Hilarious creationists

This comes from a silly creationist site that has no authority on anything to do with science or common sense.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.

There is specific evidence for this occurring. Currently Darren Wong is painstakingly going through each creationist claim from that site piece by piece. He has yet to get to this bit, but I will leave it up to him since he’s willing to go into such enormous detail on everything. (Though for the time being, here is one version of what he’s going to say.)

What I want to address here is the last sentence in the above quote. I mean, really? This creationist thinks the reason a male from one species is prevented from reproducing with a female from another has to do with chromosome count? Really? So then I should expect an orangutan to be able to reproduce with a hedgehog since they both have 48 chromosomes?

Advertisements

55 Responses

  1. They never heard of Chromosome 2, eh? Not to mention that donkeys and horses, which are claimed to be of the same kind, have different chromosome counts. I’ll delve into detail after that, lol.

  2. Uh .. there’s no reason to suggest that orangutan and hedgehogs should be able to mate or that donkeys should have the same number of chromosomes from the little you’ve presented here.

  3. I’m confused with what you mean this time, Grant. I was referring to Bible Life Ministries claim that “there is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA”.

    Chromosome 2 is definitely a case of chromosomal fusion between chromosomal 2a and 2b, whether it is one of ape origin or not.

    Now, donkeys, horses, and zebras are claimed to be of the same kind by creationists, and are descendants of the “horses” in Noah’s Ark. If the chromosome count of species are fixed, how come they have different chromosome counts?

  4. Ja, I’m not prepared to defend what the website has to say as I haven’t read it so I’m not really adding to the conversation.

    The hedgehog and donkey response just seemed a little inadequate as simple rebuttals.

  5. Is there a particular reason why someone would bother to ‘refute’ the claims of this site?

    It would seem the number of people who would take it as authoritative are few and far between, and the the ones who do aren’t going to read an atheist refutation any way.

  6. Refuting Bible Life Ministries claims isn’t my only objective, jackhudson. It also serves as a general rebuttal to other creationists as well.

    Moreover, I intend to let those who are on the fence to understand how much does the creationists misrepresent science, and thus convince them of true science. (I do have a few friends who are in such a situation, and they are starting to accept evolution)

    Lastly, whenever, someone tries to debate me, all I’ll have to do is to point them to my blog. :-)

  7. Moreover, I intend to let those who are on the fence to understand how much does the creationists misrepresent science, and thus convince them of true science. (I do have a few friends who are in such a situation, and they are starting to accept evolution)

    Again, if someone is ‘on the fence’ as it were, I hardly think that refuting random and weak creationists sites is going to be horribly convincing.

    Of course, if you can keep them from learning about the sharper criticisms of evolution, and stronger claims of design, you may be able to fool them for awhile.

  8. Uh .. there’s no reason to suggest that orangutan and hedgehogs should be able to mate…from the little you’ve presented here.

    The creationist explicitly said the reason one member of a species cannot reproduce with a member of another species is that the chromosome count between species is fixed. In other words, he is laying the entire reason two separate species cannot mate at the feet of chromosome count. He’s wrong and we can see that by light of two species with the same chromosome count that cannot reproduce.

    The point is that chromosome count is generally irrelevant in how it is decided that two populations are separate species.

  9. Except when they believe in even weaker creationists, jackhudson. ;-) Perhaps it isn’t so in your community, but mines one that buys into anything, including the conspiracy theory that the US and Russian government are covering up the discovery of Noah’s Ark. It’s just that I haven’t meet anyone that can really criticise evolution in Malaysia.

    Also, doesn’t creationists say the same thing everywhere? So by specifying one creationist to refute, I’ve refuted 80% of creationist claims.

    PS: jackhudson, what’s your stand? Evolution or ID/creationism?

  10. Also, doesn’t creationists say the same thing everywhere? So by specifying one creationist to refute, I’ve refuted 80% of creationist claims.

    Does it work the other way around? I pick the weakest atheist to refute and I have refuted 80% of the others?

    PS: jackhudson, what’s your stand? Evolution or ID/creationism?

    I try just to stand up for truth, not labels.

  11. The claims, jack, that’s what I mean. The claims that all creationist makes are generally similar, and by refuting one creationist’s CLAIMS, those of others are refuted, as the claims are essentially the same. Sigh, please don’t use a strawman. After all, I never said THE WEAKEST CREATIONIST.

    OK, and what is your so-called truth? How do you determine what is the truth? There must be something you currently support, since there is only one truth for any topic.

  12. The claims that all creationist makes are generally similar, and by refuting one creationist’s CLAIMS, those of others are refuted, as the claims are essentially the same. Sigh, please don’t use a strawman. After all, I never said THE WEAKEST CREATIONIST.

    You seemed to have missed what I said. I said you were arguing against the weakest claims; these don’t refute the strongest claims.

    OK, and what is your so-called truth? How do you determine what is the truth? There must be something you currently support, since there is only one truth for any topic.

    Well I don’t have a personal truth, but truth is simply an accurate description of reality; I accept as true those claims that I find most comport with reality as I observe and understand it. How about you; how do you determine what is true?

  13. Alright, alright. Yes, those claim may be weaker. I was addressing the general claims, OK? I do not intend to to refute the hardests claims(not much, if any), I’m trying to explain the more general claims for now. Like I said, the target audience is those who are quite new to the debate (almost every single friend of mine). Those harder claims, yeah maybe I’ll address them later.

    jackhudson, let me restate my point. What do you think led to the current diversity of life?

    And how I determine what’s true? Well, I don’t think I’ll ever be true on anything. I can only infer what’s true based on current evidence, and that is subject to change. Take an example, I accept evolution, because the current evidence points to it, while creationism already has its conclusion, and lacks evidence (not science at all). However, if a much better model that fits the evidence appears, I’ll move to that one.

  14. Alright, alright. Yes, those claim may be weaker. I was addressing the general claims, OK? I do not intend to to refute the hardests claims(not much, if any), I’m trying to explain the more general claims for now. Like I said, the target audience is those who are quite new to the debate (almost every single friend of mine). Those harder claims, yeah maybe I’ll address them later.

    That’s fine; if you want to address weak claims. It won’t obviously convince the like of us whose beliefs about the origin of life is based on other claims.

    What do you think led to the current diversity of life?

    I think the fundamental structures and systems of life were designed. I think much of the diversity that exists results from that design.

    I can only infer what’s true based on current evidence, and that is subject to change. Take an example, I accept evolution, because the current evidence points to it, while creationism already has its conclusion, and lacks evidence (not science at all). However, if a much better model that fits the evidence appears, I’ll move to that one.

    Well see there, we aren’t so different. As a former agnostic and evolutionist, I too have become convinced that the best explanation for what I see in biology is that it was designed intentionally.

  15. Duh, I want to show “on the fence” guys about what evolution is. It is not possible to convince someone who firmly believes in another belief through a blog post, no matter how convincing, IMO. And although those are weaker claims, they make up for most creationist claims, and that is enough reason to address them.

    And aren’t you currently supporting ID, based on your answer? It seems the most appropriate label for what you currently believe.

  16. I want to show “on the fence” guys about what evolution is. It is not possible to convince someone who firmly believes in another belief through a blog post, no matter how convincing, IMO. And although those are weaker claims, they make up for most creationist claims, and that is enough reason to address them.

    I really don’t think the Chromosome number claim make up ‘most of the creationist claims’.

    And aren’t you currently supporting ID, based on your answer? It seems the most appropriate label for what you currently believe.

    You can call it whatever you want; I am just telling you what the evidence supports.

  17. jack, if you’ve seen what I’ve written on my blog, it doesn’t just address Chromosome 2 (I haven’t got to that yet). I was stating that Bible Life Ministries claims are the general one creationists are making.

    And I don’t see any evidence of design in the scientific community. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the respective scientific papers?

  18. Michael, you’re going to have to learn some simple logic.

    The creationist explicitly said the reason one member of a species cannot reproduce with a member of another species is that the chromosome count between species is fixed. In other words, he is laying the entire reason two separate species cannot mate at the feet of chromosome count. He’s wrong and we can see that by light of two species with the same chromosome count that cannot reproduce.

    The claim that creatures with different chromosome counts cannot reproduce is not disproved by observing that two creatures with the same chromosome count also cannot.

    Likewise I could say that I have to go to MacDonalds to buy a Big Mac. You cannot prove me wrong by pointing out that people can go to MacDonalds without buying a Big Mac.

  19. The claim that creatures with different chromosome counts cannot reproduce is not disproved by observing that two creatures with the same chromosome count also cannot.

    The claim is that chromosome count is the defining characteristic between species. The fact that disparate species often share the same number of chromosomes specifically knocks that down.

    The point is that it isn’t very useful to look at chromosome count to determine what is what. Speciation almost always happens long before that due to more simple genetic changes.

  20. And I don’t see any evidence of design in the scientific community. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the respective scientific papers?

    Every time a paper chronicles the details of the information contained in the genome, or the molecular machinery one finds in living cells, it provides evidence of design.

  21. Which can be explained by evolution. All scientific papers agree that it happened through evolution. Tell me one that says otherwise.

  22. The claim is that chromosome count is the defining characteristic between species.

    Really? You should quote the part where they say that then.

    And work on your logic. :)

  23. Grant, I did quote that. It’s the entire point of the post.

    The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.

    1) Chromosome count is fixed.
    2) This fixity defines the inability for different species to mate.

    It’s clear to anyone who is not a silly creationist.

  24. I’m sorry, but your representation of the quote doesn’t well match what was said.

    Perhaps there are more reasons why different species cannot breed, but it seems you’re hardly dealing with the challenge and only dealing with semantics.

  25. The ‘challenge’ is one that has been answered, and which I’m sure Darren Wong will address in more detail than I care to delve. I am pointing out the simplistic sort of errors that are characteristic of creationists. A complete lack of education within the field of biology will tend to cause them to happen, so it is up to the educated to fix that mess.

  26. Evolution has never explained the origin of information systems and machinery in the cell, Many might attribute their existence to evolution, but it has never been shown that they exist as a product of evolution.

  27. Those operate as buzzwords for you to hide the fact that you’re an old Earth creationist. You have no good definition of “information”.

  28. Those operate as buzzwords for you to hide the fact that you’re an old Earth creationist. You have no good definition of “information”.

    I would say rather those operate as arguements against evolution for which you have no answer.

  29. I addressed this some time ago. The only good definition of “information” is either DNA, amino acids, or genes. Whichever one chooses, there is plenty of “information” added every time anything is born. Whether through unique sexual recombination or mutation, information is added all the time. And what’s more, it isn’t even that new information is always needed. As with Darwin’s finches, information can simply be modified through the intensity of regulatory genes acting upon other genes.

  30. I addressed this some time ago. The only good definition of “information” is either DNA, amino acids, or genes. Whichever one chooses, there is plenty of “information” added every time anything is born. Whether through unique sexual recombination or mutation, information is added all the time. And what’s more, it isn’t even that new information is always needed. As with Darwin’s finches, information can simply be modified through the intensity of regulatory genes acting upon other genes.

    If that is how you addressed it, then you were way off.

    DNA, amino acids, and genes aren’t a definition of information, but parts of the system that transmits and utilizes the information. And while mutation and recombination (and even more commonly, mechanisms like silencing and amplifying the expression of genes) may modify extant information, they do nothing to explain how the systems and machinery got there in the first place. There is no evolutionary explanation for such things.

  31. You still haven’t given a definition. All you have is this abstract nothing to throw around to make you sound science-y.

  32. How about you give us a definition of information, Michael? It’s quite difficult to do, like trying to define art or life. It’s not easy like defining what is “out” in cricket.

    Most of the definitions I can put forward are tautologies, like:
    Information is the meaning communicated from an intelligent source to guide a system.

    I doubt you’d agree with that definition so how about you give us one?

  33. Ironically, I just took a philosophy of aesthetics course. It is pretty much impossible to define art, incidentally.

    But I gave a definition in a link a couple comments up.

  34. You still haven’t given a definition. All you have is this abstract nothing to throw around to make you sound science-y.

    Actually, you already agreed that the genome contains information; let’s go with your definition. The result is the same.

  35. I described specific possibilities of what is information. If you want to agree that base pairs, for instance, constitute information (which is basically the only definition offered thus far), then a combination of basic chemical properties of bonding and evolution do specifically explain its origin.

  36. I described specific possibilities of what is information. If you want to agree that base pairs, for instance, constitute information (which is basically the only definition offered thus far), then a combination of basic chemical properties of bonding and evolution do specifically explain its origin.

    Well, in it’s simplest form, information is a message sent and understood. As such, a base pair would be a component of an information system (that is a mechanism for generating, storing, utilizing and and transmitting information), but by itself it’s not information.

    Neither basic chemistry, nor evolution, explains the origin of the information, the information system, or the machinery upon which living systems rely, anymore than the principles of computer science explain the origin of your posts, or the systems on which their existence depends.

  37. So you’ve basically built your entire case for ID on a pigeon-hole definition of information which says that there is some mystical, magical communication which constitutes information. All you’ve done is given a vague answer that explains nothing and semantically forces one to come to a magical sky man.

  38. So you’ve basically built your entire case for ID on a pigeon-hole definition of information which says that there is some mystical, magical communication which constitutes information. All you’ve done is given a vague answer that explains nothing and semantically forces one to come to a magical sky man.

    That isn’t a ‘pidgeon hole’ definition of information, but the commonly accepted one when considering measuring and detecting information in information systems. It’s only vague to those who don’t know anything about information theory to begin with.

  39. Okay, explicate. Enlighten me.

  40. You want me to explain information theory to you on your blog?

  41. I want you to define the term more clearly, in a way that actually means something. Then relate it to the genome.

  42. Well messages, instructions, and requests, based on patterned data that is created, stored, transmitted and respnded to are all parts of human derived and cellular information systems.

    That is the brief overview, but the capabilities of the genome in many ways exceed our own in terms of complexity and capability – and there is no evolutionary weay to develop even our caparitively basic information systems.

  43. That all is specifically explained through evolution. The fecundity of DNA constitutes your patterned data, and it offers an explanation for how cellular messages and genetic instructions are carried out. You’re just a creationist talking out of your ass.

  44. That all is specifically explained through evolution. The fecundity of DNA constitutes your patterned data, and it offers an explanation for how cellular messages and genetic instructions are carried out. You’re just a creationist talking out of your ass.

    None of it is ‘explained through evolution’ – I don’t think evolution even tries. It does a pretty good job of explaining why certain information in the genome persists, and why certain information in the genome no longer exists. It doesn’t do anything to explain how the systems and the information upon which those systems both depend and perpetuate came to exist.

    Failing to explain it you of course go for the ad hom, because like all atheists you can’t control yourself in this regard, lacking the moral fortitude to do otherwise.

    But this only only demonstrates further how intellectually unsatisfying evolutionary explanations are.

  45. You still haven’t offered a definition of anything. You’re speaking with intentional vagueness and not actually saying anything. “The information must come from somewhere else! And information is something that comes from somewhere else! What defines it? Its existence from somewhere else!”

  46. Failing to explain it you of course go for the ad hom, because like all atheists you can’t control yourself in this regard, lacking the moral fortitude to do otherwise.

    Since you believe morality is given to you and that goodness should be done for the sake of an invisible sky man – not your fellow humans – I would argue that your morality is based upon nothingness and isn’t really morality at all. Your intention lies in the wrong place. You don’t do good for the sake of the good or humans, but so you can increase your chances of getting into Heaven.

    Of course, the real issue here is that you just want atheists to shut up because the points we tend to raise make the religious uncomfortable. It’s a demand for respect you and your ilk have never earned, and really, aren’t interested in earning in the first place. I’m only surprised that you didn’t trot out “militant”.

  47. You still haven’t offered a definition of anything. You’re speaking with intentional vagueness and not actually saying anything. “The information must come from somewhere else! And information is something that comes from somewhere else! What defines it? Its existence from somewhere else!”

    Michael, what part of a “patterned data that is created, stored, transmitted and responded to” don’t you understand? I can use smaller words if you like. Or a picture can be found here if you can’t understand the words:

    There is no shame in admitting ignorance Michael.

  48. humans – I would argue that your morality is based upon nothingness and isn’t really morality at all. Your intention lies in the wrong place. You don’t do good for the sake of the good or humans, but so you can increase your chances of getting into Heaven.

    Of course, the real issue here is that you just want atheists to shut up because the points we tend to raise make the religious uncomfortable. It’s a demand for respect you and your ilk have never earned, and really, aren’t interested in earning in the first place. I’m only surprised that you didn’t trot out “militant”.

    You know, I spent time in Kenyan slums working with people who, motivated by the love of Christ, were helping mentally disabled children who had been thrown away by their culture; I didn’t meet a lot of atheists working there.

    No, the real issue is Michael is that what you are doing has nothing to do with helping ‘your fellow man’ whom you could care less about and whom you have doe nothing of real worth for. You are doing this for yourself, because you aren’t confident of what you believe, and in your fear you feel the need to lash out at those who disagree with you lest doubt creep into your selfish and small mind.

    When you have actually done something for your fellow man, I would love to hear about it; but I won’t hold my breath.

  49. Ah, now when atheists speak it’s out of a lack of confidence. We better start keeping our thoughts to ourselves! Of course, the religious can keep demanding undue deference for their bad ideas.

  50. Ah, now when atheists speak it’s out of a lack of confidence. We better start keeping our thoughts to ourselves! Of course, the religious can keep demanding undue deference for their bad ideas.

    Nice evasion Michael; I didn’t say atheists, I said you . I have known and conversed with many confident atheists who didn’t revert to vociferous whining whenever someone disagreed with them.

    Nonetheless, I see you had nothing to offer by way of your wonderful works for fellow man. Not surprised.

  51. Yes, because I’m sure I couldn’t find any example of you generalizing atheists in precisely the same manner. Surely it was merely personal.

    I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you over who has helped the most grandmas across the street.

  52. Yes, because I’m sure I couldn’t find any example of you generalizing atheists in precisely the same manner. Surely it was merely personal.

    You mean when you said Christians weren’t motivated to do good for their “fellow humans” you weren’t generalizing about Christians? Oh wait, that’s right, you were just being brutally honest. Must be nice to dress up hypocrisy that way.

    I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you over who has helped the most grandmas across the street.

    Well, get back to us when your atheism actually motivates you to do something for your fellow human besides spout off.

  53. You mean when you said Christians weren’t motivated to do good for their “fellow humans” you weren’t generalizing about Christians? Oh wait, that’s right, you were just being brutally honest. Must be nice to dress up hypocrisy that way.

    You’re terrible at philosophy.

    I proposed that morality done for the sake of something other than one’s fellow man is not really morality. Although I was specifically talking about your morality and not Christians in general, what I said could be applied to most religions. That doesn’t mean that Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc don’t do things for their fellow man. I believe most of them actually do. The ones who say, however, that they are only acting in such a way because they believe God commanded it, aren’t really doing anything moral. It’s like a child sharing because it will make his mother proud. In terms of him doing something for the sake of his mother, he has done something moral, but he has done nothing moral in terms of the person with whom he shared his toys. And notably, in this analogy, there is actually evidence for the existence of the mother.

    I feel no sympathy for you if that’s too difficult for you. You should know better.

    Well, get back to us when your atheism actually motivates you to do something for your fellow human besides spout off.

    Strawman much? I never claimed atheism motivates anyone to do anything. In fact, I’ve often claimed quite the opposite. It isn’t a belief system of any sort. No good nor bad is motivated by atheism.

  54. I proposed that morality done for the sake of something other than one’s fellow man is not really morality. Although I was specifically talking about your morality and not Christians in general, what I said could be applied to most religions. That doesn’t mean that Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc don’t do things for their fellow man. I believe most of them actually do. The ones who say, however, that they are only acting in such a way because they believe God commanded it, aren’t really doing anything moral. It’s like a child sharing because it will make his mother proud. In terms of him doing something for the sake of his mother, he has done something moral, but he has done nothing moral in terms of the person with whom he shared his toys. And notably, in this analogy, there is actually evidence for the existence of the mother.

    So let me get this straight – if I do good to my fellow man because I derive my idea of good from God, I am acting immorally (or perhaps, amorally), despite the fact that obeying God would be, you know, moral by any measure.

    If I do good because the mood hits me, or because Kant tells me to do it, or I just come up with my own motivations to justify the action, like, ‘it feels good’, then it is moral.

    I am not the one who needs philosophy lessons here.

    Strawman much? I never claimed atheism motivates anyone to do anything. In fact, I’ve often claimed quite the opposite. It isn’t a belief system of any sort. No good nor bad is motivated by atheism.

    Well, actually we have agreement here; atheists are not motivated to help their fellow man at all. Perhaps that is why you so rarely see atheists bothering.

  55. So let me get this straight – if I do good to my fellow man because I derive my idea of good from God, I am acting immorally (or perhaps, amorally), despite the fact that obeying God would be, you know, moral by any measure.

    I would say it’s amoral action. Of course, this assumes my definition of morality as one where humans are what matters. But I really didn’t expect you to tease that out.

    If I do good because the mood hits me, or because Kant tells me to do it, or I just come up with my own motivations to justify the action, like, ‘it feels good’, then it is moral.

    I am not the one who needs philosophy lessons here.

    I’m not prepared to offer you a full course on what morality is, how it is derived, and why it should matter. There are universities and colleges for that.

    Well, actually we have agreement here; atheists are not motivated to help their fellow man at all. Perhaps that is why you so rarely see atheists bothering.

    We do not agree. I said atheism does not motivate anyone to do anything. You’ve included atheists as individuals and that makes no sense as there is no defining quality of atheists you can pinpoint; there are a multitude of reasons an atheist might to one thing or another. It’s like I’ve said atheism does not motivate one to watch television and you’ve said no atheists watch the ol’ tube.

    The reason atheists don’t tend to be seen in big hordes helping others is that there is little to no organization amongst atheists. There are secular groups with relatively little money here and there, but no big Catholic Church or scummy Rick Warren’s. Atheism has no organizing principles as it’s just a rejection of belief. It’s a negative claim, not a positive one.

    You may, however, want to try reconciling your argument here with the fact that you also think something like “Stalinism” is “atheism-in-practice” before you go any further.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: