Some profbot explains why he defends Darwin

8 Replies to “Some profbot explains why he defends Darwin”

1. 1
   Robert Byers says:

   March 30, 2015 at 11:35 pm

   Evolution is not the foundation of biology.
   Biology is the working mechanisms one observes or can discover by observation and experiment etc. The origins of biological processes and results is unrelated to actual observable biology. Its not proven about evolution and its irrelevant to biological research.
   This prof is wrong and misunderstanding things here.
2. 2
   Joe says:

   March 31, 2015 at 4:26 am

   In other words, how else can we explain why the DNA of chimps and humans is nearly 99 percent identical, and that the blood and muscle proteins of chimps and humans are nearly identical as well?

   Common design. We see it every day with our technology.
3. 3
   bornagain77 says:

   March 31, 2015 at 5:13 am

   The Professor’s justification for teaching evolution,,,

   Theodosius Dobzhansky said: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

   ,,,is a ‘religious’ justification not a scientific justification:,,

   Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
   Abstract
   This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

   Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
   Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
   ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
   Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
   “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

   Moreover, sequence similarity between chimpanzess and humans are not nearly as neat and clean as the Professor believes. Richard Dawkins claimed that the FOXP2 gene was among ‘the most compelling evidences’ for establishing that humans evolved from some chimp-like anscestor, yet, as with all the other evidences offered from Darwinists, once the FOXP2 gene was critically analyzed it fell completely apart as proof for human evolution:

   Dawkins Best Evidence (FOXP2 gene) Refuted – video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU

   In the following paper, even the Darwinists who authored the paper admitted that the FOXP2 gene evidence is ‘tenuous’,,

   Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery – Todd M. Preuss – February 2012
   Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,,
   ,,our understanding of the relationship between genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2,,
   In part, the difficulty of connecting genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not amenable to invasive research.
   http://www.pnas.org/content/10.....9.full.pdf

   As well, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned:

   Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust – Casey Luskin – April 23, 2013
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....71421.html

   In 2013, three major pillars, that were said to strongly support a human-chimp link, crashed

   Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013
   Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
   1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
   2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
   3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site)
   All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
   http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

   Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has done a comprehensive analysis of chimpanzee and human chromosomes and the 70% figure he found was drastically different that the 98% figure that Darwinists had misled the general public with for decades

   The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video
   https://vimeo.com/95287522

   Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
   Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
   http://www.answersingenesis.or.....chromosome

   An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer
   TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?
   SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,
   http://www.ligonier.org/learn/.....-conflict/
4. 4
   bornagain77 says:

   March 31, 2015 at 5:15 am

   The following study ‘broke the tree’:

   The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree – Doug Axe PhD. – March 2012
   Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…”
   That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple.
   http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....e-the-tree

   The Y chromosome shows “extraordinary divergence”

   Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
   Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

   Moreover, it turns out that inferring relationship from genetic similarity is misleading from another angle as well. It turns out that vastly different creatures can have remarkably similar genetic sequences. Dr. Sternberg comments here:

   5:30 minute mark quote:
   “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”
   Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. – Podcast – (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
   http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

   This same ‘discrepancy’ is found in kangaroo genomes:

   Kangaroo genes close to humans
   Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
   http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

   As well, the regulatory regions between chimps and humans are far more different than the 70% figure that Dr. Tomkins found for genetic sequences.

   I’ve already referenced Dr. Sternberg’s talk in the first link where he speaks of drastic differences in regulatory regions. Here are a few more references to get that specific point across:

   “Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
   Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video
   https://vimeo.com/106012299

   Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
   Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144632.htm

   Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
   Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
   A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
   On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
   http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

   Yet mutations to gene regulatory networks are “always catastrophically bad”

   A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
   Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
   Eric Davidson
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

   Thus, where neo-Darwinists most need plascticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where ‘substantial’ differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
   Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
   If neo-Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion, this would have certainly counted as a major falsification of one of its primary theoretical predictions. But alas, Darwinist will ignore this as they do all other failed predictions of neo-Darwinism. It is simply heresy for Darwinists to ever express doubt of neo-Darwinism!
5. 5
   bornagain77 says:

   March 31, 2015 at 5:18 am

   Another major problem with the neo-Darwinian model is that major changes in body plans are not achievable by mutations to DNA.
   In other words, the neo-Darwinian, (i.e. the modern synthesis), assumption that mutations to DNA can produce new body-plans does not have any empirical support, but is just another unsupported assumption that Darwinists have made in spite of the contrary evidence!

   Response to John Wise – October 2010
   Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

   Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video
   https://vimeo.com/91322260

   Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
   ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
   Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

   Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM

   Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
   Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
   The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
   In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
   ,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
   I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
   I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93851.html

   Needless to say, if you can mutate DNA ’til the cows come home’ and still not produce changes in basic body plan morphology, then perhaps it is time to look for a new theory for how humans originated?
   And yes, body plan morphology is far different between man and chimps than Darwinists have misled people to believe:

   The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
   Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html

   In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
   “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
   Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
   Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”

   King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
   David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
   Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975
   http://academic.reed.edu/biolo.....classic%29
6. 6
   bornagain77 says:

   March 31, 2015 at 6:32 am

   Of related note:

   “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology”: Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin March 31, 2015
   Excerpt: Noble doesn’t mince words:
   “It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.”
   Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that “genetic change is random,” (2) that “genetic change is gradual,” (3) that “following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population,” and (4) that “inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.” He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,,
   He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the “Integrative Synthesis,” where genes don’t run the show and all parts of an organism — the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything — is integrated.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94821.html
7. 7
   Silver Asiatic says:

   March 31, 2015 at 7:22 am

   BA77 — if anyone really wanted to understand the issue they would read those many links you provided. Thanks for those. I notice the comments on the profbot’s article are about 95% positive. He’s a genius, a great educator, more needed then ever, etc. I don’t think any of those people or the prof himself have dealt with the contrary findings. Or probably they just want to ignore them.
8. 8
   Robert Byers says:

   March 31, 2015 at 11:01 pm

   Man chimp dna likeness is because we have the same body. Not from common descent but from our inability to have our own body that represents our nature. We alone don’t have our own body. so we have the best body in biology for fun and profit and driving cars.
   This YEC welcomes 100% likeness in dna with apes. It could only be that we are renting a body type of another creature. We must be in the spectrum of biology and can’t be different enough to justify this is a unique body relative to our identity as Gods image.
   Its only a line of reasoning to see this dna likeness as evidence of common descent. Even if true. its not a scientific biological conclusion.
   its flawed reasoning from science thinking and only a hunch.