because rejecting CD would put him in YEC territory, YEC implies hyper-evolutionism, so if evolutionism is evil, hyper-evolutionism is hyper-evil

    Did he say that? Usually the pro-ID crowd here doesn’t let on that much, so we are left guessing why they object to or accept stuff.

  30. Corneel: I would be a bit disappointed in Mung if that were the case, but frankly I don’t know. Best to let him clarify that himself.

    Or just watch him make a thousand evasions instead of clarifying anything.

    One’s expectations should be realistic.

    Glen Davidson

  31. TomMueller: That was Mung’s and colewd’s heads exploding to consider a defender of the Discovery Institute and champion of the “Wedge Strategy” and an avowed born again Christian to boot does… (drum roll please):

    … does in fact believe in Common Descent as accepted by those godless atheist scientists dontchya know!

    Huh? I’m a fan of Behe, and like Behe I also accept common descent. Were you unaware of that?

    What interests me is this new book coming out which has three chapters in it dissing common descent. I wonder why it doesn’t have Behe as an editor.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/but-why-a-thousand-page-critique-of-theistic-evolution/

    ETA: Thanks Corneel!

  32. dazz: Problem is Mung has no idea why he accepts common descent.

    It’s intuitively obvious. Just like design. 🙂

    I would like to explain common descent to others who doubt it. I’d love to explain the reasoning to them. Know any good books that make the case for universal common ancestry? Coyne? Dawkins? Mayr? Gould? Prothero?

  33. TomMueller: I concede donkeys and horses had a common ancestor, just don’t tell me I am descended from a Chimpanzee!

    Do you teach your students that they are descended from chimpanzees? If not, why should I believe that I am descended from a chimpanzee?

    There’s an exercise for your students. Have them bring in their family tree for as far back as they can trace it and ask them if any of their ancestors were chimps.

    A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that all teenagers are descended from a Chimpanzee!

  34. TomMueller: This is becoming wearisome: I mean, besting Mung and colewd in debate, is sort of like making an appearance at the “Special Olympics” and winning a Gold Medal. Yeah, the cheering from the side lines is nice, but: … really, when push comes to shove; who cares?

    Is this the sort of thing you teach your students?

    Do the people you work for know you have this sort of attitude towards people with disabilities?

  35. Corneel: Did he say that? Usually the pro-ID crowd here doesn’t let on that much, so we are left guessing why they object to or accept stuff.

    He did diss YEC for requiring “hyper-evolution”, so yeah. Note how he ignored that part in his response to my comment. He always does that when he wants to avoid the subject. Unlike Behe, Mung constantly questions the evidence for common descent. He just chose to “believe” in common descent as one would pick a church or denomination

  36. Mung: Do you teach your students that they are descended from chimpanzees? If not, why should I believe that I am descended from a chimpanzee?

    There’s an exercise for your students. Have them bring in their family tree for as far back as they can trace it and ask them if any of their ancestors were chimps.

    A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that all teenagers are descended from a Chimpanzee!

    Q.E.D.

  37. GlenDavidson: Or just watch him make a thousand evasions instead of clarifying anything.

    I honestly don’t know what Alan sees in you. Every time I take you off Ignore you’re making an insulting comment, saying something false, or breaking the rules. But apparently that sort of thing is considered worthwhile contribution here at TSZ.

    The fact of the matter is that I have an established history of providing direct and non-evasive answers about what I believe if asked directly to do so. Tom English, _hotshoe and others can attest.

    I have nothing that I believe that I am ashamed of.

    So, back on Ignore with you Glen. Go back to work on your Trump imitation.

  38. Mung: So dazz, like Tom M., thinks humans are descended from chimps. Oh Lord. It’s a banner day for ID critics.

    No. Tom’s mockery of typical creationist responses went right over your head. Then you pulled another classic from the creo hat:

    Mung: There’s an exercise for your students. Have them bring in their family tree for as far back as they can trace it and ask them if any of their ancestors were chimps

    Do you believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Where’s that family tree?

  39. dazz: A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that all teenagers are descended from a Chimpanzee!

    Q.E.D.

    That made me chuckle. Yes I see what you mean. But as you can tell from Mung’s response above, he knows damn well that humans do not descend from chimps, but share a common ancestor with them. I think I’ll give him the benefit of doubt for now. 🙂

  40. dazz: He did diss YEC for requiring “hyper-evolution”, so yeah. Note how he ignored that part in his response to my comment. He always does that when he wants to avoid the subject. Unlike Behe, Mung constantly questions the evidence for common descent.

    I ignored that part of your comment because it made no sense. But since you insist. Let’s take these one at a time:

    He did diss YEC for requiring “hyper-evolution”

    YEC’s typically deny that evolution occurs. Yet if they accept the story of Noah’s ark then they must believe in rapid (hyper) evolution post flood. So the YEC argument against evolution is internally inconsistent, incoherent, and self-refuting. So yeah, I “diss” them on that.

    Note how he ignored that part in his response to my comment.

    That’s because it has nothing to do with the argument over common descent and pretty much everyone here agrees with me about it. I’ve even seen others, such as Joe F., begin to take it up.

    He always does that when he wants to avoid the subject. He always does that when he wants to avoid the subject.

    I’ve no reason to avoid that subject. I make the argument all the time. It’s a good argument. What on earth makes you think I am trying to avoid it?

    Unlike Behe, Mung constantly questions the evidence for common descent.

    You seem to think the failure to question is a virtue. And you’re wrong. I don’t question the evidence for common descent, what I question is the underlying reasoning. Why does a certain bit of evidence constitute evidence for common descent. What is the underlying rationale.

    Now, why don’t you pick your favorite piece of evidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees and explain your rationale. Because I’m all ears.

    I noticed you avoided answering my question about books that make the case for universal common ancestry. Is that because you don’t know of any? So what is your belief based on? Wishful thinking? Don’t you feel like just a little bit of a hypocrite after accusing me of avoiding a subject?

  41. dazz: Do you believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

    I accept universal common ancestry. Think about what that means. Sheesh.

Leave a Reply