Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tags: Making monkeys of us all, Fazer macacadas do Freitas, Leonard Pitts, Probably A Lemur. Add Tags

Comments (119) Jump to Comments Form

scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

Evolution: the favorite fairy tale of grownups.

Here, y’all, have a banana, since you’re so desperate to pretend you somehow magically “evolved” from apes (as if an ape’s DNA is programmed for it to ever reproduce anything other than an ape).
omQ R said, about 1 month ago

^ sigh

He speaks of fairy tales, yet…nevermind. Shh…not going to convince him.
pbarnrob said, about 1 month ago

Prob’ly 99%; we may very well all be immigrants from somewhere else entirely; maybe the planet that’s now the Asteroid Belt.
RussellNash said, about 1 month ago

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”–Carl Sagan
Dmajor said, about 1 month ago

Someday there will probably be a movement to preserve the last few people like scottfreitas, so that school children can visit them and listen to their astonishing stubborn ignorance.
Anthony 2816 said, about 1 month ago

I love the way Scott describes evolution as “magical”, when he believes we were just poofed into existence. Magical, indeed.
parkersinthehouse said, about 1 month ago

God is not magic. Christ’s miracles were not magic. That’s a long dissertation, but heed the difference, Scott. Magic is of another spiritual nature. Look it up.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

Hey, yo, Parker! Explain. What do you see as the difference between miracles and magic?
Kylop said, about 1 month ago

Mr Auth, thank you for this comic
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

Some of us believe that God created us through evolution.
Some of us also know that scott has no idea what he is talking about, and obviously doesn’t care, as for him “faith” (in this case blind, unreasoning belief) overrides actually looking at the world God gave us. Somehow, I don’t think God would approve of that, as we are the stewards of this world, and you know what Jesus said about the poor steward…
And just to cite some facts, evolution has been observed, scott. Surprise! Some want to claim that “microevolution” is possible (e.g., at the microscopic level, in bacteria, since that’s pretty easy to see!) but “macroevolution” isn’t (as in us), but that’s just a rationalization, and of course undercuts the main point that scott misstates: that species are immutable. Clearly scott has never heard of mutation, which is one means by which a species modifies. And by the way, one of the biggest differences between chimps and us is a chunk of DNA that has been reversed in order. It’s not difficult to imagine one chunk being flipped around in the course of a misreplicated gene.
And, you know, folks, I’m not a biologist like fennec. This is all readily accessible content, if you can read anything other than your King James Bible – which has a number of mistranslations, by the way, despite its gorgeous prose.
Jim said, about 1 month ago

Perhaps for no reason , may I submit this .
omQ R said, about 1 month ago

^…. :-| Funky.
michaelwme said, about 1 month ago

I love the way the anti-creationists oversimplify, giving the creationists ample ammunition to shoot back.

Creationists agree that evolution happens, given that one can breed noticeable differences into fruit flies in just a few years.

What creationists maintain adamantly is that speciation cannot be achieved by evolution. With some exceptions (probably flaws in our standard taxonomy) different species cannot breed and produce offspring that can breed (one exception being dogs and wolves, probably separate species only for political reasons). Only a few closely related species can even reproduce sterile offspring (e.g., horses and mules).

So please let me define different ‘species’ as being incapable of interbreeding.

As best evolutionary biologists can tell, speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years, so no one has ever seen it (or ever will see it) happen. And if I never saw it, it must not exist.
Magnaut said, about 1 month ago

….well. we’ve all seen that Planet of The Apes has come true
Anthony 2816 said, about 1 month ago

Michealwme, your definition of “species” is rendered void by nature.

There’s a bird (whose name unfortunately escapes me) that exists around the Central American, Mexican and American border of the Caribbean. If you start at one end of this coast, pick a couple of these birds from 10 miles apart, they can breed…they’re the same species. Now move 10 miles along the coast, repeat the above, and you’ll get the same result. Continue all the way around, and you’ll get the same result.

But if you take a bird from the beginning of your trek, and try to mate it from one near the end, you’ll find they can’t breed.

So are they the same species, or not?

This “horizontal” (via place) evolution is a good example of “vertical” evolution (via time), allowing us to witness the concept even though our own life span is too short.

Magnaut, please reassure us you’re not passing Planet of The Apes off as science?
Craig Linder said, about 1 month ago

Great set of conversations today. The problem is the folks that need to be convinced aren’t listening. And I’m not sure they could ever be convinced to really listen to the evidence in support of evolution.

Socrates (I believe in the Theateus) explains how when some folks come to him he quickly realizes he can’t teach them anything and sends them elsewhere. Would that I knew where to send scott and ANandy where they might truly hear.
Craig Linder said, about 1 month ago

@michaelwme

This is incorrect. There are several modes of speciation. Most do take many generations, but one, in particular, requires literally a single generation: hybrid speciation. I don’t know what your background is, but if you’ve had basic genetics, you should know about species that are polyploid, that is, species that have double the number of chromosomes as most of the other species in their group (technically called a clade).

It turns out if two otherwise good species happen to produce unreduced gametes (gametes that are diploid instead of haploid) during meiosis, there are some circumstances where the two gametes can come together to produce a polyploid that cannot effectively interbreed with either of its parents.

Plants have literally thousands of polyploid species, but there are also polyploid species of fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards, etc. Some species of naturally occurring polyploid species have been recreated from their diploid parents in the lab, e.g., a weedy mustard species called Brassica napus.

Humans have even used this process to produce at least one new species, Triticale.
oddworlder said, about 1 month ago

IMHO, coming down out of the trees was a bad choice. Who sold us on this idea?
pamdixon said, about 1 month ago

I love the way anti-evolutionist come up with all the stuff. Let’s see. It based on an oral tradition that was finally written down by men (of the feet of clay variety) who had every reason the manipulate the data to fulfill their own human (selfish) needs.

Then it gets translated several hundred times by equally self-centered men and now in the 21st century we have the little but about impossibility of breeding between species.
I once knew a scientist, a good god-fearing man who came face to face with the story of how the world was created in the bible and his research as a molecular scientist. In the end he told me that He couldn’t see any reason to believe the writings of en who had a political agenda and the glory of god’s work, offering life a way to evolve over long periods of time. He cast his vote with the omnipotence of GOD over the writings of men every time.
annamargaret1866 said, about 1 month ago

pamdixon, are you saying this scientist accepted that the Bible was written by men with a political agenda and without scientific knowledge, and hence isn’t necessarily valid?
ray32648 said, about 1 month ago

That would’ve been the snake, oddworlder. ;)

Before the Bible was available for editing by folks with a political agenda it was copied many times over by folks who couldn’t read but were “official copiers” and who undoubtedly made mistakes that are the core of various religious arguments to this day.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

Anthony forgets the name of the “bird” that proves evolution.
Likewise, the “proof”offered by Craig Linder and MotiveMagus seems to have been ignored by the mainstream media; the same media that once used molecular deformities on a meteoroid supposedly from Mars as proof of “evolution.” I’m not a scientist and Dr.Canuck’s(@LaloAlcaraz) and Craig linder’s post detail just some of what we have to know to even claim familiarity with the biological science involved (diploidism, genetic transference, blah,blah,blah): Therefore we have to make assumptions based on what others are willing and can explain to us…You need to work a little on that, evolutionists.
Also Motive claims scottF is unable to examine data critically while he himself ignores the witness of the most strongly attested to popular readings in History (the Bible), which if true, and they have been proven true by all the textual criticism tools applied to all other documents previous to the Modern Era, detail the Witness of the Godhead in the words chosen by Himself.
An aside - since I ascertain that the level of information here on Biblical Criticism is slight; The Dead Sea Scrolls upheld all the current translations of the Old Testament as being accurate. (That links our current Old Testament back to I believe, oh about 2500 years ago or more, for writings that were first wrote down 3500 years ago according to one chronology I believe.)
If you gents and ladies were familiar with the “Fear of God”; you would take the testimony of ancient believers more seriously.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

“Fear of God.” The phrase speaks volumes. Too terrified to even listen to arguments contrary to your beliefs.
Michigander said, about 1 month ago

We all evolved from a pot leaf and that is why nothing that happens makes sense anymore.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

The “Fear of God” is not a fear of men or ideas.

Yowza! How could a warm-blooded Homo sapien pass up that Hoochy-Mama?

” ‘Ardi’ may” end up to be yet another archaeological hard-sell or even a dead end for the “evolutionary” hypothesis.
parkersinthehouse said, about 1 month ago

fear of God is not about being afraid of Him - it’s about deep reverence and awe of Him
fennec said, about 1 month ago

First, welcome to Craig Linder joining those of us with biological background to try to present our case. It isn’t easy but we keep trying (particularly motivemagus who has infinitely more patience that I do with these things).
Second, where is cdward to present the case for biblical scholarship? We need him desperately here to explain the provenance of biblical writings.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. He told me Himself in His bible.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

Then why is it termed “fear,” parker? Why doesn’t it say “Awe of God is the beginning of wisdom?”
Anthony 2816 said, about 1 month ago

Ardi May: “I’m not a scientist”

Big shock there. But it was totally unnecessary to tell us that. You made it obvious in so many ways, not the least of which was to use the tell-tale term “evolutionist”.

You know who really ticks me off? Those pesky gravitationists. Even though they have barely a clue how gravity works (certainly in no terms that I can easily understand), they keep claiming gravity exists, even though the mechanisms are poorly understood, at least compared to evolution.

And they want to teach it in our schools!
Anthony 2816 said, about 1 month ago

Oh, wait, Ardi May is just Puppy using yet another of her dozens of aliases.

In other words, we don’t have another ignorant person among us. Just the same old Puppy.
nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

OK, I’ll take a stab at this. The Book of Genesis only states they God created humans out of existing matter (clay). It does not clarify the process He used; whether He started with a single cell and formed us through evolution or instantly is open for debate. The humbling point is that either way, we came from dirt and dirt is what we shall become in the end. His existence and whether or not He created us is an article of Faith. The choice to live in Faith is made long before any of us examines the evidence.
Anthony 2816 said, about 1 month ago

And for many people their faith is kept in contradiction to the evidence.

Which wouldn’t be so bad if they could keep their faith a personal issue. Unfortunately, a good number of them want their faith taught to others instead of the evidence.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

“And for many people their faith is kept in contradiction to the evidence [or lack of evidence, my addition, ;^) ].

Which wouldn’t be so bad if they could keep their faith a personal issue. Unfortunately, a good number of them want their faith taught to others instead of the evidence [or lack of evidence].”

Exactly, O un-mentionable one.
Craig Linder said, about 1 month ago

Ardi May and others. I’m not making any religious claims one way or the other. I’m just explaining what the science indicates independent of any particular religious point of view. My aim is not to dissuade anyone from their religion or to argue for or against the existence of any particular notion of God or gods, merely to make sure that when the science is challenged that at least the science itself is understood.

This is why I explained hybrid speciation (which is, conveniently, part of my research). It is a common claim that only microevolution has ever been experimentally demonstrated and that speciation and macroevolution such as coevolution have not.

BTW, I had some trouble making out exactly what Ardi May was trying to say, but if s/he was saying that scientists need to do a better job of communicating things like hybrid speciation, I would mostly agree. Many of us who are professional scientists recognize that science literacy is a critical part of a modern education and is essential to being an active citizen in a democracy.

However, I would also point out that with a small amount of effort, everything I brought up can be found on the web. A number of reliable sites are available on evolution. Most of the entries in Wikipedia are quite good. For more detailed information, consider TalkOrigins, many academic websites, e.g., the Evolution website at UC Berkeley

evolution.berkeley.edu

And, of course, there is the primary scientific literature, which, I will be the first to admit, is not easy to read without training in the field. (This is true of the scientific literature in any field, not just evolutionary biology.)
Dogger807 said, about 1 month ago

Embryology supports evolution and has the phylogenetic tree mapped out the same way that Anatomy does which supports evolution and has the phylogenetic tree mapped out the exact same way the fossil record supports evolution and has the phylogenetic tree mapped out… etc

Don’t forget Genetics, molecular biology, ERV’s, Histology, Ecology, Development, transitional fossils and Biogeography to name a few more.

The only reason to call evolution a fairy tale is if your blinded by religion. Anyone who says otherwise is flat out lying. Anti-evolutionist have their views based in as much fact as flat earthers do. Their tactic are repetition without substance. They deserve no respect intellectually. Religion finds a way to ignore, anything that contradicts it’s teaching. Then they have the nerve to act put upon because others are laughing at them for sticking there head in the sand.
Jase99 said, about 1 month ago

My understanding of the creationist/intelligent design, the young Earth believers, and the global warming deniers can be summed up with a story.

About 5 years ago my mother was looking for new living room furniture. Her and I went out looking and eventually narrowed it down to two possibilities. I liked the firm spring backed set (I have a bad back), while she preferred the cushy overstuffed set. She spent literally hours not being able to make up her mind and called in a friend to help decide. The friend agreed with her and the furniture was immediately purchased. My point being that she was only looking for someone to agree with her preconceived viewpoint.

Regardless of how much evidence is out there, some people will dismiss it because it doesn’t match the notion they already have. They’re only looking for someone to agree with them. This works both ways. Some times new “evidence” will surface that would suggest existing theories aren’t completely accurate and need changing. Some hard core believers of the original theory will dismiss the new evidence because it doesn’t fit /their/ preconceived notions. Such is the way of humanity.
Craig Linder said, about 1 month ago

^Jase99

True enough. Psychological studies have shown what you say pretty clearly for the most part. Some folks are more inclined or better trained to follow reason, but most are pretty emotionally invested in their point of view. The good thing about the scientific method is that even if individual scientists are inclined to disbelieve an explanation due to attachment to some other one, over time, with additional study, the data will determine which is the better. explanation.
hlp54 said, about 1 month ago

Babies are not born with a belief. They are taught by parents, caregivers or friends. So if the parents believe in creationism so generally will their children. If not taught they will form their own beliefs according to their environment. If parents are christian, jewish, hindu, atheist or whatever usually the children follow suit.
Some children believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy etc. until old enough to learn otherwise.
Most however keep as the religion whatever they were taught. And their parents probably got their beliefs from their parents. With education sometimes comes knowledge.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

Henrie, you are right for the most part. There are some contra-indicators. I got this from the Answers in Genesis website (so it MUST be true), but of all students from Fundamentalist Christian families that enter universities, 89% end up rejecting Creationism.
The Answers people, of course, claim this to be liberal brainwashing. If so, we are WILDLY successful at it; no one has ever shown this level of persuation for anything with any people. So it’s probably simply the kids gaining some real knowledge about the subject and actually understanding evolution for the first time.
lalas said, about 1 month ago

The true idiots in this discussion are the agnostics and atheists trying to convince the children here that the Easter Bunny isn’t real…. why would you guys waste your time?
crunkbot said, about 1 month ago

“Anti-evolutionists” need to stop propagating this false dichotomy. Science says NOTHING about the possibility of God’s role in the creation or development of life – it neither supports NOR refutes it. “Evolution” is simply a description of an observable mechanism. It no more challenges religious faith than the equations engineers use to guide a spacecraft or predict the stresses a building can tolerate.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

Very sad, you are a bunch of un-qualified “feelers” yourselves. You need a little “mirror-time.” Oh, and Dogger, “[ontogeny] recapitulates [phylogeny ]” was disproven years ago and it is now known that Haeckel doctored his little pictures of “embryonic frog people”, etc. Science has discovered there is NEVER any significant ontological similarity between human embryos and so-called lesser evolved forms of life. It’s informative that none of the geniuses above bothered to inform you of your error.
Corosive Frog said, about 1 month ago

The sentence I am writing here didn’t just popped out of thin pxels. It started as a “T”, then “The”, then “The sentence”. Doesn’t mean it makes no sense or that there is no intelligence behind it. Doesn’t mean it does not serve a purpose. Doesn’t mean no one made it.

Sooky Rottweiler says;
I grew up on a dairy farm. We had cows and there was that moose who came to hang out with our cows once in a while. The farmer said we had to watch them closely or he would make calves to our cows! You can easily spot a cow in a bunch of moose (even me, and I don’t see colours!); both have four stomaches and ruminate, human say both their meats (both red meat) are commestible and since they could breed with cows, I guess moose milk could be drank just like cows milk (If anyone could get a new moose mommy to stand still while a human milks her!).
Then my human showed me online pictures of cariboo and deer. She also told me about a legend the natives had about a guy that locked himself in a cave all winter and hand-made all animals out of clay…
Maybe he first made the moose, but it was not quite what he had in mind, it was just a draft. He took that lump off its back, that weird beard-like thing under its chin and made a finer nose to make deer. Then took the deer, gave it warmer fur for northern climate and voila!
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

C’mon, parker; play with me. That’s two you owe me.
(How can I learn if my betters won’t teach me?)
fennec said, about 1 month ago

Please notice that the Pup, also posting recently as Ardi May, has co-opted senorbullwinkle’s screen name. Frankly, I think he should be banned for this action.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

fear of God: “Yirah” (3374) “this fem. Heb.noun [fear] means fear, terror, reverence, awe; piety, religion…If one truly recognizes God as all-powerful, this will be reflected in his attitude and daily life in the form of reverence…[see Proverbs 1:7 & 9:10]…There are 13 occurences of the expression ‘the fear of the LORD,” which refers to a pious posture which performs practical functions in life…” quote from The Hebrew - Greek Key Study Bible (NAS) - Lexicon to the Old and New Testaments, ed. Spiros Zodhiates, Thd;pg.1733; AMG International Publishers,1990.
fennec said, about 1 month ago

Oh shut up, Pup. You have gotten totally tiresome.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago

As a layman, I can only give my understanding of this, question, but I do have an interest and have done some readings.

My understanding is that “evolution” is not regarded as a theory, it is accepted as FACT. Anyone who claims that (A) species have always existed in their present forms (although some have since died out), and (B) life on earth has only existed for 6,000 years (or whatever), would not be taken seriously for an instant by anyone who actually understands how scientific conclusions are reached, whether in the fields of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, archaeology, what have you. So “Young Earthers” can simply sit this one out, you have nothing to say to forward this discussion.

It is the mechanism of evolution which is disputed, and contrary to what crunkbot says science does have something to say about whether God (or some other “intelligent designer”) plays a role. Darwin’s breakthrough contribution was not simply “evolution” but “evolution through natural selection.” This is what scares the God Squad. This IS* a “theory” in the common, non-scientific understanding of the word. The premise is actually so basic that once you understand its ramifications it seems not only likely but *inevitable. When Darwin’s contemporary Huxley learned of it, his response was “How stupid of me not to have come up with it myself!”

1) Replication is imperfect. Minor mutations can arise spontaneously, such that offspring are not merely a mixing of the traits of the parents, but can exhibit variations.

2) These variations, which are random, may be beneficial to the survival of that individual, detrimental to its survival, or have no impact either way.

3) Beneficial variations will tend towards greater representation within a population through the generations (those offspring who have the trait are naturally selected to survive in greater numbers), and detrimental ones will disappear (they are naturally selected not to be passed on). Those which are of no immediate impact, although niether of benefit nor detriment, nonetheless are passed along through the generations, although they penetrate more slowly.

Already, we can see what’s known as “genetic drift”; even without an act of “speciation” taking place, the common genetic make up within a stable population changes over time. If we could defrost a caveman from 10,000 years ago, he would still be Cro-Magnon, but his genome would be different from ours.

If you have a large, thriving population which can interbreed freely, variation does not spread hold rapidly. Mutations arise as freely as they would under any other conditions, but there’s no stressor to let natural selection really operate. But if a large population splits into smaller populations, then whatever individual variations exist in that smaller gene pool will spread within the group much more quickly. This would be true even if the territories within which the small groups had identical environments. If the different territories have different environments, say hotter or colder, or wetter or drier, of sandier or rockier, then natural selection will differentiate the populations over time, each to suit its habitat.

When you look at it, it’s SELF EVIDENT. God would have to intervene to PREVENT variations from compounding, and when variations between two populations of the descendents of the same root compound enough, they can no longer interbreed. Yes, it takes a LOT of time, but there’s BEEN a LOT of time. It’s ALWAYS going on, EVERYWHERE. 10,000 years is the blink of an eye, when we’re looking at this scale, and we’ve only known what to LOOK FOR for about 150 years…

And by the way, wolves and coyotes are different species, but they can interbreed without producing mules. The differences in their fertility cycles make it less common than you’d imagine, and the fertility cycles of the coywolves are shifted once again. I’m not sure about jackals, or African Wild Dogs. But I’ve seen enough to know that, whatever you offer anti-Darwinists any sort of example of the “Missing links” that they say CAN’T EXIST, they’ll say “No no no, what it needs to be is THIS OTHER THING!”
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

Transitional fossils, anyone? How about a mutation with useful morphology? Anyone ? C’mon, fennec you’re the biologist…explain to us dilettantes how there appears to be a mechanism in DNA that “cleans” up and prevents mutations from being passed on through succeeding generations…