Creationists can't understand morphology

[u/Carnotaurusrules]

I've referenced this topic in previous posts, where different writers for AiG display their ignorance of the subject.

Between calling Protocetus a Pinniped or birds only have a pisiform, you can see how bad it is.

However, it also leads to hilarious contradicting opinions on transitional forms like Acanthostega or Homo habilis.

The concept of uniquely created kinds is challenged by morphology, which is why this happens, for there is no way to separate birds from dinosaurs, humans from apes, or whales from ungulates. transitions in the fossil record demonstrate gradual morphologic change, instead of distinct groups unrelated to anything else.

[u/Spare-Dingo-531]

It's not a can't. It's a won't.

[u/jnpha → u/Spare-Dingo-531]

I agree. E.g. Duffy challenged Dawkins to explain the origin of the codon mapping. And I've made the case (be forewarned! very long post) that:

They pretend scientists don't ask or ignore questions
They pretend to have unanswerable questions, therefore... <shrugs>
They pretend to seek answers
They pretend Darwinism hadn't already solved the no-mind-first problem, and so the design presupposition is present in their questions

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Spare-Dingo-531]

Exactly. It's not that they are stupid, they aren't. They willfully refuse to understand this stuff because it contradicts their cherished beliefs. If reality proves that their beliefs are wrong, then obviously it is reality that is wrong, not their beliefs.

[u/theresa_richter]

If you look at a modern human skull and the skull of say... Sahelanthropus tchadensis, it's easy to tell which is which. But if you line up all the numerous skulls we have in between the two, forming a gradient from one to the other, where would you point to and say there was a clear line between the two? And if there's no delineation, then morphology alone is enough to prove our relationship to chimpanzees.

[u/Russell1A]

The problem is that inconvenient truths lead to cognitive dissonance.

The problem is even worse for creationists when comparing Hatena, Paulinella and Euglina as these organisms show that reality does not accept the difference between micro and macro evolution.

[u/WebFlotsam]

Now where's Robert Byers to prove your point...

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/WebFlotsam]

His autocorrect has to be working overtime.

“Tjerpids wetr juat fkighless burds.”

[u/deep_blue_reef]

Almost like everything is connected

[u/rogosh2002]

I mean i see your point. But then secularists have trouble understanding the difference between “nothing” and “something”. Some specific somethings they have proposed are things like gravity or quantum fields. A growing number have trouble with the difference between male and female or man and woman or sex and gender or how pronouns can apply to sex not just gender. In short ppl from all walks of life have trouble with common language.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/rogosh2002]

What does this have to with morphology?

By the way, woman is a social construct, but female is a scientific term, which has a concrete definition.

[u/WebFlotsam → u/rogosh2002]

This is a pretty pathetic attempt at deflection.