Biological evolution is dead in the water (not!)

You will be surprised to hear that biological evolution is dead in the water according to the authors of a paper published in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology.

The authors are Olen Brown, an Emeritus Professor of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Missouri and David Hullender, a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington. These are the same two authors who published two ridiculous papers in the same journal in 2022 and 2023. Up until last December (2023), Denis Noble was one of the editors of the journal [Editorial Board] but he is not longer listed on the journal's website. We can assume that Noble is responsible, in part, for allowing these papers to be published since he has defended the publication of creationist papers in the past. [How the Krebs cycle disproves Darwinism (not!)]

Brown, O.R. and Hullender, D.A. (2024) Biological evolution is dead in the water of Darwin’s warm little pond. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 193: 1-6. [doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2024.08.003]

Abstract

The origin of life and its evolution are generally taught as occurring by abiogenesis and gene-centric neo-Darwinism. Significant biological evolutionary changes are preserved and given direction (descent with modification) by Darwin's (Spencer's) natural selection by survival of the fittest. Only survival of the fittest (adapted/broadened) is available to provide a ‘naturalistic’ direction to prefer one outcome/reaction over another for abiogenesis. Thus, assembly of first life must reach some threshold (the first minimal cell) before ‘survival of the fittest’ (the only naturalistic explanation available) can function as Darwin proposed for biological change. We propose the novel concept that the requirement for co-origination of vitamins with enzymes is a fundamental, but overlooked, problem that survival of the fittest (even broadly redefined beyond Darwin) cannot reasonably overcome. We support this conclusion with probability calculations. We focus on the stage of evolution involving the transition from non-life to the first, minimal living cell. We show that co-origination of required biochemical processes makes the origin of life probabilistically absurdly improbable even when all assumptions are chosen to unreasonably favor evolutionary theories.

There's something seriously wrong with peer review if a paper like this can be published in a (formerly) reputable journal.

For more information, watch this video of Brown and Hullender explaining their views. The video is sponsored by "Video Lessons to Raise Up Confident Christians."

---

The "wisdom" of the Discovery Institute

John G. West is Vice President of the Discovery Institute and one of the founding members of the Center for Science and Culture. He is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism.

West has reviewed the latest book by Francis Collins; the review was published in The Federalist. [Francis Collins’ Latest Book Doubles Down On His Massive Abuses Of Power]

On the evolution of the glycolytic pathway (glycolysis)

Jonathan McLatchie has a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University (UK) and he is currently "resident biologist" and a fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. He is an intelligent design creationist who attacks evolution by questioning standard explanations in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology.

I've debated him frequently over the years since those are my areas of interest as well. The last time we met was at an evolution conference in London (UK) in 2016 (see photo).

I've always found Jonathan to be more honest and more willing to learn than most of his creationist colleagues so that's why I'm addressing his latest post on Evolution News (sic) where he challenges the evolutionary origins of the glycolytic pathway. As you might expect, his argument is largely based on the idea that since the glycolytic pathway is very complicated, there's no way it could have arisen all at once. He then goes on to reject the idea that the pathway could have evolved incrementally, one step at a time.

The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Everything that's happening in the world today is very depressing but there's at least one bright spot. The Intelligent Design Creationists have finally come up with a scientific theory of intelligent design. It's described by mathematics professor Ganville Sewell on the Evolution News (sic) website: Introduction to the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.

Here's how Sewell desribes this "scientific theory."

Of course, normally if a scientific theory for some observed phenomenon fails, we just look for an alternative “natural” theory. But what has long been obvious to the layman is finally becoming clear to many scientists, that evolution is different. We are not talking now about explaining earthquakes or comets or volcanos, we are talking about explaining hearts and lungs and eyes and ears. How many theories without design can there be for the origin of circulatory systems, nervous systems, and human brains? Design has finally started to be taken seriously by scientists not because there are minor problems with Darwin’s explanation, but because it has become absurdly, blindingly obvious that neither it nor any other theory that ignores design will ever completely explain living things. Contrary to common belief, science really has no reasonable alternative to design to explain either the origin or evolution of life. In fact, we really have no idea how living things are able to pass their current complex structures on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation, much less how they evolve even more complex structures.

That's it? The scientific theory of intelligent design is that evolution has failed and it is now "absurdly, blindingly obvious" that you need design in order to explain the origin of life or the evolution of life.

I'm still depressed. Is this the best they can do after three decades of pushing intelligent design creationism?¹

---

1. Yes.

Junk DNA debate: Casey Luskin vs Dan Stern Cardinale

Here's a link to the junk DNA debate between Dan Stern Cardinale and Casey Luskin. The debate took place on May 2, 2024.

I mentioned in a previous post that Luskin should have been called out on his repeated attempts to equate junk DNA with non-coding DNA. This allowed him to portray all non-coding functions as evidence against junk DNA. [Casey Luskin posts misleading quotes about junk DNA].

There are several other things that I would have done differently. I would have made it clear that 10% of the genome is functional and we don't know the function of some of that fraction. Thus, all newly discovered functional regions could still fit into the 10% and 90% of the genome is still junk. Every time Casey mentions a new function he should have been challenged to specify exactly what percentage of the genome he is referring to. (Dan tried to do this but he was too nice, and let Casey off the hook.)

The idea here is to make it clear to viewers that recent discoveries of functional regions do not affect the idea that most of our genome is junk.

I would also attempt to get Casey to admit that there's a scientific controversy over junk DNA so there are many papers defending junk DNA and criticizing the arguments of junk DNA opponents. For every quotation from a scientist who opposes junk, there's an equally significant quotation from one who supports junk. Why does Casey only quote scientists who agree with him? Is this cherry-picking? Is selectively rattling off quotations and references from people who agree with you a reasonable way to have a serious scientific debate?

I think the arguments over transcripts should begin with presenting all the scientific evidence that spurious transcripts exist - for example, random DNA sequences inserted into a cell nucleus are transcribed and spurious transcription is easily documented in well-studied organisms such as bacteria and yeast. The characteristics of spurious transcription are that the transcripts are present in very small amounts, that they are rapidly degraded, that they come from regions of the genome that are not under purifying selection, and they are cell/tissue specific. So what is the most reasonable explanation when you look at such transcripts?

Casey Luskin's attempt to avoid the best explanation (spurius transcription) is a classic example ad hoc rescue and it might have been useful to point this out to viewers.

Regulation is not new. There was serious discussion and debate over the amount of the genome devoted to regulation back in the late 1960s when the concept of junk DNA was first proposed. Casey should have been challenged to state what percentage of the genome is devoted to regulation and if he comes up with an unreasonable number he should have to give examples of many well-studied genes that have been shown to have that level of regulation. (Hint: There aren't any.) All of the detailed work on the regulation of dozens of specific human genes has shown that you don't need more than a few transcription factor binding sites to control expression. Is there any reason to suppose that the other genes require ten or a hundred times more regulatory sequences to control expression?

What is the trend line? Ever since the ENCODE publicity disaster of 2012 there has been a flood of papers defending junk DNA and the data supporting junk DNA is now stronger that it has ever been because we now know from hundreds of thousands of human genome sequences that only about 10% is under purifying selection. There have also been a lot of papers fleshing out the 10% of the genome that's functional. There have only been a handful of papers published in the past ten years that seriously attempt to present evidence that most of our genome is functional. I would have challenged Casey to come up with a single scientific publication in the past ten years claiming, with supporting data, that most of the genome is functional.

---

Casey Luskin posts misleading quotes about junk DNA

On Thursday May 2, 2024, Casey Luskin and Dan Stern Cardinale debated junk DNA on the YouTube channel "The NonSequitor Show." David Klinghoffer thinks that this debate went very well for the ID side [Debate: Casey Luskin Versus Rutgers Biologist Dan Cardinale, Thursday, May 2]. I agree with Klinghoffer; Luskin did an excellent job of promoting his case because many of his statements and claims were not challenged effectively.

I'll be putting up a separate post on the debate but for now I'd like to address an article by Casey Luskin that he posted before the debate as preparation for what he was going to say. The article consists of a bunch of quotes from prominent scientists about junk DNA [“Junk DNA” from Three Perspectives: Some Key Quotes]. Here are the three perspectives, according to Luskin.

Category 1: Quotes from evolutionists claiming (or repeating the widespread belief) that non-coding DNA is “junk” and has no function.

Some of the quotes represent the actual position of junk DNA proponents but Luskin has also picked out stupid quotes from scientists who think, incorrectly, that all non-coding DNA is junk. This is deliberate as we will see below.

Category 2: Early quotes from intelligent design theorists predicting function for non-coding “junk” DNA.

Luskin builds the case for function in non-coding DNA by quoting religious scientists who "predict" that there will be functional DNA in non-coding regions of the genome. This is disingenuous at best because Luskin knows full well that from the very beginning of the scientific debate we knew about functional non-coding DNA. It was never the case that all non-coding DNA was assumed to be junk.

Category 3: Quotes from mainstream scientific sources saying that we’ve experienced a shift in our thinking that junk DNA actually has function.

Many of these quotes are from scientists announcing that some non-coding DNA has a function. They support Luskin's false claim that all non-coding DNA was thought to be junk and the discovery of functional regions of non-coding DNA has resulted in a "paradigm shift" in our view of the human genome.

Casey Luskin should not have been allowed to get away with equating junk DNA and non-coding DNA in the debate. He should have been challenged to retract that false claim at the very beginning of the debate and called out whenever he used the term "non-coding DNA" during the debate.

---

Creation Myth: Biologists Thought All Non-Coding DNA was Junk

Watch this short video from Daniel Stern Cardinale. He read my book!

---

Why do Intelligent Design Creationists lie about junk DNA?

A recent post on Evolution News (sic) promotes a a new podcast: Casey Luskin on Junk DNA’s “Kuhnian Paradigm Shift”. You can listen to the podcast here but most Sandwalk readers won't bother because they've heard it all before. [see Paradigm shifting.]

Luskin repeats the now familiar refrain of claiming that scientists used to think that all non-coding DNA was junk. Then he goes on to list recent discoveries showing that some of this non-coding DNA is functional. The truth is that no knowledgeable scientist ever claimed that all non-coding DNA was junk. The original idea of junk DNA was based on evidence that only 10% of the genome is functional and these scientists knew that coding regions occupied only a few percent. Thus, right from the beginning, the experts on genome evolution knew about all sorts of functional non-coding DNA such as regulatory sequences, non-coding genes, and other things.

Stephen Meyer lies about scientists working on evolutionary theory

I know Stephen Meyer and I have discussed his views on creationism many times. Some of the issues he raises are quite interesting and they aren't easy to refute. In this video from 2020, he presents two standard creationist objections to evolution: the Cambrian explosion, and the probability of evolving a gene.¹

Discovery Institute's latest video: The Codes of Life

This is a very slick video from the Discovery Institute. It shows you what we are up against. Anyone who thinks they can easily refute the claims in this video hasn't tried.

Intelligent Design Creationists know exactly what they are doing and they are very good at it. There are so many thing wrong with this video that it would take a book to correct them all and, furthermore, you would have to convince people that their entire worldview has to change in order to really understand biology. I bet there are many scientists who couldn't deal with a video like this and that's a problem.

Real biology is messy and sloppy. Things do not look as neatly designed as Richard Dawkins and the creationists would have you believe. I've tried to present the case for a sloppy worldview in my latest book.

---

How Intelligent Design Creationists try to deal with the similarity between human and chimp genomes

The initial measurement of the difference between the human and chimp genomes was based on aligning 2.4 billion base pairs in the two genomes. This gave a difference of 1.23% by counting base pair substitutions and small deletions and insertions (indels). However, if you look at larger indels, including genes, you can come up with bigger values because you can count the total number of base pairs in each indel; for example, a deletion of 1,000 bp will be equivalent to 1,000 SNPs.

On reasoning with creationists

I've been trying to reason with creationists for more than 30 years, beginning with debates on talk.origins back in the early 1990s. Sometimes we make a little progress but most of the time it's very frustrating.

Over the years, we've encountered a few outstanding examples of creationists whose "reasoning" abilities defy explanation. One of he most famous is Otangelo Grasso - his ability to misunderstand and misconstrue science is legendary. He is one of only a small number of people who are banned from Sandwalk.

Here's an example of his unique unreasoning abiltiies.

Trying to educate a creationist (Otangelo Grasso)

I bring this up because he recently posted an artilce on the Uncommon Descent blog and you just have to read it if you want a good laugh. It shows you that 30 years of attempting to teach science to creationists isn't nearly long enough.

Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

---

Science reviews a creationist book

You can't get much more anti-science than a book about Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, Stephen Schaffner—a computational biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT in Boston—decided that such a book was worthy of a mostly favorable review in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world [Adam. Eve, and the evolution of humankind].

Schaffner is reviewing a book by William Lane Craig whom he describes as "a widely published philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist." There are others who would dispute that laudatory description including Richard Dawkins in a ten-year-old essay published in The Guardian [Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig].

I won't bother to mention all of the issues with the review since Jerry Coyne has covered them on his website but I would like to quote part of the second-last paragraph of the review.

Craig’s goal in writing this book, of course, is not a scientific one, and it cannot be judged on scientific grounds. I suspect that for many scientists, including religious ones, the exercise will be seen as misguided or simply incomprehensible.

Having followed Craig's anti-science crusade for several years, I have no difficulty in understanding why he would write such a book. What I find truly misguided and incomprehensible is why Science would publish such a review. Perhaps it's because AAAS, the publisher of Science, has a history of accommodating religion?

---

Religion vs science (junk DNA): a blast from the past

I was checking out the science books in our local bookstore the other day and I came across Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall. It was published in 2015 but I don't recall seeing it before.

The author is an engineer (The Salem Conjecture) who's a big fan of Intelligent Design. The book is an attempt to prove that evolution is a fraud.

I checked to see if junk DNA was mentioned and came across the following passages on pages 273-275. It's interesting to read them in light of what's happened in the past four years. I think that the view represented in this book is still the standard view in the ID community in spite of the fact that it is factually incorrect and scientifically indefensible.

Michael Behe's third book

I'm looking forward to Michael Behe's third book, which is due to be published in February. As most of you probably know, Michael Behe is a biochemist and a former professor at Lehigh University in Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA. He's also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture—the most prominent organization pushing Intelligent Design Creationism.

This will be Behe's third book. The first one was Darwin's Black Box (1996) where he argued against evolution by suggesting that some cellular complexes (e.g. bacterial flagella) are irreducibly complex and could not possibly have evolved by natural means. His second book was The Edge of Evolution (2007) where the theme was that there are limits to evolution preventing it from accomplishing significant beneficial changes.

Test your irony meter

The irony meter was a running joke on the newsgroup talk.origins back in the last century. Our irony meters were supposed to protect us from the craziness of creationists but as soon as we built a really good irony meter a new bit of creationist crazy came along and fried it. Apparently Jesus and Mo have the same problem.

---

Creationists questioning pseudogenes: the GULO pseudogene

This is the second post discussing creationist¹ papers on pseudogenes. The first post addressed a paper by Jeffrey Tomkins on the β-globin pseudogene [Creationists questioning pseudogenes: the beta-globin pseudogene]. This post covers another paper by Tomkins claiming that the GULO pseudogenes in various primate species are not derived from a common ancestor but instead have been deactivated independently in each lineage.

The Tomkins' article was published in 2014 in Answers Research Journal, a publication that describes itself like this:

ARJ is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Creationists questioning pseudogenes: the beta-globin pseudogene

Jonathan Kane recently (Oct. 6, 2017) posted an article on The Panda's Thumb where he claimed that Young Earth Creationists often don't get enough credit for raising serious issues about evolution [Five principles for arguing against creationism].

He mentioned some articles about pseudogenes as prime examples. I asked him for references and he responded with two articles by Jeffrey Tomkins that were published on the Answers in Genesis website. The first was on the β-globin pseudogene and the second was on the GULO pseudogene. Both articles claim that these DNA sequences aren't really pseudogenes because they have functions.

I'll deal with the β-globin pseudogene in this post and the GULO pseudogene in a subsequent post.

What's in Your Genome? Chapter 4: Pervasive Transcription

I'm working (slowly) on a book called What's in Your Genome?: 90% of your genome is junk! The first chapter is an introduction to genomes and DNA [What's in Your Genome? Chapter 1: Introducing Genomes ]. Chapter 2 is an overview of the human genome. It's a summary of known functional sequences and known junk DNA [What's in Your Genome? Chapter 2: The Big Picture]. Chapter 3 defines "genes" and describes protein-coding genes and alternative splicing [What's in Your Genome? Chapter 3: What Is a Gene?].

Chapter 4 is all about pervasive transcription and genes for functional noncoding RNAs.

Chapter 4: Pervasive Transcription

• How much of the genome is transcribed?
• How do we know about pervasive transcription?
• Different kinds of noncoding RNAs
•         Box 4-1: Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs)
• Understanding transcription
•         Box 4-2: Revisiting the Central Dogma
• What the scientific papers don’t tell you
•         Box 4-3: John Mattick proves his hypothesis?
• On the origin of new genes
• The biggest blow to junk?
•         Box 4-4: How do you tell if it’s functional?
• Biochemistry is messy
• Evolution as a tinkerer
•         Box 4-5: Dealing with junk RNA
• Change your worldview

---

A theology student doesn't like Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs. Fact

A theology student named Derrick has written a review of Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs. Fact. He didn't like it very much. (Duh!) You can read his review at: Jerry Coyne, Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.

Before reading that review, let's make sure we understand Jerry's position. Here's what he says on page xx of his book.

My main thesis is narrower and, I think, more defensible: understanding reality, in the sense of being able to use what we know to predict what we don't, is best achieved using the tools of science, and is never achieved using the methods of faith. That is attested by the acknowledged success of science in telling us everything from the smallest bits of matter to the origin of the universe itself—compared with the abject failure of religion to tell us anything about gods, including whether they exist.