This is a response to NephilimFree’s video,
‘owchywawa frankenscience pt. 1’ My apologies for intruding on this exchange
Neph, but some of the things you said were just so outrageous that I felt obliged to
stick my oar in. “I’ve always.. heh, heh, heh… stated
that morphology is form and structure, because that’s what it is, and that we don’t see
morphological change. Morphology in biology is the form and structure of plants and animals.
How is that vague? That’s not vague. Now notice the ‘and’ in there. See, that’s
real important. Because shape alone is not morphological – shape alone is not morphology
without structure, you see? But now see, what you’re going to try and do in this video,
is you’re going to try to redefine morphology so that form alone can be considered morphology,
so that a change to the shape of a creature can be considered a morphological change,
so you can claim evolution has taken place. Because you wanted us to believe that form
alone can be morphology. But it’s not, see? Science states, let’s read it again boys
and girls, form and structure.” The banality of this argument simply beggars
belief, so let’s take a closer look at what you’re trying to do.
Science provides evidence to support the premise that evolution results a change in organism
morphology over time. You then proceed to say that ‘No, you goon, morphology isn’t
what you say it is – it’s this other thing. So your evidence doesn’t show a change in
morphology at all, you see. Evolution is a false religion.’
It kind of feels like a kid in third grade shouting ‘look over there’ and then pulling
the old switcheroo – only greasier. It may have worked for you in the playground, Neph,
but you’ll have to do better now that you’re dealing with grown-ups.
For the record, the reason that morphology is not defined by shape alone is because two
organisms can be visually very similar and yet differ significantly in their underlying
structure. In the case of closely related organisms, and in the absence of molecular
methods of analysis, early zoologists and botanists realized the importance of dissection
when comparing organisms. Morphology is therefore the totality of the combined description of
both external shape and underlying structure, so a change in morphology is any difference
in this totality. This is a perfect example of why reading something
on the internet does not equate to obtaining a formal education. If you had taken a course
on comparative zoology or anatomy instead of spending two minutes on Dictionaty.com
and pouncing on the word “and” as if it were the last choirboy at a Catholic bishop’s
convention, you might have learned this. Then again, you may know it, but are just content
with lying your face off. So, does the facile and simplistic definition
from an insincere weirdo with an agenda deserve equal respect to the one used by hundreds
of thousands of scientists today? You know what? I’m feeling generous, so let you use
yours. Instead, I can create a new word, how about Nephedicktic and define it as I did
earlier. Now I can provide you with the exact same data that show that evolution results
a change in organism Nephidickticity over time. How do you answer that Neph? Will you
redefine my new word. Because I can just pick another. Maybe Nephturdology.
All you’re doing here is playing pathetic word games to avoid addressing the real and
insurmountable evidence that you are completely incapable of refuting. “Now as for dogs and morphology, there is
no change into morphology between any two breeds of dog, regardless of what the breed.
Change to shape? Yes. But again morphology is form and structure, see? Not just form,
see? You’re trying to get around that. You’re trying to get around that. All dogs have the
same morphological features in the same location of their body plan – they have the same
morphology.” Once again, just because one delusionary nutjob
decides to redefine the meaning of a word that the rest of the world is using doesn’t
mean that the definition has actually changed anywhere except in the hallucination that
that for him passes as reality. “What I’ve said is that the homeobox genes
cannot be changed in such a way that morphological change is the result.”
If “homeobox genes cannot be changed such that morphological change is the result”,
then how the hell did we find them? New genes are routinely discovered from the effect of
spontaneous mutations on organism morphology or physiology and conversely new gene functions
are identified by mutating them and observing their phenotypic effects. Your statement simply
serves to showcase the breadth and magnitude of your ignorance.
For example, here’s a paper I picked up after the most cursory of searches showing
the discovery of a new homeobox mutation in wasps. If these gene’s can’t be changed,
then why the fuck does this insect have a leg sticking out of its head?
“There is not one instance know in millions of genetic experiments, thousands of which
are conducted every single day across the world in universities, not one reported instance
of a morphological change that has become permanent in a species due to random genetic
mutation.” You do realize that genetic experiments are
usually conducted in laboratories, don’t you Neph? So how is it that you can even remotely
think that it should be possible to globally introduce a mutation permanently into a species
from the confines of a single room? Let alone that I’m willing to bet a million
bucks on saying that this has never been the goal of a single genetic experiment. Let alone
that there are actual laws and regulations in place to stop this from happening accidentally.
Let alone the concerns and precautions taken to prevent the spread of DNA from genetically
modified crops. If this is what passes for an argument inside
your head, then I got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
“’To rebut the claim that morphological change has not been observed, I could simply
point out that the changes between dogs, which NephilimFree accepts, is referred to by the
scientific community as a morphological change.’ The link you provided doesn’t show up. It
may have existed, it’s not there anymore. But no, er, the scientific community does
not consider dogs to be evolutionary… I mean morphological change. Evolutionary, yes.
But not morphological, no.” So why is it then, Neph, that when I input
the exact same URL into Firefox I got this?… Funny that. So either your typing is as bad
as your apologetics, or you’re just a bald cun… I mean bald-faced liar.
And isn’t it strange that that’s all it takes for you to completely dismiss this point
and go on to assert unequivocally and without citing any sources that the scientific community
does not consider the physical changes between dog breeds to be morphological. Considering
that you certainly aren’t a member of that community, don’t you think it a little presumptuous
to be speaking on its behalf? If you had any interest in the truth, you
might even have gone so far as to type “dogs morphological change” into PubMed and scanned
the results for a minute or two to find a number of peer reviewed scientific papers
discussing morphological changes between dog breeds.
But then, you aren’t interested in the truth, are you Neph?
“Seventy years. Millions of experiments. I think we’ve qualified this through the
scientific method, don’t you, by experimentation? We need to go back, you know, the point in
the scientific muta… er, method where the results do not support the hypothesis, we
go back and discard the hypothesis, you see. But evolutionists won’t do that. Evolution
must be true! See? Forget the seventy years of mutation experimentation! That doesn’t
mean nothing! See? That’s how evolutionists think, see? Doesn’t matter to them. The
paradigm is true, it’s gotta be true. Evulsion’s true, gotta be true. Evolution’s true.”
Thank you for that demonstration of your somewhat unconventional masturbatory technique, but
I digress. Apart from your attempt to discredit evolutionary
biology with your fascile “genetic mutation experiments” argument, what I found funny
in this clip was your use of the word “we” when referring to scientific research the
scientific method. When was the last time you were in a lab, Neph. How many actual experiments
have you conducted? Published much lately? It’s hard to comprehend the magnitude of
the arrogance it takes for you to sit there, pontificate about how science should be done
and then expect to be taken seriously when you have no formal training and have shown
yourself time and time again to be either grossly or willfully ignorant or simply supremely
stupid. Go get yourself a Batchelor’s and a PhD,
and maybe to a post-doc. Then come back in 10 years or so and maybe then you’ll have
some credibility. In the meantime you’ll just remain a sad little man with an ego the
size of a planet and an intellect the size of pea.
Let take a look at a little more of your astounding superciliousness.
“I’ve noticed a lot of evolutionists, laypersons, like yourself, trying to do that
in… in the last year or so, or two. You’ve just lost the game kid, but trying to redefine
science. You see, I’ve said it many times. Evolutionists are not scientific. Evolutionism
is not science. I’ve said before, evolutionism is an attempt to mold science to fit their
paradigm, the world view that life was not created by God. Yes, I squished Dr. Mark A.
McPeek like I’m squishing you.” Once again, Neph, your alleged two years of
‘research’ on the Google machine does not substitute for your utter lack of scientific
education and does not make you an expert on anything any more than spending two years
drooling over internet porn would make you a superstud. You are as qualified to opine
on the nature of science as a nun is to discuss the Kama Sutra.
Also, I’m curious. Do you have any actual evidence of this alleged squishing? If not,
then I suspect it is simply another god-fuelled hallucination that is swirling around between
your earphones. “So they have to try… they try to get
around that by redefining everything. That’s what evolutionists do. They… like they redefined
evolution itself. You see. Before the gen… discovery of DNA and the… the recipe for
the design… morphological design of a creature, was discovered. You know what evolutionists
claimed? They claimed that… that organisms adapted to their environment and this caused
morphological change.” Here we go with another old creationist chestnut
– science is always changing its mind so it can’t be trusted. Has it ever entered
that small shriveled cluster of neurons inside your head that the strength of science is
its requirement to modify theory in the light of new evidence? I’m personally growing
sick of pointing out to creationists that this is why science has allowed us to progress
while blind acceptance of supernatural explanations and religious dogma leads solely to stagnation.
Lamarkism was an early attempt to explain the observed facts that showed that organisms
had changed from past to present and even though it was incorrect was still a better
explanation than the one that you prefer. It was quickly rejected following Darwin’s
proposal of natural selection and buried after the acceptance of Mendelian genetics and replaced
with better explanations that fit the data more accurately. Nevertheless, Lamarkism was
an important stepping stone on the road to knowledge because it encouraged people to
question, and to think and to search for better explanations.
So aside from it being a phenomenally weak and purile argument, it is disingenuous of
you in the extreme to imply that because it was incorrect that modern evolutionary theory
must be wrong. “There are no bones, no fossils of whales
with bones appearing. And then that same bone is longer, and that same bone is longer, and
then that same bone is longer, then it’s protruding from the… the rear of the…
of the animal. Then it’s protruding further. And then we have… we have a fin. See? You
need a series like that. No series of where we can say, ‘one, two three, four and five’,
and look at them and see the morphological change take place, But really, to be honest
with you, you’d need twenty. At least.” Despite the richness of the fossil record
you’re never satisfied, are you? You set your impossible standards for evidence, despite
blindly accepting you own beliefs with none at all, and then pompously sit there and declare
that it’s still not enough as more and more transitions are discovered. It’s all so
easy for, isn’t it Neph? Certainly easier than thinking up a good argument.
No matter how many transitional forms are presented to you, it will never be enough
for you. In fact I was quite amused to see you almost painting yourself into a corner
there when you suggested that twenty might be enough – and then didn’t even have the
balls not to caveat it with “at least.” Where did you pick that number from, by the
way? Just curious. “What you’re doing is taking two creatures
of different kinds and placing them together. Just like an evolutionist will argue that,
you know, a creationist takes…er… claims that all cats are the same kind. No we don’t
claim that. God created more than one kind of cat. A house cat is clearly not of the
same kind as a lion. OK? So you place them next to each other and, boy, they look a lot
alike, don’t they? Structurally they are very alike, right? They are different kinds.
A dragonfly and a damselfly are two different kind.”
So Neph. Riddle me this. Why is it that you claim that dogs show no change of morphology
because they all have the same number of bones, tendons, muscles, organs and joints in the
same locations of their body and therefore the same kind, and yet you can say exactly
the same thing about a cat and a lion, but you claim they are different kinds.
Is it because dogs can interbreed and housecats and lions can’t? Because it almost sounds
like you’re saying that “kind” means “species.”
But you won’t accept that, will you? Because you know that that’ll destroy the creationist
claim that we have never seen one ”kind” of animal evolve into another “kind” because
as soon as you define a “kind” as a species then you’ll have to explain all of the extant
speciation events that have been documented. So if a “kind” is not a species, then
is there any chance of you giving us a clear and concise definition, because I’ve never
heard one. What criteria do you use to make these distinctions, and why do you expect
us to accept them as fact? Are you going on gut feel, or do you just make up them as you
go in whichever way best suits the limp argument you happen to be making at the time.
Or maybe you have a direct line to your god? Does he whisper these things in your ear while
you’re spooning at the end of a long and tiring day of talking crap? You’re so lucky
to be the chosen one, Neph. You really are. Because no matter how much we laugh at you,
no matter how much of liar and an idiot you make yourself out to be, at least you have
the safety of your infantile and ludicrous delusion to comfort you. Because in the real
world, that’s all it’s good for.