Ken hams it up, parodizes self

Posted 6 May 2013 by Matt Young

My old friend, the Alert Reader, sent me a cartoon that he claimed had appeared on Ken Ham's Facebook page. Captioned "Famous sayings of Ken Ham," the cartoon shows a caricature of Ham and three balloons, including this one:

It's designed to do what it does do. What it does do it does do well. Doesn't it? Yes, it does. I think it does. Do you? I do. Hope you do, too. Do you?

I found it hard to believe that the cartoon was not a parody and wondered why it is found on Ham's own Facebook page. The Alert Reader responded with the following, also reportedly from Ham's Facebook page:

Yesterday I spoke to hundreds of children and adults at the Homeschool Convention (Teach Them Diligently Convention) in Spartanburg, South Carolina. To help children remember what I teach them, I now give them two cards with colorful information on the front and back of each card that summarizes what is taught during the presentation. This is the back of one of these cards. The atheists have already had emotional meltdowns across the [I]nternet because I teach students how to think correctly about origins by asking 'Were You There?'--so they can continue to have their meltdowns as thousands upon thousands of children are given these cards across the nation. I will be giving these out to the hundreds of kids who will be attending the AiG conference in the Atlanta area today and tomorrow.

OK, I have to agree that the cartoon is real. I have yet to see a better example of Poe's law. Ken Ham, once again, commits autoparody.

71 Comments

co · 6 May 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lmJxwGRk

Ugh.

DS · 6 May 2013

Were you there Ken? Were you? Really? Really?

Then STFU already.

DS · 6 May 2013

The platypus was once endangered and is now threatened. I guess it doesn't do what it was designed to do very well after all. Same goes for the 90% of all species that have ever lived that have already gone extinct.

Ken should realize that lying to children is going to backfire. Fine by me.

Starbuck · 6 May 2013

This song would be hilarious if it was about Yersinia Pestis

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 May 2013

He said that about the giant panda, which the evilutionists point out happens to appear to be a carnivore, yet eats bamboo (it eats a small critter from time to time, for the record). And he brought up the panda in the first place to pretend that teeth don't indicate diet of an animal--oh yes, use the exception that illuminates the rule.

Yes, Hammy he is. He seems to think he's clever.

Glen Davidson

SWT · 6 May 2013

co said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lmJxwGRk Ugh.

Hey! I was expecting the barrage of stupidly dishonest creationist talking points, but please issue a warning before linking to something this likely to be an earworm. Remember that some of us have severe sensitivity to inane singsong. Now I need to listen to something to break the earworm ...

apokryltaros · 6 May 2013

DS said: Ken should realize that lying to children is going to backfire. Fine by me.

Except when lying to children for Jesus creates a generation or four of Morons for Jesus who insist that our current President is the Anti-Christ for not being an elderly white Republican male, or that we don't need to legislate protection of the environment or safety and health of workers because Jesus is on His way any minute now to destroy the world.

DS · 6 May 2013

We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can't fly ... well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see "intelligent design" everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

Henry J · 6 May 2013

DS said: From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can't fly ...

It should also have something about a birth canal going between the hip bones in an erect biped.

DS · 6 May 2013

Henry J said:
DS said: From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can't fly ...
It should also have something about a birth canal going between the hip bones in an erect biped.

And a waste disposal canal going through a pleasure center.

diogeneslamp0 · 6 May 2013

DS said: We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can't fly ... well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see "intelligent design" everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

That's fine, but unlike Ken Ham, we need to double-check it for accuracy. How many inaccuracies can you count in that idiotic Buddy Davis song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lmJxwGRk To start with, is a platypus' beak homologous to a duck's beak? Buddy Davis says it is. Is a platypus' spur homologous to a rooster's spur? Buddy Davis says it is. I'm not an expert on platypus anatomy, but this all seems fishy.

Hervey · 6 May 2013

Someone should ask Ken Ham whether his mother was married to his father before he was born, and how does he know? Was he there?

Rolf · 6 May 2013

DS said: We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can't fly ... well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see "intelligent design" everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

Something for Schroedingers Dog? (of AtBC fray)

Reynold Hall · 6 May 2013

Fun thing about Ham's people at AIG: They always clamor for verbal debates, but when evidence is given to them in written format, they are quick to censor uncomfortable facts or posts out, letting their lies stand.

EvoDevo · 6 May 2013

Reynold Hall said: Fun thing about Ham's people at AIG: They always clamor for verbal debates, but when evidence is given to them in written format, they are quick to censor uncomfortable facts or posts out, letting their lies stand.

Same thing with UD, ICR, DI, CMI, etc etc.

Childermass · 6 May 2013

The image in question

Matt Young · 6 May 2013

The image in question

Yes, that's it, thanks! I did not post it because it is subject to copyright protection. It strikes me now as being even sillier, with the 3 out-of-context balloons grouped together like that. But, then, I was not there.

Marty · 6 May 2013

The other slogan, another Buddy Davis song, is equally awkward: "Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." Every so often there's a video on Ken Ham's FB page of some little kid singing this to Ham at the creation museum. It's bizarre to see some cute kid singing a tongue-twister about billions of dead things.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUraR6rRwBM

"Where you there" is actually coherent compared to "what it does do it does do well".

Dave Luckett · 6 May 2013

Did someone call for a song...?

Thumbs on a panda and beaks used by finches,//
Eyes wired backwards, and necks grown by inches,//
Whales that had hands, fish with eyes that are blind;//
These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

Teeth not erupting – so what are they doing?//
Telling us they were once useful for chewing.//
We learned to cook, no more use did they find –//
This is a clue that it wasn’t designed.

Spines that bend inward, which gives us back trouble,//
And an appendix that bursts like a bubble//,
Must ingest vitamin C when we’ve dined,//
These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

When the fundies, when the DI, rort and fantasize,//
I simply remember my favourite clues, and then I know they… tell lies.

harold · 7 May 2013

I have to say that I'm not the biggest fan of the "bad design" school of arguments.

What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution.

They can be construed as "bad" in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function.

On the other hand, since "bad" is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn't as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism.

*Yes, I know, when you say "bad" you imply "must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise", but it isn't quite the same as positive evidence.

EvoDevo · 7 May 2013

harold said: I have to say that I'm not the biggest fan of the "bad design" school of arguments. What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution. They can be construed as "bad" in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function. On the other hand, since "bad" is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn't as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism. *Yes, I know, when you say "bad" you imply "must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise", but it isn't quite the same as positive evidence.

Go to t.o, and see what they think.

DS · 7 May 2013

harold said: I have to say that I'm not the biggest fan of the "bad design" school of arguments. What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution. They can be construed as "bad" in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function. On the other hand, since "bad" is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn't as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism. *Yes, I know, when you say "bad" you imply "must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise", but it isn't quite the same as positive evidence.

Sure, plagarized errors are a better argument, but if the dickwads want to to have children singing about "design", bad design is a lot easier to sing about than SINE insertions.

harold · 7 May 2013

EvoDevo said:
harold said: I have to say that I'm not the biggest fan of the "bad design" school of arguments. What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution. They can be construed as "bad" in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function. On the other hand, since "bad" is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn't as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism. *Yes, I know, when you say "bad" you imply "must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise", but it isn't quite the same as positive evidence.
Go to t.o, and see what they think.

This cryptic comment is probably by a science denier. The weaselly structure alone - why don't you just say what they "think of it" and show evidence for your claim? Who's "they"? - makes that likely. As we all know, any time any scientist or science supporter has a meaningful, even if minor dispute with another scientist or science supporter - something which the nature of science makes inevitable - ID/creationists latch onto it. In their authoritarian model, there are no civil, ultimately resolved disputes - only schisms based on rival claims of dominant authority. Therefore let me clarify. I do not think that "bad design" claims are incorrect. From my perspective, they are obviously correct. The theory of evolution powerfully explains the diversity and relatedness of life on earth and is strongly supported by multiple converging independent lines of evidence. To the extent that I have any "objection" to the "bad design" type of argument, it's merely that I think that there are even better arguments in support of the theory of evolution.

Joe Felsenstein · 7 May 2013

As a singer, congratulations to Dave Luckett for his rewrite of "My Favorite Things". It even scanned properly, which few people know how to do (and few people know you're supposed to do).

On the issue of Bad Design arguments, ID types are completely inconsistent. If you use a Bad Design argument, they lecture you about how we don't know the intentions of The Designer, so that it is improper to speculate about what her intentions were. So, they argue, you can't assume that design is always good design. They sound enormously pleased with themselves at this argument.

But then when someone argues that much of our DNA is junk, they are completely self-contradictory. They are just sure that this can't be. Why? Because it wouldn't be Good Design.

Oopsies! Contradiction!

harold · 7 May 2013

Dave Luckett said: Did someone call for a song...? Thumbs on a panda and beaks used by finches,// Eyes wired backwards, and necks grown by inches,// Whales that had hands, fish with eyes that are blind;// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed. Teeth not erupting – so what are they doing?// Telling us they were once useful for chewing.// We learned to cook, no more use did they find –// This is a clue that it wasn’t designed. Spines that bend inward, which gives us back trouble,// And an appendix that bursts like a bubble//, Must ingest vitamin C when we’ve dined,// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed. When the fundies, when the DI, rort and fantasize,// I simply remember my favourite clues, and then I know they… tell lies.

This is extremely impressive. The John Coltrane version (no lyrics of course) is still my favorite, but this is good.

DS · 7 May 2013

If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument. If you don't want that used against you then don't go there. Sure there are better arguments, but if the goal is a cheap sound byte with more style than substance, sure we can go there. The good part is that they won't even be able to complain about it without showing themselves up as the hypocrites that they are.

It's like putting a defendant on the stand. You automatically open up a whole line of questioning that you might not want exposed to the light of day.

So, it the platypus does what it does so well, how come it almost went extinct and is still nearly endangered? How come it can't bear live young? How come it doesn't have poison fangs and wings and all sorts of other neat stuff? Is god a joke? Does she have no common sense? Does she lack imagination?

Paul Burnett · 7 May 2013

DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.

Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?

Mark Sturtevant · 7 May 2013

How about some They Might be Giants?
Science is Real

John Harshman · 7 May 2013

Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?

No, good design. What they do, they do so well. Or, as so ably put by Eric Idle: All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat, All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all. Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid-- Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did! All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small, Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all.

DS · 7 May 2013

Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?

Fine. But it's not design by an omnipotent god. Indeed, it might just be the illusion of design.

harold · 7 May 2013

DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument. If you don't want that used against you then don't go there. Sure there are better arguments, but if the goal is a cheap sound byte with more style than substance, sure we can go there. The good part is that they won't even be able to complain about it without showing themselves up as the hypocrites that they are. It's like putting a defendant on the stand. You automatically open up a whole line of questioning that you might not want exposed to the light of day. So, it the platypus does what it does so well, how come it almost went extinct and is still nearly endangered? How come it can't bear live young? How come it doesn't have poison fangs and wings and all sorts of other neat stuff? Is god a joke? Does she have no common sense? Does she lack imagination?

I completely agree that "we can easily imagine a better design" is a good rebuttal to "such and such is perfectly designed". In this context that's what happened so my nit-picking about the argument was arguably excessive. I will note that the "this is good because God made it good" claim just degenerates into standard Problem of Evil*/Last Thursdayism stuff, and has been known to since at 2500 years (see Book of Job). (*To me there is no "problem of evil", but there is a fascinating "puzzle of awareness", but that's not the topic here.) We can argue whether the vagus nerve could have been better designed to begin with, but Behe says that even malaria parasites had to be designed specifically by his god. If his god magically made bunnies able to turn white when it snows, then his god also magically made the various carnivores that the bunnies want to hide from, not to mention the microbes and parasites that plague them. So if God magically designed something we like, he designed everything else, too, apparently because he's inscrutable (and don't say "The Fall" because that just makes him inscrutable for setting up "The Fall"). And he's inscrutable in a very peculiar and specific way. He could have designed it all any way he wanted, but he designed it in a way that makes it look exactly like evolution, and which does not look anything like either the human version of what we would want, nor, though, the human version of what we would most not want. This universe isn't heaven, but it isn't hell either. Life on earth just happens to look exactly as if it evolved.

TomS · 7 May 2013

DS said:
Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?
Fine. But it's not design by an omnipotent god. Indeed, it might just be the illusion of design.

But is "design by an omnipotent" (god, intelligent designers, whatever) even a coherent concept? Why would agent(s) which are capable of doing anything have to resort to contrivance, rather than just giving the power directly? Why would there be things around before the design event, things in need of design? What we're faced with, in the case of "intelligent design", is a "concept" (I mean that in the sense used in the advertising industry) that is deliberately vague so that it cannot be argued against. Not just so that it avoids legal challenges in the USA, but also because prior versions of anti-evolutionism (those which dared to actually say something) proved to be so easily debunked.

Henry J · 7 May 2013

Course, if it was "designed" to look exactly like evolution happened, then we might as well use the evolution concept to help us understand the relationships, and have some idea what to expect in future observations. So in that case why are they even bothering to argue against it?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 May 2013

John Harshman said:
Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?
No, good design. What they do, they do so well. ...

"Good design" if taken in isolation, but what sort of design is it to make both P. falciparum very good at infecting and killing humans, while designing human immune systems to fight same? That's what baffles me about Dawkins' assertion that life looks designed (I think he was impressed by Paley, and by Darwin's initial acceptance of Paley), what looks designed in context? It looks like, hm, something that would just evolve. Of course one could also ask how "designed" Plasmodium falciparum really looks anyway, when we look closely. I mean, why does it have an apicoplast, a chloroplast having lost its original function? Makes sense as an "alga" or some such thing opportunistically turning to parasitism, while even if we granted that parasitism might be designed (which we shouldn't), what about a chloroplast makes for good parasitic "sense" or design, even though it has made use of its inherited autotrophic information? Glen Davidson

ogremk5 · 7 May 2013

One thing (ha!) that's always bothered me about ID arguments is that there really isn't any discussion or mention of "I", just the "D".

I've occasionally asked ID proponents why evolution can't result in the "D". Indeed, several ID proponents seem to be arguing that non "I" processes can result in "D".

Evolution does result in designed organisms, just designed with a lot more constraints than an intelligent designer would have to deal with (only using existing structures and modifying them, can't change too much at once or the product may not work at all, etc).

TomS · 7 May 2013

Henry J said: Course, if it was "designed" to look exactly like evolution happened, then we might as well use the evolution concept to help us understand the relationships, and have some idea what to expect in future observations. So in that case why are they even bothering to argue against it?

Yes! If there are those mighty powerful intelligent designers who want us to believe that life has been evolving for billions of years, I for one, will go along with their game.

John Harshman · 7 May 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: "Good design" if taken in isolation, but what sort of design is it to make both P. falciparum very good at infecting and killing humans, while designing human immune systems to fight same?

This is only a problem if you assume a single designer. There are obviously several designers in competition. Or another alternative is to suppose a single designer playing an entertaining game of solitary chess with himself.

diogeneslamp0 · 7 May 2013

I hate to repeat myself, but I really was hoping that one of the geniuses of comparative anatomy around here, like Apokryltaros or John Harshman or Ksplawn, could answer my question about re: "homologies" in the platypus. I would like to debunk Buddy Davis' "It's Designed to Do" song about the platypus, but my knowledge is too limited. To start with, is a platypus’ beak homologous to a duck’s beak? Buddy Davis says it is. Is a platypus’ foot spur homologous to a rooster’s spur? Buddy Davis says it is. If you listen to Davis' song, he portrays the platypus as a combination of rooster, duck, beaver, otter, bear, and turtle. So in other words, Ken Ham, AIG and Buddy Davis are saying that Linnaean taxonomy is dead-- there are species that violate the unique nested hierarchy [UNH] of the Tree of Life. According to the song, the platypus and its violation of Linnaean taxonomy-- "makes evolutionists scratch their heads". Buddy Davis gives us an equation for the platypus, shown as "kangaroo + poison + milk", although the lyrics add sonar:

Buddy Davis sang: "On Day 6, God created it [platypus] strange. When he took this n’ that from several things. It’s a mammal like a kangaroo. It has poison, sonar and milk too."

Leaving aside the fact that "strange" and "things" don't rhyme, Davis is saying that monotremes are kangaroos with poison and milk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but marsupials are NOT closer to monotremes than placentals. I have read many creationist books, and I have seen the argument made, in decades-old creationist books, that the platypus was a mixture of marsupial and reptile. The creationist Harold W. Clark (who founded the eco-zoning theory to explain the order of the fossils in Flood Geology) believed that transitional fossils were the result of very different kinds of animals crossing. He wrote that Archaeopteryx might be the result of Barney the Dinosaur fucking Daisy Duck, the hyena was produced by Snoopy Dog fucking Hello Kitty, and the Geico Lizard fucked Kanga from Winnie the Pooh, who gave birth to Perry the Platypus. Clark's theory of platypus origins is described in his Genes and Genesis (1940), p. 103-4. Clark believed that apes and non-white races were the result of humans [whites] mating with animals, though it's not in that book. As for the notion "It's designed to do what it does do, what it does do it does well," this actually contradicts creationist explanations for why so many marsupials went to Australia from Mt. Ararat. A creationist explanation for why there are so many marsupials in Australia in that marsupials hopped from Mt. Ararat over the Himalaya and swam to Australia because marsupials are inferior to placentals, and they didn't want to get eaten by the superior placental carnivores, so they hopped away quickly in fear. Koalas and marsupial moles obviously are lightning-fast and easily outran the cheetah and African lion. This logically means that Australian fauna should be consistently inferior to Eurasian fauna, especially placentals. But Buddy Davis sings of the Platypus, "what it does do it does well," so now the inferior Australian fauna are not inferior anymore. The Australian fauna are inferior when creationists need to explain why they all hopped to Australia, but then they're not inferior when Ken Ham needs to convince us they were well-designed by an all-powerful God. I don't have to tell you all that the "inferior" marsupials hopped and swam to Australia in order to escape being eaten by carnivores, and they swam straight to a continent with 20-foot salt-water crocodiles, the goanna (a carnivore and perhaps the world's smartest reptile), the giant carnivorous red kangaroo, poisonous spiders and snakes, etc. etc. Insert your favorite Australian horror-species here.

Paul Burnett · 7 May 2013

John Harshman said: This is only a problem if you assume a single designer. There are obviously several designers in competition.

How about an unspecified entity contracting out both design and construction - multiple design subcontractors (who don't communicate well with each other), multiple construction subcontractors (who don't communicate well with each other); said entity then doing an incompetent job of design management / construction management. "An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee."

John Harshman · 7 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: I hate to repeat myself, but I really was hoping that one of the geniuses of comparative anatomy around here, like Apokryltaros or John Harshman or Ksplawn, could answer my question about re: "homologies" in the platypus. I would like to debunk Buddy Davis' "It's Designed to Do" song about the platypus, but my knowledge is too limited.

Sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. Are you quite sure they aren't? Or are you just looking for some kind of technical elaboration on the answer "no, of course they aren't homologous"? OK, I'll elaborate. A platypus beak isn't a keratin sheath as in ducks; it's soft skin. The bones in the upper part of the beak are the same bones that are in the upper jaws of pretty much any tetrapod. The bones in the lower part are, however, different. In mammals, including the platypus, there's only one bone in the lower jaw, the dentary. In ducks, as in most tetrapods, there are several bones in the lower jaw. (And of course some of those bones are homologous to bones of the mammalian -- including platypus -- ear.) So we have superficial resemblance, not homology. I'm still pretty sure all your questions were intended as rhetorical.

diogeneslamp0 · 7 May 2013

John Harshman said:
diogeneslamp0 said: I hate to repeat myself, but I really was hoping that one of the geniuses of comparative anatomy around here, like Apokryltaros or John Harshman or Ksplawn, could answer my question about re: "homologies" in the platypus. I would like to debunk Buddy Davis' "It's Designed to Do" song about the platypus, but my knowledge is too limited.
Sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. Are you quite sure they aren't? Or are you just looking for some kind of technical elaboration on the answer "no, of course they aren't homologous"? OK, I'll elaborate. A platypus beak isn't a keratin sheath as in ducks; it's soft skin. The bones in the upper part of the beak are the same bones that are in the upper jaws of pretty much any tetrapod. The bones in the lower part are, however, different. In mammals, including the platypus, there's only one bone in the lower jaw, the dentary. In ducks, as in most tetrapods, there are several bones in the lower jaw. (And of course some of those bones are homologous to bones of the mammalian -- including platypus -- ear.) So we have superficial resemblance, not homology. I'm still pretty sure all your questions were intended as rhetorical.

Well, I knew the beaks weren't homologous, but I couldn't say in technical jargon why. Now that I think about it, it's obvious... mostly. As for the rooster spur vs. the platypus spur. What I can find by googling is that the platypus spur is basically its heelbone [calcaneus]. The spur on a rooster's leg is made of keratin, according to Wikipedia, so I'm guessing it's not a bone of any kind, heel or other wise. True or false? Also, Buddy Davis says the platypus has sonar. I can find no reference to sonar of the platypus. Of course they have electrolocation, so perhaps he confused sound and electricity.

diogeneslamp0 · 7 May 2013

Well, this source says "Platypuses swim without sight, they use sonar like waves to swim." Other sources say no sonar.

Dave Luckett · 7 May 2013

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Platypus/

The above site is a bit more authoritative and informative.

The bill is somewhat the shape of a shoveller duck's, except that the nostrils are at the end, and it is not made of bone-based ceratin. It is cartilaginous, and appears to be a very evolved pair of lips. The shape is an example of convergent evolution, since both the platypus and the shoveller duck use their bills for sifting through the mud on the bottom of shallow waters, seeking small molluscs and crustacea.

This is a popular press release from Monash University (Melbourne) on the receptors of the bill.
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/releases/show/83

apokryltaros · 7 May 2013

The platypus senses prey and its way underwater by a combination of touch and sensing the bio-electrical fields of its prey.

Its bio-electrical sensing organ is located near the center of the end of the bill. If you look at the skull of a platypus, the bones of the bill form a Y-shape: the organ is located in the fork of the "Y"

harold · 7 May 2013

TomS said:
DS said:
Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?
Fine. But it's not design by an omnipotent god. Indeed, it might just be the illusion of design.
But is "design by an omnipotent" (god, intelligent designers, whatever) even a coherent concept? Why would agent(s) which are capable of doing anything have to resort to contrivance, rather than just giving the power directly? Why would there be things around before the design event, things in need of design? What we're faced with, in the case of "intelligent design", is a "concept" (I mean that in the sense used in the advertising industry) that is deliberately vague so that it cannot be argued against. Not just so that it avoids legal challenges in the USA, but also because prior versions of anti-evolutionism (those which dared to actually say something) proved to be so easily debunked.

Among many other annoying things, "Intelligent Design" is a bait and switch, on many levels. It was touted to the media, during its brief heyday, as a scientific way to "detect design in nature". This is actually the opposite of the truth. You will not find any positive explanation of how things were designed in "ID", for a good reason - such an explanation is deliberately left out. ID was "designed" in a failed effort to allow sectarian evolution denial in school, in order to pander to fundamentalists, while ludicrously claiming no religious motivation. The simple-minded trick they came up with was essentially to argue "the scientific explanation 'couldn't have happened', and therefore 'something else, but we can't say what, wink, wink', must have happened". In short, rather than attempting a scientific method to detect design, ID actually exists to obfuscate any direct claims about design, for legal, political and cultural, rather than scientific, reasons. As Judge Jones noted, that isn't detecting design. Claiming that something didn't evolve, even if the claim were accurate or at least somewhat supported, is not the same as showing how it was designed. If the claim is transparently contrived and inaccurate, so much the worse.

Rolf · 8 May 2013

TomS said:
DS said:
Paul Burnett said:
DS said: If you want to use the "good design" argument, you open yourself up to the "bad design" argument.
Bad design is still "design". Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of "bad design"?
Fine. But it's not design by an omnipotent god. Indeed, it might just be the illusion of design.
But is "design by an omnipotent" (god, intelligent designers, whatever) even a coherent concept? Why would agent(s) which are capable of doing anything have to resort to contrivance, rather than just giving the power directly? Why would there be things around before the design event, things in need of design? What we're faced with, in the case of "intelligent design", is a "concept" (I mean that in the sense used in the advertising industry) that is deliberately vague so that it cannot be argued against. Not just so that it avoids legal challenges in the USA, but also because prior versions of anti-evolutionism (those which dared to actually say something) proved to be so easily debunked.

AFAIK, God isn't just omnipotent; he also is omnipresent and omniscient. From that it follows that he already from the beginning (which means from eternity) knew exactly all, I mean ALL that ever was going to happen so there was nothing for him to do excpet to watch event's unfold, an enjoy the smell of burnt flesh when carnival offerings became vogue.

RPST · 8 May 2013

Rolf said: God isn't just omnipotent; he also is omnipresent and omniscient.

It's a funny kind of omnipotent, where it takes six whole days to get something done, and then you need to rest afterward.

TomS · 8 May 2013

RPST said: It's a funny kind of omnipotent, where it takes six whole days to get something done, and then you need to rest afterward.

I think that it's a funny kind of omnipotent where it takes design to finish the job.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 May 2013

TomS said:
RPST said: It's a funny kind of omnipotent, where it takes six whole days to get something done, and then you need to rest afterward.
I think that it's a funny kind of omnipotent where it takes design to finish the job.

But it's super, inscrutable, using unknown methods, involving unknown entities (w/o the Bible, that is), unlike our designs (but so analogous), and, rather than being identified as a specific cause, it is merely teased out by magic mathematics. It's such godly design that you should be able to immediately apprehend how uniquely perfect it is, impossible for humans to do on their own, and completely like known design. And you must not question it. Glen Davidson

TomS · 8 May 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
TomS said:
RPST said: It's a funny kind of omnipotent, where it takes six whole days to get something done, and then you need to rest afterward.
I think that it's a funny kind of omnipotent where it takes design to finish the job.
But it's super, inscrutable, using unknown methods, involving unknown entities (w/o the Bible, that is), unlike our designs (but so analogous), and, rather than being identified as a specific cause, it is merely teased out by magic mathematics. It's such godly design that you should be able to immediately apprehend how uniquely perfect it is, impossible for humans to do on their own, and completely like known design. And you must not question it. Glen Davidson

Finally, somebody has described it.

Ian Derthal · 8 May 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lmJxwGRk Ugh.

Now that's a Eurovisiion winner if ever there was one !

https://me.yahoo.com/a/j.AO1UQUtdGuGQfpJARIahMWnoyzl5WD9eE-#4d580 · 9 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: As for the rooster spur vs. the platypus spur. What I can find by googling is that the platypus spur is basically its heelbone [calcaneus]. The spur on a rooster's leg is made of keratin, according to Wikipedia, so I'm guessing it's not a bone of any kind, heel or other wise. True or false?

The rooster's spur does have a bony core, but it's an outgrowth that develops from the middle of the shaft of the tarsometatarsus (presumably mediated by testosterone, capons don't develop them). As you suspected, nothing to do with the calcaneus, the birds' TMT shaft is derived from the metatarsals of the ancestral form. Cue creationists, "But they're still FEET!!!!one!1" DaveH

harold · 9 May 2013

The relationship between YEC and ID is an interesting allegiance.

YEC wants to force people to agree with absurd claims, wherever possible. Although their claims are ostensibly based on the Bible, it goes beyond that. Post-modern YEC is deliberate purity-testing defiance of science. To belong to their movement, you must undergo the purity ritual of accepting extreme statements that almost anyone would have some skepticism of. There is a vast difference between a scholarly 17th century bishop believing that Biblical genealogies are accurate, versus a 21st century claim that a vegetarian Adam put leather saddles on dinosaurs, that T. rex lived 5000 years ago and was vegetarian, that Noah's ark is a coherent, "literal" story, etc. YEC is to a large degree an authoritarian ritual.

PLEASE, please, don't bring up the meaningless word "sincerity". No-one is saying that they don't feel sincere, anymore than millions of North Koreans don't feel sincere when they state that Dear Leader is wise, benevolent, and persecuted. Of course they feel "sincere". But it's also brainwashed submission to purity ritual, and they also feel defensiveness and cognitive dissonance from time to time. That's true from Ken Ham down. Ken Ham probably sincerely believes he is a prophet; he is probably not consciously lying; but he is hypersensitive to challenges.

The underlying objective of YEC is to force their submission ritual onto the general population by, among other things, requiring students to study their obvious nonsense as science in public schools.

However, that was blocked by SCOTUS. So they go for the second best thing - "at least deny evolution and imply YEC".

Superficially, ID looks very different from YEC. YEC jumps in your face and tells you to accept very specific and very absurd claims, or else.

ID, on the other hand, isn't about "detecting design" at all, it's about denying evolution while (not very successfully) pretending not to be connected to YEC. Hence, most people, including some creationists, immediately note the deliberate obfuscatory and weaselly nature of ID.

It may seem a bit odd that a system initially based on requiring adherents to submit to extreme claims, would turn to a system of avoiding positive claims, but in the end, it's all about pushing the agenda by any means necessary.

TomS · 9 May 2013

I quite agree with everything that harold said.

One thing that I would stress is that YEC is a relatively recent development. Before the 1960s, almost all of the anti-evolutionists accepted an old Earth. Anti-evolutionists among the early fundamentalists were almost reasonable, particularly considering that in that era there was genuine conflict among scientists about some of the major features of evolution, and absolute figures for dating were hard to come by. For some reason, just as evolutionary biology and geology were experiencing major advances, the anti-evolutionists took up YEC and Flood Geology.

Werewolf Dongle · 9 May 2013

TomS said: I quite agree with everything that harold said. One thing that I would stress is that YEC is a relatively recent development. Before the 1960s, almost all of the anti-evolutionists accepted an old Earth. Anti-evolutionists among the early fundamentalists were almost reasonable, particularly considering that in that era there was genuine conflict among scientists about some of the major features of evolution, and absolute figures for dating were hard to come by. For some reason, just as evolutionary biology and geology were experiencing major advances, the anti-evolutionists took up YEC and Flood Geology.

James Ussher discovered the true date for creation back in the 1600's. Scripture was well understood before the 1960's. However, Henry Morris did provide scientific proof of the Bible's veracity during that time due to the rising religion of evolution that was trying, and still is, to make Christianity illegal.

Mike Elzinga · 9 May 2013

Werewolf Dongle said: However, Henry Morris did provide scientific proof of the Bible's veracity during that time due to the rising religion of evolution that was trying, and still is, to make Christianity illegal.

That statement is false. And by the way; I was there.

harold · 9 May 2013

Werewolf Dongle said:
TomS said: I quite agree with everything that harold said. One thing that I would stress is that YEC is a relatively recent development. Before the 1960s, almost all of the anti-evolutionists accepted an old Earth. Anti-evolutionists among the early fundamentalists were almost reasonable, particularly considering that in that era there was genuine conflict among scientists about some of the major features of evolution, and absolute figures for dating were hard to come by. For some reason, just as evolutionary biology and geology were experiencing major advances, the anti-evolutionists took up YEC and Flood Geology.
James Ussher discovered the true date for creation back in the 1600's. Scripture was well understood before the 1960's. However, Henry Morris did provide scientific proof of the Bible's veracity during that time due to the rising religion of evolution that was trying, and still is, to make Christianity illegal.

This is probably a (relatively good) parody. I think I recognize the style, and a creationist actually picking up on an allusion to James Ussher would be most unusual. However, the problem with trying to parody post-modern political fundamentalism is that it's almost impossible. Having said that, yes, this is worth replying to, because it reflects, either seriously or in parody, a major post-modern political fundamentalist attitude. I would, of course, massively oppose making Christianity, YEC, ID, or any other such thing illegal. I very strongly support the right of everyone to live and believe as they see fit, and only ask that they respect my rights in return. So where's the problem? It's very simple. Creationists almost by definition don't want to respect my rights. Or anyone else's. All I ask is that public schools not favor any religious stance over any other, as the United States Constitution requires, and that they teach adequate mainstream science. School attendance is mandatory, but graduation isn't, and home schooling can substitute for mandatory attendance. Anyone who wants can choose to not get a high school diploma, get a diploma from a religious school, or perform well enough to get a diploma but not privately "believe" in scientific reality. Anyone can teach their children any religion in the privacy of their own home or church. I am not asking that anyone's religious expression be restricted, nor that anyone be forced to learn, let alone "believe", the basics of science. That isn't good enough for the creationists. They want to use everyone's tax dollars for favoritism of their own sect. They want to preach their science-denying nonsense as "science" in taxpayer funded public schools. Authoritarian fundamentalists arrogantly assume privilege, and scorn equal rights. But they don't generally say that openly, or even understand that clearly. Rather, they simply consider themselves "persecuted" if they don't get to persecute everyone else. The idea of nobody being persecuted is alien to them. They want to persecute, and if they can't, they feel persecuted.

diogeneslamp0 · 9 May 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/j.AO1UQUtdGuGQfpJARIahMWnoyzl5WD9eE-#4d580 said:
diogeneslamp0 said: As for the rooster spur vs. the platypus spur. What I can find by googling is that the platypus spur is basically its heelbone [calcaneus]. The spur on a rooster's leg is made of keratin, according to Wikipedia, so I'm guessing it's not a bone of any kind, heel or other wise. True or false?
The rooster's spur does have a bony core, but it's an outgrowth that develops from the middle of the shaft of the tarsometatarsus (presumably mediated by testosterone, capons don't develop them). As you suspected, nothing to do with the calcaneus, the birds' TMT shaft is derived from the metatarsals of the ancestral form. Cue creationists, "But they're still FEET!!!!one!1" DaveH

Thank you Dave.

diogeneslamp0 · 9 May 2013

Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe.

However, if any of you want to go underground as a Poe, I have a word of advice: include many pseudo-persuasive links and references to creationist "intellectuals". That's the best way to fool fundamentalists into thinking you're a fundamentalist too.

I think Dongle may not be real because he has included no links nor references to his creationist authorities. Compare Dongle vs. a real lunatic, like Kairosfocus or BornAgain77, with their long list of links to YouTube videos about the quantum powers of the Shroud of Turin and every form of bat-shit occultism.

phhht · 9 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe.

Poe or no, he shares one property with all the other loons: he's an incompetent apologist for his beliefs.

Keelyn · 9 May 2013

Werewolf Dongle said:
TomS said: I quite agree with everything that harold said. One thing that I would stress is that YEC is a relatively recent development. Before the 1960s, almost all of the anti-evolutionists accepted an old Earth. Anti-evolutionists among the early fundamentalists were almost reasonable, particularly considering that in that era there was genuine conflict among scientists about some of the major features of evolution, and absolute figures for dating were hard to come by. For some reason, just as evolutionary biology and geology were experiencing major advances, the anti-evolutionists took up YEC and Flood Geology.
James Ussher discovered the true date for creation back in the 1600's. Scripture was well understood before the 1960's. However, Henry Morris did provide scientific proof of the Bible's veracity during that time due to the rising religion of evolution that was trying, and still is, to make Christianity illegal.

Yeah, Sunday, October 23, 4004BC (at 9:00a.m. no less – or so some claim. That may be a misquoting of Ussher, however.) Regardless, it is about as true as the Tooth Fairy. And could you please provide some of Morris’s “scientific proof?” That should be interesting. Morris is a documented crackpot – it appears to run in the family, as well. His son, John, is also a crackpot. I see you are following in the same footsteps.

harold · 9 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe. However, if any of you want to go underground as a Poe, I have a word of advice: include many pseudo-persuasive links and references to creationist "intellectuals". That's the best way to fool fundamentalists into thinking you're a fundamentalist too. I think Dongle may not be real because he has included no links nor references to his creationist authorities. Compare Dongle vs. a real lunatic, like Kairosfocus or BornAgain77, with their long list of links to YouTube videos about the quantum powers of the Shroud of Turin and every form of bat-shit occultism.

Harold's addendum to Poe's law - There are factors that help differentiate real creationists from Poes. Not 100%, but we can favor one or the other. In favor of Poe (these features are rare in creationists and common in Poes) - 1) Any sign of a sense of humor. 2) Direct, positive seemingly creationist claims instead of weasel-worded, incoherent evolution denial. 3) Any awareness of the history of scholarly thought, e.g. actually knowing the name of James Ussher, instead of total reliance on post-modern creationist and right wing web sites. Even awareness of historical styles of fundamentalism and puritanism is a sign of a Poe; if someone is quoting "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", that's probably a Poe. 4) A reaction to a science-based story favors a Poe. In favor of real creationist - 1) Extensive linking to creationist and right wing web sites. 2) Extensive plagiarizing from such web sites. 3) They all, with a couple of ostracized exception frequently seen here, got the "We're going with plausible deniability to get into public schools" memo, so...efforts to hide religious claims (beyond opposition to "atheism") and focus on denial of evolution favor a real creationist. 4) Try to change the subject to abiogenesis. 5) Obsessive verbosity to the point of raising the question of mental illness is nearly always a sign of true creationist. 6) Tend to explode onto threads that criticize ID books or respond to evolution denial bills, or bring up scientific subjects that are specifically used in creationist propaganda. They generally don't care, literally don't care, about the science. They may bark about whale evolution or the bacterial flagellum because their masters trained them to hear those as dog whistles. They aren't very likely to respond to discussion of scientific material unless it's something like whale evolution, Lucy, or Archaeopterix, though. 7) Incidentally, although there are exceptions to these rules, and I think anyone who frequents this blog can think of some, the exceptions are rare and tend to have been ostracized and banned by the creationist blogs long ago. 8) Although insulting language is non-specific and is used at least equally by Poes, the use of nothing but insulting language coupled with whining, self-pitying, claims of "only looking for a dialogue", is characteristic of a sincere creationist. Poes could mimic everything I've described for real creationists, but they tend not to, for a simple reason. It can probably be kind of fun to play the eighteenth century Great Awakening preacher and make all sorts of outrageous and bombastic comments. Actually spending hours cutting and pasting from astroturf right wing websites, actually tying yourself in a knot clumsily trying to promote post-modern science denial in a "plausibly deniable" way and so on - not so much fun.

Werewolf Dongle · 10 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe. However, if any of you want to go underground as a Poe, I have a word of advice: include many pseudo-persuasive links and references to creationist "intellectuals". That's the best way to fool fundamentalists into thinking you're a fundamentalist too. I think Dongle may not be real because he has included no links nor references to his creationist authorities. Compare Dongle vs. a real lunatic, like Kairosfocus or BornAgain77, with their long list of links to YouTube videos about the quantum powers of the Shroud of Turin and every form of bat-shit occultism.

How can you be sure I'm not just warming up? How can you be sure I don't place links to other creationist intellectuals because God called me to fulfill that role?

Dave Luckett · 10 May 2013

You're busted, Dongle. Humour. Dead giveaway. You're a poe.

Paul Burnett · 10 May 2013

Werewolf Dongle mentioned "creationist intellectuals"

[chortle] Luckily, I have a coffee-proof keyboard... Please, Wolfie, name a few of the brightest lights of the "creationist intellectual" pantheon. It will be interesting to see if Dembski/Meyer/Behe/et al are on the list - or Morris/Gish/et al are - or (more likely) Hovind/Comfort/Ham/et al. Which will it be? We await with baited breath.

Jon Fleming · 10 May 2013

We await with baited breath

. One of my pet peeves. Baited breath lures varmints into your mouth. Bated breath is holding yur breath in anticipation of something.

Paul Burnett · 10 May 2013

Jon Fleming said:
We await with baited breath
. One of my pet peeves. Baited breath lures varmints into your mouth. Bated breath is holding yur breath in anticipation of something.

I know that - I was baiting him - I used the term correctly. [srsly]

Just Bob · 12 May 2013

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig's ass.

(I know folks with a name pronounced like that, but some ancestor had the good sense to spell it 'Hamm'.

harold · 12 May 2013

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem

This part is almost certain to be true.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 May 2013

Just Bob said: My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig's ass.

There's something about Ham that's just not kosher.

harold · 12 May 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
Just Bob said: My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig's ass.
There's something about Ham that's just not kosher.

For some reason, the other creationists don't seem to like his sons. I hear them going off about the Sons of Ham from time to time.