Brian Thomas returns to give us a classic for the Friday article, titled Deer in Black and White. This is classic Thomas (or a Thomas “classic”) both in that it makes for a perfect example of his failure to understand the process known as natural selection, and because the most recently published references come from 2010. His article – which is about white-tailed deer that have a genetic condition known as melanism which makes them dark coloured, which can be considered the opposite of albinism – is therefore not in any way “news.” Continue reading
A paper from way back in February, called The Majority of Animal Genes Are Required for Wild-Type Fitness (pdf), opened with the following:
Almost all eukaryotic genes are conserved, suggesting that they have essential functions.
What this jargon-filled sentence means is that “almost all” genes in animals/plants/fungi/protists exist in other animals/plants/fungi/protists (and sometimes even in bacteria), and have thus not been lost or otherwise discarded, which suggests that they are probably fairly useful. It’s worth realising here and now that this logic is based on the unspoken premise of evolution, which in sane-people land is a fairly safe assumption for research purposes. If creationism were true, on the other hand, there would be no basis upon which to draw such a conclusion. Continue reading
The DpSU for last Tuesday was called Researchers See Fish Adapt in One Generation.
The source is a paper – you can see the full text here – that details an experiment investigating the speed at which fish adapted to breeding in hatcheries. They found that the fish managed to do so in a single generation, but that this came at a cost to their survivability in the wild. Mr Thomas, author of the DpSU, expresses his incredulity at this being the result of natural selection, as was credited.
It was only a few days ago now that I posted The Scars of Eye Surgery about Brian Thomas’ article Do Eyes Carry ‘Scars of Evolution’? Mr Thomas has decided that he needs to write on the same article again, apparently because there really isn’t much evolution/creationism related going on right now.* The result: Eye Evolution: Assumption, Not Science. In the circumstances, that describes much better his reading of the subject than the actual thing.
I apologise for the cheesy title, but it was just crying out to be used.
Brian Thomas’ latest article at the ICR is called Earliest Fossil Shows Wood Could Not Evolve despite said wood fossil showing nothing of the sort. Indeed, the majority of this article has nothing to do with the fossil, and could easily have been written without it. If you take a look at my Terminology page you will see that for a short while I called these kinds of DpSU’s “Type Io” for the reason I give there. I think I shall resurrect that classification for this post. Continue reading