YOUR Curmudgeon has been slumming again at Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom. They have a fascinating tidbit tucked away in the second item of: News to Note, August 8, 2009, subtitled: “A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint.”
This news column is a regular weekly feature at AIG, and there’s no author indicated. We’ll attribute it to Ken Ham, the creationist entrepreneur of the entire AIG operation.
The AIG news item is a creationist-slanted discussion of this article: Domestic dog origins challenged from the BBC News website. It’s a straightforward article, but with a grotesquely misleading headline — and that headline probably captured the attention of AIG.
Essentially, it’s about a study of the genetic diversity of stray dogs in Egypt, Uganda and Namibia, seeking to discover which dogs show the greatest diversity, on the assumption that dogs with the most genetic diversity were the earliest dogs to appear, because they had more time to experience genetic variation. The article reports that dogs from all the areas studied show the same amount of genetic diversity, so there’s no conclusion to be drawn as to which region may have first domesticated dogs.
Now here’s the interesting part — the BBC article said this:
Dr Boyko [Dr Adam Boyko of the Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology at Cornell University] said that all the dogs sampled in the study have grey wolf DNA so he is not questioning the hypothesis that dogs descended from Eurasian wolves.
We were surprised to see that the AIG article said this:
All of the dogs sampled have gray wolf DNA, however, affirming the widely held belief (by evolutionists and creationists) that dogs and wolves share a common ancestor (which creationists would consider the original dog kind from Genesis 1).
Here is what strikes us: Creationists already admit that what they call “micro-evolution” occurs. In addition to that (a far bigger admission than they realize), if AIG also accepts that DNA evidence can indicate that one species is descended from an earlier ancestor — ignoring the blather about biblical “kinds” that they tossed in — haven’t they pretty much given up the whole game?
Not really. They’ll never give up. This was also in the BBC article:
Today’s dogs are descended from Eurasian grey wolves, domesticated between 15,000 and 40,000 years ago.
Somehow, the AIG article failed to mention that. The time span was far too inconvenient for a young-earth creationist outfit. Instead, AIG wraps up their article with this:
Our guess is that many people groups domesticated canine breeds during and after the dispersion at Babel (as perhaps did their ancestors before the Flood), with dogs progressively becoming “man’s best friend” through natural and artificial selection.
The Tower of Babel? The Flood? It’s quite impressive what a creationist can find in a BBC article, even when it isn’t there. It’s also impressive what he can fail to find that actually is there. But without such talents, there wouldn’t be any creationists, would there?
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.