This is a grand example of creation science from Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Their headline is How Frog-Hopping Evolved?, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Does a “primitive” frog show how frog-hopping evolved? A team of scientists from New Zealand and the United States reported in the journal Naturwissenschaften that frogs evolved the ability to jump before they evolved the ability to land gracefully. The researchers drew their conclusions from observations of a family of so-called “primitive” frogs known as Leiopelmatidae.
AIG doesn’t link to that paper, but if you care about the frogs, Wikipedia has an article on them: Leiopelmatidae. Then AIG says:
Through the use of slow-motion video, the scientists noted that the frogs landed “belly flop” style — more successful for landing in the water than for ground landings. Other frogs, by comparison, adjust their legs in the middle of a jump, allowing a smooth landing on their feet. The poor landings also inhibit the frogs’ ability to make repeated jumps, while the graceful landings allow repeated jumps.
Those videos of flopping frogs must be great for parties — especially in slow motion. Anyway, AIG continues:
The interpretation the [Darwinist] team gives the data is that “early hindlimb recovery might have been a key feature in the evolutionary history of frogs” — that is, the ability is a product of evolution.
That makes sense — to us — but not to the creation scientists at ICR. They tell us:
However, to what degree is this interpretation a product of the fact that the team already thinks Leiopelmatidae frogs to be “primitive”?
Aha! Brilliant question! What do the creation scientists at AIG think about this? Let’s read on:
Creationists may interpret the research in two ways. First, it may be that each frog’s jumping behavior merely reflects the habitat for which God designed it. [That sounds nice.] Alternatively, it may be that — if we assume the “belly flop” landing is detrimental — Leiopelmatidae frogs have lost the ability to land gracefully, for either genetic or other reasons.
What “other reasons”? They can’t blame it on Adam & Eve because it doesn’t affect all frogs — only this one species. Ah well, we’re confident that they’ll keep working on the problem. Here’s how their brilliant article ends:
For creationists, rather than viewing the more complex behavior as newer (more evolved), we view the more complex behavior as older (the original design).
Ooooooooooooh! That was good!
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.