Monday, December 27, 2010

The Comedy of Errors: A Response To "Darwin Killed God" Blog (Part 2)

TheHumanApe’s blog is hardly deserving of attention, but nevertheless the job of shredding his ridiculous literature will be done.
     He devotes a number of his blog posts to providing the evidence for evolution. For example, he quotes Jerry Coyne (author of “Why Evolution is True”) on why ERVs, embryology, et al., all demonstrate the validity of common descent. He describes how fossils and protein sequences provide confirmation of common descent. However, he makes the fatal error of equating evidence of common descent for evidence of a non-directed model of common descent. He cannot accept the prospect that evolution was guided. While I am not in anyway a theistic evolutionist, there is evidence in biology that certain parts of life were involved in a guided evolution. For example, a sequence analysis of the protein alpha-importin suggests that alpha-importin in unicellular organisms would guide the evolution of beta-canenin, and with the origin of beta-canenin, multicellular life forms would arise (see Mike Gene’s blog “The Design Matrix”). If TheHumanApe stubbornly clings to the belief that even a guided evolution is  “magic,” then I’d love to hear his response to this.

       TheHumanApe gives some treatment to chromosome 2, which he calls “undeniable evidence for evolution.” He is apparently ignorant of the possibility that Homo sapiens originally had 48 chromosomes, and then a fusion reduced that number to 46. The only thing chromosome 2 proves is that homo sapiens used to have 48 chromosomes.

He comes up with even more “undeniable evidence” for evolution – namely, the evidence from DNA sequences and molecular phylogenies. He is, of course, unaware of the fact molecular nested hierarchies can be explained by tissue constraints on protein sequences. A neutral substitution in one organism is not necessarily neutral in another, due to differences in the number of cell types. As such, the evidence from DNA sequences can hardly be considered “undeniable evidence.”

I found a particular portion of his blog amusing.
 “Of course the idiot calls evolution ‘Darwinism’…. Again Christians, please read this carefully: Biologists are called ‘biologists’. It would help if you practiced saying the word "biologists" a few dozen times so you get it right next time.”

Right. It’s always difficult to get this point across to laymen like TheHumanApe: we use the term “Darwinian” to distinguish “Darwinian” evolution from Lamarckian evolution, saltationism, orthogenesis, et al. There are Darwinian biologists, there are Lamarckian biologists, etc. Biologists use the term ‘Darwinian’ to distinguish between the different evolutionary models. Of course, laymen like TheHumanApe still can’t get that straight.

Note that nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in his blog does he provide evidence against the following statement: certain features of the biological world are more adequately explained by an intelligence. He assumes that by providing a mountain of evidence for common descent, then this must mean that the flagellar motility system was not intelligently designed. One could provide all the proof in the world that humanity descended through a Darwinian process, but this would not prove that the same is true for the flagellar motility system.

One thing he said I found to be the most entertaining:
 “I left the following comment for…an uneducated moron, a typical superstitious idiot.”

I.e., I am an uneducated moron and a typical, superstitious idiot. I find that to be, in short, hilarious.

Well, I think I’ll stop it there since I don’t want to waste anymore time on something that he won’t respond to. Cheers!


  1. "there are Lamarckian biologists"

    Bullshit. That idea was thrown out a long time ago. You don't know what you're talking about.

  2. "certain features of the biological world are more adequately explained by a MAGIC MAN"

    You're not capable of growing up. Drop dead. You're a waste of time.

  3. "the flagellar motility system was not intelligently designed"

    No shit moron. Nothing was magically created. Magic isn't real. Any 5 year old could have told you that.

  4. "That idea was thrown out a long time ago."

    I suppose that depends on what you define as "long time ago." Is 25 years ago a long time ago? No? Then maybe you have never heard of a fellow by the name of Pierre Grasse? But you're not really refuting my reason why we call some biologists "Darwinians." Nice try, but it really doesn't work.

    "You don't know what you're talking about."

    I don't know what I'm talking about?

    That is fascinating. If I don't know what I'm talking about, then I can say with confidence that you know even less about what you're discussing than I do.

  5. Define magic. I will be waiting for that.

    "Nothing was magically created."

    I agree. I am so glad intelligent design does not invoke any magic, aren't you? ; )

  6. One more thing: instead of nitpicking on only a portion of my post, why don't you try and refute the bulk of my arguments? Oh right, even though you have all that time on your hands, you wouldn't dare do that, now would you? Thought so.