You must log in or register to comment.
Absence of paleontological evidence of change in appearance does not mean evolutionary stagnation
Doesn’t it? It doesn’t seem obvious either way. Are you an actual paleontologist, or just guessing?
Molecular biologist.
It’s mostly a matter of what we don’t know. Paleontological evidence certainly shows that horseshoe crabs didn’t change much in their appearance. However, we just don’t know to what extent other aspects of their biology are as conserved. Therefore, it is just unscientific to say that horseshoe crabs are ‘living fossils’ or that they didn’t evolve for millions of years. They may have, they may not haveI came to mention the same. Static phenotype ≠ static genotype.
There’s no evidence for gods though.
There’s also no evidence that horseshoe crabs have individual names and understand the concept of evolution.
We do have evidence that at least one species give their members individual names, and at least a portion of the members understand the concept of evolution
So i would say we have more evidence for this meme being accurate than any god being real
Fair point. Although one may say this is fine here for comic purposes.
The same argument could be made about the statement “Gods perfect creation”.
But I’d argue that the suggestion of a creationist god expands the distance to scientific contexts even more while simple speech bubbles are fine due to less ideological conflict potential.Admittedly, I am also rather allergic to religions, which is why I am having a difficult time with that part of the meme.
Just for a moment pretend God banged so hard he created the Big Bang which create all life, and laugh at religion joke.
Due to the “being allergic” part this is unfortunately not possible for me. But thanks for trying to provide me with a different perspective.