Here then is the beta version of my strip about evolution. This is a chapter of the book Science Stories which will be out from Myriad Editions next spring. I'm sure there'll be mistakes here, so do feel free to point them out, so that I can make the necessary changes. Thank you.
Note Oct 2013. Hi All. A fully corrected version of the strip is now part of a book called Science Tales, out from Myriad Edtions in the UK, and AbramComicArts in the US and Canada, where its known as How To Fake A Moon Landing.
Note Oct 2013. Hi All. A fully corrected version of the strip is now part of a book called Science Tales, out from Myriad Edtions in the UK, and AbramComicArts in the US and Canada, where its known as How To Fake A Moon Landing.
Posts
227 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227I am not scientifically smart. I am working on that by reading more science based books. I trust science, just haven't completely understood some things. I believe in evolution the more I read about it. but this completely made sense and helped me grasp the theory more fully. I think I can read The Origin of a Species now without feeling I won't understand it. Thanks.
I would like to discuss with DARRYL CUNNINGHAM the evolutionary theory of 'non-war' non-killing. I want to develop this theory further as it relates to concentration of wealth "Unequal Wealth Distribution-UWD. War does not show up in the archeological record until complex hunter-gatherer settlements 12,500 years ago. also, would evolution select for chaos, unpredictability, injury and death as violence, fighting and war produces not to mention the extreme use of caloric energy that fighting needs, or would evolution select for cooperation and egalitarianism which uses far less caloric energy and is far more predictable in favor of life continuance.
my only comment is that the human-chimp split was likely a lot closer to 7 not 5 million years. also, i'm not sure thousands of fossils is a correct characterization. we have a few hundred (if that) unequivocally attributable fossils that belong to a dozenish species, but thousands of unidentified hominins. other than that, it's fantastic! i'll be passing this on to my biology & human evolution teaching friends
Evolution definitely exists at a certain extent, but (as evident from this comic) significant bias causes leaps in logic.
I think something that an evolution-denying friend of mine would say is, "How does this explain speciation?"
He says he believes in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution". In point of fact, though, there's no difference, it's a creationist co-opting and convenient redefinition of the terms.
But still it's one question that really deserves and requires a full-frontal explanation. At what point do accumulated adaptations result in a plant or animal that cannot reproduce with the species from which it is descended?
Awesome! So clearly stated!
Where are there images of Christ on the cross? The closest thing I see is a street sign.
This is my first visit, it won't be my last. You've done a great service with this blog. Thank you.
Hi!
Very cool; one small correction.
Page 8, 1st panel, reads inquinal, should be inguinal canal. Replace Q with G.
This is WONDERFUL! I want it in some form of small book. Email me if this occurs! :D I'll keep checking back...
Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear concept
CST/Berger 19-200SC MagnaTrak 200 Series Magnetic Locator with Soft Case
consider after-sales service. After-sales service to have protection. Figure out the true battery warranty. Maintenance organizations will artificially reduce the auto battery manufacturer
car batterywarranty period, especially the
motorcycle batteries replacement of new
MF motorcycle batteriestime, generally six months to purchase a new
golf cart batterieselectric bicycle, generally for one year warranty, six months, the amount of content
AGM vrla batteryless than 60%, you can replace the new to replace the
traction battery by the
forklift truck battery manufacturers to re-distribution
tubular batterygroup within one year; while the electric motor, generally six months to eight months warranty, less than 60% of the
deep cycle batteries three-month volume of content can be replaced new, three months to the end of the warranty replacement by manufacturers to reconfigure battery group.
whenever they get people sounds pretty good whenever they wont people sounds too bad and its remain bad.never waste your time never search any others just the face down and see what happening and what comes up in your mind.if you need life time prevalence special kind cheap flights
pretty sure journey would be like fire.
I read all of that expecting it to be funny in the end.
This is brilliant. As a Biology teacher this seems to me lucid and concise. I want to put it all over my lab walls. Will be ordering it for library.
Sir, I've never read your blog before. Someone linked it for me in a forum where I participate discussing politics and religion. I don't know anything about you. But I have read your comic a couple times now.
Cards on Table: I'm a theist who has no problem at all with evolution.
I have some major problems with your comic, sir. I see some staight up false statements, and I see other statements that reveal that your faith in naturalism is as strong as any faith I've ever seen.
1. "No Creator would invent such a complex and dangerous design"
Sir, this line is packed with problems. First, it's unscientific in every way. Second, it's based on presuppositions that somehow created things would know best how a creator would create. I'll let you meditate on how profoundly absurd that is. Is there a creator manual you are privy to that I am not?
2. "It's the primal forces of time and genetics that do the moulding"
This, sir, is an unscientific statement. It would be more accurate to say, "Over time we observe that genetic mutations lead to changes or 'moulding'."
The wording of "primal forces" reveals a faith in naturalism that goes beyond science.
3. "This is another example of poor design, as it's easy for the blood vessels to leak and impair vision"
Again there's an assumption built in that we ought to know how a designer would do things. This comes from a faith in naturalism rather than science itself.
4. ReligiousStrawman: "But what makes these changes happen in the first place"
EvolutionGuy: "Well...DNA...changes can sometimes happen."
You'll note that the explainer of evolution in your comic strip here doesn't answer the question. The correct answer is, "we don't always know exactly what causes this change or that one. We only observe changes happening." This answer is science and doesn't try to make conclusions beyond that.
5."Evolution offers the only scientifically testable explanation of how the natural world can produce such a multiplicity of flora and fauna out of simple and understandable processes."
This statement is false. It's also terribly limiting to science. It would be wiser to say, "Most scientists use the system of evolution as a model for the multiplicity of flora and fauna because it's the model that fits best with what we've observed so far."
You're certain no other model could be proposed in the future? If so, you've gone far beyond science sir. You've entered the world of faith.
I won't hide the fact that your comic made me angry. But a reasonable person could objectively use my comments here to notice that you step beyond science in your comic. That's a shame sir, as it undermines what you appear to be trying to do.
So as to end on a positive note, I thought you handled the moth issue nicely.
Sir, I've never read your blog before. Someone linked it for me in a forum where I participate discussing politics and religion. I don't know anything about you. But I have read your comic a couple times now.
Cards on Table: I'm a theist who has no problem at all with evolution.
I have some major problems with your comic, sir. I see some staight up false statements, and I see other statements that reveal that your faith in naturalism is as strong as any faith I've ever seen.
1. "No Creator would invent such a complex and dangerous design"
Sir, this line is packed with problems. First, it's unscientific in every way. Second, it's based on presuppositions that somehow created things would know best how a creator would create. I'll let you meditate on how profoundly absurd that is. Is there a creator manual you are privy to that I am not?
2. "It's the primal forces of time and genetics that do the moulding"
This, sir, is an unscientific statement. It would be more accurate to say, "Over time we observe that genetic mutations lead to changes or 'moulding'."
The wording of "primal forces" reveals a faith in naturalism that goes beyond science.
3. "This is another example of poor design, as it's easy for the blood vessels to leak and impair vision"
Again there's an assumption built in that we ought to know how a designer would do things. This comes from a faith in naturalism rather than science itself.
4. ReligiousStrawman: "But what makes these changes happen in the first place"
EvolutionGuy: "Well...DNA...changes can sometimes happen."
You'll note that the explainer of evolution in your comic strip here doesn't answer the question. The correct answer is, "we don't always know exactly what causes this change or that one. We only observe changes happening." This answer is science and doesn't try to make conclusions beyond that.
5."Evolution offers the only scientifically testable explanation of how the natural world can produce such a multiplicity of flora and fauna out of simple and understandable processes."
This statement is false. It's also terribly limiting to science. It would be wiser to say, "Most scientists use the system of evolution as a model for the multiplicity of flora and fauna because it's the model that fits best with what we've observed so far."
You're certain no other model could be proposed in the future? If so, you've gone far beyond science sir. You've entered the world of faith.
I won't hide the fact that your comic made me angry. But a reasonable person could objectively use my comments here to notice that you step beyond science in your comic. That's a shame sir, as it undermines what you appear to be trying to do.
So as to end on a positive note, I thought you handled the moth issue nicely.
Sir, I've never read your blog before. Someone linked it for me in a forum where I participate discussing politics and religion. I don't know anything about you. But I have read your comic a couple times now.
Cards on Table: I'm a theist who has no problem at all with evolution.
I have some major problems with your comic, sir. I see some staight up false statements, and I see other statements that reveal that your faith in naturalism is as strong as any faith I've ever seen.
1. "No Creator would invent such a complex and dangerous design"
Sir, this line is packed with problems. First, it's unscientific in every way. Second, it's based on presuppositions that somehow created things would know best how a creator would create. I'll let you meditate on how profoundly absurd that is. Is there a creator manual you are privy to that I am not?
2. "It's the primal forces of time and genetics that do the moulding"
This, sir, is an unscientific statement. It would be more accurate to say, "Over time we observe that genetic mutations lead to changes or 'moulding'."
The wording of "primal forces" reveals a faith in naturalism that goes beyond science.
3. "This is another example of poor design, as it's easy for the blood vessels to leak and impair vision"
Again there's an assumption built in that we ought to know how a designer would do things. This comes from a faith in naturalism rather than science itself.
4. ReligiousStrawman: "But what makes these changes happen in the first place"
EvolutionGuy: "Well...DNA...changes can sometimes happen."
You'll note that the explainer of evolution in your comic strip here doesn't answer the question. The correct answer is, "we don't always know exactly what causes this change or that one. We only observe changes happening." This answer is science and doesn't try to make conclusions beyond that.
5."Evolution offers the only scientifically testable explanation of how the natural world can produce such a multiplicity of flora and fauna out of simple and understandable processes."
This statement is false. It's also terribly limiting to science. It would be wiser to say, "Most scientists use the system of evolution as a model for the multiplicity of flora and fauna because it's the model that fits best with what we've observed so far."
You're certain no other model could be proposed in the future? If so, you've gone far beyond science sir. You've entered the world of faith.
I won't hide the fact that your comic made me angry. But a reasonable person could objectively use my comments here to notice that you step beyond science in your comic. That's a shame sir, as it undermines what you appear to be trying to do.
So as to end on a positive note, I thought you handled the moth issue nicely.
Nice work and a great effort Darryl. Just one correction, in plate 29 you mentioned (InQuinal Hernia) ..... Actually, it is "Inguinal Hernia).... With G in place of Q ..... A comment is that the inguinal canal is actually a weak point in the abdomen but it does not affect other animals who got their testes outside the body in a scrotum ...... There are no inguinal hernias in apes or horses ...... Inguinal hernias and hemorrhoids are two pitfalls of the upright position of homo-sapiens ...... Other animals are free of those two pathologies because they walk parallel to earth ..... Even apes, like Chimps and Gorillas bend forward while knuckle walking. Anyway, objection against intelligent design is raised by the fact that, some hot blooded animals (birds and some mammals like sea mammals and elephants) have their testes inside the abdomen and this does not affect their spermatogenesis and they reproduce normally ..... An intelligent design would better let the testes inside the abdomen , as their exposure outside the body will make them vulnerable to kicks and blows which sometimes may be fatal and also will diminish their vitality (collection of blood around the testes or hematocele or hematoma within the tissue of the testes will eventually result in sterility) !
Lovely... this is consistent with the theory I have read as well. That said, it still doesn't deal with the "First Cause" question. First, just because something is possible,given an extreme amount of particular circumstances, it doesn't mean it actually happened. Evidences are not conclusive by any means. In addition, it is arrogant to say, "A Creator wouldn't do it this way." If there is a Creator, which I contend there is, in part due to the only reasonable answer to "First Cause", this Creator is outside time and space, and therefore far more intelligent and powerful than anything that exists within time and space. To say any of us understand the Creator perfectly is just silly. It is just as possible that creation exists as it does because the Creator wants to be approached by faith, not by mere fact. There is no evidence in existence that can conclusively preclude such a Creation.
Believe what you will, and I will do the same. I personally find evolution theory lacking in many areas, though it clearly has some merit. However,without dealing with First Cause honestly, I am always skeptical of any explanation of how we came to be. But that's just me. ;-)
One criticism, in the panels discussing retinal blood vessels, you actually show the structure of the iris, which is confusing.
Otherwise, very good indeed.
/@
"These evolutionary predictions have been met countless times."
Oh yeah?
"The deepest and oldest layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species. Organisms resembling present-day species should be found in the most recent layers of rock."
Recent and shallow, deep and old may be identical for different layers in one tall rock, they are not identical for comparisons between different fossils (such as trilobites and archaeopteryx).
In other words: lagerstätten tend to be same depth under ground level, a diggable one.
"We should be able to find evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record.
[...]
We should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages."
Concepts like "change" and "lineages" presuppose we could prove a different age for the stratum were say archaeopteryx was found and that where that trilobite was found.
We can't since lagerstätten are all at diggabel depth.
"We should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected of having common ancestry, like fish with amphibians. These links should occur in layers of rock that date to when the groups are supposed to have diverged."
On CMI I just found an article last two months (or earlier?) that Tiktaalik was in "younger" layers than "earliest" land animals.
I reserve myself against younger and earlier, for above stated reason. But it is a considerable number of millions if not billions of years.
I wanted to send this to my family members who are religious, but have been not been properly educated on what evolution is.
meizu mx5
xiaomi redmi note 2
meizu m2
The panel about the blood vessels on the retina does not show the retina.
:)
This is a great article. And great examples from easyinfoblog. I think it is impossible to overemphasize how important it is to make sure the answers are here. Learn how to view private pornhub videos
Post a Comment