Think this’ll shut the Creationists up? No? Me neither.

Creationists are always arguing that if Evolution is true then we should see cats giving birth to frogs or “transitional” forms such as the legendary Croc-o-duck. The fact that such things would actually disprove the theory only illustrates how they haven’t a clue what the theory actually says, but that doesn’t stop them from demanding to see such creatures.

So perhaps the news of an apparent Monk-o-Piglet recently born in China will get them to shut up:

“It’s hideous. No one will be willing to buy it, and it scares the family to even look at it!” Feng told Oriental Today.

He says the piglet looks just like a monkey, with two thin lips, a small nose and two big eyes. Its rear legs are also much longer than its forelegs, causing it to jump instead of walk.

Feng’s wife said the monkey-faced piglet was one of five newborns of a sow which the family had raised for nine years.

“My God, it was so scary. I didn’t known what it was. I was really frightened,” she said.

“But our son likes to play with it, and he stopped us from getting rid of it. He even feeds it milk.”

So what does this thing look like? It’s kinda cute in a horror movie way:

Somehow I doubt this’ll get the Creationists to stop yapping about how there’s no transitional forms though it should. It’s exactly the sort of thing they’ve been clamoring for.

19 thoughts on “Think this’ll shut the Creationists up? No? Me neither.

  1. Wow, now Bat Boy can finally have a pet that understands his terrible trans-species plight! Long live Bat Boy!

  2. Good god (pardon the expression), it looks like something for the spore creature creator. Atleast it looks like something I try to make on it.

    Is it weird that I find the fact it has eyebrows to be cute?

  3. Whoa… am I the only one thinking, if this can happen with a monkey and a pig, why not a human (say a lonely farmer) and a pig? Yeah I went there.  Which actually opens up a weird ass can of worms, how would people react to something like that?

  4. If it can reproduce AND produce an offspring that looks somewhat like it, then it will be a true transitional species. Until then its just a one-off deformation. A cute one at that.

  5. PHWA!!! Welcome to the world you ugly little git! Oh how I love mother nature, such a weird and wonderful piglet. I hope ita eyes are ok though, it does not apear to have the ability to blink. LOL

  6. I’d vote for this for President – couldn’t be worse than the choices we now have.  cheese  cheese

  7. His deformity may help him in the long run. I doubt anyone would actualy want to eat him. I hope he lives a long, healthy life.

  8. Holy Crap that thing is freakish looking! I had to get a good look at it. It looks as id the snout grew on top of the head.

  9. Creationists are always arguing that if Evolution is true then we should see cats giving birth to frogs or “transitional” forms such as the legendary Croc-o-duck. The fact that such things would actually disprove the theory only illustrates how they haven’t a clue what the theory actually says, but that doesn’t stop them from demanding to see such creatures.

    I would just like to point out that it is not considered a transitional specimen unless it is followed by something else, hence it is capable of reproduction. Just as a horse bred with a donkey produces a mule which is sterile and incapable of reproduction. So a mule would not be a transitional species. This is also not an advantageous trait or quality and does not perpetuate Darwin’s theory. Aside from that even if 10% of them were capable of reproduction, you will still need a male and female mutation with matching chromosomes for them to reproduce. They would have to born around the same time, in close in proximity and both fertile. The odds of that are highly unlikely.

  10. They would have to born around the same time, in close in proximity and both fertile. The odds of that are highly unlikely.

    Indeed they are, but that’s not how evolution works: you don’t have “hopeful monsters” born, a new species in a single leap, that is lucky enough to find a mate: you have shifts in allele frequency that gradually create new species over a long period of time.  If you want to debate evolution with people who know something about it, do some background reading first- I recommend starting at TalkOrigins.

    Oops- I just realized that I can’t tell what side of the issue J is arguing.  Can you clarify, please?

  11. Indeed they are, but that’s not how evolution works: you don’t have “hopeful monsters” born, a new species in a single leap, that is lucky enough to find a mate: you have shifts in allele frequency that gradually create new species over a long period of time.  If you want to debate evolution with people who know something about it, do some background reading first- I recommend starting at TalkOrigins.

    Hi, Zilch

    Some people here have mentioned that this specimen should “shut up the creationists” because it is transitional. I was merely arguing the point that this is not really a “transitional specimen” unless it’s found that it can successfully carry on the species.

    I do realize that this not how the theory explains evolution.

  12. J, you’re right that this isn’t a true transitional form, but then neither is the Croc-o-duck some Creationists use as an example of what they think should happen if Evolution is true.

    The only reason I used the word transitional at all is because this poor critter looks like what the Creationists are always claiming a transitional form would look like. I was, in essence, mocking that belief.

  13. Sorry, J.  I realized after posting that you didn’t say anything about how evolution worked.  I guess I just have a hair-trigger creationist reaction.  Gotta watch that.

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.