Intelligent Design proves Penn & Teller are God

Friday, 26 August 2005

Seven wings between them

A strange branchéd tree took me to one Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution [link]. It’s difficult to prove the exact mechanism that led there but the theory goes it may have been Plan 8 from Doubter Space which split into Don’t Drink the Koolaid and Ten Questions to Ask Your History Teacher which turned into the following text and images.

Public school teachers are swamped and it already takes too much of their time catching up the slowboats on the Sino-American run. So, how about I get a public service résumé bullet by giving the 10 following haggard mutts the ol’ sodium pentobarbital now and saving educators the trouble and students the public embarrassment. Here are some snippets for your self-study lesson plans at The Continuing Education Outreach Branch of the School of Hard Knocks.

The original contains a notice, ©2001 Jonathan Wells, with permission to reprint in its entirety, so reproduced fully, without edit, below in colored italics. Unlike the good Christian folks at the access research network [link], however, my work has value so all rights reserved, ask first, step off, &c. Also unlike our friends, I provide hyperlinked references to evidence.

  1. Origin of Life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

    Disregarding that the word may is used, and that one or two experiments on the matter have been done since 1953 (?!? the same year the biological sciences were reeling from the discovery of DNA’s double helix; the sciences have progressed in the last 5 decades though religion hasn’t in 10,000 years), meteorites containing organic chemicals land on the Earth every day, all day, all year, for the last 4 billion years. The Earth takes on about 10 tons of meteor boogers per diem. Life’s building blocks rain from the sky.

    Early life is postulated to look nothing like the life today. It might well look exactly like the life that seems to have spontaneously generated around smoke vents at the ocean’s floor where conditions are quite similar to the early Earth. More at Origin of life and Space.com.

    “…polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are made of carbon and hydrogen and are considered to be among the building blocks of life. They are common on Earth, forming naturally and also whenever you … burn carbon-based material.

    “The hydrocarbons are also found throughout our Milky Way Galaxy. It is not too surprising to find them in more distant places…”
    Ingredients for Life Found in Early Universe, Space.com
  2. Darwin’s Tree of Life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

    They do discuss it. Perhaps your textbooks have had pages torn out by the Assemblymen. Your following supposition is also inaccurate and it contradicts nothing. Early animals had no bones and rudimentary skeletal structures at best. Combine the difficulty in fossilizing at all with the remoteness of the time, .5 billion years ago, and there’s no mystery why the Tree’s branches have leaves yet to be filled.

    Additionally, “explosion” makes it sound like it was some 6 day creation binge horseshit. The Cambrian era was 70 million years long. That’s 14,000 times longer than recorded history.

  3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

    Well, it’s not a circular argument if there is independent support for each; which there is.

    A) Things that look alike, inside and out, tend to be related. Modern genetics shows clearly that this is correct and that it’s not a design. All mammals have the same skeletal make up with the bones adapted to different actions. Whales have five finger bones in their flippers and bats have five finger bones in their wings, just like human hands. Neither makes sense from a born-complete-design stance. A flipper, a wing, and a tool manipulating appendage with an opposable thumb should not share the same basic engineering—assuming the engineer is competent.

    B) Unrelated things that have similar external morphology just go to prove that environmental pressures do drive evolution. The road map may be chaotic but it is not random. Phylogeny is not morphology. The silhouette of a dolphin and an ichthyosaur are almost identical yet they are not related and even the crude paleontology of 100 years ago didn’t conclude they were.

    More at: Homology (biology).

  4. Vertebrate Embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

    You’re right that morphology isn’t complete evidence; although I think finding that the layers of brain parts in chordata continuing to correspond to the current picture of evolution is pretty damn compelling. Unrelated animals do look alike and sometime have similar specialized organs. But faked? Bullshit. My embryology class had photographs, not drawings. Study some embryology. Cut up some pregnant cats, pigs, and monkeys for yourself. Genetic science is showing, more each day, that we hold on to parts of our DNA from previous iterations and that we share nearly all of it with other mammals.

    This is the same branch of sciences that teaches surgeons where to cut, neurologists what needs to stay and what can go, and internists which chemicals will kill and which will cure. If you’re certain embryology is wrong, then I implore you to be true to your view, refuse all medical treatment for the rest of your life.

  5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

    First, I think you mean descendants, not ancestors, talking about birds. Else you’re saying that the fossil record itself is accurate, just all the science types have trouble with the math involved and try to put the animals in the wrong order to trick everyone. Wrong and sloppy. Boo.

    Second, the environment drives evolution to choose the same solutions for the same problems over and over. You’re clearly not up to date. There have been dozens of new dinosaur species discovered in the last 15 years with feathers; some with 2 wings, some with 4 wings, some with no wings. The exact tree may remain unclear for another hundred years but it’s likely that birds are directly descended from therapods, a family which branched like Hell and back so it’s easy to find dinosaurs, like the T-rex, which weren’t direct parents of birds but shared ancestors. Just like Neanderthal, the most obvious and long thought choice, is not the parent of homo sapiens.

    That’s a big difference between science and ID. Scientific conclusions are falsifiable—they can be changed, refined, and improved with new evidence. ID cannot.

    Last, it’s worth noting that simple homology, discussed above, predicted this, as the entire difference between a dinosaur, like Suchomimus, and a prehistoric reptile, like Sarcosuchus, is dinosaurs have bird-like hips. Reptiles and mammals do not and never did.

  6. Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

    What are you talking about? What biologists have known? Where? What is “normally?” Breeding and egg laying season? The light morph of the peppered moth isn’t the color of a tree trunk. It’s pale camo, blending in with dozens of light backgrounds from verdant flora to concrete urbana.

    The peppered moth is one of uncountable proofs not of evolution but of natural selection. These guys as an entire species went from natural light colors to sooty gray in the few years following the horrifying industrialization of London. That’s how fast the mechanisms driving evolution work in a healthy, genetically diverse population. Part of evolution is holding onto any functional, even possibly dormant, DNA you have, whether it’s expressed or not. That’s fitness and that’s what success selects when the going gets tough in a hurry.

  7. Darwin’s Finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

    I don’t want to get ad hominem on your ass but seriously. No net evolution…? Rinse that off and put it back where you found it. Maybe this is your speed–

    A group of 1s that normally have 0 added to them by their environment is split into two different environments. The first continues to add 0, but the other group’s new environment adds 2. Now there is a group of 1s on one island and a group of 3s on the other. Drought ends. We go back to adding 0 to the 1s and they remain 1s. We add 0 to the 3s and they remain 3s.

    Change doesn’t just undo. The eggs are still scrambled even if you put them back in the carton. Change proceeds from itself.

    Why don’t you slow down and start here: Mendelian inheritance. One idea at a time.

  8. Mutant Fruit Flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

    Untrue. Albinos, for instance, do survive in nature, just not well. If they were introduced into an environment with more white camouflage and no reason to have perfect daylight vision, they could out-live—therefore out-breed and spread their genes—their colored counterparts.

    That said, I’m one of the scientists who believes mutation is a grossly exaggerated factor in evolution. And that simple complexity, as it were, sexual dimorphism, and various pressures from environment and other species, is plenty to power the motor. Science isn’t about agreement. It’s about testing things until they’re understood; then keeping an eye on them just in case.

    Obviously it doesn’t even require mutation experimentally. You can do fruit fly changes with simple selection. Just like with dogs, cows, horses, pigs, and the poor in-bred bastards/nephews of the Appalachians. They all do fine feral.

    Further reading, and good luck with it: Muller’s ratchet.

  9. Human Origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

    Creative drawings have never for a moment been used as any form of acceptable scientific evidence. There’s no such field as “fossil expert.” Your ignorance paints you in dayglo lime. Some anthropologists do disagree about human origins. There is more agreement every day though, as the fossil record is expanded, peer-data becomes available via the Internet, and mitochondrial DNA is mapped and studied.

    And if we’re not animals, that makes chimpanzees 96%+ human beings. Not bad considering blacks in America were once legally considered 63% human, in part because the de facto textbook of Intelligent Design, the Bible, indicates slavery is hunky-dory.

    New to thinking? Go back where you started: Olduvai.

  10. Evolution a Fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

    What claims? What misrepresentations? Don’t try to debate without evidence because that’s not debate—it is hollow emotional argument. Simple, childish contrarianism.

    Darwin’s “theory” of evolution was accepted by the worldwide science community 100 years ago and it’s only gained in adherence since then. In the main, there is no controversy in the scientific world whatsoever.

    There are only religious fanatics who are frightened by knowledge and being responsible for themselves. I did not write this to debate anyone because there is no debate. Alternately repeating, “No it isn’t!” and humming with your ears plugged isn’t a proposition or a rebuttal.

    I wrote this to counter popularized ignorant propaganda with evidence and information; information that has been duplicated, tested, and studied by people with doctorates in hard sciences in every country of the world going on 15 decades.

    I did not write this to make any of the converted capitulate. I don’t give a rodentia rectum for you. You’re casualties of your own blind fire and when you’re on your death bed and still don’t hear God speaking to you or coming for you, that’s all on you.

    I wrote this for your kids. So that my kids will have a chance at peers who are self-determined, self-sufficient, responsible, thoughtful, honest, and caring.

Findings

The end result of ID is that you can’t ever prove it without a direct, identified Jesus Teaches His Father Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster show of face and force from the, or one of the many, almighty power or powers.

ID doesn’t rule out Zeus and Hera, or Vishnu and Shiva, or Penn and Teller. That’s the great thing about ID.

Penn and Teller could be the designers of the cosmos. There’s Biblical precedent to support the idea. They appear every generation as supreme skeptics because, as in the story of Job, they want to prove again and again and again that their central creation, Man, is upright in a way more significant than contrast with great apes. So…

Penn and Teller are God. I don’t mean it in the fanboy sense. I mean it literally.

Your homework assignment: Prove otherwise.

digg stumbleupon del.icio.us reddit Fark Technorati Faves
Your information (required) Name*
Email*
Website

* Indicates required fields; email is used for validation and is not displayed on the site.

Your comment
Commenting on Intelligent Design proves Penn & Teller are God
Title

Body is limited to ≈1,000 words. Paragraphs—but not line breaks—are automatically inserted. Valid XHTML is required. These are the allowed tags–

<a href=""></a> <br/> <acronym title=""></acronym> <abbr title=""></abbr> <code></code> <pre></pre> <tt></tt> <ins></ins> <del></del> <hr/> <cite></cite> <b></b> <i></i> <sup></sup> <sub></sub> <strong></strong> <em></em> <h1></h1> <h2></h2> <h3></h3> <q></q> <blockquote></blockquote>