67 thoughts on “Doonesbury takes on creationism.

  1. I never found the joke—I just kept coming upon more links promising “the best blonde joke ever!” Am I missing something, or is that the joke itself (that there isn’t one)?

    Cute “Doonsebury,” by the way. I’m a big fan.

  2. I give up. I never found it.long face After a while of clicking links, I became distinctly aware of the fact that I was going around in circles.

  3. LOL, reminds me of a set of cards I used to have in junior and senior high school.  Both sides read, “do you know how to keep an idiot amused?  Turn card to find out”.  I swear, this one guy turned the card about a dozen times before it dawned on him.

  4. If you found it amusing, it doesn’t speak well for your acquaintence with the subject matter.

    Creationists don’t deny that organisms evolve- just that they turn into new species.

    Trudeau, like so culturally aggressive materialists, doesn’t realize how ignorant he is of the subjects he satirizes- or how foolish he makes himself look in the eyes of those less smugly ignorant.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. I was blond as a small child.  It turned brown after I started school.  Does that mean something???
    wink

    If you found it amusing, it doesn’t speak well for your acquaintence with the subject matter.

    Blondes need friends, too.

  8. Liberal, n.: Someone who has absolute faith in Intelligent Design and cannot accept the Theory of Evolution—unless the subject at hand is the origin of species.

  9. Liberal, n.: Someone who has absolute faith in Intelligent Design and cannot accept the Theory of Evolution—unless the subject at hand is the origin of species.

    Eh, I don’t subscribe to the Dictionary of Insecure Macho Asshattery. But maybe if you keep repeating your little nonsensical definition to yourself again and again and again, one day you’ll convince yourself of its veracity! At least one person on the planet will be convinced. Maybe you’ll even be able to convince yourself of all the things you say!

    I was blond as a small child.  It turned brown after I started school.  Does that mean something???

    It means you’re a lot like my life partner John, if that itself means anything to you. Blonde as a wee lad, beautifully dark-haired now. I, on the other hand, have had hair of one shade my whole life.  C’est la vie, I guess.

  10. Intelligent design, huh? I think I’d have made it that the hole I breathe through wasn’t connected to the hole I eat through. The only proof that I can see that humans were made in anyone’s image is far from “intelligent”

  11. 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?

    Didn’t you know, DoF?  Of course we’re all the same species, since we all have the same father, Jehovah.  The only reason humans can’t interbreed with chimps, or tardigrades for that matter, is because of the Fall.

    When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God was jealous, saying “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”  So God mixed up their DNA, so that it was ashamed too, and twisted into helices to cover its insides; and God banned Adam and Eve from Eden (oneness with Nature).

    Of course, God used exactly the same tactic later, when uppity humans built the Tower of Babel.  God felt threatened, and scrambled their languages.

    And now that computers are developing godlike powers, God is obviously doing the same thing, what with Windows, and Linux, and Macintosh…

  12. I normally don’t do this, but there are two comments I would like to address in this thread which caught my eye.

    One:

    Creationists don’t deny that organisms evolve- just that they turn into new species.

    Bullshit. I have tried to be polite and I have tried to be eloquent in the past but for this I will drop the ruse and simply call a spade a spade. To deny that the end result of evolution is the creation of a new species is to deny evolution itself. You sir, are an ass.

    Two:

    Liberal, n.: Someone who has absolute faith in Intelligent Design and cannot accept the Theory of Evolution—unless the subject at hand is the origin of species.

    Wow. Fucking wow. The last time I checked, those who had absolute faith in Intelligent Design included our President and a large majority of the GOP. You should be hit with something heavy and sharp. Possibly a bulldozer covered in broken glass and sprinkled with boric acid. Better yet, should you happen upon a tall building or maybe even a cliff, feel free to take a flying-fucking-leap off of it.

    I pray the two of you have yet to breed.

  13. Neodromos, I suspect Daryl was trying to be “funny”.  You know, witty, laughter-provoking.  He was contrasting the silly liberals with the down-to-earth conservatives, who scorn biological evolution, but embrace Social Darwinism: that is, cutthroat capitalism.  Hehe.

  14. LMAO. Sounds like medicine is in a pickle.
    Treat me for the ‘new and evolved’ TB please.

  15. Could’ve went with ye olde medieval standby: leeches!

    Yeah, Daryl’s definition lost me.  And my crack about hair color change looks like a dud.

    You should be hit with something heavy and sharp. Possibly a bulldozer covered in broken glass and sprinkled with boric acid.

    When Neo gives somebody a warm fuzzy, they should check to see if it’s a grizzly bear. wink

  16. Well, I thought the endless clicking through cyclical links was a pretty good joke in itslef, but I tired of it quickly.  A brief Google search produced this one, which may not be THE joke in quiestion, but I laughed.
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    A blonde female police officer pulls over a blonde gal in a convertible sports car for speeding. She walks up to the car and asks the blonde for her driver’s license. The blonde convertible driver searches through her purse in vain

    Finally she asks, “What does it look like?”

    The blonde officer tells her, “It’s that thing with your picture on it.” The blonde driver searches for a few more seconds, pulls out her compact, opens it and sure enough sees herself. She hands the compact to the blonde cop.

    After a few seconds looking at the compact, the blonde cop rolls her eyes, hands the compact back to the blonde convertible driver and says, “If you would have told me you were a police officer when I first pulled you over we could have avoided this whole thing!”

  17. Stop making fun of blondes.  Don’t you know that God designed blondes first?

    Intelligent design came much later.

  18. So which is it, liberals?  Socialism (Intelligent Design)?  Or capitalism (evolution)?

    Some of both, I think even you will agree, Daryl.  Or are you an anarchist?  Good luck in your hidey-hole then.  Show me a successful society with no government.

    It is unthinkable to them [liberals] that an incredibly efficient economic system could spring forth from an infinite series of uncoordinated decisions made by people who have no intention of designing an economic system, but only want to maximize their own wealth and happiness.

    I don’t know anyone, even the leftiest of my lefty friends, who doesn’t think that a market economy is the best way to distribute goods.  The failure of communist planned economies is obvious to all but the fundy marxhumpers.  But that doesn’t mean that laissez-faire capitalism is the summum bonum, either.

    I think it was Reagan who said that government is the only thing responds to failure by getting even bigger and richer.

    Ah yes, Reagan.  Environment: “Seen one redwood, seen them all”.  Student demonstrators: “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with”.  His idea of making government smaller was cutting school budgets and propelling the national debt to record heights, a policy continued by the Bushes.  Of course, our successful peacekeeping in Iraq is worth putting our children into debt…

    There are no easy answers in trying to build societies.  While there are some useful analogies to be drawn with evolution, and with human design, ultimately we must see what works, and not succumb to the “pathetic fallacy” beloved of Social Darwinists: that because Nature is “red in tooth and claw”, that human societies should be too.

  19. Equating Natural History and Creationism with Economic Politics is absurd.  Might as well say frogs are the environmental equivalent of market inflation while snakes consume the idea of free trade.

    Each are in their separate category.  Liking frogs doesn’t mean I like inflation, or that hating snakes means I hate free trade.  Just because evolution exists doesn’t mean all you God-faring Creationists have to like it.  Take that up with your God.

  20. In my rush to throw out a few witty insults, I failed to see the joke. For that, it would seem, I have become living proof that horses asses outnumber horses. As for Mr. Waters’ remark, I stand firm in my position the he is a prime candidate for head taste-tester at Dupont. Besides, I’ve heard their bleached chicken cordon bleu is divine.

  21. What got me when I read the strip, not to mention most of the comments that were not flames or jokes, is that Trudeau committed an irish bull(as I believe it is calle). Creationists say that the world is 7000 or so years old and everything was created in lockstep and the ark, etc, operated by the same mechanism as our technology today. It just ain’t so. To say that a bacterium developed resistance over fifty years has evolved—well evolved means changed—and this is a change. But has the bacterium changed into a spirochete? No. It is still a “onecelled” organism with a sophisticated multipart flagellum, that is, with irreducible complexity solvable only by a very good engineer. Thanks, papa!

  22. I almost was able to understand that last comment—it sounds like he’s parroting the IDiot argument of irreducible complexity. If so then Russell needs to go study up on Evolution before he bothers trying to communicate in the English language on this topic again. The whole irreducibility argument has been busted many, many times over.

  23. With regards to the ID vs. Evolution arguement, I have nothing to add that hasn’t been said a billion times. It’s ridiculous to blindly adhere to either side without critically examining the facts. That said, I would call myself a Darwinist.

    I would like to respond to Daryl’s second comment. I personally view “cutthroat capitalism” as redundant. I believe that even people in favor of unrestricted capitalism would agree that capitalism does not require an “all for one and one for all” mentality. Although I personally believe that capitalism cannot benefit all of mankind, this statement does not mean that laissez-faire cannot possibly create a just society (that would be pretty pretentious of me to assume som wouldn’t it?).

    That said, analogy of economic and political ogranization to biological evolution is still a bit far-fetched. Even if you assume that a perfect analogy can be made between the economy and the ecosystem (don’t be confused with the similarity of their names) there are still some serious shortcomings. First of all, the spider is only improving with respect to the resistance of its prey. It wouldn’t need acid if the insects died when they were shot up with ketchup. The resistance/toxicity relationship is not necesarilly benefitting either the spider or the prey. When it comes to the rest of the animal kingdom, nobody knows who else this relationship will benefit.

    As an anarchist / free person supporter, I think that economic freedom doesn’t always necesarilly translate into justice. I haven’t yet seen much evidence that capitalist economic policy can be a good thing, but I know that unrestricted government power can’t. Either way, I’d be interested in learning more about free market thought. Although I don’t know much about business practices, it makes sense to me that a business is likely to make more money if it, you know, charges for it’s work. Although I have some serious problems with the FDA (not just its view on marjiuana, which I don’t smoke), I don’t know how private companies could effectively replace the few positive features it does exhibit. I’d be interested to hear a more in-depth analysis of this.

  24. Daryl-I know that drug consumers would be better off if we simply eliminated the FDA.  Over time, private certifying authorities would emerge to attest that this drug or that drug is “safe and effective

  25. I enjoy Doonesbury very much.  However, this cartoon merely repeats Indoctrination and not Science.
    Evolution (Macro) is the gaining of Genetic Information)
    Adaptation (Micro-Evolution) is the loss of Genetic Info.

    The case of TB is from Adaptation. ALL Scientists on BOTH sides of the “Big Debate” believe in Adaptation.  Heavily researched and provable.

    When people use Adaptation as proof of Macro-Evolution they are either misguided, mis-informed, or being intellectually dis-honest.

  26. Gene, it’s clear you’re just repeating the same talking points as the IDiots. There’s more than enough evidence out there in support of macro evolution. Your definitions of macro and micro evolution are hilariously bad.

    Go out and actually study up on what the current theory of evolution actually is, from Biologists and not Christian Apologists, and then come back and try again.

  27. Read up on it?  Sooooooooooooooooo, you are claiming that TB resistance is NOT from Adaptation which is what I stated?

    I only commented that people should not use Adaptation for proof of something else.

    Interesting.  I think it might be you that needs to do a “tad” more reading.

    For the record you are saying that TB Resistance is not from Adaptation?

  28. Gene comes back to try again without being prepared:

    Read up on it?  Sooooooooooooooooo, you are claiming that TB resistance is NOT from Adaptation which is what I stated?

    That’s not what I claimed at all and anyone with at least a modicum of common sense can see that for themselves.

    I said nothing about your statement on TB. What I did say was that your definitions for micro and macro evolution were laughable and that anyone who has actually studied the theory would already know that.

    I only commented that people should not use Adaptation for proof of something else.

    Considering your apparent ignorance of what the theory says it seems odd that you should dictate what does and doesn’t constitute proof.

    Interesting.  I think it might be you that needs to do a “tad” more reading.

    I’m certainly no expert on the theory of evolution, but it’s probably safe to say it’s more in-depth than what you’re displaying so far.

    For the record you are saying that TB Resistance is not from Adaptation?

    Your ability to remain fixated on a point no one was arguing is impressive indeed.

  29. Your ability to remain fixated on a point no one was arguing is impressive indeed.

    The Doonsbury cartoon is on MultiDrug Resistant TB which is caused by Adaptation.  That was what I commented on.  If this is some kind of threat to you, then I guess your “knee jerk” ranting is understandable. No one brought up the Bible, except you.  No one brought up I.D, except you.

    I only mentioned that people should not use examples of Adaptation for something else. No more, no less.

  30. Gene tries again…

    The Doonsbury cartoon is on MultiDrug Resistant TB which is caused by Adaptation.  That was what I commented on.  If this is some kind of threat to you, then I guess your “knee jerk” ranting is understandable. No one brought up the Bible, except you.  No one brought up I.D, except you.

    And I commented on your apparent lack of understanding of the theory of evolution as evidenced by your previous missive. You’re right, however, in that I did make an assumption that you’re an IDiot.

    I only mentioned that people should not use examples of Adaptation for something else. No more, no less.

    Except that adaptation is one part of the theory of evolution and thus the Doonesbury cartoon is right on the money. The fact that you would dispute this just makes you look like a moron.

  31. Except that adaptation is one part of the theory of evolution and thus the Doonesbury cartoon is right on the money. The fact that you would dispute this just makes you look like a moron.

    No it doesn’t. Adaptation is the result of a loss of genetic information which is what I stated. Any Scientist on either side of the fence knows this and would not argue about it. Why you should argue about it is a mystery.

    Why do you keep harping on the Bible anyway? The fact that you continue to do so when it is irrelevant can be seen as an example of the noun that ends your last msg.

  32. Gene has come back for more:

    No it doesn’t. Adaptation is the result of a loss of genetic information which is what I stated. Any Scientist on either side of the fence knows this and would not argue about it. Why you should argue about it is a mystery.

    “Loss of genetic information” is not a requirement of adaptation and is not part of the definition of adaptation.

    Adaptation is any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to live in its environment. That could conceivably be the result of a loss of genetic material, but it could also be the result of a gain or even just a change in the genetic material.

    Why do you keep harping on the Bible anyway? The fact that you continue to do so when it is irrelevant can be seen as an example of the noun that ends your last msg.

    Looking back over my last few comments it’s clear to see I’ve not brought the Bible up once. I find it amusing that you seem to think I’m harping on it when this is the first time I’ve even typed the word in our conversation.

  33. Ah, I see why you think I’m harping on the Bible now. You’re reading my signature, which is automatically appended to my messages, and assuming I’m typing it repeatedly. That’s pretty fucking funny.

    Seriously dude, if you can’t figure out what a signature is or that it’s not part of the conversation, how do you expect to convince anyone that your argument has any real thought behind it? Hell, for that matter, it’s a quote from Mark Twain so it’s not even anything I’ve said personally.

  34. Hell, for that matter, it’s a quote from Mark Twain so it’s not even anything I’ve said personally.

    Seriously dude,

    I think the exact opposite is the case.
    Otherwise why keep using it (as a signature)?

      And I think that many things that people attribute to Adaptation might be the result of Exaptation.  Not all Scientists agree on it.  Maybe they should consult you and your apparent omnipotence in this area.

    I’m just passing through and will keep on surfing.
      Have a great day!

  35. Gene tries again…

    I think the exact opposite is the case.
    Otherwise why keep using it (as a signature)?

    Because it’s automatically inserted, as I said previously. If I change the signature in my profile it’ll change in every comment I’ve ever listed. Just like magic.

    And I think that many things that people attribute to Adaptation might be the result of Exaptation.

    Exaptation is simply one form of adaptation. It’s clear you don’t understand the word adaptation.

    Not all Scientists agree on it.

    But most biologists do. The theory of evolution is well established with over 150 years of evidence behind it.

    Maybe they should consult you and your apparent omnipotence in this area.

    You have no sense of irony, do you.

  36. Not all Scientists agree on it.
    But most biologists do.

    You object to “not all” and respond with “But most”

    I have a sense of irony.
    Do you have a sense of the English language?

    Exaptation is simply one form of adaptation. It’s clear you don’t understand the word adaptation.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5cExaptations.shtml

    Evolution 101:
    An “exaptation” is just one example of a characteristic that evolved, but that isn’t considered an adaptation. Stephen Gould and Elizabeth Vrba1 proposed vocabulary to let biologists talk about features that are and are not adaptations:

    (They don’t call it Evolution 101 for nothing 0:-D)

  37. Even the lame Wikipedia agrees with Stephen Gould, Elizabeth, and (I’m sure you’ve noticed by now) NOT with you.

    However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[97] One example is the African lizard Holapsis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[

  38. Gene struggles to grasp basic conversation with:

    You object to “not all” and respond with “But most”

    Did I say I objected to it? No, I didn’t say that. You’re right that there are some scientists out there who will disagree with the theory of evolution—for some reason a large portion of them tend to be Engineers—I’m pointing out that the scientists most qualified to judge the evidence, biologists, are generally in agreement that evolution is real. 

    I have a sense of irony.
    Do you have a sense of the English language?

    Not with the way in which your utilizing it, no. You tend to speak in fragments and incomplete ideas and then act like you’ve said something significant.

    Even the lame Wikipedia agrees with Stephen Gould, Elizabeth, and (I’m sure you’ve noticed by now) NOT with you.

    Yep, you’ve got me on that one. I didn’t bother to take the time to refresh my memory before responding.

    Not that it matters, you’re only providing support for the theory of evolution, not against it. Again the irony of citing Stephen Gould when trying to claim that macro evolution doesn’t happen is very amusing indeed.

  39. Not that it matters, you’re only providing support for the theory of evolution, not against it. Again the irony of citing Stephen Gould when trying to claim that macro evolution doesn’t happen is very amusing indeed.

    I did not claim that Macro-Evolution does not happen.  I stated it does not happen with the TB virus. And people should not confuse the two.  It is UN-scientific.

    Which is true!

    I’m pointing out that the scientists most qualified to judge the evidence, biologists, are generally in agreement that evolution is real.

    I quoted Stephen Gould.

    You keep arguing about things that no one is arguing about.  Talk about fixation!  This knee jerk ranting does not help your case. When evidence is faulty.  You follow science and say so.

    Evolutionists exposed things like Pildown Man.  Did that mean they were rejecting Evolution?  NO!  Merely pointing out frauds/mistakes or whatever and moving on.  I did the same with Doonesbury.  Pointed out an error, a mistake, and now I find it is :

    “CIRCLE THE WAGONS, WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!”

    Not true at all.  AND that kind of mentality does not help Science progress.  You go where the evidence leads you and confront the good, the bad, the ugly, and the inconvenient.

  40. You certainly are an interesting character, Gene. You show up and make some nonsense statements about macro and micro evolution and then claim that you’re only debating what the Doonesbury strip used as a punchline. Nothing you’ve provided so far has rebutted the punchlines statement of the fact that TB has evolved. Whether that evolution was on a micro or macro scale or the result of adaptation is a moot point. The fact remains that it has evolved and has become drug resistant in the process.

    Adaptation and exaptation are both parts of evolution. Doonesbury makes no claims about whether it was adaptation or exaptation that resulted in the drug resistant version. He simple states that TB has evolved which is entirely true.

  41. Yes, I am a character.  And when it comes to Science I am going to hold people’s footsies to the fire no matter what side of the fence they are on.

      The fact is that there IS A BIG difference between the loss of genetic information and the gaining of genetic information.  When you use one to prove the other, OR vice versa, it is UN-scientific no matter who does it and where.

    If we are going to progress in Science, we will do it by embracing the Scientific Method and not Ideology.  And that applies to everyone.  There is too much of it out there.  Too much “Circling the Wagons” and not enough people looking for facts.

    Two plus two equals FOUR”  And it remains four whether we get the answer from a Scientist, a Mathematician, G. Bush (if he has a calculator handy!)  Hilary or Slick Willie.  It stays FOUR. and we should be looking for it whenever possible!

  42. Gene returns for more…

    The fact is that there IS A BIG difference between the loss of genetic information and the gaining of genetic information.  When you use one to prove the other, OR vice versa, it is UN-scientific no matter who does it and where.

    And you’re right back to spouting nonsense once again.

    The rest of your comment ends up being ironic considering the nonsense you just got done spewing.

  43. Stop labeling it nonsense and explain WHY it is nonsense.

    They are two separate things.  I do get tired of Ideology and labels.  There is far too much of it out there.
    You cannot use one as proof of the other. No matter who you are, what you believe, or what side of the fence you are on.

    And two plus two is FOUR no matter what the source.

  44. /doing Gene’s homework for him

    Such lameness.

    A guy on this site lectures me that there is NO difference between Adaptation and Exaptation. And that I need to do more reading. Implies that I am moronic:

    And then I had to cut and paste from STEPHEN GOULD, Evolution 101 and even Wikipedia to show him how wrong and lame it was.

    And all I get in return is labels and Ideology.

    I’m outta here.  You guys can continue to argue and label and ideologize.

    And when you are finished two plus two is still four whether it comes from Gould or anyone else.

Leave a Reply

Connect with:

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>