Hambo: The True Definition of Evolution

Are you confused about the meaning of evolution, dear reader? Well, this is your lucky day, because everything is about to be clarified 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: Think You Know How Evolution Works? You’re Wrong (Because They Changed the Definition). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What is evolution? Well, that really depends on whom you ask. There are all kinds of definitions out there. Typically, when we think of evolution, we think of Darwinian evolution — the idea of all life descended from a common ancestor as one kind turns into another kind, and eventually ape-like creatures supposedly evolved into humans. But now we often hear a very different definition: those small changes within a kind are, well, evolution!

This attempt to re-define evolution is intolerable to ol’ Hambo. According to this new definition, evolution is not only macro evolution, but also micro evolution. This is an outrage! If you don’t understand what creationists regard as the the vast distinction between those two things, see the section “Micro-yes, Macro-no” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Now you understand. Okay, then Hambo says:

A recent article [in New Scientist: Think you understand how evolution works? You’re probably wrong] defined evolution according to a definition from famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.”

Dawkins knows what he’s talking about, but Hambo disagrees. He quotes from the article:

If, for some reason, a given gene in a patch of weeds, say, gets slightly more or less common from one generation to the next, evolution has happened. The gene doesn’t have to confer a survival advantage, or be “adaptive” or make the weed “fitter”. It doesn’t have to be “selected for” or increase biological complexity. It simply has to change in frequency, maybe by chance. That is all.

That is not only shocking, it’s absolutely unacceptable to Hambo. He tells us:

They then explain that some of these changes in gene frequencies increase the organism’s chance of survival and passing along its genes. … Their main point is that evolution has no direction, no goal, and it’s not moving toward an increase in complexity, as many people think. Therefore, they believe, many people have misconceptions about evolution.

Hambo is enraged. He has no misconceptions because he knows The Truth! He continues:

But in their definition of evolution, they’re really equivocating. [Huh?] They are taking something we observe — changes in gene frequency in a population — and calling that evolution, even though no change in kind has happened [A toad hasn’t given birth to a squirrel.] — no new genetic information has been added into the genome. [To understand creationists’ “information,” see: Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.] But the way evolutionists use the word evolution isn’t just to mean “change.” They use the word evolution for small changes and supposed molecules-to-man evolution-type changes. The small changes we observe, but the other supposed changes we don’t!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We see small changes but not big ones! For our discussion of that creationist clunker, see The Scientific Case Against Stairs. Let’s read on:

Think about it this way. [Whatever you say, Hambo!] In order to turn a single-celled organism into a more complex creature, you must add in a tremendous amount of brand-new genetic information. [Hee hee!] It’s this genetic information (DNA) that codes for how to build every different organism here on earth. Without genetic information, you can’t build any living thing. And yet “changes in gene frequency” aren’t adding any brand-new genetic information. It’s a loss of already-existing information, a reshuffling of information, or a preservation of information that was already there. In every case, the information is already there!

Are you beginning to see how wrong you’ve been, dear reader? In case you missed Hambo’s main point, here’s another excerpt:

There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information. So, molecules-to-man evolution is biologically impossible!

Hambo is so wise! And now we come to the end:

Do we have the definition of evolution wrong? No. Evolutionists just keep changing it in order to make a failed idea (that has never been observed) appear now to have observational evidence to support it. But, as ever, molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.

At last, dear reader, it’s all there in one easy-to-read post. Now, if you continue to cling to your insane evolution theory, you are without excuse.

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

16 responses to “Hambo: The True Definition of Evolution

  1. There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information.
    There is no known supernatural method that can create brand-new genetic information.
    There is no known design method that can create brand-new genetic information.

    In order to turn a single-celled organism into a more complex creature, you must add in a tremendous amount of brand-new genetic information.
    In order to change a egg into a chicken …

  2. Michael Fugate

    Apologetics.

  3. To borrow from Luke Skywalker, everything in Hambo’s post is false. With Pinocchios like these he should run for office. Not only is he completely wrong about evolution, he ignores the many known natural mechanisms to add “information” to genomes. They’ve been mentioned here before many times. The big two are gene duplication and whole genome duplication. In the microbial world acquiring genes from others is common.

  4. Apologetics, yes. Ham is doing what apologists always try to do: reconcile apparent inconsistencies in a doctrine, not necessarily a religious one. In this case, he admits that there are small changes over generational time in a given population. He denies that these small changes can accumulate into large ones, giving rise to a new “kind”, by any definition of that word. That is obviously inconsistent. An apologia for it has to be found, and Ham is, in some part of his mind, uncomfortably aware of it.

    He is, however, an incompetent apologist. He does not actually tackle the problem. He does not define “kind”. It means whatever he means when he uses the word. He does not even attempt to define the barrier between “change within kind” and “change of kind”. He simply proceeds as if such a barrier exists, without any need to demonstrate its existence, or even hint at its location.

    Instead, he busies himself with an obvious irrelevance: denying that change in genetic variance within a population constitutes evolution in action. To attempt that, he asserts that no new information occurs when genes vary. That’s a simple lie. New information occurs every time a gene changes in any detail. Genes mutate. Every single detail change, every duplication, every partial copying error, every ERV insertion, is new information.

    But suppose Ham were right. Suppose we posit what is obviously false to fact, that changes in genetic inheritance do not constitute new information. What of it? The changes still occur, as Ham admits. Evolution within a “kind”, whatever Ham means by that word, still happens. Where is the divine barrier that prevents these small changes from accumulating to “changes of kind”, whatever Ham thinks that word means?

    So Ham is still confronted with an intractable problem: changes in genetic inheritance occur within populations; changes in genes are expressed in physical forms; advantageous physical forms are selected by some specific factor in the environment, and therefore divergence in physical forms must occur. There is no known limit to that divergence other than the laws of physics and chemistry, given sufficient generational time. Those facts are so evident that Ham can only retreat into falsehood and flat denial of reality. And that includes contriving lies that don’t even help him!

    Lies have a father, as Jesus remarked. Lies actually beget lies. Ham demonstrates the process. Any Christian should recognise it, and him, for what they are.

  5. “It’s a loss of already-existing information, a reshuffling of information:”
    Hee hee! Devolution a la Behe! MichaelF must like this, given his very recent “Behe modeled “Devolves” after the Fall in Genesis.”

    “There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    This is actually an argument for theistic argument!

  6. Hans-Richard Grümm

    “Hamlet” is just a re-shuffling of “Romeo and Juliet”. It uses already existing letters!

  7. He’s right! There is no new information in this blog post, merely the shuffling of letters that already exist

  8. “But, as ever, molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.”
    As opposed to talking donkeys, burning bushes, immaculate conception, six day creation, a 6,000 year old earth, the flat earth and pi equals three.
    Got it hammy.

  9. “Molecules to man”
    Our bodies are made up of molecules. We grow from single cells. We consume atoms by chemical processes, including breath. Our ability to do work follows the principles of thermodynamics. There is no reason to doubt any of that. And nobody has any idea of anything supernatural going on in any of that.
    You can dismiss that as molecules to man. But you don’t have anything to compete with it.

  10. Having taught seventh-graders for 27 years, I can’t imagine that too many of Ham’s regular readers will understand wtf he’s trying to say.

  11. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Unlike say Richard Dawkins, the ‘Christian’ Ken Ham is a pathological liar:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=52683&hilit=definition#p52683

  12. Tell us something new, Ashley. Every creationist is lying (or reproducing lies from other creationists) about evolution until proven otherwise. It’s why I very often call their output creacrap.

    @Rsg: doesn’t matter – as long as they get the message “evilution is wrong, we know the TRVTH. I suspect that they would throw their creacrap beliefs where they belong the moment they properly understood it, because then they would recognize the lies too.

  13. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Jerry Bergman and Bob Sorensen (and his Facebook sidekick) are joining in with the lying over that New Scientist article about the new Dawkins book:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=52685#p52685

    Not all Christians lie like these fundamentalists do.

  14. Far from all. This is what happens when a creationist is honest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cees_Dekker

    “In 2005 Dekker got involved in discussions around Intelligent Design in the Netherlands, a movement that he has since clearly distanced himself from.”

    In those discussions Dekker inspired

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_van_der_Hoeven

    to claim that “Charles Darwin’s theories were incomplete and that new things had been discovered by proponents of intelligent design.”

    The English Wikipedia doesn’t mention

    “In mei 2005 vroeg ze een Kamerdebat aan om de intelligent design-theorie op Nederlandse scholen onderwezen te krijgen.”
    (from the Dutch version)

    “In May 2005 she asked for a debate in the House of Representatives to add ID-theory to the curriculum of Dutch schools.”
    Van der Hoeven only half-heartedly distanced herself from this, while Dekker became an advocate of theistic evolution.
    Since then the only “debates” take place on some Dutch creacrap websites, like my favourite Logos.nl. Since then ID in The Netherlands is dead as an earthworm; the only active Dutch creacrappers are YECers.

  15. @FrankB, you inspired me to look up Scotland’s own Centre for Intelligent Design. Their front page records the death of Professor Niven in 2014, looks forward with great excitement to a book by Denton to be published in 2016, and their first article comments on an article by Martin Rees on January 8 (year not given). I checked it out, and the year was 2015.

    The position of president has been vacant since November’s death. The address has changed from one in Glasgow to one in Wales. Alastair Noble is still Director, so I suspect he may have retired there. A couple of years ago, I rejected an invitation to discuss ID with him, on the grounds that there could be no possible meeting of minds. I said that he would regard invoking design as a form of explanation, whereas I would regard it as an unacceptable (for me, not him) invoking of miracles.

  16. Christine Marie Janis

    “But, as ever, molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.”

    As JBS Haldane might have said: “You did it yourself in 9 months”. (Echoing TomS’s post.)