The lying liars of the Disco 'Tute

Posted 15 July 2013 by Richard B. Hoppe

(This is for the three people who don't read Sandwalk.) Every once in a while one sees a takedown so powerful that it makes one smile for days. One such is in the comment thread on a post on Sandwalk, Larry Moran's blog. In the comments Diogenes eviscerates an anonymous poster on Evolution News and Views, an arm of the Disco 'Tute, about a claim about 'junk' DNA. Read it and laugh at the 'Tooters.

14 Comments

eric · 16 July 2013

The details may be technical but the basic creationist error is not: we have evidence about what some sequences do. We don't have evidence about what many other sequences do. We also have evidence that some sequences do nothing. All the creationists crowing in the world about the second category does not negate the existence of the third.

DS · 16 July 2013

Darwinism is a science stopper! What a hoot.

Creationist recommend looking for function in DNA! Wow, just wow.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 July 2013

Read it and laugh at the ‘Tooters.

Wait, we have a choice? Glen Davidson

harold · 16 July 2013

eric said: The details may be technical but the basic creationist error is not: we have evidence about what some sequences do. We don't have evidence about what many other sequences do. We also have evidence that some sequences do nothing. All the creationists crowing in the world about the second category does not negate the existence of the third.

The obsession with the fact that there can't be any junk DNA also reveals that ID really is just disguised creationism and pure evolution denial, and not remotely some spontaneous, independent idea. If it really were some independent hypothesis that "some aspects" of life appear to be designed, why obsess over the aspects of life that most obviously don't fit that paradigm? They're not arguing that some aspects of life appear to be magically designed, bad as that would be. Time after time, what they're really arguing, implicitly is that every aspect of all life must be designed, and the less designed it looks, the more obsessively we have to claim that it really is. There's only one school of thought that NEEDS every aspect of life to be "designed" - flat out "sudden creation in modern form by a human-like omnipotent god" YEC. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see this. If you want to "reconcile science with religion", just join one of the many religions that already doesn't directly contradict current science. ID/creationism is just hard core creationism that dare not speak its name.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 16 July 2013

harold said: ID/creationism is just hard core creationism that dare not speak its name.

Welcome to the Intelligent Designer Club. The first rule of the Intelligent Designer Club is ... You do not talk about the Intelligent Designer ~~Club~~.

Frank J · 18 July 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Read it and laugh at the ‘Tooters.
Wait, we have a choice? Glen Davidson

I for one find it hard to laugh at a small group of wordsmiths that has succeeded at keeping a majority either doubting evolution or thinking it's fair to "teach both sides." Not many people can name one prominent anti-evolution activist, but almost everyone knows some of the misleading sound bites. The DI's success is not in omitting the designer's identity, but in keeping the focus on "weaknesses" of evolution, and away from the real, and fatal weaknesses of creationism - not the least of which is mutual contradictions on basic "what happened when" claims. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that if all anti-evolution activists over the last ~30 years were like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort, we'd have the majority, and we'd all be laughing at the activists.

TomS · 18 July 2013

Frank J said: I for one find it hard to laugh at a small group of wordsmiths that has succeeded at keeping a majority either doubting evolution or thinking it's fair to "teach both sides." Not many people can name one prominent anti-evolution activist, but almost everyone knows some of the misleading sound bites. The DI's success is not in omitting the designer's identity, but in keeping the focus on "weaknesses" of evolution, and away from the real, and fatal weaknesses of creationism - not the least of which is mutual contradictions on basic "what happened when" claims. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that if all anti-evolution activists over the last ~30 years were like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort, we'd have the majority, and we'd all be laughing at the activists.

I think that it was a blunder for "classical evolution denial" to embrace the former fringe movement of YEC in the 1960s. But ID was clever, not only because of legal obstacles, to adopt a policy of not addressing any substantive issues, such as "what happened and when", or "what is design, what can it do and what can't it do".

Ray Martinez · 18 July 2013

DI-IDist wrote: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-idiots-view-genome-research.html?spref=fb "Remember how Darwinists call ID a 'science stopper,' since it supposedly counsels just giving up and saying, 'God did it'? The real science stopper is Darwinism."

The real problem with this quote is the fact that the author, presumably an IDist who holds the same basic positions as Behe and Dembski, accepts the concepts of "natural selection" and "species mutability" to exist in the wild. I would say that the fact seen above, that is, acceptance of the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme, to exist in nature, while contending Darwinism unscientific, equates to an irreconcilable contradiction that undermines just about everything our DI-IDist stands for.

PA Poland · 18 July 2013

Ray Martinez said:
DI-IDist wrote: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-idiots-view-genome-research.html?spref=fb "Remember how Darwinists call ID a 'science stopper,' since it supposedly counsels just giving up and saying, 'God did it'? The real science stopper is Darwinism."
The real problem with this quote is the fact that the author, presumably an IDist who holds the same basic positions as Behe and Dembski, accepts the concepts of "natural selection" and "species mutability" to exist in the wild.

No, the real problem is the fact that the author is a posturing, ignorant twit much like yourself. As the VERY FIRST RESPONSE BY DIOGENES shows. As decades of observations of THE REAL WORLD show, there are many ways to generate scrap sequences, but no specific way to remove them. Thus, 'junk' sequences can accumulate. Evolution permits this, but does not require it (thus IDiots bellowing 'evolution says ALL junk DNA sequences MUST be inactive; we found this ONE sequence that does something, therefore EVOLUTION BE FALSE !! Crypto-Magical Skymanism be true !!!) demonstrates incredible ignorance of decades of research. As there are ways for 'dead' sequences to evolve activity, novel genes can arise. AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - look up the jingwei, Finnegan, Twain and Noble genes in Drosophila. For more abuse, examination and comparison of closely related species showed that not only do some have novel genes (some species have genes other closely related species don't), but about a third of those new genes are VITAL - removing them kills the flies (meaning those genes are part of 'irreducibly complex' systems that IDiots proclaim cannot evolve). WERE SPECIES IMMUTABLE, that could not happen. Looks like reality crushed you yet again Ray. (you may now begin your standard arrogant posturing and bellowing ...) The sane and reality-based community realized that natural selection and species mutability exist in nature; only the willfully ignorant assert otherwise.

I would say that the fact seen above, that is, acceptance of the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme, to exist in nature, while contending Darwinism unscientific, equates to an irreconcilable contradiction that undermines just about everything our DI-IDist stands for.

No, the fact the IDiot is a dissembling imbecile with no understanding of reality-based biology undermines everything s/he stands for.

Ray Martinez · 19 July 2013

PA Poland said:
Ray Martinez said:
DI-IDist wrote: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-idiots-view-genome-research.html?spref=fb "Remember how Darwinists call ID a 'science stopper,' since it supposedly counsels just giving up and saying, 'God did it'? The real science stopper is Darwinism."
The real problem with this quote is the fact that the author, presumably an IDist who holds the same basic positions as Behe and Dembski, accepts the concepts of "natural selection" and "species mutability" to exist in the wild.
No, the real problem is the fact that the author is a posturing, ignorant twit much like yourself. As the VERY FIRST RESPONSE BY DIOGENES shows. As decades of observations of THE REAL WORLD show, there are many ways to generate scrap sequences, but no specific way to remove them. Thus, 'junk' sequences can accumulate. Evolution permits this, but does not require it (thus IDiots bellowing 'evolution says ALL junk DNA sequences MUST be inactive; we found this ONE sequence that does something, therefore EVOLUTION BE FALSE !! Crypto-Magical Skymanism be true !!!) demonstrates incredible ignorance of decades of research. As there are ways for 'dead' sequences to evolve activity, novel genes can arise. AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - look up the jingwei, Finnegan, Twain and Noble genes in Drosophila. For more abuse, examination and comparison of closely related species showed that not only do some have novel genes (some species have genes other closely related species don't), but about a third of those new genes are VITAL - removing them kills the flies (meaning those genes are part of 'irreducibly complex' systems that IDiots proclaim cannot evolve). WERE SPECIES IMMUTABLE, that could not happen. Looks like reality crushed you yet again Ray. (you may now begin your standard arrogant posturing and bellowing ...) The sane and reality-based community realized that natural selection and species mutability exist in nature; only the willfully ignorant assert otherwise.

On June 22, 2013, I produced a refutation of Darwinism here: Preliminary refutation of Darwinism It's NOT the main refutation that I've been working on for years. But the refutation, seen in the link, is an important component of the aforementioned. And the version in the link is not the final version, but a preliminary version. Yet the Preliminary refutation shows that natural selection, as conceived by evolutionary authorities, cannot and does not exist in the wild. Important additions/explanations not included in the Preliminary refutation: 1. "Appearance of design" added to the list of terms describing effects. 2. The thing or phenomenon known as "natural selection" is said to behave teleologically (non-randomly) but the same not caused by an Intelligent cause or agent. 3. The teleological nature of non-random derived from effects, which are teleological terms. Thus the only causation concept seen in effects is the concept of non-random. [Note: The link takes one to the original topic where the Preliminary refutation was first published. But recently, for reasons unknown, the topic has refused to post new messages. There is general agreement among Creationists and Darwinists that the cause of the problem is New Google Groups forced upon Usenet by Google. Because of the problem the topic has been abandoned. Defense of the Preliminary refutation continues in a new topic titled "Defending the Preliminary Refutation of Darwinism" found among the list of topics.]

Richard B. Hoppe · 19 July 2013

That's Ray's last comment in this thread. Any more will go to the BW.

apokryltaros · 19 July 2013

DS said: Darwinism is a science stopper! What a hoot. Creationist recommend looking for function in DNA! Wow, just wow.

Did a Creationist really recommend looking for function in "Junk" DNA, or was s/he simply another bigmouthed fool crowing about how more scientific progress means the death of Darwinism (sic)?

Just Bob · 19 July 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said: That's Ray's last comment in this thread. Any more will go to the BW.

Bless you, my son.

PA Poland · 19 July 2013

Ray Martinez said:
PA Poland said:
Ray Martinez said:
DI-IDist wrote: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-idiots-view-genome-research.html?spref=fb "Remember how Darwinists call ID a 'science stopper,' since it supposedly counsels just giving up and saying, 'God did it'? The real science stopper is Darwinism."
The real problem with this quote is the fact that the author, presumably an IDist who holds the same basic positions as Behe and Dembski, accepts the concepts of "natural selection" and "species mutability" to exist in the wild.
No, the real problem is the fact that the author is a posturing, ignorant twit much like yourself. As the VERY FIRST RESPONSE BY DIOGENES shows. As decades of observations of THE REAL WORLD show, there are many ways to generate scrap sequences, but no specific way to remove them. Thus, 'junk' sequences can accumulate. Evolution permits this, but does not require it (thus IDiots bellowing 'evolution says ALL junk DNA sequences MUST be inactive; we found this ONE sequence that does something, therefore EVOLUTION BE FALSE !! Crypto-Magical Skymanism be true !!!) demonstrates incredible ignorance of decades of research. As there are ways for 'dead' sequences to evolve activity, novel genes can arise. AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - look up the jingwei, Finnegan, Twain and Noble genes in Drosophila. For more abuse, examination and comparison of closely related species showed that not only do some have novel genes (some species have genes other closely related species don't), but about a third of those new genes are VITAL - removing them kills the flies (meaning those genes are part of 'irreducibly complex' systems that IDiots proclaim cannot evolve). WERE SPECIES IMMUTABLE, that could not happen. Looks like reality crushed you yet again Ray. (you may now begin your standard arrogant posturing and bellowing ...) The sane and reality-based community realized that natural selection and species mutability exist in nature; only the willfully ignorant assert otherwise.
On June 22, 2013, I produced a refutation of Darwinism here: Preliminary refutation of Darwinism It's NOT the main refutation that I've been working on for years. But the refutation, seen in the link, is an important component of the aforementioned. And the version in the link is not the final version, but a preliminary version.

And it is quite an idiotic and silly version, having been destroyed several times over by several different people. For sane and rational folk, if REALITY does not conform to our ideas, we change our ideas; you, of course, scream and bellow that REALITY is wrong, attempting to redefine words to MAKE your silly IDiocies seem valid. Like claiming the prefix 'a-' means 'against', when sane and rational folk for the last few thousand years have known that the prefix 'a-' means 'lacking, or without'. As in 'anoxic'. Which means 'WITHOUT oxygen', for 'against oxygen' is just plain silly. Or 'apteryous', which means 'WITHOUT wings', since 'against wings' is just silly. Or 'anencephalic', which means 'LACKING a brain', since 'against a brain' is just silly. No one but you buys your redefinition scheme.

Yet the Preliminary refutation shows that natural selection, as conceived by evolutionary authorities, cannot and does not exist in the wild.

Right on cue ! Examination of REALITY shows that some variants in a population have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce than others. Those variations tend to become more common as the generations go by. Sane and rational folk recognize that as 'natural selection'; you just close your eyes and scream louder, feebly invoking the undetectable hand of a Magical Sky Pixie to 'explain' things that are beyond your willfully limited understanding. And vomiting up page after page of word-twisting imbecilities will change nothing.

Important additions/explanations not included in the Preliminary refutation: 1. "Appearance of design" added to the list of terms describing effects. 2. The thing or phenomenon known as "natural selection" is said to behave teleologically (non-randomly) but the same not caused by an Intelligent cause or agent.

Invocation of intelligent cause or agent NOT REQUIRED when simple reality can do the job. Again, twit : variations arise in populations. Some variants are better at living long enough to reproduce better than other variants. Those variants tend to become more common in the population. No guiding intellect required. If you are unwilling or unable to understand something THAT simple, you really have no place gibbering about evolution. Rivers 'sort' stones and silt by size (this happens due to drag and energy, basic physics) - by your 'logic', WATER IS AN INTELLIGENT AGENT.

3. The teleological nature of non-random derived from effects, which are teleological terms. Thus the only causation concept seen in effects is the concept of non-random.

Selection is NON-random, but only a demented f*ckwit would claim there MUST be an intelligent agent behind it. Just because YOU have a pathological need to see Magical Sky Pixies under every rock and behind every tree does not mean they are actually there. BTW - if species truly WERE immutable, there would be no need to develop new antibiotics, as penicillin would work just as well today as it did when it was developed decades ago. Examination of REALITY shows that bacteria MUTATE to become resistant, then more populous via NATURAL SELECTION. If they were IMMUTABLE (as you continuously whine and bellow), resistance could not occur (and no, invoking the indetectable action of an unknowable Magical Sky Pixie is NOT a refutation/explanation). If there was no such thing as 'natural selection', there could be no new drug resistant bacteria (as there would be no positive SELECTION acting on them). Again, examination of REALITY shows your two major whining points are defunct. Back to the article about how IDiots misrepresent reality - there are many ways to generate scrap DNA, but no mechanism to specifically remove unused sequences. Thus we'd expect 'junk' to build up as long as there are no severe consequences. For instance, in the dog, there are TWO galectin-1 sequences. One on the 10th chromosome has exons and introns, just like most other genes (in fact, it has the same NUMBER and SIZE of exons as the galectin-1 in humans and other mammals; the size of the non-coding introns varies a bit, but that is not overly surprising). There is another copy of it on the X chromosome. It has NO introns, and a string of As after it - this is a signature of a processed pseudogene. The galectin-1 mRNA had been re-inserted back into the genome in a different location. But without promoter elements and such to initiate transcription, THIS COPY WILL NOT EXPRESS AN RNA. So what, EXACTLY, is it doing there ? Reality-based evolution can explain its presence; what is the IDiot/creationut 'explanation', given the 'fact' that to an IDiot/creationut, ALL SEQUENCES HAVE A FUNCTION. Another example - the Finnegan gene in Drosophila. Researchers initially thought it was a dead pseudogene, but later found out it had a function. Seems Adh (alcohol dehydrogenase) mRNA inserted into another gene to make a NEW CHIMERIC GENE (which could NOT happen if your blubberings about species immutability were valid). This was discovered years ago, yet the edifice of evolution wasn't rent asunder.