…and this is a 
Well, no, actually, he didn't. But once again, he's going to get misquoted by every creationist on the planet, thanks to Newsweek. They have an article about him and his book, and in a nice bold pull quote, here's what they claim:
Hey, frogs are highly derived amphibians; we certainly aren't descended from them. Monkeys are closer to us than frogs, but they're still cousins, not grandparents. Not only does that quote look silly to a creationist, it looks ridiculous to a scientist.
So what did Dawkins actually say? Why, that the whole simplistic imaginary chains of descent that creationists invent are wrong.
The silliest of all these "missing link" challenges are the following…"If people came from monkeys via frogs and fish, then why does the fossil record not contain a 'fronkey'?"
If you ever wonder why scientists distrust the media, this is a nice clear example.
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 29, 2009 11:13 AM
Bullshit. If the word "monkey" has any meaning at all, then we did have ancestors that were, in fact, monkeys.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 29, 2009 11:17 AM
Sven, you're guilty of making more careful taxonomic distinctions than creationists do. You might be aware that "monkey" is a broad general category of primate, with a colloquial meaning that is applied to very diverse groups, but they don't -- they think "monkey", they think it's something as concrete as "macaque".
Posted by: Boomer
|
September 29, 2009 11:18 AM
Wow, that's a pretty loose paraphrase.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
September 29, 2009 11:22 AM
Newsflash!
Biological Darwinist, ZP Meyrs, says, "scientists distrust the media", because it makes evolution look "ridiculous to a scientist". Story at 10.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 29, 2009 11:24 AM
Newsweek! You have gone downhill steadily, and now this. To use one of PZ's useful phrases, Newsweek is now adding "negative knowledge" to our society. When I was in high school I respected Newsweek as a useful source of information. Congratulations Newsweek, you have descended to almost tabloid status. Keep trying, you're almost there.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 29, 2009 11:28 AM
At least it isn't only creationists who quote incorrectly.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Steve
|
September 29, 2009 11:29 AM
PZ, clearly Dawkins is at fault.
He just isn't that good of a communicator and is part of the reason why people hate science. I really think he ought to read Chris Mooney's wonderful book so that he realizes the damage he's doing.
If only he would follow the excellent advice he gives and learn to be a better voice of science, then I'm sure all this misquoting nonsense would clear right up. It's obviously a simple mistake. No good, religious person would go out of their way to reframe a quote like that.
Posted by: daveau
|
September 29, 2009 11:33 AM
They're just moving the goal posts again, since the crocoduck has been found.
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
September 29, 2009 11:33 AM
Only the media can take something so Crystal Clear and turn it upside down.....Damn them all.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 29, 2009 11:38 AM
re the monkey thing, yeah. It first has to be stipulated that there were thousands of species of monkeys that are now extinct, i.e., that I'm not talking about extant monkeys.
But the last common ancestor of Old World and New World monkeys must have been a "monkey," and whatever it was, it's our direct ancestor.
I guess the real problem is that the word "monkey" really doesn't mean very much.
Posted by: Lily
|
September 29, 2009 11:38 AM
I read the article on the subway this morning and it did strike me as a potential resource for quote miners. And perhaps Ken Ham will use the accompanying illustration of a fronkey as a model for a new exhibit, complete with a harness and saddle.
Posted by: Thorsonofodin
|
September 29, 2009 11:39 AM
What do people on here think of Dawkins' attempt to change it from the "theory" to the "theorum" of evolution? Think it will eventually catch on? I like the idea. http://www.tompainesghost.com/2009/09/theorum-of-evolution_28.html
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 11:44 AM
He has a good case for theorum. It's hard to predict what will catch on, but it's definitely worth a try.
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 29, 2009 11:44 AM
I'm sure all the Brights will use it...
Posted by: astronomer24
|
September 29, 2009 11:46 AM
God damn Newsweek...
Posted by: Thorsonofodin
|
September 29, 2009 11:47 AM
Speaking of Newsweek. Does anyone know how closely intertwined Slate magazine and Newsweek are? Are they the same thing? Owned by the same parent company? When I first got my iPhone I would listen to the slate daily podcast everyday but then I realized that they were pretty much covering whatever was happening in Newsweek. Then I saw a a story copied word for word in both. I feel like slate is a way for newsweek to slip into the online cool kids club. But I can see the wolf of MSM hiding in the hip online sheep's clothing. Newsweek is furthering its own irrelevance and I would suggest that Slate is joining them in their demise.
Posted by: larynx
|
September 29, 2009 11:51 AM
Crocoducks, Fronkeys...creationists are going to start demanding the production of fossilised Wuzzles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wuzzles
Posted by: raven
|
September 29, 2009 11:51 AM
It is even worse than the creos think. We are highly evolved bacteria. Considering that our distant ancestors were prokaryotes.
If the current models of abiogenesis are correct, we are also highly evolved RNA molecules.
Everyone has noticed that most creationists understanding of evolution ranges from nonexistent to not very realistic strawpeople. That MD from Loma Linda has spent years demolishing his own strawman without worrying about the fact that it bears little resemblance to reality.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 29, 2009 11:52 AM
Wow. That is blatantly misleading. Disgusting. That explains the weird quote some anti-science acquantance threw at me (uninvited, by the way) about Dawkins saying we came from aliens and that being proof science was no better than religion at explaining things.
Speaking of that, what do you guys do when some one sees a book on your shelf or something and tries to trap you in some kind of argument. I find such people completely distatsteful and would rather them leave my home, but I don't want to seem rude.
Posted by: Darren Garrison
|
September 29, 2009 12:01 PM
Sorry, Dawkins-- wrong again!
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=fronkey&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 29, 2009 12:03 PM
We're all just slightly clever pond scum.
Posted by: Lily
|
September 29, 2009 12:15 PM
Ol'Greg, I've never had anyone come over and start an uninvited hostile discussion with me about any of the books that are around my apartment. Maybe they're too distracted by all the scuba gear, clothes, papers, dirty dishes, cockroach moltings, etc that are strewn about my floor to even notice my books. But I'd say, if you don't want to get into that sort of discussion with the person just tell them so. I don't think there is anything wrong with declining a particular topic of conversation. If the other person is courteous they should respect that. I have a friend who likes to read her horoscope. I think astrology is a big load of shit and she knows how I feel about it. We recognize eachothers differing views and just leave it at that. We just don't get into discussions about it anymore. So if you don't want to discuss it, just don't. Either that or try messing up your apartment really bad so that your guests are distracted by all the other stuff lying around.
Posted by: Draken
|
September 29, 2009 12:18 PM
I suppose the reporter interpreted Dawkins as "If people came from monkeys via frogs and fish [which is true], then why does the fossil record not contain a 'fronkey'?"
I can understand the initial misparsing of this metaquote, but if the journalist had given it a second thought, he should immediately have caught the factual error. Was s/he a science reporter or just someone who happened to be available?
Posted by: mattheath.wordpress.com
|
September 29, 2009 12:26 PM
Oh, that was a stitch-up that dreadful film with the dead-pan comic actor did to him. They asked if he could imagine a conceivable way for ID to be true and he said that directed panspermia wasn't impossible as such. Then they were all "ZOMG!! DickDawk thinks ALF made people."Posted by: Sir Eccles
|
September 29, 2009 12:28 PM
Clearly "Fronkey" is a derogatory term that the other apes use to describe us homo sapiens. As in:
"Hey Fronkey, where you going out without no fur on?"
Posted by: rob
|
September 29, 2009 12:30 PM
Is there actually anyone using this Newsweek misquote to ridicule Dawkins? I don't even see see it as that ridiculous.
The point is that we have ancestors that are rather monkey-like (and like Sven says, were probably actually monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term), and ancestors that were probably rather frog-like (possibly something like this? http://current.com/items/88977136_scientists-discover-frogamander-fossil.htm ).
Dawkins was not criticizing the hypothetical creationist statement that we are decended from frogs and monkeys (instead, he was criticizing the conclusion based on it), so I don't that it was THAT out of line for Newsweek to quote him in the way they did. It was sloppy, but not nearly as misleading as PZ implies.
I say wait until the creationists actually use that against him to make a fuss about it.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac
|
September 29, 2009 12:33 PM
It seems Dawkins was illustrating the pervasive linear progression misunderstanding of evolution common among creationists. Apparently the author of the article thinks that way too. A straight line is so much easier to imagine than a branching bush, I guess.
Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com
|
September 29, 2009 12:38 PM
Silly Dawkins, Everybody knows that synapsids are commonly known as fronkeys.
Posted by: theridger
|
September 29, 2009 12:41 PM
But Rob: "monkeys via frogs and fish" has to mean that monkeys were first, and then frogs and fish (or possibly then frogs then fish) and then us" - which is ludicrous no matter what value you give "monkey" "frog" OR "fish"...
(and why all the hoops for commenting?)
Posted by: SEF
|
September 29, 2009 12:43 PM
A post mentioning frogs definitely needs a lilypad ...
Public Service Post (for anyone else having difficulty even getting the typekey/typepad sign-in option to appear!):
Sign in or register with TypePad.
Posted by: JSW
|
September 29, 2009 12:47 PM
Je suis d'accord. C'est très stupide de penser que nous descendons de grenouilles.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/70pKutZs3YuQx73LF0GzubKrVX3Zvqwq#faaac
|
September 29, 2009 12:54 PM
A blog about the above Newsweek article/excerpt from a christian. He needs to be corrected and pharyngulated.
http://doncolecartoons.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/richard-dawkins-the-angry-evolutionist-newsweek-oct-5-2009/#comment-21
Posted by: Die Anyway
|
September 29, 2009 12:58 PM
I'm with Rob @ #26. Despite the possibly poor grammatical construct and not quite exact lineage, I think the main message to be gotten across is that "monkeys" is a false starting point for human evolution. One of my co-workers was telling me that her middle-school son was studying evolution and he was complaining that he didn't believe he descended from "monkeys" (in the sense of prehistoric primates). I told her to tell him that if he was concerned about that he should know that we actually descended from fish. I don't know if that would help him with the "ick, I don't want to be related to monkeys" idea but it's a concept that needs to be gotten across. Human evolution didn't start with monkeys or apes. As mentioned above, it goes back to bacteria, but if for the sake of brevity we limit it to tetrapods, we can go all the way back through reptiles and amphibians to fish.
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
September 29, 2009 1:05 PM
Tulse et al:
While I applaud Dawkins' introduction of the word "theorum" (rhymes with "decorum", he says in his book), I think it will make the willfully ignorant even more so, and the honestly confused even more confused. Aside from the choir, I'm afraid Dawkins is overestimating the general intelligence of his readers.
As a biology teacher, it never failed to amaze me that, as much time as we spent discussing the differences between "theory" as it's used in science and in every day language, at the end of the semester students would still write on their final essays "I still don't believe in evolution--after all, it's just a theory."
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 29, 2009 1:10 PM
Ol'Greg #19 wrote:
Along with Lily's suggestion, it's never a bad idea to refuse to debate by pointing out where the real debate takes place -- among the scientists, the consensus of experts, in the peer-review literature and conferences. Not in people's houses.
Briefly explain that you think it's arrogant for folks without the necessary background in a specialized scientific field to just go by their instincts, gut feelings, and half-assed second-hand vaguely-remembered only-partly-understood understanding of the facts to act as if they're on the same ground as people with hard-won degrees who actually live and work with the issue. You can't --and won't -- place yourself on that level, nor will you encourage other people to think you do. You know your limitations. Sorry.
Posted by: amphiox
|
September 29, 2009 1:19 PM
The shared common ancestor of humans and monkeys would certainly have been classified as a monkey, but the shared common ancestor of humans and frogs probably wouldn't have much resembled a frog. Salamander-ish perhaps, but frogs are pretty derived. Comparing skeletons, for example, the human skeleton would be the more primitive one.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 29, 2009 1:27 PM
I like that suggestion Sastra. That's really more how I feel. I enjoy reading the book because I want to learn something from it, and I have it out because I've been reading it. I think some people just like to provoke because they want to take you down a peg and show that you're "just like them" really. Maybe if he does it again I'll tell him when we both finish our doctorates in Biology I'll gladly debate him on the issue.
But now that makes me sad that my goal of getting my PhD before thirty is completely impossible :(
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 29, 2009 1:28 PM
Macaque hasn't been concrete since I was 17, but thank science they've got pills for that now.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 29, 2009 1:30 PM
Well, if this evolution stuff is true, I want to see a half-plant half-animal. *nonchalantly squishes Euglena underfoot*
Posted by: rob
|
September 29, 2009 1:46 PM
Likely true, but then again, there is nothing that says that something can't evolve from something else that is "differently derived". Not sure how far back frogs go, but it is quite possible (although not highly probable) that we have an ancestor that is frog-like enough that we'd call it a frog.Posted by: marcus
|
September 29, 2009 2:00 PM
@35 "...it's arrogant for folks without the necessary background in a specialized scientific field to just go by their instincts, gut feelings, and half-assed second-hand vaguely-remembered only-partly-understood understanding of the facts..." Hey, that's just how I roll! Call it my own personal style.
Posted by: raven
|
September 29, 2009 2:06 PM
So ask them if they "believe" in The Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Internal Combustion. In other words, can germs cause disease and can engines in cars supplied with gasoline drive down the road? Theories can never be absolutely true but they can be close enough that there is practically speaking, no difference.
I've never gotten any vocal creationists. The classes were all upper division and college costs a huge amount these days. The students were more interested in passing the tests and not wasting money or time.
It's doesn't matter what they believe and who cares. If they are taking the class, they have to know the material, what and how scientists have found out about the real world. Whether they believe in reality or not is their problem.
Posted by: davej
|
September 29, 2009 2:07 PM
Here is the Newsweek article. Dawkins allows himself a silly moment of word games. This might not have been such a good idea.
The article is available online;
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/page/1
Posted by: Curious
|
September 29, 2009 2:09 PM
If this evolution thingie is true and we all evolved from slimy inanimate goo, then I want to see a half-rock half-monkey. Oh, wait...Ken Ham.
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
September 29, 2009 2:47 PM
Do they also say "There is no evidence for evolution."? I often see creationists say this on the internet, especially after a scientist carefully explains some of the massive evidence. Stupid can't be fixed.
Posted by: amphiox
|
September 29, 2009 2:51 PM
"then I want to see a half-rock half-monkey. Oh, wait...Ken Ham."
And that is a egregious insult to rocks and monkeys everywhere.
Posted by: amphiox
|
September 29, 2009 2:58 PM
#40:
The common ancestor of humans and frogs would have existed somewhere in the lineage between Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Hynerpeton and their relatives, through the Anthracosaurs, to the earliest "reptiles" (Petrolacosaurus?) prior to the divergence of the synapsids. Most of these critters could be said to superficially resemble a salamander (or somewhere on the spectrum between salamander and lizard), but I think if one of them existed today it would not be classified even as a salamander, let alone a frog.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
September 29, 2009 3:01 PM
Interestingly, the only one on their "web" edition is an article listed as "by" Dawkins, which has the correct quote. But, yeah, they couldn't mess up more if the sentence had been, "rocks are not alive", and someone had left out, "not".
Posted by: Drosera
|
September 29, 2009 3:12 PM
I'm not too keen on the neologism theorum. To me it looks as if someone was unable to spell the word theorem.
The common notion that theory only means conjecture can easily be dispelled by pointing out that even in mathematics we speak of Number Theory, Set Theory, Galois Theory, etc. In this context theory means the opposite of conjecture, since it refers to a body of proven statements (theorems).
If this doesn't work, if you really want to avoid the expression Theory of Evolution, then why not say Principles of Evolution, or Laws of Evolution?
Creationists will definitely hate the latter, since they tend to misunderstand the meaning of the term law in a scientific sense just as much as they misunderstand the word theory. But they will be unable to say, "Oh, Evolution is just a bunch of laws, you know."
Posted by: mikecbraun
|
September 29, 2009 3:25 PM
@ 29:
"...monkeys via frogs and fish" does not imply monkeys were first at all. If you arrive in New York from LA via Chicago, were you in NY first?
Rob be correct!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 3:38 PM
*groan*
Posted by: Peter G.
|
September 29, 2009 3:45 PM
This article was no doubt written by one of those beings that call themselves "professional" journalists who, strangely, have no actual professional governing body, no enforceable ethical guidelines and no licensing. This is the profession of choice for people whose best high school subject was typing.
Posted by: Teleprompter
|
September 29, 2009 4:01 PM
SEF @ 30,
Perhaps you are having trouble because it appears that Pharyngula is using Movable Type rather than TypePad? Or are both of those the same? I signed up for TypePad, and then tried to sign in to comment, but the screen displayed the Movable Type logo and said that my TypePad password combination was invalid. Then I signed up for Movable Type and now I am able to comment. It is somewhat confusing.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 29, 2009 4:34 PM
Dawkins is English, so why isn't his neologism the "theorium" of evolution?"
Posted by: Drosera
|
September 29, 2009 4:42 PM
Creationist: "If we're descended from frogs, then why are there still frogs?"
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
September 29, 2009 4:48 PM
'theorium' is a fast decaying radioactive element from the trans-uranics. It is a decay product of altiewooium which decays by emission of theorium and rationaluminium to leave a strangely stable and unmovable residue of dopeynutanine - itself a surprising member of the halogen family that seems to be as corrosive as fluorine.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Ol`greg, why do you get all the luck?
I leave my books by Dawkins and Hitchens on prominent display just to wind up my catholic in-laws ,and nobody has taken the bait.
Dammit, what am I doing wrong ?
Everytime a discussion around the dinner table turns to anything remotely contentious, if I offer a slightly contradictory point of view, the conversation shuts down completely. L O L
Posted by: SEF
|
September 29, 2009 6:03 PM
@ Teleprompter #53:
No. Pharyngula on ScienceBlogs accepts a variety of logins. MovableType accounts (which the logo on your comment shows you're using) appear to be the preferred option - being listed as the top and default one for sign-in. But it isn't the only possibility. TypeKey/typepad is a completely separate account type which Sb lists last but sometimes forgets to offer at all on its sign-in page (and even to display the correct logo on comment threads!).
Other account types normally offered on that sign-in page are LiveJournal, Vox and OpenID (from wherever!). These are now distinct species of login, although they do mostly seem to share a common SixApart Brad Fitzpatrick ancestry. TypeKey appeared to spawn typepad as a sort of sub-species a couple of years back but it isn't fully differentiated yet.
When signing in, you first have to select the account type option you want on the right of the sign-in page in order to then get the correct form and link on the left. This is something which you can't do if your particular account option isn't even being offered (despite multiple retries and refreshes)!
My shortcut link bypasses that bizarrely unreliable Sb stage and leaps straight to what the correct TK/tp link should be (for signing in, revealing the email to Sb and getting back to the same thread).
From your description, it sounds as though you didn't understand you were supposed to choose an account type on the right (it's a very poorly designed page). Which is why you were stuck with the default MovableType form and link and could only login from that with a MovableType account.
Posted by: shaunotd
|
September 29, 2009 6:08 PM
@mikecbraun #50
That is not the same form as the original quote.
"[humans from]...monkeys via frogs and fish"
Implies Monkeys -> Frogs -> Fish -> Humans
"New York from...LA via Chicago"
Implies LA -> Chicago -> New York
See?
Posted by: theridger
|
September 29, 2009 6:08 PM
FROM monkeys via frogs and fish. Just like FROM LA ... Sheesh.
Posted by: Dust
|
September 29, 2009 6:11 PM
Kermit the frog was also misquoted. Everyone thinks he said "It's not easy being green." But what he really said was "It's not easy being the deep time ancestor of humankind, or, green."
I was there, it's all true.
Posted by: mattheath.wordpress.com
|
September 29, 2009 6:16 PM
mikecbraun@50
Yeah but it's "people came from monkeys via frogs and fish" so monkeys are "LA" in that sentence. It's the analogue of "My in-laws came from LA via Chicago and New York" (spoken somewhere else; let's say London)Posted by: David Denning
|
September 29, 2009 6:29 PM
Dawkins was treated well today in Canada today - here is a great CBC radio interview with him on this morning's "The Current".
The Current, 2nd Part, September 29
Posted by: wrpd
|
September 29, 2009 6:44 PM
#56 sounds like a lot of bolognium.
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
September 29, 2009 6:45 PM
raven suggests:
So ask them if they "believe" in The Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Internal Combustion.
Why not cut to the chase? They "believe" in the theory of jesus christ and the bible. It's part of christian 'reasoning' that you have to take those on faith; i.e.: they are not proved. So I just ask them 'why do you reject one theory that has tons of supporting evidence in favor of another that has highly questionable anecdotal evidence?'
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 29, 2009 8:02 PM
Hah - as if Dawkins, or any biologist for that matter, would ever say something so unbelievably stupid as "humans descended from monkeys". I don't recall even Darwin writing any such thing (but someone correct me if they do recall such a thing). In all my years I've only heard "humans descended from monkeys" from ignorant creationists (which happens to be the subset of all creationists).
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 29, 2009 8:06 PM
@Steve #7: Stop messing with my head! Your Poe is too successful! For a moment I thought you must be Mooney.
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
September 29, 2009 8:25 PM
No, you're mis-remembering your physics 101i class. Balonium is what you get when Theorium absorbs several (I forget how many) high spin Bogons. This has only been observed in the Papal Encyclotron (at the U. of Wooville) so far.Posted by: nelc
|
September 29, 2009 8:29 PM
I'd just like to point out that the erroneous pull quote was likely not produced by the journalist who wrote the article, but by a sub-editor on the magazine. It's even possible that it was done by a layout artist, who are notably sloppy with the English language. (Sub-editors are supposed to know better.)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 29, 2009 8:34 PM
@ 33,
And what actually is it with this "ick" ? Why do these people have an "ick" when comtemplating the obvious fact that they have common ancestors with fish or turnips? I dont get that one at all, maybe someone can explain it to me, is their self-value so fragile that the sheer thought of not being personally carved by some celestial being bothers them?
People dont know what a scientific "theory" is because they are stupid and/or uneducated and/or willfully ignorant, I dont think introducing a new term that sounds almost the same is going to help.
Posted by: Steve
|
September 29, 2009 8:57 PM
I wouldn't get too upset over misquotes like this. The reason a lot of uninformed people dismiss evolution is not due to creationist propaganda, it is due to the essentialist intuitions humans have about species. We want to see each kind of animal, whether cat, bat, or rat, as having some essence that makes it a member of that kind, and our minds balk at the idea that one kind can turn into another. Those of us educated enough, or curious enough to educate ourselves, can get over this intuition and see the truth of natural selection. I'm a big fan of Dawkins, and love his latest book, but the real problem is not whether or not one book is presented correctly in the media, but rather how to get evolution taught in schools, so that creationist propaganda can no longer find an audience.
Posted by: Blondin
|
September 29, 2009 9:16 PM
Would you believe... a frockoduck? /86
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 29, 2009 9:32 PM
Rorschach wrote, #70:
Yeah, that's always bothered me as well. What's bad about our ancestors having developed from very simple organisms into more complex organisms like fish (or fish-like creatures) into early apes into our current form of human apes? To me that's an achievement to be proud of - that we've earned our place on the earth.
How is that less worthwhile than being poofed into existence by magic fairy dust?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 29, 2009 9:57 PM
I don't mind being descended from primates, other mammals, amphibians, fish and bacteria. Compared to my Uncle Ralph, having monkeys as relatives is quite benign.
Posted by: atomjack
|
September 29, 2009 10:07 PM
steve, I disagree. The "Wedge Strategy" is being employed, and the rest of the christards are sheepling up behind the authoritarian religious to follow suit.
One of the first memorable things I learned about in catechism as a young boy was about "being a rebel" by praying before a meal. A lot of people buy into that, and the joining of a "rebel" group (though in the long run, they are actually the conformist sheep).
I find it incredibly disingenuous of the religious authority to play the tricks they play. Shysters, all, and suckers if they buy it, too. One of the best days of my life was when I discovered an internet site where the flood myth was brought into focus for me (In terms of location- it happened in a very small area, not the whole earth. This combined with all the other illogical detritus tipped me into "atheist" from"agnostic"). That was quite a while ago.
Monkeys like Ken Ham (heh, monkey bacon...) have an agenda. Want to guess what it is? How unAmerican is it when the religious NON-Right pushes ignorance in the face of ever-increasing competition around the globe?
Remember that competition and the meeting thereof means survival? I think that this great country of ours is being brought down by these assholes. I sure am glad I spawned three atheists to help with keeping our way of life great.
Maybe you are joking steve, but I have to say that discouraging kids from learning and achieving all they are able to be is not cool.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 29, 2009 11:26 PM
I believe that the original quote was something like, "Humans have a common ancestor with apes, and further back with monkeys, and still further back with fish..." or "Humans are related to apes, and more distantly to monkeys, and more distantly to fish and frogs and plants and bacteria," which is approximately what he said tonight at his book-reading event at the University of Toronto. I was there!
Posted by: Dean Booth
|
September 29, 2009 11:30 PM
I'm in the middle of Dawkins' book right now. I enjoyed his metaphor of walking down a line of rabbits, each one the daughter of the previous. Here's another way to put it: Imagine a line beginning with your mother, behind her is her mother, behind her, her mother, and so on. As we go down the line, at some distant point we'd reach a mother who, if you posted her picture on Wonkette, no one would comment "I'd hit it!" The creationsts think otherwise.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 29, 2009 11:32 PM
It sounds like a misquoting of "from fish via monkeys."
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 30, 2009 1:21 AM
First of all, Dawkins was quoting Creationist arguments:
Second, one Don Cole immediately picks up the phrase and re-issues it as Dawkins quoting J.B.S. Haldane:
He then proceeds to misunderstand or slide over Dawkins' arguments:
How does Richard Dawkins back up his conclusion saying: “Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one.” What does he mean by that? So, given enough time, a frog really can (and did) evolve into a monkey? ... Today’s science shows us that all humans are related. Humans are related to humans, not to frogs, swamp scum, rabbits, birds, crocodiles, monkeys, or anywhere inbetween, from goo to you, by way of the zoo.
He then descends into quoting the bible.
So Dawkins didn't say it, except in quoting creationists. And Haldane didn't say it. I've searched online for any such quotation and it's not in the first 100 Google results except for the to instances mentioned here: One hypothetical Creationist straw man and one manufactured Haldane quote.
Previous commenters are correct: via means "by way of" so Dawkins was reporting a particularly garbled version of evolution, monkeys --> fish and frogs --> humans.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 30, 2009 1:34 AM
As for the perennial vexed "theory" problem, I've taken to calling it the "explanation of evolution," as in "Evolution has been recognized to occur by some mechanism since the 1700s, and the following is the explanation of how it occurs."
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 30, 2009 2:32 AM
Guess who are going to be on Colbert tomorrow and Thursday?
Posted by: Pimientita
|
September 30, 2009 6:57 AM
Is there any appreciable difference?
Posted by: Tomato Addict
|
September 30, 2009 9:05 AM
RIBBIT!
Posted by: help ma boab
|
October 3, 2009 5:12 AM
Sastra
This is pathetic. What is it about creationists that you guys are terrified of debating with them, but hide behind your high priests?
Don't you realise that it took a reformation and hundreds of years of struggle to obtain freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech? And now you want to recreate a 21st century Magisterium that you go crawling to like lickspittles to be told what to believe?
raven
It gets more like some hyper-authoritarian church every day. Parrot what the priest tells you or you are out.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 3, 2009 5:33 AM
hmb:
LOL.
Apparently, actual modesty and humility is beyond your grasp.
As for being terrified... LOL.
This is Pharyngula. Addressing creationists is routine around here — it's going on right now in another thread!
I am also highly amused at your misapplied labeling of evolutionary scientists as "high priests", since it evinces an understanding of the pejorative nature of the term.
Heh, that was a good'un, hmb. Very shrill, very funny.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 3, 2009 5:42 AM
hmb,
One sentence, so many
mistakeslies, so much projection.Debating creationists is like taking the trash out, it isnt fun, but it's got to be done.And no, not terrified, rather bored to repeat the same old arguments over and over with a crowd that is about as open-minded as drosophila melanogaster.
Posted by: Tmax01
|
October 3, 2009 9:18 PM
Learn the science or you fail in all attempts to debate it.
Back On Topic (theoretically), I think PZ is getting himself in a tizzy over minor crap. The big news is that Newsweek had both an actual quote and a pull quote pointing out that, although frogs and monkeys are related, there is no such thing as a fronkey. The more subtle and more mangled thought is that the non-existence of a fronkey proves, rather than disproves, the fact of evolution. They did about as well as you'd expect when you hand a lumber-jack a surgeon's scalpel, and I for one at least appreciate their effort.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 3, 2009 10:14 PM
HMB, you either didn't read what Sastra said or you didn't understand it.
Do you argue with your dentist about how to do a root canal? Do you argue with your accountant about how to do your taxes? Do you argue with your doctor about how to treat gall stones? Of course not, you know that you don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to support any arguments you have with these people.
In a similar way, you don't have the knowledge and experience to argue evolution with a biologist. But that doesn't stop you or any other creationist from making irrational, ignorant, silly arguments about evolution. About once a month some creationist shows up to trot out the old "evilution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" wheeze. All that argument does is show us that the creationist (a) doesn't understand evolution and (b) doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
There are a few creationist arguments that aren't half-assed (they're still wrong, but not at first glance). However, we rarely see a creationist use one of these arguments. Instead we get the same old shit, time after time after time. "God of the Gaps." "Irreducible complexity." "Darwin recanted on his deathbed." "GODDIDIT!"
The only reason people even bother to answer folks like you is that SIWOTI syndrome is strong among some of us. Plus we do like to teach each other about different aspects of science. A while ago we had a geology seminar when a couple of genuine geologists were refuting a couple of creationists trying (and failing) to make the Noachian Flood match reality.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 10:42 PM
We are more than willing to have a scientific debate with creobots. But that requires them to know real science, like evolution, and to be able to correctly cite the peer reviewed scientific literature. Scientists define what science is, not non-scientists like yourself. Also, creationists sites are based on a religious idea, without any scientific evidence to back them up. Therefore, creationism is a religious idea, and even SCOTUS (the US Supreme Court) has said this. Religion cannot refute science, which is why you feel ignored. Science can't refute religion either, but it does make religions look silly if they religious ideas are out of sync with reality as defined by science.Posted by: SEF
|
October 4, 2009 7:06 PM
@ Tomato Addict #83:
8O¦
Posted by: Dania
|
October 4, 2009 7:27 PM
Yeah, right. That explains why no one is debating with you on the three threads you've been spouting your nonsense lately. I mean, no one is debating with you there, right? Because we're all sooooo terrified...
Posted by: help ma boab
|
October 5, 2009 2:51 AM
Dania, I have read here that Dawkins refuses to debate, Myers has done a whole post (Dilemma: Yes, I will debate with opponents who disagree with me, but if they disagree with me then they are crackpots and I don't debate with crackpots) on not debating and now Sastra is running from debating with friends and neighbours and thinking it is a virtue.
And what is worse: Sastra insists that you have to have a relevant degree to have an opinion and (educator?) Raven boasts that creationists don't raise their voice in his class. Sastra insists that creationists have to have a degree first and Raven won't give them one.
It is 'toe the party line or you don't get a pass'. You can only use the argumentum ad baculum once. Geddit? Once only. If a student gets the slightest sniff of argumentum ad baculum you will have a suspicious or hostile opponent for the rest of his life. Unless the students in your part of the world are considerably dumber and more docile than I am used to.
No wonder you lot are losing the argument. No amount of cartoons of grazing dinos being blasted by comets will carry you.
Tis Himself
Yes, because I know more about taxes than he does.
No, because I have heard and seen cases where Doctors have diagnosed and treated gall stones successfully. Evobots do not do anything successfully.
I'm intrigued by the Noah guys. What was their argument? Link?
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 5, 2009 3:18 AM
With the advent of evolutionary medicine which has provided useful information on treating diseases (and in fact have treated diseases, you're still stupid enough to make this claim?
Godbots are so blind!
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 5, 2009 3:41 AM
hmb:
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you repeat it enough, you might even come to believe it! ;)
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
October 5, 2009 4:00 AM
hmb - read up on what's referred to as a Gish Gallop. That's pretty much why scientists don't bother debating creationists. As for your comments about the uselessness of those applying evolutionary theory, go here and find out exactly how many times over you're wrong.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
October 5, 2009 4:18 AM
HMB, FFS. Dawkins and others have stopped doing many of these "debates" because the cranks just love getting big names on the bill in order to give their position/organization a false appearance of legitimacy.
Besides, one can only hear the Gish Gallop so many times before risking being provoked into violent action.
You sound halfway intelligent. Why you insist on being so willfully and obstinately ignorant, I just don't understand. It's so easy to educate oneself. Surely your local public library will have a couple of Biology textbooks you can check out.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
October 5, 2009 4:52 AM
I look forward to an honest debate. Unfortunately creationists aren't honest.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 5, 2009 5:59 AM
It's not about fear of debating creationists. It's about not wanting to give their position the same credibility evolution has. Evolution is science. Creationism is not. Debating the two as if they were on pair with each other may give the audience the wrong impression.
On the other hand, creationism needs to be opposed and exposed whenever possible. That's the dilemma...
But believe me, no one is terrified of debating with you.
Running? No, she's just pointing out to their friends and neighbors that evolution is not being disputed within science, where the relevant debates on the field are taking place.
That's not what she's saying. She's saying that it's arrogant of you to think that you understand this issue better than an evolutionary biologist. And she's right.
It seems that you're having trouble getting this: creationism has the same credibility among scientists than "flat-earthism". It's a non-issue, and only crackpots think otherwise.
What the hell are you going on about? Who is threatening students and forcing them to believe anything?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
*wipes tear from an eye*
Yeah, keep telling yourself that...
Yes, the theory of evolution totally depends on this kind of thing.
*cough* *cough oilprospection* *cough*
See, the way it's done won't change just because you assert so...
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 5, 2009 6:43 AM
This is pathetic. What is it about creationists that you guys are terrified of debating with them, but hide behind your high priests?
So just state your "debate" instead of complaining about it. At least you would get it off your chest! Good grief...
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 5, 2009 7:07 AM
Ahem. Who was the struggle against again? You would set us back hundreds of years with your silly creationist nonsense. Let us not make a loop out of history.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 5, 2009 7:12 AM
We had a "debate" with HMB about evolution back on the Dilemma of a Creationist thread. As is typical, he never presented any scientific data of his own, but just scoffed at our data, but never refuted it. He doesn't understand his personal opinion =/= scientific evidence, and science and scientists don't give a shit about his inane opinion. He also started ignoring anybody who rightly called him a liar for how he was arguing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 5, 2009 7:49 AM
O RLY?
Posted by: help ma boab
|
October 6, 2009 9:01 AM
Someone directed me to talkorigins.org. I found the piece there amusing.
That's an 'application'?
Still application light. But next we have a refreshingly candid admission:
Sweet! Thanks Mark Isaak. Help from an unexpected quarter. I've been trying to tell the guys here something very similar but they won't listen.
He then goes on to list alleged applications but later suffers a crisis of confidence and falls back on his long stop:
Just in case the wheels fall off some or all of his 'applications'.
How about "An intelligent God has set the entire universe and natural world in order (just as the good book says) and if you investigate the world around you might just discover order, multi-layered connectivity and unimaginable complexity"?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 6, 2009 9:14 AM
OK, how much longer until this creobot is taken out for the "long walk"?Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 6, 2009 9:16 AM
just as the good book says
If that book is good, then rape, genocide, and slavery are good things.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 6, 2009 9:32 AM
How about "If you find the end of a rainbow, you'll find a pot of gold. You just may have to trick the leprechaun to get it."
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 6, 2009 9:52 AM
IIRC, according to the long-lost Heddle, they are - as long as God is the one giving the go-ahead.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
October 6, 2009 9:52 AM
"Alleged"? Why do you hate the english language so?
How about "An intelligent God has set the entire universe and natural world in order (just as the good book says) and if you investigate the world around you might just discover order, multi-layered connectivity and unimaginable complexity"?
I think there are a few problems there, I've made a few suggestions, although I've kept your original text intact wherever possible:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 6, 2009 9:57 AM
HMB, your god doesn't exist, as you have have presented no hard physical evidence for his existence. Just presupposition on your part. Therefore, the babble is fiction, which we have pointed out enough, since without a god it can be nothing else. Your ideas are a jumbled mess of woo, with no rationality in sight. You are just embarassing yourself with your continued posts.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
October 6, 2009 10:15 AM
"and if you investigate the world around you might just discover order, multi-layered connectivity and unimaginable complexity"
Well, of course. We wouldn't be able to do much investigation if those conditions weren't met. Doesn't have anything to do with any god. If everything were simple and still worked, then maybe I'd think there was some sort of god behind it.
As for debates, we debate with creationists all the time. The big names don't do it for the reasons outlined above, and also because they generally are busy enough without having to engage in some silly staged drama with any random crackpot with a holy book. As for me, I don't debate anyone with stupid handles.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 6, 2009 10:27 AM
Bobber, I spied a "heddle" on the Conservapædia thread (#111), but I think you remember correctly how he was convinced that as long as God did it (like the Flood), it was "good".
Bernard Bumner, right on! Your suggestions ring true. For example, the guest blogger at Jerry Coyne's blog had a post up on the 4th about how short a time ago it was that we learned about something as important as heredity. We've moved beyond hand-waving as a species using science to develop explanations; turning pages in the "good book" doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 6, 2009 10:37 AM
Well I'll be a monkey's cousin. It was Heddle. I thought he'd given up here. Apparently he's still reading, at least.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 6, 2009 11:03 AM
Yawn, standard Creotard argument. The complexity of nature is the result of billions of years of change, for which we have evidence in the form of reliable dating methods as well as ongoing changes and evolution. It's way more complex than anything described in your archaic mythology (which support a vile sadistic genocidal god.)
Posted by: help ma boab
|
October 6, 2009 2:46 PM
You guys are so thick that I can hardly believe it. You know nothing of evolution. "Fronkey"? Monkeys have tails but neither frogs nor chimps nor humans have tails. It is clear that we evolved from chimps via frogs. We should be looking foe a fossil 'frimpanzee'.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 6, 2009 2:59 PM
of course, almost all frogs do, in fact, have tails.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 6, 2009 3:06 PM
Fixed it for you clown.Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
October 6, 2009 3:07 PM
You mean HMB is wrong! Again! Well colour me #A020F0.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 6, 2009 4:43 PM
Interesting. When we investigate the world around us we discover that life has evolved and that there's absolutely no evidence of God's existence. Are you sure God wants us to do something that will lead us to the conclusion that he doesn't exist?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 6, 2009 7:18 PM
HMB has mouthed off for Jesus for the last time. Check out the dungeon.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
October 6, 2009 9:40 PM
Hmm. I don't usually advocate banning, but if I sound like I've suffered head trauma when I say someone's handle out loud, then that should be grounds for the plonk.
Does anyone have any idea what it means?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 6, 2009 9:46 PM
Rey, try this.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 6, 2009 9:55 PM
And Rey Fox, do not overlook the Urban Dictionary meanings of "boab" of which definition-2 makes the expression a tad naughty for shits and giggles and definition-3 fit the offender well: