======================================================================
Author: Larry A. Moran (lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca)
 Title: Russian Creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov is no scientist
======================================================================

Jim Loucks (jloucks@uts.amdahl.com) defends Scientific 
Creationism by quoting from an interview with a Soviet 
creationist lecturer named Dr. Kouznetsov,

     "That's interesting, because most people in the West believe that
      creationists are just trying to somehow make science fit the Bible
      because they're Christians.

           Well, I don't know about your country, but in Russia this
           is extremely common -- for people to become creationists on
           scientific grounds and then to become Christians afterwards,
           at least in the case of the so-called 'intellectual community'."

I asked several Russian and Eastern European colleagues about 
this. It is NOT common for intellectuals to become creationists 
in Russia. They are just as smart as intellectuals in the rest 
of the world. Kouznetsov claims that it is "extremely common" 
for intellectuals to become creationists - this seems to be a 
flat out lie.

Jim Loucks continues with his quotation,

     "Evolutionists believe that their imaginary one-celled first ancestor
      has turned into fish and palm trees, and into frogs which then turn
      into princes. They know that this means a lot of genetic information
      has to be added to living things over time, and they teach that
      inherited mistakes called mutations can add these new useful genes.
      We don't see that, of course.

        That's right.

      But they have to believe that it is theoretically possible. I
      understand that some of your research indicates that even if it were
      possible to get such an new gene, such a new packet of useful
      information, it would have very little chance of being expressed.

        That's correct. I found that the translation of a modified
        gene into a modified protein involved a group of substances
        in the cytoplasm (outside of the nucleus, which is where the
        DNA resides) which are very powerful suppressors of the
        slightest changes to the DNA."

I'll ignore the ignorant characterization of evolution and 
concentrate on the bizarre idea that new genes are not possible 
and would not be expressed.

In my lab we routinely modify genes and make new proteins. 
Furthermore we put mouse genes in bacteria and yeast, bacterial 
genes in yeast, and yeast genes in bacteria in order to make 
foreign proteins. In other words these new genes from different 
organisms are expressed. These are pretty drastic changes to 
DNA - I wonder why Dr. Kouznetsov doesn't mention experiments 
like these? Furthermore there are all kinds of examples of 
modified genes which make modified proteins. The idea that such 
mutations are forbidden or inhibited at the level of 
translation is quite silly. Incidently the wording of this 
paragraph indicates that Kouznetsov is on unfamiliar ground. In 
other words he does not know what he is talking about. No 
expert would make the mistake of referring to "translation" of 
a "gene".

Every population contains considerable variation at the level 
of the gene. For many genes there are multiple alleles and each 
one makes a slightly different protein. This is why one sees 
morphological variation within populations (eg. Homo sapiens), 
and this is the raw material of evolution. If Kouznetsov knew 
anything about biochemistry, genetics or evolution he would 
recognize that his statement is ridiculous because his 
postulated mechanism would also suppress such variation.

I have no idea what kind of powerful cytoplasmic suppressors 
Dr. Kouznetsov could be referring to. It is probably safe to 
assume that these are figments of an overactive creationist 
mind. If such substances existed I would know about them.

Jim Loucks continues to quote from the interview with Dr. 
Kouznetsov,

     "Dr Kouznetsov, you once talked about the 'subjectivity' of evolutionary
      theory. Could you give an example?

        Yes, it's true that evolutionists are very subjective in which
        data they decide to use as evidence for their theory. Take my
        own field of brain cells, for instance. There is a protein --
        creatinine kinase, or CK -- found in the brain cells of a very
        large number of species. We are led to believe that when you
        compare the same sort of protein in many different species,
        there is this universal pattern -- as would be predicted by
        evolution -- that the most similar proteins are from the most
        closely related species. However, as reported at a conference
        in your own country, in Perth in Western Australia about a
        decade ago, when one puts in all the data related to CK and
        asks the question 'Which are the two closest relatives according
        to CK data?', the answer is -- 'the African elephant and the
        ordinary domestic housefly.' Of course evolutionists don't
        regard these as most closely related, but if the molecular
        patterns were consistent with evolution, they would use it as
        evidence. This is what I mean by the subjectivity of their
        criteria.

Creatine kinase (not creatinine kinase) is an enzyme that can 
be found in many organisms. In most vertebrates it is abundant 
in muscle cells where it serves to replace energy molecules 
used up during muscle activity. A different but related enzyme 
is found in nerve cells which have a high ATP turnover. 
Vertebrates also have a mitochondrial creatine kinase. The 
three different proteins are encoded by three different genes 
that are found at different locations in the genomes of 
vertebrates. The data indicates that there were two gene 
duplications in vertebrate ancestors and this gave rise to 
three different genes which have evolved independently from 
that point on. This is a common pattern in the evolution of 
complex organisms; namely that additional features are formed 
by copying and modifying existing genes. Most of you are 
probably aware of the evolution of hemoglobin genes which is 
another example of the same phenomenon.

I searched the nucleic acid sequence databases for all creatine 
kinase sequences and found 74 examples that have been published 
in the past thirty years. There are no published sequences for 
either elephant or houseflies! I also searched the protein 
databases and found 22 more sequences, again there is no record 
of an elephant or housefly sequence ever being published. So I 
went to the primary literature on creatine kinase sequences but 
there are no references to elephants or houseflies in the 
papers that I examined. Most of the readers of talk.origins 
will realize that it is very unusual to have molecular data on 
either elephants or houseflies. They are not popular lab 
species and there is no particular reason why anyone would 
clone their genes. Anyone familiar with evolution or 
biochemistry would recognize that these are highly unusual 
examples. On the other hand, someone who was quite ignorant of 
the field ....

There was an International Congress of Biochemistry in Perth, 
Australia about ten years ago. None of my colleagues who 
attended that meeting recall hearing a talk such as the one 
that Kouznetsov describes. I conclude that this particular 
creationist is making up a story in order to suggest that 
evolutionary biologists are as subjective as the average 
creationist.

Jim Loucks closes his extensive quotation with,

     "There was more to the interview but that's about all I thought
      you'd find interesting. Not only did I share this interview with
      you because I thought it was interesting, but some of you think
      that creationists can't possibly be decent scientists and this
      interview offers an opposing viewpoint to such a belief. Also,
      the FAQ on creationists credentials comes across in a negative
      tone and I'm tempted to put together a positive FAQ on creationist
      scientists with degrees and backgrounds that simply can't be
      overlooked.

      I think you can sum it all up and say that we're all going to
      believe what we want to believe. Ken Ham appears to add to that
      with: It's not whether you're biased or not, everyone is biased.
      But which bias is the best bias to be biased with?"

Well Jim, I thank you for posting this interesting interview. 
However, I regret to inform you that it only confirms what I 
already knew, namely that creationists can't be decent (or 
honest) scientists. You are more than welcome to put together a 
FAQ on creationist scientists whose degrees and backgrounds 
simply can't be overlooked - are there any such scientists?

You have certainly convinced ME that you are going to believe 
what you want to believe irrespective of the actual facts. 
Kouznetsov obviously falls into the same catagory which means 
that he is definitely NOT a scientist. I also accept your point 
that everyone is biased to some extent but there is no doubt in 
my mind that some biases are more ridiculous than others.


(End of text)