I am reminded why I don't read wingnut weblogs. It's not just that extremist Republican politics is vile, but that the politics is so often accompanied by other forms of insanity. Case in point: I discover via the World Wide Rant this remarkably arrogant claim from some fool at Wizbang.

The truth is --though you are loath to admit it-- that we don't know jack about the origin of the species. If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable- is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable. There is something other than DNA that apparently carries some sort of genome and we don't even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!

OK, you can now commence to ranting in the comments about how it is a fact and I'm just some ignorant fool. And make sure you bash religious people... If there is one thing I love to laugh at, it is one religious zealot claiming the other guy is just a religious zealot.

* The nomenclature will always bite you. I don't use "evolution" in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of "evolution" is seriously, seriously flawed.... And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.

What could have possibly triggered this eruption of creationist triumphalism? A recent paper in Nature speculates about the discovery of a possible new mechanism that increases the rate of reversions from a particular mutation. This is very interesting stuff, and would be a fascinating new mechanism of DNA repair, a novel non-Mendelian mechanism. Carl Zimmer explains its sigificance in his typically lucid way, while Reed Cartwright suggests a more prosaic alternative. Either way, though, this is no comfort to creationists (although I'm sure we'll hear much more silliness from them about it), and by no means warrants the absurd claims from the Wizbang crackpot. In fact, the Wizbang post is only notable for the hysterical excesses of its claims.

• "we don't know jack about the origin of the species". Oh, come on. Read some science. We know lots about speciation. We've seen it happen; we have documented mechanisms.
• "whole theory -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable". Another old chestnut. False, but stereotypical.
• "the whole theory…is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable". Don't you love it when a creationist, who hasn't read the paper and clearly has no idea of the magnitude of the observed effect, makes up colossal numbers like "a few dozen more orders of magnitude"?
• "There is something other than DNA…" No, not necessarily. The paper speculates about RNA, but as mentioned above, Reed suggests a reasonable and conventional alternative. And even if it is RNA, this is not something that salvages creationism or damages evolutionary theory; it's chemistry.
• "that apparently carries some sort of genome…" No, this is nonsense. Our man from Wizbang is babbling at this point.
• "we don't even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!" Correct, but it is inappropriate to treat that as some kind of victory for creationism. Creationists understand nothing, which by this logic should mean it would be rejected. We don't understand this phenomenon fully, yet, and so the scientific response is to study it more and test various hypotheses. This is a strength of the scientific method.
• "I don't use "evolution" in the strict definition here…" Here we go. At least he's honest and admits that he's making stuff up, and is inventing non-standard definitions.
• "I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet." Gosh, that sure is a stupid guess.
• "That version of "evolution" is seriously, seriously flawed". Why, yes, we agree. It's very stupid. So why did he make up that version of "evolution"?

This is all thick-witted anti-evolutionist garbage, and it just gets worse: the joker makes several more misguided posts defending his absurdities, and hoo boy, you should take a look at the comments—it's like concentrated stupid people.

And that is why I can't stomach wingnut weblogs.