Comments on Evolution 101: Icons of Evolution

You wrote, "Thus, biologists cannot explain homolo...

2007-12-31T21:33:00.000-08:00

You wrote, "Thus, biologists cannot explain homologous structures that are caused by different genes. First of all, yes biologist can explain them- it’s called convergent evolution." However, structures explained by convergent evolution are considered analogous, not homologous. By definition, homologous structures are those that have similarities due to common descent. Therefore, the genes should be similar, and any changes due to divergence over time should be evident in changes to the base sequence of the gene's DNA, not entirely new genes altogether.

HOGWASH

2007-05-27T00:31:00.000-07:00

HOGWASH

2007-05-27T00:30:00.000-07:00

HOGWASH

" Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for an evolu...

2007-01-02T19:15:00.000-08:00

" Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for an evolutionist to hide in a pack of creationists, but it's nearly impossible for a creationist to hide in a pack evolutionists?"

Interesting insight: I think you're onto something there. Maybe if the creationist truly understood evolution, they wouldn't feel so threatened. Or maybe they are so theologically immature any evidence of empirical reality is threatening.

It's interesting that despite his education, Mr. W...

2006-09-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

It's interesting that despite his education, Mr. Wells simply wasn't able accurately address evolution. I've never seen an evolution denier who could actually do this. Even when they try to hide their biases and impersonate an "evolutionist", it's really easy to sniff them out.

I know that's not what Wells was doing but have you noticed as well that creationists universally are incapable of even pretending to represent the opposite point of view without distorting it to their pitiful caricatures?

And yet it's very easy for an atheist to "fake" the fruits of the spirit. There are, after all, atheist ministers afraid to leave their churches, and you never hear about anyone calling them out. There are also mock creationist websites that are extremely difficult to tell apart from the real ones. I mean, Objective Ministries is totally obtuse, but so is Kent Hovind's website. Probably even more so.

Here's a facetious question: Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for an evolutionist to hide in a pack of creationists, but it's nearly impossible for a creationist to hide in a pack evolutionists?

My guess is that if the creationists actually had to face evolution without distorting it into a strawman, they'd realize that they have nothing. So they have to be obtuse, but obtuse things are always the first to get weeded out of science, so their cover is always blown.

On the other hand, creationism has no standards by which to differentiate the scientific from the absurd, and thus it's fairly easy to just say ridiculous things that nobody will ever object to or even notice.