This site is the crown jewel of creationist stupidity. It is beyond unreasonable; it lacks any modicum intelligence. It reads like something an idiot would preach back when Darwin first published Origin of Species. Now, there's a case for everything on it, and I've gone through them all and refuted them in an old essay, but I think that the best (and by that I mean stupidest) one of all is the "Evolution Test," for ages the #2 or 3 spot on FSTDT's Top 100. It's stupid and insipid beyond rational thought, so let's go through it with overly detailed answers! It's an insult to my intelligence, but that doesn't mean I don't get to answer it with undeserving intelligence.
Students, give this test to your teachers. When they fail it, ask them why they are teaching this nonsense!
Back in Freshman year, I did just that. My biology teacher, who was an evolutionary major, was left speechless because, of course it easily and handily debunked his entire college education!
Teachers, give this test to your students if you really want them to know the truth about evolution!
Needless to say, he refused this part, citing his fear that doing such would destroy millions of innocent brain cells.
1. Which evolved first, male or female?
Both of them obviously evolved at the same time. The first organisms, the primitive archeabacteria, did not use sexual reproduction; they were asexual. The usage of gene shuffling began likely as it does now: plasmids. Sexual reproduction, when it emerged, requires both sexes to exist at the same time.
2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
This question fully exposes the author's blatant stupidity. To assume that there is a gap of millions of years between the first female and male is such an egregious misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, the author decided that it was shitty enough to put as one of the main questions on his site as the header. Of course, the question is ludicrous because, as stated above, sexual reproduction requires two partners. There is no possible way that one gender could have evolved before the other.
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
Nine false assumptions? I'm no expert on this, but clearly you are. Unfortunately I'll have to skip this one, mostly because I have no clue what he wants.
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
Ugh. The stupid. Alright, blockhead, this is why. Whenever a new species emerges, several pieces of its genetic code are wildly different from other organisms. These new genes may be passed down, or they may not be, and they aren't in your example. However, traits bearing similarity to extinct ones or traits found in different animals does happen. This is called convergent evolution, which is when two species fit similar niches with similar adaptations. But convergent evolution works on two different species in two different environments/niches. As a result, the convergences will never line up to anything approaching the shadow of the silhouette of the mirage of the fantasy of another species. For example, let's take my favorite sea-bound creature, the cuttlefish. Cuttlefish are on an entirely different phylum from humans, mammals, reptiles, and the like, yet they have complex eyes. This is convergent evolution: eyesight was needed for them as it was for members of the phylum Chordata, so it was developed. Now look at yourself, then at a cuttlefish. That's about as close as convergent evolution will come.
5. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?
The brain's interpretation of light. Duh. Look at how you add on the complexities. Evolution starts with simpler traits that add complexity as they develop to fit their respective niches. While "start simple, end complex" is far from a perfect rule of thumb for evolution, with something as mapped out as the eye, it should be beyond obvious.
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?
Likely, there was a large gap between the brain's interpretation of light/the eye to the rest. How separate these two are is very hard to discern, due to them being quite similar. Could you consider a collection of photoreceptive cells to be an eye, or do you mean a complex thing like what humans have? The rest of the traits came around the same time, I would imagine, in the Cambrian Explosion, with the exceptions of tear ducts, eyelashes, and eyebrows. Tear ducts evolved with land-based animals, and eyebrows/eyelashes came with mammals.
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
My cerebrum is screaming at me right now for letting it undergo such mental torture. Allow me to calmly explain why what you just said was so FUCKING STUPID.
A new species is created when two communities have allowed their genes to differ far enough from each other that there is now no more possibility of reproduction, or at least, fertile reproduction. That is the difference between a breed and a species, and that is the definition of species. How you show so much stupidity in that short sentence is beyond me.
8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind.
While not a new organ, I can best describe the brain in humans.
a. Australopithecus aferensis had simpler, smaller, chimplike brains.
b. Homo habilis had significantly larger brains.
c. Homo erectus had more cognitive brains due to the recession of the occipital lobe.
d. Homo neanderthals, while not our direct ancestors, still show the development of the brain.
e. Finally, we have Homo sapiens.
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
Transitional fossils are not missing by any stretch of the imagination. We have fossils of all the forms above. We have fossils of countless forms from the Cambrian explosion. Hell, you can say that any fossil is transitional because it represents the change in form in any species. The only reason that this is a question on your test is because your ignorance is willful and blinding.
10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)
Math solution? Are you insane? How would this even apply? What math could you use? Why are you so infuriating in your obvious idiocy?
Anyways, this is the watchmaker analogy, which is easy to refute. You are comparing two non-exchangeable items with different properties. Let's say that I had a bunch of rocks and a small bowl. Not one rock perfectly fits the bowl, so I conclude that therefore, a rock that can fit the bowl is designed. Liquids, however, fill the bowl perfectly every time. Therefore, I conclude liquids are designed. See how that fails? Your analogy compares something known to be made by humans with something known to have natural causes.
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?
They are, actually. The process is so mindbendingly slow that your empty little mind obviously cannot handle it. Not only that, but humans have disrupted that a bit with all our peat mining.
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.
50!? 50. Wow. The reason that there aren't that many is simply because the forms that evolved with these traits died off often, or the organs gradually disappeared. I can, however, list a few.
•The classic example: the appendix. Not needed. We cannot digest cellulose.
•The gallbladder is approaching this status. It serves too many functions, most that we do not need.
•The inner ear muscles. You know that weird kid who could move his ears in elementary school? Well, it these weren't vestigial, then that would be seen as a shocking disability.
•The tailbone. Why bother? Tails have long since left human biology.
•Junk DNA.
•The vestigial eyelid.
•Wisdom teeth! Yeah, those asshole teeth that disrupt your life have no real purpose.
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?
Moving the goalposts. Whenever sufficient evidence comes along, you'll pick up the goalposts and move 'em with glee. This is human; everyone does it and it really proves nothing.
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
Underpopulated. REALLY!? Find one square meter of this planet that does not contain any life. Not even the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the icy plains of Antartica, or the dry dusts of the Atacama are not without their microbes. Unless you mean that not every inch of the planet is covered in large, complex life, this statement is bullshit, bullshit, bull-shit. And even then, how would that be possible!? You're such an idiot! Such an idiot!
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?
Alright, dammit, last one. Whenever a new species emerges, several pieces of its genetic code are wildly different from other organisms. However, traits bearing similarity to extinct ones or traits found in different animals does happen. This is called convergent evolution - wait. Why am I answering this again!? Good god, the stupid has caused me memory loss! Augh!
Well, that was fun. Brought back a bit of the stupidity nostalgia that I get whenever I see these things again, like watching the Bananaman video or the wonderful Kent Hovind lectures again. Anyways, that's enough of the stupid. I need culture. Art. Intelligence. Most of all, BRAIN BLEACH.
No comments:
Post a Comment