Hambo & the Micro-Macro Mambo

Our regular readers know all about the micro-macro mambo, described (and debunked) in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Today it’s the subject of a post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

This just appeared at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry: Are Birds Evolving in Just Decades? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We constantly see headlines proclaiming the “rapid evolution” of one species or another. The latest one [in New Scientist: Birds introduced to Hawaii have evolved rapidly in just decades] announced the so-called “rapid evolution” of bird species in the tropical island paradise of Hawaii. It’s happening so fast, they describe it as “a blistering pace” of evolution. But, like all the other supposed “rapid evolution” articles, there’s no evolution taking place — just changes based on the genetic diversity that likely already existed in the living thing.

Evolution? Bah! It’s “just change”s based on genetic diversity. Then he says:

The popular article summarizing the research explains that non-native birds are replacing the now extinct species previously native to Hawaii. These birds have quickly filled the niches left open by the disappearance of previous species. When researchers compared birds that now live on the islands with museum specimens collected from their native ranges, they noted some differences in size, including shorter legs in two species, and larger, thicker bills, shorter wings, and longer tails in most of the species.

Hambo isn’t impressed. He tells us:

This so-called “evolution” has taken place in just 50–90 years. One of the authors of the study commented, “Evolution is typically thought to occur over millennia … We’re talking about ten to twenty generations at most.”

Hambo knows that can’t be evolution. Evolution takes millions of years, and the universe is only 6,000 years old! He’d really be upset if he learned about the Domesticated red fox, (a/k/a Fox Farm Experiment), a Russian experiment that produced a breed of tame foxes after only 50 years of selective breeding. Anyway, Hambo continues:

They are unsure if these changes are caused by adaptation to the new environment, the “founder effect” (reduced genetic diversity due to a small founding population), or if it is a consequence of the birds feeding on non-native plants — or a combination of any of these. But, regardless, what researchers are observing is not evolution. It’s just variation within a “kind.”

Yup, that’s all it is. He explains why it’s not evolution:

No new information for new structures or functions has been added to the DNA of these various bird species, something that’s required for molecules-to-man evolution. They are simply exhibiting some of the variety God built into their DNA.

Ooooooooooooh! They have “variety” in their DNA — whatever that is — but no new information! What’s information? See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information

And now we come to the end:

In his wisdom, God created each kind with an incredible amount of variability in their DNA. This allows kinds to adapt to changing environments and thrive in our sin-cursed world. But it’s not evolution — no new information is added, and each kind reproduces within its kind, just as we’d expect, starting with Genesis.

You can claim you have all kinds of evidence of evolution, but you can’t fool ol’ Hambo. He knows The Truth!

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

13 responses to “Hambo & the Micro-Macro Mambo

  1. I wonder why the creation of all of that variability in DNA is not mentioned anywhere in Genesis?

  2. Hamster is such a hypocrite. He doesn’t even remember that he invokes extremely rapid (& impossible in reality) hyperevolution in post-Ark animals.

  3. Our SC is too modest today: ” described (and debunked) in ….”
    I prefer the excellent


    “the genetic diversity that likely already existed in ….”
    (Nodding approvingly) and if didn’t already exist in the living thing the only reasonable conclusion is goddiddid, because of yet another creacrap law: no information can be added in a living thing without divine intervention. So here we have a nice bridge our dear SC makes a little later.
    Our dear SC doesn’t really get it yet:

    “He’d really be upset if he learned about ….”
    Of course not. Nothing regarding evilution can upset Ol’Hambo except for all the poor young souls that get indoctrinated with it in class. No, his answer will be exactly the same: “the genetic diversity likely already existed” etc.

    “No new information …..”
    Ha! What did I tell ya, just above? Bingo!

    “each kind reproduces within its kind”
    And also totally unsurprisingly Ol’Hambo didn’t define “kind”. Fortunately another famous creationist, Herr Schicklgruber, specified it somewhat:

    “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.”
    Mein Kampf, chapter 11.

  4. Eric Lipps

    I’ve always been amazed at Ken Ham’s stupidity.

    In his wisdom, God created each kind with an incredible amount of variability in their DNA. This allows kinds to adapt to changing environments and thrive in our sin-cursed world. But it’s not evolution — no new information is added, and each kind reproduces within its kind, just as we’d expect, starting with Genesis.

    If God created the type specimens of each “kind” (whatever that is) with an “incredible amount of diversity in their DNA” (which presumably has been parceled out as new species appeared, particularly after the Flood), how did He do it? There’s no room in any species’ DNA for all the “variability” he suggests to be packaged together. Or to put it another way, just how many chromosomes did Adam and Eve (or their pre-Flood, or perhaps pre-Abrahamic, descendants) have, anyway? It would have to be enough that technically they wouldn’t qualify as human at all.

    Only if new information (created by mutation and winnowed by natural selection) is added to the genome can the variability seen in the natural world today (to say nothing of the prehistoric world) be accounted for. But in the ideal America Ham apparently dreams of, anyone who pointed that out would be arrested and marched off to a re-Christianization camp.

  5. @Eric Lipps
    Yes, but I don’t ascribe this to his stupidity. He is making a living off of it.
    What strikes me is the rhetoric which says that God must be wise in order to do something. If God is all-powerful and the boss, then it doesn’t take any wisdom for his orders to be followed. His orders need not conform with the laws of nature. He did not have to create “each kind with an incredible amount of variability in their DNA.” He was not faced with a problem of allowing “kinds to adapt to changing environments and thrive in our sin-cursed world.” It isn’t as if changing environments could possibly get in his way. (And what do changing environments have to do with sin? I find it pleasant to have changes. A bit of snow to play in, a bit of sunny hot weather to bask in, a bit of rain to make the plants grow.) Bears adapt to the winter by hiberating, geese by migrating, other animals grow winter coats – not by changing their DNA.
    If God is the CEO of the universe, with infnite funds at his disposal, he can issue executive orders for his prduction staff to carry out his orders, no mater how wise or foolish, and they will obey, and the universe will never go bankrupt.

  6. Karl Goldsmith

    Ken Ham tweeted this, only for someone to reply with a screenshot of the actual definition of speciation. “If I were still a teacher in the classroom & my students wrote a headline like this, I would tell them to get pen & paper and write this out ten times: ‘speciation is not evolution…speciation is not evolution…speciation is not evolution… .’ “

  7. Of course not. Neither the fossil record, nor mutation, nor speciation is evidence of evolution. Nothing is. Never. Ever.

  8. Michael Fugate says: “Ham sues!”

    Calm down! I’ll get to it.

  9. Mark Germano

    If SC doesn’t make an “Act of God” joke on that Hamm story, I’m asking for a full refund.

  10. Domestic hogs that escape into the wild develop much larger tusks, a leaner elongated body, longer hair and a shoulder hump in just a couple of generations. Admittedly this isn’t speciation but it does reveal how traits bred out of an animal species can reappear very quickly. Hammy Bacon ought to know at least that.

  11. Of course, the standard comment applies, if evolution does not account for the variety of life, then what does? See the 1852 essay of Spencer, The Develoment Hypthesis. Unless one can show that an appeal to the supernatural is an alternative, and that it is the only alternative, finding any difficulties with evolutionary biology does not advance the appeal to the supernatural.
    For example. if it were true that there were no “missing links” between species (or genera, or classes, or “kinds”, for that matter) how does “design”, or “creation”, account for that? Indeed, how, or why, would designers design species? If there were, on the onther hand, a few, or many, “missing links”, how, or why, does that happen?

  12. @TomS asks a deep question: “how does “design”, or “creation”, account for that?”
    By means of a non-sequitur, I’d say.