'BC' Comic disses Darwin

[Pahansiri]

The difference between our relation to apes and our relation to monkeys is only a matter of degree. Ditto our relation to bay scallops and Tasmanian devils.

Everything is only is only a matter of degree.

 

[CFLarsen]

But then again, if the latest common ancestor of humans and modern monkeys was still alive, the odds are that we would call it "a monkey".

True.

 

[HarryKeogh]

since this comic strip is supposed to take place several thousand years ago it is obvious this caveman used some sort of divination to see into the future and learn about Charles D. (Darwin, that is).

I find this blasphemous and this cartoonist should be burned.

 

[CFLarsen]

Er no... Don't forget we have a common ancestor with apes, crocodiles and the tapeworm... in fact I believe the current evidence is that pretty much everything (we know) shares a common ancestor, some are just more ancestral then others!

You've been reading Dawkins' "Ancestors Tale".

 

[davefoc]

Brown wrote:

Bad poetry.

Maybe that's why I liked it. It rhymed, There are some people that think that poetry doesn't have to rhyme, what morons.

No wit.

I thought it was witty. I think you have a higher standard than me.

Factually inaccurate.

Yes, I suppose but I thought that contributed to the humor. The errors made you think a bit.

Scientifically ignorant.

I thought you were piling on a bit here. This issue seemed similar to the above. At any rate, I don't always look for scientific accuracy in the comic strips.

Religiously bigoted.

Are there some religions that aren't bigoted by today's PC standards? At least he wasn't disparaging gays which seems to be pretty much standard course for some religious folks these days.

And for that matter, the artwork sucks, too.

Eye of the beholder stuff. I kind of liked it. How would you have drawn the strip so as to be more artistic?

The only thing funny about this comic is that the author meant for it to be taken as a serious commentary on science and upon Darwin's motives.

Well, I don't agree that was the only thing funny, but I do agree that was one of the funny things.

 

[c4ts]

There once was a cartoonist named Hart
Who was paid to write comics and fart
In his defense of Christianity
He forgot common ancestry
And tore a poor strawman apart

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I notice that he put ' theory ' in quotes...



Another ignoramus who doesn't know what a theory is, thinking that it is important to point out that the ' Theory of Evolution ' is just a theory...

 

[Renfield]

Darwin was a Christian or no? I hear conflicting things about him.

Of course BC guy would say Mr. Evolution can't be a real christian no matter what.

 

[DarkMagician]

Darwin was a Christian or no? I hear conflicting things about him.

Of course BC guy would say Mr. Evolution can't be a real christian no matter what.

As far as I know, at his end, Darwin was an agnostic. I got this from his autobiography. There's the Lady Hope story going around where he repents and becomes a christian on his death bed, but that's pretty much been debunked.

 

[Brown]

Another troubling thing about this so-called comic is that it re-tells the falsehood that Darwin basically pulled this theory out of his butt, with no observation and no scientific study.

There are certain loud-mouthed televangelists that assert that very thing. Evolution, they say, is a con game from start to finish, with no evidence of any kind in support of it. It is a myth perpetuated by (1) hatred of God; and (2) the deliberate conspiratorial refusal of the scientific community to allow anyone to challenge evolution. Evolution is not merely an error, they say; it is a deliberate, carefully crafted lie, intended to deceive the faithful and cause them to doubt the veracity of the scriptures, thereby endangering their immortal souls.

They are quite serious about this. And Hart takes exactly the same tone, saying Darwin set out to deceive.

If you listen to people like this (as I do from time to time), it is hard to escape the conclusion that these folks would put me--and a lot of other people educated in science--up against the wall if they had the power to do so. To them, the origin of life is not a matter of honest disagreement among reasonable people. Rather, they view evolution as a sinister fraud, and a fraud knowingly committed with the specific intention of leading people away from God.

 

[Vim Razz]

(2) the deliberate conspiratorial refusal of the scientific community to allow anyone to challenge evolution. Evolution is not merely an error, they say; it is a deliberate, carefully crafted lie, intended to deceive the faithful...

This reminds me of something I learned from watching many many hours of silly dating shows: Any time a twit makes loud, irrelevant accusations about somebody else's attitude or behavior, it's a safe bet that they're describing -- and projecting -- thier own personal garbage (not that they would ever admit it).

This generally happens after their partner has recognized them for the twit they are and rejected their obnoxios advances. Twits do not take rejection well, and will vigorously blame everything on anyone but themselves.

(NOTE!! Such pearls of wisdom are only to be gleaned from blind-date type shows; dating competition type shows only teach you that people will often make idiots of themselves in order to "win" a "prize" that isn't worth a fraction of the effort necessary to do so. Thanks, Roger Lodge!)

 

[c4ts]

Another troubling thing about this so-called comic is that it re-tells the falsehood that Darwin basically pulled this theory out of his butt, with no observation and no scientific study.

Sadly, it's obvious they've never read his book, where Darwin explains the previous theory leading up to his conclusions and supports his findings with examples every single page. It is excessively obvious that a lot of research went into the theory of evolution, he did not simply pull the theory out of his arse. The only part the Creationists read is out of context, that little blurb about Darwin saying evolution is "Just a theory," when he is actually talking about scientific theory, the implications of which cannot be ignored.

 

[pgwenthold]

Sadly, it's obvious they've never read his book, where Darwin explains the previous theory leading up to his conclusions and supports his findings with examples every single page. It is excessively obvious that a lot of research went into the theory of evolution, he did not simply pull the theory out of his arse. The only part the Creationists read is out of context, that little blurb about Darwin saying evolution is "Just a theory," when he is actually talking about scientific theory, the implications of which cannot be ignored.

Besides, who cares whether _he_ pulled it out of his arse? What matters is to what extent it is supported by evidence now.

Einstein pulled relativity mostly out of his arse, and supported it mainly because he thought it an extremely elegent way to do things (and aesthetically pleasing because it addressed this issue of, well, relativity). Even at the time, they best you could say about it was that it accounted for Michelson-Morley and maybe it handled the orbit of Mercury better than Newtonian-style mechanics. However, most of the things that we think about relativity had absolutely no physical basis (time dilation wasn't something that was a big, unsolved problem in physics at the turn of the century). OTOH, it is extremely well supported now, as we know more about the things to look for.

It should be noted that a lot of other people also pulled "scientific theories" out of their arse, with no evidence for them, but in the end, the lack of evidence has done them in, and we don't hear much about them. Ironically, the ones we do think more about are based on religious stuff, like young earth creationism and global floods.

 

[ma1ic3]

Yes, when we date back "all the way" that is the case. But here you would not call a dog the same as a chicken would you?

What does a dog not being a chicken have to do with sharing a common ancestor with monkeys?

But when Someone says we did not evolve from monkeys he is right, nor did we from frogs or dogs but from a branch of apes.

Yes, that someone would be right, but the reply was to you. And you said "We have common ancestors with apes, not monkeys". The word "evolve" was never mentioned.

 

[bjornart]

What I notice, beside the poor poetry, the lack of humour, and the crappy digs at Darwin and the 'theory' of evolution, is that the final comment is "And he did." Now if I didn't know the religionist baggage B.C. has I'd have interpreted that as an admission that Darwin did 'make a monkey out of me and you', i.e. evolution is correct.

 

[c4ts]

I thought he implied everybody was fooled but him.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, when we date back "all the way" that is the case. But here you would not call a dog the same as a chicken would you?

The fact is we are comrpised of the very same elaments as everything, monkey, tree, rock and sun. But when Someone says we did not evolve from monkeys he is right, nor did we from frogs or dogs but from a branch of apes.

This is utter gibberish. That we evolved from one group does not mean that we evolved only from that group.

We evolved from apes. Specifically, we share a common ancestor with apes that would be recognizably an ape -- if it were alive today, and in the zoo, it would be housed in the building with the rest of the great apes.

We also evolved from monkeys. Specifically, we (along with the rest of the great apes) share a common ancestor with monkeys that would be recognizably a monkey. If it were alive today, and in the zoo, it would be housed in the building with the rest of the monkeys, and not in the building with the rest of the great apes.

For that matter, we evolved from fish. Specifically we share a common ancestor with bony fish (such as trout), that, if it were alive today, would be housed in an aquarium and would be recognizably a fish. And, of course, our common ancestor with eukaryotic bacteria was probably a eukaryotic bacterium itself.

We probably did not evolve from frogs. Although we share a common ancestor with frogs, our common ancestor almost certainly would not be recognizable as a frog -- for one thing, it probably had a tail. If new biological data comes in to suggest that our common ancestor with frogs did look like a frog, I will be happy to revisit this conclusion.

But what do you think our common ancestor with new world monkeys looked like?

 

[DarkMagician]

I thought he implied everybody was fooled but him.

That's what I got from it, especially with the first panel after the title has "What kind of stupid preacher would...".

 

[Desertphile]

Hart once had a cartoon that showed two B.C. characters discussing evolutionary theory. One (incorrectly) said humans "evolved from monkeys." The other then asked "Then why are there still monkeys?" The first character was unable to answer the question.

Needless to say, Hart is 100% ignorant on the subject.

 

[c4ts]

Hart once had a cartoon that showed two B.C. characters discussing evolutionary theory. One (incorrectly) said humans "evolved from monkeys." The other then asked "Then why are there still monkeys?" The first character was unable to answer the question.

Even if we did evolve from monkeys, that doesn't mean they have to be extinct... Is it possible to be %200 wrong?