So I was going to lay off RTB for a while and talk about other things more interesting, but this was too shocking to ignore. Dennis Venema finished his series of posts on RTB and me over at BioLogos this morning. In part 3, he takes a look at Rana's pseudogene claims, especially about the GLO pseudogene. Rana relied on young-age creationist Peter Borger's data from a paper in the old PSCID journal [PDF] to make his argument that pseudogene mutations are nonrandom. Venema rather easily shows how Borger's (and therefore Rana's) argument is bogus: Borger wasn't looking at mutations at all. Check out Venema's post for the full details. Borger's error is breathtakingly simplistic.
Question for the day: Why is it so easy to find errors in the arguments of Reasons to Believe?
Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.