In the, “it’s so sad, it’s funny” category today…

| 65 Comments

Answers in Genesis is my favorite little humor site; like my own personal Onion, only the parody is lost on Ken Ham and Jon Sarfati or something. I like to picture them as the butt of some huge Landover Baptist joke, sucking their followers dry for a crazy museum in what is really a diabolical leftist plot to divert fundamentalist Christian funds away from causes that are actually real controversies in the 21st century. (Don’t burst my bubble, mkay? The way I figure it, you gotta laugh or it will make you cry.)

So anyway, their newest illustrations are a riot. Check them out here. My favorites below the fold…

Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!

Mo–om! You always let Timmy bring the apatosaurus to school. It’s my turn!

When Hanna-Barbera publish history textbooks…

Damn it, I was that close to scoring with Shem’s wife…

What are your favorites?

(Hat tip to crazyharp at II for noticing the AIG page).

65 Comments

Good old Noah.…the most counter intuitive ans easily dealt with tale

Why do dreams become Myth? A question I for one have always asked and the closest I can find to any meaningful explanation lies with good old Joseph Campbell

you need to register - its free

an image embedded in the human psyche:

the Great Flood.

http://www.jcf.org/practical_campbell.php?id=15

I notice that us brits have our very own museum to visit too…

Creation Science Movement

Sadly, it’s not quite as humour rich as the one above, but I find the arguments oddly refreshing after all that specified irreducable information complex flagellum clotting cascade rubbish from the DI.

Seeing all this stuff is actually a little depressing when you realize how many young hearts and minds are being deceived by these cutsy little drawings. One can only hope that at least some of the kids will see them for what they are.… just cartoons.

I did notice this one with “Bible + Nothing Else = 1,000s of years” on the top line, which I thought was rather too honest for their own good :-)

PaulH: There is also a creationist zoo in Bristol - The Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm. http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/

I like these - why oh why didn’t Eve decide to stay stupid? - or maybe thats why she couldn’t read Adam’s sign? if only we could all get stupid enough again, just like in the garden of eden! http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom[…]10727_58.jpg http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom[…]10803_60.jpg .. seriously though any ideas where I can get a cool talking snake? Eve should have realised it was one of them ‘Interlecherals’ - it’s wearing spectacles for Chrisake!

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 165, byte 379 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Couple of my favorites.…

132. Danger: Poison!Is that a series of transitional fossil forms I see?

157. Fish fossils: Week 2. I love the reaction of the fish to the Flood sediments. YAAAAAA!!!

Haven’t slogged through all of them yet, but did anyone else notice that the “relative morality” in slide 3 (Adam or Ape?) looks as if our furry friend has been hurling feces? http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom[…]20010316.jpg

I liked:

174. Dinosaur diet 2: Veggies

175. Dinosaur diet 3: Animals

Can’t help but think the T. Rex was relieved by the whole diet switchover - must have been a gigantic pain in the butt trying to eat a vegetarian diet with those teeth.

Yes but T. Rex enjoyed a vegetarian in her diet :>

Comments from 84. Origins of the seven day week:

An interesting research project would be to get people to investigate nations that have tried to change the seven-day week. Such experiments have always failed, because biologically man is set up for six days of work, one day of rest.

Interesting research project, indeed. I’m sure they’ve got some of their best minds on it right now. There’s plenty of evidence that man is biologically programmed for 6 days on, one day off.

There’s plenty of evidence that man is biologically programmed for 6 days on, one day off.

There’s even better evidence that back when the US was a truly Christian country and before the secular humanists started driving it downhill, the common manufacturing worker worked 12 hours on and 12 hours off, seven days a week. Every two weeks, they switched shifts. This meant that once a month, the worker worked a 24-hour shift and once a month, he had 24 straight hours off. This was the day for the family outing. And this kind of schedule was the national manufacturing standard.

Of course, it didn’t apply to owners.

Cool! Which chapter in Genesis explains the 17 year cicada cycle?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0613_178.asp

My favorite, love the expression on the girl’s face when natural selection occurs right in front of her face. Unfortunately, she keeps on singing in order to drown out the truth.

Is the apatasaur in the schoolroom slide related to Monica DiVertebrae from Dinosaurs?

(Darn, I can’t find a picture of her. She’s basically the apatasaur from the slide, but blue and wearing earrings. She’s a realtor, IIRC.)

K.E. Wrote:

Good old Noah.…the most counter intuitive ans easily dealt with tale

Why do dreams become Myth? A question I for one have always asked and the closest I can find to any meaningful explanation lies with good old Joseph Campbell

Now wait a minute. There’s some interesting research addressing the possibility that semi-cataclysmic flooding of the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age may have given rise to the myriad flood myths around the Mediterranean basin. But I think Joe would still approve.

An interesting research project would be to get people to investigate nations that have tried to change the seven-day week. Such experiments have always failed, because biologically man is set up for six days of work, one day of rest.

Ah, so the modern two-day weekend is biologically impossible. We all actually work 9 to 5 on Saturdays, but fail to notice due to naturalism-induced blindness.

Likewise, the aforementioned manufacturing workers of the olden days actually rested on Sunday, it was just that their idea of “rest” happened to involve slaving away in a factory and periodically losing a limb or a finger.

Before the Fall diet: vegetarian. After the fall diet: vegetarians.

Before The Fall (summer) Diet: Vegetarian. After The Fall (winter) Diet: Vegetairans.

Wow. Just… wow.

The “why Noah’s flood couldn’t have been local” part, I think, has to be absolutely the best. Look at this sequence:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0822_189.jpg http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0822_190.jpg http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0815_188.jpg http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0829_191.jpg http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0905_192.jpg

I think this may well be the best example of starting with a conclusion and working backward that I’ve ever seen.

why you cant argue with some people

Sure you can.

“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

I start by arguing the first claim. It seems to me that they are saying God said it; I haven’t heard from God itself. Until I do, the claim seems to me pure hubris.

Clever slogan to give people an excuse not to think, isn’t it?

So maybe when printing up the T-shirts bearing this slogan, this fine-print preface should be included:

“I’m too stupid to think for myself, so boy was I relieved when I heard that…”

Etc.

Actually, it takes a certain amount of intelligence to select and interpret sections of the bible in just such a way as to coincide with whatever view you wish to promote.

It’s actually funnier than the Onion.

““We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,””

Ever notice how

“God said it

I believe it

It’s settled”

is centered on “I” and puts god in a secondary place to the belief?

To be fair, the referenced AiG article says “The truth is, though, that God said it and that settles it, regardless of whether or not I choose to believe it.”

The ego problem here is the belief that one can be sure “that God said it”.

There is one of them that’s actually rather good:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]0606_177.jpg

However, one I’d choose for special mention is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]rk_field.jpg

“So, kids, the Ark was _just_ bigger than a football field. How many of you have been to the zoo? (wait for raised hands) Is the zoo bigger than a football field? (Yes) _Much_ bigger? (Yes!) And does it have two of every kind of animal in it? (No…)”

There is one of them that’s actually rather good:

A good example of begging the question. But yes, this is a point of view that one can subscribe to without being a moron, unlike most of the other examples.

> thanks for the compliment.

No worries. You obviously have a bretter grasp of the literature than I do. The terrestrial vs. aquatic origin of snakes is very outside of my area of research (which is venom evolution) but its something I find interesting (actually anything to do with snakes I find interesting, I’m always on the look out for more knowledge about them. Anything that shows that they are even cooler than I previously knew is good in my book. I’m not hung up on one hypothesis or another. The aquatic origin seems very illogical since no aquatic lineage of lizard has ever lost its limbs but fossorial lizards have undergone limb reduction or loss on multiple occasions.

> I suspect snakes may not be closely related to any extant taxon.

That of course is the entire problem with such deep time questions. Particularly when lineages like serpentes, iguania and anguirmorpha have undergone such rapid radiation and diversification.

As for the XMas tree approach, I agree that when dealing with fossils things are complicated. However, I am bewildered why people, when studying extant taxa, insist on doing combined trees rather than mapping physical characters over genetic trees. Iguania are a great example, by assumed relationships of morphological characters (some of which were decidedly ambiguous) they were placed at the based of the squamate tree. However, genetic evidence showed them to be much more recently derived. Vidal’s paper in this regard certainly upset a few applecarts.

Cheers B

- genetically the snakes are more closely to terrestrial lizards than a clade (e.g. varanoid) that includes highly aquatic species.

I’m not so sure of that, but I’ll concede it for now. There are still a number of anatomical traits that snakes share with varanoids…

- middle ear of snakes registers only the sound wavelengths that travel well through ground, not wavelengths that would travel well through water.

I think that has a lot to do with the way snake ears are arranged – after all, few animals of ANY sort hear with their jawbones. And, most snakes don’t depend on hearing to any great extent anyway – it’s not even certain that they detect sounds at all, beyond vibrations transmitted through the jawbone. Hence, the wavelengths that they can detect best may have more to do with which wavelengths travel best through bone, not on what travels best through ground or water.

- most basal snakes are fossorial and have a similar body plan despite taxonomic divergence (e.g. Cylindrophi, Anilius)

As I noted, certainly genetic data indicates that current burrowing species are closest to the earliest genetic stock. That does not mean, however, that these early ancestors were themselves burrowers. After all, modern burrowing snakes themselves have highly derived characteristics (skull and jaw architecture) that are different from other snakes (the uropeltids, for instance, have highly modified vertebrae to facilitate burrowing), and indicate to me that their burrowing habits evolved independently of other snakes, after they had already diverged.

As for body plans, they differ from group to group. Some have remnants of rear limbs and/or pelvic girdles, some don’t. Some have teeth on the lower jaw only, some have teeth on the upper jaw only, some have teeth on both jaws, some have lost nearly all their teeth. Again, this indicates to me that each of these groups took up a burrowing lifestyle independently, after they had already diverged from each other and from other snakes.

- the loss of limbs is not consistent with an aquatic origin since limbs (even limb buds) are useful in aquatic enviroments for steering.

And indeed, _Pachyrachis_ and other early aquatic snakes do have rear limbs.

- there is no evidence of lateral compression such as is found in the file snakes or sea snakes or other modifications for aquatic existance (heavy bodied boid fossils are irrelevant since the boids are a derived clade)

This would depend on how, specifically, these early snakes hunted. If they were swimming pursuers like sea snakes, then you have a point. If they were fat and lazy ambush hunters, like modern anacondas, then you would NOT have a point. :>

It may or may not be relevant to note that most of the earliest snake fossils were quite heavy-bodied.

As a parenthetical aside, I am very much enjoying this exchange ;-)

As am I. It’s not very often that I, an amateur, get to discuss paleo-herpetology with pro’s in the field. :>

Ultimately, I think a different way of studying molecules, EvoDevo, will solve the problem. The developmental processes link the genes and morphology and may inform us about the morphological patterns we see in the fossils. Once we understand how the morphology develops, how the instructions for particular body parts interact, and how those particular developmental genes evolved, we can interpret the fossil data with more confidence.

It will also help clear up some of the taxonomic mess that snakes have become. Some taxonomists place the mole vipers with the true vipers, some place them with the colubrids, some place them by themselves. Some taxonomists place sea snakes in a separate group from the elapids (the hydrophiids), some don’t. Within the sea snakes, the egg-layers and the live-bearers are almost certainly two distinctly different lineages representing two different invasions of the sea, and almost certainly don’t belong together in the same group. Of course, the entire colubrid group is a garbage can containing everything but the kitchen sink. And where the heck does the _Loxocemus_ fit into all this? ;>

So it is to be hoped that genetic research will help us figure out who is related to whom. I’m quite sure that the young people who will figure it all out one day are currently watching the Crocodile Hunter on TV. ;>

>It will also help clear up some of the taxonomic mess that snakes have become.

Yep, some lineages have been complete taxonomical dumping grounds. Ranging from genus level such as Elaphe (which actually contained animals such as the radiated ‘ratsnake’ that turned out to be racers) to family (such as Colubridae which it turned out contained multiple family level divisions, some of which it turned out were much closer to cobras that corn snakes)

>Some taxonomists place the mole vipers with the true vipers, some place them with the colubrids, some place them by themselves.

This one has been resolved. The Atractaspis species (stilleto snake, mole vipers) are definately in their own family (along with some oddities that lack the advanced fangs).

>Some taxonomists place sea snakes in a separate group from the elapids (the hydrophiids), some don’t. Within the sea snakes, the egg-layers and the live-bearers are almost certainly two distinctly different lineages representing two different invasions of the sea, and almost certainly don’t belong together in the same group.

Yep, the sea snakes are simply very derived elapids. The Laticauda species (sea kraits) are genetically intermediate between Asian and Australian elapids while the true sea snakes are deeply rooted within the live-bearing lineage of Australian elapids. Interestingly enough, the two independent colonisers of the ocean have also secondarily remarkably streamlined their venoms, as is logical as they both have very specialised diets (fish).

Here is a link to a couple of our sea snake papers http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]dea_RCMS.pdf http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]Seasnake.pdf http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]xii_3FTx.pdf http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]xii_PLA2.pdf

> Of course, the entire colubrid group is a garbage can containing everything but the kitchen sink.

This is slowly being resolved and at a family level things are getting nicely settled. Still much to do at genus levels and species are a complete mess for some lineages. What we are going through right now is a tremendous cleaning up period. The genetic evidence has been invaluable in this regard. The resolution of higher level taxonomical arrangements is allowing us to map the changes in venom over the advanced snake tree. Venom is a basal condition of the group. The only ‘colubrids’ that lack venom are those that have developed constricting prey capture techniques (e.g. the true ratsnakes) or have specialised diets such as eggs or slug. The other ‘colubrids’ all have venom. The reason it was overlooked so long was based upon the fundamental assumption that only the three lineages with advanced venom delivery architecture (atractaspidids, elapids and viperids) had venom, that fangs were required. What turned out to be the case was that venom came first and increased efficiency of delivery logically followed. This of course makes perfect evolutionary sense since there can’t be a selection pressure for the development of advanced dentition in the absense of something worth delivering. We have even sequenced cobratoxins from the radiated racer: http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]britoxin.pdf).

>And where the heck does the _Loxocemus_ fit into all this? ;>

Here’s a link to the EMBL page on them http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz[…]cemidae.html

Cheers Bryan

I am waiting for the Chutes n’ Ladders version.

Cheers Carlos

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on November 1, 2005 12:59 AM.

Dembski’s Obsessive Complaints of Obsession was the previous entry in this blog.

Ask Prof. Steve Steve #2 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter