Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The weekly Daily Kos email roundup this week included a highly amusing screed from a creationist that is really quite amusing. I miss getting email like this. I used to get it all the time. In fact, I used to answer email to the Talk.Origins archive and it was kinda fun reading batshit crazy rants from the terminally clueless. I especially liked the "if you're so smart why haven't you won Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge" emails. Those were fun. Anyway, here's the one sent to Kos:
Evolutionist retard, learn some mathIts amazing how stupid you evolutionists are. You dont even have basic math skills and you dont know jack about science. Lets review: the human genome is made of nucleic bases (there are four kinds, which you morons didn't know) and the entire genome is 3 billion bases long. Understand, idiot? OK, so the probability of this genome being randomly generated is (1/4)^3 billion or basically imposible. Please note that even small mistakes in the genome will result in disases like Down syndrome, so there is very little margin for error. In other words MATHEMATICS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE! Also, according to evolutionist fantasy, humans have been around for millions of years. If mutations have happened this entire time, what are the odds of ALL HUMANS OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS randomly going through the EXACT SAME mutations that are now the human genome? Zero, thats what.
Her'es another thing: the genome of most animals is very similar to humans (something like 97% similar). This means that even if you could randomly create a genome similar to ours, we would be much more likely to be ducks or ponies or anything besides humans. So why aren't we ducks or ponies? Because we are not the result of some random evolutionary crapshoot, but instead we are divinely created and the similarities in the genomes of all animals are the divine code for life.
Here's the difference between us: I've actually studied biolofgy and such sciences whereas you probably have only read some propaganda leaflet written by the George Soros Evoultionist Lies Institute. But hey, dont feel too bad. Its not your fault your a stupid retard, its your... genes! HA!
P.S. Buy a calculator and learn how to use it.
The part in bold may be the funniest anti-evolution argument I've ever heard.
Politics
Comments
Poe.
Posted by: G | April 8, 2011 9:06 AM
I think perhaps the author of that is not a duck because 1) he weighs too much and 2) his cerebrum weighs too little.
Posted by: Coragyps | April 8, 2011 9:09 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 8, 2011 9:09 AM
Amusing, but I gotta say it strikes me as written by someone who's making fun of creationists. I guess this is Poe's Law in effect.
Posted by: Chris | April 8, 2011 9:10 AM
Posted by: Kierra | April 8, 2011 9:23 AM
heh.. that was precious.. wonder how he explains the mutations and evolution of the flu virus. God must invent a new one every year or so..
Posted by: lise | April 8, 2011 9:23 AM
Argumentum ad medicam: I'm not a duck because I won't suffer quackery.
Argumentum ad vocem: I'm not a pony because that would make me a little hoarse.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | April 8, 2011 9:28 AM
I don't think we should tell him that chances are, he has several mutations in his genome.
Posted by: KeithB | April 8, 2011 9:31 AM
'Why aren't we ducks or ponies' is right up there with 'why are there still monkeys.'
Disagree with Chris and G, I don't think its a poe. Sounds more like a teenager to me. Though I'd be very happy to be wrong.
Posted by: eric | April 8, 2011 9:35 AM
I think I actually know who wrote this... sigh... the stoopid, it burns (and stalks).
Anyway, I think everyone (except IDiots) know that no one suggests the whole human genome (and it's 97% similarity to sponges) is totally random. Heck, even some IDiots admit that.
Here's some research-blogging I did on the 'randomness' needed for prebiotic chemicals (which are the only ones that do have to self assemble into something useful): http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/origins-of-life-–-what-are-the-odds/
Posted by: OgreMkV | April 8, 2011 9:36 AM
I thought he was reasonably bright for a creationist. I hope to hear more about this new discipline of biolofgy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 8, 2011 9:39 AM
It is simple really. He "actually studied" biolofgy[sic]. One assumes biolofgy is the science of batshit insanity.
Posted by: DJ | April 8, 2011 9:40 AM
Well, make up your mind, Ed: was it highly amusing or really quite amusing?
That's the trouble with you Evilutionists, can't decide how amusing things are. You're probably a duck or a pony, too.
Posted by: DaveD | April 8, 2011 9:42 AM
Why, where do you think all of those ducks and ponies are coming from in the first place? Have you ever found that perfect spouse that your pastor told you God had set aside for you? Yeah, that's right - you couldn't find her because evolution turned her into a duck instead. Sorry about that.
And every 21 seconds, our future leader is born as a pony. Makes you really wish God hadn't been that parsimonious with those genes, doesn't it?
Posted by: Phillip IV | April 8, 2011 9:44 AM
I think therefore I am; neigh, I quack therefore I am.
Posted by: Dr X | April 8, 2011 9:50 AM
The George Soros Evoultionist Lies Institute should really consider dropping the "Lies" from it's name (it's bad PR). Also, they should hire a spell checker. Come on, did no one there major in Englifsh?
Posted by: Imrryr | April 8, 2011 9:53 AM
Sigh. Another moron who doesn't understand the difference between an O(2N) algorithm and an O(N log N) algorithm.
The PNAS paper OgreMkV looks interesting, too.
Posted by: abb3w | April 8, 2011 9:55 AM
...er, that should be "referenced looks". Need more coffee.
Posted by: abb3w | April 8, 2011 9:57 AM
Now wait just a minute scoffers -have any of you studied biolofgy as the author did? Personally I'd never even heard of it.
Posted by: Rob Jase | April 8, 2011 10:03 AM
I used to think of these loons as 'one-offs'. That is, an outlier happily chuckled over and easily dismissed. Now I get a little depressed with it because I am certain this moron is not alone.
The internet can create this kind of crazy wholesale but the correcting of it, if it happens at all, occurs one at a time. What a waste.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 8, 2011 10:05 AM
My favorite part is where he seems to imply that each new person who arrives on the planet requires that 3 billion base pairs magically align out of nowhere to produce their genome. And here I always thought mom and dad had something to do with it...
Posted by: Rory | April 8, 2011 10:17 AM
This individual was ill served by the educational establishment.
Posted by: Hercules Grytpype-Thynne | April 8, 2011 10:32 AM
"Her'es another thing: the genome of most animals is very similar to humans (something like 97% similar). This means that even if you could randomly create a genome similar to ours, we would be much more likely to be ducks or ponies or anything besides humans."
Anyone have an answer to this? His contention is something that the community that tries to make an institution out of evolution instead of a genuine scientific endeavor: our genome is so similar to most animals that, if said genome was randomly conceived, we would more likely be a duck than a human being. The margin for error is so miniscule that the way we are now is not some indifferent evolutionary process.
Posted by: C5 | April 8, 2011 10:35 AM
All your gene are belong to us.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | April 8, 2011 10:36 AM
C5:
Your genome is not random. It is the result of a very highly conseved process. It is highly conserved because most random mixing of the genome would not produce viable offspring. Evolution ("survival of the fittest") ensures that the resulting process will produce as many viable offspring as possible.
Your DNA varies little from your parents, and so on up the line. But those little differences add up, which is what evolution works with.
Posted by: KeithB | April 8, 2011 10:43 AM
I used to love reading those emails. In fact, I read the archives all the way to the beginning. But I loved the answers the TO volunteers even more. I learned a lot and laughed a lot.
Posted by: Savagemutt | April 8, 2011 10:43 AM
You have this backwards. Actually ducks are more likely to be human beings than ducks. Witness Donald, Daisy, Huey, Dewey, Louie, and of course that brilliant Republican free market businessman, Uncle Scrooge.
Posted by: JuliaL | April 8, 2011 10:44 AM
I think perhaps the author of that is not a duck because 1) he weighs too much and 2) his cerebrum weighs too little.
I guess he must be a witch then.
BURN HIM!!!
Posted by: SallyStrange | April 8, 2011 10:47 AM
---OK, so the probability of this genome being randomly generated is (1/4)^3 billion or basically imposible. Please note that even small mistakes in the genome will result in disases like Down syndrome, so there is very little margin for error. In other words MATHEMATICS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE! Also, according to evolutionist fantasy, humans have been around for millions of years. If mutations have happened this entire time, what are the odds of ALL HUMANS OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS randomly going through the EXACT SAME mutations that are now the human genome? Zero, thats what.---
Yeah; a guy who tells me to learn some math doesn't have the two clicks in the making of a clue what identical twins are. Oh and impossible is infinity or "division by zero error" you idiot. (1/4)^3 billion is still a number; just a really, really large one. Which means it's still possible.
--- I've actually studied biolofgy ---
Man; and I thought I had a problem with obvious careless typing of the keys. Or he went to the same school that spells it skool. If it was bio-LOL-gy then I would have something to work with here as a Poe. If you are going to misspell words; at least make it funny.
Oh; and learn some spelling, typing and math lessons so you can understand WHY a calculator PRODUCES such an answer. Or is this school like a home? Inquiring and sadistic minds would love to know.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | April 8, 2011 10:47 AM
C5 is obviously a troll. There is no way he/she is actually that stupid.
Posted by: JoeB | April 8, 2011 10:50 AM
Gregory Weagle
Actually a really, really small one.
Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2011 10:52 AM
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 8, 2011 10:53 AM
"We are not ducks because our ancestors encountered different pressures than theirs."
Alternatively, we are not ducks because we stopped wanting to compete with other ducks.
A duck would have a lot of problems eating cherries out of a cherry tree or boiling potatoes they have to dig up.
And the reason why there are still ducks out there is that there is still duckweed to be eaten, therefore still a space for ducks to thrive.
Posted by: Wow | April 8, 2011 10:56 AM
"3 billion base pairs magically align out of nowhere to produce their genome. And here I always thought mom and dad had something to do with it..."
Well, maybe you have three billion mommies and daddies.
Oh, sorry, I thought that was a euphemism...
Posted by: Wow | April 8, 2011 10:59 AM
Very simply, these folks confuse random mutation with random selection.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2011 10:59 AM
Sigh.... C5's question is almost as laughable as yesterday's, "What is the "natural explanation" for earthquakes, aside from Japan's location?"
Posted by: Imrryr | April 8, 2011 11:00 AM
That was not his point, though: if you looked at similar genomes, not necessarily offshoots of the evolutionary process, we are so similar to animals that we are more likely to be a duck than a human being. Why, then, did we take the 3%? This is dealing with the very beginning, not the various paths that we take. The margin is so miniscule that our humanity is divinely encoded, not indifferently processed.
Posted by: C5 | April 8, 2011 11:01 AM
Funny thing is, it's almost a halfway coherent argument against all species coming about at once, at least "by accident."
Posted by: BaldApe | April 8, 2011 11:02 AM
C5: Anyone have an answer to this? His contention is something that the community that tries to make an institution out of evolution instead of a genuine scientific endeavor: our genome is so similar to most animals that, if said genome was randomly conceived, we would more likely be a duck than a human being.
Genomes are not randomly conceived, you idiot, you get them from your parents. So do ducks. So do ponies.
Even initial genomes were not "randomly" conceived the way most creationists think of "random," because the types of chemical compounds that can form and the rates at which they form are constrained by starting conditions, physics, and chemistry.
Posted by: eric | April 8, 2011 11:02 AM
James Hanley,
This guy (if he is not a Poe) is worse--he confuses (sexual reproduction + wee-bit-of-mutation) with random draw.
Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2011 11:08 AM
C5 @37: That was not his point, though: if you looked at similar genomes, not necessarily offshoots of the evolutionary process, we are so similar to animals that we are more likely to be a duck than a human being. Why, then, did we take the 3%? This is dealing with the very beginning, not the various paths that we take.
At the very beginning there weren't any ducks or humans, so the question makes no sense. The % differences in modern animals arose long after there were replicating critters on the planet. So pre-ducks and pre-humans got their genes from their parents, and so on, and so on, long before there was any a difference between them. Billions of years before there was any difference.
What you are really complaining about is a form of creationism, not evolution. It is creationist to think that modern animals arose pretty much as they are now. And if you think that, then yes, a mere 3% difference between ducks and humans is pretty hard to explain.
Posted by: eric | April 8, 2011 11:10 AM
Perhaps it would be helpful to mention Howard the Duck was not a documentary.
Posted by: TSFN | April 8, 2011 11:11 AM
abb3w (#18) - What's the probability that exactly eight carbon, ten hydrogen, four nitrogen and two oxygen atoms arraging themselves properly? ZERO.
No coffee for you. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 8, 2011 11:17 AM
Awww, I miss the TO feedback letters. A bright spot in my week...well, until October 2006!
Posted by: Eric Houg | April 8, 2011 11:17 AM
Sigh.... C5's question is almost as laughable as yesterday's, "What is the "natural explanation" for earthquakes, aside from Japan's location?"
He was also more baffled by equality than Kinsolving. Batting 0/3 just on recent posts. I think Ed should experiment with just how crazy an op-ed you post on has to be before C5 won't support it. Hey Ed, how about you comment on an alien probe story next?
Posted by: eric | April 8, 2011 11:19 AM
Others have covered how genes are not random, but it should be point out that even this is ridiculous within C5's framework. If two instances, duck and human, are single possibilities in a random set, they are not more likely, they are equally likely to occur.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 8, 2011 11:24 AM
I just wish that idiots like C5 and the writer of the subject e-mail would carry their beliefs about divine intervention in our lives to the point of refusing medical care, including recently developed vaccines, when they are ill with a mutated virus.
Posted by: democommie | April 8, 2011 11:25 AM
@democommie - b-b-but God's working through those vaccines, or something...
Posted by: Imrryr | April 8, 2011 11:30 AM
@31: You're right heddle. Damn; I should know better that if there is a fraction in place; it's a small number. Time to return to class for me.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | April 8, 2011 11:31 AM
New idea for a t-shirt:
Nucleic Acids
There are 4 ya morans!
I know because I studied biolofgy!
Posted by: llDayo | April 8, 2011 11:32 AM
Another demonstration of broad-stroking and theological confusion from democommie. Like countless Christians, I don't think that "divine intervention" excludes the possibility of taking medication because God does not solve every problem for me: he's intervention is only to the extent that I realize what is best for myself on this earth. He does not always intervene directly: sometimes, his involvement is only to ensure that I am in the right position of my life to have the treatment that I need from others, his fellow Creations. Atheists fail to understand that not every denomination -- billions of individuals believe in a God, but not in the same manner - denounces medication, because I don't think that God would want me to deny due treatment in His name.
Posted by: C5 | April 8, 2011 11:36 AM
C5:
And sometimes his involvement is only to ensure that my family and I get killed by a tsunami in order to make a point about how my country as a whole needs to avoid secularism.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 8, 2011 11:42 AM
Not bad, but the crocoduck and the bannana guy are still my favorites.
Posted by: Alan | April 8, 2011 11:43 AM
C5 - 'broad-stroking' (snicker) doesn't that come from having a 'wide stance' in bathrooms? :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 8, 2011 11:55 AM
I would never wish for that! COme on! C5 is pure comedy gold!
In fact, if he goes on like this he will be able to take on the responsibilities of our esteemed departed friend, MRoberts.
Man... how I used to chuckle with that guy...
Posted by: Valhar2000 | April 8, 2011 12:02 PM
C5 writes:
if said genome was randomly conceived
It's not. Next?
(Short form: it's a copy of one that produced a surviving organism - the parent - with slight differences, which add up over a long time. That's how you turn a wolf to a chihuahua in a mere 100,000 years.)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 8, 2011 12:05 PM
Actually, ducks and humans are vastly different because the two species have different numbers of chromosomes. Two species having different numbers of chromosomes can almost never interbreed to produce fertile offspring.
Posted by: SLC | April 8, 2011 12:10 PM
C5 blurts:
Like countless Christians, I don't think that "divine intervention" excludes the possibility of taking medication because God does not solve every problem for me: he's intervention is only to the extent that I realize what is best for myself on this earth.
Yup, so how then can you determine said god exists? Haven't you noticed yet that everything in your life has proceeded pretty much the way you'd expect it to if your existence were controlled entirely by chance and the world as you found yourself in it? Doesn't it sometimes make you wonder why it is that the universe looks exactly like it would if god didn't exist at all? And so do you (with your appendix, eyes that are assembled backwards, horribly 'designed' lower back...) - you're the epitome of "some design, by what a designer!"
In other words, like countless christians, you're a fucking moron.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 8, 2011 12:11 PM
But I AM a duck, AND a pony. You can't prove I'm not...
Posted by: Joshua White | April 8, 2011 12:12 PM
I love these Behe-esque arguments using fake probabilities. I love them because they reflect such a profound misunderstanding of math and probability. The "odds" of something occuring when it has aleady occured are unity (1 in 1). If you don't understand that, then literally every thing you do every instant of every day is mathematically impossible. I just took a breath... when I did a certain large number of oxygen diatoms, say about 10^20 entered my lungs. Of all the oxygen in the universe, only those particular 10^20th, and no others. Since there are many, many more oxygen atoms than that in this room, this buidling, this state and this planet, the chances of that occurring by chance are incalculably small (1:googolplex terriroty). My pen is lying exacty where it is, not one Angstrom to the left or right, up or down, out of a virtually infinite number of potential positions. So, both my pen and my breath are the actions of an omnipotnet diety - one dedicated to picking out oxygen atoms and positioning pens.
Posted by: Dr. Steve | April 8, 2011 12:22 PM
Hey C5,
If your god is not a feeble god, then why aren't I a pony?
Quack!
Posted by: LightningRose | April 8, 2011 12:26 PM
Were you underwater?
Posted by: dmholland | April 8, 2011 12:30 PM
Wow, I bet C5 and the original letter author believe that if you mix yellow Play-Doh and blue Play-Doh you are just as likely to get a ham sandwich as anything else. After all, they're both made of the same constituent atoms (C,H,N,O, and traces of other stuff)... so random chance says anything could happen!
Get a clue - if your parents are human (and I have my doubts on that one), then you will be too.
Posted by: dcsohl | April 8, 2011 12:39 PM
This is the argument that card games are impossible, because if I deal you a thirteen-card bridge hand, the odds against your getting those specific cards are 635,013,559,600 to 1 against, and that's so incredibly unlikely that you aren't actually holding 13 cards.
I know they say that only God can make a random selection, but this is ridiculous.
Posted by: Vicki | April 8, 2011 12:48 PM
hmmm...its like they are talking to themselves...and trying desperately to convince themselves of something...
Posted by: the nomad | April 8, 2011 12:55 PM
Remember, he is a duck!
Posted by: DPSisler | April 8, 2011 12:55 PM
Sure. It is a total lie by someone extremely ignorant.
The overall homology between human and mouse is 40% not 97%. And humans and mice are very closely related considering the entire animal kingdom.
It goes down from there. Human and duck or human and fruit fly overall homology would be much lower.
Posted by: raven | April 8, 2011 12:59 PM
I countered fewer than 10 typos. This absolutely has to be a Poe. There's no way a creationist would have written something this legible.
Posted by: bananacat | April 8, 2011 1:28 PM
While humans share 97% of our genes with chimpanzees, that is the only species that we are that closely related to. Ducks and ponies do not share anywhere near 97% of our genes. My guess is that the writer of this letter (if genuine) heard about the discovery of our closeness to chimpanzees and either misinterpreted it or remembered it wrong as applying to all other animals (which is pretty sad if s/he really did take a biology class).
The reason that we share a lot of genes with other species that seem very different is mainly because most genes work behind the scenes. There are genes for bilateral symmetry, for basic organ and limb layout, for cell signaling, for enzymes, etc. And we do in fact have many of these things in common with ponies, and ducks to a lesser extent.
It's also a bit disingenuous to only look at animals (and specifically vertebrates), when the vast majority of other species are not animals or even eukaryotes. Most species are very different from us, and correspondingly, they have much less genetic code in common with us.
Ironically, this sort of discredits the writer's entire point. By comparing two species that are somewhat similar and saying that they have similar genomes, it's showing that our similar physical traits come from the same genes.
Posted by: bananacat | April 8, 2011 1:36 PM
Notice the f next to the g on the qwerty keyboard. Ed's emailer was either so infuriated by those egghead scientists claiming to know more than someone who watches Glen Beck(1) that he didn't notice, or more likely he just wasn't in the habit of checking his own claims(2).
C5 - I know you won't acknowledge this or think about it - too dangerous! - but why aren't poodles wolves? Human decisions chose from among the random variability in each generation of domesticated wolves, over 100,000 years, and we ended up with desired modifications.(3) Our selection process was probably not deliberate breeding at first; we would have kept the friendliest and otherwise most compatible wolf cubs as companions. And we probably weren't looking for poodles at first.
Natural selection is a set of circumstances that act on a pool of variability in each generation of a species. The variability is random; the selection is not. This does not mean that the selection process is directed.
Everyone else: I was raised Southern Baptist, and we were told one Sunday morning that evolution was obviously wrong, because we might have evolved on Mars instead, and then we'd all be dead! Tens of millions of people think(4) like C5 and the emailer.
(1) That George Soros; what *can't he do? I thought I had learned my evolutionary biology in school, on the internet, and from books. But apparently I learned from pamphlets instead of high tech media like whiteboards.
(2) Cue my own obligatory typo.
(3) Time for the alternative theory of God as the Divine Breeder: humans - four billion years in the making.
(4) For sufficiently low values for "think".
Posted by: kermit | April 8, 2011 1:47 PM
kermit #70 wrote:
Ok, I think we've just got another likely entry in the "funniest anti-evolution argument (Ed) has ever heard" contest.
Maybe Ed meant to challenge us. I've heard a few real bad ones, but there's no point: the candidate at the top and kermit's example both beat mine all hollow.
Posted by: Sastra | April 8, 2011 2:10 PM
The simple fact is that shared genomes are exactly what you would expect given common descent. The whole 97% thing is baffling. We're not more likely or even just as likely to be any other animal because we have human genomes. We're 100% likely to be humans upon birth, precisely because it isn't random. Evolution is not a random process.
As for the initial creation of life, even if we allow that random combinations of proteins and amino acids leading to life are unlikely (frankly no one really know if it is or isn't), we know that this happened at least once. As pointed out by another poster, the odds of something happening, already happening are 100%. No matter how unlikely life is, it happened. And when faced with the multitude of planets in the universe, I would guess the odds of life starting up randomly somewhere, at least once, aren't so low anymore. It's hardly a wonder that we as living creatures would find ourselves on a planet where life started, no matter how unlikely. It's a bit like playing the Powerball. The odds of any one person at any one time winning is absurdly low but we know eventually someone will win it. Eventually life, unlikely as it may or may not be, will probably start somewhere.
Posted by: Ryan | April 8, 2011 2:19 PM
Oh, yeah! Well, do you know who ELSE we share 99% of half of our genes with? Barack Obama AND HITLER!!
Posted by: democommie | April 8, 2011 3:49 PM
That's what you don't get. All there is is the paths, no goal, no endpoint.
Posted by: Rob | April 8, 2011 3:52 PM
One way I always try to explain this to the scientifically challenged:
The genome did not evolve through craps, it was Yahtzee.
Posted by: Stu | April 8, 2011 3:58 PM
It's also worth nothing that this 'fragile genome' meme, wherein even tiny changes invariably lead to catastrophic effects, is fantastically false as well. Eukaryote genomes are chock-a-block full of introns, pseudogenes, and other poorly-conserved nonsense sequences, most of which appear to have no function apart from providing physical space for mutagens and damaging agents to act with reduced impact on the important parts.
Posted by: PhiloKGB | April 8, 2011 4:27 PM
True.
The average human is born with 150 mutations compared to their two parents. We know this by actually counting them using whole genome sequencing techniques.
Most of those are neutral or have little effect either way. If they didn't, we would long ago have ended up extinct.
It also explains the huge variability between humans, as much as 15 million base pairs, 0.5% of the genome. All those 15 million base pairs can be considered part of our species wide mutational history. Hah, fragile genome except that it isn't.
Posted by: raven | April 8, 2011 4:47 PM
I wonder why so many creatards who think they know math have zero understanding of basic statistics. Variance, idiots. It's not that hard to master.
Posted by: Mojave66 | April 8, 2011 5:46 PM
Unfortunately I have to confirm your fears. I have at least ten students this year alone who would strongly agree with the author of this email.
Posted by: dogmeat | April 8, 2011 6:51 PM
...and you dont know jack about science.
... and then they proceed to show that they know nothing about science. Amazing how effective the religious brain virus can be.
Posted by: William George | April 8, 2011 7:13 PM
This approach always amuses me, whichever direction it comes from: Call your opponents "stupid", "morons", ignorant of "basic math skills", and then try to persuade them with a rational argument. (Well, at least this guy thinks it's rational.) If you succeed, you have to admit that a bunch of morons believe in your ideas.
Posted by: CherryBombSim | April 8, 2011 7:26 PM
PYGMIES + DWARFS + DUCKS + PONIES
Posted by: 386sx | April 8, 2011 7:27 PM
Dare we bring up pygmy ponies?
Posted by: dogmeat | April 8, 2011 7:40 PM
C5 says this in response to demo saying he wished all Christians would do this thing that very few of them actually do.
Definitely not as funny as the Japan thing, which had me giggling all day. I should probably thank you for that...
...
Ed, I have a small favor to ask. Can you just threaten to block C5 until s/he figures out how the hell to use the blockquote feature? You don't have to actually do it. Just, you know... Be like the guiding hand of God gently nudging C5 toward a brighter future. One filled with all the miracles and delights of reading comprehension.
Maybe the act of copying and pasting and previewing will force him or her to actually read what people have said. That's probably a foolish hope, but maybe it will be more amusing for us if it's right there, looming over the inevitable non-response.
Posted by: Leni | April 8, 2011 7:47 PM
dogmeat, we might have a hit movie on our hands.* We'll do lunch sometime.
*If people will watch "Jackass" they will watch any damn thing.
Posted by: 386sx | April 8, 2011 7:54 PM
We'll need some dull quack economist to narrate.
Posted by: dogmeat | April 8, 2011 8:34 PM
Fuckin' evolution, how does it work?
Posted by: Insane Mo Posse | April 8, 2011 9:38 PM
@386sx: PYGMIES + DWARFS + DUCKS + PONIES
And where's the crocoduck?
@PhiloKGB: It's also worth nothing that this 'fragile genome' meme, wherein even tiny changes invariably lead to catastrophic effects, is fantastically false as well.
Reminds me of a creationist argument which PZ posted a while ago claiming that we'd all be dead if the Earth was just ten feet closer to the sun.
Posted by: Emily | April 8, 2011 10:21 PM
Perhaps it was bound to happen at some point. Ed Brayton has crafted a post with which I agree. Katy bar the door!
Posted by: Rob Ryan | April 8, 2011 11:31 PM
Emily:
I think that's a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the Fine Tuning Argument. The 'fragile genome' meme is probably a function of poor science journalism; there's no shortage of reporting on a few genetic diseases, much less about beneficial changes, and none at all on the huge pile of silent mutations occurring in the background.
Posted by: PhiloKGB | April 8, 2011 11:44 PM
As a young man of 18 i found my self smack dab in the middle of north Korean and south Korean war ,in 1972-73.I was in the 1/9th 2ND Infantry division,there i was laying on the ground with my loaded(Locked) m16 pointed directly at collage students trying to go to school ,at the university of Seoul in south Korea,in a city of several million people,during a Marshall Law disturbance.while lying there i had a vision of my self being taught how to dance by my most extraordinarily black platoon Sargent.His command(words) to feel it,to just feel what was here in front of me now.To champinion its cause ,to understand it's force ,to be moved buy it's example,or shot or die to dance,or sie.At this level one can only then direct the overall cause of life.To suddenly come out of the woods to find only a wall of attack at simpleness,is itself educated abuse.Hey stupid thats corn not a potato mentality is noted.One must note that all science ,is made up science in it,s reflection of an exterior cause.All cause is decided on.Now i could have thought that they are wrong,i am right,but thats effect.By making room for the complete dance,all could play.Now i could rail up and say,you did that foot thing wrong,,you miss spelled a word.... Science as a replacement for religion; to some day will be unneeded and replaced by Personal Ethics.Unless you plan on keeping man sick,with more made up mental diseases To keep the people that way;Why not be educators to every man,at every cause level,and move the unhealthy uneducated unsafe to the shelter of Knowledge.bigd
Posted by: donnie harold harris | April 9, 2011 10:54 AM
The problem is not that this intellectual studied biology and science so he knows where as he speaks. No, the problem is he did not study to be an electrician. If he knew as much about electricity as he does of evolutionary science then the gene pool would be a bit cleaner sooner.
Posted by: John Norris | April 9, 2011 7:21 PM
87
Fuckin' evolution, how does it work?
Posted by: Insane Mo Posse | April 8, 2011 9:38 PM
Fuckin, that's how evolution works, just keep on fuckin' and shit will evolve.
Posted by: democommie | April 9, 2011 10:16 PM
"So why aren't we ducks or ponies?"
Google "Fuck you! I'm a dragon!" or simply FYIAD for even more chuckles.
Posted by: Paul Murray | April 10, 2011 5:15 AM
One wonders how they manage to really have any time to do anything when they are constantly going to radical extremes to prove some created fiction that has no basic in fact.
Posted by: John Bowling | April 10, 2011 12:14 PM
I'd like for him to explain to us all the scientific reasoning he has behind God.
Posted by: aviiiie | April 11, 2011 1:52 AM
Is "biolofgy" an example of specified complex information?
Posted by: tassilo | April 11, 2011 11:18 AM