Sunday, April 22, 2012

Here’s An Example of the Ultimate Evolutionary Blowback


After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones recalled that he “was taken to school” by the evolutionists. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” Unfortunately what evolutionists such as Ken Miller “taught” Jones was a series of scientific misrepresentations which you can read about here, here and here. But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.” It would be like a judge explaining that he already understood the general theme of tornado damage because he’s seen The Wizard of Oz. This level of profound ignorance, in such a position of power, is disturbing to say the least. The key question is: How could this happen? How could our educational system fail so badly? What is the source of such anti intellectualism? The answer, once again, is evolution.

Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee wrote the play to illustrate the threat to intellectual freedom posed by the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s McCarthy era. Parallels to that anti-communist movement, and McCarthy himself, are obvious in the script. And since that dark period in our government’s history is universally and clearly understood to be wrong and evil, Inherit the Wind is itself equally banal and two-dimensional. The script is practically comical in its simplistic, cardboard rendition of the events in Dayton, Tennessee the summer of 1925. The evolutionists are equated with those struggling heroically to defeat the equivalent of McCarthyism and their opponents are equated, well, with McCarthy and his movement.

What a windfall for evolutionists. Their dogmatic, religiously-driven movement was now cast as the clear and obvious protagonist and their detractors had become the antagonists. And all of this was presented in the starkest of terms. The message was clear: evolution embodied everything that was good, and their opponents embodied everything that was bad.

There was only one problem. All of this was intended as an attack on McCarthyism. The story not only was a fictionalization of the Monkey Trial, it also presented a picture of evolutionary thought with little correspondence to reality.

So why did Judge Jones think that he “understood the general theme” because he had “seen Inherit the Wind”? The answer is that for decades evolutionists have heavily promoted Inherit the Wind and used it as a vehicle to advance their movement. From public education curriculums to international venues, Inherit the Wind is presented as an important and realistic telling of evolutionary thought and its nefarious opposition.

That is simply a misrepresentation. John Scopes was not a humble and tireless science teacher, and he was not hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists as the script depicts. Nor was he assaulted, burned in effigy and threatened by a lynch mob. In fact, John Scopes never even went to jail. Nor did he, in fear for his life, contact journalist Henry Mencken for help in securing a lawyer.

And what about that narrow-minded, fire-breathing Reverend Jeremiah Brown and his angry mob of fundamentalists? And the uneducated crowds singing hymns at every corner? Those were also fictions. In fact it was John Scopes who would later write that “I have often said that there is more intolerance in higher education than in all the mountains of Tennessee.”

The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU which had advertised for a willing teacher to test Tennessee law. The ad caught the attention of local boosters in Dayton, Tennessee who saw it as an opportunity to rejuvenate their decaying small town. They recruited Scopes, a football coach and math teacher to take on the role as the defendant. Once the trial began, Scopes’ legal defense was the dream team of 1925, with nationally recognized legal expertise backing up Clarence Darrow, one of the greatest criminal defense lawyers in American history.

In fact Dayton, Tennessee was already using an evolutionary textbook. The textbook, Civic Biology, taught the usual evolutionary concepts of racism and eugenics. The text explained that some people were genetically advanced while others were degenerate, a problem which could be thwarted with forced sterilization. That was a practice that evolutionists had widely implemented in the U.S. at that time.

But wasn’t the lead prosecution attorney, William Jennings Bryan, the famed statesman and politician who hadn’t practiced law in decades, an ignorant, scientifically illiterate, bigoted fundamentalist as depicted in the script?

No, Bryan was an assistant prosecutor and had little involvement in the trial. His main reason for participating, to deliver the final summation, was cleverly obviated by the defense with a legal maneuver that denied any closing arguments.

And Bryan was not a fundamentalist and certainly not bigoted. He had a good understanding of evolution and was  concerned with the undefendable claim of evolution as fact. He was particularly concerned with evolution’s degraded view of people. The left-leaning, pacifist was concerned with evolution’s racism, eugenics, social Darwinism and economic laissez faire implications. Bryan was far more articulate and thoughtful than the silly and absurd caricature presented in Inherit the Wind.

But didn’t Darrow destroy Bryan on the stand, revealing his literalism and fideism, forcing him to claim special revelation and reducing him to an incoherent babble?

Again this is a complete fiction. No such exchange took place. In fact the movie’s trial scenes are mostly fictitious, with only limited correspondence to the real trial.

But didn’t Bryan pathetically attempt to deliver a speech after the trial adjourned with his agitated shouts going unheeded as the crowd turned away?

Again, while this is reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s pathetic demise, it is another fiction. Nothing like it occurred during or after the trial.

The list goes on and on. While Inherit the Wind was intended as a vehicle to expose McCarthyism, the evolutionist’s promotion and use of the play and movie is a lie. From the setting and context to the trial itself, Inherit the Wind is a lopsided misrepresentation of the events in Dayton and evolutionary thought in general. And now, in the hands of Judge John Jones, that lie has propagated into American jurisprudence.

It reminds me of Robert Altman’s movie The Player in which the Hollywood culture sees everything as another story and plot-line. Movies and real life imperceptibly blend together. We’re in trouble when our entertainment culture becomes our reality. As a reader requests, please, nobody show Jones the “Bigfoot” episodes of the Six Million Dollar man lest he think a missing link has been found.

17 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above would sound much better in street language but Hunter won't allow it. LOL. You are welcome to translate it in the privacy of your homes.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

      Delete
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

      Delete
  2. To echo Thorton's question what about the general theme of "inherit the wind" was incorrect?

    Was it that the general conflict itself wasn't explicitly described as a religious battle, as your previous post indicates and your "theory" claims?

    For example…

    CH: What a windfall for evolutionists. Their dogmatic, religiously-driven movement was now cast as the clear and obvious protagonist and their detractors had become the antagonists. And all of this was presented in the starkest of terms. The message was clear: evolution embodied everything that was good, and their opponents embodied everything that was bad.

    It sounds like your objection is that evolution is religious and it wasn't explicitly depicted as such in the film. As such, the act of repressing it was constitutional, while the harm done in McCarthyism wasn't constitutional.

    If so, how would correcting the fictionalized aspects of the film to match the trial actually depict your theory any better?

    CH: John Scopes was not a humble and tireless science teacher, and he was not hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists as the script depicts. Nor was he assaulted, burned in effigy and threatened by a lynch mob. In fact, John Scopes never even went to jail. Nor did he, in fear for his life, contact journalist Henry Mencken for help in securing a lawyer.

    How would correcting this somehow depict evolution as religious, in the sense you clam in here and in your book, that it wouldn't have been otherwise? Please be specific.

    CH: And what about that narrow-minded, fire-breathing Reverend Jeremiah Brown and his angry mob of fundamentalists? And the uneducated crowds singing hymns at every corner? Those were also fictions. In fact it was John Scopes who would later write that “I have often said that there is more intolerance in higher education than in all the mountains of Tennessee.”

    An angry mob of fundamentalists doesn't depict a religious battle?

    CH: The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU which had advertised for a willing teacher to test Tennessee law.

    Again, how would correcting this somehow depict evolution as religious, in the sense you clam in here and in your book, that it wouldn't have been otherwise? Please be specific.

    CH: In fact Dayton, Tennessee was already using an evolutionary textbook. The textbook, Civic Biology, taught the usual evolutionary concepts of racism and eugenics. The text explained that some people were genetically advanced while others were degenerate, a problem which could be thwarted with forced sterilization. That was a practice that evolutionists had widely implemented in the U.S. at that time.

    Which was usually for the time in our history, not usually of evolution itself. These are two different things.

    CH: Bryan was far more articulate and thoughtful than the silly and absurd caricature presented in Inherit the Wind.

    Again, how would correcting this somehow depict evolution as religious, in the sense you clam in here and in your book, that it wouldn't have been otherwise? Please be specific.

    CH: As a reader requests, please, nobody show Jones the “Bigfoot” episodes of the Six Million Dollar man lest he think a missing link has been found.

    That pretty much sums up your entire argument. Apparently, Jones cannot separate fiction from conventionally accepted science, even when that fiction is an urban myth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You do realize that your continuing obsession with this movie is, in itself, a measure of its propaganda power?

    Yes, Inherit The Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 "Monkey Trial".

    Yes, the character of 'Matthew Harrison Brady' is a caricature of the real William Jennings Bryan. The real Bryan was, by all accounts, a powerful orator and had championed liberal causes. He and Darrow had been friends earlier and Darrow had supported him when he ran for President. They differed over Bryan's religious views, hardly surprising given Darrow's atheism. In defense of the movie we should also note that those points are all mentioned. There is certainly some truth in there as well as the fiction.

    We also know that the trial was essentially a publicity stunt concocted by local businessmen and civic leaders for the purpose of attracting nationwide attention to the region in an effort to stimulate the local economy. That also is suggested at the beginning of the move.

    We know that John Scopes was hired as the football coach for the local high school but occasionally filled in as a substitute teacher when regular members of staff were off work. He volunteered to be the defendant after some persuasion although there was later some doubt as to whether he actually broke the law as he claimed he actually skipped over the section on evolution in Hunter's Civic Biology.

    The intense anti-evolution fervor and hostility to Scopes and his legal team shown in the movie seems to be an exaggeration. Both Darrow and Mencken commented the hospitality actually shown to them by local people. On the other hand, the scene in the movie where "Drummond" protests about the crown applauding and cheering professions of faith can be found in the trial transcript. It was quite clear where the sympathies of the majority of the local population lay.

    On the issue of Bryan's examination by Darrow I would say, having read that part of the trial transcript, that while the movie script is certainly not a verbatim copy, it stays fairly close to what was recorded and is not the wildly fictionalized version you are implying. There are some omissions and embellishments but they can be justified on the grounds of dramatic license in what was never intended to be a documentary about the trial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Alleged' - full length movie
    http://www.movie2k.to/movie-964408-Alleged.html

    Writer, Producer Fred Foote Sets the Record Straight with 'Alleged' - podcast
    Description: David Boze interviews filmmaker Fred Foote, writer and producer of the new feature-length drama Alleged, which seeks to tell the real story behind the infamous 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee that pitched Darwinian evolution against belief in God. After seeing the 1960 film Inherit the Wind, starring Gene Kelly and Spencer Tracy, Foote did his own research into the trial and discovered that Inherit the Wind was "almost exactly wrong" on many crucial points. So he set out to make another movie that would set the record straight and would explore how media can influence society's perspective on past events.
    http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/12/interview_writer_producer_fred.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Born: Writer, Producer Fred Foote Sets the Record Straight with 'Alleged' - podcast

    The stories they put in the text book, reporters of evolution, they are not what they are cracked up to be: Darwin's' finches, vestal organs, the evolution of the horse, junk DNA; none of these things hold up to close scrutiny like you might think they would; but they serve a bigger purpose a bigger quote truth, in that is we are biological machines, evolution is true, so even if the details look a little dinged on closer inspection, the bigger truth is more impotent. Evolution is true, the Bible, Moses, Adam and Eve, all that is fiction, so lets move on from the fiction and embrace the truth.

    Sound vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

    When asked what the biggest lie was in the movie, Foote said that it was the depiction that the teaching of evolutionary theory had been outlawed. Specifically, he said that what had actually been outlawed was only the teaching of evolution in regards to one out of two million species: human beings.

    Why did they say is was it was a blanket prohibition about the teaching of evolution? Because that looked bigoted, backwards sweeping. That's a big big lie, I would say, with intentionality, even thought it probably gets innocently repeated because it get repeated so much, but it but it's just not true, it's just not true.

    Except, knowing this would be an issue, Darwin specially addressed this issue in his second book. In other words, Darwin make it quite clear that evolutionary theory was a theory of biological complexity as a whole, not just for non-human beings.

    For example, gravity is a theory that explains not only the movement of falling apples or the orbit of the earth around the sun, but all terrestrial objects, all orbiting planets, etc. As such, is it reasonable to claim merely excluding apples out of all terrestrial objects, or merely excluding the earth out of all the planets in every solar system the universe wouldn't represent prohibiting the teaching of gravity?

    And, again, how would "correcting this" somehow depict evolution as religious, in the sense that Cornelius clam in here in his blog and in his book, in a way that it wouldn't have otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott, do you really want to defend Darwin's second book:

    "At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla".
    Charles Darwin pp. 200–201, Vol. 1 'The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex'

    As well Scott, perhaps you would care to actually read from the portion of Hunter's Civic Biology textbook on Human Evolution that was banned from Tennessee Classrooms:

    Hunter's Civic Biology
    Excerpt: "The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."
    (p.196)

    "The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country."
    (Italics added for emphasis)
    http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness7.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember BA, some creationists believe the same thing. In fact the believed certain men were property.

      Delete
  7. When asked what the biggest lie was in the movie, Foote said that it was the depiction that the teaching of evolutionary theory had been outlawed. Specifically, he said that what had actually been outlawed was only the teaching of evolution in regards to one out of two million species: human beings.

    Foote is simply parroting the standard creationist defense of the Butler Act of 1925 which reads as follows:

    CHAPTER NO. 27

    House Bill No. 185


    (By Mr. Butler)

    AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

    Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

    Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

    Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

    Passed March 13, 1925

    W. F. Barry,

    Speaker of the House of Representatives

    L. D. Hill,

    Speaker of the Senate

    Approved March 21, 1925.

    Austin Peay,

    Governor.


    The opening paragraph is explicit about the purpose of the Act and, even though Section 1 narrows it to protecting the doctrine of the Divine Creation of Man, there is little doubt that the legislation was perceived as a blanket ban on the theory of evolution.

    In any event, the argument that the prohibition only applies to human evolution but permits the rest is specious. The theory makes no distinction between human evolution and that of other animals. To teach that humanity is a special case, excluded from the general theory, would be to seriously mislead students about the true nature of the theory and, as such, would be a breach of teacher ethics. Scientific and educational integrity require that either the whole theory as written is taught or nothing at all. To comply with the provisions of the Act as well the the requirement of educational integrity the theory as a whole would have to be excluded from the science curriculum - in other words, it is a de facto blanket ban.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And just how well supported is the theory of evolution that man descended from lower order of animals?

    Well the fossil evidence for human evolution is notorious for its many claims that have turned out to wrong, or even fraudulent!

    “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
    http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Mans_Earliest_Direct_Ancestors_Looked_More_Apelike_Than_Previously_Believed.asp

    Another Scientific Paper Challenges Ardi's Place as a Bipedal Human Ancestor - Casey Luskin April 19, 2012
    Excerpt: "Parsimonious reconstruction of the common human/African ape ancestor suggests the short upper limbs and metacarpals of Ardipithecus are too derived to belong to an exclusive human ancestor."
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/another_scienti058751.html

    EVOLUTION FORGERIES (For Human Evolution) - excerpts -
    Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
    Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth!
    Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage!
    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

    Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011
    Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/hominid_hype_and_the_election_050801.html

    Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video (notes in description of video)
    http://vimeo.com/19080087

    Hobbits Were Brain Diseased Modern Humans - August 2011
    Excerpt: A new paper compared skulls of H. floresiensis with those of modern humans, Homo erectus, and humans with microcephaly. The result favors the interpretation that the Hobbits most likely were diseased modern humans.
    http://crev.info/content/110808-hobbits_were_brain_diseased_modern_humans

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basically, despite the protestations of evolutionists, the missing link is still missing;

      When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
      Richard Lewontin - Harvard Zoologist
      http://www.discovery.org/a/9961

      Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
      Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."
      http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202

      Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
      http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

      “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
      Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
      (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

      “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
      Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),
      http://crev.info/content/111025-blind_men_and_the_ape_man

      The Ape To Man Drawings - Another Blatant Deception of Evolution - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4236845

      Paleoanthropology
      Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
      "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture."
      http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology

      Delete
    2. But what about the Darwinists ace in the hole for 'proving' human evolution, the genetic evidence? Well the fact is that the claimed 98%-99% genetic similarity evidence between man and chimps has been dealt some fairly severe blows recently;

      Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004
      Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
      http://www.nature.com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html

      Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011
      Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html

      Moreover, the Gorilla recently 'broke Darwin's tree'

      The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree - Doug Axe PhD. - March 2012
      Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…”
      That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple.
      http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19703401390/the-gorilla-who-broke-the-tree

      Delete
    3. Besides the major differences found for genetic similarities, protein similarities between man and chimps are found to grossly different than what Darwinists expected:

      Chimps are not like humans - May 2004
      Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.
      http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm

      Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

      To put it mildly this huge +80% difference between chimps and humans is more than a slight problem for evolutionary materialists. One reason is that differences in proteins, and even thousands of new proteins from the thousand(s) of new ORFan genes, require the generation of new protein-protein binding sites in order to be functional with other proteins. Dr. Behe has shown protein-protein binding site generation to be extremely problematic for any Darwinian scenario:

      "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable."
      Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")

      Moreover the preliminary evidence we have, indicates there is, 'surprisingly', a 'rather low' conservation of Domain-Domain Interactions occurring in Protein-Protein interactions between different species:

      A Top-Down Approach to Infer and Compare Domain-Domain Interactions across Eight Model Organisms
      Excerpt: Knowledge of specific domain-domain interactions (DDIs) is essential to understand the functional significance of protein interaction networks. Despite the availability of an enormous amount of data on protein-protein interactions (PPIs), very little is known about specific DDIs occurring in them.,,, Our results show that only 23% of these DDIs are conserved in at least two species and only 3.8% in at least 4 species, indicating a rather low conservation across species.,,,
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005096

      Delete
    4. Moreover, even is we granted that the genetic protein coding regions were as close as Darwinists paper them over to be, the finding that Junk DNA is functional, and 'regulatory' over protein coding regions, has dealt another severe blow to Darwinian wishful thinking.

      Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education - Casey Luskin - January, 2012
      Excerpt: DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html

      Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams
      Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.
      http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

      Delete