67 thoughts on “Doonesbury takes on creationism.”

1. So Gene, does that mean you’re not gonna look up gene duplication?  Because you’re clearly only reading the parts of the book that suit you.  And twisting the meaning of those parts to boot.

   I’m outta here.

   Promises, promises.

2. For those readers who don’t understand big words like “adaption” and “exaption”, here’s an adaption of the screenplay all y’all can follow.

   So there’s a cartoon that ends in the punchline “because he jacks off a lot”. Gene goes into all hat, no cattle mode and makes a big fuss. “The cartoon is all wrong,” says he, “because it didn’t say whether he choked the chicken or spanked the monkey! And anyway, since he must have choked the chicken he didn’t jack off—they’re two different things!”

3. Careful, Elwed. You may get PETA mad at you. 

4. It depends whether the monkey likes that sort of thing…

5. But more importantly, will the monkey adapt to the spankings? Or is the monkey an exaptation because it wants to spanked? Questions, questions…

6. Now it begs the question of species origination.  If some spank the monkey whilst others choke the chicken, what then is the common ancestor of chickens and monkeys??

7. For that matter, WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!???

8. Surely as a good athiest I should Bash the Bishop?

9. For that matter, who gave head to the Piltdown Man?

10. Why are you guys making light of a serious site about a cartoon? Uhhh, let me rephrase that . . .

11. Sadie Jane wrote:

    If you found it amusing, it doesn’t speak well for your acquaintence with the subject matter.Is that so, huh? Well, sorry Robert, but I’d trust Garry Trudeau long before I trusted the scientifically ignorant, otherwise known as creationists.

    I’d like to suggest a third option, Sadie Jane.

    Ever think of doing some reading, and thinking for yourself? Try it. It beats trusting implicitly in the those ignorant about what creationism even is- and too foolish to reexamine their prejudices even when easily verifiable factual errors are pointed out to them.

    That’s dumb whether your a Creationist or a Darwinist.

12. Not defending the concept, Gene. Just pointing out that it isn’t what Trudeau thinks it is.

    decrepitoldfool wrote:

    Gee, Bob… we’ve never heard that one before. So if environmental forces select thousands of small changes to a species over geologic time, until it is no longer recognizable and couldn’t possibly produce offspring with its original form, it’s still the same species?
    Who knew?

13. Sadie Jane wrote:

    If you found it amusing, it doesn’t speak well for your acquaintence with the subject matter.Is that so, huh? Well, sorry Robert, but I’d trust Garry Trudeau long before I trusted the scientifically ignorant, otherwise known as creationists.

    Upon further review, it strikes me that you may have misunderstood my post.

    Though I think the post as a whole makes this clear, the “subject matter” to which I refer is the actual beliefs of creationists, not the validity of creationism. If I were a creationist- which I am not- this would actually make me more credible on the subject of what creationists believe, rather than less so.

    In any event, it seems more rational to trust creationists as to what creationists believe than non-creationists, nicht wahr?

14. No evidence for any benign spontaneous genetic mutations.
    Ever.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20041012235607/http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-antibiotic.htm

15. Pingback: 'Superbugs' aren't as much of a threat as terrorism: they're hundreds of times more dangerous than that – Telegraph Blogs

16. I’ve read Richard Milton’s writings before, James. They’d be funny if he wasn’t so serious about it. You’ll have to provide a better source than Milton if you want to convince me of your claim.

17. Silly, silly, silly Richard Milton. From this page:

    “Some scientists, such as Dr Max above, insist that laboratory experiments have been conducted which prove scientifically that antibiotic resistance was not genetically present in the microorganism used to culture the experimental colony, thus proving conclusively that it must have arisen by spontaneous genetic mutation, de novo — as an entirely new genetic feature.”

    Followed by:
    “Now if the experiments always worked as Dr Max claims, if the new culture always exhibited antibiotic resistance, then one might be inclined to give some credence to their interpretation of the results. But that is not what happens. Sometimes the new culture develops antibiotic resistance; sometimes it doesn’t.”

    What an outrageous fallacy (strawman I guess)! Take — yes you Richard Milton— a sample of bacteria and put a good dose of antibiotic. Most of the time, everything will die; no time for mutation. But, guess what? It’s the very reason people use antibiotics! To kill bacteria; all of them. So, of course Dr Max didn’t say it always work, because, if it does, antibiotic are useless, these pesky little pests mutating all the time.

    I wanted to go on with his ranting on this page:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040831133709/http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-speciations.htm

    But I stopped at the title (and had a good laugh).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.