Seaweed Is Proof of Creationism

The evidence just keeps piling up. The last time we posted one of these things was here: Dinosaurs Are Proof of Creationism. That was about an article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

Today we have another article of the same kind, but this one is from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. It follows the same general pattern as the ICR article: Scientists discover X, therefore Oogity Boogity! There are rarely any surprises in these things, but each is amusing in its own way.

This one is the first item in AIG’s: News to Note, November 27, 2010 (“A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint”). It’s AIG’s commentary on a BBC news item: Ancient seaweed is living fossil. AIG has done this with BBC articles before; we recently wrote about one here: Australian Toads: Evidence of Creationism?

To understand what AIG is talking about today, we suggest that you first read the BBC item that inspired them, and only then consider AIG’s spin on things. BBC says:

Ancient seaweed that have been found growing in the deep sea are “living fossils”, researchers have reported. The two types of seaweed, which grow more than 200m underwater, represent previously unrecognised ancient forms of algae, say the scientists. As such, the algae could belong to the earliest of all known green plants, diverging up to one billion years ago from the ancestor of all such plants.

The research paper on this appears in the Journal of Phycology, which is devoted to algae research: AN UNRECOGNIZED ANCIENT LINEAGE OF GREEN PLANTS PERSISTS IN DEEP MARINE WATERS. The lead author is Professor Frederick W. Zechman, of California State University in Fresno. The BBC article also says:

The algae had previously been identified. … But Professor Zechman’s team is the first to study their genetic make-up, and it is this research that has revealed their startling ancestry.

Green plants in general belong to one of two groups, or clades. One clade includes all land plants and the green algae with the most complex structures, known as charophytes or more commonly stoneworts. The other clade, known as the Cholorophyta, comprises all other green algae.

But the algae examined by Zechman’s team were different:

What is more, “by comparing those gene sequences to the same genes in other green plants, we have discovered that these green algae are among the earliest diverging green plants… if not the earliest diverging lineage of green plants,” Professor Zechman told the BBC. “That would put them in the ball park of over a billion years old.”

The next excerpt is about a side point, but it may be interesting for other reasons — it should help Michael Behe pinpoint the time when the magic designer conjured up the irreducibly complex flagellum:

[The] progenitor of green plants is currently thought to be a single-celled plant that had a tail-like structure called a flagellum, which allows the cell to move itself in water. But no single-celled or flagellated algae of the types studied by Professor Zechman’s team have been observed, suggesting the earliest green plants may not have had flagella after all.

The BBC article has more information and you’ll want to read it all, but let’s get to AIG’s very predictable response to all of this. They reject Zechman’s hypothesis that the newly examined algae are ancient and ancestral. They say, with bold added by us:

The alternative, creationist explanation is that the tree of evolution is a flawed model of biological origins, because not all organisms are genetically related — life is more like an “orchard” than a tree.

Uh huh. Let’s read on:

Distinct forms of life most likely represent unique creations of God during Creation Week, not “primitive” or “ancient” life-forms.

Ah yes. Creation Week. Zechman is a fool! Here’s the last of it:

Furthermore, if the evolutionists were right that the algae are living fossils, it would merely be another case of an organism having changed little in hundreds of millions of years.

We assume that “having changed little in hundreds of millions of years” is some kind of evidence that evolution never happens. So AIG seems to win no matter how they look at it. We’re not at all surprised.

And so, dear reader, we see that even the humblest algae in the sea — without flagella! — are evidence of creationism. But then, so is everything else. There are no exceptions. Isn’t it wonderful?

Copyright © 2010. 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

7 responses to “Seaweed Is Proof of Creationism

  1. retiredsciguy

    AIG says, “Furthermore, if the evolutionists were right that the algae are living fossils, it would merely be another case of an organism having changed little in hundreds of millions of years.”

    Since the algae is found in “deep marine waters”, this is exactly what would be expected. Deep marine waters would be about the most stable environment on earth. Unchanging environment = unchanging life forms. If the algae is already perfectly adapted to its environment, any mutation would yield no advantage.

  2. retiredsciguy says:

    If the algae is already perfectly adapted to its environment, any mutation would yield no advantage.

    That stuff is only marginally able to perform photosynthesis at that depth. I’m waiting for AIG to explain how it survived the Flood.

  3. SC – that’s easy. Like other plants, it ran to higher ground, or in this case, swam to shallower seas.

  4. I don’t think that anyone is actually claiming that the algae “changed little,” other than the pseudoscientists. The point is that it diverged early, not that it hasn’t evolved substantially. How would anyone even know if it evolved much? The point is that it preserves certain structures and habits that occurred early and continue to work reasonably well in a few niches, not that it hasn’t evolved considerably within those limits (or perhaps it hasn’t).

    should help Michael Behe pinpoint the time when the magic designer conjured up the irreducibly complex flagellum:

    Just to be clear, the main type of flagellum that Behe and other IDiots harp upon is the bacterial flagellum, not the eukaryotic flagellum, which is quite different (so is the archaeal flagellum). In DBB Behe did actually discuss the eukaryotic flagellum a fair bit, however, so it still should help him to pinpoint one of the important poofs in his science.

    And it’s so helpful for IDiots/creationists to be informing us that eukaryotes aren’t related (it’s not just YECs and the like, it’s the message of the DI-promoted Privileged Planet too). My my, should we quit looking for prions in yeasts (which were indeed found), since they’re separate creations from us, despite having many of the same genes as ourselves (solution: the mindless designer is a computer running genetic algorithms)?

    I wonder what useful pointers the IDiots/creationists might have for research in the stead of our highly successful evolutionary theory? I bet it’s good. I mean that in a ludicrously fictional sense, of course.

  5. (it’s not just YECs and the like, it’s the message of the DI-promoted Privileged Planet too).

    Oops, I meant Darwin’s Dilemma. I’ve seen both on the science channel Trinity Broadcasting Network, and perhaps they both at least suggested that life wasn’t all related, but I only recall DD driving that typical creationist claim home, based mainly on “kinds” (I’d never thought of phyla as baramins) being made in the “Cambrian Explosion.”

    It’s hard to keep track of true dreck, I’ve found, as the various version duplicate, overlap, and not infrequently contradict, all on the basis of no real evidence.

  6. Glen, you point out an interesting contrast. Science requires proofs, while ID requires poofs. It’s all clear now!

  7. Flagellated algae and ID poofs ….’Ooh err missus’ (apologies to Frankie Howerd).