Evolution in the Classroom: Part II

Here is the second of two podcasts discussing some of the many scientific misrepresentations and non scientific claims in professor Mohamed Noor’s course, Introduction to Genetics and Evolution. You can read more about professor Noor’s presentation of evolution here.

Evolution in the Classroom: Part I

Here is a podcast discussing some of the many scientific misrepresentations in professor Mohamed Noor’s course, Introduction to Genetics and Evolution. You can read more about professor Noor’s misrepresentations here.

That Silly Belief That Life is Sacred and Inviolable

The twentieth century’s eugenics movement was eventually discarded, but eugenics did not go away entirely. Today eugenics continues, but it is a much more diverse and technologically sophisticated. There are the so-called eugenic abortions where the unborn with higher disease risks are “terminated.” And today’s technology allows for specific embryos, and even genes, to be selected. There seems to be, as Nathaniel Comfort observed this month, a eugenic impulse that drives us to seek a better human race. Underlying such health concerns, however, are the usual less benevolent motivations. In addition to the promised health benefits, Comfort explains that eugenics offers an intellectual thrill, and the profits of genetic biomedicine. Such lures are, explains Comfort, “too great for us to do otherwise. Resistance would be ill-advised and futile.”

Nonetheless there are those who warn against this new eugenics. Will not parents face enormous pressure to adopt the new technologies and create designer babies? But for eugenics proponent Jon Entine, such complaints are “just another iteration of the anti-abortionist (and far left) belief that life is ‘sacred’ and ‘inviolable’”

“Sacred” and “inviolable”? Apparently for Entine such sentiment is old-fashioned.

Evolution gave us chance origins and led to the modern eugenics and abortion movements. Not surprisingly, life no longer is considered sacred or inviolable. After all, life arose spontaneously from a series of random events.

Ideas have consequences.

So Unique, So Exceptional—The Miracles of Evolution

Here is a must see video that is well worth the five minutes of your time. It will have you asking, with evolutionist Ed Scholes, “Why?”

Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution

Evolutionary thought holds that the universe, the quasars, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets and moons (oh and all of biology too) arose spontaneously by chance events and natural law. How that occurred is uncertain and under scientific investigation. That it occurred is not uncertain, it is a fact. These two different departments of evolutionary thought are disjoint. The fact of evolution does not derive from the particular theories of how it could have happened. It must be that way because there is substantial uncertainty of how it could have happened. Theories of the Solar system evolution, for instance, fall into two broad categories. In the monistic theories, the planets and Sun arise from the same process, such as in Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis. In dualistic theories, the planets and Sun arise from different processes, such as in Buffon's comet theory. These two rival classes of explanation have competed for centuries and as historian Stephen Brush has observed, the time scale for reversing between these two types of explanation has grown shorter and shorter as we approach the present. Hence the origin of the solar system, says Brush, is an unsolved problem. [1]

This week’s Science magazine provides yet another example of this phenomenon of a multiplicity of explanations in another one of professor Brush’s areas of interest: the evolution of the Earth-Moon system. It is another example of a problem that has required ever increasing complexity of explanation to account for the evidence. Science has two papers on the evolution of the Earth-Moon system, one calling for a larger impactor than usual and a subsequent resonance with the Sun, and the other calling for a faster spinning proto Earth and subsequent resonance between the Sun and Moon. As the perspective explains, the two papers “offer differing solutions to the problem.” Fortunately the fact of evolution does not depend of the science of evolution.


1. Stephen G. Brush, Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and the Core of the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 4.

The Silent Yawn

A culture’s creation narrative is foundational, for it forms the template for everything else. One of the consequences of evolution—the belief that the world spontaneously arose by itself—is that it underwrites moral relativism, which is not to say there is no right and wrong but rather that right and wrong is something that we decide. And since evolution is true, it is to evolution that we go for our rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” proclaims the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But with evolution there is no such endowment, for there is no such Creator. Not that evolution derives from atheism, it does not. Evolution derives from a different kind of theism, a kind where we decide what is right.

One of the rights evolutionists decided we did not have is the right to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In the twentieth century eugenics movement evolutionary science was used to mutilate and institutionalize those whom evolutionists decided were not deserving of these rights. This was no backwater operation. It was a nationwide movement backed up by Supreme Court decisions. Next came the right to Life which evolutionists decided also is not universal, and should not be granted to the unborn. So the unborn do not have a right to life in our culture and now tens of millions have been “aborted.”

This holocaust makes no scientific sense (both eugenics and abortion are based on pseudo science), but then again our creation narrative comes from evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.

Now Evolutionists Say Evolution Created Evolution (Again)

It’s another rags-to-riches evolutionary story, this time with epigenetics going from dog house to white house. First evolutionists denied epigenetics, then they said epigenetics are inconsequential and now they say epigenetics may be instrumental in, err, the origin of the human brain. That’s quite a turn around. When (i) leading evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne are saying epigenetic characters are not usually inherited past one or two generations and so are not “going to change our concept of evolution,” while (ii) research papers are concluding that epigenetic changes, coordinated with genetic changes, “could play a role in the evolution of the primate brain,” then you know something is wrong. Evolutionists are having to rewrite their story at an ever increasing rate to try to adjust to the data, and it isn’t making sense.

Of course evolutionists did not deny epigenetics for nothing. Excuse the double negative but evolutionists don’t reject evidence for no reason. They reject evidence because they don’t expect it—because it doesn’t fit their theory. The problem with epigenetics is that it makes evolution even more unlikely, if that were possible.

Most people have an intuitive sense that random chance events, such as genetic mutations, are not likely to create the entire biological world from a once lifeless planet. But if that was a non starter, how about those random mutations first creating profoundly complex molecular machines which then proceed to orchestrate the evolutionary process?

This just makes no sense. From incredible horizontal gene transfer mechanisms to the incredible epigenetic network of machines and chemical barcodes, the chance evolution of these wonders is itself astronomically unlikely, but then for these miracles of evolution to perform so much more evolutionary miracle work is simply ridiculous. Are we to believe that evolution created evolution which then created the biological world?

The sheer serendipity required by evolutionary thought is amazing. Someone has to say this because evolutionists won’t. They are so deeply embedded in the front lines they are oblivious to the state of evolutionary thought. They cannot step back and realistically assess their theory.

It doesn’t matter to me whether evolution is true or false, but it does matter that science is being abused. Religion drives science and it matters.

There is a Big Misconception Right Now About the Impact of Evolution

Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics movement, those are both minor and largely behind us now and the greater and lasting consequences of evolution have been positive. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Evolution’s influence

An obvious example of evolution’s influence can be seen in the popular misconceptions held by those in positions of power. After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones, who ruled that evolution must be taught in our schools, 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.

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.”

But the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, upon which the play is based, was a show trial used to promote evolution. The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU to advance evolutionary thought and disparage skeptics.

For instance, the famed statesman and politician William Jennings Bryan was added to the prosecution team. Bryan 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 humanity. The left-leaning pacifist was concerned with evolution’s racism, eugenics, social Darwinism and economic laissez faire implications.

Bryan’s role on the team was to deliver the final summation. That would have been important for Bryan would have provided a much needed corrective to the ACLU’s evolutionary propaganda. The ACLU needed to avoid any such exposure so they used a clever legal trick to deny any closing arguments.

But the fact that the Scopes Monkey Trial was a manipulated show trial is only the beginning of the problem with Judge Jones relying on Inherit the Wind as a source. For its authors Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee added yet more manipulation to the truth. In their fictionalized account of the trial they did what even the ACLU could not do—they rewrote history as evolutionists would have it. The result was a two-dimensional and grossly misleading rendition of the Scopes Monkey Trial. And yet to this day evolutionists use this play and film to misrepresent evolution. It is this script that is informing the public consciousness of the origins debate. This is an example the power of evolution’s influence.

A consequence of evolution

One of the earliest examples of evolution’s consequences is the modern eugenics movement, a term coined by Darwin’s half cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Eugenics was a natural extension of evolution, which explained that all life just happened to arise by random chance and the survival of the fittest in resource-limited environments. Nietzsche proclaimed that it was the sick, the oppressed, the broken and the weak, rather than evil men, who were the greatest threat to humanity.

From scientists such as Charles Davenport (Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) to elites such as Theodore Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes, eugenics was well accepted, and all with the best of intentions no doubt.

Evolutionist Henry Goddard identified a particular family as having inferior genetics on one side, making for a classic case study of good genes versus bad genes. According to this phony evolutionary science, those on the “bad” side were diagnosed as “feeble-minded,” a vague category into which anyone on the wrong side of an evolutionist could be cast. Their penalties included forced sterilization and a life sentence in an institution.

And the great Nikola Tesla warned of humanity’s “new sense of pity” which interfered with evolution’s law of the survival of the fittest:

The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.

Evolutionist Hermann Muller wrote a letter to Joseph Stalin imploring the communist dictator to implement the “conscious control of human biological evolution.” And laws across America and even Supreme Court rulings turned against those who evolutionists pronounced to have the wrong genes. Meanwhile evolutionist’s such as Goddard enjoyed success and reputation while their victims were mutilated and imprisoned.

A big misconception

But aren’t such crude ideas as eugenics behind us now? That was then and this is now, and now we are all fixed, right? As Forbes’ Alex Knapp put it this week, “as we’ve advanced scientifically, we’ve also advanced morally.” This is a common view amongst evolutionists. They either ignore evolution’s role in the eugenics movement (Knapp puts the blame on physics), or they view it as an anomaly—the exception rather than the rule.

It would be difficult to imagine a bigger misconception. It is true that the eugenics movement has waned, but it has been replaced by something far more effective: worldwide abortion at levels the most extreme eugenicist could only have dreamed of.

No, today’s evolutionists are no different than yesterday’s evolutionists. They haven’t gotten better. Today’s evolutionists would have staunchly backed eugenics every bit as much as did Galton, Nietzsche, Davenport, Goddard, Tesla, Muller and the rest of them. Or they at least would have politely stood by in silent assent.

How do I know this? Because today they do the same with abortion. It is safe for evolutionists to look back at those who came before them and scrutinize their failings as a thing of past. Unfortunately this is a myth. Those failings are by no means a thing of past.

The theory that speaks of “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” has not set us on the path to utopia. Today infanticide and slavery are at levels never before seen in history while evolutionists pat themselves on the back for undermining science and teaching the world that humans are animals.

Evolutionists dogmatically proclaim they have the truth. They blackball and defame anyone who even so much as questions their phony science and absurd truth claims. And all the while they insist they hold the moral high ground while their world descends into yet more death and destruction.

Ideas have consequences.

Evolutionists Solve Eye Evolution (Again)

Recently we discussed a paper from 2008 in which evolutionists claimed to have solved the long-standing question of how the eye evolved. It is a problem that famously once made Darwin shudder but the evolutionists claimed that now, with our advanced scientific knowledge, “the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed.” That was quite a claim and, not surprisingly, there was no such breakthrough. In fact, the “explanation” that the evolutionists provided was simply that the key cellular signal transduction pathway in our eyes came from a very similar pathway in yeast that senses certain types of signaling chemicals known as pheromones. The evolutionists had no explanation for how the yeast pathway arose in the first place or exactly how it could morph into the animal vision system. It was yet another example of evolution’s trivial, non scientific, solutions that do nothing but generate vacuous headlines. Well evolutionists have done it again. This month they “solved” the problem of eye evolution yet again. Apparently that 2008 solution didn’t take, but this new solution is no better.

You may have seen the Wall Street Journal article from earlier this month proclaiming the new discovery of how vision evolved. The headline read, “A Relief to Darwin: The Eyes Have It.” Or perhaps you saw the press release trumpeting the new “Breakthrough study” that “Pinpoints Evolutionary Origins of Sight.”

The paper itself was no less triumphant. It claimed to reveal “a simple route to animal vision.” But in fact the evolutionists discovered no such thing. It was all yet another abuse of science.

As with the earlier 2008 paper, the new study appeals to yet another signal transduction pathway as the progenitor of later vision systems. This time instead of yeast, the paper appeals to a pathway in placozoa. As with the yeast system, the placozoa system probably detects signaling chemicals.

As usual, the evolutionists “solve” the problem simply by pushing it back in time. The evolution narrative continues to push complexity to earlier stages where it somehow and fortuitously appears. As the evolutionists conclude: “Our results are compatible with the view that the last common neuralian ancestor might have been more complex than generally assumed.”

So the new study makes evolution even more heroic and implausible. What it does not show is precisely what the paper and the articles claim that it shows: how vision evolved.

Evolution is more ludicrous with each passing week. It is a religiously-motivated movement that force-fits scientific findings to its truth. Its unending trail of vacuous discoveries is nothing more than a reflection of the underlying religion. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” That is a good description of evolutionary science.

Religion drives science and it matters.

Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence

The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology’s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist’s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

Everyone has heard of the kangaroo and its pouch. It is a marsupial—mammals that give birth at a relatively early stage in development, and then carry their young in a pouch. There are a great variety of marsupials that are curiously similar to a cousin placental species. The flying squirrel (a placental) and the flying phalanger (a marsupial) are one such example. Because of their reproductive differences evolutionists must say they are distantly related on the evolutionary tree. Yet they have strikingly similar designs which must have been created independently by random mutations. Every mutation leading to the two different species must, according to evolution, have been random (that is, independent of any need). No, natural selection doesn’t help.

Another example is the human and squid eye designs, which are remarkably similar. Of the myriad vision designs, these two utterly different species share similar designs that must have arisen in completely different environments, on different substrates, to meet different needs. It is, as Darwin often said, utterly inexplicable.

These are but two of a large and growing list of remarkable convergences. Though evolutionists sometimes deny biological convergence, it is a scientific fact. And a paper from this week added yet another example:

In mammals, hearing is dependent on three canonical processing stages: (i) an eardrum collecting sound, (ii) a middle ear impedance converter, and (iii) a cochlear frequency analyzer. Here, we show that some insects, such as rainforest katydids, possess equivalent biophysical mechanisms for auditory processing. Although katydid ears are among the smallest in all organisms, these ears perform the crucial stage of air-to-liquid impedance conversion and signal amplification, with the use of a distinct tympanal lever system. Further along the chain of hearing, spectral sound analysis is achieved through dispersive wave propagation across a fluid substrate, as in the mammalian cochlea. Thus, two phylogenetically remote organisms, katydids and mammals, have evolved a series of convergent solutions to common biophysical problems, despite their reliance on very different morphological substrates.

It is another curious example of biological convergence, so rather than attempt to deny the undeniable, evolutionists now claim it as another confirmation of evolution.

Astonishingly evolutionist Ronald Hoy claims that this new finding provides “evidence for convergent evolution.” That would be quite a discovery. How, according to Hoy, do the amazing similarities in mammal and katydid hearing make for evidence that they are products of so-called convergent evolution?

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.

Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.

Religion drives science and it matters.

Incredible: Evolutionists Have Now Solved Eye Evolution

Evolutionists now understand how the eye evolved. While skeptics have been claiming something doesn’t come from nothing, evolutionists have been busy tracking down the details. As one paper explains, “the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed.” That is amazing. For understanding eye evolution at the molecular level is the holy grail, or at least a holy grail. As we have discussed before, vision is profoundly complicated and it is not clear how it could spontaneously arise as evolutionists believe it did. And vague speculation, with cartoon illustrations, of light sensitive patches magically morphing into a series of increasingly sophisticated eyes do not help much. What is needed is a plausible explanation of how such evolution could occur, and an account of how the eye evolved at the molecular level certainly does the job. It is terrific news that evolutionists have now achieved this incredible accomplishment.

The key in providing such an explanation, say evolutionists, is two-fold. First, they needed the detailed account of how vision works at the molecular level. These details have been increasingly elucidated in recent decades and they are crucial in understanding the evolutionary steps that led to the eye.

Second, they needed a better understanding of the evolutionary tree, telling them which species evolved from which. This provides the framework from which to derive the sequence of molecular changes that led to the eye.

With these two developments well in hand, evolutionists have now laid out what was once thought impossible. They have derived a detailed account, at the molecular level, of vision. They have discovered how chance mutations could spontaneously create the eye. They now have the holy grail.

And as is sometimes the case with the greatest scientific breakthroughs the answer turns out to be rather simple. Newton explained that F=ma and Einstein found that E=mc^2. Now we have an even more profound discovery. The incredible cellular signal transduction cascade at the heart of vision evolved from a similar system in yeast. Yes, believe it or not, it is that simple. As the evolutionists explain:

In yeast (a fungus), these receptors are sensitive to pheromones, and they even direct a signal through proteins homologous to non-opsin phototransduction proteins. As such, a signaling pathway exists outside animals, which is very similar to phototransduction, except that the receptor protein detects pheromones, not light. Receptors outside animals share some characteristics with opsin, like snaking through a cell membrane seven times. It is one of these serpentine proteins that served as the progenitor of the first opsin protein, as evidenced by the similarity of opsins and other serpentine proteins.

There you have it. The eye evolved from a signaling pathway outside of animals. The evolutionists triumphantly conclude that:

the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed, highlighting the bankruptcy of the argument that design is required to explain the origins of biological features

What is perhaps most remarkable about this finding is the sheer genius of evolutionists. This is just the stuff of good solid scientific research and once again we’re reminded of why evolution is such an undeniable fact.

Now the evolutionists admit they haven’t figured out every last detail—such as how the yeast system arose in the first place or exactly which mutations morphed it to the animal vision system—but those are details. As you can see, they’ve answered the big questions.

The evolution of the eye, a problem that once made Darwin shudder, is now obviously solved.

Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment

Kudos to Daniel Sarewitz for his must-read comment on the problem of bias in scientific research where he discusses mounting evidence that bias in science is not random. If it were then multiple studies would serve to cancel it out. Instead false positive results persist and to make matters worse, science’s attempts at internal controls, such as conflicts of interest disclosure, are not keeping up with the problem. Sarewitz points out that industry teams, who seek actually to implement scientific findings, are consistently unable to confirm what were thought to be “landmark” findings. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

The causes of scientific bias are both complex and yet, in retrospect, rather obvious. As Sarewitz explains:

All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.

One reason bias persists, and is so harmful, is that in the moment it is not perceived as bias. In many settings, when a research study begins there are certain outcomes which are acceptable and others which are not. But such a priori commitments are most likely to be perceived as nothing more than a reflection of what science has so far revealed. And most often that is true. But not always.

Sarewitz uses a powerful metaphor of how a magnetic field aligns iron filings—something every freshman learns—to illustrate how scientific bias aligns outcomes into its preconceived framework.

Commentators such as Sarewitz and Ioannidis tend to focus on the field of biomedical research which not only is so important but as an experimental science has the virtue of being, at least in principle, more amenable to verification. But if the experimental sciences are experiencing such problems with bias, one wonders how the historical sciences are faring. As Sarewitz warns, “It would therefore be naive to believe that systematic error is a problem for biomedicine alone.”

As Ioannidis warns, it appears that it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. And so should we really accept uncritically the evolutionist’s claim that the world spontaneously arose as a consequence of chance events?

If there ever was a scientific field subject to cultural influence and bias this would be it. From the ancient Epicureans to today’s evolutionists, there has always been right answer and a wrong answer. Spontaneous origins is the right answer and, in spite of scientific problems, is now known to be a fact. Is that just a coincidence?

An Extraordinary New Carnivorous Sponge

The deep sea harp sponge has a series of vertical vanes that maximize surface area for passive suspension feeding. As one report explains:

Scientists believe the harp sponge has evolved this elaborate candelabra-like structure in order to increase the surface area it exposes to currents, much like sea fan corals. … “C. lyra is an extraordinary example of the kind of adaptations that animals must make in order to survive in such a hostile environment.”

Apparently these “scientists” do not understand evolution very well for in evolution nothing happens for any reason. It may sound good, but no species “has evolved” anything “in order to increase” anything else.

In fact, everything occurs spontaneously, for no reason. Random chance events, such as mutations, collectively just happened to construct the harp sponge (no, natural selection never designed anything).

The harp sponge was created by a long series of random mutations and the like which just happened to happen, and just happened to create and continue to improve a living, eating, reproducing population that ultimately led to the harp sponge.

Selection, nor anything else, caused those mutations to occur. And selection certainly did not cause certain, more effective, mutations to occur. Evolutionists cannot tell you what that sequence of mutations was. They cannot even determine a hypothetical, candidate sequence of mutations that could have created the sponge. But they know there was such a sequence. Why? Because they know evolution is a fact.

Soft Inheritance Differences Between Human and Chimp Genomes

Human and chimpanzee genomes are highly similar. Protein coding genes in the two species are usually practically identical. This led to some rather silly conclusions by evolutionists trying to make sense of the evidence that showed their gene-centric view made no sense.

In fact, there are substantial molecular differences between humans and chimps, the differences just aren’t typically in the gene sequences. For instance, there are big differences in the regulation of those genes. And many of those differences are types of soft inheritance, involving not DNA differences but chemical markers influencing gene expression. As one report explains:

They found that the distinct gene expression patterns of the three species can be explained by corresponding changes in genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms that determine when and how a gene's DNA code is transcribed to a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule.

Dr. Gilad also determined that the epigenetics process known as histone modification also differs in the three species. The presence of histone marks during gene transcription indicates that the process is being prevented or modified.

The human and chimp genomes reveal substantial differences in their gene expression patterns. Those differences are due not only to differences in the DNA regulatory sequences but also to differences in the epigenetic markers.

So soft inheritance falsifies evolution’s expectation that acquired changes are not inherited, and soft inheritance’s origin is not explained by evolution, and now evolution must explain how it constructed different soft inheritance strategies in the human and chimp genomes.

Evolutionist: Sub Hypotheses of Evolution Need Not Be Testable

Though evolutionists often cite testability as a criterion for acceptance, this apparently is not required when the theory is one of their own. The mutational-hazard (MH) hypothesis is difficult to test but, as one evolutionist reminds us, that is no reason to reject it:

Given its broad phylogenetic perspective across species with widely different features, the MH hypothesis is admittedly difficult to test with comparative data. … Unfortunately, the procurement of direct estimates of Ne remains dauntingly difficult [40], and until this problem is solved, it will remain difficult to obtain unbiased estimates of the key parameter Neu. However, there is no justification for rejecting a theory based on its accessibility to formal hypothesis testing.

Evolutionists insist on strictly naturalistic explanations. That makes evolution—broadly construed as the origin of species via natural laws and processes—the right answer. Evolution can be modified by rejecting old sub hypotheses and erecting new ones, but the core idea cannot be wrong. Now even evolution’s sub hypotheses can also be untestable.