Creationist Wisdom #809: Future Evolution

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Siver Times, an internet newspaper headquartered in Toronto in the Canadian province of Ontario. It’s titled 10 parts of the body that will disappear in the future… Why did this happen?, and they have a comments feature. Although this thing was published a week ago, there are no comments yet.

As for the author, it’s totally anonymous. It may be a column or some other kind of feature. We have no idea what it is. Excerpts will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

It’s hard to believe, but some parts of the human body in the future will simply disappear because of their uselessness.

Gasp! Then we’re told:

Charles Darwin, father of evolutionary theory, it argues in the first Chapter of his book “the Origin of man and sexual selection”. [Hee hee!] What parts of the body we don’t need and how people will look in the future. It is possible that it will happen in 500 years.

You’ve already noticed that this thing is horribly written. That adds to the entertainment. What follows is a listing of the body parts that are going to fade away, starting with:

Toes: Scientists have found that in the past the centre of gravity was in the area of the Central line stop. Thus, the fingers were needed to maintain balance. But over time, the center of gravity has shifted towards the big fingers and now toes have lost their original function and are unnecessary.

There’s no explanation of how some toeless mutant will become the ancestor of all future humans. In fact, the author seems unaware of how evolutionary changes occur. He feels that toes are unnecessary, so they’ll just … fade away. Here are the next two items:

Male nipples: In the early stages of fetal development all children are asexual and nipples. This phenomenon is observed not only in humans but in other mammals. Only because of low levels of prolactin in the male body not to produce milk, so male nipples are not necessary.

Sinuses: They often create problems, as quickly become clogged and inflamed. Yes, and in fact is unnecessary to our body.

Good riddance! Let’s read on:

Wisdom teeth: Our ancestors ate a lot of hard food, which had to chew. Wisdom teeth this was just necessary. Currently, they no longer need, and there is a high probability that they will disappear completely.

The list continues with body hair (all gone except eyebrows), goose bumps, the coccyx, and a few other items. Near the end the author says:

It is difficult even to imagine how will look people in 300 years, but it’s very interesting and exciting. Some suggest that people of the future are already among us.

He gives an example which makes no sense, so we’ll move on to the end:

One thing we do know: humanity continues to evolve and change (why are only these Internet theory), and we’ll just see what happens.

That’s it, dear reader. Somehow that mess got published. It’s a splendid addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2017. 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

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #809: Future Evolution

  1. Well if, per the article, Zuckerberg IS the wave of the future knee-wise, we’ll all be doing a mean Charleston in the year 2525.

    …If man is still still alive.

  2. Dave Luckett

    I would suspect that the original writer is using English as a second or third language. But, leaving aside the vile abuse of that language here displayed, some of this is right enough. Wisdom teeth are disappearing. Toes are reducing. Evolution is working. Not as fast as the writer appears to think, perhaps, but still.

  3. How is this creationist wisdom? The people who wrote this agree with Darwin’s theory. Are you making fun of it?

  4. The article is from an English language Ukrainian site. They ought to hire someone conversant with the English language.

  5. @Collin – It seems apparent that the author of the “10 parts” list is clueless about evolution. While the article isn’t creationist per se, it flows from the same wellspring of ignorance. Misconceptions about evolution are the straw binding together the patties of creationist bulltish. Facts matter on the science side.

  6. Splendid, indeed!

  7. I’m not sure about the motives of the writer but hey leave my nipples alone! What’s next my ear lobes?

  8. You guys are too harsh! If you can look past the mangled syntax and grammatical lapses, you’ll see that the writer here has a perfectly valid point.

    Creationists are living proof that most of the frontal lobes of the human brain can safely be switched off, Indeed, in the skulls of something over a third of American voters who subsist on a diet of alternative facts and Trump tweets, those lobes are as atrophied as the eyes of blind cave fish.

  9. Sometimes, I like to copy and paste a paragraph in to Google Translate, translate it to a foreign language, then translate it in to another language, and then put it back in to English.

    I see I’m not the only one who enjoys this.

  10. The only reason toes are not necessary is because he, like so many, don’t use them properly for walking. Take your shoes off and try walking as you normally do – incorrectly- and you will be a cripple in a year or less. And there are huge numbers of so-called primitive peoples that do use their toes properly so they will not ‘just disappear’!
    And this dude has no idea how evilution works!

  11. @Mark Germano

    Sometimes, I like to copy and paste a paragraph in to Google Translate, translate it to a foreign language, then translate it in to another language, and then put it back in to English.
    I see I’m not the only one who enjoys this.

    Indeed, the people in P. K. Dick’s excellent Galactic Pot Healer, who have an otherwise very low standard of living, but abundant government-provided (totally supervised, of course) computer power, also enjoy this activity. Not under the name Google, which wasn’t invented when he wrote it; but hey! we’re living in the future.

  12. Poor language. Poorly written. Mangled science. He (or she) has just enough right that it will be read, but so much wrong. Little toes are shrinking. If you wear shoes all the time you do not need the little toe. Wisdom teeth are disappearing. The rate of people being born without them is increasing. Less energy given to wisdom teeth, gives more energy for other items.

    But overall the article was just plain dumb.

  13. I heartily agree with the comment by Anonymous above, since I wrote it (I seem to have gotten logged off somehow). But moving right along, we have this gem:

    Since in our uniform experience every system exhibiting functional coherence (to use Doug Axe’s term in Undeniable) — wherein we witnessed the system coming into being — was the product of human intelligent design, we can use the principle of uniformity to infer that a mind was behind the functionally-coherent systems we did not witness coming into being (provided they pass the Design Filter).

    Actually, using the “principle of uniformity” at its most rigorous (dare I say “fundamentalist?), we can infer that a human mind was involved. Since this is not acceptable to creationists where human beings are involved (being against the You-Know-What and all), they tiptoe quietly past that idea.

    The designing mind, additionally, must have the ability to apprehend truth and intention as genuine qualities of personhood. (Without that, all explanation comes crashing down.) Any scientist proposing to offer a scientific explanation, therefore, must necessarily presuppose that truth and intention are fundamental properties of intelligent agents.

    But if one doesn’t accept that an “intelligent agent” is responsible for life, the universe and everything (sorry, Douglas Adams), then the existence of such agents, by itself, is irrelevant to the evolution/creation debate.

    Rather than embracing “functional coherence,” the author of this letter might invest in a little more logical coherence.