Humor News

Peer reviewed article “misquotes” creationist Duane Gish by one word

Spread the love

The saying “nothing in evolution makes sense in the light of biology” is widely attributed to famous creationist Duane Gish.

In 2006, I used the phrase myself here. Casey Luskin points out a recent peer-reviewed article critical of Darwinism almost got the phrase right:

The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” but perhaps, too, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology.”

Combatting Evolution to Fight Disease

They didn’t get it exactly right, but still that’s progress. 🙂 You don’t need to understand evolution in order to understand biology! Evolutionism provides no useful insight to biology.

HT: BA77

6 Replies to “Peer reviewed article “misquotes” creationist Duane Gish by one word

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    I like the title of the peer-reviewed article. It has the perhaps unintended connotation that evolution is a bad thing, and we have to fight it.

    So not only does it echo Gish’s sentiments, the title of the article has a nice double meaning, “we have to fight evolution in order to fight disease and improve the human condition.”

    I like that. Combat evolution!

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    For an example of “nothing in evolution makes sense in the light of biology”, this paper came out yesterday showing the ‘horrendously complex’ way in which lignin is biosynthesized (please see paper to see the graph of the ‘horrendously complex’ biosynthetic pathway),,,

    Lignin breakthroughs serve as GPS for plant research – March 11, 2014
    Excerpt: . Lignin, an important and complex polymer responsible for plant growth and development, provides mechanical strength and water transport that enables some trees to grow 100 meters tall.,,,
    This work in the new area of plant systems biology, integrating biology, chemistry and engineering, sets a new standard for understanding any complex biological feature in the future.,,,
    Over many years of intensive research, the interdisciplinary team led by Chiang purified 21 pathway enzymes and analyzed 189 different parameters related to lignin formation. With help from engineering colleagues Cranos Williams and Joel Ducoste, the team developed models that predict how pathway enzymes affect lignin content and composition.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-03-l.....s-gps.html

    Yet, despite the fact that Darwinian evolution was somehow super genius enough to construct a biosynthetic pathway for lignin, that took years of intensive research by a interdisciplinary team to get a basic understanding of, it seems Darwinian evolution is too dumb to figure out what appears to be the much easier biosynthetic pathway of how to tap lignin as an energy source. This paradox is gone over in detail in the following paper:

    Lignin—Designed Randomness Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, and Douglas D. Axe – 2012
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2012.3

    A basic summary by Dr Gauger is here:

    The Lignin Enigma By Ann Gauger – July 2012
    Excerpt: Lignin is the most abundant aromatic polymer on earth and the second most abundant organic polymer of any kind, exceeded only by cellulose. It is estimated that 30% of the earth’s non-fossil organic carbon is in the form of lignin. Considering its massive abundance and its high energy content (40% higher than cellulose, gram for gram), it is striking that no organism seems to have tapped it as an energy source.
    Why should such an abundant resource go unexploited? Darwinian evolution has apparently failed to evolve “a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin”—over 400 million years, even though many other spectacular innovations—nodulation (a symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria that permits the fixation of nitrogen), symbiotic pollination systems (between plants, hummingbirds, and bees), and the appearance of carnivorous plants—all appeared during the same time period, and complex biochemical pathways such as C4 photosynthesis have apparently evolved independently many times.
    The authors continue,
    How can one mechanism [Darwinism] have been at the same time so effective and so ineffective? That tension vanishes completely when the design perspective is adopted. Terrestrial animal life is crucially dependent on terrestrial plant life, which is crucially dependent on soil, which is crucially dependent on the gradual photo- and biodegradation of lignin. Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nin-enigma

    And Dr. Axe gives an interview on the paradox here:

    Doug Axe: Lignin & the Coherent Design of the Ecosystem – podcast
    Excerpt: Lignin provides a paradoxical case for the Darwinian method of evolution, but fits perfectly into a design oriented scientific paradigm. Thirty percent of non-fossil organic carbon on the planet is lignin, so in a Darwinian world, something should have developed the ability to consume lignin–but it hasn’t. Lignin binds together and protects plant cellulose, which is vital to all types of large plant life; “The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem of our planet.”
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201.....ent_d.html

    i.e. “nothing in evolution makes sense in the light of biology”
    Duane Gish

  3. 3
    Barb says:

    Another quote by the scientist: “As we develop all this information [about the human genome], it will reveal the complexity, the interdependence of all this material. It will point to the origin as the result of an intelligent creator, an intelligent agent.”—Duane T. Gish, biochemist.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    I say about TD ‘s comment that nothing that ever came out of Russia made sense.TD just another example.

  5. 5
    johnp says:

    “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology.”

    This phrase is actually more accurate than the original Duane Gish quote. I think I’m safe in saying that we all hold that there is actually a phenomena that could be called “evolution” (i.e. change over time).

    The study of biology informs us on what evolution can and cannot accomplish.

    I like it!

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Casey Luskin dismantles Venema’s human-chimp gene similarity argument:

    Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? – Casey Luskin – March 13, 2014 (references on page)
    Excerpt: (1) Dr. Venema argues that high human-chimp genetic similarity is at least 95%, and that this shows common our ancestry.
    Response: Dr. Venema overstates the degree of human-chimp similarity and seems to disregard the obvious the possibility of common design for human-chimp functional genetic similarities.,,,
    (2) Dr. Venema argues that redundancy in codon-use (e.g., reuse of synonymous codons) is far in excess of what is required for functionality, suggesting common ancestry.
    Response: Dr. Venema’s argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression.,,,,
    (3) He argues that the highly similar spatial organization of the genes (synteny) across different species suggests common ancestry.
    Response: Again, Dr. Venema’s molecular biology is outdated. He assumes the ordering of genes (or chromosomal structure) is functionally unimportant, but molecular biology has discovered that nothing could be further from the truth. As the revolution in epigenetics has taken hold, molecular biologists now know that the structure of chromosomes, and their 3-dimensional arrangement(s) within a cell, are important parts of genomic regulation.,,,
    (4) Dr. Venema argues that shared pseudogenes suggest common ancestry.
    Response: Here Dr. Venema is assuming that what we don’t understand is functionless. in this case, we have lots of evidence that many pseudogenes — including pseudogenes that are prominent examples used by ID-critics — are likely functional.,,,
    in each of these four areas, Dr. Venema’s argument depends on the presumption that the similarity between humans and chimps (whether [1] protein sequence or overall genome similarity; [2] similar use of synonymous codons; [3] synteny; and [4] shared “pseudogenes”) is functionally unimportant–i.e., it’s a “junk” property of the genome. And in each of these four areas, the latest findings of molecular biology show that the property is not “junk” or unimportant, but in fact represents newly discovered important functional elements of molecular biology.
    As time goes on, ID’s predictions are being confirmed. Meanwhile, Darwinian presumptions — that many aspects of genomes exist for no reason other than “they were put there by unguided evolutionary mechanisms” — are turning out to be wrong.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83181.html

Leave a Reply