Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Larry Moran

Asked at Evolution News: How much can evolution really accomplish?

Anderson: "The deeply held assumption of nearly all evolutionists is that evolution can do everything. After all, we’re here aren’t we! So there is little point in even asking the question." Actually, in religious circles, if anyone treated their sect’s creed the way Darwinians have treated evolution, they would be regarded as a cult. Read More ›

Larry Moran’s new book sounds like a scorcher

He thinks there must be something “seriously wrong” with science if people keep looking for new functions for junk DNA. What’s “wrong,” so far as the rest of us can see, is that researchers keep finding new functions that formerly-junk DNA performs, so they keep looking. For the same reasons as fisherfolk return to the well-stocked lake. Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on Larry Moran and the junk DNA

Sheldon: If I recall correctly, the original definition of "functional" was whether that piece of DNA was turned into a protein, which depended on finding a "start" and a "stop" codon. The Human Genome Project reported that some 90% of the human genome didn't have these "start/stop" features, and hence was "non-functional". ["Non-functional" underwent considerable revision later.] Read More ›

Why did an evolutionary biology prof imply world-famous chemist James Tour was “stupid”?

A writer encountered this all-too-common type of behavior recently and was, well, surprised. To see why it feels normal to many of us, it is helpful to understand a bit about Darwinism as a social phenomenon. Faithful readers of various vintages will, of course, remember University of Toronto evolutionary biologist Larry Moran, best known publicly through his blog Sandwalk. At his blog Southern Prose, writer John Leonard happened to come across him the other day trashing well-known chemist James Tour. That was back in 2014 but the internet is forever. Tour signed the Discovery Institute statement, “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” (2001), calling for more openness on discussion of evolution: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random Read More ›