Creationist Wisdom — Example 44

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from ‘Living fossils,’ ideology defy evolution, a letter-to-the-editor which appears in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia.

We’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, and add our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:

I am writing in response to [earlier writer]’s April 21 letter [“So what if we lack ‘missing links’?”]. I must agree with [earlier writer] that Darwinism is not yet dead. In fact, the ideology behind Darwin’s theory will never allow it to die.

The ideology? Does he mean the scientific method? Let’s read on:

This has been seen as several species once “proved” by paleontologists to be millions of years old turn out to be alive and well today without any signs of having evolved at all.

A key example of this is the coelacanth fish, which is said to have lived more than 60 million years ago, yet still swims today unchanged in the Indian Ocean.

Coelacanth is the common name of an old order of fish that once was known only from fossil evidence, and it was therefore thought extinct; but some species — not the same as those preserved in fossils — have indeed been found to exist. Although not as popular a creationist talking point as Piltdown Man, the coelacanth comes up quite often. Those who think it’s an evolution-killer believe that the theory of evolution requires the “sudden, tsunami-like, simultaneous transformation” of an entire species. That bizarre misconception is what causes them to ask: “Why are there still monkeys?” Or in this case, coelacanths.

We continue:

This living fish is said by evolutionists to show a key evolutionary step taken by aquatic creatures as they changed into land creatures. The only problem is that this fish has never made that transition throughout its entire existence!

It’s not polite to laugh, but this guy is a classic. He’s undoubtedly thinking here of Tiktaalik, and confusing it with Coelacanth. And, in accordance with his “sudden, tsunami-like, simultaneous transformation” theory, he assumes that all the Takaaliks marched in unison onto the land, leaving no relatives in the sea. Hey — Tiktaalik, Coelacanth — what’s the difference?

Here’s more:

Evolutionists use the phrase “living fossils” to describe such creatures that defy the very concept of evolution.

Yes. If you think a long-surviving order of fish defies “the very concept of evolution,” we’ve got a better one for you. Ponder this: If the first blond human had brunet parents, then — here it comes — Why are there still brunets?

Your mind is reeling from that one, but we’re moving along:

While found in fossils that have been dated within evolutionary circles as being hundreds of millions of years old, these species never show signs of change.

Not so, but we wouldn’t expect a creationist to know that, or to admit it even if he did know. In truth, the only thing that never shows signs of change is creationism. It’s too dead to evolve. Another excerpt:

Yet the ideology of the evolutionists forces them to somehow cobble these inconsistencies into their theory no matter how extreme their assumptions may become.

Yes, cobbled inconsistencies. Unlike the brilliantly seamless “theory” of creationism. Well, think about it — there really aren’t too many inconsistencies in creationism, which consists entirely of “Presto-chango, Kaboom!” On with the letter:

Even as [earlier writer] imagines a fossil record that somehow magically skipped intermediate forms for millions of years while preserving only finalized forms, the evolutionist’s ideology cannot allow him to be put in the position of questioning Darwinism.

That’s too incoherent for us to deal with. And now we come to the letter’s stunning end:

His [the earlier writer] alternative is to contemplate the unimaginable — a creator to whom we all are accountable.

[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]

There you have it. Darwinism is dead. Coelacanth proves it.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

4 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 44

  1. Pliny-the-in-Between

    I think this is one of the points that somehow are not being clearly taught. People seem to have this notion that natural selection and new species must imply that earlier lines are no longer viable and must die out. There is this fallacy of replacement or displacement by new species that crops up in these arguments such as the ceolacanth and the persistence of other primates for example.

  2. John Phillips, FCD

    I think part of this is their failure to understand what survival of the fittest actually means, not that the failure to understand yet one more aspect of TOE will surprise us 🙂 They appear to think it means that if one ‘species’ survives it means that the one it evolved from was less suited, full stop, and hence must automagically die off.

    They fail, or refuse, to realise that a species can evolve to take advantage of different resources or different environment while leaving the original still surviving using the original resources and/or the original environment.

    Two classic examples arise from Darwin’s very own Galapagos journey, i.e. Darwin’s finches and their differing beaks to allow them to cope with different food resources and the Galapagos turtles and their differing shell neck morphology dependent on the various islands predominant vegetation types. Both being adaptions that allow them to maximise the available food resources available on the differing environment of their respective island habitats.

    Of course, understanding or accepting these points, would blow manyof their anti-evolution arguments out of the water. So it should be no real surprise that they they cling to their anti-evolutionary fallacies like Linus to his blanket. Sadly, for them at least, even though Linus is a cartoon character, his blanket is far more real than any of their fallacious arguments.

  3. In my quest to write my book “Coils of the Serpent” I did extensive investigation into the validity of “Darwinism” and indeed, there are some loose ends. I think however, that these have been addressed in a new book by Eugene McCarthy, PhD Genetics called “macroevolution”. He describes the inherent weakness in strict Darwinism (i.e. very few cases of gradual change from one type to the next — see chapter 6) but then explains the jumps in terms of hybridization. You can read the entire book at http://www.macroevolution.net.
    –Raymond

  4. Raymond — Thanks for taking the time to read my book. You seem to think, as I do, that the explanation of evolution that I present on my website (stabilization theory) is more consistent with available data than Darwinian theory is. I’ve always believed that biologists should adjust evolutionary theory to address the objections raised by creationists instead of pretending problems don’t exists and that creationists are a lot of dodos. As you say, there are “very few cases of gradual change from one type to the next.” That is, the typical fossil form does not gradually change into some other subsequent and different form. Instead, the typical form persists unchanged from the time it comes into being right up to the time of its extinction. This is expected if the typical life form comes into being via one of the stabilization processes listed in my book. But it is not the expectation if the typical evolutionary process is like what Darwin described. Anyway, thanks for your interest and support.

    -Gene McCarthy