Study Challenges Two Icons of Evolution: Functional Junk DNA Shows “Surprising” Genetic Differences Between Humans and Apes

In 2004, cognitive scientist Keith E. Stanovich took the position that junk DNA “is essentially a parasite,” and that “junk DNA is a puzzle only if we are clinging to the assumption that our genes are there to do something for us.”1 In 2006, Michael Shermer asserted, “Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.”2 The following year, a human physiology textbook stated that “junk DNA” is “considered defective” and comprises “inherited sequences [that] perform no currently known ‘genetically useful’ purpose, yet they remain part of the chromosomes.”3 These sources promoting the classic Read More ›

Defending Dissent from Darwinism in Final Rebuttals to Intelligent Design Critics on

Late last night I posted my final rebuttals to the NCSE on This makes 12 total rebuttals for the pro-ID side and zero for the anti-ID side (though Americans United did post a sur-rebuttal tellingly titled “You Lost the Case — Get Over It“). Here are my links to my latest rebuttals: Rebuttal to NCSE #1: “Hypocrisy: NCSE Uses Religious Arguments–to Advocate for Evolution!“ Rebuttal to NCSE #2: “Ask Questions & Think for Yourself: Science Is Not a Voting Contest“ Rebuttal to NCSE #3: “ID Satisfies the NCSE’s Stated Definitions of Science“ Rebuttal to NCSE #4: “Rewriting History & Twisting the Law Doesn’t Turn ID Into Creationism“ Rebuttal to NCSE #5: “NCSE’s Appeals to Authority Threaten Scientific Progress“ (Note: Read More ›

Leading Origin of Life Researcher: “Genetic Information More or Less Came out of Nowhere”

Earlier this summer we highlighted Susan Mazur’s reporting about the Altenberg 16 conference, in which Mazur wrote that there are “hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-Creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory.” Many Darwinists, needless to say, did not like Mazur’s reporting, and they attacked her harshly. They probably are also not going to like Mazur’s latest article, where she interviews University of California, Santa Cruz origin of life researcher David Deamer. When asking Deamer about the “origin of the gene,” he replied, “I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance Read More ›

Evolution by intelligent design: Spore’s designs sweep away common objections to ID

I have thus far refrained from blogging about the new video game Spore that is being widely discussed in the media for one reason: anyone can see that Spore is not really about evolution by the Darwinian mechanism; it’s about evolution by intelligent design (ID). Even in his recent September 2 New York Times article, “Gaming Evolves,” Carl Zimmer reports that “Spore was strongly influenced by science, and in particular by evolutionary biology” but admits that “[t]he step-by-step process by which Spore’s creatures change does not have much to do with real evolution.” One biologist was quoted saying, “The mechanism is severely messed up.” And just what is that “severely messed up” mechanism? The answer is obvious: as an article Read More ›