Discovery Institute upset that Darwin didn't have a Crystal Ball

I came across this phrase on a recent pot at the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and View "Life Continues to Ignore What Evolution Experts Say" and it made me do a little thinking.  I have previously said that the DI seems to live in a time bubble ("Sorry Darwin, it isn't your Evolution anymore? Are you kidding?") and have tried to narrow any arguments about evolution to about 1861 when Darwin originally published.  This article is a prime example.  Look at the author's continual use of the phrases 'Darwinian' and 'Non-Darwinian'.  Since she is speaking of parts of Evolution that also weren't covered by Stephen Jay Gould, why isn't she calling is 'Non-Gouldian Biology'? 

Since 1861 there have been many changes to the Theory of Evolution (TOE).  Often I've tried to remind people that the TOE isn't a single theory, but a large collection of theories, including (but not limited to) Natural Selection, Mutation, Gene Drift, Punctuated Equilibrium . . ..  Each theory brings clarity to the whole.  Biology includes the TOE, of which part is Natural Selection.

At no time do real scientists equate all of biology to just what Darwin contributed, not even any 'lay hearers' (see the quote below) who stayed awake in Jr High Biology class.  So Denyse builds a straw-man about contemporary biological knowledge and then seeks to demolish it.  In no way does that diminishes Darwin's contributions, but it shows that DI arguments always seemed to be aimed at Darwin, regardless of whether or not the critique is applicable.  Here is an example:

"One motif recurs: Darwinian evolution -- which most lay hearers assume to be "evolution" period -- assumes that evolution is vertical: Organisms take their form from genes inherited with slight modifications from their ancestors through their parents. And these slight changes add up gradually over time to immense and profound changes.
Non-Darwinian biology studies mechanisms for evolution that don't really work that way, including horizontal gene transfer and epigenetic change."

So, Denyse is complaining that in 1861 Darwin didn't foresee horizontal gene transfer or epigenetic change.  Does Denyse, in her apparently finite wisdom, remark that genetics started small with a paper that came out 4 years after Darwin published?  Did she completely ignore that the work of Gregor Mendel had been set aside and not re-discovered until the early 20th century?  I'm a little surprised that she isn't also complaining that Darwin didn't know the structure of DNA (1953).  Instead she picks on gene transfer (1968) and epigenetics (1942).  (Note: both gene transfer and epigenetics are older than that, but those years relate to the work Denyse is talking about and the impact on modern biology) See what I mean?  Biology has changed greatly in the last century and a half, but the DI is still whining about Darwin, what Darwin did, and especially what Darwin didn't know.  I guess she expects Darwin to have had a crystal ball?  She, and her bosses, can't seem to join the rest of us in the 21st century without finding some way to take a dig at Darwin.  Childish, isn't it?

In the real world, no one studies 'Darwinian' Biology, or 'Darwinian' Evolution, it's Biology and Evolution.  They keep making this artificial distinction just so they can take cheap shots.  Darwin's work is a part of the whole, an important part to be sure, not one that should be trivialized like this.  What I find funny is that who is doing all this work on gene transfer and epigenetics?  Those fellows at the DI?  No, it's real scientists doing actual science, not armchair Creationists who keep trying to market that they aren't Creationists!  All the DI can do is try and put an anti-science spin on everything they touch.

The Discovery Institute and Basic Math

I know, I haven't been around much. Work has been more than a little too busy. But I have been reading and trying to keep up. Well this little one popped up and I can't resist. So here goes:

What caught my eye was a post over on the so-called DI news site: "Fewer Mutations Means More Time". Since I always thought that the DI argued about any possible beneficial mutation, but maybe I was wrong on that count. I know they have frequently tried to play the odds argument, that is how the odds are much to long for any mutation to form a useful characteristic. Well anyway, this post links over to a new study Nature Genetics that says there might be fewer mutations between human generations than previously thought. So how does the DI spin it?

Here is the paragraph that just cracked me up:

There's another issue that has not been fully addressed. These 60 mutations per generation are very few mutations for natural selection to work with. But humans have a very long generational time. And finally the authors reported that most of these mutations, particularly in the family with the higher mutation rate, occur in the non-coding part of the DNA. Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function. The question is, is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to produce novel body plans?

The way this reads is that there are ONLY 60 mutations per generation -- human generations. Doesn't the study say 30-60 per individual? So we have millions of children born each day -- each one of them with between 30 and 60 mutations from their parents. Why are these too few for Natural Selection to work with? We are talking about millions of mutations every single day! It's not like all the kids born on the same day have identical mutations, or that all the kids in a generation all have the same set of mutations. This looks like . . . well to me . . . that the DI is doing a little numeric sleight-of-hand and making it sound much different than it really is.

The other part that I find funny is how closely the DI tries to tie the study to what they claim about mutations. Here, read these lines again:

"And finally the authors reported that most of these mutations, particularly in the family with the higher mutation rate, occur in the non-coding part of the DNA. Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function." (I added the emphasis)

Who knows this? Isn't this claim that the DI has often repeated, but never substantiated. I recall posted by Olivia Judson discussing mutations and I believe the majority of mutations were benign when it comes to Natural Selection, that is they do not offer an advantage or disadvantage in survival or reproductive opportunity. So it appears the DI is pushing their own unsubstantiated ideas as if they were factual -- in other words typical DI behavior.