Another scoop for Sneer Review
Ever since Darwin included his famous ‘Tree of Life’ picture as the sole illustration in 1859’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ the image of branches of speciation originating from a common ancestor has been perhaps the single most important icon of the entire field of evolutionary science. The concept, devised by
Darwins first tree of life sketch, 1837
In the absence of empirical data that firmly connected the branches however, much of the order remained speculative. While the subsequent development of radiometric dating methodologies provided some degree of temporal resolution all relationships remained tentative and without firm empirical basis until the advent of the genomic revolution in the latter years of the 20th century when Watson and Crick’s famous discovery of the DNA double helix and the elucidation of the genetic code formed the foundation for the development of the entire field of bioinformatics.
The use of the order of primary sequence of the subunits of biological polymers – DNA, RNA or protein – to determine the evolutionary relationship between different species, termed phylogenetic analysis, was derived from earlier techniques of textual analysis developed to study historical manuscripts. Just as the identification of textual alterations, spelling changes and grammatical errors was utilized to determine the history and relationship between the earliest copies of well known texts, similar approaches applied to biological sequences allowed for the assembly of a ‘tree’ of relationship based on sequence similarity in different species.
While the Intelligent Design approach of prioritizing theological rather than biological evidence has been successful in the mass media, this approach has unfortunately allowed non-theological ‘materialistic science’ based researchers to make bioinformatics an virtual preserve of the Darwinian mindset, with the techniques of phylogenetic analysis being exclusively utilized by researchers firmly based in the pro-evolution camp. As a result every phylogenetic tree published, almost without exception, has annoyingly replicated the relationships deduced from the fossil record.
While not publicly admitting shortcomings in the Intelligent Design argument, privately many of us admit to have gotten weary of our standard tactic when faced with numerous questions regarding nucleotide conservation, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral sequences and chromosomal rearrangements. Saying “What’s that over there?” while pointing to a spot over the questioners left shoulder - and then quickly running away when he or she turns to look, is, while not without its charm and utility, hardly a long term strategy that inspires the greatest confidence.
Design Molecular Genetics
With that in mind the
The division aims to provide independent empirical evidence regarding evolutionary sequence conservation from a design viewpoint, finally allowing the human genomic sequence to be analysed in its proper context – as a code written by the designer Himself.
After multiple advertisements in bible colleges and theological seminaries throughout the nation unfortunately failed to attract a suitably qualified molecular geneticist for the post of director we instead turned to a collaborative venture with the computer science department of one of the nations most efficient and well-respected information providers – Conservapedia.
Using the ‘infinite number of chimpanzees and infinite number of typewriters’ algorithm, known to be powerful enough to reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare, we were soon able to complete the first design hypothesis phylogenetic tree (although funding being somewhat limited at present the computing power was limited to one afternoon with two homeschoolers with a Windows 2000 workstation).
The Conservapedia Algorithm in action
While all phylogenetic trees, to date, have been constructed using pairwise comparison of DNA, RNA or protein, the crucial breakthrough came with the realization that Darwinist bioinformaticians had been unfairly biasing their results by only comparing individual types of biomolecules to each other, such as DNA to DNA or protein to protein. When DNA is compared to mRNA the phylogeny begins to look very shaky indeed and including protein in the same analysis amazingly brings the whole tree crashing down.
For instance, while Darwinian molecular geneticists claims that human and chimpanzee sequence is up to 98% similar we now show that ‘design phylogenetic analysis’ of human ubiquitin sequence – supposedly the most highly conserved protein, reveals it to be more similar to yeast protein than to chimpanzee DNA!
This groundbreaking analysis, extended over many branches of the animal and plant kingdom, unsurprisingly reveals no evidence of common descent and finally uncovers the ugly fallacy of the ‘tree of life’ hypothesis.
Design Phylogenetic tree of Ubiquitin
In addition to destroying the tree of life, analysis of human genetic sequence from a design viewpoint has allowed us to make several crucial findings, the most important of which is the ‘biblical genetic code’ – the amazing discovery that messages from the God are encoded within the nucleotide sequence of humans.
Already we have discovered both the first and last words uttered by Jesus (GA-GA and AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGG, respectively), his favourite animal (CAT) and his seating position relative to the right hand of the Lord (AT).
The Establishment Begins to Worry
“You cannot just make up stuff like this and claim its just as good as proper science” he said, “either you accept properly conducted scientific enquiry as the only reliable source of empirical evidence or you open the door to all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense”.
The head of the genome project, Francis Collins, is expected to make a statement later this week after returning from an evangelical service held to mark the Feast of the Ascension, the holy day marking the occasion when Jesus, the son of God, flew bodily up to heaven, forty days after coming back from the dead.