At The Panda’s Thumb, a troll stopped on by to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge of genetics and evolution, and dazzle PTers with their incredible grasp of grammar. Or so they thought…

It’s time for some Monday Madness.

In the comment thread for a post on a critique of a Dembski-Marks paper (that garbled things up as usual), Bond, James Bond dropped on by. It turns out that the aging secret agent man has a renewed interest in making asinine statements about evolution on a blog full of people very knowledgeable about the topic. But when someone criticized their ability to form complete, coherent, non-run on sentences and sensible paragraph delineations, Bond, James Bond let them have it. Time to whip out my enzyme (DICER!) and serve it up Julienne-style!
(Note: there are in fact only six paragraph separations after the words “Naturalists always…” Two of them surround a single link. I will intersperse my own comments where I feel like it - don’t think for a second that they actually paused and took a breath after what they said!)

I follow the evidence period….…..

For Example!!!!!!!!!!!!

Usually, a colon follows those words. Usually.

Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias.

Ahem, Genetic Entropy is the name of a creationist book that bastardizes genetics, and is not a foundational principle of science. Except the principle that creationists bastardize genetics. That’s a given.

For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof.

Yes, and the 99.99% genetic similarity between you and your parents is not conclusive proof that you’re their kids, either.

For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%.

Errr, the 96% similarity includes insertions and deletions since our recent common ancestor, so they don’t have matching sequences. The 98.7% similarity is between sequences that have matches - giving us a better idea of the time since divergence based upon rates of mutation, and is a better measure of divergence.

Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may actually be closer to 85% to 90%.

And that makes it true. No really, when an ex-astronomer-turned apologist/evangelist doesn’t do research for 20 years, percentages they pull out of their rectums are absolutely “conclusively” scientifically ultrasonically true!

Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005).

Sounds about right, but I haven’t checked his source. Of course most of the differences between most of our proteins are small differences that don’t change the function appreciably. But when you selectively quote like this, you can make 98.7% similarity sound like 29% similarity! Bravo! And work on your citations, pal, a lot of papers were published in Nature in 2005.

As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish?

Mice and zebrafish are 92% human. Duh!

Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from!

Pssst. Although you’re only 75% worm, and 70% Fruit fly, I think you’re 100% Coconut.

Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!!

I suggest acquainting yourself with all the papers on this in the Pubmed database before drawing your erroneous conclusions. But that’s just a suggestion. Like continuing to breath air - just a suggestion. Oh, um, “flexibility” of DNA is a nice made-up phrase. You might mean mutational plasticity, or other scientific terms like that. And it’s plenty plastic.

Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)!

Thank you for giving us a better citation, and now we can see that the paper in question says nothing of the sort! it doesn’t make that claim, nor study that topic - it covers mathematical modeling of how likely beneficial mutations are likely to take over in a population!! Here’s the abstract:

In sexual populations, beneficial mutations that occur in different lineages may be recombined into a single lineage. In asexual populations, however, clones that carry such alternative beneficial mutations compete with one another and, thereby, interfere with the expected progression of a given mutation to fixation. From theoretical exploration of such ‘clonal interference’, we have derived (1) a fixation probability for beneficial mutations, (2) an expected substitution rate, (3) an expected coefficient of selection for realized substitutions, (4) an expected rate of fitness increase, (5) the probability that a beneficial mutation transiently achieves polymorphic frequency (> or = 1%), and (6) the probability that a beneficial mutation transiently achieves majority status. Based on (2) and (3), we were able to estimate the beneficial mutation rate and the distribution of mutational effects from changes in mean fitness in an evolving E. coli population.

And they were dealing with this issue in clonally reproducing bacteria - once you add sexual recombination, the issues they discussed are much easier to overcome!

Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy.

Again, when a principle doesn’t exist, it can’t be violated. By my brain was sure violated by that sentence. Funny thing is, we know what they meant - that we can’t cite something that violates their pet concept - but they actually said that nothing ever brought up violates it! Classic!

Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

And yours is sure to be amongst them.

“It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes ally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA) “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

By the way, MOST MUTATIONS ARE SILENT! (Unlike that sentence was in your head.) Most mutations, if they affect the phenotype, are harmful. But many mutations are beneficial, and can become fixed in the population and the population evolves. And the quote above is surely to be a quote-mine. Notice the tell-tale signs of ellipses (…) What was in there? Let’s see how this changes the meaning of these two sentences.

You are a person. Sometimes a person can be a dick.

Becomes:

You are a… dick.

Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code.

Women, reportedly, have 6 billion. Ever heard of diploidy? Genome sizes that you read about are haploid genomes, so 3 * 2 = 6 billion base-pairs in each man. Except you. You have an extra pair of chromosomes.

Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference.

YES! They can do math! Childrens do learn.

It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or , then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,99930,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes.

NO! They can’t do math! Childrens don’t learn. Besides the fact that this 999,999 number was duly wrenched from the grasp of their rectal sphincter, they’re forgetting population size, and selective advantage. By the way the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was not a monkey. It was an ape. Like you (And me). Oh hey, did they forget to add something there?

…at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or , then it…

Harmful and/or what? Tell us! Why won’t you tell us what you know about genetics? Or are you telling us that you don’t know?

The monkey will hit a end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before him.

As opposed to mulitating him after him. A crucial distinction…

The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,99930,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome!

Ack it’s that number again! How did you even fit 5 digits between those commas? This math is too hard for my feeble brain.

Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%.

Reference…? There goes the false claims about mutation rates again…

The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes.

Cross-breeding is not a solution. It’s your problem to begin with. Or are you saying that your inability to grasp basic concepts was magically poofed into existence? Shall we call this non-materialistic theory of your ignorance Intelligent Unintelligence Theory? I don’t know, I think there’s a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for you.

They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye.

*Batting eyes* Oh you brainiac, you!

Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be far below the culling power of natural selection to remove from a genome! “The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

Quote mine! Wait, are they saying that there are NO beneficial mutations? So they are really truly someone that doesn’t believe in antibiotic resistance?

“Evolution through random duplications”… While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents!)

Yes, and the author of the “Genetic Entropy” book. I believe we have one of those gene guns in my lab somewhere, and its very useful in plant genetics. But not half as useful as knowing the evolutionary relationships of plant species, which preserves gene orders, similarities in function, etc. Sanford is also a Young-Earth Creationist. Oy.

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity).

But you certainly come very close with your 11 layers of stupid-compression.

Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network.

Note: not all of the scientists were named ENCODE. One was named Steve.

This “complex interwoven network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005; page 141).

No it doesn’t. Scale-free interconnected networks of genes are predicted by evolution, and they’re what we see.

This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code.

My DNA code is NOT intimately connected with yours.

Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was.

Case in point: recreational drugs. Affected many parts of Bond, James Bond’s mind and body, yet they’re still alive!

Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes that can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this “complex interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news, if not absolutely crushing, for the population genetics scenario of evolution developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005)!

Okay, you know what? Uh-uh. Try looking up the Modern Synthesis of Evolution, which includes the work of Mendel, Haldane, Fisher, Wright, and a whole host of others. They don’t disprove evolution, this is decades-old stuff!!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/ar…

Great research, you can find news articles that don’t support you! Fantastic job!

Naturalists truly believe you can get such staggering complexity of information in the DNA from some process based on blind chance.

Plus selection, genetic drift, sexual recombination…

They cannot seem to fathom that any variation to a basic component in a species is going to require precise modifications to the entire range of interconnected components related to that basic component.

Not really. Look up Plasticity next to any genetic or biochemical term. How about catalytic plasticity?

NO natural law based on blind chance, would have the wisdom to implement the multitude of precise modifications on the molecular level in order to effect a positive change from one species to another.

Just like no blind natural law could know the precise changes to make in your genome to make you no smarter than a rat, yet able to demonstrate that with keystrokes. Intelligent Unintelligence gains more evidence!

Only a “vastly superior intelligence” would have the wisdom to know exactly which amino acids in which proteins, which letters in the DNA code and exactly which repositioning of the 25 million nucleosomes (DNA spools) etc .. etc .. would need to be precisely modified to effect a positive change in a species.

Just like a vastly superior intelligence must have had the wisdom to create HIV and Malaria which effectively exploit and avoid our immune systems and our blood cells… oops. Didn’t think about that, didja?

For men to imagine blind chance has the inherently vast wisdom to create such stunning interrelated complexity is even more foolish than some pagan culture worshipping a stone statue as their god and creator.

Carved wood ones, though, that makes sense.

Even if evolution of man were true, then only God could have made man through evolution. For only He would have the vast wisdom to master the complexity that would be required to accomplish such a thing. Anyone who fails to see this fails to appreciate the truly astonishing interwoven complexity of life at the molecular level.

You fail to understand and appreciate life at the molecular level - therefore you fail to see this too.

Even though God could have created us through “directed evolution”, the fossil record (Lucy fossil proven not ancestral in 2007) and other recent “hard” evidence (Neanderthal mtDNA sequenced and proven “out of human range”) indicates God chose to create man as a completely unique and distinct species.

Since when was Lucy’s fossil proven not ancestral? Source? Didn’t think so.

Well it certainly showed that the Neanderthals whose DNA we sequenced didn’t contribute their mtDNA. But evolution doesn’t rest on Neanderthal ancestry. They’re cousins of us, and it would be fascinating to see if they contributed something to our lineage through interbreeding. Some papers have suggested it, but we’ll have to wait on the Neanderthal genome to know for sure.

But, alas, our naturalistic friend is as blind and deaf as the blind chance he relies on to produce such changes and cannot bring himself to face this truth. Most naturalists I’ve met, by and large, are undaunted when faced with such overwhelming evidence for Divine Intelligence and are convinced they have conclusive proof for naturalistic evolution somewhere.

Sounds like a good description of you for what you believe. Stop projecting!

They will tell us exactly what it is when they find it. The trouble with this line of thinking for naturalists is they will always take small pieces of suggestive evidence and focus on them, to the exclusion of the overriding vast body of conclusive evidence that has already been established.

What evidence, where? Who, how? You still haven’t given us anything. Didn’t you just accuse “naturalists” of hand-waving to some evidence somewhere?

They fail to realize that they are viewing the evidence from the wrong overall perspective to begin with. After listening to their point of view describing (with really big words) some imagined evolutionary pathway on the molecular level, sometimes I think they might just be right.

And then they look in their scripture…

Then when I examine their evidence in detail and find it wanting, I realize they are just good story tellers with small pieces of “suggestive” evidence ignoring the overwhelming weight of “hard” evidence that doesn’t fit their naturalistic worldview. Instead of them thinking,” WOW look how God accomplishes life on the molecular level,” they think” WOW look what , dumb and blind chance accomplished on the molecular level.”

Hey, dumb and blind chance isn’t doing you all that badly in your arguments - you still think you’re right!

Naturalists have an all too human tendency to over-emphasize and sometimes even distort the small pieces of suggestive evidence that are taken out of context from the overwhelming body of “conclusive” evidence. This is done just to support their own preconceived philosophical bias of naturalism.

Yes, because Ken Miller and Francis Collins have a pre-conceived philosophical bias of naturalism.

This is clearly the practice of very bad science, since they have already decided what the evidence must say prior to their investigation. I could help them find the conclusive proof for evolution they are so desperately looking for if they would just listen to me.

Who are you? Are you an angel?

For I know exactly where this conclusive proof for evolution is;

Where? Do tell us!

it is right there in their own imagination.

I’m beginning to think you’re in my own imagination.

What really amazes me is that most naturalists are people trained in exacting standards of science. Yet, they are accepting such piddling and weak suggestive evidence in the face of such overwhelming conclusive evidence to begin with.

Piddling? Where have I heard that one before?

This blatant deception; , dumb, blind chance has the inherent wisdom to produce staggering complexity, is surprisingly powerful in its ability to deceive! That it should ensnare so many supposedly rational men and women is remarkable. Then, again, I have also been easily misled by blatant deception many times in my life, so, maybe it is not that astonishing after all. Maybe it is just a painful and all too human weakness we all share that allows us to be so easily deceived.

How ironic. Ending a post full of self-deception with admitting that they deceive themselves sometimes. The painful part is admitting that you are succumbing to a normal human weakness and not a systematic program of obfuscating reality.
Bond, James Bond. If that is your real name, we can see that you’re a shining example. A shining example of what creationism (and the recently evolved ID strain) does to young minds. Where did that word piddling come from, now? After the Kitzmiller v Dover court case that tanked ID creationism in schools, Id proponent and “expert” witness Michael Behe turned a bit sour and started calling the research of other scientists on evolution “piddling.” It turns out, according to this recent post at the Panda’s Thumb, that Michael Behe’s work is best described as “piddling.”

To summarize, Michael Behe has published 17 “items” since 1996¹, but only one of those items is a primary research paper related in any way to his ID research program, and that paper never mentions ID. His most important work, Darwin’s Black Box, has been cited 80 times, mostly negatively or else in non-science journals. Sean Carroll, by contrast has published 36 peer-reviewed papers and been cited a total of 1,508 times.

I conclude, based on the evidence, that Michael Behe is obviously not a scientist of the first rank and appears not to be doing any serious work at the present time. More to the point, ID creationism is not an important idea in science. Science is a meritocracy where ideas earn their place. Until ID shows it can be used as a productive idea to perform scientific work it should not be presented as a viable alternative to well-established evolutionary theory. Academic freedom issues are simply not germane in this context. Short-circuiting the normal process used to establish the scientific ideas we teach to students is simply dishonest.

(Source: David Lampe)

I’ll end this post of Monday Madness with a comment, the comment that I put on the previously cited Pandas post. You see, Creationism/ID not only fry your brain (as we see from Bond, James Bond above), but it will also halt your scientific research. Not through any outside action, but by the mere fact that it eats away your brain on the inside, and gives you nowhere to go with scientific research. A dead end: