I’m not entirely surprised, given the source, but still, I gotta give huge anti-props to the doggedly brain-dead Nathan Bradfield for this unbelievable, reckless chimera of lies, misunderstandings, suppositions, canards, and (not that insults need be piled on these mortal injuries) hapless subject-verb mismatchings.
This is unquestionably the most worthless attempt to undermine evolution I’ve ever read. Not only does Nathan not look into anything scientists have to say, he can’t even keep his creationist lies straight. I actually hope for his sake that he wasn’t trying to be at all honest, because otherwise I’m afraid he’s got to be one of the dumbest would-be political bloggers in the free world and there can only be a gossamer-thin line between him and a feeding tube. I defy anyone to be more charitable than that.
I am confident that out of those sentences Nathan has written that are both intelligible and topical, every last one of them contains a grievous error. But if you demanded that I go after one section of this debacle above all others, it would be the seven alleged “Gaps” in evolutionary theory. Not only are most of these not actually “gaps,” they are entirely divorced from science. And meaningful English. It’s hard to refute points that don’t deal in any way with what evolution asserts.
What evolutionary changes would we expect in a reproductively isolated population of finches in 170 years, Nathan? What do computer simulations have to do with the evolution of the eye? Have computers made God? Or Ann Coulter?
Actually, this, to me, is the most emblematic bit: “All the animal phyla appears suddenly with no ancestors.”
That’s right, every last one of them, clean out of the newly created blue sky. On that Cambrian period, Nathan (you see, a “Cambrian” is not a foreign-made compact car), when do you suppose it really was? It’s not mentioned in your Bible, but you must believe in it or else you wouldn’t be saying people are wrong about what transpired during it. Do you know the time frame in which geologists place it? Also, good call assuming “phyla” is singular because it ends in “a”…you f*cking nitwit.
Forgive me, good Alabamans, if I’m starting to get the idea that your state is not a hotbed of progressive-mindedness and vision.
Screw it. If you guys want to deal with this freakish mess one chunk at a time and post responses, I or one of my lackeys (such as the still-throbbing Brian Lyons) will assemble these into a unified rebuttal and add it as a comment to Nathan’s site. This, although on the surface no more likely to produce salutory effects than yelling “BAD COACKROACH! BAD!” could actually make a difference; as dumb as Nathan is, he knows when he’s been slaughtered — notice that he never quite got around to the advertised “Part 2” of “Darwin crumbling from within,” although this is just as likely to have resulted from limbic system failure as humiliation.
Conservatives with lights on upstairs must cringe when goofballs hanging on to the far right wing of their party for the ride start erupting with this kind of short-bus crap.