As you know from our recent post, Casey Luskin Leaves the Discovery Institute, Ann Gauger (a/k/a “Annie Green Screen”), is now Casey’s replacement in the blogging department. Annie was previously toiling in obscurity at the Discoveroids’ clandestine creationist research facility, Biologic Institute, but her revolutionary output was apparently deemed less important than pumping out propaganda.
If what we found at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog today is a fair example of what we can expect from her, the Discoveroids may continue to provide us with entertainment even without Casey. Her latest is Common Sense Design Principles and the Real World.
It’s superficially about an article in PLOS Genetics, Origins of De Novo Genes in Human and Chimpanzee, which you can read online without a subscription. The paper’s abstract begins by saying:
The birth of new genes is an important motor of evolutionary innovation. Whereas many new genes arise by gene duplication, others originate at genomic regions that did not contain any genes or gene copies. Some of these newly expressed genes may acquire coding or non-coding functions and be preserved by natural selection. However, it is yet unclear which is the prevalence and underlying mechanisms of de novo gene emergence. In order to obtain a comprehensive view of this process, we have performed in-depth sequencing of the transcriptomes of four mammalian species — human, chimpanzee, macaque, and mouse — and subsequently compared the assembled transcripts and the corresponding syntenic genomic regions.
Annie ignores the fact that the PLOS Genetics paper is a study of four mammalian species. She’s concerned only with humans and chimps — presumably because she ain’t no kin to no monkey. We won’t even try to follow Annie’s article as if it were a coherent discussion of the paper. Instead, we’ll excerpt a few of her more amusing paragraphs — which could only be written by a creationist — and we’ll add some bold font for emphasis. Here we go:
Something to bear in mind — all these conclusions are based only on the comparison of DNA sequences among species. They are conclusions based on the assumption that the differences reflect some sort of genetic history based on common descent — the conclusions are not based on any experiments or observations of real events happening in real time.
She’s right. DNA comparisons are useless, because no one has ever observed an armadillo give birth to a cat. Here’s another excerpt:
[W]hat is true in the microscopic world about evolution is also true in the macroscopic world. What works (or doesn’t work) with enzyme evolution demonstrates what evolution can or can’t accomplish on a large scale. If it’s not possible to evolve new proteins from any starting point, evolving buttercups or cows won’t work either. That is, unless the buttercups and cows pretty much already are buttercups and cows.
Yes — if microscopic evolution is impossible, then large scale evolution is ridiculous, and all species had to be created fully formed. Annie continues:
Evolution can’t build something new from scratch. And it can’t reconfigure something that already exists into something different. That’s why I doubt the story of evolving new human genes from random non-coding sequences. I don’t doubt that the genes are there — they are. It’s just that I think they were designed, not evolved.
Those genes are the work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Annie’s logic is undeniable. This is our last excerpt:
We all know you can’t take a pile of scrap metal and turn it into a washing machine. You’d have to start from scratch, even though they are both made mostly of metal. What about turning a washing machine into a dishwasher? There’s more similarity there — after all, they both wash things. Still, neither process will happen without a designer or without considerable refashioning. Now what if a washing machine was merely broken? What if it had a few loose bolts and a torn gasket on the door? A blindfolded repairman might be able to fix that. That would be harder but not impossible. But even this analogy breaks down because the repairman is intelligent.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It’s going to require some time for us to adjust to the loss of Casey, but if what we’ve just seen is typical, then maybe Annie is capable of filling his shoes.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.