Tag: evolution

Mike Williams is too real smart

Mike Williams responds, sort of, although in his response, self-referentially entitled “The Fail, It Burns“, he doesn’t actually answer any of the six questions I posed to him:

“Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don’t appear to realize
that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are
smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you
are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by
the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.”

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read this week. Thanks.

I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have. that is not a compliment.

~~~

So, first, by what metric does he assume, after one email exchange
and a couple of comments that there are a “number of people” there who
are smarter than me?

It’s certainly not impossible, but per standardized testing, the odds
are 99.8% in my favor.  That is a mathematical extraction based on my
tested IQ.  So unless his blog is a haven for pure geniuses, it seems
unlikely.  Nor have I seen much demonstration of any hard scientific
knowledge among his supporters.  Though to be fair, I haven’t read much
of his blog and don’t plan to.

By what metric?  By simple observation. I’ve read his blog. I’ve followed his trains of thought. He’s observably not as smart as I am.  Anyone who reads this exchange can’t help but reach that conclusion. And there are dozens of people who read this blog who are every bit as intelligent as I am and more.  But we don’t even need that metric any longer, as the odds may have been 99.8% in his favor, but he crapped out nevertheless.  As for his claim to not have seen much demonstration of any hard scientific knowledge among the readers here, there was, among other things, a physics PhD and several other individuals who happen to possess advanced hard science degrees whose questions he ignored.  And notice that he thinks the idea that Darwin is dangerous is my idea….

With all due respect, Mr. Williamson badly underestimated me and the readers of VP, most likely because he is a science fetishist who is, like most  science fetishists, unthinkingly bigoted against Creationists.  Based on his admittedly impressive standardized test scores, which indicate an IQ in the +3 SD range, there are still dozens of people here smarter than he is.  There are at least three, to my certain knowledge, who are +5 SD.  Unlike most blogs, a mere +3SD isn’t even enough make one a big dog here.

Given that most of the interest there is in unquantifiable local
social issues, devoid of cites or analysis, it’s untestable, but my
perception is his belief is incorrect.  There’s a lot of opinion
there–some little of which I concur with–but a lot of BS, including
the obsession with myth (Creationism) over science.  It even repeats the
“Evolution is losing support among scientists!” bleat that’s been
around since…Darwin.  Yet every year we have better information,
better ability to define what we’re looking at, and better ability to
predict what we don’t see.  That’s called “Science.”  He even cutely
entitles his response to me, “rhetoric is not science.”  Indeed.  His
rhetoric is not science. 

No, my rhetoric isn’t science.  I have never claimed that it is.  More to the point, Mr. Williamson’s rhetoric isn’t science either and rhetoric, unoriginal rhetoric at that, is all he has offered.  He hasn’t even attempted to engage in dialectical discourse, let alone cited any scientific evidence for anything at all.

Second, he seems unaware that for Darwin to be challenged is a
POSITIVE thing for science.  It means we’ve refined the theory and have
improved precision. Much like the Earth went from spherical to oblate
to precisely delineated, and we are now working on equations to explain
orogenous upthrust (which isn’t as sexy as it sounds). 

Unaware?  I’ve repeatedly stated that in order to advance, genetic science will not only HAVE to challenge Darwin, but abandon him entirely.  Of course, he wouldn’t know that, since by his own admission, he hasn’t read much of my blog.  See, Mr. Williamson, this is why I know I am smarter than you are.  I wouldn’t ever make such a foolish and easily disproven assertion.  I’m smart enough to check first.

Third, it doesn’t matter how smart or educated either of us is. Facts
are facts.  Extrapolations are extrapolations.  And mythic fantasy is
mythic fantasy, even when called “religion.”  It is untestable,
unprovable, and not scientific.  There’s also an implied assumption that
the scientists working in genetics aren’t as smart as…a blogger.
 Which again, is not impossible, but is irrelevant.

True.  Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. Opinions are irrelevant. But he is absolutely wrong to say that religion is untestable, unprovable, and not scientific.  There are no shortage of testable hypotheses that can be generated from various religions, including Christianity.  Christianity, at the very least, is falsifiable. His inability to recognize this is not a testament to his intelligence.  Moreover, by his own metric, which is to say untestability, he surely must recognize that evolution by natural selection is untestable at present.

He knows nothing about me other than our two emails and a couple of
comments.  But he knows I’m not as smart as he because I “believe”
different things.  In point of fact, I believe very little.  I observe.
 If there is no conclusion to be reached, I delay judgment until there
is. 

 No, I know he’s not as smart as I am because he takes foolish and easily disproven positions, such as “[Creationists] pose a serious threat to society.”  I repeat my question: How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

Fourth, it’s entirely possible to disagree with the modern American
left, while being just as idiotic, prejudiced and intellectually
dishonest as its worst practitioners…which he ably demonstrates
(forex, constantly calling Scalzi “McRapey,” apparently completely
missing the point of one of John’s blogs that I do agree with), despite
his ability to solve the softball pre-algebra question I tossed at him.
 During the Spanish Civil War, the Fascists and the Communists were
diametrically opposed, yet largely indistinguishable.  Or in a
non-Godwin sense, pick European peasants forced to choose between Viking
raiders or the Franks.

Intellectually dishonest? From the gentleman who hasn’t answered a single question posed to him because his feelings are bruised over the fact that he is less intelligent than I am, and than dozens of my readers are?  I find it vastly amusing that so many people claim that I am incapable of recognizing satire in the process of failing to recognize a superior form of it themselves.  Also, and I quote, “John Scalzi is a rapist“.

And Darwin’s (or any) ideas are only “dangerous” to bleating
ideologues. Information falls across a spectrum from factual to
opinion, from useful to not.  A truly smart person analyzes the content
and comes to a conclusion, adapting the conclusions as needed as new
facts are presented.  That, we call “Science.”

First, note that Mr. Williamson doesn’t even recognize the obvious reference to Daniel Dennett’s book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.  Second, no, merely reaching a conclusion and adapting it as needed is not, by any definition, “Science”. By that definition, quarterbacks are scientists.

And despite devoting more than 600 words to his response, Mr. Williamson didn’t manage to answer any of the questions I posed to him.  For someone who calls his blog The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse, Mr. Williamson appears to preserve more than his own fair share of them.  So, I will repeat them.

  1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?
  2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant
    species in the world.  Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion
    years, what is the average rate of speciation?
  3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
  4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
  5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e.
    modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common
    human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
  6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

As for being the anti-Scalzi, compliment or not, I most certainly am. How can you tell?  Because I mentioned Mike.  I responded to him in substantive detail. And I have not banished him from my list of Standout Authors.  Why not?  BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RABBITS!  We can handle differences of opinion.  We can engage in discourse, even vicious, acrimonious discourse, without resorting to attempts to exclude and silence.

Mr. Williamson may not plan to read this blog in the future, but he is always welcome to do so, and to comment here as he sees fit, whether he agrees with me, whether he likes me, and whether he respects me or not. And my opinion of his writing is not dependent upon his view of Creationism or his opinion of me.

    Mailvox: rhetoric is not science

    Michael Z. Williamson takes a page from the true faithful of global warming and Keynesian economics by attempting to defend what is supposed to pass for science with pure rhetoric:

    Watching Creationists criticize evolutionary theory is like watching the Brady Bunch criticize the Heller Decision. It would be cute if they didn’t take themselves so seriously, and pose a serious threat to society.

    What I find amusing about this is that I was an evolutionary skeptic long before I was a Christian.  And one of the primary reasons I was a skeptic is because as absurd as some of the arguments presented by the creationists struck me, no evolutionist ever demonstrated an ability to address the questions posed to them.  Instead, they always – always – attempted to discuss the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand.

    That is why I am still a skeptic concerning the secularism’s epic myth, despite having read every book ever published by Richard Dawkins, despite having read Wilson, and Gould, and Shermer, and Hauser, and a number of other well-regarded evolutionary popularizers.  At this point, it might be more accurate to say I am an evolutionary skeptic because I have read those books and been astounded by the obvious logical flaws, evasions, and handwaving that I have encountered in them.

    But since Mike is a Standout Author, and therefore capable of exceeding the customary limitations of discussion point-repeating progressives, I assume he is able to rise above the mere rhetoric and actually defend evolutionary theory.  Let’s find out by asking him six simple questions that should be no problem for any man with a solid grasp of the subject.

    1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?
    2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world.  Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?
    3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
    4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
    5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
    6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

    And Stickwick, who happens to be both a Christian and a physicist, beat me to showing how Mike’s attempt to tar all religious people as simplistic binary thinkers was not only demonstrably false, but amusingly inept:

    One of the (many) major problems with religion is that its followers insist there has to be a right and wrong answer, and only one of each.

    2 + X = (more than 5). Solve for X. One answer only, please.

    “There is only one answer: X > 3. Every other possible answer is wrong: it’s not X = 3 and it’s not X < 3.

    It’s
    absurd to point to our limited understanding of nature and say that
    since one person had it partially right and someone else had it
    partially right, therefore there is more than one answer. You don’t know
    that. And you’ll be hard pressed to build a convincing case, let alone
    prove, that there is ultimately more than one right answer to something.
    Science doesn’t proceed that way. Also, since when have religious
    people insisted there is only one wrong answer?”

    Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don’t appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.

    Here the rhetoric is only used to dance on the grave afterward.

    PZ Myers throws out Darwin

    As I have predicted for years that they would, biologists are beginning to turn away from Darwin’s dangerous idea of evolution by natural selection.  Even self-styled champions of evolution such as PZ Myers have reached the point of giving up on their erstwhile secular saint:

    We aren’t using Darwin’s model anymore; he had no accurate notion of how inheritance worked, for instance — genes and alleles, the stuff of most modern theory, are not present anywhere in his works. “Darwinian” is also problematic. It does have a specific, technical meaning, but it’s often applied thoughtlessly to every process in evolution.

    Today Darwin, tomorrow “natural selection”, and, sooner or later, the entire concept of one species coming into existence from another less evolved species through mutation and environmental pressures will be cast into the incinerator of scientific history.  It is merely a matter of time.

    Genotribes and superracism

    Steve Sailer not only points to one of the fatal flaws of the evolutionary model but manages to lay the foundation for a new form of scientific super-racism:

    Thus, there have been, last I checked, a couple of dozen different definitions of species put forward by biologists. Ernst Mayr proposed the simplest: interfertility defines a species. That’s something you can wrap your head around. But there are problems. What about species that reproduce asexually? Among sexually reproducing species, how can you tell whether or not two of the 400 different types of mussels are interfertile or not? As we know from pandas, captive breeding programs are tricky. And what about types of animals who are interfertile but seem worth differentiating, such as dog, wolves, and coyotes?

    Indeed, it was while I was thinking about the Endangered Species Act and
    the issues surrounding specieshood during the biodiversity debates of
    the 1990s kicked off by Edward O. Wilson’s campaign to save the
    rainforests that led me to try to ground the study of human biodiversity
    in something less woozy than the notion of race as subspecies. Instead,
    I reasoned, something we know exists for every human is a
    genetic family tree and a biological extended family. If we go back to
    thinking about racial groups as extended families, one given a higher
    degree of coherence and endurance by partial inbreeding, then we have a
    stronger, broader concept that can be used in vastly more human
    situations than in just trying to differentiate continental-scale racial
    groups by skin color in the post-1492 world.

    If I, as a confirmed scientific sub-speciesist, am considered to be a racist on the basis of my acceptance of the current state of biology, then what words can possibly suffice to properly condemn one who would divide humanity on even more substantive grounds than mere genetic science?

    But what could we call these extended families with higher degrees of coherence and endurance by partial inbreeding?  One would be tempted to suggest the term “genotribes” were it not for the fact that we are reliably informed that tribalism is the root of all human evil.

    Falsification

    A scientific gauntlet is hurled:

    It started like any other morning, and then we all learned that we would soon be riding cloned dinosaurs to work. All it took was a single benevolent billionaire to pay for the science stuff to get done, and boom — dinosaurs are no longer extinct. Of course, it was a pipe dream from the beginning, but these stories of cloning prehistoric creatures come up from time to time, and most people (reporters especially) don’t want to tell you how impossible it is.

    It’s been years since cloned animals first appeared, so why aren’t we able to reach back to the Cretaceous yet? Well, this isn’t just a question of improving our current cloning methods. We lack the fundamental materials to clone anything from 65 million years ago. Taking into account the influence of Hollywood, you could be forgiven for thinking that dinosaur blood is flowing like rivers in labs all over the world. The fact is, we don’t have dino DNA.

    In the late ’80s and early ’90s there were a wave of scientists claiming small samples of ancient DNA could be extracted from fossilized bones, eggs, and insects in amber. You probably remember that from a certain dinosaur movie of the era. In the end, all these claims were debunked. It turns out that DNA does not survive that long. The estimated life of a strand of DNA is no more than 1 million years, and even then only if it is in very cold conditions.

    If I ever become the insanely wealthy supervillian nature clearly intended me to be, you can be certain that cloning a dinosaur is going to be on my shortlist of things to do.  If nothing else, only to hear the frantic revisionism and witness the attempts to somehow uphold the status quo scientific consensus.  The question is: would the estimated life of a strand of DNA be revised or would the dating methods themselves be called into doubt?

    The Ripped Life

    An old friend of mine has launched a new business that should be of some interest to the Paleo advocates out there, particularly Supernaut.  It’s called PaleoLife Foods and he describes it as “an ultra-premium, natural nutritional foods company that
    was founded on the core, Paleo/Primal Diet-inspired belief that the
    foods we put into our bodies should be nothing but the truly
    highest-quality, freshest, REAL whole foods as close to nature as
    possible — and made up of ingredients that we, as humans, not only
    evolved on for millennia but THRIVED on.”

    PaleoLife has a new bar out that is available on Amazon and has gotten very good reviews.  I haven’t tried it myself, since my box hasn’t arrived yet, but as my friend is an aesthete of the highest order, I’d be very surprised if it was unpalatable.  If you’re already eating Paleo or are flirting with the idea, you might want to check out their Primal Cocoanut.

    Speaking of the Ripped Life, I’ve finally been able to get back onto my 5x/week routine now that the calcio season and the holidays are over.  I’ve learned to take it a little easier, stop when I feel something, and protect my joints a bit, which appears to have helped in avoiding all the niggling little injuries to which I am prone given my distaste for changing my routine.  A minor bicep issue means I still can’t comfortably do pull-ups behind the head, which is frustrating, but the gym has a nice free-weighted rowing machine that, in combination with chin-ups, serves as an adequate substitute for the time being.

    My question for Richard Dawkins

    Slashdot is inviting interview questions.  Here is mine:  Given that a) a statistically significant minority of students cannot read or write at their grade levels, b) only a very small number of graduating high school students will ever go on to study science in college, and, c) there are already more science majors graduating than there are science-related jobs to employ them, why do you insist it is so important to teach evolution in schools?

    Mailvox: an alternative mechanism

    Stephen J. takes a logical approach in arguing for evolution by natural selection:

    While this question is going to sound snarky, I can only ask our host to
    believe it is meant as a genuine inquiry and hope it is answered.

    1) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that species which existed in the past now exist no longer and are extinct.

    2)
    Let us take as evidentially established the fact that not all species
    now extant existed at all times throughout the history of organic life;
    if nothing else, we know for a fact Homo sapiens did not.

    3)
    Therefore, it must be possible for species which did not exist to come
    into existence by some mechanism, just as species which do exist can go
    extinct by any variety of mechanisms.

    4) If it is a fact that
    new species can come into existence while others go extinct, by what
    mechanism other than evolution through natural selection are these
    species proposed to arise, and does that proposed mechanism explain more
    of the observed evidence than TeNS?

    I don’t think it sounds snarky at all.  In fact, this is one of the first rationally competent attempts to defend evolution that I’ve ever seen presented on this blog.  Let’s look at his postulates and his logic and see where it leads us.

    1)  I concur.  We know from historical documentary evidence that there are species that previously existed and are now extinct.  We can also infer from fossil evidence that there were a number of other species that previously existed and went extinct prior to the historical record.

    2) I tend to agree and am willing to concur here for the sake of argument and on the basis of Occam’s Razor.  We certainly believe that homo sapiens sapiens did not exist from the beginning of the history of organic life on the basis of our current understanding of the geological and fossil records, but we cannot say that with the same degree of confidence that it is a fact in the sense that we say the Dodo is now extinct.  The problem is that there appear to be an increasing number of indications that the current geological and biological timelines are not going to hold up to future evidence, the claimed 521-year half-life of DNA being one of them.

    3)  I concur, assuming (2) holds true.

    4) Intelligent Genetic Manipulation is the mechanism that I propose.  And yes, I believe that explains more of the observed evidence than TENS, since IGM is a scientific proposition, a readily observed action, and a successful predictive model, whereas TENS is a philosophical proposition, an unobserved process, and an unsuccessful predictive model.

    Now, this does not provide any basis for assuming the existence of a Creator God, or even declaring that TENS did not actually take place.  The logical fact of the matter is that even if TENS can be conclusively demonstrated to have taken place in various species, which has not happened despite more than 150 years of trying, that doesn’t necessarily mean the process was sufficient to produce Man.  If one contemplates the biological differences between ape and man, the vast leap in cognitive capacity taking place in a relatively small sum of generational cycles from the proposed common ancestor in comparison with the timelines supposedly required for other, less complicated evolutionary changes, the logic suggests – though it does not prove – that some degree of purposeful genetic manipulation has likely taken place at various points in the origin of the species and the development of homo sapiens sapiens.

    I’m not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather intelligent editing.  And the interesting thing is that IGM should be an increasingly falsifiable concept as genetic science continues to improve.  Only recently have we learned that junk DNA serves a purpose; even though we have sequenced various genomes, we haven’t yet understood how the code works or fully comprehended the various ways it can be manipulated.  As our understanding grows, we should be able to develop an ability to recognize patterns that indicate purposeful alterations in the code have been made.

    Now, I realize how crazy this probably sounds, especially in light of my argument that Man cannot easily distinguish between God, god, demon, and alien.  But that is where Stephen’s reasonably sound logic takes us. 

    Mailvox: education and the evolutionist

    MD regurgitates the common mantra of the evolutionary faithful:

    You are an educated man and know as well as me that evolution has been verified in countless experiments.  I agree that the precise details of the mechanism are still open to debate.  Since you are essentially making money out of the poor uneducated civilians of your own deeply divided culture, I expect that this E-mail
    may not make it to the multitude.  Until then, any
    pretensions you have as a serious philosopher – until you spell out your
    objections to the actual EVIDENCE of evolution, must be viewed
    suspisciously.  Being an intelligent fellow, I know you know this already; hey ho.
    First, I note what appears to be a popular use of the adjective “countless”, which in its most common usage apparently means “zero”.  A few days ago, I noted how spin is the hallmark of the weak argument; when someone uses the word “countless” it is often a flashing sign of where a little research will probably prove fruitful.

    Second, it is because I have educated myself on the subject over the years that I am aware that there is not a single experiment or study that verifies evolution by natural selection.  Richard Dawkins very nearly admits as much in his homage to the faux science, The Greatest Show on Earth.  Strictly speaking, evolution by natural selection is not even truly scientific, because it is first and foremost a logical argument, which necessarily renders it philosophy rather than science.  At this point, there is less actual scientific evidence for it than for my hypothesis concerning the neural atypicality of atheists.

    This isn’t the first time such a claim has been made. Last time, I even asked for any scientific papers that supposedly contained such evidence; after reading the first ten on the list provided, it was readily apparent that none of them contained any such thing and the individual who provided the list of papers had simply done a search for references to “natural selection”. But, for example, showing that guppies become smaller under certain predatory pressures and that this result is “consistent with evolution by natural selection” is very, very, very far from evidence that the guppies have evolved into something other than a guppy.

    As I mentioned over one year ago, “I have read seven of Richard Dawkins’s ten books, two of Stephen
    Gould’s, a random assortment of books by other authors including Charles
    Darwin, Marc Hauser and Daniel Dennett, around 50 published papers
    which relate to natural selection in some way, and more than 20 years
    worth of magazines such as Natural History and New Scientist.  This doesn’t make me any sort of expert on the subject. But I should think it tends to indicate that I am not completely
    uninformed about it. And it’s certainly ironic to be repeatedly
    accused of ignorance when not having read any economists from Turgot to
    Tobin or theologians from Tertullian to Craig ever seems to prevent
    credentialed Cult of Darwin members from opining authoritatively on
    economics or theology.” 

    How many of the champions of evolution who claim I don’t know what I’m taking about with regards to evolution can claim to have read as much on the subject?  How many have even read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life? And how many of the biologists who don’t hesitate to spout off on economic matters can claim to have read even half as deeply in the field of economics?

    I have repeatedly spelled out my objections to evolution and the actual evidence for it.  First, the evidence doesn’t exist.  Second, the historical timelines that purportedly support it are dynamic.  Third, evolution is a complete failure as a predictive model.  Fourth, it is scientifically and technologically irrelevant; where is the evolutionary engineering.  Fifth, theoretical epicycles are increasingly appearing.  Sixth, it is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.  Seventh, there is a long track record of scientific fraud attached to it.

    I have no pretensions of being a serious philosopher.  Quite the contrary, I am merely an intellectual dilettante who takes even his most cherished beliefs with a grain of salt.  But even if I did have such pretensions, my skepticism concerning the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow would not be a strike against me, it would be a mark in my favor. Regardless, I have no problem with my opinions and assertions being viewed suspiciously. If you can find the flaw in the argument, that’s great. Point it out to me, I won’t hesitate to agree and either revise or recant the argument, so long as the flaw is actually there.

    That being said, if there is a book on the subject of evolution that an evolutionist feels is missing from my education on the subject, then by all means, I encourage them to send me an epub.  I will read it.  I may even review it.  Of course, there is always the possibility that in doing so, I will point out the obvious errors it contains.

    Evolution and a potential rabbit

    About five years ago, I publicly predicted that genetic science will eventually rule out the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and the Theorum of Evolution by Natural Selection.  Now, it would appear that we have a potential mechanism for doing precisely that without needing to discover J.S. Haldane’s hypothetical rabbits in the Precambrian:

    Few researchers have given credence to claims that samples of
    dinosaur DNA have survived to the present day, but no one knew just how
    long it would take for genetic material to fall apart. Now, a study of
    fossils found in New Zealand is laying the matter to rest — and putting
    paid to hopes of cloning a Tyrannosaurus rex.

    After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds
    between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and
    micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions
    with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation.
    Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should,
    in theory, degrade at a set rate.

    By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the
    researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means
    that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the
    backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of
    the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

    The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal
    preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be
    destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to
    be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when
    the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful
    information.

    Now, cloning a dinosaur or other ancient species from theoretically nonexistent DNA would not be a directly conclusive debunking of evolution, but would be a sufficiently devastating blow to the evolutionary timelines as to render it every bit as temporally dubious as it appeared when its earliest advocates were worrying about how the time-consuming process could have taken place in only 6,000 years.

    I would be interested to hear from those who seriously subscribe to the theory of evolution and learn if, given this announcement of a 521-year DNA half-life, the successful cloning of a dinosaur known to be from a historical epoch well before the 2-million year readability limit would be enough to cause them to abandon their belief in the theory.  And if not, would the discovery of rabbit fossils in the Precambrian be enough to do it?