Rush Limbaugh doesn’t understand how evolution works.

If you’ve been reading SEB for any amount of time then it probably doesn’t need to be said that my politics don’t line up with Rush Limbaugh’s politics. It’s also probably obvious that I think that Rush has said some amazingly stupid things over the years, but I’ve never thought the man was particularly uneducated. That’s probably as much due to the fact that I try to limit my exposure to his rantings as much as possible than it is him actually being educated.

On Tuesday during a segment about the kid falling into the gorilla enclosure in Cincinnati, Rush demonstrated his scientific ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. The folks at Media Matters captured his idiocy in all its glory:

“A lot of people think that all of us used to be apes. Don’t doubt me on this. A lot of people think that all of us used to be gorillas.”

headdeskOK, let’s stop right here. There’s more, but this is all you really need to realize that Rush has no clue what he’s talking about. Humans did not evolve from apes, or chimps, or gorillas. We are a kind of ape ourselves. We share a common primate ancestor (Homo-Pan) and have travelled different evolutionary paths starting around 6 to 7 million years ago. Either Rush is ignorant of what the theory of evolution says or he’s intentionally setting up a strawman. Based on what he says next I’d wager it’s the former.

“And they’re looking for the missing link out there. The evolution crowd. They think we were originally apes.”

The problem with the “missing link” is that there is no missing link. Evolution isn’t a matter of sharp delineations. It’s a matter of gradual differences. There is not, nor will there ever be, a fossil find that we can point to and definitely say that is the exact moment we stopped being Homo heidelbergensis and started being Homo sapiens. Reality is messy and doesn’t give a shit about fitting things into obvious categories. People like Rush don’t like that fact so they try to ignore it.

Here is his pièce de résistance. The statement that clearly shows his complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory:

“I’ve always — if we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape, and how come he didn’t become one of us?”

First, we’re not the “original apes.” As I said before, we share a common ancestor. Secondly, had Harambe spontaneously evolved into a human it would invalidate evolutionary theory as well as a number of laws of physics.

To be fair, it’s not clear if Rush is suggesting that if evolution was real that Harambe would’ve evolved into a human in the time he was in the zoo or if he’s using the old argument of “If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?” Not that it matters, both would reveal his ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually says.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s really not that hard to understand the theory of evolution if you take the time to actually read up on it. There are a number of books that lay it out in layman’s terms and provide quite a bit of the evidence that back the theory up. A good one is The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins. It’s one I think Rush Limbaugh should probably read. He won’t, but he should.

You can hear Limbaugh’s words for yourself below:

18 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh doesn’t understand how evolution works.

  1. My personal favorite is also by Dawkins: “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”. Among other things, it does a good job of rebutting the claim that evolution is too unlikely to have happened by any means other than supernatural.

  2. You’re wrong. There is a missing link. It’s Rush. He’s the link between homo ponzi and homo sapiens.

    It is can of funny that a person can explain evolution when scientists say they can’t. From Scientific American and Philip Ball, Nature magazine on April 28, 2013. “Sixty years on, the very definition of ‘genes,’ is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.” Other evolutionists said. Evolutionary biologist Patrick Phillips at the University of Oregon “Evolutionary theory does not help biologists to predict what kinds of genetic network they should expect to see in any one context”. Michael Lynch of Indiana University “the current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess”. In fact it is so bad that the Nature magazine of the October 8, 2014, titles an article ” Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? ” As if that wasn’t enough, the September 14, 2016, CNN News article title “Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend” explained how a new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life. It’s very hard to prove something that never happened.

  4. Ross is employing an old anti-science dodge by suggesting that there’s no understanding a subject unless it’s understood down to the most infinitesimal detail. By this measure, if a hypothesis leaves any point unexplained, no matter how minor, the whole thing must be thrown out. This shows a basic misunderstanding of the function and value of scientific methodology.

    Evolution is merely (but not simply) the accumulation of tiny variations over time, producing major variations such as speciation. If Ross is finding the topic difficult to understand, maybe he should trouble himself to read Dawkins.

  5. You pointed at me, and disregarded the opinion from the evolutionists from the Nature magazine that don’t understand either. It’s been like this since the 1800s, one evolution concept one day and replaced by a new one the next day. Evolutionists do not respect the scientific methodology. What archaeology fossil shows are all animals are perfectly formed. Many are no different from today’s.

  6. Mark is right, Ross, you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re taking quotes from scientists about how there’s still plenty to learn about evolution and declaring that that means the theory is false. That’s called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam and it won’t fly with folks who have actually read up on the theory from someplace other than a Creationist website.

  7. Nature magazine said “evolution needs rethinking” this means the evolution theory is far to stand on a solid foundation. A evolutionist clan would disagree from another evolutionist clan. Other evolutionists are in search for other evolutionary concepts. This means inside the evolutionists community, presently there is no satisfactory explanation of the theory of evolution. Darwin wrote, “if no transitional fossils are found my theory will be false”. Well, no transitional fossils were found. Therefore, according to Darwin’s own words, it is false.
    We should have seemed a long series of transitional fossils, transition from one species to another. In contrary all species are locked to a DNA code. It never happened. Imagine before specie becomes complete, it would have been very vulnerable. In the wild, any abnormalities are usually eliminated and weak don’t usually reproduce. With this in mind, what append to the Darwin’s survival of the fittest? It is such a contradiction. This theory is false. Evolutionists must use a great amount of faith and will have to sustain their centuries of propaganda manipulation to keep this dogma alive.

  8. Ross, nothing you’ve said makes much sense, and nothing means what you say it means. All I can do at this point is highlight your apparent ignorance—I’m not qualified to help you rectify it. My only advice is to read the book I recommended above.

    By the way (and I expect you’ll either ignore or distort this part), there are plenty of transitional fossils. But you have no way to know that, because you’re too fond of your own ignorance to do anything about it.

  9. Ross tries again:

    Nature magazine said “evolution needs rethinking” this means the evolution theory is far to stand on a solid foundation.

    I’m not even sure that’s a complete sentence, but Nature magazine did hold a point-counterpoint article back in 2014 that asked that question and it doesn’t imply what you seem to be thinking it implies. You might try reading it.

    Darwin wrote, “if no transitional fossils are found my theory will be false”. Well, no transitional fossils were found. Therefore, according to Darwin’s own words, it is false

    Hate to break this to you, but plenty of transitional fossils have been found. There is so much evidence backing up the theory of evolution that nothing else comes close to equaling it. Hell, all of modern medicine is based on evolutionary biology.

    But hey, you keep copying and pasting those claims from creationist websites that show how little you really know or understand about the theory and we’ll keep laughing at you.

  10. In a 2013 DNA methylation study of humans and apes (chimp, gorilla and orangutan). Compared to humans, orangutans whom figure behind the chimp and gorilla in the evolution tree, had more DNA methylation patterns similar to humans. The gorilla was second and the chimp last. By the way the chimp previously announced of 98% similarities with humans, when down to 95% (could be lower, Tomkins 2015 study 88%) and the pig is 98%. Speaking of the pig’s DNA being the closest, their organs are involved in humans’ transplant projects (BBC). In the evolution tree the chimp is the closest human’s ape ancestor. Normally, chimp DNA comparison with pigs should be an obvious popular topic. It is not. In articles about the pig’s DNA. It is common for evolutionists to carefully avoid mentioning the chimp. Some cover up, by saying as mammalian pigs share similar DNA or pigs are closer to humans as we thought they were, avoiding saying, “the closest”. Now some even tried to find pig-ape links. They will eventually imagine a story. When first worldwide announced of the chimp’s DNA, it was not about a mammalian that shared the same DNA, but about “a proof of evolution ape to man”. The DNA codes are blocked, it cannot go from one specie to another. All apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans 23 pairs. Humans and apes are incompatible cannot reproduce. Neither pigs 19 pairs of chromosomes to apes or any other species in between. Facts are no transitional fossils were ever found.

  11. Ross, do you know what the problem is with cutting and pasting from creationist websites? You can’t cite your sources without it being obvious it’s from a creationist website.

    You include a lot of material there that’s largely true, but imply a coverup where there is none. Then you end with a conclusion that is in no way supported by all the material that precedes it. You’re also thinking that if you can just prove there are no transitional fossils then the whole theory will fall apart. The problem with that is the theory does not rest on that one form of evidence alone. Scientist Michael Shermer once referred to that as the “fossil fallacy” saying:

    We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process. — The Fossil Fallacy — 2005

    You’re really gonna have to study up some more from folks who actually know something about the theory if you’re going to hope to debate us on the topic. Nothing you provided above does anything to support your argument.

  12. As a paleontologists Eldredge and Gould were exposed to a massive preconception of the evolution theory since university. Therefore, they were highly motivated to prove Darwinism, especially Gould an atheist. Paleontologists deal with fossils and the main gold is to find transitory proof of evolution. They did not find them and conclude the Darwinian theory cannot be proven. In desperation they proposed another theory.

  13. Having personally studied Gould, your claim that he concluded that “the Darwinian theory cannot be proven” is laughable. I would love to see you provide any source that supports the claim that Gould or Eldredge concluded the theory could not be proven.

    This should be particularly amusing considering most scientists don’t claim that any theory has been “proven.”

  14. First you say plenty of transitional fossils have been found and then, you copy past (which is OK you are going to the source) “we know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils (…) but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields”. This is a typical evolutionist contradiction. 1) One clan that don’t rely anymore on transitional fossils. 2) Another clan that obstinately do.
    Now why on Wikipedia evolutionists put a list of transitional fossils anyway? Notice your very first reaction was to believe in transitional fossils existence and you used the word “PLENTY”. The reason is like many others you’ve been brain wash for so many years.

    A evolutionist of the name of Robert Wright wrote Stephen Jay Gould “punctuated equilibria” was bad for the evolution. Gould challenged some of Darwin’s beliefs, for example, Gould was opposed to Darwin’s view about adaptation. Wright denounced the fact that Gould convince other evolutionists to this new evolution theory approached (The New Yorker, December 13, 1999 – Punctuated Equilibria by Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University Press, 2007).

    Since the beginnings and until today, divisions among evolutionists was always a great problem. Gould “punctuated equilibria” created another division among the evolutionist community. For example, between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. If evolution was scientifically proven, it would not have happened.

  15. GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON in 1953 : “It remains true, as every paleontologist know, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the fossil record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

    In the Science Progress magazine in 1960 title “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” GEORGE, T. NEVILLE noticed the poverty of the fossil record and gaps.

    In 1976 about his 20 years of own experience of searching evolutionary lineages proved to be elusive said the evolutionist DEREK AGER.

    Natural History Museums are where transitorily fossils should be found. There is the version for the public and another one more hidden for the expects. DR. PATTERSON was a Senior Paleontologist for the British Museum. In his 1978 book called “Evolution”, despite the fact that there were many fossils in his museum, he showed no pictures of transitional fossils in his work.

    Around the same period another person related to Natural History Museum DR. DAVID RAUP said that people assume falsely that fossils provide prove of evolution.

    The world-famous paleontologist expect and an evolutionary biologist named STEPHEN J. GOULD (1941–2002) wrote in 1978 ; “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” In other words, Gould admits evolutionists hid the truth about transitional fossils. In 1980 things did not change he wrote; “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic designs, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Years later Gould an atheist admitted that Darwinism is no longer defendable and until the rest of his life, he tried with others to find other evolutionist concepts.

    The evolutionist STEPHEN M. STANLEY wrote in 1979 that not a single example of fossils of gradual evolution was found.

    Evolutionist MICHAEL DENTON wrote in 1986 that all the major classes of organisms were there in their initial appearance in the fossil record. He found this a devastatingly true against evolution.

    Even the famous evolutionist preacher RICHARD DAWKINS wrote in his 1996 book The Blind Watchmaker about fossils ” It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.

    In 1999 SCHWARTZ, JEFFREY H. wrote, “most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.”

    Another expect related to a Museum is ERNST MAYR-Professor Emeritus he wrote in 2001 ““Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”

    In the Guardian of July 11, 2002, THE PALEONTOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST AND THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL NATURE SENIOR EDITOR HENRY GEE said, ” People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap (…) We tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.”

    The evolutionist MARK RIDLEY stated that “people think that fossil record shows a gradual evolution. The reality is no serious evolutionist would present the fossil records as a proof for evolution” (New Scientist, June, 1981, p. 831).

  16. That quote from Dawkins is so lacking in context, it’s as if you never read the book at all. Have you?

    I’m focusing on Dawkins because he’s the only scientist mentioned that I’ve read much of. I’m not familiar with Gould, although I’ve heard enough about his thoughts on “non-overlapping magisteria” to know I don’t agree with them.

    I think there might be a basis for some constructive discussion here if only you had read any of the works you’re quoting from, which it’s increasingly clear you haven’t. You’re just cutting and pasting and hoping something will stick.

    And I wish you’d quit pretending to know anything about the science and flatly state what is probably your real objection to evolution—that it goes against your particular religious or supernatural beliefs. All this tap-dancing is tiring to watch.

  17. I was going to reply to Ross about how the fact that scientists disagreeing on the finer details of a theory don’t disprove the theory, but then I realize he’d just cut and paste even more stupidity from some random Creationist website so why bother? It’s clear he hasn’t actually studied any of the materials he’s quote mining from and has no intention of doing so. I’m on Christmas vacation and have better things I could be doing with my time like playing video games.

    Wake me if he comes up with a novel argument.

  18. I don’t think you as an atheist should be on Christmas vacation. Christ is in Christmas. I think you should be on winter break playing video games.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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