Pharyngula::Has there ever been an imaginative creationist?

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, April 01, 2005

Has there ever been an imaginative creationist?

PZ Myers • 100 Comments (last page)

A creationist asks an off-topic question in the comments, so I'm going to move it up here. Behold.

But, since you and your boys (and gals) represent, I'm assuming, some of the brightest minds in the field of Evolution, I would like to discuss it a bit, if you would do me the honor.
First off - I'm not especially knowledgable in Evolution, Creationism, or ID. So do me a favor and try to respond in such a manner that I do not need a PhD or dictionary to understand. But I do have a Masters from a top-teir university, so you aren't talking to a moron. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
My arguements are simple and obvious, but the best ones always are. I would like to know:
1. Why can't we find the Missing Link? Not one complete skeleton. We have thousands of specimens of trillion-year old Trilobytes, but not one complete skeleton of the missing link. Seems like we should be able to find hundreds of them, yet we cannot find a single one.
2. How can Life spontaneously generate from nothing? I am willing to believe, with caveats, that evolution or natural selection is possible. But Life appearing from nothing? I'm not buying it. Remember Entropy, anyone?
Evolution requires just as much Faith in Science as Creationism does in God.
Any reasonable responses from this bright crowd? We can degenerate into a flame war, if that becomes necessary to keep this endevor interesting. Thanks.

Jebus, but that's boring. Same ol', same ol'…first we get the defensive protestation that he is too a smart guy with a degree, then we get the string of creationist cliches, every one answered a thousand times, every one totally bogus, and every one revealing just how little our questioner knows.

Here's my answer to him.

See the Index to Creationist Claims, especially CC200, transitional fossils, CB00, spontaneous generation, CF001, second law of thermodynamics, and CA612, "Evolution requires as much faith as creationism". After you've read those, if you have specific questions, then we can talk.

If those are your best questions, you're in trouble; they are standard creationist errors, stuff that's so old and moldy that you bore me just asking them. They're so tiresome that we just address them by number.

If he ever comes back, he can try to redeem himself by asking intelligent questions in the comments to this article, and I'll let the "bright crowd" chew him over.

Anyone want to take bets that if he does come back, he just regurgitates creationist spew again?

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2116/0UsV6EgS/

Comments:

#20793: — 04/02 at 10:44 AM

but at the end of each day no one is convincing anyone else of anything. nothing is accomplished.

Yes and no - we don't convince the person asking, but it might lead other people to the answers through the provided links.

#20794: — 04/02 at 10:45 AM
I have come to the conclusion that with creationsists of any form (young earth, old earth, ID, etc.) we are dealing with a desire for extreme over simplification. Either they cannot, or for some reason will not tolerate any explanation more complicated than 'god did it'. Even the IDers who claim some things are 'too complicated' to have evovled are in the end over simplifying to 'god did it'.

The fact that 'god did it' explains nothing does not seem to bother them.

#20796: PZ Myers — 04/02 at 10:55 AM
The Chinese calligraphy nonsense is an old creationist canard. Everything on that list from the British creationist museum is bogus: "A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman", for instance, is a lie.

Possible Creationist:

I told you I’d read the articles and get back to you. But some people here were willing to have a discussion first, and that was fine with me.

The fact that people are willing to shoot down your stupid beliefs is not an excuse for continuing to argue from ignorance. Let's all be clear on that: you have no substance to present. You are making shit up.

Most of us consider that to be damning. You've lost the argument from your first word.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20797: PZ Myers — 04/02 at 10:57 AM
Wetherby: I'm about to put something up about the BBC article. Pass on anything your old friend sends you about the Portsmouth "museum" and I'll put it up top.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20798: — 04/02 at 11:06 AM
PZ says
>>You are making shit up.

Review my posts; I have made nothing up, and have been nothing less than cordial with you. Apparently, asking you to return the favor is asking too much.

It is you who is insisting that the "Missing Link" must have existed despite no observable evidence to that end. You are the one arguing macroevolution with no evidence. I might suggest that YOU are the one making sh*t up.

Thank you Sir, good day.

#20800: PZ Myers — 04/02 at 11:16 AM
No, I am arguing that your whole concept of a "missing link" is bogus, a goofy straw man you've invented to justify your religious dogma. Your definition is absurd:

I defined “Missing Link” as the fossil that would be able to mate with both the progenitor of homo sapien and homo sapien.

Assuming that the unfortunate phrasing is merely a reflection of your poor English skills and not an indicator of some bizarre necrophilia, this is nonsense. We've got lots of "missing links" by this definition. We are part of a long term interbreeding population; if we had a time machine, do you think that a modern human would be unable to breed with someone from 1600, or 3000 BC?

Species and especially chronospecies are not going to be as discrete as you imagine them to be. That's something we know from biology, that boundaries are very, very blurry.

Now, please, run away. You've admitted you haven't read a thing on this topic, something your comments have also demonstrated. You can take offense at the fact that your ignorance is mocked, but it doesn't change the fact of your ignorance.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20802: — 04/02 at 11:19 AM
The uncanny ability for creationists to breathe with their head lodged so far into their own colon indicates that they might be a different species. I think Possible Creationist is himself the missing link he is looking for.

#20803: Jim Anderson — 04/02 at 11:22 AM
Come on, everyone... "Possible Creationist"'s email is . Someone's been April-fooled.

#20804: PZ Myers — 04/02 at 11:23 AM
No -- because no self-respecting member of our intellectual species would interbreed with him. No missing link!

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20806: jmorrison — 04/02 at 11:38 AM
...and everyone lived happily ever after. the end.

#20808: Hank Fox — 04/02 at 11:57 AM
OH, great. You make this comment on somebody else's blog late one night and you feel all good about it, and then you sign on the next morning and find out you made a mistake that makes you sound dumber than usual. Argh.

Worse, it's 30 comments later, and the moment for correcting yourself has long passed.

Some people are so hostile to the idea of human evolution because they feel like they’re on the road, they feel like they’re getting somewhere, and they don’t want to STOP driving.

#20810: — 04/02 at 12:28 PM
'tis okay, Hank. didn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that's what you actually meant. it was implied in the context.

#20812: — 04/02 at 12:47 PM
Possible Creationist, you want to avoid learning the language of science and that is a big part of your problem. Without knowing the language of the subject you can not make yourself understood and you can not understand the answers given. When you are in a foreign country you either learn the language or you stick to the guidebook and only are able to ask the location of the WC. If you want meaningful conversation you will have to learn the language.

You ask for a “missing link” but you would have a better understanding if you used a term from science, “most recent common ancestor”. The MRCA is a single point in time and space. We may indeed already have a fossil of the MRCA and would not know it since it is very, very similar to fossils of animals coming thousands of years before and after the speciation event. A sequence of fossils allows scientists to point to the MRCA. For species that have existing individuals, certain pieces of non-coding DNA can establish the date of the MRCA. For the hundreds of species of trilobite there are hundreds of MRCA that are not identified so it is no different than the case of hominids. Entropy is not violated since there is a constant input of energy driving the surface of the earth far from equilibrium.

PC, you don’t seem able to understand what evolution is and is not. Abiogensis is the study of self-reproducing life coming from basic matter and energy. Evolution only can start when there is such life. Keep the two scientific disciplines separate. Evolution is backed up by 150 years of evidence from many fields of study. Your rejection of the basis of biology is your problem but does not affect the reality of evolution.

The difference between religious faith and science is evidence, evidence and evidence. Science follows where evidence leads. When you have read the talkorigins files you may better understand this. Add this file on God and Evolution to your reading list. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

#20813: — 04/02 at 12:59 PM
>>My argument, however, is against macro-evolution. As I noted earlier, I might agree with micro-evolution, with caveats.<<

There you go again, making up terms and applying nonsensical definitions to your made-up terms such that nobody else in the universe outside of the space between your ears can possibly address them.

There is no such thing as "macroevolution" or "microevolution." Show me someone who argued that a horse evolved straight into a whale and I'll show you a creationist liar.

The concept that there could be such huge and mutually-exclusive differences between an alleged two branches or types of evolution is a creationist myth. They invented it and *only* they believe it--so of course when they talk to others, when they talk to scientists, they are unable to find proof. It's a combined projection fallacy and straw-man fallacy.

If you believe in evolution at all, then you believe in evolution.

#20814: — 04/02 at 12:59 PM
I honestly don't know how the biologists and other scientists stand this crap. The arrogance of some people is amazing. Here's my response:

Read the goddamn references that PZ gave you, you twat! Then you can open your mouth. So you have a graduate degree from a top-tier school? How did you get that degree, you nitwit, by blowing off the seminar readings and arguing with the professors, you lazy shit?

Would you give a major league baseball player batting tips? Tell a cardiac surgeon how to perform a quadruple bypass? Well, you're coming in here, telling everyone how smart you are, and then, shamelessly, arguing with them about their field of expertise! Elitism my ass -- do your goddamn homework, boy genius (or girl genius).

So, go do the reading, and more if you need to.

Sorry, but the arrogance of some of these creeps...

#20817: — 04/02 at 01:48 PM
Good Lord in Heaven! Missing Links? That concept went out of date around the time of Piltdown. In addition to the sites PZ recommended I would suggest Museum of Natural History, Teach Evolution and A Look at Modern Human Origins to name a few. The reality is we have more fossil hominids than you can shaake a stick at, including an adaptive radiation of australopithicines and what is beggining to look like an adaptive radition of Homo erectus. Missing lins? THHTHPTHPTHPTHP (that's a Bronx cheer). They can be laid in in a fashion that clearly demonstrates evolution. Somwehere on this sight PZ has a picture of just that, It came from <a href="www.talkorigins.org/ faqs/comdesc/hominids.html"> Talk Origins </a> which several people pointed you towards. So either you saw it and are ignoring it because it disproves your pint or you really didn't go read it like you said you would. I would also suggest you check out Conroy's Primate Evolution (simply the best book on the subject) and Wolpoff's Paleoanthropology.
It seems to me this just shows the problem with arguing with creationists. They show up - head filled full of Gish and AIG - and want to argue. Yet they have not read anything whatsoever, written by people actually doing the research they are criticizing. They end up arguing against a wierdly distorted, pop culturish caricature of evolution that has nothing to do, usually, with what evolution is all about.

#20818: — 04/02 at 01:49 PM
Hmmm....you know, if you apply the logic of Zeno's paradox to the whole "infinitely regressing missing link" argument, I think you can prove that it's impossible to have sex at all.

Sheesh - it's an even more dreadful argument, upon closer inspection, than it appears on the surface.

(and, ironically enough, the verification word for this post is "mating".)

#20820: Niket — 04/02 at 01:55 PM
Possible Creationist,

Have you ever wondered that the reason PZ Myers --- in your words --- seems "elitist", "condesending" or "arrogant" to you may perhaps be because:

1. The questions you have raised have been answered a million times.

2. These answers are present in the links he provided
CA612 which says:
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed.
The article then goes and links to several such pieces of evidences (CA202). As many as 15+ points are provided in this article. This article also links to another one that discusses speciazation (which lists a sample of research that proves, amongst other things, formation of new species such as Culex molestus).

3. You state that you couldn't read these articles because of a deluge of replies. Lets say you were a teacher, as Dr. Myers is, and a student comes to you without doing his homework. This student is arguing on something he would perhaps already know if he bothered to do the homework. What would a good teacher do? Shouldn't the student be responsible for doing his homework in the first place?

4. What makes it more irritating to the teacher is that there are a million students who haven't done this homework and who still insist on their line of argument.

You state that you are not a biologist or anthropologist. If that is the case, should you not keep an open mind about biology? How did you reach the conclusion that biologists hold a dogmatic faith when you don't know anything about the subject?

Are you willing to keep an open mind that the biologist do not have a dogmatic faith, but that the current evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusions that you term a faith? From what you have written so far, you don't seem like someone willing to accept this fact.

#20821: — 04/02 at 01:55 PM
Good Lord in Heaven! Missing Links? That concept went out of date around the time of Piltdown. In addition to the sites PZ recommended I would suggest Museum of Natural History, and
Teach Evolution and A Look at Modern Human Origins to name a few. The reality is we have more fossil hominids than you can shake a stick at, including an adaptive radiation of australopithicines and what is beggining to look like an adaptive radition of Homo erectus. Missing links? THHTHPTHPTHPTHP (that's a Bronx cheer). They can be laid out in a fashion that clearly demonstrates evolution (since that is the kind of proof you asked for). Somwehere on this sight PZ has a picture of just that, It came from Talk Origins,which several people pointed you towards. So either you saw it and are ignoring it because it disproves your point or you really didn't go read it like you said you would. I would also suggest you check out Conroy's Primate Evolution (simply the best book on the subject) and Wolpoff's Paleoanthropology.
It seems to me this just shows the problem with arguing with creationists. They show up - head filled full of Gish and AIG - and want to argue. Yet they have not read anything whatsoever, written by people actually doing the research they are criticizing. They end up arguing against a wierdly distorted, pop culturish caricature of evolution that has nothing to do, usually, with what evolution is all about.

#20825: Jim Anderson — 04/02 at 02:15 PM
Must I repeat myself? Look at PC's email address. Notice his too-perfect creationist tropes. Look closely at his unusual familiarity with PZ.

I'll research and get back to you. I'll ignore your condescending, elitist attitude, 'cause if it wasn't you then you wouldn't be PZ!

It's a hoax, dear people, an April Fools hoax. Now, who's the culprit?

#20827: — 04/02 at 02:28 PM
>It's a hoax, dear people, an April Fools hoax. Now, who's the culprit?

yeah but every day is April 1 for the creationists. When Gallup says 68% of the US believes in creationism to some extent, we've got our work cut out for us.

Plus it's always useful developing one's argument, even if it is just a punching bag. That's why its best leaving off the insults in debate. Venting feels good, but does not improve your thinking.

#20828: — 04/02 at 02:30 PM
Plausible, Jim, and that would explain PZ putting PC on the front page (I have yet to find where the original "off topic" comments are located). Is it possible that this is a devious test by PZ - he is a teacher, after all - checking to see if his loyal readers can systematically destroy this drivel? I dunno, arguing with a creationist is like Bush bashing. It's too easy.

#20830: — 04/02 at 02:34 PM
damn, nevermind, now I see where he came from. though given the location of the comment, yeah, this is gotta be an April Fool's thing.

#20832: PZ Myers — 04/02 at 02:36 PM
I assure you all, from years of experience dealing with these bozos, that the fact that they do nothing but cregurgitate is evidence that you are dealing with a real, live creationist. This isn't an April Fool's joke (on the 2nd?) -- there's nothing this guy's line of drivel that I haven't heard from genuine creationists.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20833: Dan S. — 04/02 at 02:39 PM
"1.The “Missing Link” that was the reproductive link between homo sapien and homo sapien’s progenitor, has not been found."
As pointed out, this phrasing is really odd and suggests misunderstandings. To me it seems to indicate your model of human evolution is
ape (progenitor)-> missing link -> Homo sapiens
although I might well be wrong. How would you represent what you understand science to be saying about human evolution? As mentioned, we have a number of fossil relatives from the last several million years, both old favorites like Neandertals and Homo erectus and a whole bunch of more recent discoveries. We may actually have the missing link, but it's still hard to figure out what you are asking for. Again, as everyone says, if you're interested, go and read up on this. It's really quite cool.

"Furthermore, the hominid fossil record is incomplete and does not allow for them to be lined up in a fashion in which evolution is clearly evident."
Go to the link that afarensis has. if you can tell us what "afarensis" refers to, you will earn a small amount of grudging respect. Or something. It's amazingly complete, all things considered. Lots of questions, and doubtlessly many surprises ahead, but . . .oh, just go read, k?

"2.Science has no proof as to how the first form of life was spontaneously generated."
There are various educated guesses .. .

I originally stated that evolution required as much FAITH as creationism...
There *is* a certain sense in which this is valid, if you're talking in terms of underlying assumptions, but then only in the same sense that everyday life requires (an enormous amount of) faith - that the sun will rise in the morning, that chairs and beds will not scoot away when you try to sit on them, that your observations are reasonably reliable, that you won't wake up to find cereal and milk extremely toxic and drano a delicious and nourishing breakfast, and etc.

Once you go with science, evolution requires no additional "faith" - and remember, evolution isn't Truth, just best-answer-so-far.

Page 3 of 5 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Next entry: Flood the Bank!

Previous entry: Intermittent problems—stand by!

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, April 01, 2005

Has there ever been an imaginative creationist?

Info