Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Darwin

Today’s Jesus and Mo, called “tiny2“, is a recycled stip, and especially appropriate for this site. It’s also especially appropriate for those creationists, like Ray Comfort or the benighted gang at The Discovery Institute, who all see the possibility of “microevolution,” but argue that one “kind” can’t change into another.

In that sense—in invoking unspecified limits to microevolution that can’t be overcome except by God—the Intelligent Design crowd is exactly the same as their less sophisticated ancestors.


  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    And the Barmaid says – not look, sound.

  2. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    This touches on a conceptual barrier that is held by many, which is that there is some sort of deep, fundamental barrier between ‘kinds’ (species). But that is only an illusion. All aspects of organismal biology are subject to genetic variation. If such variation just so happens to impinge upon mating and reproduction, then those varieties can become reproductively isolated from the parental standard. A new species is basically a variety that happens to be a little different below the waist, if you get my drift.

    • Posted August 4, 2016 at 12:06 am | Permalink

      “This touches on a conceptual barrier that is held by many, which is that there is some sort of deep, fundamental barrier between ‘kinds’ (species).”

      Yes, Ernst Mayr called the concept the Biological Species Concept (BSC), which is that a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other such populations.


      One of the goals of the Modern Synthesis was to reach consensus on the place of macroevolution. The founders of the Modern Synthesis insisted that macroevolution could be explained by microevolution and no additional mechanisms, such as the bogeyman of saltation, were required. Ernst Mary, one of the original founders, sums it up this way …
      The term “evolutionary synthesis” was introduced by Julian Huxley in Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942) to designate the general acceptance of two conclusions: gradual evolution can be explained in terms of small genetic changes (“mutations”) and recombination, and the ordering of the genetic variation by natural selection; and the observed evolutionary phenomena, particularly macroevolutonary processes and speciation, can be explained in a manner that is consistent with the known genetic mechanisms.

      Ernst Mayr (1980) “Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis” in The Evolutionary Synthesis,
      E. Mayr & W.B. Provine eds. Harvard University Press.

      End of quote


      See also:

      Mayr’s view of the connection between micro and macro-evolution included a dominant role for allopatric speciation.

  3. Heather Hastie
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    This cartoon, as so often in other areas, simply and brilliantly exposes one of the fundamental misunderstandings of evolution by creationists and IDers.

  4. Sastra
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    The ‘discontinuous mind’ as Dawkins calls it thinks in terms of discrete categories, with some sort of magical essential nature separating one thing from another. It’s either/or. The idea that no animal ever gave birth to an animal of another species — and yet evolution occurs — makes no sense within this paradigm.

    Not surprising in Christians. Ask “What is the difference between the worst person in heaven … and the best person in hell?”

    It’s usually not a question they’re comfortable with. They either attempt to bifurcate good and evil in a clumsy and unconvincing way — or they try to avoid the problem by invoking the essential saving blood of Christ (which is also clumsy and unconvincing.

  5. Peter N
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    I borrow a saying I heard somewhere: “They believe in inches but don’t believe in miles”.

    • ploubere
      Posted August 3, 2016 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      That’s good.

  6. Posted August 3, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    No doubt that barmaid is only employed there because she’s working her way through college.

  7. keith cook + / -
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    heh heh heh… what ever the barmaids drinking the next one is on me.

  8. Scote
    Posted August 3, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    There thesis applied to other activities : Micro-walking (one step) is possible. Macro walking (taking a hike) is competely impossible. Because reasons.

%d bloggers like this: