Larry Moran is desperate. He said I do not understand Darwinism. I called him out and challenged him to demonstrate his claim. He has now put up two posts in response, and they both fail miserably.
In the first post he flails about over the term “Darwinism” and says I mistakenly equate that term with “Neo-Darwinism” and the “Modern Synthesis.” As evidence of my confusion he points to the UD glossary. But that very glossary entry states that on this site we use the term “Darwinism” as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis, and then goes on to define those terms.
Note that Larry does not say UD’s definition of Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis is wrong.* He says that when I use the word “Darwinism” as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism, it proves I don’t understand the difference between those two terms. Astoundingly, the very glossary entry he points to proves him wrong.
In the second post he jumps on his favorite hobby horse, junk DNA:
He [i.e., Arrington] said that “Darwinists” predicted junk DNA and he states clearly that junk DNA is supposed to be “practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis.” But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.
No Darwinist ever said the theory predicts junk DNA? What about world famous Darwinist Francis Collins:
Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.” That is exactly what is observed.
Francis Collins, The Language of God, 2006
How about world famous Darwinist Jerry A. Coyne:
Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it’s precisely what we expect from evolution. . . .when a trait is no longer used or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don’t instantly disappear from the genome: Evolution strops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes. . . . the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled – amply. Virtually ever species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that some of those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome, – and that of other species – are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009
Examples could be multiplied, but you get the picture.
How embarrassing that biologist Larry has to be schooled on this subject by a lawyer. Ouch. That’s gotta smart.
Finally, notice how Larry lies about what I said just a few short paragraphs after he quotes me. First he quotes me:
For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
Yes, I did write that.
Now notice Larry’s distortion later in the post:
Barry Arrington says that Darwinism predicted junk DNA and that junk DNA is strong evidence of the Darwinian hypothesis
No, I did not say that Darwinism predicted junk DNA. I said Darwinists said the theory predicted junk DNA, and as I demonstrated above, they did. And no, I did not say that junk DNA is strong evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. Those same Darwinists made that claim. I said exactly the opposite, i.e., that ID proponents disagreed.
Larry, I have a question for you. Why do you think making obviously false statements helps your case? I’m not one of your poor captive students whom you can bully and give failing marks if I don’t toe your line. This is not your classroom. You can’t just make up facts to suit you as you go.
Things are not looking good for you Larry. Two blog posts in and you have yet to provide a smidgen of evidence for your claim.
*To be sure, as is his wont, he engages is some genetic fallacy smears, but he never says a single word of the UD definition is wrong.