Re: Evolution Stinks
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
26 Aug 1996 10:45:02 -0600
In article <4vafth$nh5@daffy.sb.west.net>,
Jolly Griggs <jollyf@west.net> wrote:
>I am giving a $10,000 prize to anyone who can give me proof that
>evolution is true, see the site below for full details.
>http://www.west.net/~jollyf
Dan Larhammar, medical geneticist, recently responded to what he and
others describe as the "only report in an established scientific journal
that has claimed molecular data against evolution in modern times," a
research paper by Dmitrii Kyznetsov, a molecular biologist in Moscow, Russia.
(Kuznetsov's paper was published in the International Journal of
Neuroscience (1989, 49:43-59) and Larhammar's reply appeared in the same
journal, 1994, 77:199-201.)
Kuznetsov claimed that messenger RNA from timber vole brain tissue
provided evidence *against* evolution--the only molecular evidence that
neo-Darwinian theory is in error to ever be reported, to my knowledge.
Basically, he claimed his study of mRNA from 3 species of voles revealed
the presence of a cytoplasmic blocking factor which didn't allow one
species' mRNA to produce protein in another of the studied species.
He called this substance an "antievolutionary factor" that serves to
maintain the constancy of species (prevent hybridization, I guess).
This is a weak argument indeed, since evolutionary theory does not
exclude the possibility of such "evolutionary black holes" or
phylogenetic dead-ends. Nevertheless, since it's the only molecular
evidence that supports any criticism of evolutionary theory, it warrants
attention.
And attention it got. Dan Larhammar reviewed the piece and came away
with several serious criticisms. The most serious of these include
fraud: the Russian made up references and journals to support assumptions
in his study. Some of the authors cited were unaware of papers Kuznetsov
had attributed to them.
Just as disturbing was the fact that his tables include numerical results
indicating experimental precision beyond any published estimates of accuracy
for such molecular assays. This, too, smacks of fabrication by Kuznetsov.
So, to sum up, the only recent evidence that evolutionary theory is less
robust than the scientific community believes was most probably faked.
What would Kuznetsov's motive have been? He asserts that his findings
support "the general creationist concept" of the origins of life. I
posit that the man is a creationist, and like all "scientific"
creationists, knew what he wanted to find before he "found" it.
Bryant
|