Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • This is a response to PPSimmons' video, "OOPS! Even MORE Evidence for Intelligent Design!".

  • So, Carl, it's been a long time, and while they say that absence makes the heart grow

  • fonder, I'm afraid that in your case that particular aphorism has been found somewhat

  • wanting. As you might be aware, my last video was addressed

  • at your odious lickspittle, Mike "Pisspants" Shoesmith, and that repulsive skid-mark on

  • the face of Christianity, Richard "Cockshite" Garcia. You may also have heard that while

  • I was rogering them roughly with their own stupidity I did admit to having grown weary

  • of the Sisyphean task of shoveling you and your fellow thought-averse bumpkins' malodorous

  • thought processes up a seemingly endless hill. Thus when your toadies somewhat predictably

  • decided to ignore my perfectly reasonable counter to the conditions of their "debate

  • challenge", and instead tucked their tails between their legs and fucked off as expeditiously

  • as possible, I was afforded the opportunity to take a well-earned sabbatical from creationist

  • rectal stuffing, put my feet up, and recharge my batteries.

  • Having done so, the time has now come to pull on my wellies again, roll up my sleeves, and

  • step once more unto the breach -- although it's likely that in the future the frequency

  • of my ignoramus reamage will probably be considerably reduced. To mark this occasion, it therefore

  • seemed most fitting that I select as a target, from the unending flotsam-strewn strand that

  • is creationist dumb-fuckery, a turd that had been jettisoned by the SS Carl Bollox herself.

  • So imagine my delight as I strolled along that fetid shore and came across a this wonderful

  • nugget you'd taken the time to anally express, and that splatted dab-smack in the middle

  • of my area of expertise, that is -- protein chemistry.

  • As usual, though, it seems that you and the terminally confused simians at the PPSimmons

  • channel were unable to come up with anything to say for yourselves, and instead resorted

  • to dredging up a noxious screed by a Mr. Brian Thomas from the Institute of Creation Research

  • -- one that was originally excreted almost two years ago -- thereby demonstrating how

  • close you and your spunk-monkeys are to the cutting edge of "creation research".

  • So without further ado, Carl, let's get back into the swing. I'd like to ask my subscribers

  • to reach for the nearest waterproof receptacle, and you to assume the usual position, as I

  • play the first clip. "The article explains, according to evolutionary

  • theory chemicals must have somehow organized themselves into cellular life, presumably

  • billions of years ago, and that means that enzymes must have formed themselves too."

  • As you and Mr. Thomas are well aware, Carl, the formation of the first replicating polymers

  • and primitive cellular systems is the bailiwick of a field of study named abiogenesis. I know

  • you know this because I've previously taken the time to insert this particular threadbare

  • canard, beak-first, up your back-passage, while I contend that Mr. Thomas must have

  • come across this tidbit at least once during his biological studies, unless of course he

  • was too busy condemning people in the name of Jesus to have paid any attention in class.

  • Regardless of whether or not the appearance of the first primitive life forms occurred

  • via the action of natural processes or at the whim of an inscrutable cosmic enchanter,

  • the fact remains that an insurmountable edifice of empirical evidence indicates that it occurred

  • almost four-billion years ago and was followed by continuous diversification ever since via

  • an elegant bifurcating process of imperfect reproduction and natural selection.

  • In either case, Carl, this same evidence fucks up the arse the cherished fables you and Mr.

  • Thomas cling to like scared children at the back of the short bus, and your repeated and

  • repugnant dishonesty in trying to paint established science with the uncertainties inherent in

  • emerging science is both deplorably shameful and a testament to how desperate you are,

  • and how low you'll stoop to attempt to buoy your inexorably sinking belief system.

  • "Enzymes, though, appear to be highly engineered, miniaturized machines. Heh. Even intelligent

  • human scientists, armed with the most sophisticated technology, have never been able to reproduce

  • the design and manufacture of a single enzyme. So, logically, neither can unintelligent chemicals,

  • or the laws that govern them, manufacture themselves."

  • What a crock of shit, Carl. I have to admit, though, to being somewhat impressed at the

  • depths of stupidity and ignorance that you and Mr. Thomas have plunged to with this segment.

  • In fact, if you try just a little harder you might well manage to disappear up each other's

  • arses. Firstly I'll point out your egregious non-sequitur

  • because I was amused by your use of the word "logically", when in fact it's evident that

  • you and Mr. Thomas wouldn't know what logic was if Mr. Spock himself strapped it on and

  • used it to vigorously shag seven shades of shit out of you. Because it seems that by

  • your own reasoning I could equally legitimately argue that our inability, as a sapient species,

  • to produce a delectable pair of mam-a-licious honkers using a bag of balloons and a packet

  • of Jell-O must therefore mean that they also cannot be produced by unintelligent cells,

  • and that therefore all humungous whumba-jumbas are the result of the jug-related ju-ju of

  • an invisible pervert in the sky. Of course your logic also fails because of

  • the question you're begging harder than an evangelist with an empty collection plate

  • and an large unpaid hooker's bill. That is, of course, your unwarranted assumption that

  • intelligence is an absolute requirement for the generation of protein complexity, while

  • completely ignoring that we have no a priori reason to make that assumption and a mountain

  • of a posteriori knowledge indicating that's it's just a pile steaming poo.

  • But pretzel logic aside, Carl, your and Mr. Thomas' argument fails even harder than an

  • abstinence only program because he appears to be unaware that directed in vitro protein

  • evolution is an established and successful area of research, to such a degree that companies

  • are producing patents, selling kits and even offering contract services in this area. The

  • fact that Mr. Thomas appears oblivious to all this speaks volumes to either his abject

  • ineptitude in the field on which he has chosen to defecate, or his unfortunate cerebral impairment,

  • or to the magnitude of the lies he's willing to tell to defend your impotent god. Of course

  • he is a creationist, so all three may well apply.

  • Not only did Mr. Thomas ignore a vast swathe of research as though it doesn't exist, but

  • this intensive work which, incidentally, was carried out by highly intelligent and educated

  • individuals dedicated to the discovery of new knowledge, and not by arrogant, worthless

  • wank-stains dedicated to destroying it, has culminated in the production of novel enzyme

  • activities from previously non-functional sequences.

  • Thus not only is Mr. Thomas demonstrably wrong on this point of fact, it so happens that

  • these feats of protein engineering were achieved by the very same processes of random mutagenesis

  • and functional selection that he asserts could not possibly produce them. This, coupled to

  • his eagerness to jump into this ill-considered line of argumentation as eagerly as a priest

  • volunteering to conduct a public louse inspection after choir practice has, unfortunately for

  • both of you, done nothing but ream your own god vigorously up his celestial bunghole.

  • You see, Carl, with the evidence I've presented in hand, and the evidence of the sudden poofing-into-existence

  • of functional enzymes out of nothing distinctly not in hand, our observations of the real

  • world tell us that the only known way enzymes are formed is via a mixture of stochastic

  • and targeted naturalistic processes and not by the methodical design and manufacture by

  • intelligent agents, be they transcendental or otherwise. Thus it seems that the score

  • that indicates enzymes were formed naturally has increased by one, while the score for

  • them having been created capriciously by the judicious use of pixie dust remains what it's

  • always been -- that is, absolutely bugger all.

  • "The title of a recent scientific report asserted that a particular enzyme evolved. It was in

  • Nature magazine. The title of the report was 'Evolution of a New Enzyme'. The study results,

  • however, clearly demonstrate that this enzyme could not have evolved and was purposefully

  • created." I felt the need to comment here because Nature

  • is arguably the world's most prestigious journal and publishes research from the very cutting

  • edge of all aspects of science. It's therefore mind-boggling to see that Mr. Thomas apparently

  • feels that his Masters degree and utter lack of research experience has equipped him to

  • publically defecate over its contents. While I've been labeled as arrogant on a number

  • of occasions for opining on areas in which I have been extensively educated, at least

  • I possess sufficient humility to restrict my bloviation to such areas. One can only

  • begin to imagine the enormity of the bloated and self-satisfied ego that gives a mediocre

  • simpleton like Mr. Thomas the temerity to feel that he knows better than those who have

  • proved themselves where he most definitely has not, and whose buttock sweat he's unfit

  • to mop-up with his tongue. Now of course, lack of training and qualifications

  • does not per se mean that his arguments are erroneous, and it may be that Mr. Thomas is

  • an unsung extraordinary genius possessed with insights that have somehow escaped the authors

  • of this paper, who have dedicated their lives to studying this particular specialized field

  • of science, not to mention the similarly expert reviewers that accepted the manuscript.

  • However, based on what I've already presented, I would posit that this possibility is somewhat

  • remote, and furthermore I will, in due course, be providing additional demonstrable evidence

  • he is, in fact, nothing of the sort, but rather a jumped up little fucktard with delusions

  • of his own competence. "The investigators compared the three-dimensional

  • structures of similarly shaped enzymes that are found in different species of bacteria.

  • The studies confirmed that the core structure of the CS2 hydrolase, like that of similar

  • enzymes, is critical. The scientists wrote in Nature, quote: 'Any change in this area

  • of the enzyme adversely affected protein activity.' On the one hand, evolution's story requires

  • that at some point in time something altered what would become the enzyme core. And not

  • only once, but again and again as each structural piece evolved into place over eons of time.

  • On the other hand science observably demonstrates that altering the enzyme core in the slightest

  • way is impossible without making the whole structure useless."

  • Any biochemistry undergraduate knows that mutations at or near an active site are much

  • more likely to be deleterious than those at the enzyme periphery, where structural changes

  • are less likely to propagate into alterations in active site geometry. Furthermore, most

  • changes to residues involved in the actual catalytic mechanism, or ones that sterically

  • interfere with substrate accessibility, are also more likely to be deleterious. Unfortunately

  • for you Carl, Mr. Thomas has yet to demonstrate that he has more than an undergraduate level

  • understanding of this subject, and in fact from what he's demonstrated so far it appears

  • he's operating at, or below, an "F". You'll notice that I used the word "most"

  • when I mentioned active site mutations, whereas your Muppet used the somewhat more ambitious

  • (and as it turns out entirely unwarranted) word, "all". You see, Carl, if Mr. Thomas

  • had paid more attention in class, or perhaps attended some more prestigious institutions

  • than the Texas backwaters he's familiar with, he might have discovered that a whole multi-billion-dollar

  • industry has arisen around the production of industrial enzymes with artificially enhanced

  • activity, stability or selectivity. Since I've had the benefit of an education

  • that he's unfortunately apparently been deprived of, I was aware of this fact, but rather than

  • citing work that could easily fill a library I'll instead give you this excellent review

  • that provides over 50 examples of such improvements. And while not all of these mutations are to

  • the active site, it look me less than a minute to find this example of a 50% increase in

  • the specificity of protease BYA via an active site mutation. Thus Mr. Thomas' claim that

  • evolution by stepwise improvements in the active site is impossible is immediately rendered

  • as impotent as an apologist hooked up to a lie detector, and can be summarily rammed

  • up his jacksie by anyone who cares to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Thomas is also operating

  • under the same cognitive dysfunction as most of his fellow creationists, who apparently

  • cannot conceive of the concept that early enzymes were most likely nowhere near as efficient

  • as their descendants. Early enzymes therefore explored a much flatter fitness landscape

  • as they evolved, and had many more favorable mutations available to them than to their

  • much more specialized modern counterparts. Thus when Mr. Thomas delightedly proclaims

  • that active site mutations cannot have resulted in evolution in early enzymes because they

  • are generally detrimental in extant ones, he is committing an egregious category error

  • and might as well be comparing Kate Moss' tits with Pamela Anderson's. Of course the

  • average creationist, and Mr. Thomas is rapidly proving himself to be very average, wouldn't

  • recognize a logical fallacy even it kicked him repeatedly in the balls with a steel-tipped

  • winkle-picker, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that this eluded him -- or you, for that matter,

  • Carl. Now, getting back to the paper in question

  • here, what Mr. Thomas has neglected to mention is that only five active site mutations were

  • generated by the authors and that in reality, both real evolutionary processes and human

  • protein engineers explore vast fitness landscapes by generating millions of mutants to produce

  • the rare changes that improve activity. Perhaps even more egregiously, Mr. Thomas also fails

  • to point out that three other mutations generated by the group actually doubled the enzyme's

  • efficiency, and while these weren't in the active site it does seem that revealing their

  • existence would have compromised the story he was so assiduously peddling.

  • With this kind of selective data mining, therefore, I would suggest that everyone ask themselves

  • whether these are the actions of an individual truly engaging in an honest and unbiased assessment

  • of a piece of scientific research, or those of a despicably dishonest and vile streak

  • of shit who's interested only in pushing his own agenda harder than a pedophile with a

  • puppy in a playground. "The researchers found a clue in the DNA that

  • suggested to them an idea as to how the enzyme could have evolved. They said the DNA that

  • codes for certain structures within the CS2 hydrolase gene could have, quote, 'jumped'

  • from another bacteria to this one. Perhaps some unknown cellular mechanism, quote, 'stitched

  • it in' -- this little extra bit -- at just the right place among the bacteria's 1.8 million

  • DNA bases. Heh." This "unknown mechanism", as he refers to

  • it, is called transposition and it won Barbara McClintock a Nobel Prize 1983. Again, Mr.

  • Thomas might have been aware of this had he had been listening to his lecturers during

  • class rather than to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on his fucking iPod. Of course, it's

  • equally possible that Mr. Thomas is lying like a Catholic in a confessional again, or

  • that he didn't even read the paper he's violating, because the authors clearly state that the

  • CS2 hydrolase gene is in fact sandwiched by transposable elements.

  • As to why Mr. Thomas places so much emphasis on its exact genomic location, I am at a loss,

  • since it appears that the authors didn't think it to be important enough to mention it at

  • all. I wonder whether he decided to fish this out, whole cloth, from between his buttocks

  • in order to falsely inflate his claim that the existence of anything more complex than

  • his thought processes necessitates the existence of his particular ephemeral Djinn? And even

  • if the insertion site were significant, I think we can safely wager than it would not

  • have occurred to Mr. Thomas that this could be achieved as effectively by millions of

  • random insertion events followed by selection of the appropriate lineage using mundane physical

  • process that have been repeatedly observed and verified, as it could once by the use

  • of a mystic incantation that has never been observed by anybody.

  • "But if that fairy tale story is so, could this process properly be called 'evolution'?

  • Well of course not. If the gene jumped from another bacteria to this one, then it did

  • not evolve because it already existed somewhere else."

  • Well, Carl, it seems that Mr. Thomas hasn't yet come up with that insight that would save

  • him from being labeled an irredeemable simpleton. Did he completely forget about figure 1 in

  • the paper, a cladograms that occupies the best part of a page and shows how the CS2

  • hydrolase is related to modern beta-carbonic anhydrases and so evolved from a common ancestor?

  • Apparently he did, along with the extensive discussion on this topic in the paper. The

  • possibility that CS2 hydrolase in this species may have been acquired by horizontal gene

  • transfer doesn't mean that it magically materialized at the behest of his cosmic tinkerer, just

  • that it evolved elsewhere as demonstrated by the essentially conclusive phylogenetic

  • evidence. Interestingly the paper notes that only some

  • species of order Sulfolobales contain the CS2 hydrolase activity and how this is elegantly

  • explained by its evolution elsewhere and its subsequent transfer into only some members

  • of that clade. This is yet another a striking example of the explanatory power of science

  • in general and evolutionary biology specifically, an example that Mr. Thomas conveniently neglected

  • to mention in his hatchet-job, and which I suspect he would have trouble explaining without

  • arbitrarily referring to the whims and vagaries of an emotionally stunted, pan-dimensional

  • space wizard. "But in order for a lateral gene transfer

  • to even work, in addition to the enzymes themselves, another mechanism had to already exist that

  • could recognize, accept and insert the foreign DNA at just the right place. Only then could

  • it retrofit an enzyme in just the right way to enable the bacterium to live on sulfur."

  • Jumping back to yet another unsubstantiated claim of irreducible complexity, eh Carl?

  • How very predictable of you 'tards. Of course this game could go on ad infinitum, because

  • it's childishly simple for even indomitable cretins like you pick any complex biological

  • process and assert out of your seemingly endless ignorance that it could not possibly have

  • evolved, while it takes a considerable amount of time and effort for someone with intellectual

  • integrity to research the field and produce a considered and well-reference rebuttal to

  • your cranial flatulence. Since I don't have an infinite amount of time at my disposal

  • to chase after this particular white rabbit, and since I think I've demonstrated that anything

  • that Mr. Thomas excretes should be taken with a kilogram of salt, I think we'll move on

  • to the next clip. "Where's the evidence here for evolutionary

  • innovation? Pre-existing DNA, and pre-existing DNA transfer, and pre-existing splicing programs

  • appear to have existed from the beginning. The authors of the article asserted that CS2

  • hydrolase, quote, 'emerged owing to the evolution of a new protein structure',end quote. But

  • this statement ignores the fact that no new DNA actually emerged."

  • Once again, Carl, either Mr. Thomas didn't read the paper, is as monumentally stupid

  • as you are, or is a lying splat of syphilitic jizz who fished this piss-poor excuse for

  • a thought out of the same place that you get all your videos.

  • I'm going to ignore the mind-numbing inanity of you and Mr. Thomas apparently thinking

  • that the acquisition of a new gene and thus a concomitant new and significant physiological

  • function by an organism somehow doesn't count as an evolutionary innovation, presumably

  • because said organism "is still a bacterium" and not a fucking frog. Instead I'll re-iterate

  • what I said earlier. The authors of the paper clearly describe

  • how CS2 hydrolase is phylogenetically related to, and so "emerged" from, an ancestral carbonic

  • anhydrase, and how it differs from that enzyme due to its ability to form a hexadecameric

  • catenane quaternary structure, and also due the presence of a characteristic double phenylalanine

  • motif near its active site that explains its differing substrate specificity. Just because

  • Mr. Thomas decided to ignore these somewhat salient points and instead pontificate on

  • a veritable shoal of red herrings that he pulled effortlessly from the recesses of his

  • lower digestive tract, and just because you were too lazy, uninterested or stupid to fact-check

  • him, Carl, doesn't mean that they were not made. In fact, it seems rather telling that

  • Mr. Thomas chose this subterfuge rather than thinking of refutations for what was actually

  • presented, suggesting perhaps that he was unable to furnish any such refutations and

  • instead decided to bypass his inconvenient clash with reality by lying like a Wall Street

  • banker to a congressional sub-committee. "And the proper placement of the so-called

  • 'transfer DNA', required just the opposite of evolution. It required intelligent, purposeful

  • design." Carl, had you bothered to spend the time to

  • read the actual Nature paper itself, instead of uncritically swallowing Mr. Thomas' excrement

  • and then throwing it all up indiscriminately all over your channel, you would have realized

  • that the "proper placement" he mentioned is nothing but a figment of his fevered imagination.

  • Of course, I expect nothing less from you Carl, because you're an ignorant buffoon with

  • absolutely no interest in discovering whether you're right or wrong, and with no respect

  • for the gifts that have been bestowed upon you by the very people you smugly besmirch

  • with every video you make. People who you feel, in the apparently limitless depths of

  • your conceit, to be your inferiors, and yet who -- to anyone even remotely plugged into

  • reality -- obviously have minds that can be compared to finely tuned, turbocharged Lamborghinis

  • when compared to yours, which is evidently more akin to a clapped out old golf cart with

  • a dead battery, flat tire and a stale piss-stain on the driver's seat.

  • It's because of this that I make no effort to reach you or your kind, Carl, because you've

  • proved time and time again that you don't care one jot for things like reason and beauty

  • and truth -- you're only interested in perpetuating your own beliefs. Beliefs that you cannot

  • and will not question, because they've been handed down to you over hundreds of generations

  • from primitive people who knew nothing of the natural world and so tried their best

  • to explain it with the only tool they had available to them -- their imaginations.

  • And because of this I actually feel a little sorry for you Carl, because you and your fellow

  • creationists are now forced to spend your days holding up a damn that's creaking and

  • groaning against the unstoppable and ever-growing waters of knowledge that science is producing

  • -- a damn that threatens every day to finally burst from the unbearable strain and consume

  • you in the resulting torrent, sweeping you and your like away into the annals of history

  • to be looked at and laughed at by generations to come as nothing more than strange and inscrutable

  • curiosities. Your inflexibility and dour insistence on

  • looking back at the past rather than forward to the future has left you worshiping a woefully

  • small and stunted god -- a god of limited vision and simplistic motivations, a pitiful

  • god that grows smaller everyday just as we grow more enlightened.

  • And yet it needn't be so, Carl. Instead you could be like the countless enlightened theists

  • the world over, Christians included, who have opened their eyes to the grandeur of this

  • reality. Who have gazed at the Comsos in wonder and realized that their god is so much more

  • magnificent that their ancestors could ever have imagined. They worship a god that created

  • an unfathomably vast Universe that has coalesced slowly over billions of years from nothing

  • but pure energy, to one that is the home of exquisite galaxies teeming with stars around

  • which silently move planets containing wonders as yet unimagined and unimaginable. They worship

  • a god that created at least one place, and possibly many, many more, where life could

  • grasp a first tentative foothold, a god that put into motion an exquisitely simple yet

  • elegant set of rules that allowed it to diversify over countless millennia to produce an ever-changing

  • kaleidoscope of wonder of beauty. A kaleidoscope that continues to slowly turn to this day

  • and from which endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being

  • evolved. But instead of grasping eagerly at this new

  • vision of reality, Carl -- a vision, hard won, that's been carved out of the granite

  • of our ignorance by those you choose to slander and defame at every opportunity -- instead

  • of embracing it and all the positive implications it has about the god you claim to worship,

  • you and you kind choose to demean that god by labeling it as a petty conjurer that creates

  • using mud and tawdry parlor tricks. As you know I'm not a religious man, Carl, but if

  • it happened that we lived in a Universe where both of these gods existed, I know which one

  • I'd be worshiping.

This is a response to PPSimmons' video, "OOPS! Even MORE Evidence for Intelligent Design!".

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it