Ken Ham: Green Blood Proves Creationism

One of the amazing characteristics of creation science is that it predicts nothing and can accommodate to anything. That makes it worthless, of course, but creationists don’t care. To illustrate this, let’s begin with a recent article at PhysOrg: The mystery of lime-green lizard blood. They say:

Green blood is one of the most unusual characteristics in the animal kingdom, but it’s the hallmark of a group of lizards in New Guinea. Prasinohaema are green-blooded skinks, or a type of lizard. The muscles, bones and tongues of these lizards appear bright, lime-green due to high levels of biliverdin, or a green bile pigment, which is toxic and causes jaundice. Surprisingly, these lizards remain healthy with levels of green bile that are 40 times higher than the lethal concentration in humans.

Here’s the published paper: Multiple origins of green blood in New Guinea lizards, but without a subscription, all you can read is the abstract. Back to PhysOrg:

Green blood likely emerged independently in various lizards, which suggests that green blood may have an adaptive value. Slightly elevated levels of bile pigments in other animals, including insects, fish and frogs, have played potentially positive roles in these animals. Previous studies have shown that bile pigment can act as an antioxidant scavenging free radicals as well as preventing disease during in vitro fertilization. However, the function of green bile pigment in these lizards is still uncertain.

[…]

The scientists examined DNA samples from 27 green-blooded lizards and 92 closely related red-blooded lizards. They determined that red blood was the most likely ancestral state and that green blood likely evolved four times.

Okay, enough of that. Now let’s get the reaction of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Lime-Green Blood Thanks to Evolution Gone Weird? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We typically think of blood as red, but six species of lizard in Papua New Guinea bleed green, not red. This green blood is due to high concentrations of the waste product bile — 40 times the amount that would kill a human. The blood also makes their tongues, bones, muscles, and the inside of their mouths green.

A new study claims this bright green blood evolved four times throughout these lizard species, which have all been placed in the same genus. It’s still unsure why having green blood is an advantage, but researchers believe it might help protect the lizards against malaria. One researcher says, “Evolution can do amazing things given enough time. . . . [Hambo’s ellipsis.] The natural world is a fascinating place.”

You know ol’ Hambo disagrees. He says:

But is this really an example of evolution? When looking at studies such as this one that claim evolution is responsible for what we’re observing, we must remember that this is merely an interpretation of the evidence. It’s an interpretation offered up by those who believe in molecules-to-man evolution and who are actually imposing their beliefs on the evidence. These researchers didn’t observe these lizards evolving from a non-lizard.

Yeah! Hambo has a better way to think about it. He tells us:

Instead of looking at this study through the lens of an evolutionary worldview, let’s look at it through the perspective of a biblical worldview. On day six of creation week, God created lizards to reproduce according to their kinds. … Perhaps God created this lizard kind with green blood from the beginning, or maybe he gave this kind the information and ability to withstand large amounts of bile to protect them from malaria-carrying insects that wasn’t expressed until after the fall.

He knew the Fall would happen? And he let it happen anyway? Okay, if Hambo says so. Moving along:

Regardless, we know this lizard didn’t evolve from something else [Huh?], nor is it evolving into anything. … This ability is there due to already existing genetic information. [Hee hee!] That’s actually the opposite of evolution — no new information has been gained, which evolution requires.

Now that makes sense! He ends with this:

This study doesn’t show evolution — it’s a fascinating look into one of the kinds God created. Lizards produce lizards and they always will.

So there you have it, dear reader. Mystery solved. Red blood, green blood — no problem. Creationism explains everything!

Copyright © 2018. 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

20 responses to “Ken Ham: Green Blood Proves Creationism

  1. Pretty convincing for those with little or no understanding of DNA and mutation.

  2. I do not like them, Sam I am,
    I do not like green blood and Ham

    Apologies to Dr.Seuss

  3. ChrisS standing up for science is cool. “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” Sincerely Dr Seuss

  4. As an Antipodean, sometimes I beat myself up over the fact that we produced the likes of Ham, Comfort, Sarfati, Snelling, et al.

    Then I console myself with: well, at least they had to go to the US to make much headway.

    Then I think of all those Americans who have to suffer, needlessly, and I beat myself up all over again.

  5. So Ham’s creator could have given humans the same level of tolerance to these products of heme catabolism but chose not to. Instead Ham’s creator prefers having newborn infants suffer permanent brain damage (from kernicterus) and death (from progressive weakness leading to apnea). Granted, neonatal jaundice is relatively easy to treat and rarely contributes to morbidity and mortality. But rare is not never, and it always involves frequent needle sticks for blood draws to check bilirubin levels and usually creates barriers to breast feeding. All of which could have been prevented by Ham’s creator.
    I can only conclude Ham’s creator wants human infants to suffer. Probably because some one did something horrible like eating an apple.

  6. Dave Luckett

    “… maybe he (God) gave this kind the information and ability to withstand large amounts of bile to protect them from malaria-carrying insects that wasn’t expressed until after the fall.”

    Did anybody else catch the theological clench in that? Or am I again indulging my predilection for weighing shadows?

  7. Our dear SC has revealed the secret strength of creacrap:

    “One of the amazing characteristics of creation science is that it predicts nothing and can accommodate to anything.”
    The result is powerful as Frederick Forsyth recognized:

    “Hindsight is a precious gift so much more prevalent than its counterpart, foresight.”
    Ol’Hambo, we should appreciate it, is overloaded with this precious gift. He’s TEH expert at predicting phenomena after they have been observed – hence his commitment to “observational science”.

    “Lizards produce lizards and they always will.”
    Yes! Like another famous creacrapper said more than 90 years ago:

    “iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.”

    “This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed … prevails throughout the whole of the natural world … The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

    “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”

    Adolf Schicklgruber, My Struggle.

  8. @ChrisS feels sad: “we produced the likes of …”
    From this perspective the situation is worse in The Netherlands. According to a somewhat suspect source 24% of the Dutch reject evolution. Prominent creacrappers don’t need to emigrate to find a receptive audience. And this country as an Ark that actually floats, unlike the Gay Wooden Box of Kentucky.

    http://www.arkvannoach.com/

    “Unfortunately” it’s closed for public now – even if it’s an “excellent” reason to visit my native country you’re too late. And so am I.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan's_Ark

    @TomS nails it: “I can only conclude Ham’s creator wants human infants to suffer. Probably because some one did something horrible like eating an apple.”
    Exactly! Something good happens: praise the Lord. Something bad happens: blame Homo Sapiens. We’re back at

    “it predicts nothing and can accommodate to anything.”

  9. “Probably because some one did something horrible like eating an apple.”
    Don’t you know that eating smart fruit and receiving an education are both horrible sins!

  10. “On day six of creation week, God created lizards to reproduce according to their kinds”

    Not my recollection of Genesis, but that’s another matter. What I want to know is, why wouldn’t the malaria-carrying insect also have been created on day six? Ham says it was produced after the “fall”, but was he there, did he see it?

  11. Mark Germano

    Why the malaria-carrying insects in the first place? Why malaria, for that matter?

  12. Michael Behe in “The Edge of Evolution” describes the way that natural microevolution is more productive than intelligent design. The cleverest designers of defenses against malaria have been repeatedly thwarted by natural selection in the malaria parasites and mosquitoes, yet the evolution of sickle cells, although being a cause of anemia in humans, has remained a defense against malaria.

  13. ChrisS … ‘mericans DO NOT beat themselves up needlessly …. THEY LIKE IT!!! They can’t wait until the next sunday to come around so they can get injected with a dose of st00pid!

  14. @TomS
    “…the evolution of sickle cells…” is an inferior mutation. While heterozygotes for hemoglobin S have some protection from malaria it is not effective against all plasmodium species. And causes tremendous pain, disability, and early death in homozygotes. All of which is completely unnecessary. Meanwhile homozygotes for hemoglobin C have complete immunity to all plasmodium species and results no adverse health problems. The Hgb C mutation seems to be replacing Hgb S in areas where malaria is endemic. Which should make design advocates wonder, why bother designing Hgb S in the first place? Is their designer stupid? Or just mean?

  15. @Toim B
    The ways of the Lord are beyond our understanding.
    No, what puzzles me is the ways of humans. In this case, why does an advocate of Intelligent Design take as an example, an example in which natural selection does more than the products that intelligent designers come up with.
    HgbS, for all of its faults, has lasted longer against malaria than anything that humans have designed. And malaria and mosquitoes have adapted by natural selection against everything that humans have designed. (That does not prove that that will always be so, but it is a lousy example for the superiority of design.)

  16. Ken Ham is still living in fairytale land where he doesn’t have to face reality.

  17. Rabbit 12 says: “Ken Ham is still living in fairytale land where he doesn’t have to face reality.”

    With his museum and his ark and his subservient staff of creationists, he has created his own world. Rather like Harry Mudd living with Mudd’s Women.

  18. Eric Lipps

    But is this really an example of evolution? When looking at studies such as this one that claim evolution is responsible for what we’re observing, we must remember that this is merely an interpretation of the evidence. It’s an interpretation offered up by those who believe in molecules-to-man evolution and who are actually imposing their beliefs on the evidence. These researchers didn’t observe these lizards evolving from a non-lizard.

    Groan. This again?

    Did Ham observe Creation Week? Has he ever observed a new “kind” appearing from nowhere? No, of course not, but (according to him) The Bahble says so, therefore it’s true.

    As for “imposing their beliefs,” creationists are the ones who keep trying to force their views into public schools by law. There are not and never have been any laws mandating the teaching of evolution and/or forbidding the teaching of creationism (at least in the U.S., though I’ve read that the U.K. is another matter), and I’ve never heard of any attempts to pass any such law in this country.

  19. Teaching Evolution Theory is mandatory on Dutch high schools, including on special ones:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_school_(Netherlands)

    That’s because at one hand expert boards decide on the curricula and at the other hand special schools also are financially funded by government. School inspectors see to it and have the power to take measures if necessary. The Dutch think law suits on issues like this frivolous.
    At the other hand religious special schools are free to teach creacrap in religion class.

  20. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    Talking of creationists, AiG have their harvard Phd doing a UK tour hawking his book. With a Phd and three research papers in ten years, Nathaniel Jeanson is as much a research scientist as Georgia Purdom is.