Cenk is killing Darwin!

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

George Bush - stop jawboning the Saudis!

Cenk - stop defending evolution!

Cenk has it right in general principle but then massacres it.  He sort of explains the basics and then invokes what Darwin would have called "a hopeful monster" - an extreme mutation (which, as Contessa points out, is not even the case with "tree man") and claims that it could be "selected".

The worst moment was when he (correctly) mocks creationists on the problem of evolving an eye but destroys it by saying - "this is the way it could happen" (like "tree man").

No, how it happens is by cumulative changes (from tiny mutations and tiny recombinative effects) stretched over vast periods of time, combined with the selective process that Cenk did a pretty good job explaining.

The eye has independently evolved a number of times in the animal kingdom (insects, octopuses and orangutans, for instance).  If you start with some cell tissue that, perhaps, is particularly sensitive to light, it could over a long time evolve into more complex cells that could distinguish early morning light from mid-day light.  If this brings ANY small degree of reproductive advantage, the characteristic will spread throughout the species gene pool.  Later, a mutation could arise that allows detection of general shapes.  Again, if there is an advantage it spreads until it is the norm. 

I won't go on and on taking you to an eagles eye (by the way, if man is so "perfectly" created in god's image, how come birds can see so much better than god?).

Anyway, Cenk (and everyone who wants to talk about evolution), please read a few books on it.  I can make recommendations for general readers if you need it.

< whats wrong whit Pennsylvania!!!!!!!!! | FBI's Intentional Botches >
 Display:
I was wincing during parts of his explanation.  Thanks for the breakdown, I can cancel my e-mail to him now.

by Spencer on 04/15/2008 07:06:20 PM EST


I have an easy way to settle the Creationism Vs. Evolution "debate" once and for all.

First, we have the first minute or so of this (work-safe).

And then we have this (short and work-safe).

No more debates. Just forward those two clips to any and all creationists.

by ihavenobias on 04/15/2008 10:59:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
is that the human body is so perfectly designed.  Oh really?

How many of us couldn't read this sentence without corrective lenses or surgery? The number of people with poor eye sight is astounding, and FAR from perfect.

How many people have bad backs?  How about bad knees?  How about bad elbows and carpal tunnel? 

Perfect design my ass! God would be fired if he were an "Intelligent Designer" today.

by ihavenobias on 04/15/2008 07:35:19 PM EST


Do they not realize WHY their backs are so far from perfect?  It's because they weren't built for upright walking!  Bipedalism, like all of evolution is simply a juryrigged adaptation of a previously successful system. 

This is another common misconception - that we are MOVING towards perfection.  No we aren't.  We aren't "moving" anywhere.  Change happens because some organisms survive better in the moment of a given environment than others. 

And perfection is far from the "goal" of evolution.  If something were "perfect" (such as our sight) it would be a wasted resource.  We don't need better vision than the one we evolved on the savannas 3 million years ago and there has been no environmental change that has made it evolve. 

If we are evolving at the moment, I'd guess we might be getting worse and worse vision because we don't need it to survive the present environment and that's the ONLY thing evolution "cares" about.

It's another day in paradise...

by happyhominid on 04/15/2008 08:09:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What about that episode of "The Outer Limits" where David McCallum invents an evolution chamber and evolves himself way far ahead of the human species? He grows a big bald head and gets very snooty. I don't remember how it ended, but I believe he got his comeuppance!

by ashbul on 04/15/2008 09:30:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Or we geeks are gonna start an endless thread on the High Evolutionary

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 10:46:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tell these flatscans what's up.

by Spencer on 04/16/2008 01:56:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The prostate seems practically DESIGNED -- to get cancer.

Arthritis would not exist in organisms that were designed.

by jarett on 04/16/2008 12:08:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but BPH, making it hard for men over 50 to pee, and also to get a good night's sleep.

Also, how about the astounding fact that about half of all pregnancies don't result in birth, due to "natural causes" (that was according to a study on Medline by the way if someone wants to look it up, I'm going back to sleep now).  Apparently God designed a woman's body to be like a giant Planned Parenthood clinic, yet he's presumably "pro-life".

You'd think he could've made a woman's body that ALWAYS gave a fertilized egg a chance to develop and be born healthy instead a 50/50 shot. 

by ihavenobias on 04/16/2008 08:17:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The girls I have dated have been designed like tiny little planned parenthood clinics. 

If you like the giant one's, God Bless and go forward.

;-) 

by ProfRich on 04/16/2008 09:30:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Is when they say "what are the odds that all of this would have happened? Astronomical!"

Isn't that true for every possible reality?

I mean an entire timeline happened.  One was going to happen anyway.  Why not this one?  Why is it any more likely or less likely than another?

There seems to be this assumption that this is the best of all possible realitites so it had to be due to God.  How do we know that?  Couldn't this be the worst of all possible realities?  Middle of the road?

Looking at what happened after it happens and saying what a miracle everything happened the way it did when you have no other potential outcomes to compare it to is really stupid. 

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 08:34:18 PM EST


of course.

What Cenk should bring up is that the funniest part of the supposed "controversy" over the eye is that Darwin is in fact the first person to point this out!! He devoted a chapter to it (and other examples). Reams have been written about it in the last couple decades since the pieces have come together in molecular and developmental biology. But the idea that the creationists promote, that they came up with some insightful new criticism of Darwin's theory, which he failed to adress, is an absolute load of baloney.

One of the reasons his work was so well recieved was that he anticipated every possible objection his critics might raise (including the eye!) and mapped out the consequences in such agonizing detail that there was little left for people to argue except on theological grounds, which at the time was not walled off from science as it is currently. Another thing modern creationists fail to appreciate is that prior to publication of the origin, most of Darwin's contemporaries were creationists!

I haven't heard the show yet, so I look forward to hearing what this is all about. Whatever you think of his screeds, Cenk's no lightweight. I remember a long while back, about 2 years I think, when he corrected Jill on a statement she made, that demonstrated some nuanced understanding beyond what you usually get from a, uh, talk show host/former lawyer. Its one of the reasons I decided his show was worth listening to (that and it being by far the most entertaining show on AAR (sorry Al Franken!).

Do you people remember the peanut butter crisis?

 http://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

I think I first heard it on TYT. Cenk and Ben had a lot of fun with it. 

by hazmat on 04/15/2008 10:42:42 PM EST


I'm about to watch the day's show.  As a biologist, I best prepare myself for Cenk's science lesson...  ;)

by desertpear on 04/15/2008 10:43:36 PM EST


It was actually in the post game show during Ana On Ana, Absurd News Alert. 

And I agree that in the past Cenk has said some things that impressed me with his knowledge and I was a bit shocked at some of the things he was saying today.  I get his point, but it was very poorly made and would serve to create confusion for the uninitiated.

It's another day in paradise...

by happyhominid on 04/15/2008 10:56:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
www.youtube.com/thunderf00t

In particular, the "why do people laugh at Creationists" series.  The latest one deals with that turd, Expelled.  [Or is it eXpelled? (Is Ben Stein eXtreme now?)]

by richardshort2001 on 04/15/2008 11:29:23 PM EST


Well, we have a Mercedes brain in a Yugo body, so much for that theory.

by MRFred on 04/16/2008 08:33:46 AM EST


 Display: