Don't be surprised—it's just another couple of clueless creationists bumbling into science they don't understand, extracting single sentences out of context, and coming to faulty conclusions that contradict the actual results of the paper. Orac gets to have a little fun ripping up an easy creationist mark.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I saw it coming. The octopus genome was sequenced, and one scientist gushed about the differences between cephalopods and vertebrates, calling them "alien", and that became the news. People really need to read the paper before reporting on it, because it emphasizes the relatedness of octopuses to…
I arrived in North Carolina on Thursday night at around 6 pm. The next morning, I was barely coherent, after an amazing keynote speech, open mic night, and far too late an evening involving ocean bloggers and alcohol. I managed to cup some coffee, then make my way to my first blogging related event…
John Derbyshire, the National Review's token evolution advocate, has written a response to George Gilder's pro-ID article in that same magazine last week. Gilder is the founder of the Discovery Institute. In his response, Derbyshire uses a perfect metaphor for dealing with creationists:
It's a…
A few people (actually, a lot of people) have written to me asking me to address Kirk Durston's probability argument that supposedly makes evolution impossible. I'd love to. I actually prepared extensively to deal with it, since it's the argument he almost always trots out to debate for intelligent…
Yeah, and neither could the toe. I mean, think about it, how could you not have a toe, then suddenly have one? It's too complex, all that bone and muscle tissue attaching in such a specific way. And where are the toe-less monkeys we came from? And the blind ones?
I think toe evolution is the real weak link in your neo-Darwinian fantasy world.
This web blog talks about how "foolishness of the expert-scientists in their comments on the snake / primate race to evolve more favorably in order to save themselves from one another."
Also, there is an update on Kent Hovind's blog about the charges. He says he is not openly discuss the case, but he makes accusations against the IRS, the authorities and pastors and other Christians who have spread malicious rumors.
I propose we introduce these ignorami to the equestrian arts.
Let me guess armed only with the first half of eye quote... and completely ignoring the second half.
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." - Darwin
Didn't the eye start out when some very primative creature tried to eat a photo-sensitive thing, but couldn't digest it.
So a little DNA slipped in, and over much time we got the eye?
601, I like that theory.
So if i eat some laser-emitting thing my children will evolve to have laser-shooting abilities in their eye sockets. The thought kinda grows on me. I think I'll clone them so that I'll have an army of laser-eyed offspring to challenge PZ's army of Cyborg-squid.
I think I'll call them lase-eyed, or lasy-eyes or something, anyway, the world will bow before me.
*Goes on in a ranting, Mad scientist laughter*
You forgot to mention the famous Nilson and Pelger article on the evolution of the eye and their computer simulation that Dawkins frequently referred to.
(Of course, they forgot the acutally run the simulation and they are STILL working on it at last report, but you get the drift.)