Fishy Dawkinsia tales, tragic Dawkinsian philosophy

23


In case you missed the fanfare of publicity associated with this news last month, “Sri Lankan scientists have identified a new genus of fresh water fish and named it after the evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins.”1,2

The fish in this new genus are not themselves ‘new’ to science. These small tropical fish are already well known as ‘barbs’, a popular aquarium fish. The new genus, Dawkinsia, comprises nine species3 found in south Asia which were formerly assigned to the genus Puntius, comprised of around 120 species.4 ‘Friendly Atheist’ Hemant Mehta:

‘Your move, Creationists.’

Our ‘move’? What’s there of substance to respond to? 7 If you remove the evolutionary phraseology of Pethiyagoda and his colleagues, all they’ve done is study the existing diversity of a south Asian fish genus, subsequently deciding to re-classify some into a new genus, with nine species. None of this is any cause for evolutionists to gloat. As we’ve pointed out many times: diversity, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are in no way evidence of fish-to-philosophers evolution; the modern notion of ‘species’ is not akin to the biblical ‘kind’, and so on (and on, and on).

Like the poor fisherman who can only tell his ‘fish tales’ about the fish that got away as he has no evidence to show for it, so too there’s no evidence here of any evolution—we are simply expected to accept the evolutionists’ word on it. But unlike the honest fisherman who truly did observe ‘the one that got away’, there’s something fishy here about the evolutionists’ Dawkinsia tales of its origin, because they did not observe evolution. As Richard Dawkins himself has famously said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”8

 

Written By: David Catchpoole
continue to source article at creation.mobi

23 COMMENTS

  1. Funny, I thought that the “Fish that got away” stories where anecdotal and without merit.

    I guess to a Creationist, “anecdotal” evidence is proof enough (as long as it goes in their favor, otherwise anything is just hearsay)

  2. Where to begin with the absurdity of a claim that there is “no evidence” to support biological evolution, when the result of every peer-reviewed experiment ever carried out to test the theory has confirmed it?

    But when a person is convinced they have to reject reality because their holy book requires them to, they make themselves impermeable to reason and evidence.

    Nothing the creationist says about evolution stands up to a moment’s scrutiny, and the piece offers nothing new to rebuke. How long should we keep engaging with idiots before we accept that they are incapable of critical thought and are best left to their fantasies?

  3. ON THE OTHER HAND…Mahta’s gauntlet-drop–”Your move, creationists”–doesn’t have much behind it. So a previously known genus of fish was named after one of our heroes. I must reluctantly agree with Catchpoole. Nothing in the struggle against irrationality has been advanced. Nothing to see here, folks. 

  4.   If you remove the evolutionary phraseology of Pethiyagoda and his
    colleagues, all they’ve done is study the existing diversity of a south
    Asian fish genus, subsequently deciding to re-classify some into a new
    genus, with nine species.

    Backside-first ignorance as usual! 

    You use the genetics and evolved features to to make the classification of the genera and species, based on their evolutionary tree.

    If you “remove the evolutionary phraseology”, you don’t have any basis for the classification!

    so too there’s no evidence here of any evolution—we are simply expected to accept the evolutionists’ word on it.

    Oh dear!  Dumb-dumb is spouting about evolution and evidence,  and he is too pig-ignorant and scientifically illiterate to recognise the genetic evidence!  He could read a book and learn something – Nah! – He’s got ONE ancient book already!  Cretinists don’t do multitasking!

    But then those  cretinists thick enough to have

      pointed out many times: diversity, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are in no way evidence of fish-to-philosophers evolution; 

    would be utterly clueless on the subject of Chordate/Vertebrate/ fish/amphibian/reptilian/mammalian/primate,  evolution anyway.

  5. I’m mystified by the leap of logic that connects the renaming of a species of fish after Richard Dawkins to somehow being a winning point for the creationists in their fight against evolution.

    I have to agree that it seems to be just sour grapes over the fact that nobody has named so much as a microbe after Michael Behe or Francis Collins.

  6. Silly me, for one moment I thought I was going to read my
    first article from a creationist with some evidence to contradict findings
    of evolution. But no, it was rhetoric followed by mud slinging. And by the way
    it is fishes if you are going to pluralise.

  7. What the FUCK is WRONG with these people… Just because some phenomenon can be explained, that makes it, and everything else meaningless?? I don’t understand, I really don’t get it… I have absolutely NO idea how peoples minds can operate like that…

  8. To all evolution deniers I say one word : Hedgehogs!

    Not sure quite what you’re getting at. Out of all the animals in God’s kingdom, surely the hedgehog is the one that casts the most doubt on the theory of evolution.
    We all know that there are two existent species of hedgehog: the animate three-dimensional variety, and the squashed and significantly less mobile two-dimensional type. I’m sure that Darwinists would have us believe that the flat hedgehog is related to the plumper version, that it somehow ‘evolved’ its  pizzaesque shape.

    But if this is true then where is the intermediate form? Where is the missing link, the animal that would prove this assertion? Where is this mythical ancestral land urchin, whose innards are neither entirely contained within its form nor completely squirted out across the road?

    In all my years of owning and operating a Humvee dealership-cum-small spiny animal sanctuary, I’ve never encountered such a creature.

  9. It strikes me that people like this are just lazy:  there’s no “evidence” for them, because they can’t be bothered to go away and read it.  It’s so much easier to ascribe it all to magic.  Thinking is hard work, isn’t it, David Catchpoole?  And you’ve never really learnt how to do it, have you?  … It makes you so tired, I know.  Go back to sleep.

  10. “As we’ve pointed out many times: diversity, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are in no way evidence of fish-to-philosophers evolution…”

    In one sense he’s right, if ‘evidence’ means ‘proof’, but these observed phenomena could serve as circumstantial evidence.  The trouble with that kind of evidence is that it is subject to interpretation on the basis of certain assumptions, which can remain hidden.  And any conclusion based entirely on circumstantial evidence can crumble when exposed to an alternative explanation.  But is there actually a coherent alternative explanation to evolution?  It depends on one’s view of science.  If science is merely a method to find entirely naturalistic explanations for all phenomena, then clearly any form of intelligent design is not science.  But then one could argue that such a view reduces science to nothing more than an intellectual game (after all, who said that we should always look for naturalistic explanations?).  But if the scientific method can legitimately embrace the inference of unobserved dimensions of reality (which clearly it can – M-theory, anyone?), then the opposition to ID becomes less justifiable.

  11. The problem, David, is twofold. First, you are stuck in your own custom designer epistimoligical bubble created in isolation of real world facts, i.e., you have created a fantasy world in your own mind filled with gods and demons, good and evil, and then try to trace the outlines of that fantasy onto the real world surrounding you. Secondly, while you are in possession of a small amount of knowledge, you overestimate  how much you really know, which, in this case, simply isn’t much – So using the academic rigors of ignorance and false assumptions your pompous conclusions lie on the extreme shallow end of credibility.  Your condescending , smug, air of certainty gives us a clue concerning your true agenda. Try to remember, David, there is an equivalence between truth and freedom and learning this may awaken you from your intellectual catatonia.

  12. “There’s something fishy here about the evolutionists’ Dawkinsia tales of its origin, because they did not observe evolution.”

    Whereas some Creationist “scientists” did observe the creation of individual species by God?
    I’m sure we’d all love to know the names of these witnesses, and where we can read their peer-reviewed reports.

    Obviously this chap would wish all forensic evidence to be excluded from court rooms. After all the CSI people didn’t actually SEE the crime being committed.

Leave a Reply