@DivinelyDesined This is one of the most persistent misunderstandings in the ID community, and it gets the history, the science, and the predictions exactly backwards.

It's almost like creationists are morons.

Let's unwrap the bullshit:
1/x @DivinelyDesined "Junk DNA" was never a core evolutionary prediction. The term was coined by Susumu Ohno in 1972 and was always informal. Evolutionary theory actually predicts that some non-coding DNA will acquire function over time — that's literally how new regulatory elements,
2/x

@DivinelyDesined Point 7: It's funny how science is always on the side of evolution while creationists are WRONG and lie all the time.

"If a gene was duplicated randomly, without a purpose, it has much more potential to cause harm than to do nothing" — this is empirically false.
1/x @DivinelyDesined Lynch & Conery (2000, Science) analysed complete genome data across multiple eukaryotic species and found gene duplication occurs at a rate of roughly 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicates are indeed lost — but a significant fraction (~15-30%) are retained,
2/x

@DivinelyDesined What a load of ignorant fucking nonsense. you got all of this from the "Discovery Institute", and it is lies and deception designed to make sure religious dumb-dumbs don't question the bible.

Let's dissect the stupid nonsense:
🧵1/x @DivinelyDesined Gauger and Axe are not neutral researchers. Both are affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which was funded by the Discovery Institute — the primary institutional advocate for intelligent design. Axe's career has been largely dedicated to arguing proteins can't evolve.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined Let's dissect your nonsense and once again clear the muddy waters you stir up.

One at a a time:

"Novel complex systems have never been observed arising" — this depends entirely on how you define "novel," which you'll conveniently shift every time an example is presented.
🧵1/x @DivinelyDesined But here are some that are hard to dismiss:

The de novo evolution of a multi-protein citrate metabolism system in Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEP). E. coli cannot metabolise citrate aerobically — that's so fundamental it's literally used as a diagnostic
2/x

@DivinelyDesined This is the argument from analogy, and it fails for a well-known reason: biology is precisely the domain where we do have a demonstrated alternative mechanism. That's what makes it the exception.
1/x @DivinelyDesined In "all human experience," we also never see complex organisms arise from an intelligence sitting down and assembling them molecule by molecule. What we do observe, in real time, is selection acting on variation — antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria,
2/x

@DivinelyDesined @TherionWare @TherionWare Therion Ware's critique was solid.

The response from Divinely Dumb makes several fundamental errors:

A. "Parallel mutations don't help because of reproductive limits"

This completely misses the point about neutral theory.
1/x @DivinelyDesined @TherionWare Neutral mutations don't need to "spread" through reproductive advantage — they drift stochastically. The rate of neutral substitution equals the per-individual mutation rate (Kimura 1968), independent of population size or reproductive limits.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined You posted a strawman of how evolutionary evidence actually works. Obviously since you NEVER have anything valid to show.

Nobody claims "arranging things by similarity" proves evolution. That would be circular. The actual evidence is:
1/x @DivinelyDesined Nested genetic hierarchies — DNA doesn't just show similarity, it shows patterns of shared errors.

Pseudogenes broken in identical ways. ERVs (viral fossils) inserted at the same loci.

Chromosome 2 fusion with telomeric DNA in the middle.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined Sure did. What you wrote is stupid and ignorant.

Let's unwrap the dumb nonsense:

"No evolutionary pathway for photosensitivity"
Opsins (light-sensitive proteins) belong to the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) family — one of the largest, most ancient protein families.
1/x @DivinelyDesined They didn't appear from nothing; they evolved from existing signalling receptors. Retinal (the light-capturing molecule) is just a vitamin A derivative that changes shape when hit by photons. Photosensitivity is chemically easy, which is why it evolved so many times.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined Oh man, you're so bad at this.
The Lego analogy backfires spectacularly!

Regulatory DNA is ALSO highly similar:

The claim: "Protein-coding DNA is similar, but regulatory instructions are vastly different."

1/x @DivinelyDesined The reality: Human-chimp regulatory regions are ~96% identical. The "instructional booklet" almost the same.
- Protein-coding: ~99% similar
- Regulatory regions: ~96% similar
- Overall genome: ~95-96% similar
The argument assumes vast regulatory differences that don't exist.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined You describe modern eukaryotic cells, then fallaciously assumes the first cells needed all this. They did not.

Prokaryotes don't have nuclear pores:

Bacteria and archaea, the oldest life forms, have no nucleus. No NPC. No nuclear membrane. They're alive, they function,
1/x @DivinelyDesined they've existed for ~4 billion years.

The NPC evolved LATER in eukaryotes. It's not required for life. Your "must exist from the beginning" claim is falsified by most life on Earth.
2/x