Hambo Solves the Siberian Puppy Mystery

You may have seen a headline or two about this. It was all over the news. A good example can be found at the Smithsonian website: Was This 18,000-Year-Old Puppy Frozen in Siberian Permafrost the Ancestor of Wolves, Dogs or Both?, which begins with this:

Meet Dogor, an 18,000-year-old pup unearthed in Siberian permafrost whose name means “friend” in the Yakut language. The remains of the prehistoric pup are puzzling researchers because genetic testing shows it’s not a wolf or a dog, meaning it could be an elusive ancestor of both.

If you’ve been curious what that puppy was, you can stop wondering. The mystery has been solved by 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: Frozen Puppy, Dog, Wolf, or Something in Between? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What exactly is it? That’s the question researchers are trying to figure out after the discovery of a frozen puppy preserved in permafrost in eastern Siberia. The two-month old canine was “remarkably preserved,” with fur, nose, and teeth still intact, even after a supposed 18,000 years. According to the BBC, scientists are wondering if this puppy represents an evolutionary link [What?] between wolves and dogs, or if it’s just a wolf or what we call a dog today.

Well, what is it? Hambo says:

Researchers sequenced the puppy’s DNA but were unable to determine whether it was a wolf or a dog. This suggests that perhaps it came from a population that was ancestral to both wolves and dogs. As they continue to research this puppy and his DNA, researchers are hoping to discover more about evolution. But does this little frozen puppy actually tell us anything about canine evolution?

For those who have been following the intellectual output of Hambo and his creation scientists, you know that there has never been any evolution — except what they call “micro evolution” — so we can almost anticipate what Hambo’s going to say. Let’s see if we’re guessing right. He tells us:

Well, we know that wolves and domesticated dogs, as well as dingoes, coyotes, foxes, and others, are all part of the same created kind. They all belong to the same family, Canidae. The biological classification of family is the equivalent (in most instances) to the biblical kind. Creationists and evolutionists both agree that today’s wolves and dogs are descendants from the same ancestral population (we just disagree on the timeline!), and there’s abundant genetic evidence to confirm this. It’s just reproduction within a kind, as we’d expect when we start with God’s Word.

Yup — it’s micro evolution, which we discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. He continues:

This puppy lived sometime after Noah’s flood [BWAHAHAHA!] and is therefore a descendant of the two representatives of the dog kind that were on the ark. It likely lived during the ice age [Not in scripture!], a harsh time in earth’s history that followed the flood, which explains why he was found buried in permafrost.

Then he engages in some wild speculation, which one wouldn’t ordinarily expect from a creationist:

This puppy is likely closer to the representative of the dog kind that was on the ark (and gave rise to wolves) and just reflects some of the created diversity within the DNA of that particular kind.

Oh, get this! He clears up a glaring blunder in all the secular news stories:

Of course, the puppy is not 18,000 years old. [Hee hee!] That date came from radiocarbon dating of one of his ribs, but radiocarbon dating (also known as carbon-14 dating) is based on unprovable assumptions. It has been shown to be untrustworthy and inaccurate [Gasp!] for giving absolute dates.

What would we do without Hambo to straighten this stuff out for us? Hey — we’re almost at the end of the article. Here’s the rest of it:

The puppy lived just a few thousand years ago at the most, which explains how he was able to be so well-preserved — with even delicate features like his nose still in place. Remember, Noah’s Flood was about 4,300 years ago.

Okay, mystery solved! Now you know everything there is to know about that Siberian puppy.

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

25 responses to “Hambo Solves the Siberian Puppy Mystery

  1. Only two ancestors of the “dog kind” got off the Ark, dogs being ritually unclean. Ham says a “harsh time” – an ice age – followed the flood. Nevertheless, the dog population exploded, reaching immediately even into far northern climes with reproduction and survival rates unheard-of among vertebrates, while simultaneously diverging into the whole canid family, far faster than evolution would allow. Meanwhile humans and every other “kind” with “the breath of life in their nostrils” were doing the same.

    An ice age is unattested in scripture, of course. The geology is clear that there were several, not one, and that they came and went over vastly longer time scales than that. Why Ham feels himself driven to admit one is something of a mystery to me, since he simply ignores any geological and archaeological evidence that he dislikes, but so be it. All of this scenario – the reproduction, survival and speciation rates, the dispersal, the ice age, the genetics, the climate, the sea levels, and on and on and on, require unattested miracles. That is, Ham is providing new revelation. That, we are told, is what prophets do.

    So Ham is claiming the mantle of prophecy. Is the claim good?

    Well, scripture repeatedly predicts and warns against false prophets. One test for prophets is found at Deuteronomy 18:22, where it is said that their predictions come true. But another is given at 1 John (epistle) 4:5 “They belong to the world, and so does their teaching; that is why the world listens to them”.

    Ham is very much of the world. He is no dweller in the desert. He is a businessman running a for-profit limited liability company, from which he takes a substantial salary, which he spends on himself and his family, whom he also employs. The world has done very well by him. There is no hint of his cognizance of the words of Jesus given at Mark 10:25 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God”. He belongs to the world; his teaching does too. Ham is a false prophet. Christians listen to him at their peril.

  2. I can’t wait until Ol Hambo solves the 60 MYBP giant penguin mystery.

  3. Great comment David.

  4. chris schilling

    Ham has to acknowledge an ice age, because of the incontestable frozen preserved remains of Mastodons and other ice-age fauna, and fossils such as this canine, from Siberia. To acknowledge more than one ice age, however, is to concede timelines that stretch far beyond his biblical framework.

    But the usual questions arise whenever Ham invokes the ur-ancestors from the ark: namely, what did these two representatives of the “dog kind” actually look like; and secondly, how does he reconcile their descendants’ radiation with the very specific patterns we see from bio-geography — dingoes native only to Australia, for example.

    As for his status as a prophet, Ham’s is probably on the same dodgy level as someone like Jeremiah’s.

  5. The whole idea of “created kind” makes for more problems than it solves. What species and genus did the individuals on the Ark belong to? How did their descendants quickly differentiate into new species and genera? And once the modern species and genera were distinguished, how did that then slow down to today’s pace of speciation and genus generation? Explain the example of the family of cattle, Bovids, including cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. At the time of Abraham, about 2000 BC, the Bible tells us that there was a lot of diversity already.
    BTW the Bible never says anything about a “created kind” of humans.

  6. About dogor – has there been any mention of this in the scientific literature?
    I do not have any reason to doubt it. But is the only information coming from one source in Siberia? Has there been anyone from China, Japan, European Russia, or elsewhere to have seen this?

  7. Yippee! I guessed right!

    “are all part of the same created kind”
    The crea cop out that always works! In creacrap language: whenever a missing link is found and the conclusion “that means two more missing links” become too ridiculous” they have “variation within a kind is proven and what I want is missing links between two kinds”.

    “The biological classification of family is the equivalent (in most instances) to the biblical kind.”
    This makes me wonder. What are the exceptions? And in those cases, should we accept Biblical authority or the conclusions of flawed human brains? Curious minds like mine want to know.

    “radiocarbon dating ….. has been shown to be untrustworthy and inaccurate ”
    I never will get tired of repeating that the great Ol’Hambo only accepts operational science when its conclusions suit him.

  8. @DaveL hits the nail on its head: “far faster than evolution would allow”
    Exactly. Darwinian evilution is a no no, hyperaccelerated post-flood micro-evolution a yes-yes.

    “Why Ham feels himself driven to admit one is something of a mystery to me”
    For the same reason he doesn’t propagate a Flat Earth – he knows his audience won’t swallow it.

    “That is, Ham is providing new revelation.”
    Hey, you know Ol’Hambo is fourth in line, don’t you? Immediately after the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

    “Ham is a false prophet.”
    Irrelevant, as long as he doesn’t have to admit it before he dies. Afterwards it won’t matter to him anymore.

    @TomS: “The whole idea of “created kind” makes for more problems than it solves.”
    The creacrap solution is utterly simple – just look away.

  9. “The family level”; that, for humans, includes orang-utans

  10. Creationists have given up on denying the reality of fossils. Of course, there is no mention of the variety of extinct animals and plants, or of their fossil remains, so anything that a creationist has to say about them is either an acknowledgement of the validity of paleontology, or just assertions without any basis.
    ISTM that they know that they wouldn’t get away with denying the reality of dinosaurs. So forget about sticking to their mythology, or simple consistency. Their public demands an acceptable account of dinosaurs, so the public will get one, so forget about sticking to the Bible.

  11. @TomS, you are showing your ignorance! didn’t you know there were dinosaurs in the Bible? I thought everybody knew that behemoth and re’em were dinosaurs, and leviathan an ichthyosaur (or maybe a plesiosaur; opinions differ)

  12. @Paul Braterman
    They accounted for the Dinosaur kinds.

  13. Michael Fugate

    As I once heard a young woman proselytizing say, “You can find to every question in the Bible.”

  14. Have you asked her what causes electron-positron pair production?

  15. @Michael Fugate, I assume she said “You can find the answer to every question in the Bible.” Didn’t President Reagan say much the same thing?

  16. Why don’t creation-geneticists examine the DNA of each and every species of a kind (as the giraffe is such an iconic animal when drawings of the Ark are made I propose they take the kind of which the giraffe is a member) and use cladistics (or any method they prefer and wish to defend) to decide which is the ancestral species of this kind.
    They have a splendid laboratory I heard, even with a green screen!

  17. Karl Goldsmith

    Kind is family, only when it isnt.

    Creationist are really bad when it comes to genetics, they can’t even tell you what was on the ark just four thousand years ago.

  18. @Karl Goldsmith But they can tell you that they had already diversified into their modern forms by Abraham’s time. Otherwise, how could he have had camels?

    ( Unlike some here, I think it’s okay to say he had camels, because he came from Mesopotamia)

  19. There is a story about Groucho Marx, when he was introduced to a seer. “Ask any question.”
    Marx asked, “What is the capital of North Dakota?”

  20. Michael Fugate

    Interesting that feathered dinosaurs had lice – post flood of course 😉
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/10/dinosaurs-had-feathers-ruffled-by-parasites-study-finds

  21. There are experts on Flood biology who tell us that there was no need to take a pair of each kind of louse on the Ark. That avoids a lot of problems. I wonder whether there is any point to taxa like “created kinds” for lice.

  22. @Tom S, there’s no problem. Every *kind* in the ark was infected with its own *kind* of louse. Tapeworms too,no doubt

  23. @Paul Braterman
    My understanding is that human lice are closely related to non-human ape lice. Are hominid lice of a kind?
    If I were a baraminologist, I would just restrict the concept of baramin to the Explicit uses in the Bible, and where it is needed to avoid overcrowding thre Ark.

  24. @Tom S, humans are a kind all on their own (of course), but as a result of the Curse they jumped form apes to humans. Head lice and body lice are known to have gone their separate ways when we started wearing clothes. So this must have happened just after the Fall.

    Human pubic lice (crabs) are most closely related to the gorilla louse. Don’t ask!

  25. @Paul Braterman
    Yeah, it was just a coincidence that lice happened to jump from gorillas to humans. Just another of those coincidences – or was it by design?
    And I have to point out that the Bible never says anything about “min” in the context of humans. Especially, Genesis 1 makes a point of breaking the pattern of creation of living things, always “min”, except for humans, not “after its kind”, but “in his image and likeness”.
    I don’t know what all that means, but it does say anything about human “kind”.
    And about living things which are not mentioned in Creation Week, such as lice, the easiest answer is that they are the ongoing product of spontaneous generation. See, for example, the bees in the carcass of the lion killed by Samson.