Monday, 24 February 2014

The proof against evolutionary theory

I have decided to address the so called evidence for Creationism which I keep confronted by in debates. But before I actually get into it, there are a few things we need to clarify about this so called evidence.

Number one, it is not evidence for Intelligent design or creationism. It is so called evidence that disproves evolution. It does not meet the burden of proof for creationism. All it does is attack evolution.

Secondly, this research is not published in accredited scientific journals. In fact none of these journals even have an impact factor as determined by Thomson Reuters on the Web of Knowledge. Journal of Creation, Answers Research Journal and Occasional Papers of the BSG have no impact factor, not even a 0 impact factor.

With that lets move on and discuss the first evolution threatening manuscript.

The manuscript is entitled "Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86-89%" by Tomkins and published in Answers Research Journal.

So why do the creationists get a different value for DNA similarity between Chimps and Humans. The answer is simple, they insist that sequences of junk DNA be included in the analysis. Junk DNA is thing like indels, introns etc. and are normally left out for the following reason. It skews the data so much so that 2 humans could be more than 10% not related as junk DNA is exactly that its junk sequences. It is important, but its junk i.e. not the same for everyone. So when the difference between 2 humans is 90% and between humans and chimps its 89%, the result is the same as published by evolutionary scientists.

Secondly, they use the BLAST program for their analysis. This is interesting that BLAST is the only tool used, as use of BLAST program logarithms has been criticised as missing hits in DNA sequencing correlation analysis. Let me clarify that BLAST is a good program, but it has limitations. Interestingly, the author even criticises the BLAST program and then still uses it “This is a very conservative estimate because nucleotide BLAST default alignments mask large amounts of low-complexity sequence”.

And then my last major criticism of this manuscript comes in the methods section where the following is written."Despite the files being listed as raw trace reads, they appeared to be completely processed high-quality sequences. Therefore, the sequences were directly usable for querying with the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) algorithm ”. The problem I have here is with the word "appear". If this was not corroborated, then the author has guessed and used the sequences as is without finding out if he was correct? This is important, as if the author was wrong here, everything in this study fails.


So what will you believe?