Creationists' Dismantled Film

[Faizal_Ali]

@thoughtful

If organisms have a natural defense against crossover from worms on up to more complex organisms, doesn’t that mean that adding additional information across multiple generations will be impossible?

No.

@scd

actually this is probably true, even by evolutionists own numbers. for instance according to this paper the same function will evolve one in about 10^77 mutations.

That paper is by a creationist hack, not an evolutionist. I’m surprised you did not know that.

And it has been destroyed by one of our members, @Art on this very forum:

Art Hunt to Doug Axe: Invitation to Discuss

11 years ago (give or take), I posted an essay on The Panda’s Thumb that discussed what I believed to me some serious flaws in Doug Axe’s 2004 paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology, or rather, flaws in the ways that the ID community have used the conclusions from that study. Over the years, there have supposedly been some responses from Axe to my essay, but in all reality, to my knowledge, Axe has never addressed the central criticisms I discussed. Joshua has been kind enough to give me a place to revisit this, and maybe elicit a relevant response from the ID community – perhaps Axe, perhaps Anne Gauger, perhaps Brian Miller (the latter two of whom have both avoided my essay with what amount to ad hominem remarks.) What I will do here is: to as briefly as possible, recapitulate my central criticisms so that readers here may understand some of the issues; and raise some new concerns that arose (in my mind) a few years ago, after reading another of Axe’s papers. For starters, let…

@colewd

The interesting discussion early in the film @thoughtful posted is about your starting worldview. If you believe that evolution ie common descent is the only sensible way that biodiversity happened then John’s working hypothesis of random indels makes sense and you can claim 98% similarity.

Really stupid even by your standards.

These two sequences of letters are 75% similar:

CTAG

CTAT

It doesn’t matter whether or not one accepts common ancestry. The similarity remains 75%.