jump to navigation

This Week in Stupidity 31 May 2009

Posted by Jessa in Religion, Science, This Week in Stupidity.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Today’s Theme: Moronic arguments purporting to refute evolution

Before we begin, I should note that there is a possibility that Poe’s Law is in effect. I am leaning towards believing that these people are not Poes, given that one of the examples comes from a person that goes by the name “supersport”, who has been spewing forth ridiculous statements like these all over the internet for quite a while. So s/he is either really that ignorant, or is the best Poe ever. Either way, I’m going to treat them as serious, because I know that there are at least a few people out there who would seriously make these kinds of arguments. So, on to the show!

Gem #1, we don’t constantly drool, therefore God exists:

Ok, I have an Evolution Challenge for you. Make your mouth produce a bunch of spit, let it dribble down your face and time how long it is before you simply have to wipe it off. Go ahead; try it! I promise you it won’t be very long. It’s extremely uncomfortable to have it sit there.

Think about the babies in your life. Have you ever thought about the fact that they stop drooling after the first couple years of life? Have you ever imagined what life would be like if we didn’t stop? Some, sadly, know what this is like. Children with cerebral palsy that don’t stop drooling or those that begin drooling due to loss of facial muscle control know the horrors of this. Have you had to endure watching people stare at your parent or child as they experience this humiliating social embarrassment? Have you tried to alleviate the irritating sores that develop from skin being constantly wet? Have you tried to keep them in presentable clothing when saliva keeps staining their clothes?

What evolutionary advantage is there to developing the oral neuromuscular control at age 18-24 months? What if drooling, the default condition at birth, was the way our lives always are? How would you like to date, make love, run a business meeting, ride horses, grocery shop and take care of kids while drooling? How cool would you feel driving your fancy car down the road with sunglasses and drool? How would your wedding go with everyone trying to be discrete with their designer drool cloths or bibs?

The human body is designed to give us dignity. These specific designs and abilities point to a Creator who cares about even whether we are embarrassed or not. There’s no evolutionary advantage to not drooling. It’s the gift of dignity.

So this person spends several paragraphs giving examples of why drooling might be evolutionarily disadvantageous, yet then claims there’s no reason why not drooling is evolutionarily advantageous?  It’s all just about the fact that God doesn’t want us to look undignified?

Onto gem #2, by the über-troll supersport:

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters…(all without knowing/understanding she’s even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.

So I’ve got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous — she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn’t there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young? Wouldn’t it be easier just to skip all that? I thought evolution was all about being selfish……….so why do so many animals put others’ needs before themselves? What’s the advantage to that?

2) Why wouldn’t it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature…..but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young…even when they’re hungry. But wouldn’t an animal be more likely to breed if it didn’t starve? Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature — afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this “love” or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What’s the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember — evolution cannot plan ahead.

This is a classic example of misunderstanding what the Theory of Evolution is about.  We are all familiar with the term “survival of the fittest” (which is not strictly true, but too long to get into right now).  What people fail to comprehend is that when scientist talk about “survival”, they’re talking about reproductive survival.  It doesn’t matter if a mother lives to a ripe old age through starving/eating her babies – if she dies without leaving offspring, her genetic information dies with her.  So any propensity to behave in a selfish manner would have died out quickly.  Mothers with altruistic behavior, who care for their offspring until they’re mature enough to survive on their own and reproduce, will pass on their altruistic behavior through successive generations.  It’s not difficult to see how altruism towards offspring might become prevalent in a species, assuming you’re not willfully ignorant.

H/T: PZ

Advertisements

Last Week in Stupidity 25 Apr 2009

Posted by Jessa in Money, Politics, This Week in Stupidity, Wacky.
1 comment so far

Today’s edition: Teabaggers.

The whole “teabag movement” was doomed to be fodder for epic lulz the second they decided to use “teabag” as a verb.  Apparently, none of the organizers thought to maybe check the Intertubes to see if maybe “teabag” had some sort of alternate meaning that would render their movement unintentionally hilarious.

But that was just the beginning.

I’ll give the organizers the benefit of the doubt.  I’ll assume that they had genuine concerns about what they saw as excessive government spending.  Economics is not exactly an easy-to-understand topic for the layperson, and many people have the natural tendency to mistrust something that they find confusing.  So I can see where they might be suspicious.

Then there’s the unwritten rule that, as protest movements gain popularity, they tend to descend into bizarro-world as the lunatic fringe uses it to air an increasingly wacky list of perceived grievances.  So what starts out as a demonstration of unease about government spending ends up with things like this:

Hyperbole, anyone?

Of course!  The stimulus package is just like being bought and sold like property, being forced to work and live in horrible conditions, and being regularly beaten with a whip:

slavery

A pictorial illustration of the Obama Plan. Just switch races.

Then there’s this:

You keep using that word.  I dont think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Yes, another True Patriot who doesn’t understand the definition of “socialism”, and probably honestly thinks that he/she (I can’t tell) has never ever benefited from government spending.  How cute!  I personally like roads and brudges, FDIC insurance, water and sewer services,  parks, sidewalks, and many other services that the government provides, but maybe that’s just me.

Want to see more?  Clicky!