The issue is moot however because Dr. Harshman here agrees with the conclusion of the paper. Sooooo…why does the error persist to this day and why is Ohno1984 getting cited in peer reviewed literature, and why isn’t BioLogos suggesting that Dr. Venema make a retraction?
The public evidence is making the point as well as any of my claims that you don’t believe.
Ask Dr. Harshman if I’m right about Ohno’s 1984 hypothesis. Seriously.
Ok, here is Dr. Venema’s essay which parallels his book:
https://biologos.org/articles/intelligent-design-and-nylon-eating-bacteria
And here’s the kicker: this brand-new protein folded into a stable shape, and acted as a weak nylonase. Later duplications, mutations and selection would make a very efficient nylonase from this starting point. Additionally, the three-dimensional structure of the protein has been solved using X-ray crystallography, a method that gives us the precise shape of the protein at high resolution. Nylonase is chock full of protein folds – exactly the sort of folds Meyer claims must be the result of design because evolution could not have produced them even with all the time since the origin of life.
Put another way, if only one in 10 to the 77th proteins are functional, there should be no way that this sort of thing could happen in billions and billions of years, let alone 40. Either this was a stupendous fluke (and stupendous isn’t nearly strong enough of a word), or evolution is in fact capable of generating the information required to form new protein folds.
And if this can happen in 40 years, what might millions of years of evolution produce?
But that claim is errant X10. Ask Dr. Harshman.
BioLogos has a major problem with their scientific credibility. I agree and that is a central reason I left. They have many retractions ahead of them if that is to change.
That doesn’t give ID or YEC a pass though, does it?
Agreed, and I didn’t know you left BioLogos.
YEC shouldn’t get a free pass, and I don’t like YECs giving YEC a free pass. It’s responsible to teach the problems with YEC, and I intend to do that. There are serious problems with the theory from an evidential and theoretical standpoint.
I’m not asking about what anyone proposes. I’m asking about the evidence. You don’t seem to have a speck of interest in the evidence.
I’m asking if YOU think that your hypothesis about topoisomerases requiring design apply to myosins. There are predictions that come from your hypothesis that you appear to be very reluctant to explore.
If there are no data, there can be no theory. You are claiming that the evidence (which you do not seem to have examined) is more consistent with design/creation than with evolution, are you not?
Also, science doesn’t deal in proof, direct experimental or otherwise.
There is no YEC theory.
Have to agree. Sal, could you explain the major features of YEC theory? And please specify which ones are science and which are not.
Design theory doesn’t make predictions. I don’t claim ID is science, unlike others in the ID community.
But, what would count as evidence Topoisomerases evolved by normal means other than the fact we’re alive. The fact we’re alive doesn’t mean it happened by normal (I hesitate to use the word natural) means?
What predictions does YEC “theory” make? Have you or anyone else tested any of these predictions?
I’ve never done an accounting as you suggest. That would be a good exercise and a good teaching module.
One major element of YEC theory is the fossil record was mostly the result of a flood cataclysm. Basic geophysics, physics, and chemistry have a say as to the viability of that claim – (that’s independent of the age of the Earth). I score a great flood as pretty viable in my book.
The distant starlight problem is still a big negative for YEC, but there is small bits of help for it which Hartnett mentions, and a few things I picked up in cosmology class.
I don’t really see that that is a difficult question. Even I could come up with a few off the top of my head:
Radiometric dating would show nothing on earth is older than 6000 years.
The fossil record would show an abrupt appearance of all organisms now classified at a relatively low taxonomnic level (say family or genera) with no predecessors or transitional forms between them.
Geological records would show the entire earth was covered by water about 4000 years ago. Genomic evidence would show major population bottlenecks of all lineages at this time.
Etc. Like I said, it is not hard to find prediction. Fulfilled predictions is a completely different matter.
Heh. Never mind that the global Noah’s Flood / Noah Ark myth has been conclusively disproven by the physical evidence from dozens of different sciences - geology, paleontology, physics, genetics, etc. I’m sure you’ll teach all that to those you’re trying to indoctrinate into YEC, right Sal?
A major prediction of YEC theory, which on some level I wish were wrong, is the deterioration of the Human genome. My mentor, John C. Sanford articulated this in his book Genetic Entropy, and it is a testable prediction.
He made the case specifically for the human genome. I’m not aware of too much work on other species.
Bryan Sykes of Oxford, estimates humanity has about 100,000 years left.
Feel free to work on that exercise here, now.
Yes, go on. What makes it viable? What evidence supports your position?
Such as?
Don’t be shy, Sal. Here’s your opportunity for a real discussion.
Now we’re talking.
But first, I did mention above about Sanford’s Genetic Entropy. That is a testable hypothesis.
That one has already been falsified
That one has already been falsified.
That one has already been falsified.
That one has already been falsified.
Oh for four. Looks like YEC has already been falsified, right Sal? 
What’s the evidence for that? Who is this “Brian Sykes”? And how does that square with the evidence that humans are related to other species?
That YEC nonsense already been conclusively disproven by the evidence we have for species which have been in existence for way longer than 6000 years. That includes humans.
Oh for five Sal. How many failures before YEC “theory” is considered falsified?
How is that a prediction of YEC?
Lenski’s group has falsified it in at least one species:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.2292
Dr. Harshman,
Dr. Sanford laid out mainstream claims in here. One can go to about 38 minutes in where he showcases Kondrashov:
I thought the best was citations of Kondrashov. But that said, do you think the human genome is improving?
As far as Sykes: