Saturday, October 17, 2009

Evolution, Explained




There still seems to be some misunderstanding about evolution and creation, and I'm just the gal to clear things up once and for all. You're welcome!

The evolutionary biologists are constrained by the scientific method, wherein hypotheses must be tested rigorously and either found to be supported or abandoned. The creationists are constrained by the premise that the Bible was dictated word for word by God Almighty and does not need any editing. It is not true that this is a conflict between non-believers and believers, as there are plenty of theists among the ranks of evolutionary biologists. It would be more accurate to say that this is an argument between those who believe in God, and those who believe in God but do not believe he has any imagination.

There are a number of objections the creationists raise to the theory of evolution:

One. Evolution has never been observed. Whereas this does appear to be the case, at least among humankind since the Scopes Trial, 84 years is not considered by scientists to be enough time to really get the evolution ball rolling.

Two. No transitional fossils ("missing links") between man and the apes have been found. This is patently untrue, and very unfair to Liza Minnelli's ex-husband David Gest, who has only begun to fossilize.

Three. The doctrine of irreducible complexity holds that some entities, such as the eyeball, are so complex that they had to have been created in one fell swoop, and not a sequence of lesser swoops. This illustrates a misunderstanding of the biological mechanism in question. Evolutionary biologists would note that an adaptation is adopted if it confers some sort of advantage to its owner, but this does not have to relate to its ultimate function. There are many examples of this in everyday life. For instance, the very complex device currently being used worldwide to hold up windows that are missing their sash weights was originally developed to allow humans to watch Kevin Bacon on the small screen anytime they wanted to. A similarly complex example is the United States Congress, consisting of 535 individual moving parts, if we include Robert Byrd. Every one of these parts came into being to fulfill a purpose of its own, from the metabolism of lobbyist money into defense contracts to the metabolism of lobbyist money into personal wealth, and yet in aggregate they are able to hold up health care reform.

Four. The creationists reject out of hand the notion that life can arise out of a primordial soup situation involving a few key molecules, water, and a source of energy. However, this can and has been demonstrated in a number of areas, including the laboratory setting, deep-ocean vents, and my shower, where just the other day, using only water, heat and whatever inanimate matter had sloughed off my own body, I was able to remove the drain cover and pull up an entire mammal.

21 comments:

  1. Oh gawd...the BEST Saturday chuckle to date!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is there a small hill nearby, one perhaps called a mount, that you might ascend? I think this message needs to get out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really need to remember not to be eating or drinking when I read your posts. Luckily, green tea's easy to wipe off a computer screen and keyboard; a hoagie, not so much. You really need to post a warning: Reading this blog may result in involuntary Danny Thomas spit-takes. Choose your snacks carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey J: what say we go on the road? Chimp and chump.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good post! Of course, creationists miss the fact that evolution isn't about how life began, but how it changed. Most evolutionists will look sheepish and change the subject if asked how life began. That's hypothetical, whereas evolution is theoretical and there is a huge difference between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoa. Bruce Mohn, the dinosaur guy? Huge fan. The above is a drawing I made for a book of my dinosaur poems that, I fear, will never see print.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is so good to discover that I am indeed in good company when it comes to thinking that the creature Liza married is a living relic from the mesozoic era.

    Meanwhile, you can only imagine what discussions I have to endure, or rather avoid, here in Oklahoma.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Beautiful drawing! No one interested in the dino poem book? With your wit and illos like that, why aren't they?

    I am flattered and baffled that you are a fan of me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The consensus among agents is that the book looks like a children's book but the content is too adult--so no market. I think they sell children short. (Come to think of it, they have to sell them short, because that's the way they come.) Anyway I ran into your work precisely because I needed reference material for dinosaur illustrations. In my next life I'll do what you do; in this one I'm lazy and use fantasy as an excuse to not be anatomically precise.

    For that matter, how did you find this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow! Dino guy and Murr in a discussion about her WONDERFUL Dinosaur Book! Maybe Bruce, you could offer to write blurbs for publishers? Just a thought. (I LOVE that book, and think it should certainly be shared with the world.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Back again...did I get this right? That is your illustration? As in those were your quilts recently as well? Amazing. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That was their consensus about MY children's book offer (too adult), a life of Ornitholestes that was patterned after Holling Clancy Holling's Minn of the Mississippi, which I loved as a child. Gorgeous illustrations and good text! But nope, too adult and not enough color. Did those morons really think I was going to produce paintings BEFORE they bought the project?

    Just for the record, I don't make a regular living doing dinosaur artwork. It is an occasional thing which helps me over humps, otherwise, I'm just your typical 9-5 guy, except that I get to go to work with my dog and make chemical solutions that will eat linoleum! Great fun.

    I discovered your blog through the auspices of Julie Zickefoose. Who was also responsible for the dog...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Poo on them all. It can't be just you and me, Bruce. There must be another person out there with a sophisticated dinosaur book, and if we can find that person, we can stomp over to the publishers en masse and show that it's a whole genre.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not sure three authors would make them change their minds, incredibly inbred as they are. A flotilla of readers writing in to support said three authors might do the trick, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not in the Navy, but I can float and write letters, though not concurrently. Anyway, count me onboard.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Spot on re David Gest. What Liza saw in him, who knows. Then again, her mom hung out with a scarecrow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The consensus among agents is that the book looks like a children's book but the content is too adult--so no market."

    Did the agents consider that it could be perfect reading for conservative's straying from the path on a short left leg?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, Lordy! See Murr's archived South Dakota Legislature post, we thought the loons were all in our territory embarrassing US!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, Lordy! See Murr's archived South Dakota Legislature post, we thought the loons were all in our territory embarrassing US!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whoa. Bruce Mohn, the dinosaur guy? Huge fan. The above is a drawing I made for a book of my dinosaur poems that, I fear, will never see print.

    ReplyDelete