Casey Ain’t No Kin to No Monkey

This one is really going to shake your confidence in Darwinism. We found it at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, and it’s titled Human-Chimp Similarity: What Is It and What Does It Mean? Good question, isn’t it? Well, what does it mean? You’re about to find out.

The Discoveroid post was written by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist. If you don’t know who he is, see Guess Who’s Returning to the Discovery Institute, followed shortly thereafter by Casey Is Back — O the Joy! Okay, let’s get started. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

For years we’ve been told that human and chimp DNA is some 99 percent identical. The genetic similarity statistic is then used to make an argument for human-ape common ancestry, and human-ape common ancestry is then employed in service of the larger philosophical point that humans are just modified apes, and nothing special. It all amounts to an argument against human exceptionalism. This sort of thinking is embodied by Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) in his 2014 book Undeniable:

[Casey quotes Bill Nye:] As our understanding of DNA has increased, we have come to understand that we share around 98.8 percent of our gene sequence with chimpanzees. This is striking evidence for chimps and chumps to have a common ancestor.

Casey is horrified and says:

But is this really true? In response to the newly released episode of Science Uprising on human origins [Link omitted!], we have recently received questions [from drooling idiots] about the true degree of human-chimp similarity. With that in mind, let’s review some past coverage on the issue.

He then quotes several articles that give different figures for the similarity of human and chimp DNA, after which he tells us:

Whatever the exact percentage of human-chimp genetic similarity (however you want to measure it) turns out to be, let’s grant that it will be fairly high, probably 84 percent or greater. Does this necessarily require the conclusion of common ancestry? [It doesn’t?] Is the case for common ancestry, based upon the degree of similarity, an objective or rigorous argument that’s capable of being falsified? For example, if a 1 percent genetic difference implies common ancestry, but then that statistic turns out to be wrong, then does a 4 percent genetic difference mean common ancestry is false? How about 7 percent or 10 percent genetic difference? 25 percent? At what point does the comparison cease to support common ancestry? Why does the percent genetic similarity even matter? [Is that a serious question?] It’s not clear that there is an objective standard for falsification here, any identifiable reason why a particular percentage of genetic similarity should be taken to indicate common ancestry.

Clever, huh? If there’s no specific number that will clinch the deal, then numbers don’t matter! He continues:

The case for human-chimp common ancestry is rendered significantly weaker once one realizes that there are other potential explanations for functional similarities: notably, design based upon a common blueprint. [Gasp!] Intelligent agents often re-use parts and components that perform common functions in different designs. It’s a good engineering design principle to follow! Everyday examples of this include wheels used on both cars and airplanes, or touchscreen keyboards used on both phones and tablets.

Casey is so brilliant! Then he spends several paragraphs quoting other Discoveroids. If you want to read that stuff, go right ahead, but we’re moving on. He says:

Of course some will cite shared NON-functional (as opposed to functional) genetic similarities between humans and chimps as better evidence for common ancestry. I agree that non-functional shared DNA could be a potential argument for common ancestry, but I’m skeptical that many of the DNA elements cited in these arguments are actually non-functional.

He cites a few instances where some DNA elements once thought to be non-functional were later found to have a function, so he dismisses that whole line of argument. Clever, huh? Then he makes a very strange argument:

Since many of the building blocks used by humans and chimps are similar, it’s no wonder that our protein-coding DNA is also so similar. Common design can explain these similarities. [Hee hee!] But it’s important to bear in mind that one can use identical building blocks — bricks, mortar, wood, and nails — to build very different houses. So it’s not just about having similar building blocks, but how you use them. This is where genetic similarities between humans and chimps probably aren’t so meaningful, when you consider how the building blocks being used can be very different.

Did you follow that? Good — you can explain it to us. Next, he quotes some of his Discoveroid colleagues about about human-chimp genetic differences. Obviously, there are differences, because humans aren’t chimps. We’re skipping that stuff. Ah, how about this:

And this leaves aside the vast cognitive and behavioral gulf between humans and chimpanzees. We are the only species that uses fire and technology. We are the only species that composes music, writes poetry, and practices religion. We are also the only species that seeks to investigate the natural world through science. We write papers about chimps; not the other way around. All of this is possible because we humans are the only species that uses complex language.

Wow — Casey’s right! We’re not chimps! Then he brings the whole thing to a thundering climax. Here it is:

The human race has unique and unparalleled moral, intellectual, and creative abilities. Regardless of the level of similarity of human protein-coding DNA to chimps, clearly that similarity is only a small part of the story. [Well, it’s obviously not the whole story!] If anything, it testifies that protein-coding DNA sequences are only one of multiple crucial interacting factors that determine an organism’s biology and behavior.

So there you are. Casey ain’t no kin to no monkey, and neither are you — unless, of course, you’re a Darwinist!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Discoveroids Predict Desperate Darwinist Behavior

There’s a frightening title to the latest post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute: Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?, and it has no author’s by-line.

Just below the title is an amazing photograph of Jonathan Wells, about whom we’ve written recently — see We’re Defeated by Evolution’s Biggest Problems. For background information about Wells, we referred you to one of our earlier posts, Discovery Institute: The Genius of Jonathan Wells. But if you really want to know about him, see his write-up at Wikipedia: Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). They have a lot of information about his multi-decade career with the Unification Church — i.e., the “Moonies” — and then his affiliation with the Discoveroids.

Okay, that’s who Wells is. Now lets get back to the Discoveroid post. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A new ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] spotlights The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith [Amazon link], and specifically, an essay in the new anthology by biologist Jonathan Wells, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?”

They blogged about a different chapter of that book recently, about which we wrote We’re Defeated by Evolution’s Biggest Problems. Okay, back to the Discoveroids. They say:

As Wells and host Casey Luskin [Hee hee!] note, the essay title alludes to philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn’s influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Is Darwin’s theory in crisis? Let’s find out. The Discoveroid post tells us:

Kuhn argued there that if one studies the history of scientific revolutions, one finds that when the scientific evidence has begun to turn against a dominant scientific paradigm — when its days are numbered — its adherents do not simply concede defeat. [They don’t?] Instead they use all their institutional power to suppress dissent and punish proponents of any competing paradigm.

Well, yeah — that’s what Galileo encountered. But we’re a bit more civilized now — at least that’s how it seems to us. For example, when the eternally oscillating model of the universe was challenged by observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down because of gravity, we don’t recall any violent opposition. Anyway, the Discoveroid post continues:

This is the period of crisis, which can last for years and even decades. Wells contends that modern evolutionary theory is a current instance of a dominant paradigm in crisis.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re getting near the end of the Discoveroids’ exciting post. Here’s another excerpt:

He briefly makes the case in this episode, and at greater length in his essay, which appears in the newly released anthology from Harvest House, edited by William Dembski, Casey Luskin, and Joseph Holden.

Sounds wonderful. Their post ends with this:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Okay, dear reader, you better start getting ready. The Moonie-Discoveroid is predicting some extreme times ahead, as the traditionalist Darwinists “use all their institutional power to suppress dissent and punish proponents of any competing paradigm.” It’s going to be wild!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Tardigrades Reveal Nothing About Evolution

Once again we bring you a brilliant article by Ken Ham, (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s creationist ministry, and it’s titled “Water Bear” Discovered Preserved in Amber. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Tardigrades (also known as water bears) are famous for their ability to survive nearly anything, including the vacuum of space. Evolutionists believe these microscopic animals have survived for 540 million years, and yet, partially due to their size, only three fossil specimens have been uncovered.

Some of that is confirmed in the Wikipedia article:titled Tardigrade. They don’t spend much time discussing fossils, presumably because numerous species of tardigrade are currently alive. Wikipedia says “There are about 1,300 known species in the phylum Tardigrada ,,, ” Then Hambo says:

The third tardigrade specimen — described as a “once-in-a-generation” find — was only just discovered, preserved incredibly beautifully in a piece of amber dated at supposedly 16 million years. As many amber fossils are, this tardigrade was so well preserved that scientists could observe fine details.

Why is Hambo interested in this fossil? He tells us:

Tardigrades are believed to be an “ancient lineage,” surviving since the so-called Cambrian period 540 million years ago. This specimen is thought to be, by evolutionary reckoning [Hee hee!], a mere 16 million years old — and yet the specimen is easily recognizable as a tardigrade, with minor differences internally to place it in a new genus. But tardigrades remain tardigrades!

Come on, Hambo, get to the point! Here it comes:

No evolution has occurred because evolution is nothing more than a story applied to the evidence to explain life without God. [Gasp!] But it does a poor job explaining the evidence because the true history of life is given to us in God’s Word!

Wow — tardigrades haven’t evolved. Darwinism is doomed! Hambo’s conclusion is sloppily drafted, but here’s a bit of it:

And a fossil tardigrade doesn’t “empirically [show] their progression through Earth history.” [Who is he quoting?] It shows a fossil tardigrade. [Duh!] … The fossil is empirical evidence — the explanation for how tardigrades evolved isn’t!

So there you are — wherever that is. Now that you’ve seen Hambo’s article, what’s your opinion, dear reader?

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Discoveroids Ain’t No Kin to No Monkey

This appeared yesterday at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, so the grand event it promises for “tomorrow” has already occurred, in all likelihood. The title of their post is Tomorrow: New Science Uprising Episode on Human Origins, and it was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A brand new episode of Science Uprising premieres tomorrow, October 13, at 12 pm Pacific/3 pm Eastern.

What the Discoveroids call “Science Uprising” is a YouTube series described at the Discoveroids’ website: Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture Launches Provocative New YouTube Series Titled “Science Uprising”. We haven’t read their description and we haven’t seen any of their YouTube offerings. Our assumption is that it’s the same old creationism that they’ve been blogging about for years. Anyway, let’s see what Klinghoffer says about their newest offering:

This one, in the typical edgy Science Uprising style [Ooooooooooooh! It’s edgy!], cuts to heart of the mystery of human origins.

The mystery of human origins? Wow — this is exciting! Klinghoffer tells us:

“Human Evolution: The Monkey Bias” features geologist Casey Luskin [Hee hee!] and biologist Jonathan Wells [BWAHAHAHA!], showing that materialism is wed to ape origins for humans because the philosophy’s whole picture of reality demands it.

Everyone knows who Casey is. As for Wells, see Discovery Institute: The Genius of Jonathan Wells. Those two are going to reveal human origins without the bias of materialism. Isn’t this thrilling? Klinghoffer continues:

A view open to intelligent design [Hee hee!] can follow the evidence freely. It does not require a particular narrative of how humanity arose.

Is your view open to intelligent design, dear reader? If not, all we can say to you is Oook, oook! Anyway, here’s the end of Klinghoffer’s post:

Join us for the live event on YouTube and interact with Dr. Luskin as he participates in the simultaneous video chat. See it right here:

What looks like a YouTube video is at the end of Klinghoffer’s post. As we said at the beginning, he posted this thing yesterday, so you missed all the excitement. But maybe you can still learn something by following the links, so go for it! And in conclusion, we say Ooook, oooook!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.