Canis lupus hominis

Posted in creationism, evolution | Tagged Dilbert | 8 Comments

8 Responses

1. on June 15, 2012 at 10:29 am massugu

   Pretty sad…but his depiction of life in cubicle land still remains spot on.

   
   
2. on June 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm UrbanCollieChick

   Not what I would have expected of those two. I’ll stick to Family Guy and Brian. The drunks at the bar are always smarter than computer nerds. ;)

   
   
   • on June 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm retrieverman

     Drunken failed novelists definitely are.

     
     
3. on June 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm Ogre Magi

   IIRC the creator of Dilbert is a Creationist of the New Agey variety

   
   
   • on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 pm retrieverman

     Which are among the worst kind.

     
     
   • on June 15, 2012 at 5:40 pm retrieverman

     This is almost like if Kent Hovind made a cartoon. Even the dinosaur at the end is vintage Hovind. I’m not so sure Dogbert isn’t actually Kent Hovind in canine form!

     
     
4. on June 15, 2012 at 6:17 pm EmilyS

   Scott Adams hasn’t been funny in at least 10 years, though he has been an a**h**** forever.

   
   
5. on June 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm massugu

   Many times I’ve been involved in the same argument as Dilbert and Dogbert and have used specific instances of speciation–i.e., speciation events in Drosophila melanogaster in the lab–to prove my point. But, seeing as my brain doesn’t remember things as well as it once did, I decided to see what was new in this regard on the Web. My very first hit was exactly what I was looking for: The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Observed Instances of Speciation, by Joseph Boxhorn
   Copyright © 1993-2004, last updated 1995 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) I invite any of you to use these examples when faced with the micro/macro evolution, ‘kind’, and/or ‘variation’ arguments.

   Although most of these examples involve plants, the argument still applies. Speciation is the acid test of evolution. If two offspring of a given set of parents (of the same species) are not interfertile, or an offspring is not interfertile w/ one or both of its parents, then that offspring has mutated in some way that makes it a new species. If the mutation is then passed on to subsequent generations, its an example of evolution–not the gradual accumulation model of evolution I grant you, but evolution nonetheless. (Note: this probably fits better in the punctuated equilibrium model.)

   I realize that many antagonists will still want current (i.e., ongoing, observable) examples of macro-evolution in megafauna (such as humans), but given the length of generations in megafauna, that’s just not likely to happen in a given lifetime. (However, my work with Y-DNA testing for genealogical purposes has revealed at least one test subject in which a segment of his Y-DNA was duplicated and transposed such that where everyone else in his Haplogroup has a series of 4 alleles, he has 6 and the like alleles in that segment don’t line up with the norm for his Haplogropup. Cumulative changes of this nature could eventually lead to genetic incompatibility between people carrying these mutations and those w/ the standard set of alleles.)

   
   

Comments are closed.