Answers in Genesis and the Flopping Frogs

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.

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

9 responses to “Answers in Genesis and the Flopping Frogs

  1. “This is a grand example of …..”
    Ah, I cannot help being reminded of a quote from a blog just a few days ago: “The Discovery Institute is descending deeper into the bottomless pit of creationism.”
    Of course Ol’Hambo couldn’t let this pass. So I’m thrilled! Is he able to take over the lead again? To make a sensational comeback, not entirely unlike what happened in the Amsterdam Arena yesterday evening, as a consequence of which at least 30% of the Dutch population is mourning today?
    Before I read on, let me do some homework. What has the Controversy said thus far?

    Apparently Ol’Hambo already wrote about it 9 years ago. Ah well, solid creacrap can’t do with some rehash. Still I can’t help wondering how it escaped the sharp attention of our dear SC back then.

  2. Many years ago, a Sunday School teacher asked her kids to write some questions for God. The kids sat down, filled with a sense of the importance of their mission. Tongues protruding from their tiny mouths, they began to
    compose some real doozies for the Big Man upstairs:

    — Is my pet rabbit Mr. Floppy Ears going to Heaven when he dies?
    — If Jesus lived in a desert, why does he always look so white?
    — Does Jesus carry a big sword and use it when he gets angry?
    (The teacher peered down at the children’s efforts, and frowned slightly at the direction some of these questions were taking).

    Then one little boy, a precocious, obnoxious snot*, exclaimed out loud while writing: “Why didn’t God just give frogs some wings? If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his ass so much!” One little girl put a hand over her mouth, eyes wide with shock. One or two others giggled nervously.

    The teacher sighed heavily. She clapped her hands loudly together. “Who wants to hear the story of Abraham and Isaac, again?”

    *No. Not me.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Are they claiming that science is easier now; everything is simpler due to Fall-out?

  4. Michael Fugate

    Adam and Eve unleashed a hydrogen bomb of sin and we all are living with the fallout. Does sin have a half life? No wonder it is inherited, though.

  5. Michael Fugate

    There are good mutations unlike what AiG and Behe believe

  6. AIG says the “intelligent designer” adjusted frog anatomy for jumping better.
    If so, then how come frogs still bump their ass when they jump ? Just wondering here.

  7. @MichaelF produces a zinger: “unlike what AiG and Behe believe”.
    YHWH’s original creation was perfect, so any mutation by definition is bad, even if it’s good. As you know we’re dealing with creacrap.

  8. Eric Lipps

    Why would frogs need the ability to land gracefully before they had the ability to jump? And if they didn’t need it, where would the selection pressure in favor of it come from?

  9. @Eric Lipps
    And how would “intelligent design” relieve frogs of that need?