Discoveroids: Horses Can Prance, Therefore …

The Seattle silliness continues. Yesterday we posted Discoveroids: Salmon Can Navigate, Therefore …. Now there’s another mind-numbing essay at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog.

This one is Detecting an Intelligently Designed Mutation in Horses. It’s even dumber than the one we wrote about yesterday. Because it’s our burden to expose creationist foolishness, and to heap upon it the ridicule it deserves, we’ll play with it and give you some excerpts.

But first, let’s begin with something we previously said in What Did Darwin Do? Although he knew nothing about genetics, Darwin wrote in Chapter 1 of Origin of Species — note the ambiguous use of the word “race” which was common at the time, and which is the sole source of creationists’ frequent accusation of Darwin’s “racism”:

Let us now briefly consider the steps by which domestic races have been produced, either from one or from several allied species. Some little effect may, perhaps, be attributed to the direct action of the external conditions of life, and some little to habit; but he would be a bold man who would account by such agencies for the differences of a dray and race horse, a greyhound and bloodhound, a carrier and tumbler pigeon. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal’s or plant’s own good, but to man’s use or fancy. … We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man’s power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds.

And in Chapter 2 he wrote, with a hint of theory thrown in:

Again, we have many slight differences which may be called individual differences, such as are known frequently to appear in the offspring from the same parents, or which may be presumed to have thus arisen, from being frequently observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same confined locality. No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the very same mould. These individual differences are highly important for us, as they afford materials for natural selection to accumulate, in the same manner as man can accumulate in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.

In the final chapter of Origins, Chapter 14, Darwin said:

Man does not actually produce variability; he only unintentionally exposes organic beings to new conditions of life, and then nature acts on the organisation, and causes variability. But man can and does select the variations given to him by nature, and thus accumulate them in any desired manner. … It is certain that he can largely influence the character of a breed by selecting, in each successive generation, individual differences so slight as to be quite inappreciable by an uneducated eye. This process of selection has been the great agency in the production of the most distinct and useful domestic breeds.

With that, which was common knowledge not only in Darwin’s day, but for millennia before him, let’s get to what the Discoveroids have for us. They say, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:

If early humans spread a mutation without knowing what a mutation is, is that a case of intelligent design?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, is it? You might think the question is ridiculous, but the Discoveroids have the amazing ability — aided by their cutting-edge “theory” of intelligent design — to discern facts which the rest of us are too thick-headed to grasp. They spend their entire essay trying to enlighten us. Pay attention:

Here is a case involving horses. Horses typically have three natural gaits (patterns of leg placement in motion): the walk, the trot, and the gallop. Horseback riders know that the natural trot is bouncy, and with some horses, a natural gallop is, too. Yet horses with extra gaits can be found worldwide that prance with a minimum of bounce or gallop smooth as an arrow. What happened?

Wowie — a mystery! Then they give a bunch of quotes (which we haven’t verified) from a paper recently published in Animal Genetics: Worldwide frequency distribution of the ‘Gait keeper’ mutation in the DMRT3 gene. You can read it online without a subscription. The summary says: “A recent study discovered that a nonsense mutation in DMRT3 has a major impact on gaitedness in horses and is present at a high frequency in gaited breeds and in horses bred for harness racing.” That term doesn’t mean “nonsensical,” it has a specific meaning — see nonsense mutation. Skipping a bunch of quotes from the published paper, the Discoveroids tell us:

So that’s the data. A specific single point mutation appears to be associated with the ability to perform gaits that are beneficial to humans. If you were a geneticist unfamiliar with that association, would you know the mutation was spread by humans? Probably not. Here is an interesting test for the Design Filter.

Oooooooh — Dembski’s Design Filter! We’ve seen that before — see Crop Circles & Intelligent Design, and also Rock Mounds Are Designed, Therefore …. It’s what we call Creationism’s Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment. This is thrilling; they’re going to apply their magic filter! Let’s read on:

The mutation could have been caused by chance. By all appearances in a genetics lab, it is a nonsense mutation — an accident of little or no consequence. No natural law would have caused the mutation.

Do we need to continue, or are you already satisfied that the quantity of Complex and Specified Balderdash (CSB) in the Discoveroids’ post is totally off the dial? Okay, we’ll give you a bit more:

It’s the worldwide distribution of this mutation and its strong association with traits desirable to humans that drops this mutation beyond chance and natural law and into the design category.

It’s beyond natural law! Ohhhhhhhh — this is so exciting! Here’s more:

This is not so different from any intelligent design case.

That’s certainly true. Moving along:

Designers do not always exhaustively know the particulars. When early humans painted artwork on cave walls, they didn’t need to know how the molecular structure of the paint caused it to adhere to rock. The discoverers of the Rosetta Stone did not have to be able to read hieroglyphs to infer that the markings contained a message.

One powerful argument after another! Here’s the conclusion:

One little mutation in one little gene: it slipped through the Design Filter and became an inference to intelligent design.

That filter is a helluva useful tool. We gotta get one. Who knows what wonders we might discover?

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “Discoveroids: Horses Can Prance, Therefore …

  1. Christine Janis

    “Yet horses with extra gaits can be found worldwide that prance with a minimum of bounce or gallop smooth as an arrow”

    Not what “prance” means (“prance” is a bouncy display). The smooth gait that they are talking about is variously known as the running walk/tolt/single foot. It’s most likely that when this gait turns up in modern breeds (e.g., Paso Fino, Icelandic horse, saddlebred) it’s a *throwback*, as fossil trackways (the Laetoli trackway in Tanzania) show that three-toed horses (not directly ancestral to the modern one-toed horse) also had this gait. (See Renders, Nature 1984

    And, whatever, at best it’s “intelligent selection” not “intelligent design”.

  2. No natural law can cause a single-point mutation? Really? That’s just thrown out that as a fact, without explanation?

    They don’t even try anymore.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    So are we all supposed to scream at our screens something like this: ” the mutation wasn’t designed, stoopid! The selection and distribution was!!”

    At least that’s what I would have been screaming if not in a cube farm right now.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    Well at least it is comforting to know that it was merely Intelligently Designed mutations which resulted in a group of people establishing the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

    I had been concerned that this collection of miscreants in one zip code was the unhappy result of some unknown hazardous pollutant in the Seattle municipal water distribution system.

  5. You people are being obtuse. You don’t get it. Without the Discoveroids’ wonderful filter, you could never figure this horse thing out in 10^40 billion years! You’d just be blundering around in a blind Darwinian stupor!

  6. After reading all of that, I think a slight rebranding of “Creationism’s Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment” is called for. My suggestion is “Creationism’s Retrospective Astonishment Principle” in honour of what, er, trots out of the other end of a horse. Extreme application of said Principle is usually preceded by Hardcore Obfuscatory Liturgical Yearnings.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Con-Tester, your initialisms are starting to look *gasp* created. Look for them in a future DI posting.

  8. waldteufel

    Does one have to be insane to become a creationist, or is insanity a result of becoming a creationist?

  9. What will the historians of the 22nd century have to say about creationism? What will the churches have to say – that’s a slur on them that they backed creationism, that it was tiny minority (like flat Earth)? What will the historians of philosophy say about the bogus arguments? How will they explain it?

  10. TomS asks: “What will the historians of the 22nd century have to say about creationism?”

    Using the Design Filter and the unfailing doctrine of causa vera, it’s obvious that you’ll be in the Lake of Fire, so it shouldn’t make any difference to you.

  11. Every time I read something from the Discoveroids I die a little inside. How and why are they so stupid?

  12. How the hell do you put up with this day after day, Curmudgeon?

  13. docbill1351

    This posting reeks of Dense O’Leary right down to not knowing what “prance” means. Good old Dense is quite possibly the stupidest IDiot in the Disco Tute and she’s working hard to beat some stiff competition.

  14. Justin asks: “How the hell do you put up with this day after day, Curmudgeon?”

    Somebody’s gotta do it.

  15. docbill1351 says: “This posting reeks of Dense O’Leary”

    No, she’s a rising star at that “think tank” and they put her name on her stuff. I’ve been mostly ignoring what she writes. It’s so bad that it’s essentially self-refuting. Not worthy of my efforts.

  16. docbill1351

    No, she’s a rising star at that “think tank” and they put her name on her stuff. I’ve been mostly ignoring what she writes. It’s so bad that it’s essentially self-refuting. Not worthy of my efforts.

    No, you no, Batman! Dense was or still is an editor at Dembski’s swampblog and very often posts under the guise of “News.” I know Dense’s “style” and that’s it. Klinghitler is smarmy, the Gerb is prissy, Meyer is sour and Dense is what the Germans call “battenshitzenkrazinstoopidwerden.”

  17. I always get a chuckle out of Darwin’s views on mutation. He seemed to think that environmental pressure caused changes and mutations, and the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinism) set evolutionary theory back a bit by re-asserting the creative power of selection. Of course, when you disagree with Darwin about this point (by citing random mutation and neutral alleles as the creative force and source of evolutionary direction) they see it as “dissent among the ranks” and claim evolutionary theory is in trouble. Then they take it to the extreme and claim that Gould and others have abandoned natural selection and cling to a “croc giving birth to a chicken” model.

  18. I’m guessing that their next post will be on the curious distribution of Chihuahuas around their world as evidence for their great designer’s handiwork. As I remember they have an IGF1 mutation that clearly must have been designed by this logic. I wonder what the magical Design Filter can come up with. Or maybe they already did this one…

  19. Christine Janis

    “I always get a chuckle out of Darwin’s views on mutation.”

    Er —- what exactly did Darwin know about mutation?

  20. Last summer, I took my family to the beach. We rented a house and – get this – the beach was designed to come right up to the edge of the property.

    He works in mysterious ways.

  21. @Anonymous stole my story. 🙂

  22. “Er —- what exactly did Darwin know about mutation?”

    Christine, I misspoke. I meant to say “variation” and its origin. Not his fault but it’s interesting to see how a lack of knowledge of DNA and genes affected his work. If he knew how inheritance really worked I’m sure he would have seen mutation as playing a much bigger role (and some of the role he gave to natural selection)