Is this a $#%$ing joke?
Why did respected scientific journal Nature publish this letter?
Giertych’s statements aren’t religiously inspired? Yeah, right. Let’s look into this. Let’s look at the ‘evidence’ against evolution.
1. Microevolution only involves a reduction in genetic information, not its increase.
WRONG. It can go either way. Genetic duplications commonly occur, with the duplicated region modified through mutation. Result: an increase in genetic information.
2. Formation of sideways geological strata.
MISLEADING. Doesn’t matter how strata form. Older fossils are always in older layers (which can be verified by other means such as carbon dating).
3. Evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
WRONG. This is not one single piece of evidence to suggest this. This is, quite simply, a lie.
4. Worldwide catastrophe in prehistoric times.
MISLEADING. Catastrophes that had worldwide impacts have occurred. For instance, the meteorite that hit the Yucatan peninsular in Mexico. So what? Some species became extinct, some didn’t.
5. We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated — adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. What doesn’t Giertych understand about duplication and polyploidy? Once you have redundant genetic information, deleterious mutations can occur without drastically affecting the organism’s fitness, as the original ‘good’ genetic information is still present. Every now and then, however, a positive mutation occurs that allows for a slightly ‘improved protein’. As this happens continuously and good mutations are selected for, over time you have gained a whole new function.
Many thousands of positive mutations have been discovered. For example, single nucleotide polymorphisms in plants allowing for adaptation to abiotic stress.
This garbage belongs in the Discovery Institute, not Nature.
Sir:
In your News story "Polish scientists fight creationism" (Nature 443, 890–891), you incorrectly state that I have called for the "inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula". As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately.
I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Such evidence includes race formation (microevolution), which is not a small step in macroevolution because it is a step towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase. It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.
We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated — adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.
We keep on searching for natural explanations of everything in nature. If we have no explanations we should say so, and not claim that an unproven theory is a fact.
Maciej Giertych
Giertych’s statements aren’t religiously inspired? Yeah, right. Let’s look into this. Let’s look at the ‘evidence’ against evolution.
1. Microevolution only involves a reduction in genetic information, not its increase.
WRONG. It can go either way. Genetic duplications commonly occur, with the duplicated region modified through mutation. Result: an increase in genetic information.
2. Formation of sideways geological strata.
MISLEADING. Doesn’t matter how strata form. Older fossils are always in older layers (which can be verified by other means such as carbon dating).
3. Evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
WRONG. This is not one single piece of evidence to suggest this. This is, quite simply, a lie.
4. Worldwide catastrophe in prehistoric times.
MISLEADING. Catastrophes that had worldwide impacts have occurred. For instance, the meteorite that hit the Yucatan peninsular in Mexico. So what? Some species became extinct, some didn’t.
5. We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated — adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. What doesn’t Giertych understand about duplication and polyploidy? Once you have redundant genetic information, deleterious mutations can occur without drastically affecting the organism’s fitness, as the original ‘good’ genetic information is still present. Every now and then, however, a positive mutation occurs that allows for a slightly ‘improved protein’. As this happens continuously and good mutations are selected for, over time you have gained a whole new function.
Many thousands of positive mutations have been discovered. For example, single nucleotide polymorphisms in plants allowing for adaptation to abiotic stress.
This garbage belongs in the Discovery Institute, not Nature.
posted by Green Scientist at 12:02 pm
