Thanx, though I don't know of any good flub to tag him with. Any ideas?
Here are the reasons for my picks:
For Duane Gish, see
The Bullfrog Affair. Despite being a biochemist, he has yet to substantiate his claim that
quote:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to achimpanzee."
For Jonathan Wells, it is
his misunderstanding of some research into development mechanisms, despite having done some work on developmental biology. Essentially, he jumped the gun on some reported research, grossly misunderstanding it, claiming that it dealt with mutant shrimp. However, it was really about injecting shrimp development-control genes into fruit flies and seeing what legs they try to grow. It turns out that they try to grow abdominal legs, as shrimp do, but most insects don't.
For William Dembski, expert on detecting intelligent design, it's his claim that
beavers intelligently design their dams. However, beavers will pile sticks and mud wherever they hear running water, meaning that if they don't hear it, they won't build dams. This is the basis of schemes like the
Beaver Deceiver.
For Walter ReMine, its his claim that
pandas are designed with inefficient digestion in order to keep them from eating too much.
™ Version 4.2
