Today is "Charles Darwin Was Wrong" day...

[Archae]

According to cretinist...I mean die-hard creationist Ken Ham.

Ham has no science to back up his whines, just cherry-picked scriptures from his Bibble.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/happy-darwin-was-wrong-day

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Imagine your life work being the hatred of a group of people for being different from you

[Electric Monk]

2. So he's conceding every other day of the year that Darwin was onto something?

[zappaman]

3. So why don't I have the day off?

[Fred Sanders]

4. Folks who cherry pick their own Holy Book have no business instructing other folks on their Books.

[cleanhippie]

5. Not a single believer alive doesn't cherry pick.

But you knew that already.

[Fred Sanders]

6. You missed the point, nothing to do with yours.

[cleanhippie]

7. You had a point then?

Do tell.

[Rex]

8. I wonder if Ken Ham ever saw his father nekked?

As the biblical story goes...

[cleanhippie]

9. Ham is no less wrong than any other believer.

[Brother Buzz]

10. Mother Nature has spoken: Darwin was right and creationist Agassiz was wrong

You got to admit Mother Nature has a wicked cool sense of humor.

[NuclearDem]

11. My folks get the AiG newsletter every month.

Some unbelievably full of derp I can't even begin to describe.

[hifiguy]

12. First among dolts, Ken Ham.

What next, trying to claim Einstein's relativity theories are wrong? Maybe refuting Galileo and Copernicus?

This klown is the Crown Prince of Dumbfuckistan.

[VMA131Marine]

13. They already do claim the theory of relativity is wrong

They have to to get rid of the "ancient starlight problem" to explain why we can see objects in the cosmos that are more than 6,000 years old. They have developed a wacky solution that the speed of light is infinite when travelling towards the earth but finite in the opposite direction so that the average is the known speed of light.

[hifiguy]

14. Mother of dog.

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

How fucking stupid can people be?





ETA, that fundy theory violates virtually every bedrock law of cosmology, physics and astronomy. The speed of light is either constant or it is not. Einstein proved it beyond all doubt.

[HereSince1628]

15. Well Darwin may not have been completely right... but some of his insights were 100 years ahead

of their time.

Biology students recognize the concept of punctuated equilibrium in evolution as a 20th century concept proposed by Eldridge and Gould in a paper called Tempo And Mode...but, if you look at Darwin's diagrams when he discusses radiation of species following entry into a new ecological zone they are pretty much exactly the adaptive radiation following periods of no change that Eldridge and Gould were talking about.

The problem with being in a context that lacked understanding of genetic inheritance put Darwin in a good place to anticipate later discoveries, but it also handicapped how far he could go forward.

[hifiguy]

16. That's the way science goes.

Each new discovery is built upon that which has gone before, especially when it's something paradigm changing like the evolution of species or general/specal relativity. To continue with Einstein as an example other physicists had come up to the edge of finding that relativity is real but Einstein was the first to postulate it in its entirety and as a coherent theory. He readily admitted he was building atop the work of others.

[HereSince1628]

17. Darwin apparently missed Mendel's work, and was marginally aware of Maupertius

his grandfather Erasmus may actually have seeded Charles with the concept of evolution as Erasmus conceived it

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing


Some say Erasmus tossed around ideas about natural selection that influenced his grandson. I'm not a scholar of that history, but it seems debatable.

What is certainly true is that Darwin put together many pieces of evidence from geology and biology in a way that penetrated Victorian science and spread throughout the world.

[exboyfil]

18. Which is the most frustrating thing when talking to

creationists. They think that scientists treat On the Origin of Species as a sacred text like their Bible. As you said it is a seminal work in the field, but it is still just a springboard to newer discoveries. Also they want to criticize Darwin personally (actually there is very little to criticize - he appears to have been a wonderful man in addition to being a great scientist) without realizing that his personality does not matter one bit. Almost universally scientists admire Newton for his accomplishments even though he spent a good part of his career studying Christian theology and mysticism. That does not invalidate the work he did in Calculus, Optics, and Mechanics.

It is too bad that Darwin did not read Mendel's papers which came out around 1865. Who knows what fusion of ideas would have come about because I am sure he would have understood the implications of Mendel's discovery.

[HereSince1628]

19. The discovery of chromosomes and then grasping what meiosis meant genetically

really was a huge step forward in biology. In some ways more profound in it's reach than the concept of natural selection