IntelIigent design think tank's "institute" is a Shutterstock image

Dec 18, 2012 Full story: Ars Technica

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories-its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda's Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute's researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting.

Full Story

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1 Dec 19, 2012
HA!

After all the bad press the "Disco 'Tute" heaped upon itself for "The Wedge Document", it appears they have STEPPED IN IT AGAIN!

This is just further proof that they have no regard for honesty, OR actual science!

<<begin cut/paste from the article>>

"As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.

The Discovery Institute is a nonprofit think tank for the advancement of intelligent design theories, but it seems to spend much of its time attacking evolution via videos in which its resident scientists question all matters of, well, science. In the video, senior research scientist Ann Gauger puts the entire model of population genetics on trial.

“The biggest problem with population genetics estimates is the implicit assumption is common descent, and that similarity of [genetic] sequence implies similarity of descent, that they come from a common ancestor," she says. Later, she notes that “it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor."

Presumably, we are meant to let the nice scientist’s words and theories wash over us in the glow of the lab she’s sitting in… except the lighting on her person and the lighting in the lab don’t quite add up. The sequence was pretty obviously green screened, and Panda’s Thumb has the stock image of a biology lab from Shutterstock to prove it. Instant credibility! Or not."

<<end cut/paste>>

(generic biology lab picture here: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-862039/stock-... )

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2 Dec 19, 2012
"As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories..."

Hilarious!

I'm sure our fundie friends will have an explanation for this.

Phony video here:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3 Dec 19, 2012
MikeF wrote:
"As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories..."
Hilarious!
I'm sure our fundie friends will have an explanation for this.
Phony video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7tuZIxDxkxIXX
Oh... my... FSM...

[QUOTE who="Biologist Ann Gauger, Ph.D, Biologic Senior Research Scientist"]"The biggest problem of population genetics estimates is the *assumption*... the *implicit* assumption is common descent. And that similarity of sequence implies similarity of descent - that they come from a common ancestor. You *assume* a tree when that's what you're trying to prove. What if there is no tree? Then what? Are you gonna be able to demonstrate that using your model? Probably not. Because the model says "Let's find the best tree that there is." It doesn't say "Let's rule out the possibility that there is no tree!" [/QUOTE]

THANK YOU ANN GAUGER, PhFRAKKING-DEE!

Of course she seems to have left out the part where we can TEST our evolutionary model, for example by taking DNA samples from her and both her parents and do a comparison.

THEN if it turns out that her DNA is NOT a close match to that of her parents and actually more similar to a cat, or perhaps a cactus, then we CAN finally seriously entertain the possibility that she in fact was NOT the result of common ancestry of both her parents but in fact MAGICALLY POOFED INTO EXISTENCE by the Intelligent Designer's enigmatic "DESIGN process". Uh, whatever the heck that process might be that they propose as they haven't in fact actually proposed it yet. At least not scientifically speaking anyway.

But luckily she's the Bioligic Intsitute's senior "RESEARCH SCIENTIST", meaning that someday soon she just MIGHT be the FIRST PERSON ON THE PLANET EVER to not only falsify evolution but also FINALLY present the "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" of Intelligent Design.

Ya know, that thing they haven't been able to do for the past 20 years since they made it up.

Or 3,000 years, depending on how you look at it.
Ann Gauger wrote:
We're finding more and more as we study more genomes that the trees are *not* coherent. We've got lots of examples of just in common evolutionary story-telling...
Then here comes the bait and switch.
Ann Gauger wrote:
... where you have structures that are similar but DIDN'T come from common ancestry. The biggest example being the octopus eye and the vertebrate eye.
Actually they DID share common ancestry, but much further back but never mind that yet. Yet evolution PREDICTS that the DNA responsible for the vertebrate eye and the octopus eye would likely show the SAME divergence of DNA in Molluscs and vertebrates in general. Which would mean the tree still stands. But note how she switched from talking about similar DNA to similar structures of whole biological organs. Tut tut.

Her answer? Well it's a BIG SECRET! Apparently. It's called homoplasy. Which tends to deal with things like HGT and gene duplications which last time I checked were all part and parcel of the modern evolutionary synthesis. There are also THOUSANDS of papers online that deal with the subject which any member of the public should be able to find, like I did. And on top of all this we STILL didn't get to find out what "scientific alternative" the DI were proposing. But then, what would one expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between population genetics and phylogenetics?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/12/if-th...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Dec 19, 2012
So apparently looking at similar DNA structures alone isn't enough hence common ancestry can be questioned which of course leads to the distinct possibility that Goddidit, by poofing organisms into existence independently, by some so far undisclosed "scientific mechanism", of which there should presumably be some evidence. She may well have the DNA of a cactus after all.

And never mind that it's not just DNA alone but also retroviral markers, comparative anatomy, and nested hierarchies consistent across ALL these. Oh, and the fact that common ancestry has been tested.

So (with the exception of those of us who were magically poofed into existence) we inherit the DNA of our parents, the other great apes do the same, as do cats, dogs, dolphins, meese, platypi... well let's just say there's a whole lot of stuff anyway. But when calculating common ancestry backwards at some point they all come to some kind of artificial stop (which is apparently invisible when looking at the genetics alone for some reason) ergo some "magic barrier" is preventing all life from being related via common ancestry.

So either God was worried about the potential existence of Centaurs.

Or she's a reality-denying YEC. Who wants oh so very much to be taken seriously.

.

I found her expression all the way through the video to be amusing. Kinda like a "I'M BLLSHTTING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THE LARGEST FRAKKING VIDEO WEBSITE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET AND I KNOW IT!!!" look. She understandably looked somewhat uncomfortable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Chilli J 121,128
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr The Dude 721
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 2 hr woodtick57 383
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr MikeF 138,204
Darwin on the rocks 6 hr Dogen 373
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE