…and this is a 
Creationists in Seattle? Say it ain't so!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 19, 2008 10:09 AM, by PZ Myers
I knew this would happen: creationists are pleased with the media coverage of the platypus genome, since it reinforces their misconceptions. The Seattle Times published a couple of letters from local creationists. Need I say that they are ridiculous?
It is rather sad to see the evolutionary spin doctors try to put a positive face on something like the platypus. "Bizarre DNA of Platypus tells a story about us" [Times, News, May 8] did not offer any plausible evolutionary scenario for such a creature's existence. This is because there is none.1
The platypus has long given the evolutionists nightmares. The article states the platypus is a "transitional creature." Even evolutionists admit that the platypus does not qualify as transitional. It is a mosaic, a curious compilation of features that continue to defy evolutionary explanation. Such chimeras offer no help to the hypothesis of evolution.2
The article speaks of the platypus (and echidna) being isolated on a branch of the evolutionary tree. What is true of every branch on the evolutionary tree is that there are creatures only at the tips of the branches and absolutely nothing leading up to them. The tree does not exist, nor do the branches, only their tips. Not much of a tree when it comes down to it.3
The spin doctors are hard-pressed on this one. If only the media would give equal time to other responsible viewpoints. And yes, they do exist.4
1There is a solid evolutionary explanation for the platypus: it's a member of a branch of the mammalian family tree that split off in the Jurassic, before our ancestors evolved viviparity. It lacks some of the derived traits familiar to us from eutherian mammals, but has other specialized traits unique to its lineage. This rally shouldn't be difficult to grasp; here's a diagram that illustrates the relationships.
2I've never had a platypus nightmare, and I doubt that many evolutionists have. We love oddball lineages that have survived into the present day — they give us an opportunity to identify features of our ancient ancestors. That the monotremes separated from the mammalian lineage 166 million years ago means they are helpful in sorting primitive from derived traits. Our poor sad benighted creationist then muddles up his terms. The platypus does exhibit transitional traits; for instance, it secretes a true milk laden with sugars and fats, but it lacks nipples. This represents an intermediate state between the the more generalized secretion of primitive mammals and the more elaborate specializations of eutherian mammals.
It is a mosaic, but all animals are; features evolve by accident and utility at their own pace. Some lineages will retain different sets of ancient characters than others, so you don't see every species evolving in the same way in the same direction. While it is mosaic, it is not a chimera of any kind. Its morphology is the product of an evolutionary history, not the cobbling together of bits and pieces from different species.
3The creationist gets something almost right in his third paragraph: only the tips of the evolutionary tree still exist. What he leaves out, though, is significant. There are also scattered ghosts of the deeper branches in the fossil record; it's very spotty, of course, but enough to see an intermittent outline of the structure. Most importantly, though, we also have genetic information that allows us to see which of the various twigs are most closely related to one another, and that allows us to infer and reconstruct the missing branches. So it is like a strangely cored sort of tree, where all we see suspended in space are a halo of short twigs in an ordered, organize pattern, with a few branches hanging within — it's more like an exploded tree, with modern species as part of an expanding wavefront. But we can still reconstruct the pattern; the evidence is there. Denying the tree is denying the data.
4Biologists are not hard-pressed by the platypus story: they sought it out, they worked to get funding for it, and a large group of biologists did the research with the explicit goal of fleshing out that branch of the mammalian family tree. It is utterly nonsensical to pretend that a research goal set by molecular and evolutionary biologists was something that they feared and were confused by…it's like complaining that a man who buys an expensive fishing pole and tackle, practices his casting for hours, ties flies, purchases a fishing license, hikes to a remote mountain lake, and spends his vacation days catching trout has an abiding fear of fish and has had his hobby destroyed because he caught his limit. You have to wonder what kind of screwy version of science this creationist carries in his head. Does he think the platypus genome project was a creationist initiative?
And if other responsible viewpoints exist, they are not represented by his inane letter.
How about another one? Another common characteristic of creationist thinking is the false hierarchy and the disingenuous enthronement of anything-but-biology as the only "true" science.
A belief in atheism and evolution by natural selection comes up way short when you throw pure science into the mix.
Evolutionists rely heavily on the science of biology, which employs as its main support resourceful guesswork and subjective conclusions. You see a lot of maybes and might-haves and could-haves in their writings that have no place in mathematics, chemistry or physics (the pure sciences).
It has been math probability, chemical structure, the discovery of precise cellular organization (biochemistry) that have played havoc with evolution theory.
In the strictest sense, evolution by natural selection is not a science but a conjecture that has been sold as an established fact. We were content to accept it as a theory, but when it strayed into established fact, it became non-supportable by the pure-science folks and, like many things conceived by man, could not stand exposure by the light of truth.
In the words of a great statesman, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."
There is a deep confusion here, that absolute, unquestionable certainty is the hallmark of a true science. I assure you that physics and chemistry use proper scientific caution in their phrasing of their results, too, and like biology, all rely on evidence, not guesswork. This guy is a clueless loon who doesn't know a thing about any of the sciences, while using his imaginary criteria to shuffle them into nonexistent pigeonholes.
And, as usual, he mangles math and chemistry to claim that these have refuted biological conclusions when math and chemistry are right there at the heart of modern biology; these are disciplines we use in our work.
I'll be in Seattle in two week, and I hope Glen Howard and Ray Womack can make it to my talk. I'm planning to discuss common creationist misconceptions and failures to comprehend, as well as common creationist lies, and I intend to use examples from my mailbox as well as from the web — I may talk about their foolishness publicly. They're welcome to show up and try to bluster away.
Oh, also, while I'm in Seattle…Carl Zimmer is following me around. He's going to be giving a talk on 3 June, the day after mine. It's like a ScienceBlogs invasion!
Politics
Comments
I notice newspapers really use their letters section as a safe place to dump crap. As bad as they can be, a typical newspaper would never include that stuff in their science section. But they feel the need to show all "sides" to an argument, and they let other people put out their dumb ideas, to let the ignorant feel recognized. Sometimes I think it's bad journalism to print certain letters. An editor should have their science correspondent look over letters before publishing them. That doesn't interfere with free speech or press. The paper is free to print good science or shoddy science, but they should choose to print the good stuff.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 10:19 AM
I'm anxious of going to bed tonight now. I just know I'm going to have that terrible Platypus eating a banana nightmare again ...
Posted by: Wallace Turner | May 19, 2008 10:24 AM
Yeah but all those talking points are facts. When did they ever let facts influence their take on science.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 19, 2008 10:27 AM
Fundies are just inherently funny.
Posted by: Mena | May 19, 2008 10:33 AM
Funny, when you think about it. These buffoons point and sneer at the "evolutionists" and yet it was those same evolutionists that made the discoveries and published the papers. They did all the work, not their foolish detractors who did none.
I have yet to see where this research in any way detracts from the ToE. Indeed, quite the contrary.
When was the last time any YEC organization actually did science in any field, or indeed, was equiped to do such? Really, I'm asking.
doov
Posted by: Duvenoy | May 19, 2008 10:38 AM
"It has been math probability, chemical structure, the discovery of precise cellular organization (biochemistry) that have played havoc with evolution theory."
This is clearly a reference to Dembski and Behe.
Too bad creationists only read crap pseudoscience and ignore actual science books.
Posted by: spurge | May 19, 2008 10:40 AM
Dembski and Wells, in their awful book The Design of Life, point out in a faux-triumphant sort of tone that although the platypus has characteristics we associate with birds and others we associate with mammals, even biologists admit that it's not a "transitional form" between birds and mammals. The book is loaded with forehead-slappers like that. The sad thing is, so few people understand the nature of evolution well enough to understand just why that's a stupid thing to say, and exactly why the platypus is not some sort of half-mammal half-bird transitional form. Needless to say, Dembski and Wells do nothing at all to explain how cladistic analysis of shared and derived characters actually works, or what the relationship between monotremes and therians is, or how once you understand that, the platypus makes perfect sense (or, perhaps I should say, as much sense as something as strange and grin-inducing as a platypus can make...).
Barry
Posted by: Barry Trask | May 19, 2008 10:41 AM
Newspapers publish opinion sections because it keeps readers engaged. So they go ahead and print letters that are totally stupid, or fly in the face of reality, because they know it will generate MORE letters, etc.
Posted by: True Bob | May 19, 2008 10:42 AM
"When was the last time any YEC organization actually did science in any field, or indeed, was equiped to do such? Really, I'm asking."
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/tree-of-life-hacked-down.html
Well, you did ask.
Posted by: MartinC | May 19, 2008 10:46 AM
PZ quote "There are also scattered ghosts of the deeper branches in the fossil record; it's very spotty, of course, but enough to see an intermittent outline of the structure."
I like that.
Posted by: extatyzoma | May 19, 2008 10:46 AM
Dennis, I work for a newspaper. The letters section is for opinions, and editors find it hard to cut out any but the most repeatedly loony -- the crackpot who writes week after week about demon spiders coming to drag all sinners to hell, or the guy who sends repeated demands for the CIA to stop stealing his mail.
One place I worked, I got letters regularly from a retired English teacher who went through each issue and picked out every typo, misspelling and grammatical mistake. He not only sent me letters, he sometimes came by the office and carefully explained things to me!
Sometimes, it's a matter of not finding enough good letters to fill the hole, and sometimes they put in the loonies deliberately just because they're so funny.
The only defense we have is to make sure we write letters to represent the other side. Every time you see something in your area you think is going to stir up the anti-science idiots, see that a pre-emptive flurry of pro-science letters get written and sent to the paper.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 19, 2008 10:50 AM
"and, like many things conceived by man, could not stand exposure by the light of truth."
I'm surprised the writer didn't capitalize "Truth". Or better yet, "TRUTH!!!!!!111!!1"
Posted by: Rick R | May 19, 2008 10:52 AM
I wish you wouldn't post these -- they just make me angry and then I don't get any work done! I hope those two yahoos DO show up when you lecture in Seattle so you can set them straight. More than likely though, they'll skip the event -- no one likes being proved wrong.
Posted by: Aaron | May 19, 2008 10:52 AM
Thanks for the insight, Hank. I try to write to my paper whenever certain issues come up, but it's very difficult to explain complex issues and form rebuttals in 250 words or less, while it's quite easy to be nutty in just a few words. The crazies have a distinct advantage. It sometimes take pages to break down everything that's wrong. I end up writing it for myself, just to soothe the dumb out of my head.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 10:56 AM
Dr. PZ, while you're out in Seattle, why don't you make a picnic, and go check out the DI? I think you'll be able to find it; after all BS did, without too much trouble. It would be amusing to see the reception you get, strolling into the "lair of the enemy". Just be sure to take a good camera crew, and you might want to wear clothing made by DuPont (kevlar)...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | May 19, 2008 10:56 AM
I love the platypus example when talking with creationists, they've usually been told that this animal shows how evolution is wrong, and it's usually easy to show how wrong they are.
If there is a single lie that, when exposed, helps creationists out of their denial it is this one on the platypus. Of course it doesn't do much against the "you can't believe in our god if you accept science" line preached in many churches.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | May 19, 2008 10:57 AM
I would call these people retards, but that would be an insult to the truly developmentally disabled.
Posted by: Andre | May 19, 2008 11:00 AM
once again a testament to creationist ignorance, misunderstanding and lack of imagination.
Somehow the bird like bill of the playtpus, its venom, its egg laying all conspire to throw the creationist into a tizzy, words to the effect of 'how can evolution explain that?'.
well what a bunch of fucking neotenous gibbons, just because the platypus is a bit 'odd' among the surviving mammals they just cant hack it, one could pick ANY creature and say 'how can evolution explain that' and of course evolution can be used to explain all of it. Ive noticed that creationists always sound a bit dumb generally from their writing style, its hard to put my finger on it but these two letters sound like 17 year olds rehashing nonsense they have read in creationist pamphlets but im guessing they could be a bit older.
quote 'your ignorance is not evidence'.
Posted by: extatyzoma | May 19, 2008 11:00 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp
Never, of course. Facts have a well-known liberal bias and can turn people into Godless evilutionists.
I AIN'T NO MONKEY!
Ugh. I can't keep this kind of farce up for long. How does Colbert do it?
Posted by: Spook | May 19, 2008 11:00 AM
Rats! I was really hoping that the first letter-writer would elaborate on those 'other responsible viewpoints' because I've yet to hear one.
Note to Mena @ 4: I prefer pathetic to 'inherently funny,' though they sure do say the strangest things.
Posted by: Pete Moulton | May 19, 2008 11:07 AM
Dennis N (#14): "[I]t's very difficult to explain complex issues and form rebuttals in 250 words or less, while it's quite easy to be nutty in just a few words."
An excellent, concise summary of the fundamental problem the pro-evolution/pro-reality side has. The Gish Gallop works because of this phenomenon - you can throw out fifty crazy ideas in the time it takes to refute one.
I know you're talking about newspaper editorials here, but it seems that it's a wider issue than just the back page of your local paper.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 19, 2008 11:08 AM
I ain't no kin to no platypus!
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 19, 2008 11:10 AM
It's morphology is the product...
"IT IS morphology is the product...", PZ? For shame!
Posted by: Kimpatsu | May 19, 2008 11:13 AM
hang on, i thought the playtpus could be the clincher, its almost the famous crocoduck, maybe the 'crocobeaver'.
surely this proves that evolution is true. ah damn, i suppose only the crocaduck will do, oh and its not a 'true transitional' well i dont suppose it can be (yes, it has retained transitional features) until its got about 20,000 descendents after it, doh.
Posted by: extatyzoma | May 19, 2008 11:13 AM
How many genomes do you think we could get them to finance that way before they caught on?
Finally, I wish I dreamt of platypodes!
Posted by: Sili | May 19, 2008 11:14 AM
#22, Patrick Henry: "I ain't kin to no platypus."
Speak fer yerself, Miles -- I mean, Patrick Henry. My sister done married m'cousin, and they have a li'l daughter we call "Platy Mae." All furry with a sorta beak. The doctors'd fix her but we need the eggs.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Trask | May 19, 2008 11:15 AM
dutch delight.
quote "I love the platypus example when talking with creationists, they've usually been told that this animal shows how evolution is wrong, and it's usually easy to show how wrong they are." unquote
it never ceases to amaze me how people can seem fairly intelligent generally but if they have creationist leanings they invariably start to talk utter shit as soon as they try to discuss evolution, its a very strange phenomena, maybe the talk shit generally but i just dont give a hoot, at least when evo comes up i have a reasonable understanding and id say that not a single creationist I have met has the slightest understanding of evolution, its almost embarrasing. If they try to move to atheism or god, i ignore that and keep them working on evo until they realise they know jack shit and walk away.
Posted by: extatyzoma | May 19, 2008 11:19 AM
The article states the platypus is a "transitional creature." Even evolutionists admit that the platypus does not qualify as transitional.
The first statement wasn't needed by the article's authors. If they actually made that statement, it was a waste of effort. It didn't help them (for a number of reasons) and it shoots them in the foot with these fundy assholes. The second sentence cannot be considered false because it doesn't even make sense.
Qualifies as a transitional creature? What, we have a fucking formula now?
"Taxon A possesses all of these synapamorphies of the clade we classify it in, Clade 1. But look, it also has three synapomorphies of this other clade over here, Clade 2. That's neat! Hey, but wait, Taxon B over there possesses four synapamorphies of Clade 2. Taxon B is obviously transitional between clades 1 and 2 where Taxon A is simply a member of Clade 1. Taxon A does not qualify as a transitional form between 1 and 2."
What a bunch of bullshit. If someone within the scientific community said that the platypus isn't transitional, they made a mistake. Everything is transitional...that's sort of the point.
Here's the task for the day. Find me an animal that isn't transitional. Show me an animal that isn't a transitional organism and bulletproof your answer. Go.
Posted by: Josh | May 19, 2008 11:21 AM
"evolution by natural selection is not a science but a conjecture that has been sold as an established fact"
I have seen similar arguments like this. The irony is lost on them that they are criticizing someone's beliefs as being conjecture and subjectivity treated as if it was established fact, yet they don't realize that their preferred "theory" is exactly that.
Posted by: PsyberDave | May 19, 2008 11:21 AM
This "belief in atheism" nonsense annoys me no end. I wouldn't even know how to start to believe in atheism.
Posted by: mikespeir | May 19, 2008 11:26 AM
I've heard creation-sympathetic people bring up the platypus in simple water cooler discussions at work. I wish I had pressed them more, but this was several years ago now, and I was much less informed then.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 19, 2008 11:32 AM
It always annoys me that the creobots think that because you can produce a mathematical model of something, it somehow makes it correct. For some reason, they have the greatest difficulty in understanding that math is not some sort of magic dust that transforms their ridiculous fantasies into "science". Of course, in this process they demonstrate their complete ignorance both of biology AND mathematics. If the model is WRONG, the theorems are useless. And their models are laughably WRONG.
Posted by: Ale | May 19, 2008 11:34 AM
Don't y'all know the platypus was created by god on the 8th day. He rested real good on the 7th, got into the liquor cabinet and really decided to F*** with the scientists.
Now I think I am going to go F*** with some creationists I know. I will tell them since I have hazel eyes I am a transitional form between green eyed and brown eyed people.
Posted by: mr_p | May 19, 2008 11:38 AM
To Mikespeir:
You could pray like Jacques Prévert:
Translation:
Posted by: Daniel R | May 19, 2008 11:39 AM
#32, Ale: "It always annoys me that the creobots think that because you can produce a mathematical model of something, it somehow makes it correct."
You know, that is my standard rant against Specified Complex Information, and against any "information theory" attack on evolution. I am a bit surprised that more people don't point this out when arguing with Dembski. Mathematical models prove nothing in themselves as regards the external, real world (though they may, of course, prove purely mathematical propositions beyond any doubt); they make predictions which we have to test by observation. So, if the model says evolution can't happen, but evolution seems to be happening regardless, that doesn't disprove evolution; it places the model in question.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Trask | May 19, 2008 11:42 AM
"The science of biology relies heavily on evolution"
There we go, corrected it for 'em. What's the phrase? "Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching English without verbs".
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | May 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Well, you got to hand it to him, though. Unlike most creationists, he actually hit the nail on the head on an argument that would, were it true, falsify evolution: the existence of a chimera (and no, by the way, I'm not talking about fused embryos, but relatively large multicellular creatures that have features as if they had descended from two otherwise independent branches of the tree of life). Too bad he's flat wrong that the platapus is an example of such a chimera.
Posted by: Jason Dick | May 19, 2008 11:45 AM
This Ray Womack who seems to have a "very profound understanding of science" and writes :
also wrote (found with google) :
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003693915_sunlets06.html
The president knew there was a long hard fight left ahead but had no problems with this "mission accomplished" banner knowing that the press of the whole world would be filming it ? How logical is that as an argument ?
Doesn't surprise me that when one has the same kind of twisted logic as our dear president one can come up with this kind of letters to the editor.
What a joke this guy is.
Don't think you really want to meet with this Ray Womack when in Seattle, PZ.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 19, 2008 11:45 AM
[QOUTE]it never ceases to amaze me how people can seem fairly intelligent generally but if they have creationist leanings they invariably start to talk utter shit as soon as they try to discuss evolution[/QUOTE]
I can't give credit for this quote, since I don't know who he is, but its one of the guys who talked on 'Bullshit!' episode about the bible.
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they learned for unsmart reasons."
Posted by: Josh West | May 19, 2008 11:52 AM
Hey, just do a couple of oxidative additions and reductive eliminations, and you are on your way!
Back to the topic: I remember reading about platypus evolution a few years ago on TalkOrigins. Now, I don't necessarily think that TO was the final word or anything, but I've been wondering, did the recently reported genome make any serious changes to the general view of platypus evolution?
Posted by: Pablo | May 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Interesting post on a hot topic that will certainly never end. One point to be made: not all evolutionists are Godless.
Posted by: Nate Nead | May 19, 2008 11:56 AM
I nominated the platypus as "best mammal," though I'm sure that I wasn't the first.
It's a great little bugger. The animal is just what you'd expect from something that split off from our lineage (or vice-versa--well, it's both) long ago.
I was asking the IDiots why it is that the platypus has similarities with us "because we have the same designer", yet has entirely different sex chromosomes than we do, while actually having our sex chromosomes as autosomes. Of course they didn't answer. If they really thought about the platypus, it only makes sense as an evolved animal having reptilian and even bird genetics that the rest of mammals (except two species of echidna) have lost.
Of course they can't wrap their minds around the fact that a mammal would have bird genetics, since they think that birds would be "evolving to become birds" and platypuses would be "evolving to become mammals". Actual evolutionary dynamics are confusion to them, because their hatred of biology hasn't allowed them to learn evolutionary theory. Oh, a lot of them are hideously lazy intellectually, as well.
Gee, you might think that Darwinists hiding the truth wouldn't want to expose all of the "difficulties" of the platypus genome, especially since we had evidence of how unusual it is for mammals well before sequencing was completed. Except, of course, that the platypus genome has done what every other sequenced genome has, demonstrated that genomes are absolutely without sense or reason without (non-teleological) evolutionary theory.
Were it otherwise, I would hope that we'd be pleased to know of this. However, nothing suggests that it is at all other than evolution we see by comparing genomes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 19, 2008 12:02 PM
Some days ago, I saw (here, perhaps, or elsewhere in the Web) a cartoon, with, on the left, normal scientifics saying "here are the facts, which conclusion can we draw from them?" and on the right, creationists saying "here is the conclusion, which facts can we say to make it valid?" or something like that.
But I don't remember where I saw it. Here, perhaps? But I didn't find. Can somebody tell me? Thanks.
I consider it is the first reason why it is impossible to talk with religious people. They already know what is true.
Posted by: Daniel R | May 19, 2008 12:14 PM
Further evidence of the kind of desease that seems to be occupying most of Mr Womack's brain :
And of course, the expectable and unavoidable letter from Mr Womack to the editor with his most precious comments on HOMOSEXUALITY, what else would you expect ...
You see, it's like a winner take all, you know for sure that the first letter, the naïve little letter on science and evolution generates all this nonsense, it's guaranteed win !
Thank you for this dreck Mr Womack.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 19, 2008 12:17 PM
UGH. Just, UGH! To me, it is inconceivable that these folks even read the platypus genome paper. They certainly SHOULD have, but it's painfully obvious that they did not.
So, when reading these comments, it's just eye-gaugingly bad =(
Posted by: Jason | May 19, 2008 12:18 PM
The platypus?? Feh!
What I really want them evilutionist to explain is the jackalope. I seen one of them in a bar out in Wyoming and there ain't no way you can't call that the work of a creator.
Posted by: Larry | May 19, 2008 12:19 PM
@ Josh West #38:
It was Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, if I recall correctly.
Posted by: Adrian | May 19, 2008 12:21 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 19, 2008 12:45 PM
Reginald, that is a gross overstatement of the significance of Heisenberg. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has very little real impact on chemistry or (most of) physics, especially in regards to "might haves" and "could haves." h-bar is just too small to lead to much uncertainty in these fields as usually applied. Yeah, it comes to play in particle physics and in ultrafast spectroscopy (an interesting incidence, btw), but a materials scientist isn't going to be invoking Heisenberg.
Posted by: Pablo | May 19, 2008 12:53 PM
Ray Womack:
Hah! I'd like to see this retard try to retain this attitude next time he has to go to the hospital! Doctor:Posted by: Nova | May 19, 2008 12:59 PM
@#2 Wallace Turner --
Let's just hope the peanut butter jar doesn't show up...*shiver*
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 19, 2008 1:04 PM
What I wanna know is, how did Noah git the platypus on his ark, seein' that it's only found in Austrailia?
They got a lot of weird critters down that way. Why'd so many weird ones end up in just one spot?
Posted by: Dr Benway | May 19, 2008 1:16 PM
Platypi give me nightmares, but not for the same reason. They're so cute...but they have venomous barbs of agony.
Posted by: LordJiro | May 19, 2008 1:23 PM
About this "peanut butter jar": now, when looking at such videos, I check whether it is a comedy or not, so terribly stupid they can be.
Posted by: Daniel R | May 19, 2008 1:24 PM
The peanut-butter thing is a classic. Monumentally stupid.
And what arrogance and disrespect for knowledge it reveals!
Posted by: Kseniya | May 19, 2008 1:28 PM
God, I just went and read my local paper back home and had to come back here for a dose of sanity. Every day is 3 letters to the editor touting tired old ID arguments, and there's no comment section to debunk them. I have to come here back to relax.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 1:33 PM
What I wanna know is, how did Noah git the platypus on his ark, seein' that it's only found in Austrailia?
Hyperfast tectonics--after the flood.
Seriously, I've seen them advocate that. Doesn't explain why so much weird shit is in Australia, but that would require them to be consistent...
Posted by: Josh | May 19, 2008 1:36 PM
I realize the difficulty you have over there in USA... (sorry, I just discover that.) But I consider that they are wrong to try to attack science: Science is a wall very hard to destroy. Hope it is not going to degenerate into a civil war.
Posted by: Daniel R | May 19, 2008 1:45 PM
About the sainted crocoduck
I do not give a flying fuck.
Bananas do not trouble me
Because I know their history.
The jar of creamy peanut butter
Used by that religious nutter
Does not bother me at all
And cannot make my spirits fall.
These people now will claim, it seems,
The platypus must haunt my dreams--
Creationists who haunt Seattle
Write this sort of brainless prattle
And send it to the local press
Though why they print it, I can't guess.
(The only part that gives me fright
Is this: These folks know how to write?)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 19, 2008 1:48 PM
Cuttlefish (@58):
I would suggestyou submit this (with the second line suitably redacted) to the Times as an LTTE... except that in my experience they insist on knowing your name and address, which I suspect would be a dealbreaker for you. Too bad...
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 19, 2008 1:54 PM
I prefer the Tardis Ark explanation. You see, the interior of Noah's Ark existed in a different dimension created by God explicitly for Noah's use. The Ark has many entrances, each opening onto a different continent. You see? Don't you feel stupid now?
Posted by: Jams | May 19, 2008 1:56 PM
SEATTLE SYMPOSIUM on GENOMICS of SPECIATION this Friday
For PZ and other interested Seattlites:
If you're in Seattle this week, there is a great symposium offered at Foege Auditorium in (of course) Foege Hall on the UW South Campus, Friday May 22 from 8:30- 11;20- The 4th Annual Genome Sciences Traning Grant Symposium : "The Genomics of Speciation". Joseph Felsenstein, UW, William Rice, UCSB, Mohammed Noor, Duke and Hopi Hoestra, Harvard, are all giving talks. Don't know if you will be here yet, PZ, but the talks should be great, and maybe of general interest to Pharyngulites. I'll post this here, and leave it to readers to forward info to those who might be interested. The announcement poster gives (Jeremiah Smith)JJsmith@u.washington.edu as a contact email.
Posted by: MkieK | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM
Any chance they might be taping your lecture in Seattle? I would definitely YouTube it!
Posted by: Pixel Pixie | May 19, 2008 2:02 PM
Tardis Ark! Tardis Ark!
Posted by: Josh | May 19, 2008 2:05 PM
Uh... yeah. That really puts the "tard" in "Tardis".
It also reminds me of Howl's Moving Castle.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 19, 2008 2:21 PM
I wish there were some effective way to call the anti-science people on their arrogance.
Some scientist spends years studying an issue in detail and arrives at the podium to offer his observations and insights. What sane person, unless a qualified expert, would stand to say, "You've got it all wrong"?
Imagine having a carpenter at your home putting in a window. Your neighbor who knows nothing of carpentry or building regulations says, "Ur doin it wrong!"
There's a reason witnesses are not asked for their opinions in court, unless they happen to be experts in a relevant field. Non-expert opinion is worthless. At best, a non expert may offer a second-hand summary of an expert's position.
These creationists are ignorant of their own ignorance. Their insulated from the humiliation that would awaken them to their lack by a comforting illusion: that there exists a whole ton of experts out there backing them up. They know the experts are there because Pastor said so and because they hear all the time about these debates going on. The folks in the debates are Christian scientists and doctors. Real smart leaders in their fields.
Posted by: Dr Benway | May 19, 2008 2:27 PM
The only science the creoturds have comes from their book of mythology, The Beeble
Posted by: Ex Partiate | May 19, 2008 2:53 PM
P1 Platypus.
P2 Peanut butter.
C1 Crocoduck!
Checkmate, atheists! 5643 eleven!!!
Posted by: ennui | May 19, 2008 2:53 PM
Bill Dauphin @59--You are quite right, although you have my permission to submit it as your own.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 19, 2008 3:01 PM
With all the fundamentalist morons claiming that a platypus is some sort of chimera, I feel as though I have to defend the integrity of my blog title - Chimaera Contemplations. So with apologies to both T. S. Eliot and The Digital Cuttlefish:
The Ad-dressing of Platypuses
You've heard of the platypus from Australia
That is a member of the Class Mammalia
It split off from our family tree
Before we evolved viviparity
When first discovered it caused a ruckus
But was very soon named Ornithorhynchus
But how do you ad-dress a platypus?
It has a bill superficially like a duck
That it uses to dig around in the muck
This "beak" is electro-sensory and more
To locate prey for this carnivore
It does lay eggs, like few mammals other
But young platypus do drink milk from their mother
But contrary to what you may have heard
A PLATYPUS is NOT part BIRD
The venomous ankle spurs the males portray
May help keep other males at bay
And this is hypothesized to be the reason
They are only venomous during breeding season
But do not make the silly MISTAKE
To think the Platypus is part SNAKE
A chimera is a mythical creature
With fire-breathing as a prominent feature
Part lion, part serpent, part goat but all Greek
Bellerophon and Pegasus killed this freak
Although the beast was born of Echidna
A platypus is real and is NOT a CHIMERA
A chimaera is a fish of the deep and dark
With a rat-tail and claspers, it's related to the shark
It also is an organism with genetically different tissues
A chimera can cause the CSI some real issues
A chimera is also a wild dream or illusion
This is MUCH more like the creationist's delusion
The genetics are causing biologists no fuss
And this is how you AD-DRESS a PLATYPUS
(Sorry it's so long)
Posted by: Laurie Soule | May 19, 2008 3:07 PM
lol...Evolutionists are having a hard time with the "PLATYPUS" which is still not known to them if it's more reptile or closer to mammals. Some have suggested it's closer to reptile, but interesting observation to note, snakes strike with their fangs, while a Platypus strikes with it's heel. Now where are those missing links that moved the venom apparatus from one end of the body to the other?
Posted by: Michael | May 19, 2008 3:44 PM
Michael, do not run from the other discussion. Please tell us the experiment you mentioned about ID being done in a lab.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 3:48 PM
Michael
F-
Scientists are working toward answers, Creationists are sitting around with their bibles up their collective asses mooching off the work of actual scientists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 19, 2008 3:52 PM
Actually, according to Michael:
We're waiting for an example.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 3:54 PM
If you idiot trolls could or would read, you'd know that the model is that the platypus evolved venom independently of the evolution of snake venom, with both animals evolving venom from similar proteins.
As usual, you morons have no explanation for why the "designer" used the same proteins to modify to make snake venom and platypus venom. It could have used tarantula proteins to make venom, if it really were an intelligent designer.
Only evolution has sufficient constraint to make predictions, and of course it predicted that both snakes and platypuses would modify previously reptilian proteins to make proteinaceous venom (if such venom were found in both). While evolutionary theory does not predict that the same proteins must be used (at least not at our level of understanding--further research may show that it had to be that way), the results of this genome study is highly consistent with evolution, and not at all with an honest design hypothesis.
And no, I didn't respond for the sake of this mindless troll, but because honest readers might have questions about this matter.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 19, 2008 3:57 PM
I think what Michael means there is that they use the lab in the same way that the Cowbird uses nests.
They are parasitic. Not doing any real work themselves but picking bits and parts of actual science done in labs and distorting it to fit their preconceived idea of ID.
I'm still waiting on the testable theory before I start asking for any research.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Time to cue the SIG:
Michael, thou bootless fen-sucked minnow!
Posted by: ennui | May 19, 2008 4:08 PM
Thanks Glen. I actually though