Tests show that cat did not give birth to dogs
Tests have disproven a claim that a cat gave birth to dogs. PZ Myers hailed the claim as proof that Darwinism is true:
PZ did not even wait for the test results to come in. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
The Creation-Evolution Wars are over
We've finally got the piece of evidence they've all been asking for: a cat giving birth to a dog.
It's only a matter of time until my attempts to hatch a bird out of my fish eggs succeed.
PZ did not even wait for the test results to come in. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/22/2006 12:13:00 AM
10 Comments:
Now we see another dimension of Larry's personality (or lack thereof): no sense of humor. Don't you get it: PZ was joking? Larry's reaction is, as always, pathetic.
Friedrich Wilhem
>>>>> Don't you get it: PZ was joking? <<<<<<
The thing is, how can one know when PZ is joking and when he isn't?
Gee, let's see. Does he even think that evolution is an unresolved issue? The answer is no. That's how people know it's a joke. Who are the people who use precisley that analogy to criticize evolution? Kent Hovind, for one (he's in jail, for an unrelated issue; stupidity, fortunately for Larry, is not a criminal offense, but tax evasion, unfortunately for Kent, is). I think it's been used by other creationists too (the analogy, can't say about the tax evasion, but I don't want to imply that all creationists are tax evaders and that all evolutionists are not).
Friedrich Wilhem
It helps to be informed of the argument at hand, Larry. The "we don't see cats giving birth to dogs" argument is a perennial favorite of creationists trying to disprove evolution - ie, if evolution were true, we should see cats giving birth to dogs. What the creationists are too stupid to understand is that a cat naturally giving birth to a dog would be a major problem for current evolutionary theory - the amount of mutation required for that is much greater than any part of the theory allows. Like Darwin Day, PZ's post was intended to mock the creationists' misconceptions about evolution and its proponents.
Friedrich, several times a year politicians use the "dat" analogy. Larry has conveniently "forgotten" that that is a creationist argument, even though PT has pointed out politicians using that argument several times this year alone.
> The thing is, how can one know when PZ is joking and when he isn't? <
In this case it is too obvious. I can't believe that even you are serious this time. You are just pretending to be this stupid.
Hybrids of relatively close animals do occur. Mating of different species of the cat family was popular in zoos years ago but is now considered unethical. A few hybrids appear in nature but they are relatively rare.
As far as the test for distinct species that they are unable to interbreed, that has always been somewhat ridiculous.
VIW said,
>>>>>> The thing is, how can one know when PZ is joking and when he isn't? <
In this case it is too obvious. I can't believe that even you are serious this time. <<<<<<
The point is that so much of what he says is so crazy that you can't tell when he's joking.
> The point is that so much of what he says is so crazy that you can't tell when he's joking. <
Then how do we know when you are joking? I guess the answer is that you are joking when you push creationism.
I have recently posted responses to Kevin Vicklund on old threads --
Here on the "Fraudulent election results for "Jail 4 judges" proposition?" thread.
Three responses starting here on the "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case" thread.
Post a Comment
<< Home