Two articles exposing “fake science” claims have recently been published over at Evolution News and Views. One article attacks the fossil evidence for whale evolution, while the other seeks to discredit the claim that human and chimp DNA are 99% identical. Both articles suffer from serious scientific flaws.
“Fake science” Story No. 1: Whale evolution – too little time for it to happen?
Let’s start with whales. In an article titled, Fake Science: Whales as the “Sweetest Series of Transitional Fossils” an Evolutionist Could Ask For (January 3, 2017), David Klinghoffer writes (bolding mine – VJT):
Back in the day, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould found in whales “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find.”…
…In truth, the “picture-perfect intermediacy,” which Gould commended as a weapon to be deployed against “creationists,” looks increasingly like a patchwork. The situation was made worse by the recent documenting of a 49-million-year-old Antarctic whale jawbone fossil that narrowed the window available for the evolution from a fully terrestrial ancestor to an unbearably rushed 1 million years.
If we go back to the ENV article linked to in the quote, we find that the age estimate of 49 million years for an Antarctic whale jawbone supposedly comes from a recently published scientific paper titled, Eocene Basilosaurid Whales from the La Meseta Formation, Marambio (Seymour) Island, Antarctica by Mónica Buono, Marta Fernández, Marcelo Reguero, Sergio Marenssi, Sergio Santillana and Thomas Mörs (Ameghiniana 53(3):296-315, June 2016). At the other end, the ENVarticle estimates that the supposed “fully terrestrial ancestors of whales” lived “at about 50 Ma [million years ago].” Take 49 million years away from 50 million years, and you get a maximum window of one million years for fully terrestrial mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales – which is impossible.
Smashing the myth of the one-million-year window
The problem with this argument is that neither the 49-million-year figure nor the 50-million-year-figure is correct. Both figures have been thoroughly debunked in a brilliant little blog article by Bill Needle, titled, New Basilosaur Fossil vs The Discovery Institute! (November 21, 2016). Needle quotes from a 1998 article describing a newly discovered whale ancestor called Himalayacetus, titled, “A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales” by S. Banjpai and P.D. Gingerich (in PNAS, December 22, 1998, vol. 95, no. 26, pp. 15464-15468):
Himalayacetus is significant because it is the oldest archaeocete known and because it was found in marine strata associated with a marine fauna. Himalayacetus extends the fossil record of whales about 3.5 million years back in geological time, to the middle part of the early Eocene [53.5 million years ago (Ma)] [author’s parentheses]… When the temporal range of Archaeoceti is calibrated radiometrically, comparison of likelihoods constrains the time of origin of Archaeoceti and hence Cetacea to about 54–55 Ma (beginning of the Eocene), whereas their divergence from extant Artiodactyla may have been as early as 64–65 Ma (beginning of the Cenozoic). (Bolding mine – VJT.)
It should be noted that the Archaeoceti were not “fully terrestrial”: they were at least partially amphibious. Since the oldest known amphibious ancestor of whales appeared 54 million years ago (not 50 million years ago), the terrestrial ancestor of this creature must be even older than that.
What about the 49-million-year figure for the Antarctic whale? The problem is that the authors of the paper describing the fossil actually propose a different figure. They acknowledge uncertainties in the dating, but think an age of 40-46 million years is most likely. In their words (bolding mine – VJT):
Age control within the La Meseta Formation has been based primarily on biostratigraphy and suggests that its deposition spanned during much of the Eocene, but there is uncertainty about the precise age of particular units within this formation. In particular, the age of the lower part of the La Meseta Formation (TELMs 2-5), where MLP 11-II-21-3 was collected, is still disputed… TELM 4 includes a significant number of reworked shells, which could have biased the strontium-isotope data. The uncertainty is heightened by the small degree of variance in the global seawater curve for the early to the middle Eocene…
A younger age for TELM 4 and TELM 5 has been discussed as a feasible alternative to an early Eocene age in a number of publications…
In summary, considering that 87Sr/86Sr ratios provided for TELM 4 might be biased (because of potential reworking and oscillation of the marine Sr isotope curve during the Eocene), we interpret the age of the horizon that produced MLP 11-II-21-3 (i.e., TELM 4) as early middle Eocene (~46- 40 Ma; middle Lutetian to early Bartonian based on ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2015; Cohen et al., 2013) and follow the most recent chronostratigraphic interpretation for the La Meseta Formation. This age is also more consistent with the published stratigraphic record of basilosaurids elsewhere.
In view of the uncertainties highlighted above, it would be foolish to attach any confidence to the original age estimate of 49 million years for the Antarctic whale jawbone, which was the figure reported back in 2011.
Let’s be conservative, and assume a figure of 46 million years for the whale. That gives us at least 8 million years (54 million minus 46 million) for terrestrial creatures to evolve into aquatic whales. The ENV article disputes the figure of 46 million years, arguing that an age of 49 million years is more consistent with the biostratigraphic data. But even if the original estimate of 49 million years were correct, we’d still have 5 million years for whales to evolve. That’s a geologically short time, but it’s a lot more than 1 million years.
As if that were not embarrassing enough, it turns out that the original Associated Press article by Michael Warren, which Casey Luskin blogged about in ENV back in 2011 actually refuted claims of a 1-million-year window for whale evolution. Allow me to quote a short excerpt from the Associated Press article (bolding mine):
Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.
That still leaves 4 million years for proto-whales to evolve into fully aquatic whales. And remember, these proto-whales would have been partly amphibious. Evolution from a terrestrial ancestor to a fully aquatic whale would have taken even longer. And for those who think that a few million years is not enough, I would advise them to read my Uncommon Descent article, Are 3,000 beneficial mutations enough to transform a land animal into a whale?” (February 2, 2016).
I conclude that the “1-million-year window” is a myth, and I hope that Evolution News and Views will have the grace to publicly acknowledge their error.
So much for whales. What about humans and chimps?
“Fake science” Story No. 2: Are humans and chimps 99% genetically identical?
In his ENV article, Fake Science: “About 99 Percent of Our DNA Is Identical to That of Chimpanzees” (January 3, 2017), David Klinghoffer dismisses the 99 per cent claim, which he evidently regards as socially pernicious, as he thinks it blurs the vast distinction between humans and chimpanzees:
Man, this is a piece of fake science that, in the popular media, has taken on a life of its own. With fine timing, our colleague Sarah Chaffee has lately offered a four-part interview with Discovery Institute biologist Ann Gauger on the 99 percent myth. The series for ID the Future is here, here, here, and here.
Are humans and chimps effectively identical in our respective DNA? The short answer is no, no way: not in our DNA, coding and non-coding, not in the way our genes are expressed, how chimps splice their DNA, the existence of human-specific genes, and more, not to mention how this all cashes out in terms of anatomy and behavior.
Errors in the chimpanzee genome?
I’ll confine my discussion to the first two parts of Sarah Chaffee’s four-part interview with Dr. Ann Gauger. In the first section, titled, How Chimps and Humans are Different, Pt. 1: The Genome, Dr. Gauger criticizes the sloppy of the Genome Consortium that did the sequencing for chimp DNA (bolding mine):
Now, sequencing is also complicated because there’s a certain amount of error rate that goes into reading nucleotides. Mistakes happen for various reasons. It’s not a perfect read each time you do it. So the way around that problem is to read through the sequence multiple times. And if five out of six times you get an A [adenine] in that position, then you’re pretty confident that it should be A. Well, they only did the chimp sequence with a 3.6-fold redundancy. That means they read through the same stretch of DNA three or four times. Now you can guess that getting one out of four wrong might be fairly convincing, but if you have two out of two, you’re not going to know which way you should go. It’s much more convincing if you do twelve reads, and you find two out of twelve have one read and the other ten are different. And you can say with pretty good confidence that the ten-read versions are correct. So what does this mean for the chimp genome? Only a 3.6-fold redundancy means that there is a chance that error has crept into the sequence.
What Dr. Gauger omits to mention is that the 2005 paper in Nature which reported the findings of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium specifically addressed the question of accuracy, right after the paragraph highlighting the 3.6-fold redundancy that Dr. Gauger mentions above. Here’s what it says (bolding mine):
Nucleotide-level accuracy is high by several measures. About 98% of the chimpanzee genome sequence has quality scores of at least 40 (Q40), corresponding to an error rate of ≤10-4.
That’s an error rate of 1 in 10,000. I don’t think we need to worry too much about errors in the chimpanzee genome.
And to cap it all, Dr. Gauger’s figure of a 3.6-fold (or roughly four-fold) redundancy in the chimpanzee genome is out-of-date. In fact, a chimpanzee genome with six-fold redundancy is now available, making it much more accurate than Dr. Gauger suggested. The following quote is taken from the Pan troglodytes [chimpanzee] Web page of the McDonnell Genome Institute at Washington University (bolding mine):
The chimpanzee genome was sequenced to 4X coverage initially, in collaboration with the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard. A male chimpanzee known as “Clint”, from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center was chosen as the reference chimpanzee genome. Our center subsequently produced additional (2X) whole genome coverage utilizing a combination of whole genome plasmid reads as well as fosmid and BAC end sequences. The total 6X genome sequence coverage has been assembled and is now being evaluated for quality prior to release to the public through established genome web browsers.
As far back as 2013, creationist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins was aware that the “present chimpanzee genome assembly now includes a total 6-fold redundant coverage,” as he mentioned it in an article for Answers in Genesis. Dr. Gauger seems to have missed out on this item of news.
92% or 99% similarity?
In her interview with Sarah Chaffee, Dr. Gauger goes on to argue that the true level of genetic similarity between humans and chimps is no more than 92%:
The Genome Consortium that did the sequencing for the chimps, they calculated it as [a] 1.23% difference between us and chimps, or if you take into account the fact that not all humans have the same DNA sequence, 1.08%. Now obviously that’s a very, very low level of difference, but that’s just counting the differences that could be detected by their method of sequencing, and what that method of sequencing misses is small insertions and deletions. And according to some calculations, small insertions of a few bases – up to 100 bases – can occur at a frequency of 2 to 4% – so that already jumps us from 1 to 4 to 5% difference. Then there are other things that would not be counted well: large duplications in our genome, compared to chimps, represent 2.7% that wasn’t accounted for by that method of sequencing. So we’ve added 2 to 4% to 1% to 2.7%. Then there are other small differences. I would say that my best estimate is that we are at least 8% different in our DNA from chimps.
Professor Larry Moran wrote about insertions and deletions several years ago, in a 2012 post discussing the oft-cited claim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical:
Britton (2002) challenged that number by pointing out that humans and chimp genomes differed by a large number of insertions and deletions (indels) that could not have been detected in hybridization studies. He claimed that there was an additional 3.4% of the genome that differed due to indels. That means the the real difference between humans and chimps is closer to 5% and we are only 95% identical!
Much of the difference is due to insertion and deletion of members of gene families. One study shows that the human genome has 689 genes not present in the chimp genome…
At first glance this looks like 689 completely new genes have evolved in the human lineage since it diverged from our common ancestor with chimpanzees but looks can be deceiving. These genes are members of gene families and all that’s happened is that 689 orthologous genes have been lost by deletion in the chimp lineage or 689 new parologous genes have been “born” by gene duplication (or some combination).
In any case, as creationist scientist Dr. Todd Wood explains in a blog article titled, Chimp genome again (September 28, 2010), Britton was wrong in arguing that humans and chimps are only 95% genetically similar, due to insertions and deletions in the human genome. Wood illustrates his point with a hypothetical example (bolding mine):
Britten was wrong. His strategy of counting indels doesn’t actually make any sense at all. Consider a simple example. Say you have two sequences, one 50,000 nucleotides long and the other 55,000 nucleotides long. The only difference between them is a single insertion of 5,000 nucleotides. Otherwise, the sequences are identical. What then should the percent identity be? Should it be 90%, counting the 5000 nucleotide difference as 10% of the smaller sequence? Or should it be 91%, counting the 5000 nucleotide difference as 9% of the total sequence in comparison (55,000)? Neither one makes any sense, since the reality is that there is only one difference between the sequences. It’s a single insertion or deletion, representing one mutation. Why should we count that as 5000 differences when there’s only one mutation?
…[I]f you specify precisely what you mean, you can talk about the number of nucleotide mismatches between two genome sequences at some kind of optimal alignment (which, of course, is debatable as to how you get that optimal alignment). When you do that with the human and chimp genomes, the percent identity is well north of 95%. When you realize that there is no single human genome and start discounting polymorphisms from your counts, then the actual fixed nucleotide mismatches between humans and chimps are probably less than 1%, making a percent identity of >99%.
In his hypothetical example, Dr. Wood wrote as if there was only one mutation that accounted for all the insertions and deletions (indels) in the human genome. In reality, of course, “the actual number of mutational events is in the millions,” according to Professor Larry Moran’s blog article, What’s the Difference Between a Human and Chimpanzee? (January 23, 2012).
Dr. Todd Wood’s series of articles on human-chimp similarity can be accessed here, and is well worth reading:
RTB and the chimp genome Part 1
RTB and the chimp genome Part 2
RTB and the chimp genome Part 3
RTB and the chimp genome Part 4
RTB and the chimp genome Part 5
RTB and the chimp genome Part 6
And what about the “large duplications” discussed by Dr. Gauger, which are said to make up 2.7% of the human genome? These are simply places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimpanzee genome, or two pieces of chimpanzee genome align with one piece of human genome. So far from weakening the case for human-chimp similarity, they actually strengthen it, by showing that multiple pieces of the human genome may show a high degree of similarity to a piece of the chimpanzee genome, and vice versa.
Genes which are unique to human beings
In the second part of her interview with Sarah Chaffee, titled, How Chimps and Humans are Different, Pt. 2: Human-Specific Genes, Dr. Gauger talks about genes which are allegedly unique to human beings:
We have 20,000-or-some genes. We actually have a certain number that are unique to us, not present in chimps. Estimates vary as to how many there are, because it’s actually a moving target: scientists keep changing what they consider to be unique, and whether it’s a real gene or not. So some estimate 300, some estimate over 600 genes that are unique to humans… As many as 60 of these new genes didn’t come from existing genes, but apparently came from repurposing of other DNA, which we’ll talk about later….
I have already quoted Professor Moran’s explanation of how the large number of genes that are unique to humans may have arisen. But what about the 60 new genes that didn’t arise from existing genes?
I blogged about these 60 genes on Uncommon Descent, in a post titled, Double debunking: Glenn Williamson on human-chimp DNA similarity and genes unique to human beings (October 24, 2015). Briefly, what Williamson found was that these genes had non-coding counterparts in apes that were approximately 98.5% identical. Yes, that’s right: 98.5%.
Gene regulation
Later in her interview, Dr. Gauger talks about differences in gene regulation between humans and chimps:
In fact, there are substantial differences in expression of genes we share with chimps, just as King and Wilson, whom I mentioned earlier, predicted in 1975. And here’s an interesting fact: those differences in expression are particularly true in the brain. So what regulates that gene expression? There are these proteins called transcription factors, that bind to the DNA and either shut it off or turn it on. And roughly 1 to 3% of them are human-specific. So they’re going to be turning on different genes in humans than in chimps. So that contributes to our uniqueness. Not only do we splice our genes differently, we also have different gene regulation.
So by Dr. Gauger’s own admission, 97 to 99% of transcription factors are not human-specific, but are shared between humans and chimps.
Genetic similarities do not equate to similarities in anatomy and behavior
The ENV article by David Klinghoffer lists differences in “anatomy and behavior” as its final reason for rejecting claims of a 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps. The logic of this passage escapes me. Unless you’re a reductionist, you would never be tempted to imagine that a 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps would translate into a 99% anatomical similarity, let alone a 99% behavioral similarity. The vast intellectual and moral gulf between humans and chimpanzees should be abundantly obvious to anyone who has ever observed a chimp. The fact that we last shared a common ancestor with the chimp six or seven million years ago in no way negates the reality of this gulf. It’s what happened after our paths diverged that’s the most interesting chapter of the human story.
Conclusion
There is a saying that truth is not served by bad arguments. The two ENV articles on “fake science” which I have critiqued in this post turned out to be an expose that backfired badly, as key claims that were made in the articles were demonstrably wrong. Errors like these do not help the case for Intelligent Design. If you want to argue that whales were designed or that human beings are special, then that’s fine; but you should not build your case on a scientific house of cards.
OMagain,
We are not unacquainted … !
Frankie,
Comparative genomics is an excellent way of testing it. There is no need to account for the detail involved in the transition. None. Just keep saying there is, I’ll keep saying there isn’t. Won’t that be fun for all concerned?
The observation of the commonalities – digital commonalities, a fact conveniently forgotten by you information jockeys when it suits – is sufficient to render Common Descent by far the superior explanation.
That’s your opinion. Comparative genomics is a great way to test if the nested hierarchy based on form/ archetype matches the genetics
Except for Darwin and the only way to test evolutionism- ie numerous slight successive modifications.
The observation of commonalities suits a Common Design. And seeing Common Descent doesn’t have a testable mechanism it isn’t an explanation at all. It is just a cop out
Wrong- astronomical spectroscopy are tests run to see what the stars are made of. All tests are observations, Allan.
I know all about it, Allan. It supports a Common Design.
Did you have a point?
Allan Miller,
How do you empirically validate looking at two sequences that common descent has occurred? How do you validate looking at two sequences that common descent has not occurred?
You don’t just look at the data from two sequences in a vacuum. You look at the branching nested pattern and the genetic distances of all species.
That’s why ID-Creationists can never solve jigsaw puzzles. They demand you look at each piece separately and ignore the big picture formed by all the other pieces. 😀
colewd,
Empirically validate …. what’s that qualifier doing in that sentence? How do you ’empirically validate’ anything in history?
But, I would say the best approach might be not to act as if there are only ever just two sequences available – that phylogenetic inference rests solely upon a single pairwise comparison, isolated from all other such comparisons. The data is far richer than that.
BTW colewd I’d still like to hear your definition of “biological information” and your explanation why observed evolutionary processes can’t cause it to increase.
I’d also like to see the supporting evidence for your claim science educators are deliberately withholding important information from students. But you have no such evidence, it was just your usual Creationist bluster. Right?
vjtorley,
This is from your article in UD. Your claim of 340 mutations is inconsistent with the paper you cited where the comparison is human unique genes and not mutations. If I am in error, my apologies.
This also assumes that coding genes explain the differences which we know from control RNA’s, gene expression differences and alternative splicing differences is not the complete explanation of the differences.
Allan Miller,
I think its time to get an agreement on the definition of step 3 of the scientific method.
-test your hypothesis
What is considered a valid test. On that basis is common descent testable?
Is looking at historic evidence in itself a test?
You would need to understand what logical entailment means, but you’re obviously incapable of learning
colewd,
I see you’re bitching about my response in the moderation thread. Cool, cry me a river Billy. But the fact that you need to ask what counts as evidence for a claim speaks volumes about your total lack of critical thinking abilities
Typical Creationist behavior. Run from the science, ignore questions about your ignorance based claims, whine that people are being so mean to you when they point out how disingenuous you’ve been.
It must be hard for them to deal with a forum that’s not censored by a dictator who’s always there to bail them out when they’re challenged to use their brains
You want him to think!
How could you?
Glen Davidson
dazz,
So your claim is that evidence for a claim and hypothesis testing are the same thing?
If you focus and try real hard do you think you can make at least one post without misrepresenting what someone else wrote?
I assume you’re going to run from your claim science educators are deliberately withholding important information from students. Maybe next time you should think before making such a bullshit assertion.
If all you have are two sequences, you can’t. You need at least three.
Scientific theories about historical events are tested by their predictions. It takes a very basic form:
If C happened due to process S, we should expect to find H.
If it did NOT happen, we should NOT expect to find H.
Common descent predicts nesting hierarchical patterns in sequence should emerge over generations. So if common descent is true, that’s what we should find. If we do not find nesting hierarchical patterns, we can’t infer common descent.
So you test common descent by seeing if the prediction of the theory (nesting patterns) are found in life.
You test if C happened due to process S, by seeing if H is there.
What is this, the 100th fucking time this has been explained to you?
colewd,
Tree building is hypothesis testing. Every possible arrangement of a given data set is a separate ‘hypothesis’ about the relationships displayed. The hypothesis that there is no relationship is part of the test, but that’s the null.
Now you will object that ALL of these supposed hypotheses are based on common descent, because the test attempts to find that relationship. But it can fail. If there is no sensible consensus tree derivable from the data, common descent can be rejected. That (I will permit myself a mild FFS at this point, because this really isn’t the first time this has been explained) is how EXCEPTIONS are found. It’s how we can spot LGT, homoplasy – the things that don’t align with common descent stick out like a sore thumb.
The differences you hope will destroy common descent are detectable because they are embedded in a sea of similarity. You can’t even see that a difference is a difference if you can’t even align the goddamned things! Why on earth would you have any expectation to be able to digitally align two Commonly Designed sequences? My signatures all look pretty similar, and I kind of designed them all, but if the bitmap aligns, that’s digital copying.
I’d analogise it with the discovery of Pluto. Two photos of a star field are aligned, and then the difference – the faster moving planet – pops out as you close eyes alternately – the ‘blink comparator’. If you turn one picture upside down, there is no alignment, and you’ll never see it. You are doing the equivalent of turning one picture upside down, then looking at 1 pixel from each photo at a time.
You seem to hope that if you can do some kind of a ‘memoryless’ scan of the data – examine 2 bits at a time, then forget you ever saw that when you look at the next – you can forever fail to see the pattern. It’s one way of doing analysis, I suppose.
Why can we digitally align genomes, on bit-pattern? Why do some apparent mismatches suddenly match perfectly when you flip to the antisense view? Or when you find the sequence was on another chromosome after all?
As someone said though – and it wasn’t Einstein – insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. I must be mad.
I give it one fucking week and he’ll have totally and completely forgotten this. In fact, I predict he will read but still not get it the very instance the words are scanned by his retina.
It will simply fail to stick, such is the nature of Bill “how-do-you-test-common-descent?” Cole.
Frankie,
Haha. Digital similarities. Even viral inserts, inversions, tandem repeats … every last one of them functional and unchangeable … haha.
Our competing hypotheses:
In the blue corner, a process that is observed to preserve digital similarity with very high (but not 100%) fidelity.
In the red corner: something that has absolutely nothing to offer by way of explanation. Done by some bloke. Or an alien. Sometime. At some taxonomic level. Somehow.
Haha. Cop out. Haha.
Is there anything that, if observed, would disconfirm Common Design Frankie?
Nonsense- we have never observed the process of Common Descent. Never. Without being able to account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed you don’t have a process.
That said- AGAIN, Common Design doesn’t explain all of the similarities. Convergence explains some. Just the luck of the draw explains some and a common mechanism in response to similar environmental cues explains the rest.
Allan’s “reasoning” requires non-functional changes to become fixed in a population and then one part starts transforming one way while another part takes a divergent route. Total BS as no one has ever observed that to happen. Allan’s claim of an observed process is total nonsense
Allan Miller,
Voles- A lot of micro but no macro
Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. That is what Allan’s observed process can do. And it doesn’t come close to producing Common Descent
Definition? You don’t rent meeting space at Cornell for a circle jerk, and then spoil the fun by calling for definitions. New Directions, puh-lease!
What a totally clueless thing to say. Biological information was defined by Crick:
And hold the canned retort- “he didn’t say biological information”- no he just said what information is wrt biology, hence biological information
FrankenJoe has never seen families with parents, kids, grandkids, great-grandkids.
If the ID-Creationists accept Crick’s definition then known, empirically observed genetic processes (gene duplication, insertions, deletions, frame shifts, SNPs, etc.) create new information. The information retained by the population in its gene pool is that which becomes fixed by selection and drift.
Thanks FrankenJoe for refuting another ID-Creationist canard!
I disagree. Elliott Sober wrote a whole book on the topic. And that’s just for Evolution. So it can’t be just blazingly obvious to just anybody like you seem to think.
Yes, but so are all the rest of us. 🙂
I was strictly speaking about how supporting evidence works in science. Bill thinks you observe stuff and then proceed to explain those facts away using your preferred narrative. That’s BS, of course.
You made the same sophomoric mistake not too long ago, remember? Of course not
For OMagain:
Finding totally different genetic codes, totally different molecules that perform the same tasks in allegedly closely related archetypes- via Linnaean taxonomy- would be evidence against a Common Design. One of the major points in Common Design is to get rid of the need to reinvent gene sequences to code for already existent functioning proteins.
For adapa:
Common Descent refers to humans being related to chimps via a common ancestor. Humans giving rise to humans is common descent and hence the lack of capital letters.
Biological information pertains to its origin. Also duplication is just having two of the same thing. It isn’t a gain in information nor is anyone justified in calling a gene duplication an accidental change. And to follow that gene duplication you new a promoter and both need to be in the correct position of the coiled DNA. If you want to claim gene duplication followed by function changing mutations, well there doesn’t seem to be enough time in the universe to accomplish such a thing, unless the process was guided
Lenski’s experiment had a gene duplication that just happened to fall under the control of an existing promoter. Which is one piece of evidence that it wasn’t an accident
If the event was not random then why did it only occur in one of the twelve E coli colonies all cloned from the same original bacterium?
adapa, why do you ignore my explanations? Now you want to know why only one strain produced the gene duplication- I have already told you and your socks- the other 11 strains were doing fine and variation is the key so having all populations fix on only one solution isn’t smart.
Because your “explanations” don’t explain. They’re the most ridiculous unsupported ad hoc excuses for things your IDiot ideas can’t explain.
the other 11 strains were doing fine and variation is the key so having all populations fix on only one solution isn’t smart.
All 12 strains were “doing fine”. One happened to randomly hit on a genetic variation which gave it a big survival advantage. It’s wasn’t “directed” by the E coli Fairy Godmother, it wasn’t “front loaded”. It was as clear an example of evolution as anyone could ask for.
LoL! Your position is nothing but ad hoc nonsense, adapa. Your position’s “explanations” aren’t even as good as a school kid without his homework.
Having the right gene get duplicated and put under the control of an existing promoter tat wasn’t off in the presence of O2 is hardly an accident. You don’t have any justification for calling it that except your personal agenda.
What an utter tat.
Exactly. 2 million years, evolving 100 times faster than other vertebrates, and the result is, you get more voles. And they want to use this as evidence for evolution.
Its pretty much exactly the evidence you would expect against evolution. Nothing happens no matter how long we wait.
And VJ wants to say, well, it only takes 240 mutations you know. At 100 times slower than a vole!
Alan loves ad hoc nonsense, it keeps their comment rate high.
I’m sure you can supply your ID-Creationist explanation for the observed rapid speciation of voles, along with your supporting evidence. Did the Designer just like making genetically different but morphologically similar voles?
The idea isn’t positive evidence FOR Design, but rather the presumption that Design is the default if ANY holes (even imaginary ones) can be poked in a creationist caricature of evolution. In this case, it’s simple. If evolution is relatively slow, it’s not happening. If it’s relatively more rapid, there’s no such thing as evolutionary theory. If it were Goldilocks average, that would somehow ALSO be evidence against evolution.
See how easy this is when you start with intractable unsupportable conclusions and mock everything else? You may LOOK like a fool, but deep inside you know you’re right. Your god told you so.
Design is the default. Else Design Deniers wouldn’t feel so compelled to argue for their Designer Substitute du jour.
Alan Fox claims there’s something called a “niche” that does the designing. I bet he even thinks that is a scientific claim and that it’s testable. Maybe that it’s even been shown to be a fact. Maybe Alan lives in a fantasy world.
IDiot Creationists seem to think so anyway. The rest of the world abandoned the God, er, Designer of the Gaps arguments several hundred years ago.
I’m not sure why you think that.
Shirts look designed. Automobiles look designed. But biological organisms do not look designed.
Artificial flowers look designed. Natural flowers do not look designed. I was making that distinction (between artificial flowers and natural flowers) when I was 10 years old, long before I had heard of evolution.
And maybe you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said. Certainly I would never have interpreted his posts anything like you do.
Meanwhile, you are equivocating on the notion of design. Sure, you can leach all meaning out of the word by arguing that everything is designed, that every drop of rain follows a designed path due to factors like wind currents. But everyone understands that YOU intend Design to imply some supernatural Mind, with a goal and a purpose and a supernatural method of achieving these.
We all understand that when you refer to Design Deniers, you are referring to those who seek explanations beyond Goddidit, referring to whatever figment of your imagination you reify and then worship. And since you know that this belief cannot be supported by anything beyond ineducable assertion, you can only say that those who DO like valid explanations live in a fantasy world.
While that might feel good to you, it’s not going to earn you the respect necessary for anyone to take your posts seriously. If you intend your preaching to extend past the choir, you need to appeal to the approaches and convictions of your target audience.
It’s doubletalk, because he uses the word “design” both when he intends purpose and when he does not. So he mocks people for saying environments “design” organisms. This is a careful wording of natural selection, intended to pivot on the word “design” so as to switch from “natural design” to “purpose design” by implying one adjective or another.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Richard Dawkins
Can you explain why you disagree with Dawkins? Will you be the first design critic here at TSZ to offer your own criterion for distinguishing design from non-design?
LoL