The real reason Noah didn’t bring them along is because he didn’t want to have to fish for that much plankton and krill every day to feed them, and then shovel all that whale poop! BTW: “some scientists” believe this…whales with legs on land is not fact. It is theory.
“Wonder what the name of the ark was? Could it have been Anoesis?” Well, snarkiness aside, the only purpose of having a name is to distinguish something from other things like it, right? The Ark was one of a kind — nothing like it, before or since — and something that’s unique doesn’t need a name. So, “the Ark” ought to do.
The only thing “creationists” have going for them is a book of myth. Now, “myth” is often based on real events, stretched for the “story line” to meet your needs. IF they’re bright enough to realize that the mythical “day” could, and indeed WAS, maybe around a billion years, give or take ten, much of the “biblical story”, just like many “primitive creation” myths, can start to make sense. It is believing in the “literal truth”, that makes it farce, not just myth. Bending the facts to make “creation science” anything but literature is arrogance and error, not hardly “unerring”.
I thought this particular strip was so good I copied it and have a print of it posted on my desk at work…….. since sometime in the 90’s. Yes folks, it’s a reprint, but it still tickles my fancy. I might make a color copy of it to replace the tattered copy at work.
Here is what I really think: The debate between creationists and evolutionists is a fake war designed to separate people. Creationists get to call evolutionists names like “godless, immoral pagans.” Evolutionists get to call creationists names like “ignorant” and “stupid.” Both get to look down at each other. This divide is a waste of life to me. If someone looks at the available evidence and sees a creator, let that enrich their lives. If someone looks at the same evidence and sees evolution, let that enrich their lives also. The ones who actually look at the evidence and form a personal view are the winners, no matter the view. Those who choose a position before looking at the evidence and really don’t care what the evidence indicates are losers who want to separate people. Many creationists and evolutionists are intelligent, reasonable, respectful, and honorable people. Let’s be thankful for them.
think this is odd? there is actually a theme park in the midwest with dinosaur raptors peacefully grazing (??) coexising with cavemen (inspired by B.C.? surely isn’t anything in the bible about this…). itś a real hoot, until you get escorted out by the True Believers. yick. some really “special” people, out there in the midwest…
My question concerns what happened AFTER the waters receded. How come Noah put all the OTHER marsupials in Australia, but North America got stuck with the Virginia Opossums? My theory is that the other marsupials “voted them off the island” because they’re the only marsupials that aren’t cute.
Yes, atheism and agnosticism are two different things, and you are right to point out the difference. However, what I was really trying to get across was that, contrary to what you posted just above in response to denis1112, people don’t, or at least shouldn’t, just accept a theory at random. It’s a question of evidence for which evolution (and science in general) has lots, religions (note the plural) none at all.
Ha ha. AiG, ICR, CMI. Sorry; I read that stuff for 23 years. Then I grew up. Note carefully that all of your stuff, as well as all of theirs, consists of “Your position is wrong; god did it.” Let’s see the details of your position—some how, some explanation, some theory. Let’s see testable hypotheses. Let’s see publications in legitimate peer-reviewed journals of science.
“Where are the results of creationism and intelligent design? Those modes of ‘thought’ have produced no accomplishments in medicine, pharmacology, mining, agriculture, or any other productive field, nor will they ever do so. The track record of creation science is indistinguishable from that of astrology” (http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/thoughts-on-the-tennessee-creationism-law/).
1) I accomplished what I wanted in my previous post—to show for anyone reading that your arguments are not irrefutable (if fact, they’ve all been refuted a thousand times; the best compendium is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Your tactic, to ignore and repeat, is nicely summarized here: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/05/40-killer-arguments-for-internet.html. Since you obviously didn’t read it, here’s a couple of the key points: Never be tempted to follow any links or read any books which might be recommended. When pressed for an answer you don’t have, claim you’ve answered it already. Complain that no one has ever managed to answer any of your questions. Don’t take any notice of the detailed rebuttals you’ll get. When you’ve got through this list just start again. People might have forgotten you had all of your questions answered and arguments refuted.2) I pointed out that creationism is exclusively negative, claiming to refute science in general and evolution in particular, by advancing various arguments (all answered or refuted many times), without producing a viable or even coherent theory, and that creationism has no results to show in any scientific field (“same as astrology”). You burbled some more, but did not provide any example of something explained by creationism (I looked at the “stegosaurus” in Angkor Wat; it’s every bit as genuine as the co-extensive tracks of dinosaurs and humans near the Paluxy River in Texas).3) I think you’re a bit self-defensive. I read the creationist books—The Genesis Flood; lots of other books by Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others like them; Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance, Darwin’s Black Box, The Creation Hypothesis. So I know what it’s like to believe this stuff without knowing any better. So, have you read the stuff you are criticizing? I don’t think so, as your characterizations of what science and evolution are not accurate. In any case, I would think that a bare minimum (necessary, but not sufficient) list would consist of four books: Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” (how science works), either Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True or Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth” (convergent multiple lines of evidence for evolution), Donald Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters” (the fossil evidence), and Sean B. Carroll’s “The Making of the Fittest” (the DNA evidence). Have you read these?4) The two pillars of creationism—a young earth and a universal flood, are both disprovable and have been disproven. For the age of the earth, start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth and go on to the information about radiometric dating (oh no, operational science!); the objections to radiometric dating that you are about to bring up have been answered at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html and subsequent sections. A universal flood can be refuted by mathematical calculation (for example, the rate at which the rain would have to have fallen to cover the mountains up in 40 days, or the question, where did the water go?); numerous other responses at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH401.html and subsequent sections.OK, I’m done. Back to studying and learning.
18 days ago, exoticdoc2 lied: “And creationists do not use “God did it” as an explanation for everything.” Then 3 days ago, he gives a long, silly, “explanation" as to how creationism, the “Christian worldview” and the flood explain everything. For example: “The Bible speaks of the universe being stretched out like a canopy. Stretching out the heavens would fit just fine with and expanding universe.” And “Catastrophic plate tectonics is currently one viable explanation. The separation of the continents did not occur slowly over millions to billions of years, but rapidly during the horrendously destructive flood event” (I won’t ask how the ark stayed afloat during this flood, or how the fossils got laid down in perfect evolutionary order, or how the coal and oil that were supposedly formed by the flood were formed). And “The Genesis flood readily provides for this with its massive volcanic activity and its breaking open of the fountains of the great deep (releasing warm waters).” And “Mt. Everest did not exist then and was raised by the massive volcanic and tectonic activity previously mentioned” (my Muslim friend was amused to find out that Mt. Everest came into being only about 3,500 years ago). Not to mention the many citations of creationism.com. I see you’ve got the Nobel prize in physics all sewed up; it’s only a shame there isn’t one in geology which would obviously be yours as well. And I seem to have forgotten—did you accept the professorship at MIT? Or was it Cal Tech? If you’re wondering why I’m being so dismissive, it’s partly because Thomas Jefferson (whom, I presume was not wise by your standards) said “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” He was referring to the trinity, but I’m drawing an extra application from the quote. Partly because my friends are telling me I’m wasting time (I knew that from the start; but it’s been fun. I used to be even more ignorant than you are). And mostly because the refutation of everything you babble was just recently expressed, far better than I would ever be able to do, in a truly marvelous blog post at http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/the-curmudgeons-guide-to-creation-science/ I’m not going to excerpt it; it’s cut from whole cloth. The point is, what you are preaching is not science. Even if some of your made up “facts” were real, your method is not science, but religion. You have a Babylonian empire era book, and will do anything, no matter how ludicrous, dishonest, or ignorant, to defend it. In other words, you reason from the conclusions to the evidence—the diametrical opposite of the scientific method. “Science is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned.” Creationism has many deleterious political effects, but is totally ignored by the community of practicing scientists. Why? Because of a worldwide conspiracy? Or because to educated people, the burbling of creationists sound a lot more like three-year olds discussing what kind of cheese the moon is made out of? Once again, the starting point for the refutation of all creationist claims:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Those two only make sense if you’re so deep through the looking glass that Alice herself would wonder if you were okay.
Humphries, to his credit, seems genuine enough, but his research, such as it is, is a bit on the fantastical side, and he hides the strange stuff in papers that he footnotes in later papers as given. Few things have made me drop my jaw more than his attempt to ‘scientifically’ show that the Earth as an actual sphere of water was plausible because God was under no obligation to keep the magnetic moment as 0, so the God-induced magnetic moment gets defined as ‘k’ and used in further equations.
Huh??
Sarfati, on the other hand, is near as I can tell a charlatan. I spent a good two weeks following all his footnotes, stories, “maverick scientists” (like Feduccia) and the like and the possibility that he believes what he writes is the least probable explanation. The decisions someone makes to snip things out to make them say the opposite of what they do, or to equivocate, or to pick exceptions out of a source that otherwise does nothing but contradict their own position is a CONSCIOUS one unless one is prepossessed of some sort of neurological disturbance.
He’s like Jesus, except that he lied for your wins.
I don’t say that lightly. It’s like reading moon hoaxer material, except less genuine.
On other theological-vs-scientific topics, what is this obsession with laws? Laws limit – if all the laws had to be within certain bounds for everything to work, even if there were a creator involved, would that not show that its hands were tied? Why have complicated cellular machinery, anyhow? Why can’t Adam and Eve’s descendents be made out of mud or dust as well – being animated by a soul and with an all-powerful creator, this would be perfectly possible.
I noticed a few other arguments up around the thread and I won’t catch them all, of course, but a few items:
The human genome is not “degrading” – combinations that don’t work after fertilization are non-viable and primates also tend to miscarry instead of bringing zygotes with serious defects to term (yes, it doesn’t catch everything, but it bounds the distribution of defects) – note that this is information from the environment making its way into the system; DNA doesn’t entail viability inherentlyYes, you can add genetic information – it happens naturally as well. Plant polyploidy and the trail of duplication in retinol and homeobox genes are the tip of the iceberg. There isn’t one single blueprint for a species – never mind that blueprints are very poor metaphors for genes (even the way promoter gene variations work would scream ‘recipe’ instead), and sex, viability feedback and population take care of the rest
(I note here that Sarfati implies very strongly that everything started out ‘front-loaded’ – for example, that everything had to start out with genes for all the colours and then lose them over the generations. That being the case, we should see genetic markers of front-loading, and we don’t)
All the 1 in 10^2708 chances for a protein completely fail to consider that this is the poker hand fallacy – the chances of you getting what you got are astronomically against, but you had to get something. Proteins are a fairly inefficient way of getting functionality (see RoBisCo for an egregious example): you have hydrophilic, hydrophobic and neutral and water pushes them into shape. Many proteins have a small active site and then a giant squeeze-tube of doesn’t-matter-all-that-much out the back end.
Also, don’t equivocate immaterial with supernatural – that’s silly and flirting with the ham-handed declarations of the presuppositionalists. Emergent properties and observations are not supernatural.
Kali39 almost 12 years ago
He had enough room for them giraffes!
Kali39 almost 12 years ago
A scene missed by the Bible’s rendition:
Noah to his wife: You know how we have to have two of everything here? I want you to meet Theresa…
Can't Sleep almost 12 years ago
Well, whales were originally land animals that returned to the sea.
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Yep, they originally did have legs. But I REALLY want to see the film of him feeding the T. rex.
Aussie Down Under almost 12 years ago
Usually the whales wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they took Noah to court. However in this case they do.
el8 almost 12 years ago
necessity…the mother of evolution
roctor almost 12 years ago
The tejas book commitee won’t like this.
jonadab almost 12 years ago
Actually, even the largest whales would look small next to a 450-foot-long ark.
Varnes almost 12 years ago
Dude brought along WAY too many varieties of snakes if you ask me….I suppose the whales dined on unicorn for a while there….
agentadq almost 12 years ago
So that’s where mermaids and mermen come from!
Simon Seamount almost 12 years ago
Anoesis means the reception of impressions or sensations by the brain without any intellectual understanding.
Vonne Anton almost 12 years ago
The real reason Noah didn’t bring them along is because he didn’t want to have to fish for that much plankton and krill every day to feed them, and then shovel all that whale poop! BTW: “some scientists” believe this…whales with legs on land is not fact. It is theory.
PShaw0423 almost 12 years ago
“Wonder what the name of the ark was? Could it have been Anoesis?” Well, snarkiness aside, the only purpose of having a name is to distinguish something from other things like it, right? The Ark was one of a kind — nothing like it, before or since — and something that’s unique doesn’t need a name. So, “the Ark” ought to do.
revisages almost 12 years ago
not even. truth is, you were defused above magrathea
celeconecca almost 12 years ago
seeing these footed whales made me wonder if Jim Henson had walking whales in mind for the kindly creatures in Dark Crystal?
El Gato almost 12 years ago
So not evolution, or intelligent design, but unintelligent design. That explains a lot.
ny27lars almost 12 years ago
@dtroutmaI’d rather see film of him picking up after the T rex.
stanwal almost 12 years ago
And its all true, I swear by my tattoo!
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
The only thing “creationists” have going for them is a book of myth. Now, “myth” is often based on real events, stretched for the “story line” to meet your needs. IF they’re bright enough to realize that the mythical “day” could, and indeed WAS, maybe around a billion years, give or take ten, much of the “biblical story”, just like many “primitive creation” myths, can start to make sense. It is believing in the “literal truth”, that makes it farce, not just myth. Bending the facts to make “creation science” anything but literature is arrogance and error, not hardly “unerring”.
crosconi almost 12 years ago
I thought this particular strip was so good I copied it and have a print of it posted on my desk at work…….. since sometime in the 90’s. Yes folks, it’s a reprint, but it still tickles my fancy. I might make a color copy of it to replace the tattered copy at work.
Vonne Anton almost 12 years ago
Here is what I really think: The debate between creationists and evolutionists is a fake war designed to separate people. Creationists get to call evolutionists names like “godless, immoral pagans.” Evolutionists get to call creationists names like “ignorant” and “stupid.” Both get to look down at each other. This divide is a waste of life to me. If someone looks at the available evidence and sees a creator, let that enrich their lives. If someone looks at the same evidence and sees evolution, let that enrich their lives also. The ones who actually look at the evidence and form a personal view are the winners, no matter the view. Those who choose a position before looking at the evidence and really don’t care what the evidence indicates are losers who want to separate people. Many creationists and evolutionists are intelligent, reasonable, respectful, and honorable people. Let’s be thankful for them.
rockngolfer almost 12 years ago
Manatees have those vestigal hind leg bones, too. And on one side the bone is slightly larger just like in some fish that have lost rear fins.
dfowensby almost 12 years ago
think this is odd? there is actually a theme park in the midwest with dinosaur raptors peacefully grazing (??) coexising with cavemen (inspired by B.C.? surely isn’t anything in the bible about this…). itś a real hoot, until you get escorted out by the True Believers. yick. some really “special” people, out there in the midwest…
dfowensby almost 12 years ago
and in texas, they actually think this sorta laffy taffy belongs in the schools.
Varnes almost 12 years ago
Badfisherman, I told ya the whales ate ’em just before they started swimming…
Apikoros, you make comedy sound so fun….but I do agree with you…
Jules934 almost 12 years ago
Kali — And Eve replied, “Id like you to meet Brad.”
Jules934 almost 12 years ago
Wiley Miller’s Theory of Evolution?
fritzoid Premium Member almost 12 years ago
My question concerns what happened AFTER the waters receded. How come Noah put all the OTHER marsupials in Australia, but North America got stuck with the Virginia Opossums? My theory is that the other marsupials “voted them off the island” because they’re the only marsupials that aren’t cute.
markjoseph125 almost 12 years ago
Yes, atheism and agnosticism are two different things, and you are right to point out the difference. However, what I was really trying to get across was that, contrary to what you posted just above in response to denis1112, people don’t, or at least shouldn’t, just accept a theory at random. It’s a question of evidence for which evolution (and science in general) has lots, religions (note the plural) none at all.
markjoseph125 almost 12 years ago
Yes!
kaystari Premium Member almost 12 years ago
REPEAT!!!! BORING!
markjoseph125 almost 12 years ago
Ha ha. AiG, ICR, CMI. Sorry; I read that stuff for 23 years. Then I grew up. Note carefully that all of your stuff, as well as all of theirs, consists of “Your position is wrong; god did it.” Let’s see the details of your position—some how, some explanation, some theory. Let’s see testable hypotheses. Let’s see publications in legitimate peer-reviewed journals of science.
“Where are the results of creationism and intelligent design? Those modes of ‘thought’ have produced no accomplishments in medicine, pharmacology, mining, agriculture, or any other productive field, nor will they ever do so. The track record of creation science is indistinguishable from that of astrology” (http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/thoughts-on-the-tennessee-creationism-law/).
markjoseph125 almost 12 years ago
1) I accomplished what I wanted in my previous post—to show for anyone reading that your arguments are not irrefutable (if fact, they’ve all been refuted a thousand times; the best compendium is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Your tactic, to ignore and repeat, is nicely summarized here: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/05/40-killer-arguments-for-internet.html. Since you obviously didn’t read it, here’s a couple of the key points: Never be tempted to follow any links or read any books which might be recommended. When pressed for an answer you don’t have, claim you’ve answered it already. Complain that no one has ever managed to answer any of your questions. Don’t take any notice of the detailed rebuttals you’ll get. When you’ve got through this list just start again. People might have forgotten you had all of your questions answered and arguments refuted.2) I pointed out that creationism is exclusively negative, claiming to refute science in general and evolution in particular, by advancing various arguments (all answered or refuted many times), without producing a viable or even coherent theory, and that creationism has no results to show in any scientific field (“same as astrology”). You burbled some more, but did not provide any example of something explained by creationism (I looked at the “stegosaurus” in Angkor Wat; it’s every bit as genuine as the co-extensive tracks of dinosaurs and humans near the Paluxy River in Texas).3) I think you’re a bit self-defensive. I read the creationist books—The Genesis Flood; lots of other books by Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others like them; Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance, Darwin’s Black Box, The Creation Hypothesis. So I know what it’s like to believe this stuff without knowing any better. So, have you read the stuff you are criticizing? I don’t think so, as your characterizations of what science and evolution are not accurate. In any case, I would think that a bare minimum (necessary, but not sufficient) list would consist of four books: Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” (how science works), either Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True or Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth” (convergent multiple lines of evidence for evolution), Donald Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters” (the fossil evidence), and Sean B. Carroll’s “The Making of the Fittest” (the DNA evidence). Have you read these?4) The two pillars of creationism—a young earth and a universal flood, are both disprovable and have been disproven. For the age of the earth, start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth and go on to the information about radiometric dating (oh no, operational science!); the objections to radiometric dating that you are about to bring up have been answered at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html and subsequent sections. A universal flood can be refuted by mathematical calculation (for example, the rate at which the rain would have to have fallen to cover the mountains up in 40 days, or the question, where did the water go?); numerous other responses at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH401.html and subsequent sections.OK, I’m done. Back to studying and learning.
cu8sfan almost 12 years ago
I’ve seen this before! http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/06/23
markjoseph125 almost 12 years ago
18 days ago, exoticdoc2 lied: “And creationists do not use “God did it” as an explanation for everything.” Then 3 days ago, he gives a long, silly, “explanation" as to how creationism, the “Christian worldview” and the flood explain everything. For example: “The Bible speaks of the universe being stretched out like a canopy. Stretching out the heavens would fit just fine with and expanding universe.” And “Catastrophic plate tectonics is currently one viable explanation. The separation of the continents did not occur slowly over millions to billions of years, but rapidly during the horrendously destructive flood event” (I won’t ask how the ark stayed afloat during this flood, or how the fossils got laid down in perfect evolutionary order, or how the coal and oil that were supposedly formed by the flood were formed). And “The Genesis flood readily provides for this with its massive volcanic activity and its breaking open of the fountains of the great deep (releasing warm waters).” And “Mt. Everest did not exist then and was raised by the massive volcanic and tectonic activity previously mentioned” (my Muslim friend was amused to find out that Mt. Everest came into being only about 3,500 years ago). Not to mention the many citations of creationism.com. I see you’ve got the Nobel prize in physics all sewed up; it’s only a shame there isn’t one in geology which would obviously be yours as well. And I seem to have forgotten—did you accept the professorship at MIT? Or was it Cal Tech? If you’re wondering why I’m being so dismissive, it’s partly because Thomas Jefferson (whom, I presume was not wise by your standards) said “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” He was referring to the trinity, but I’m drawing an extra application from the quote. Partly because my friends are telling me I’m wasting time (I knew that from the start; but it’s been fun. I used to be even more ignorant than you are). And mostly because the refutation of everything you babble was just recently expressed, far better than I would ever be able to do, in a truly marvelous blog post at http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/the-curmudgeons-guide-to-creation-science/ I’m not going to excerpt it; it’s cut from whole cloth. The point is, what you are preaching is not science. Even if some of your made up “facts” were real, your method is not science, but religion. You have a Babylonian empire era book, and will do anything, no matter how ludicrous, dishonest, or ignorant, to defend it. In other words, you reason from the conclusions to the evidence—the diametrical opposite of the scientific method. “Science is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned.” Creationism has many deleterious political effects, but is totally ignored by the community of practicing scientists. Why? Because of a worldwide conspiracy? Or because to educated people, the burbling of creationists sound a lot more like three-year olds discussing what kind of cheese the moon is made out of? Once again, the starting point for the refutation of all creationist claims:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
boojer almost 12 years ago
Sarfati and Humphries, really?
Those two only make sense if you’re so deep through the looking glass that Alice herself would wonder if you were okay.
Humphries, to his credit, seems genuine enough, but his research, such as it is, is a bit on the fantastical side, and he hides the strange stuff in papers that he footnotes in later papers as given. Few things have made me drop my jaw more than his attempt to ‘scientifically’ show that the Earth as an actual sphere of water was plausible because God was under no obligation to keep the magnetic moment as 0, so the God-induced magnetic moment gets defined as ‘k’ and used in further equations.
Huh??
Sarfati, on the other hand, is near as I can tell a charlatan. I spent a good two weeks following all his footnotes, stories, “maverick scientists” (like Feduccia) and the like and the possibility that he believes what he writes is the least probable explanation. The decisions someone makes to snip things out to make them say the opposite of what they do, or to equivocate, or to pick exceptions out of a source that otherwise does nothing but contradict their own position is a CONSCIOUS one unless one is prepossessed of some sort of neurological disturbance.
He’s like Jesus, except that he lied for your wins.
I don’t say that lightly. It’s like reading moon hoaxer material, except less genuine.
On other theological-vs-scientific topics, what is this obsession with laws? Laws limit – if all the laws had to be within certain bounds for everything to work, even if there were a creator involved, would that not show that its hands were tied? Why have complicated cellular machinery, anyhow? Why can’t Adam and Eve’s descendents be made out of mud or dust as well – being animated by a soul and with an all-powerful creator, this would be perfectly possible.
I noticed a few other arguments up around the thread and I won’t catch them all, of course, but a few items:
The human genome is not “degrading” – combinations that don’t work after fertilization are non-viable and primates also tend to miscarry instead of bringing zygotes with serious defects to term (yes, it doesn’t catch everything, but it bounds the distribution of defects) – note that this is information from the environment making its way into the system; DNA doesn’t entail viability inherentlyYes, you can add genetic information – it happens naturally as well. Plant polyploidy and the trail of duplication in retinol and homeobox genes are the tip of the iceberg. There isn’t one single blueprint for a species – never mind that blueprints are very poor metaphors for genes (even the way promoter gene variations work would scream ‘recipe’ instead), and sex, viability feedback and population take care of the rest(I note here that Sarfati implies very strongly that everything started out ‘front-loaded’ – for example, that everything had to start out with genes for all the colours and then lose them over the generations. That being the case, we should see genetic markers of front-loading, and we don’t)
All the 1 in 10^2708 chances for a protein completely fail to consider that this is the poker hand fallacy – the chances of you getting what you got are astronomically against, but you had to get something. Proteins are a fairly inefficient way of getting functionality (see RoBisCo for an egregious example): you have hydrophilic, hydrophobic and neutral and water pushes them into shape. Many proteins have a small active site and then a giant squeeze-tube of doesn’t-matter-all-that-much out the back end.
Also, don’t equivocate immaterial with supernatural – that’s silly and flirting with the ham-handed declarations of the presuppositionalists. Emergent properties and observations are not supernatural.