Well played, Doonesbury....are you a creationist?

[Playinghardball]

[Lars39]

1. Tucking that one away for future use!

[Walk away]

2. Isn't Dr. Ben Carson a Creationist?

It must be hard to be a hot shot neurosurgeon when you don't believe in science.

[hfojvt]

3. actually kinda dumb

because creationism is about creation, not about evolution. Almost nobody denies micro-evolution. For TB to evolve does not challenge anything until it evolves so much that it becomes measles or a frog.

Secondly that is a long, long way from creation, You know, a puddle of ammonia, and carbonic acid becoming a self-replicating RNA or DNA molecule. Something that comes from Oparin, not Darwin.

[jeff47]

5. No, it's not the cartoon that's dumb

Please explain the mechanism by which a lot of "microevolution" can not lead to "macroevolution".

Answers that amount to "I haven't personally seen it" only count if not personally seeing God means he doesn't exist.

[hfojvt]

8. but even macroevolution is a long way from creation.

further, the burden of proof is not really on me. I don't have to prove that an evolving chicken does not become a duck. The evolutionist has to prove that it does, or did.

Also, it seems to me that the concept of a species is not fixed. Tigers and lions are considered separate species. Yet they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. How many others can do so? Tigers and mountain lions? Mountain lions and pumas?

Same with Darwin's finches. They are called different species, but can they interbreed? And if so, are they really different species or just different breeds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches There is huge variation between a great dane and a chihuahua, but they can interbreed.

But the main point stands. There is a difference between the three areas of 1) creation, 2) speciation and 3) micro-evolution. To suggest that a creationist is also denying microevolution seems like a strawman to me, although there are doubtless some flat-earthers who do so. Not the majority though, that is not where the real battleground is. Creationism is about the very beginning, NOT about the last sixty years.

And doubtless I remember even less of my high school biology than I do of my university math.

[jeff47]

9. Not nearly as far as you think

further, the burden of proof is not really on me. I don't have to prove that an evolving chicken does not become a duck. The evolutionist has to prove that it does, or did.

We already did. We even have plenty of genetic studies that we've recently used to rearrange the "tree of life".

So the ball's in your court to disprove that.

Also, it seems to me that the concept of a species is not fixed. Tigers and lions are considered separate species. Yet they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. How many others can do so? Tigers and mountain lions? Mountain lions and pumas?

Because the rule for calling creatures different species is that they can not produce viable, fertile offspring. Male ligers are sterile. There's 2 documented cases of female ligers giving birth (out of hundreds created)

The rest of your questions on speciation fall from this misunderstanding. All domestic dogs are the same species because they can produce viable, fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses are different species because mules are not fertile.

But the main point stands. There is a difference between the three areas of 1) creation, 2) speciation and 3) micro-evolution.

Which you've either failed to explain, or are the result of you not understanding the terminology.

To suggest that a creationist is also denying microevolution seems like a strawman to me

Good thing I never claimed you did. Now, perhaps you could get back to your explanation of what prevents millions of generations of micro-evolution from causing macro-evolution. And before you claim we haven't had enough time, a generation of E. coli is about 20 minutes.

Creationism is about the very beginning, NOT about the last sixty years.

Um, no. If that was the case, creationists wouldn't be spending all their effort fighting evolution. Because evolution would occur even with divine creation.

That's not what creationists argue about. And that's not what you're arguing about either. If you were, you wouldn't have wandered off into your misunderstanding of speciation.

[hfojvt]

14. I did wander off into stuff I neither understand

nor give a fuck about.

That is certainly true.

I will not try to pretend otherwise, and I probably got carried away.

However, as the cartoon is only about micro-evolution, it really misses the mark.

Here's how wiki sums up the debate, such as it is

"The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

Do you see what is missing in that link? Any mention at all of microevolution. Meaning that almost NOBODY disputes the idea that TB can evolve, and thus, like I said in my original post, the Doonesbury cartoon is built upon a strawman that a "creationist" would dispute the idea that TB has evolved.

[Jamastiene]

16. I think you need to actually talk to some creationists.

I have an aunt that will argue until she has a throat spasm (she has those with the MS) that evolution is outright bullshit. She even brags on herself that she helped raise me and "allowed" me to believe in evolution instead of creationism even though I am "wrong." I think you actually need to talk to some creationists. Then, you will KNOW that MOST of them do NOT believe in evolution in any way, shape, or form.

[cleanhippie]

18. Since you admit that you "neither understand nor give a fuck about" it, your comments are excused.

[lastlib]

22. ...and ignored

Please get back to us when you have something intelligent to offer.

[xtraxritical]

29. It's ok just let your head explode, you'll love the release of pressure on your brain.

[Jerry442]

21. "...a generation of E. coli is about 20 minutes. "

Makes you wonder how long it will be before those little buggers evolve a taste for silicon chips and fiber optics.

[jeff47]

31. About 2.3 billion years

After all, they did evolve that once....

[RainDog]

13. symbiosis

the explanation of sexual reproduction, at its most basic, is that the sperm found a nutrient-rich environment in the egg. the egg is, in turn, powered by mitochrondria that was its own distinctive entity and evolved within the egg cell to power that cell to reproduce.

sperm, in turn, are also powered by "bacteria" - the tail of the sperm - that is broken off - the tail of the sperm does not enter the egg. mitochondria in the egg benefited both sperm and egg and itself by genetic shuffling of the cards to make more variety and, therefore, more possibilities to survive in a variety of environments. aka meiosis.

we are all combinations of organisms.

all organisms contain the basic 20 amino acid units.

multicellular organisms, existing for more than a billion years, comprised of previously singular entities, allowed specialization of cellular functions over time... i.e. mitochondria as the sex cell's energy system or bacteria in the human gut that allows for digestion of various foods...

Cooperation and specialization allowed for complex organisms.

This concept is entirely outside the realm of the ideology of the "individual" and competition between species as the only explanation - this is in contradiction to current norms of Hobbesian economic views, or the singularity of the human.

But, without doubt, this is the way many complex organisms evolved.

[jeff47]

32. Please stop.

[Cassidy]

20. If nothing can be explained that can't be observed in a human lifetime, how do you explain stars?

Do you think they all just blinked on instantaneously exactly as they appear today or do they change over time? Or are you willing to accept the evidence of physics, astronomy, and cosmology?

If you do recognize the legitimacy of the evidence for a 14 billion (earth) year old universe, and the idea of present evidence for past events in some sciences, how do you choose which sciences to disbelieve?

I find it interesting that you draw a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis (the scientific study of the origin of life). Most creationists I have read, heard, or spoken with do not do that. Darwin wrote about the origin of species by means of natural selection, not abiogenesis, still, you deny both.

Your point about the limitations of the human definition of species is itself evidence of evolution. "Species" is a term that humans use to try to distinguish among organisms. Is one organism different enough from another to consider it a different group entirely? The fact that we can not do a tidy job of categorizing living organisms into different species shows that evolution is on-going. Organisms exist on a continuum because they change over time, they evolve. They are changing even now. Some change enough to become different species, some remain as different morphs, some go extinct. The problem is not with the evolving organisms, it is with our limited capacity to conceptualize and categorize the natural, and ever changing, world. The problem is the human desire to fit things into tidy, unchanging categories.

After the introduction of apple trees into the new world, some populations of hawthorn flys, Rhagoletis pomonella, evolved to exploit the new resource. So now we have apple maggots (or apple maggot flys) that evolved from hawthorn flys. Are you going to call that microevolution because humans saw it happening? If a fly is small enough to microevolve, is a bee? Is a beetle? Is a newt? Where, and how, do you draw the line?

How do you explain that 4 billion (earth) year old rocks don't have signs of living organisms, but 3 billion year old rocks do? How do you explain that fish only appear in the fossil record since the Cambrian (530 million years ago). How do you explain that jawed fish, e.g. Placodermi, only appear in the Silurian (440 million years ago). Are geologists in on the big conspiracy with biologists? Did some god plant them there to make modern scientists look stupid for believing the world wide breadth and depth of evidence, rather than a 2,000 year old book? The Placodermi are all extinct. If they got wiped out in "the flood," please explain how these ocean fishes drowned.

P.S. Based on DNA sequence analysis, human measles are thought to have evolved from rinderpest virus which infects cattle. But, no individual human saw or could have seen it happen. Does that make it micro or macro evolution?

[Maraya1969]

23. Evolution is not about the last sixty years either. It's about the last

60 million or so years. That's a lot of time for things to change form.

I don't see why creationists can't believe in evolution anyway. Why can't you believe that God created palaeolithic man or just monkeys? Why does the creationists view of man have to be a white male and female who just happens to have vestigial organs?

Can't there be some overlap?

[pasto76]

25. so yeah a 'breed" is not a species

but of course you know that.

and here's a newsflash, when you get into 'university' biology, they actually tell you that a lot of high school level biology is a dumbed down version, simplified to teach a concept. Evolution and genetics are right in there.

the real grist of the 'creation vs evolution (cough) debate' is that creationist deny the scientific method by denying a theory of evolution backed by the global, peer reviewed, science community. You know, the same scientific method that has identified what a bacteria is, why it is different than protists. What bacteria is it that causes TB and how and why they are drug resistant, and what anitbiotics work and dont work. The Scientific Method. Capital T, S and M.

denying that about evolution, but embracing it in modern medicine is the problem. the method used to determine WHY and HOW are the same.

[Apophis]

27. Wow. You're so full of shit I don't know where to begin.

Wait, I do. Take an intro to biology course in college then get back to me.

And a big for citing wikipedia.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Oh FFS.

Evolution- macro evolution- is a fact, backed up by the fossil record, the DNA record, and a fact that underpins our entire understanding of biology, among other things.

Creationism is unmitigated bullshit, and it is NOT about "how did those first amino or nucleic acid chains first start replicating", it is about a dumb-cluck "biblical alternative" to what we KNOW about the history of life since then.

[Jerry442]

17. A handy guide to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution:

1. Only micro-evolution has ever been observed.

2. If macro-evolution were observed, it would cast doubt on creationism.

3. Creationism can not be doubted.

4. If you thought you observed macro-evolution, go back to step 1.

[Maraya1969]

24. You would have to live for millioins of years in order to "observe"

macro-evolution. It is not possible, at least with the science we have now.

[Jerry442]

26. Well, if you wanted to, say, see elephants evolve into tree-dwellers, yes.

<Pauses for a moment to enjoy the mental image of arboreal pachyderms.>

Since "macro-evolution" has no solid definition, it would be hard to say, but I'd guess some bacteria have undergone some fairly major changes on a human time scale.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Wow. You really need to debate a hard-core creationist.

They believe that no evolution of any kind has ever been demonstrated EVER.

Some milder forms of creationism simply don't like the notion that humans might have evolved from an ancestor we have in common with monkeys/apes and accept all other evolution.

To give you a hint of how horrible things are out there, I have a colleague who teaches genetics. If she ever mentions the word "evolution" in the context of the animal kingdom, she gets phone calls from parents and eventually the university administration. The college where she teaches is of high national prominence on the east coast and the student body is dominated by urban kids.

Trust me, it's really really bad out there and Doonesbury has it right.

[Rex]

28. You missed the point of the cartoon.

He was asking if you believe in creationism or evolution. If creationism, then pretend TB doesn't evolve and get a standard shot that will not help. If evolution, then get a shot that will help fight the evolved TB.

[zipplewrath]

30. Not alot of specificity in stupid

The poster is right in one sense. There are a variety of different flavors of creationists and they don't all agree with each other. When you are discussing stupid, anyone can invent any kind they want.

There are those folks that believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, including all the evidence that made it appear as if the universe was a bajillion years old. Even within this group of people there is some argument about the whole Noah thing. But even these folks can often accept "micro-evolution" as long as there aren't "new species" created. (never mind that species is a creation of man, so, how'd the animals know?)

There are those that believe that God created A world, SOME time ago, and it included people, and other animals and some have gone extinct and some new ones have evolved from the old ones, but only in the sense of creating different breeds of a species. They DON'T buy into the idea that life evolved from nothing and that all life can be traced back through to the primordial ooze. They also would accept that bugs and disease "evolves". They might dispute the degree to which it can mutate. Even here, they often will accept mutation of single cell organisms. It is the more complex mutations they won't accept.

Of course then there are the folks that are convinced that somehow life came here from another solar system/planet and either was the spark that started life, or somehow "infected" the life that was here with new DNA and caused the creation/evolution of humans. But they really aren't creationists at all.

Of course there are those that believe we ARE the space aliens and basically "forgot" somehow. Again, not really creationists.

But none of this is really well grounded in any kind of scientific method. They are collections of facts with no real consistent scientific methodology to developing these opinions or hypotheses. Makes it much easier to justify a "belief".

[Rex]

33. Plus also it is a cartoon.

I wouldn't try and base a paper on it.

[Gothmog]

4. Evolution can be a pain

[krispos42]

6. Oh, that's good.

[neverforget]

7. Nicely done Doonesbury!

[arely staircase]

10. perfect eom

[WillyT]

11. K & R !!!

[truebluegreen]

15. An oldie but a goodie!