Rush Limbaugh: "Why are there still apes?"

If knowledge came out of ignorance, why are there still ignorant people around?

Like Rush, for instance.

Glen Davidson

Well if we all used to be apes, that explains why Rush has the mental prowess of an orangutang.

Hey Rush, if we all came from Europe, why are there still Europeans? If you came from your ancestors, why are your grandparents still alive?

Get a clue Poindexter. Learn the difference between "used to be" and "are descended from". And whatever the hell "were the original" is supposed to mean, it isn't even wrong, it just aspires to wrongness.

Meh. Attention whores will say anything to get noticed.

DS said: Well if we all used to be apes, that explains why Rush has the mental prowess of an orangutang. Hey Rush, if we all came from Europe, why are there still Europeans? If you came from your ancestors, why are your grandparents still alive? Get a clue Poindexter. Learn the difference between "used to be" and "are descended from". And whatever the hell "were the original" is supposed to mean, it isn't even wrong, it just aspires to wrongness.

One of the better treatments of this is in the RationalWiki page "How come there are still monkeys?"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys%3F

IMHO, it is not that he is ignorant, it's that people that listen to him are gullible.

Never mind monkeys and apes; get a detailed genetic tree leading to humans, pick the side branch at each of the known branch points (where that side branch isn't extinct yet), and get a really long list of "why are there still [something]" questions.

Limbaugh Rock

Every Limbaugh boy and girl

All around the Limbaugh world

Gonna do the Limbaugh schlock

All around the Limbaugh clock

Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick

Rush beat 'em up with his Limbaugh shtick

All around the Limbaugh clock

Watch him do the Limbaugh schlock

Limbaugh lower now

Limbaugh lower now

How low can he go?

First he grab his Limbaugh seat

Then he yaks at the Limbaugh beat

Limbaugh scream at the "enemy",

Bend the truth like a Limbaugh tree

Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick

Rush beat 'em up with his Limbaugh shtick

All around the Limbaugh clock

Watch him do his Limbaugh schlock.

Limbaugh lower now

Put your mind in Limbaugh

Feel the Rush!

DS said: Well if we all used to be apes, that explains why Rush has the mental prowess of an orangutang. Hey Rush, if we all came from Europe, why are there still Europeans? If you came from your ancestors, why are your grandparents still alive? Get a clue Poindexter. Learn the difference between "used to be" and "are descended from". And whatever the hell "were the original" is supposed to mean, it isn't even wrong, it just aspires to wrongness.

One of the more idiotic quips I’ve heard (more than once, I’m sad to say) from creationists is, “If humans evolved from apes, then how come there are still apes around?” I can’t speak for the creationists’ immediate ancestry, but mine runs something like this: one of my great-great-grandfathers was named Williams. Among his offspring, one married a Jones and produced children who were Joneses. One of those children had children of her own who were neither Williamses nor Joneses, but Simpsons. A Simpson daughter produced me, who am none of the above, but a Granger. [All names changed] Thus, Williamses gave rise to descendants who are no longer Williamses. Some have become Grangers. But some Williams descendants are still Williamses! There are still Williamses around, even though some of their descendants “evolved” into Grangers, and a lot of other “species.” This isn’t biological evolution, of course, but the principle is exactly the same: an ancestor can produce descendants which are very like itself (of the same species), while at the same time having other descendants (many generations down the line) which have become something else. The existence of descendants which have varied widely doesn’t mean the original type has ceased to exist, or that there wasn’t, in fact, a common ancestor. That’s as true of anthropoids and Homo as it is of your ancestors, you, and those third cousins who retain the ancestral name that your branch of the family no longer uses.

Scott F said:

DS said: Well if we all used to be apes, that explains why Rush has the mental prowess of an orangutang. Hey Rush, if we all came from Europe, why are there still Europeans? If you came from your ancestors, why are your grandparents still alive? Get a clue Poindexter. Learn the difference between "used to be" and "are descended from". And whatever the hell "were the original" is supposed to mean, it isn't even wrong, it just aspires to wrongness.

Sorry, but I think the proper analogy would be, "If you are descended from your grandparents, why do you still have cousins?" "If you are descended from your great-grandparents, why do you still have second cousins?" Etc. (Have you ever heard of the term "Nibling"? It was a new one on me. :-)

I don't think Rush is a YEC creationist but hopefully. I suspect he is one of those in the stats that , vaguely, questions evolution.
The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving.
Thats the reasoning.
The same with living fossils.
Why is their instinct wrong? If man surged ahead why didn't the primates , by this time, be a lot, or somewhat further along on the road to us??
Why so static? Especially for primates which, we being the example, are the greatest evolving creatures especially intellectually.
Its tapping into the timeline of things going from A to B in body types.
for the common people its a reasonable criticism or questioning.

Byers' post needs a few croutons and a nice vinaigrette, but otherwise it's perfect.

Robert Byers said: The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning.

Observe, though, the assumption: that man is more "advanced". This is the Great Chain of Being: the misconception that there are higher forms and lower forms. That is, Byers is basing his criticism on the very thing that evolution isn't. He's flailing away at a straw man.

Byers, the great apes (and the mosquitoes, tapeworms, chiggers, crocodiles, bacteria... all living things) are as evolved as we are. We are not more "advanced" in evolution than they are. They have evolved to suit a particular niche in a particular environment, and so have we - with one caveat, which is that in doing that we evolved the ability to change the environment to suit ourselves. Many other life-forms do that, of course, but we do it more.

That might be our downfall, mind. In which case, evolution will cull us out. Because we're not privileged in any way. We're not more advanced. We just evolved different traits that have worked so far. More or less.

Dave Luckett said: Observe, though, the assumption: that man is more "advanced". This is the Great Chain of Being: the misconception that there are higher forms and lower forms. That is, Byers is basing his criticism on the very thing that evolution isn't. He's flailing away at a straw man. Byers, the great apes (and the mosquitoes, tapeworms, chiggers, crocodiles, bacteria... all living things) are as evolved as we are. We are not more "advanced" in evolution than they are. They have evolved to suit a particular niche in a particular environment, and so have we - with one caveat, which is that in doing that we evolved the ability to change the environment to suit ourselves. Many other life-forms do that, of course, but we do it more. That might be our downfall, mind. In which case, evolution will cull us out. Because we're not privileged in any way. We're not more advanced. We just evolved different traits that have worked so far. More or less.

Malcolm said: Even in this, we are not alone. Beavers change their environment to suit themselves.

I think Rush knows better but says this to stir up a little controversy as he has become fairly irrelevant and finds it hard to compete with Trump.

eric said:

Malcolm said: Even in this, we are not alone. Beavers change their environment to suit themselves.

The more I've thought about animal intelligence and capabilities over the years, the more I've come round to this conclusion: the biologically unique thing about humans is our enlarged forebrain. Any mental, cognitive, learning etc. capability that doesn't require an enlarged forebrain to work can be done by nonsentient animals, and probably is done by at least some of them.

Human intelligence (sapiens level) has had a very short run so far. It has a long run to go to prove whether it is successful in the long run. If our "advancements" in destroying our own habitat for near-term convenience and profit, and developing weapons that can end civilization overnight make Man a flash in the evolutionary pan, then those "advancements" will have proved more curse than blessing.

Just Bob said: Human intelligence (sapiens level) has had a very short run so far. It has a long run to go to prove whether it is successful in the long run. If our "advancements" in destroying our own habitat for near-term convenience and profit, and developing weapons that can end civilization overnight make Man a flash in the evolutionary pan, then those "advancements" will have proved more curse than blessing.

Robert Byers said: I don't think...

I don’t think Rush is a YEC creationist but hopefully.

I suspect he is one of those in the stats that , vaguely, questions evolution.

The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning. The same with living fossils. Why is their instinct wrong? If man surged ahead why didn’t the primates , by this time, be a lot, or somewhat further along on the road to us?? Why so static? Especially for primates which, we being the example, are the greatest evolving creatures especially intellectually. Its tapping into the timeline of things going from A to B in body types. for the common people its a reasonable criticism or questioning.

MichaelJ said: I think Rush knows better but says this to stir up a little controversy as he has become fairly irrelevant and finds it hard to compete with Trump.

To his credit, although he is an evolution denier, Rush Limbaugh is a staunch defender of mainstream science on other topics, even if it means flying in the face of the conservative movement and taking some heat for it.

Just kidding!!!! The main differences between Rush and the science deniers who post here are - 1) He's a lot more sarcastic and obnoxious (comparatively), 2) he doesn't go where he could be rebutted, and 3) he gets paid a lot of money for this crap.

Evolution, climate change, tobacco, HIV - all the usual suspects...

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/11/climate-change-expert-rush-limbaugh-declares-there-is-no-climate-change/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/25/quick_hits_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjPESLP9RA4 (Since some readers of this blog can't detect sarcasm, Rush is mocking the connection between tobacco and health, not providing a public health service).

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/05/tobacco_serum_saved_two_white_american_ebola_victims

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning.

But primates *did* continue to evolve. The monkeys and apes that we see today are *not* the species that both they are us evolved from. Your "simple" reasoning is exactly this: Because you evolved from your grandparents, why are your cousins alive? That is what you and Limbaugh are both arguing. And, while it is very "simple" idea, it is total nonsense. Science, Evolution, says that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a shared common ancestor, just like you and your cousin are both descended from your common grand parents. Science does not say that modern humans are descended from modern apes. Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you? Oh, right. I forgot. You don't believe in genealogy either. If your great grandparents are dead, you and your second cousins could not possibly be descended from them. You are therefore specially created, and not related to your cousins in any way. Because your grandparents aren't there any more to witness for you. Am I right?

Robert Byers said: You make my point. YES. Primates should of kept evolving and so WHY didn't they evole out of simple animal minds etc. Rush is saying we evolved quite a lot, according to evolutionists, and so why so little for primates. Thats the instinct of people on this point. Its not my point as I'm thick into these matters. Its reasonable in its substance. nothing to do with cousins. Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning.

But primates *did* continue to evolve. The monkeys and apes that we see today are *not* the species that both they are us evolved from. Your "simple" reasoning is exactly this: Because you evolved from your grandparents, why are your cousins alive? That is what you and Limbaugh are both arguing. And, while it is very "simple" idea, it is total nonsense. Science, Evolution, says that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a shared common ancestor, just like you and your cousin are both descended from your common grand parents. Science does not say that modern humans are descended from modern apes. Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you? Oh, right. I forgot. You don't believe in genealogy either. If your great grandparents are dead, you and your second cousins could not possibly be descended from them. You are therefore specially created, and not related to your cousins in any way. Because your grandparents aren't there any more to witness for you. Am I right?

You make my point. YES. Primates should of kept evolving and so WHY didn't they evole out of simple animal minds etc. Rush is saying we evolved quite a lot, according to evolutionists, and so why so little for primates. Thats the instinct of people on this point. Its not my point as I'm thick into these matters. Its reasonable in its substance. nothing to do with cousins. Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

phhht said: Gods you're dumb, Byers.

Byers asks: WHY didn’t they (apes) evole out of simple animal minds etc.

Dave Luckett said: The reason the apes did not go on to develop more human-like minds was because they continued to live in forests and jungles where they didn't need them. Our ancestors were faced with shrinking forests turning to grassland and savannah where they had to cope with a more varied environment and a wider array of food sources.

Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

There was a press release carried by EurekAlert.org on May 23 with the title "Did human-like intelligence evolve to care for helpless babies?"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/uor-dhi052216.php

On the other hand, how does "Intelligent Design" or creation or any other alternative account for human intelligence? I won't take as an answer that "that's just the way that it is" - or any equivalent like "something that I don't have any understanding about other than it is apt to do anything might have done it".

Dave Luckett said: There is no graduation, no continuum, no shading, no degrees of difference. I suspect that this authoritarianism alone is half the reason why fundies can't get evolution. They simply can't grok small differences in degree.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: There is no graduation, no continuum, no shading, no degrees of difference. I suspect that this authoritarianism alone is half the reason why fundies can't get evolution. They simply can't grok small differences in degree.

It's not just "black or white" thinking, it's also "all or none": When evolution says, "We evolved from earlier apes," what they hear is, "Apes evolved into humans," which to them means ALL apes. And look! There are still apes, so evolution is wrong!

Michael Fugate said:

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: There is no graduation, no continuum, no shading, no degrees of difference. I suspect that this authoritarianism alone is half the reason why fundies can't get evolution. They simply can't grok small differences in degree.

It's not just "black or white" thinking, it's also "all or none": When evolution says, "We evolved from earlier apes," what they hear is, "Apes evolved into humans," which to them means ALL apes. And look! There are still apes, so evolution is wrong!

There's also the human exceptionalism trope - why wouldn't every other animal want to like us - god's image and so on.

There are still apes because enough jungle is still there for some of them to still live in it.

The best answer to why aren't (other) apes evolving into humans is that no two species can occupy the same niche in the same area. Other hominins did exist, but only the H. sapiens line remains (with some minor genetic additions from Neanderthals, Denisovans, and perhaps some others), probably because although niches differed somewhat among hominins there was too much overlap between, say, H. neandertalis and H. sapiens for both to co-exist in Eurasia. Some hominins, to be sure, might not have competed with us much, and they lost out to baboons or simply climate change or some such thing, but whether we killed or simply out-competed (or simply overwhelmed by greater numbers) the hominids that were much like us, co-existence really wouldn't work evolutionarily.

Apes entering the stone age aren't going to compete well with humans having metals, silicon chips, and evolutionary theory. Even Neandertals not that much different than us were not going to persist, if we did.

I mean really, the question of why apes aren't evolving to be humans (at least humanoid) isn't any better than the question of why we aren't evolving to become gorillas (at least gorilloid). We're not evolving to fit the gorilla niche because gorillas are already there, and they would pound us into the ground if we tried to take over their territories, living like they do.

Glen Davidson

TomS said: There was a press release carried by EurekAlert.org on May 23 with the title "Did human-like intelligence evolve to care for helpless babies?" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/uor-dhi052216.php

After we kill off all the apes, a better question will be, why are there no more apes? Unless of course Planet of the Apes turns out to be real in the future.

DS said: After we kill off all the apes, a better question will be, why are there no more apes? Unless of course Planet of the Apes turns out to be real in the future.

"Excuse me, but if I kill all the golfers ..."

Bill Murray from Caddy Shack

Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you?

The answer to that question might explain a great deal.

Re "Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you?"

The theory of relativity is irreducibly complex?

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said: The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning.

Scott F said: But primates *did* continue to evolve. The monkeys and apes that we see today are *not* the species that both they are us evolved from. Your "simple" reasoning is exactly this: Because you evolved from your grandparents, why are your cousins alive? That is what you and Limbaugh are both arguing. And, while it is very "simple" idea, it is total nonsense. Science, Evolution, says that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a shared common ancestor, just like you and your cousin are both descended from your common grand parents. Science does not say that modern humans are descended from modern apes. Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you? Oh, right. I forgot. You don't believe in genealogy either. If your great grandparents are dead, you and your second cousins could not possibly be descended from them. You are therefore specially created, and not related to your cousins in any way. Because your grandparents aren't there any more to witness for you. Am I right?

You make my point. YES. Primates should of kept evolving and so WHY didn't they evole out of simple animal minds etc.

Rush is saying we evolved quite a lot, according to evolutionists, and so why so little for primates. Thats the instinct of people on this point. Its not my point as I'm thick into these matters.

Its reasonable in its substance. nothing to do with cousins. Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

Re “Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you?”

Bending that line from a certain comedian: if your branch of the family tree don't fork, you just might be a creationist.

DS said:

Robert Byers said: You make my point. YES. Primates should of kept evolving and so WHY didn't they evole out of simple animal minds etc. Rush is saying we evolved quite a lot, according to evolutionists, and so why so little for primates. Thats the instinct of people on this point. Its not my point as I'm thick into these matters. Its reasonable in its substance. nothing to do with cousins. Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

No booby, you make my point for me. bacterias should have kept evolving two, but there is still bacterias. and no scientist has ever noticed this! only you booby. you must be smarter than all of thems. it has to do with cousins booby, the chimp is your cousin. Don't Rush to conclusions thats just wrong. you sure is thick on these matters.

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said: The reason people say this about WHEREFOR the present apes if evolution is going on IS based simply on the idea that if evolution over time turned man from ape into us then why would primates also not of kept evolving. Thats the reasoning.

Scott F said: But primates *did* continue to evolve. The monkeys and apes that we see today are *not* the species that both they are us evolved from. Your "simple" reasoning is exactly this: Because you evolved from your grandparents, why are your cousins alive? That is what you and Limbaugh are both arguing. And, while it is very "simple" idea, it is total nonsense. Science, Evolution, says that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a shared common ancestor, just like you and your cousin are both descended from your common grand parents. Science does not say that modern humans are descended from modern apes. Why is the relationship between you, your cousin, and your grand parents such a difficult concept for you? Oh, right. I forgot. You don't believe in genealogy either. If your great grandparents are dead, you and your second cousins could not possibly be descended from them. You are therefore specially created, and not related to your cousins in any way. Because your grandparents aren't there any more to witness for you. Am I right?

You make my point. YES. Primates should of kept evolving and so WHY didn't they evole out of simple animal minds etc.

Rush is saying we evolved quite a lot, according to evolutionists, and so why so little for primates. Thats the instinct of people on this point. Its not my point as I'm thick into these matters.

Its reasonable in its substance. nothing to do with cousins. Its about the Static position of primates relative to us. Why are primates still around and not another humanoid species if evolution is true is what Rush is saying.

Robert Byers said: Robert Byers replied to a comment from Scott F | June 4, 2016 8:57 PM | Reply

Its not like dogs and wolves. Its about how much we have been claimed to have evolved, intellectually etc, relative to primates. Why are they so behind if evolution has been going on for both and we see our results. Its a comparative point that leads to questioning the presumption of common descent. Its a minor point but a good one. its like the living fossil problem in evolution.

Byers said:
So, since dogs evolved from wolves like Dr. Georgia Purdom says, why are there still wolves? Why didn’t the wolves evolve into “better” animals? More to the point, since the Chihuahua evolved from a wolf, does that make the Chihuahua “better” than the wolf? I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the wimpiest, mangiest wolf is smarter, faster, and more robust that the best Chihuahua out there.

Creationists are hung up on the term "better." We have taken a different path than chimps and gorillas, therefore we are "better." The poor Chihuahua has taken a bad route and is "out-bettered" by the wolf. Creationists cling to this notion because it fits in with their religious myths, that humans are in charge because they are better, or should I venture to say "best." If some deity created us, then obviously we must be better than all else, i.e., we're the "best" there is!

There are approximately 5×1030 bacteria on Earth,... forming a biomass which exceeds that of all plants and animals. (Wikipedia)

Dave Luckett said: ... can't account for the human intellect unless God installed it by fiat.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Robert Byers replied to a comment from Scott F | June 4, 2016 8:57 PM | Reply

That was never Robert Byers.

Scott F said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Robert Byers replied to a comment from Scott F | June 4, 2016 8:57 PM | Reply

That was never Robert Byers.

Indeed. That was my reply to Robert's comment. No idea how that happened.

dinosaurs, for example, going extinct despite being mightier than their successors.

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] Its not like dogs and wolves. Its about how much we have been claimed to have evolved, intellectually etc, relative to primates. Why are they so behind if evolution has been going on for both and we see our results. Its a comparative point that leads to questioning the presumption of common descent. Its a minor point but a good one. its like the living fossil problem in evolution.

I think our creationist friend has 2 misconceptions:

1. That Species 1 uniformly evolves into Species 2; hence the question, why are there still members of Species 1?

2. That Species 1 can evolve into 1 and only 1 descendant species, whereas in fact Species 1 can evolve into Species 2, 3, 4, ....

He undoubtedly has more than just these 2, but they explain a great deal of his "thinking" about evolution.

Maybe 3 misconceptions:

3. That Species 1 must disappear if it (that is, subsets of it) evolves into 1 or more new species.

Matt Young said: Maybe 3 misconceptions: 3. That Species 1 must disappear if it (that is, subsets of it) evolves into 1 or more new species.

eric said:

Matt Young said: Maybe 3 misconceptions: 3. That Species 1 must disappear if it (that is, subsets of it) evolves into 1 or more new species.

My cynical side says its much, much worse than that. I think some creationists think evolution is literally like the change described in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Land that Time Forgot series. They think that evolution claims at some point in the past there was some individual animal that started off life as a fish or tadpole, then became an amphibian, then a small furry mammal, then a larger mammal, then a chimpanzee, and finally a human. Crazy, I know. But in this case I think we have to go with HL Mencken - nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people...

One thing I remember noticing (and not specifically about creationism, though it certainly applies here) is that it is fairly straightforward to rebut a statement that is wrong in a particular detail and much harder to begin to respond to a statement that represents a complete lack of understanding of the matter at hand. I confess I go slack-jawed when it happens in real life, and could easily look as if I have "conceded" the "debate" when I'm just perplexed about what to say next that could make any difference.

There's a temptation to start teaching the fundamentals that would be necessary to have an informed discussion... which is almost always the wrong approach (you don't have a student; you have an adversary). Even worse is the temptation to go off into the weeds on details that make no difference unless your adversary (or the audience they're addressing, possibly disingenuously) has a better understanding of the matter than they possibly can, given the howler they just delivered.

"Why are there still apes?" clearly falls into this category (and didn't Larry King also use this years back?). I mean, I guess it's OK to discuss here for fun, but it is such an old canard (and one that I don't even quite get what the point is supposed to be, and don't think I would have when I was a 10 year old kid in the 1970s and knew at least a little about how evolution worked). Most likely the correct response to this is to waste no time by pointing out that it's wrong and citing a link to the counterargument (easy enough on the internet, not as much in real life; should we all carry laminated cards?). Obviously, it won't work on a radio blowhard with millions of fans, but extended discussion gives unnecessary credibility to a statement that is best classified as a non-sequitur, no more meaningful than "If evolution happened, why is there a fish in my trousers?"

I suppose you could say that the validity of a theory doesn't depend on somebody being able to convince somebody who hasn't studied the evidence or reasoning behind the theory, but then they wouldn't listen to that, either.

He seems to believe that “evolution” claims that individual creatures (not just species) “evolve” into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

Well, as some smart person once said, only two things are infinite... the universe, and human stupidity. And he wasn't certain about the former.

PaulBC said: One thing I remember noticing (and not specifically about creationism, though it certainly applies here) is that it is fairly straightforward to rebut a statement that is wrong in a particular detail and much harder to begin to respond to a statement that represents a complete lack of understanding of the matter at hand. I confess I go slack-jawed when it happens in real life, and could easily look as if I have "conceded" the "debate" when I'm just perplexed about what to say next that could make any difference. There's a temptation to start teaching the fundamentals that would be necessary to have an informed discussion... which is almost always the wrong approach (you don't have a student; you have an adversary). Even worse is the temptation to go off into the weeds on details that make no difference unless your adversary (or the audience they're addressing, possibly disingenuously) has a better understanding of the matter than they possibly can, given the howler they just delivered. "Why are there still apes?" clearly falls into this category (and didn't Larry King also use this years back?). I mean, I guess it's OK to discuss here for fun, but it is such an old canard (and one that I don't even quite get what the point is supposed to be, and don't think I would have when I was a 10 year old kid in the 1970s and knew at least a little about how evolution worked). Most likely the correct response to this is to waste no time by pointing out that it's wrong and citing a link to the counterargument (easy enough on the internet, not as much in real life; should we all carry laminated cards?). Obviously, it won't work on a radio blowhard with millions of fans, but extended discussion gives unnecessary credibility to a statement that is best classified as a non-sequitur, no more meaningful than "If evolution happened, why is there a fish in my trousers?"

Robert Byers burbled: Why are they still as they were when we were one tribe?

Robert Byers said: wHY ARE THERE STILL APES? is a minor but good point. If we were one tribe of primate and WE evolved so high then why did the others not? Why are they still as they were when we were one tribe?

Gorillas are also not "still as they were." There is fossil evidence for somewhat gorilla-like primates millions of years ago (just did a cursory search), but none of them (as far as I know) resembled modern gorillas very closely.

Scott F said:

eric said:

Matt Young said: Maybe 3 misconceptions: 3. That Species 1 must disappear if it (that is, subsets of it) evolves into 1 or more new species.

My cynical side says its much, much worse than that. I think some creationists think evolution is literally like the change described in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Land that Time Forgot series. They think that evolution claims at some point in the past there was some individual animal that started off life as a fish or tadpole, then became an amphibian, then a small furry mammal, then a larger mammal, then a chimpanzee, and finally a human. Crazy, I know. But in this case I think we have to go with HL Mencken - nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people...

I think that is Rush Limbaugh's problem. He can't understand why this individual gorilla in captivity did not "evolve" into a human. Or rather, he seems to think that's what would happen if "evolution" were true. He seems to believe that "evolution" claims that individual creatures (not just species) "evolve" into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

He seems to believe that “evolution” claims that individual creatures (not just species) “evolve” into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

Robert Byers said: wHY ARE THERE STILL APES? is a minor but good point. If we were one tribe of primate and WE evolved so high then why did the others not? Why are they still as they were when we were one tribe?

Rolf said:

He seems to believe that “evolution” claims that individual creatures (not just species) “evolve” into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

I think that is a common misunderstanding with creationists; they don't seem to spend much effort at learning biology or understanding genetics. Haven't principles of breeding been understood by cattle and sheep herders since time immemorial?

If you just say “Obviously, you know nothing about evolution.” you won’t win a popularity contest. If you try to be any nicer, though, you lend credibility to an incredibly bone-headed fallacy.

Robert Byers said: Intellectually they [gorillas] went no where. Standing still. Its reasonable to see that.

So anyone suspicious/or convinced against evolutions claims would need a good answer rather then IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY.

Posters here say the "other" primates did evolve but went in different directions. WELL what if they didn't.

What if intellectually they stayed as smart as they were when we were one tribe and benn static ever since. Would this prove rush is right?

Rush is famous, influential, rich, because he is sharp. This is a sharp point of his.

Narcissism. Why wouldn't everyone want to be like me; I am the best. Evidence, Schmevidence. Who needs evidence when my intuition tells me I am the crown of creation? Can you outrun a cheetah, outsee an eagle, can you outfly a hummingbird, can you outclimb a squirrel, outsmell a wolf, outhear an owl, outswim a tuna, etc. etc.

harold said: It is much more than passive lack of learning; there is a strong, active bias to avoid, distort, and contradict anything that seems to support evolution.

The point of rebutting creationist arguments is to demonstrate to potentially reasonable third parties that creationists are not speaking accurately about the theory of evolution.

So who is this “retort” intended for? It seems intended only for those with a specific, learned, misunderstanding of evolution.

Part of this can be blamed on popular portrayals (graphics of ape-to-human sequences) but I think the real blame lies squarely on the intentional promotion of a strawman form of evolution: ‘(a) Evolution is a process that moves towards a global optimum [no it is not] (b) Human beings represent the pinnacle of all living things [no we do not]’

Rolf said:

He seems to believe that “evolution” claims that individual creatures (not just species) “evolve” into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

I think that is a common misunderstanding with creationists; they don't seem to spend much effort at learning biology or understanding genetics. Haven't principles of breeding been understood by cattle and sheep herders since time immemorial?

Mike Elzinga said:

Rolf said:

He seems to believe that “evolution” claims that individual creatures (not just species) “evolve” into another species within the lifespan of that single individual creature.

I think that is a common misunderstanding with creationists; they don't seem to spend much effort at learning biology or understanding genetics. Haven't principles of breeding been understood by cattle and sheep herders since time immemorial?

They have this problem with all of science; which includes physics, chemistry, and geology. They flunk math also. ID/creationists as a group are very poorly educated; and it is their own fault. They spend their entire lives bending an breaking scientific and math concepts so that these concepts comport with their sectarian beliefs. The end result is that their "science' and "math" have nothing to do with the real world; but it is self-consistent to them. Very early on, back in the 1960s and 70s when I first encountered their "arguments," I was misled by their seeming articulateness and erudition into thinking they were well-educated; but it turns out that they are not, not even their PhDs. As a subculture, they have built up a characteristic patter about all sorts of things that they all recite from memory as part of their "witnessing" to the secular world; which they see as morally inferior to themselves. We in the secular world can't possibly have morals because we don't have a "moral compass" based on their religion. We also can't learn anything either, because all logic and the ability to think and reason comes from their deity; and we don't have their deity, but they do. So they see themselves as having a duty as morally superior humans to condenscend to teaching us that science is wrong.

PaulBC said:

Robert Byers said: wHY ARE THERE STILL APES? is a minor but good point. If we were one tribe of primate and WE evolved so high then why did the others not? Why are they still as they were when we were one tribe?

The question starts with a specific misunderstanding that evolution implies something that it does not. Non-human primates such as gorillas are very successful in their environmental niches (at least until we destroy their habitat). At some point, the ancestors of humans and gorillas split off by being adapted to entirely different niches, but that doesn't make us any better than gorillas at living like gorillas in their environment. So there is room for gorillas and humans to exist, and we both exist (until we destroy the gorillas' habitat, which is increasingly likely). It is really a non-issue. No one is "evolved so high". Pandas are way better at exploiting bamboo for food than we are. Giraffes are way better at reaching high tree leaves, not to mention digesting them. There is not a single goal that every species is evolving towards. The reason I am dumbfounded by the question is that it seems harder to misunderstand evolution is such a way to take the question seriously than it is just to understand evolution a little, not as rigorously as a biologist, to see that the diversity of species is consistent with the theory of evolution--indeed precisely what evolution was proposed to explain in the first place. Maybe it is related to the misconception that humans "evolved from chimps" rather than sharing a common ancestor with modern chimps, but there were books accessible to a 10 year old in the 1970s that made this point very clearly. It seems to require not merely a lack of knowledge of evolution but a specific, distorted and even counterintuitive misunderstanding of evolution that leads to the retort "Why are there still apes?" In the above I am obviously breaking my own rule. I don't really expect Byers of all people to be swayed by an explanation. It doesn't matter that much, but at a meta-level, I still wonder what is the best rhetorical response to complete non sequiturs. This is a little more pernicious, because I guess there are people who think it makes sense as a rebuttal. If you just say "Obviously, you know nothing about evolution." you won't win a popularity contest. If you try to be any nicer, though, you lend credibility to an incredibly bone-headed fallacy.

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Scott F said: Let me address some points that others haven't addressed yet.

Robert Byers said: Intellectually they [gorillas] went no where. Standing still. Its reasonable to see that.

Why is that reasonable to see? How do you know that modern gorilla's are *not* more intelligent than our common ancestor from 7 million years ago? Modern gorilla's can use sign language to communicate with humans. Was the gorilla ancestor able to use human sign language 7 million years ago? How do you know? That's all dead and in the past. That's just comparing two things. How do you know how intelligent hominids were 7 million years ago?

So anyone suspicious/or convinced against evolutions claims would need a good answer rather then IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY.

But Science doesn't say, "It just happened that way." In some cases, Science says, "We don't know, yet, but we're working on finding an answer." However, in many cases, Science actually has an explanation. We can point to specific genes in the gorilla genome, and say, "See? Right here is why it happened." In contrast, the only explanation that Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design can offer is, "God just did it that way, and stop asking such questions." You see, "IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY" is the YEC and the ID answer. It is *not* the Evolution answer.

Posters here say the "other" primates did evolve but went in different directions. WELL what if they didn't.

But they *did* evolve in different directions. "What if" questions don't apply. We're talking about what *did* happen.

What if intellectually they stayed as smart as they were when we were one tribe and benn static ever since. Would this prove rush is right?

No, that is irrelevant. This has already been explained. Different species adapt in different ways. Some get longer necks. Some get stronger, longer arms. Some learn to fly. Some learn to swim. (Whales can dive 10 times deeper than modern submarines.) Some creatures learn to walk upright, and some grow smarter.

Rush is famous, influential, rich, because he is sharp. This is a sharp point of his.

Ah, yes. That's the Trump answer. "I'm right, because I'm rich and famous." Trump is rich. Trump says there is no drought in California. If he's rich, he must be right, even though every climate scientist in the world says that California is in the midst of an historic drought. That's what you're saying about Limbaugh. There's an actual term for that formal logical fallacy: argumentum ad crumenam [But then you don't know anything about logic, either.] Michael Jordan is rich and famous. Should we rely on him for advice on Science? On Christian Theology, perhaps? Jesus was poor. Should we reject all of the good things that Jesus said because he wasn't rich? Why does being "rich" make you "smart" in all areas of science?

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Nope. Prove it wrong. In a scholarly way please.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Nope. Prove it wrong. In a scholarly way please.

The only purpose in answering Byers is that others might read it. He won't.

But he has been answered. Humans evolved in a different direction from other primates because our ancestors coped successfully with different circumstances, by evolving different adaptations. It's really very simple. Even Byers could understand it. Probably he does understand it, it's just that he won't let on.

Byers asks for what-he-calls biological scientific evidence for evolution. He protects himself against any such evidence by his peculiar definition of "biological", by which he apparently means only the processes observed in living things here and now - and not all of those, only the ones he finds acceptable. So the entire fields of paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, geology, paleoclimatology, mathematical modelling, geographical distribution, and any observation of past conditions whatsoever are all excluded, by command of Byers. These fields of study must necessarily provide most of the actual physical evidence for evolution, because evolution becomes noticeable over deep time. This evidence is voluminous and commanding - but Byers at a stroke gives himself licence simply to ignore it.

It's like arguing with someone who demands proof that the sky is blue while refusing to look upwards.

May I point out a difficulty in arguing about "human" abilities vs. "(non-human) ape" abilities. That is too abstract. Not every human has every one of the distinctive human abilities. Not every human has the ability to speak - not severely handicapped, injured or diseased people, nor infants. If you take the ability to speak as definitive of humanity, you are leaving such individuals outside of humanity.

I need not point out the consequences.

The way I understand Byers, forensic science is useless. You have to be present at the crime scene to know what events took place. Anything else is guesswork, conjecture, fabrication.

Robert Byers said: Rush and everyone question we evolved because of this vpoint that the other primates, from some common descent tribe, DID NOT EVOLVE like us.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Nope. Prove it wrong. In a scholarly way please.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Nope. Prove it wrong. In a scholarly way please.

Already did, you ignored it as usual. You don't do anything in a scholarly way, why do you demand it of others? You're just another hypocrite with a double standard. You have never once provided any reference from the scientific literature to support any of your nonsense. Until you do, you don't deserve any response at all to your idiotic whining. Creationism is subatomic and unproven. There is no biological scientific evidence for creationism. There, was that "scholarly" enough for you?

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Robert Byers said: we never were animals.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Okay, Robert. This should be very easy. What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents? I know that you don't have it. I certainly don't have it in hand. But let's pretend that you had access to such "biological scientific evidence". Let's pretend that you could gather whatever evidence you felt was required. What would that evidence look like? How would we test it to "prove" that you are related to your parents? In a "scholarly way", please. Because, if you cannot prove that you are related to your parents, then there is no possible way to prove any relationship between any other two animals.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: we never were animals.

Robert, as much as you try to prove otherwise, you are not a vegetable. Therefore, you are an animal.

It's not that creationists "can't understand", it's that they "can't admit".

Despite extreme challenges with spelling and grammar, Robert Byers occasionally comes closer to making an accurate statement than most other creationists.

Whether or not he could hypothetically form a good understanding of the theory of evolution is totally irrelevant.

We have numerous examples of evolution denying ideologues who have advanced degrees, write books about calculus, etc.

If you use the "can't understand" model you'll always get it wrong. You'll always claim that Cletus from Appalachia is the source of the problem, while the DI is actually located in Seattle and staffed with dissembling upper class people with advanced degrees. The Thomas More Law Center is in Ann Arbor MI and staffed with attorneys. If you use the "yokels who can't understand" model, you'll be the one scratching your butt like a stereotypical yokel, while some right wing school official with a PhD in Education from Liberty University forces creationism into your local school district.

If you use the "can't admit" model, though, you'll get it right.

Regardless of ability to understand, which in the case of ideological evolution deniers is irrelevant, they can't admit that the theory of evolution makes sense.

They also can't admit their own ideological rigidity and nihilism. They can't say "evidence and logic be damned, I claim to believe that the KJV version of Genesis is a scientific publication, and nothing you can do can stop me."

They have to pretend to be rational, but they simultaneously have to deny scientific reality.

Since the theory of evolution is supported by multiple converging lines of evidence, each one quite convincing on its own, they are forced to scramble around coming up with asinine ad hoc contradictions for multiple things at once, often contradicting themselves in the process.

Since the theory of evolution rests on conclusions that follow logically from the evidence, and they can't overtly admit that they reject logic, they have to make use of every childish logical fallacy trick that ancient philosophers ever labeled with a Latin name, and then some.

Their ideology forces them to pretend to be "reasonable", while simultaneously obsessively denying scientific reality. It has nothing to do with intelligence, or to some degree even education (although biomedical education does tend to make the denial substantially harder to maintain, whereas law or even engineering education doesn't seem to).

Robert Byers said: Its all about comparative paradigms. ALL.! Right or wrong thats all there is folks about past and gone processes and results.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Okay, Robert. This should be very easy. What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents? I know that you don't have it. I certainly don't have it in hand. But let's pretend that you had access to such "biological scientific evidence". Let's pretend that you could gather whatever evidence you felt was required. What would that evidence look like? How would we test it to "prove" that you are related to your parents? In a "scholarly way", please. Because, if you cannot prove that you are related to your parents, then there is no possible way to prove any relationship between any other two animals.

harold said: Regardless of ability to understand, which in the case of ideological evolution deniers is irrelevant, they can't admit that the theory of evolution makes sense. They also can't admit their own ideological rigidity and nihilism. They can't say "evidence and logic be damned, I claim to believe that the KJV version of Genesis is a scientific publication, and nothing you can do can stop me."

So they haven't learned that variety is the spice of life? Huh.

DS said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Okay, Robert. This should be very easy. What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents? I know that you don't have it. I certainly don't have it in hand. But let's pretend that you had access to such "biological scientific evidence". Let's pretend that you could gather whatever evidence you felt was required. What would that evidence look like? How would we test it to "prove" that you are related to your parents? In a "scholarly way", please. Because, if you cannot prove that you are related to your parents, then there is no possible way to prove any relationship between any other two animals.

Seconded. In fact, unless and until Robert answers this question, I would suggest that no one ever respond to him again. Of course I would also like him to explain why there are still bacteria, but you can't have everything.

TomS said:

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

That's a lie, Byers.

Nope. Prove it wrong. In a scholarly way please.

Already did, you ignored it as usual. You don't do anything in a scholarly way, why do you demand it of others? You're just another hypocrite with a double standard. You have never once provided any reference from the scientific literature to support any of your nonsense. Until you do, you don't deserve any response at all to your idiotic whining. Creationism is subatomic and unproven. There is no biological scientific evidence for creationism. There, was that "scholarly" enough for you?

"Subatomic"? Anyway, the major problem with creationism is that it has no positive substance to it. What happens, when and where, how and why, so that the world of life turns out as it does, if evolution isn't involved? What is the alternative? For example, why is the human body most similar to bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of the possible ways that it could be? Eyes like other vertebrates, rather than like insects or octopuses, for example?

DS said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

Okay, Robert. This should be very easy. What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents? I know that you don't have it. I certainly don't have it in hand. But let's pretend that you had access to such "biological scientific evidence". Let's pretend that you could gather whatever evidence you felt was required. What would that evidence look like? How would we test it to "prove" that you are related to your parents? In a "scholarly way", please. Because, if you cannot prove that you are related to your parents, then there is no possible way to prove any relationship between any other two animals.

Seconded. In fact, unless and until Robert answers this question, I would suggest that no one ever respond to him again. Of course I would also like him to explain why there are still bacteria, but you can't have everything.

Robert Byers said: One does not want to stray from the thread, and get blamed, but your examples make a creationist case. We have like bodies with apes because its the best body within the spectrum of biology for a special being like ourselves. Indeed we are the only creature who has a like body with a totally different creature. Likewise eyes are just from the same blueprint. Everyone has the same eyes for like needs. there is no much diversity. in fact if evolution was true there should be a lot more diversity in the basics and results of eyes. nOt just a few great divisions. anyways these subjects should have thier own threads.

Just Bob said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: we never were animals.

Robert, as much as you try to prove otherwise, you are not a vegetable. Therefore, you are an animal.

There are other alternatives. Fungus, for instance...

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents?

Bobsie said:

Robert Byers said: There is no biological scientific evidence for evolutionary processes or results.

What would be the "biological scientific evidence" that you were born of your parents? That you are related to and descended from your grandparents?

Let me answer for Mr Byers based on what he has taught me. There is no "biological scientific evidence", only your mother will know and that's because she was there. Who your father is will always remain a speculation despite all assertions to the contrary. Nailed it, didn't I, Mr Byers?

DS said: Actually, no. When Bobby was born, he was probably immediately taken away to the nursery and only returned to his mother later. So even she doesn't know if he is actually the same child she gave birth to or not. And since genetics is "atomic and unproven" I guess there really is no way to know, ever. How sad.

If genetics is atomic, then shouldn't it be elementary?

Robert Byers said:" Indeed we are the only creature who has a like body with a totally different creature."

Whatever happened to your claim that the thylacine (aka the marsupial "wolf") had body just like the placental wolf?

Robert, what is you definition of words like "creature" or "like"?

How can two creatures have, in your terminology, "like bodies" and yet be "totally different creatures"?

You are absolutely clueless, especially so wrt biology.