Andy starts with this: “Evolution Collapses — So sayeth Wizbang!” When any rational person knows I never said anything close to that. But then he just lets the warm glow of zealotry take him over. He quotes me:
If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory [of evolution as I defined in the comments] -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable- is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable. There is something other than DNA that apparently carries some sort of genome and we don’t even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!
He DOES NOT quote the Article in question which says:
In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents,…
Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material.
The discovery also raises interesting biological questions – including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system.
Yet he tells his readers:
Now that you’ve read the above, go read article in question and marvel at how it looks remarkably like nothing Paul said above. Lazy, unable to read, or dishonest? You be the judge
They actually look quite similar. OK… I’ve been the Judge.. Andy you are dishonest AND unable to read…. Tough to read being blinded by the zealotry and all.
And that is what annoys me the most about the “evolution zealots.” They are so smug and condescending, like they have all then answers, when in reality they don’t have any clue either. Andy has no more clue where we came from then Jerry Falwell.
But Andy doesn’t realize how dumb he looks. Falwell admits you need to have faith to believe him. Andy pretends he has answers. At least Falwell is intellectually honest.
Update: You know Andy is losing the argument when he starts outright lying. He said, “I apologize if Paul’s confusion over abiogenesis and evolution,…”
When I specially said in the first post:
* The nomenclature will always bite you. I don’t use “evolution” in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of “evolution” is seriously, seriously flawed…. And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.
Abiogenesis is sometimes separated by the zealot crowd from the “everything came from primordial ooze” theory. I don’t care what you call it, I made it abundantly clear I was talking about the “oozers.” (as I call them) Clearly I was not confused and Andy was lying to make himself look knowledgeable.
Instead, he made himself look increasingly silly and frankly desperate.