Creationism Summed Up In One Sentence.

Bear with me while I explain a basic scientific concept so you will get my point.  Ring species, as many of you know, are one of the more interesting illustrations of evolution. 

They are species which have spread out and migrated and as they have, they have drifted apart and diversified, and as they spread around a geographical barrier, like spreading around a mountain range or the coasts of an ocean, they eventually become so different that they can all breed with the population adjacent to them, but by the time they make it around the mountain they can no longer breed with their more distant cousins, thus forming a new species.  So popualtion A can breed with population B, B with C, C with D and so on, but population F cannot breed with the original population A.  This, aside from being a perfect example of evolution and speciation, also demonstrates that the lines between species can be very blurry as they are loose definitions at best. 

Anyway, this is a very well-known evidence for evolution and hardly a debate goes by in which it isn’t eventually brought up, but it occurred to me I couldn’t remember a creationist rebuttal to this.  So I went looking for one.  First I went to the biggest and most popular creationist website by far, answers in genesis.  I typed into google “ring species” site:answersingenesis.org and got…

Your search – “ring species” site:answersingenesis.org – did not match any documents.

So I searched creationism.org:

Your search – “ring species” site:creationism.org – did not match any documents.

Then godandscience.org, the only other uber-popular creationist site I could think of that has tons of articles, and while it gave two pages of results every last one was from the forum, one of them was “Big list of evolution evidences I can’t refute” which was a creationist giving a list of evidenced for evolution they couldn’t find a response to searching high and low on the internet.

That, I think, really sums up the creationist/anti-evolution proponent’s position…  “Your search [proof of evolution] site:[creationist website] did not match any documents”.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Creationism Summed Up In One Sentence.

  1. I’ve written about ring species before, and never even had a creationist ATTEMPT to explain the. Oh, except for this little gem from Curtis:”This is more fantasizing. The fossil record is full of discontinuity.Also, wolves don’t become cats and elephants don’t become giraffes.Each species is a discontinuity that we can see with out own eyes.  That makes what you are saying unscientific.Using a cooking analogy to explain evolution is broken also since the two fields are so completely unrelated that analogy is simply fantasy.”P.S. Can I get a link to that list?

  2. @GodlessLiberal – The fossil record is full of discontinuities. And if you could count you would have noticed that a long ass dissertation is more than one sentence.Here is one sentence that discredits atheism:  Atheists demand proof before knowledge is considered valid but they cannot prove their own belief, atheism.See, that’s one sentence. And it totally destroys atheism as a rational belief.

  3. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – Link.  A creationist responds by claiming archeopteryx was a fake.  I like how creationists equate archeoraptor with archeopteryx and pretend it was a fraud, when actually one publication accidentally mis-labeled a picture of two fossils smooshed together as being an archeoraptor and it has zero to do with anything other than their editor making a snafu.

  4. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – I googled it and apparently it was a deliberate fake, though it has nothing to do with archeopteryx.

  5. TheSutraDude says:

    the truth is, ignorance is not bliss. it is extremely harmful to society. 

  6. As a Christian who believes evolution happened, you can imagine how many stupid arguments I’ve heard against evolution.  “It’s a theory!”  “The days in Genesis are literal!”  The problem with using scripture to refute evolution is that it doesn’t refute evolution.  Young Earth Creationists stretch scripture way further than they accuse me of doing.

  7. agnophilo says:

    @TheSutraDude – I agree, it sacrifices the happiness of your neighbor for your own happiness, but it always comes back to bite you.@WildBlueYoshi – Well, as a non-christian I am free to explore the possibility that their interpretation could be accurate and the religion could simply be another false bronze-age myth.  But it could be allegorical too.  I would check to see which one it is, but I left my time machine and my mind-reading cap in my other suit…

  8. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – “The fossil record is full of discontinuities.”(1) No shit. Expected under punctuated equlibirum. Evolution, especially when involving regulatory genes (as the hox genes) proceed in leaps and bounds.(2) No shit. Fossils form rarely and only under very specific environments. In the same sense, state lottery winners would make very poor representatives for, say, a demographic census.(3) No shit. The very circumstances for high evolutionary rates (very small populations, short time, high selection) also make for poor fossil sampling. When you have very small amount of individuals playing the fossilization lottery, sometimes, you don’t get winners.

  9. musterion99 says:

    Here’s one person’s response.  LINK

  10. agnophilo says:

    @musterion99 – Haha, it’s the same “but I wanna see a cat turn into a dog” response fundamentalists always give which betrays total ignorance of how evolution works.  He then goes on to repeat pat lies about evolution, like that mutations can’t produce novel genes or useful changes, that all mutations delete information etc.  He uses the biblical word “kind” (which has no scientific definition, as opposed to species, genus, family, order etc) and refers to the fall of eve… how scientific.Please tell me you were not positively impressed by this.

  11. musterion99 says:

    @agnophilo – His main point was that it’s still a salamander. So it would fall under micro evolution.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @musterion99 – No, micro-evolution is by definition evolution below the species level.  It is by definition macro-evolution.  Demanding to see a salamander turn into an entirely different creature right before your eyes before you will accept evolution is like demanding to see mohammad falsify biblical prophecy before you will convert to christianity.  You are demanding something which is a) impossible according to the thing you are demanding it as proof of, and b) would, if it happened, falsify it.  Creationists want to see a completely new species emerge before they will accept evolution, but if they knew anything about human and animal anatomy they would know that this hasn’t happened once in the history of multi-cellular life.  The reason is that evolution is cumulative, it works primarily by accumulating useful modifications, as such you are 95% chimpanzee, about 90% mammals, maybe 80% reptile and so on down to about 25-50% banana.  To demand a completely different species is to demand the impossible and to demand it as proof of evolution is to demand the retarded.Look at this skeleton of a bat and tell me how many bones it has that you do not have some equivalent of.  Then tell me if evolution means you will suddenly sprout a totally new feature.

  13. SirNickDon says:

    @GodlessLiberal – I tried to use ring species (Larus gulls) to illustrate evolution to a creationist, and got the same response. “Yeah, but they’re all still birds.  Whales don’t give birth to giraffes.” 

  14. heckels says:

    Okay, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a second and ask you what I ask everybody when I have this debate, but, why can’t both evolution and creationism be true? In other words, why couldn’t a God create everything to evolve? 

  15. agnophilo says:

    @SirNickDon – Yeah, never gets old.@heckels – That’s not creationism.  Creationism is a strict, literal adherence to a particular creation account, ie 6 literal days, a young earth etc.What you describe is closer to deism, and while it is more reasonable it isn’t supported by evidence, aside from the science part.

  16. heckels says:

    @agnophilo – oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you; after all I am an atheist, but was a question nobody has ever answered me.

  17. agnophilo says:

    @heckels – Didn’t I just answer you?  It’s possible that god could’ve created the universe with the big bang and let evolution (and even abiogenesis happen) or even guided the process somehow.  But it’s also possible that allah, zeus or the easter bunny did these things.  Possible = / = probable.

  18. The_ATM says:

    Its kind of funny..  I don’t give a crap about biological evolution. My thesis work, however, has been dominated by trying to simulate evolution for a particular purpose. It is interesting to think speciation (via evolution) is just random search (structured by the physiological interpretation of DNA) in a hyperspace with some fitness function.

  19. wizexel22 says:

    @musterion99,@SirNickDon –  – “His main point was that it’s still a salamander. So it would fall under micro evolution.”The point is a valid one. Evolutionists can scoff that it isn’t….but that doesn’t make it invalid. The idea that ring species is in any way a “slam dunk” of an argument for macroevolution is ridiculous. This is like me proving to you I can swim to Hawaii by giving you footage of me swimming some laps at the pool. “I just do that…..just for a really long time!”. Well….unfortunately, its not nearly that simple.

  20. I agree that creationism is retarded and religious people are even more retarded but can someone explain to me in an easy sentence or two how we “evolved”???? Or is it to “complicated” for my simple mind to understand???

  21. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM – Alrighty.@wizexel22 – As I said in my response to him (which you didn’t read apparently), all of that is BS.  Macro evolution is any evolution above the species level, not above the genus, order, family etc level.  It’s macro evolution.  This is just moving the goalpost and demanding something which is impossible (to see far more evolution unfold in front of you as can happen in that timeframe).  It’s like demanding to see a grand canyon form before your eyes before you will accept that it occurred by the process of erosion.  It is intellectually dishonest or ignorant, one or the other.@DominatingThinspo – Evolution, to but it very simply, is a process of trial and error.  But unlike human trial and error, nature does not try one thing at a time, it tries a million things at a time.  We are all copies of our parents, with our DNA blended together, but DNA copying errors (mutations) are very common, and they mostly have no effect, sometimes are harmful (birth defects etc) and sometimes give an advantage like making an animal slightly faster, quicker, able to digest some new food source etc).  Natural selection is the simple fact that genetic variaitions which increase the organism’s chance of survival and/or reproduction will be passed on more frequently, because those individuals within a population that possess them will survive and reproduce more frequently, whereas those that possess harmful genetic variations will reproduce less frequently and the genes will become less common.  And when the environment changes, the dynamics of what make a trait useful change as well, causing a change in the species.  Such as introducing a new predator will make the slowest animals bite the dust, so the average speed of the population will increase with each generation.  This is extremely similar to how we selectively breed animals and literally turned a wolf into a chiwawa.  This is evolution in a nutshell with not many examples, if you want more I recommend my other blogs on the subject, though my ones arguing with creationists (usually “RE:[whatever]” titles) are far less informative since I am just refuting lie after lie about science.

  22. @agnophilo – Thank you for the response. πŸ™‚

  23. @The_ATM – It is interesting to think speciation (via evolution) is just random search (structured by the physiological interpretation of DNA) in a hyperspace with some fitness function.Or more narrowly: a genetic algorithm.

  24. wizexel22 says:

    @agnophilo – No it is not at all like the Grand Canyon analogy. In the case of the Grand Canyon, the process of erosion can be very simply extrapolated in that case. It is perfectly acceptable to assume the mechanism is sufficient and only obstacle would be time. I’d argue such examples are intellectually dishonest since it should be obvious this is not the case with evolution. The mechanisms are not apparently sufficient (which many evolutionists would agree and why there is debate among evolutionists if such mechanisms are sufficient)…. and so the its completely naive to just assume any extrapolation can be made in the same way the Grand Canyon forms or by walking a mile one step at at time.

  25. The_ATM says:

    @Celestial_Teapot – GA is what my thesis is using. …currently.. that could change. Right now I am using GAlib under the hood to perform the evolutionary mechanics for my GE.

  26. The_ATM says:

    @Celestial_Teapot – Actually, I take that back. There are many more constraints on biological evolution than the typical GA. DNA has some syntax by which the genotype interpreted into the observable phenotypes. So there is sort of another layer on top of just a plain ol’ GA.

  27. agnophilo says:

    @DominatingThinspo – You’re welcome.  I could send you some very good youtube videos as well if you like.@wizexel22 – “No it is not at all like the Grand Canyon analogy. In the case of the Grand Canyon, the process of erosion can be very simply extrapolated in that case. It is perfectly acceptable to assume the mechanism is sufficient and only obstacle would be time.”You say it’s not like the grand canyon analogy and that it’s “obviously” not the case with evolution, but give no reason whatsoever.  Just claiming something isn’t an argument – that may work for preachers but a scientist or a philosopher is going to be just standing there waiting for you to actually say something.  The grand canyon analogy is perfectly valid, if someone said that erosion can cut through a foot of rock but can’t cut through two or three or ten feet of rock, the onus would be on them to show a mechanism which would prevent it.  Genetic selection has the capacity to dramatically change the morphology and DNA of a species, it can turn a wolf into both of these, for instance, in a relatively short time.  You are claiming that it cannot cause diversity above the species level such as one species branching out into foxes, wolves, and other canids despite that this has already happened being overwhelmingly supported by the genetic and fossil evidence and us being able to witness a snapshot of it happening right in front of us.  Exactly what evidence do you want?”I’d argue such examples are intellectually dishonest since it should be obvious this is not the case with evolution.” You say it’s intellectually obvious (but give no reason it is) and say it’s obvious (but give no reason it is).  This is like me saying you’re a pedophile because you’re obviously a bad person.  It’s gibberish.”The mechanisms are not apparently sufficient (which many evolutionists would agree and why there is debate among evolutionists if such mechanisms are sufficient)….” Not sufficient for what?  How are they not sufficient?”and so the its completely naive to just assume any extrapolation can be made in the same way the Grand Canyon forms or by walking a mile one step at at time.” A little change accumulating into a lot of change, how is this not comparable?  The only thing keeping an animal the same as the other members of it’s species is the constant genetic exchange with the rest of the population – take it away and in relatively short order they diverge and split into two or more species.  I don’t get what is so difficult to grasp.

  28. @agnophilo – ok that would be great!

  29. agnophilo says:

    @DominatingThinspo – Link 1, link 2, link 3, etc. And check this shit out:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances foradjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting differentamounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromaticaberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, Ifreely confess, absurd in the highest degree… [this is usually where creationists end the quote, but he continues…] Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simpleand imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; iffurther, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as islikewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful toany animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty ofbelieving that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by naturalselection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not beconsidered as subversive of the theory.Link.Booyah : )Also this is a bit hard to follow (especially the first third or so which deals with microbes), you may need to watch it a few times, but it’s very good.  Link. All of those vids in the series are good, as well as other vids by the same guy.  And if you want some comic relief, search youtube for “why do people laugh at creationists” and check out the vids, especially the earlier ones.

  30. UTRow1 says:

    @agnophilo – start referring to Wizexel22 as “Loborn 2”. E.g., “Loborn 2, do you have any evidence whatsoever that evolution isn’t a sufficient explanation for biodiversity on Earth? No? Then why do you dedicate 100% of your energy making unsupported anti-evolutionist assertions on numerous websites? That’s curious behavior, Loborn 2.”Swear to God, we have had dozens of arguments relating to evolution, and he has made numerous assertions in each of them where I have explicitly asked him to cite evidence to support those assertions. 0 evidence has been provided. To be fair, he recently took a step forward by referring to two studies discussed in the primary post, but he didn’t actually read them. He just demanded that a discredited creationist’s demonstrably incorrect interpretation of those sources were accurate. Anyways, he may be worse than SDFL. Both are pathological liars and ideologues, but at least SDFL was honest and open about his intentions (well, at least he began to be after he was initially exposed). And at least SDFL would cite to discredited sources or poor sources for his claims. Wizexel can’t be bothered to even do that. He’s so supremely confident in his uninformed intuition about these things that things like evidence aren’t necessary.

  31. agnophilo says:

    @UTRow1 – SDFL?  And are you saying this person is loborn or is like him?

  32. UTRow1 says:

    SDFL = Soccerdad4life. He was a bit of a creationist/ID god on Xanga before a group of my friends and I began confronting him for being a liar on every site he frequented. Now he pretty much just lurks and updates his own closely guarded, private Xanga.I can’t recall, because it was about five years ago, but either he or Interstellarmachine claimed to have a degree in physics. I tracked down his real name and verified that he did not, and posted this information online, which led to a big Xanga shitstorm. Wizexel is very much like Loborn (but I doubt that they are the same person) in that they relentlessly argue about issues without making valid arguments, without providing evidence for their claims (despite being asked to do so), etc.

  33. agnophilo says:

    @UTRow1 – I think you should confront bullshit where you see it, but there is a big difference between that and harassing people.  If you just fuck with someone wherever you see them whether you’re provoked or not, you’re the troll, not them.

  34. UTRow1 says:

    @agnophilo – Like Wizexel, SDFL posted pretty much exclusively on most sites to “discredit” evolution and promote anti-evolutionist sentiments (in a dishonest and ignorant fashion). That being said, I have no qualms with destroying anti-evolutionists online or in their personal lives by exposing their lies/ignorance. If they want to go online and post bullshit that has direct/indirect effects on my profession and the public perception of my profession, then they need to learn to live with the consequences of making those statements. If that makes me a troll, I am fine with that. Unfortunately, it’s necessary.

  35. agnophilo says:

    @UTRow1 – What I’m saying is, if you fight fire with fire, you end up effectively being what you are opposing.  Also if you are concerned with public opinion, when you bash someone who hasn’t yet done anything objectionable on a blog it makes you look bad, not them.

  36. agnophilo says:

    @DominatingThinspo – Welcs, did you watch em? : )

  37. @agnophilo – Yes, they are pretty good!

  38. agnophilo says:

    @DominatingThinspo – I thought so : )  When ken miller (cell biologist) was talking about the dover evolution/ID trial he testified at, he said reporters were talking to him and saying “why haven’t we heard about this?”  They were amazed at the science but hadn’t ever really learned about it in school.

  39. @agnophilo – i know I obviously didn’t learn shit about this in school. And if it wasn’t for the fact I had to run away so that they would kick me out of Christian school I would be a real fucktard if I just stayed and never questioned anything like the rest of the church fucks. They have no balls!

  40. @agnophilo – either way I think this is going to take a little work on my part. I don’t think the “mystery of the universe” can be explain in one paragraph like I wanted. lol. But thanks to Google video I can sit back, grab some popcorn, watch and learn. In the meantime the important thing is to be able to refute the false doctrine of biblical “infallibility”. That is the doctrine that gives these arrogant Christians all there false confidence.

  41. agnophilo says:

    @DominatingThinspo – True (about biblical infallibility), and glad you enjoy the vids.  It really is fascinating science though.

  42. @agnophilo – Nice! Glad you are warring against the ignoramus’s of our society! Keep up the great work!

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s