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.