Darwin’s Dyke

This page is dedicated to posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism [Macroevolution]. The term “Darwin’s Dyke” comes from the observation that no matter how many holes form in their theory, they seem oblivious to the fact that they cannot forever hope to stem the flow with rhetoric and dogmatically insulating their theory from criticism.

–Sirius Knott

12 Comments Add yours

  1. atlanticslamon says:

    Dude. Darwinism is a theory, just like gravitation. If you don’t like the theory of gravity, then go walk of a cliff.

    Note that Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of scientific theory. It is still their. Yes it has got ‘gaps’ but any good theory has. At least we don’t pretend to know everything. Has creationism stood up to 150 years of scientific testing? I think not!

  2. Sirius says:


    There’s a post by a fellow blogger on this very subject that you reeeeeeeeally ought to read before you go repeating this absurd comparison between gravity and evolution. It’s called Evolution & Gravity.

    Two comments to that blog stand out and sum up your problem:

    Comment #20:

    It’s remarkable that such a well tested theory has to resort to regular vindications to prove just how well it works.

    Comment #23:

    This is a dead giveaway that a theory is in trouble. Evolutionary theory is supposed to be as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. When was the last time you saw an article touting further evidence that the earth orbits the sun?

    –Sirius Knott

  3. atlanticslamon says:

    It is not an absurd comparison.

    [Sirius: Yes, it is, as I’ve aply demonstrated to anyone who was actually paying attention. Why weren’t you? Read it again.]

    I was trying to point out that it is ABSURD that people quote ‘evolution is just a theory’ as if it was a bad thing.

    [Sirius: You’ve not read much else around here, have you? I’m not implying that evolution being only a theory as if it’s a bad thing; I’m saying that, as a theory, it is not an incontrovertible fact and is not automatically superior to competing theories like Creationism. In other words, you cannot simply tout that Darwin is a fact and be done with it. Instead, you must subject Darwinism and any competing theories to the same standard of critical analysis to see which one better fits the data. We all pool from the same data. I believe it can be demonstrated that Creationism accounts for more of the evidence than Darwin’s theory, or at least accounts for the data equally well.]

    I did read that article. It was… Interesting.

    [Sirius: OK. You say that warily, like you just realized the author didn’t have a chip in his brain like every good Darbot should.]

    The similarities between chimpanzee and man are quite similiar because… maybe they evolved from the same common ancestor! a theory that has been tested.

    [Sirius: First, I gotta say it. “The similarities… are quite similar…” Grammar police!

    As for the assertion “maybe they evolved from the same ancestor! a theory that has been tested,” well, it’s really cute when they overstate their case like this. Wait for it…]

    If we all have the same common ancestor, then we should all have the same number of chromosomes (chimps, humans, etc.).

    [Sirius: Non sequitur. He’s reading his conclusions into the data.]

    They did genetic testing and saw that the 3 other species had 24 chromosomes, but we only had 23.

    [Sirius: Since he’s not being real specific here, let me clarify that he means 3 species of monkey had 24 chromosomes, while humans have 23.]

    HOWEVER, further testing showed that chromosome 2 had merged with another chromosome.

    [Sirius: Saying that they merged is an overstatement, because we cannot conclusively state that this is what happened. Creationism would posit that the Creator used common design elements when he made humans and homologous primates, but that He created humanity with a fused chromosome where a primate would have two separate chromosomes. It’s all in how you look at it.]

    Which means that we did share a common ancestor.

    [Sirius: Or a common Designer]

    This is their proof for evolution.

    [Sirius: Demonstrably shaky, as “proof” goes. You appear a mite confused regarding the terms ‘evidence’ and ‘proof.’ ‘Evidence‘ merely includes all the facts present. All evidence is not equal. Hearsay evidence, for example. Proof is “evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.”]

    Another thing people don’t seem to get is how slowly evolution occurs. Almost no-one can truly imagine it. Can you imagine even 10000 years ago?

    [Sirius: Yes, I can imagine it. I write sci-fi, after all. What I can’t do is watch macroevolution as it occurs for the self-same time restrictions you invoke. I can observe microevolution within baramins [created kinds] of animals, but it is purest speculation that we can put a sign of equality between macro- and microevolution, as Theodosius Dobzhansky insisted neo-darwinists must. No one has seen mac-evo occur and NO ONE CAN! Evidence we cannot observe is no evidence at all!]

    Evolution theory is quite well established.

    [Sirius: It is well accepted, but it is supported with little more than speculation and a high wall of protection. Yet we must honestly ask ourselves, Is it true?]

    However, it is being frequently updated to suit new evidence.

    [Sirius: A theory that can account for everything really explains nothing. The speculative nature of Darwinism makes it unfalsifiable. It’s odd how the only thing that can be truly observed to evolve is the theory of evolution! They’ll imagineer anything to keep their pet theory afloat!]

    We don’t need more proof that the earth orbits the sun because we have without a doubt, proven it, and everyone believes it.

    [Sirius: OK. No argument.]

    The theory of evolution is still being constantly worked on.

    [Sirius: I can only suppose that by “worked on,” you more accurately mean “propped up” or “hastily repaired and adjusted with more ad hoc speculation.”]

    I will leave you with this comment:

    [Sirius: Please do.]


    [Sirius: You misspelled “know.” [I know you’re aware of it.] If you’re gonna make ambitious statements like the ones I usually make, you might want to spellcheck them first. I admire your zeal, but I AM a professional. Take it easy until you get the hang of it.

    As for the argumentative statement, it’s a straw man on several counts.

    1. You just insulted history. 3,000 years ago, Israel was being successively ruled by King Saul, David and then Solomon. The Temple of Solomon was built during this time. The Queen of Sheba heard such good reports of Israel that she came to investigate for herself. So much for the oversimplification of a “goat herder” nation.

    2. You made a false analogy. Creationism isn’t true because anyone [in whatever period of history] knew more about science than we do now. The Jews didn’t make the Bible up. GOD gave it to them. The tue analogy is that GOD knows more about science than we will likely ever know.

    But nice try.

  4. atlanticslamon says:

    I probably should read more of your work, but be teeth would probably be reduced to a third of their original size through constant gnashing. I enjoy a good debate, and from they way you responded, i’m sure you do as well.

    Firstly, that ‘goatherder’ thing was just a joke, ok? I know that their were advanced civilizations at the time. However they were (from archeological evidence) nowhere near as advanced are we are currently. I am also pretty sure the jews weren’t given the bible by god. It wasn’t sent down by fax from heaven, it was the product of man. If you look at the god in the old testament, he is a reflection of man at the time. Sexist, genocidal, homophobic, etc. In case you haven’t realised already, I’m an Atheist, therefore, in my books, god can’t exist, and therefore him knowing more about science isn’t the true (or as you put it ‘tue’-just a typo I’m sure) analogy.

    By constantly worked on, i don’t mean ‘propped up’ or hastily repaired ad hoc’; I am quite clearly saying, like all scientific theories (I don’t count creationism as one) the theory of evolution is being updated and refined because of incoming data. That’s the thing about science; we don’t pretend to know everything. We don’t say ‘one answer fits all’. We do tests on a theory, and if something happens that doesn’t support it, we record it, try it again, etc. and if necessary, update the theory.

    We can find evidence for ‘Macroevolution’. Paleontologists have found many animals that are ‘transitional’; animals that are a bridge between one group of species and another. Archeopteryx, Homo Erectus, Tiktalik, etc. are examples of these. A theory the accounts for everything, obviously does explain everything. But what do you define by everything? do you mean all animals on this planet, or everything in the universe?

    As for the genetic testing on the monkeys and humans, i did mean that the 3 species of apes that supposedly share common ancestry all have 24 chromosomes each-thanks for clarifying. Please don’t do what you did with the rest of the section though. It was not needed. The hypothesis was that if we all had a common ancestor (chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans) then we should all have the same number of chromosomes. The result was that humans only had 23, were as all the others had 24. The scientists then tested another hypothesis, and found that chromosome no.2 had merged with another. This is evidence, and it is quite valuable evidence. You cannot use hearsay as scientific evidence, because it is not ’empirical evidence’.

    I hope i have covered everything worth covering. Please don’t edit what i write though, because it is written so everything meshes nicely. Write a reply, and quote what i say.

    I have also read your rules on commenting. I will abstain from insults and likewise because this argument could get interesting.

    -Atlantic Slamon

  5. Mailman says:

    Chromosome research, wonderful! Yes, of course monkeys have 24 and we vastly superior humans have 23! Of course two merged! Wait, chromosomes are part of genetics and genetically we are 99 percent like monkeys, and also 90 percent like a banana. Does this mean we evolved from a banana? If it saves evolution we did!

    Please excuse any grammatical errors in the theretical text and have an independant thought

  6. Olorin says:

    mailman said:

    genetically we are 99 percent like monkeys, and also 90 percent like a banana. Does this mean we evolved from a banana?

    Genetically, you have 120 differences from your father and 450 differences from your nephew. Does this mean you are descended from your nephew?

    Same flawed logic.

    1. Actually, evolutionists trump up their number when they claim we share 98 to 99% similarity with chimpanzees. Here’s a good ICR.org article that exposes the flawed research and logic that goes into such inflated claims:


  7. Human Ape says:

    Hello Mr. Science Denier.

    I thought this was an interesting question:

    “This is a dead giveaway that a theory is in trouble. Evolutionary theory is supposed to be as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. When was the last time you saw an article touting further evidence that the earth orbits the sun?”

    There’s much more evidence for evolution than for the idea our planet circles our star. And that evidence is still growing. It grows every time molecular biologists compare DNA sequences of two different species and they do this every day.

    To help you understand please read this quote from PZ:

    My point here is that there is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution, far more than any one person can digest, and that it is a vital field, still growing and still producing new results. All those papers don’t get published unless they contain some new observation, a new experiment, a new test of the idea…and evolution has weathered them all.
    — PZ Myers http://tinyurl.com/6qn3gm

    Evolution is the strongest basic fact of science. It has more evidence than any other scientific concept. It is the foundation of biology. It is the most important fact of science.

    But you (and a few million other non-scientists including all the world’s terrorists) deny it anyway. To me that’s extremely interesting. The USA is unique because it has a higher percentage of evolution deniers than any other advanced country. It’s no coincidence that America is also the most religious country of the Western world. Always the reason for the denial of the massive amount of evidence for evolution is because of the religious implications. Evolution makes the Christian death cult ridiculous. If we are just apes descended from ancient apes (a basic fact of nature) then the cowardly childish idiotic heaven fantasy makes no sense. If evolution is true (it’s true) then what do we need a magic god fairy for? It’s obvious Darwin killed God, and it’s obvious the thousands of biologists who came after Darwin and who have made evolution stronger than ever have killed your fairy even more.

    If a scientific fact kills the cowardly heaven fantasy, what would cowards do? They would just deny the scientific fact. Also, like you, they would make absolutely no effort to study or understand what they’re denying.

    You might be surprised to know I am a bit grateful to evolution deniers for one thing. I always knew evolution made sense, especially when compared to the childish religious alternative (a god fairy made every creature out of nothing, an idea only insane people could believe). When I found out there’s millions of these crazy people I wanted to explain to them why they are wrong. But first to do that I wanted to know everything I could about the subject. So I used the internet to research evolution. I read some excellent books about the subject. I made my own observations in museums and in forests.

    When I learned a few things about the molecular evidence I was shocked. This stuff was so extraordinarily powerful I didn’t think anyone could deny it. I was wrong. I found out evidence is meaningless to an evolution denier. They are not interested in understanding any scientific evidence. They are only interested in lying about evidence to defend their dead Jeebus.

    I write these comments not just for you to censor. I also put this on my blog at darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com Otherwise I would be just wasting my time because it’s obvious you will never bother to understand anything I wrote.

    1. Human Ape,

      I am obviously not a science denier. I only deny microbes-to-man evolution. Creation, not evolution, is actually foundational to science.

      I’m aware of PZ’s article. I did not find it as awe-inspiring as you did. Would you like to know why? Because he never says what he manes by evolution. Does he mean the sort of observable, horizontal change [e.g., speciation, adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc] that Creationists likewise affirm happen? The sort of change that gives us antibiotic resistance and flightless beetles? There’s no controversy there. Surprised? Or does he mean the presumed vertical [phyletic] microbes-to-man changes that evolutionist claim occur over long ages? We would object here that a dog remains a dog and recognizeably so, be it a wolf, Germen shepherd or an English bulldog, so that there are apparent limits to variability, consistent with the Biblical claim of created kinds; and that the fossil record reveals stasis and sudden appearance rather than gradualism, again more consistent with the Creation model.

      Despite your dogmatic prose that “It has more evidence than any other scientific concept. It is the foundation of biology. It is the most important fact of science,” you misunderstand a great many things. For example, evolution does not have more evidence than creation; we have exactly the same evidence, but fact require interpretation. The question is which interpretation better fits the facts. Neither is it the foundation of biology, for Bible-affirming scientists conduct normal, orbservable biology with no need of evolution. Again, we Creationist affirm the observable parts of biology; it’s the presumption of goo-to-you evolution that we deny. Neither is it the most important fact of science for the reasons previously stated and likewise stated in the links provided.

      You assert [baselessly] that the Biblical position is childish. One is tempted to defer to your expertise in all things childish. Yet to be more serious on the matter, your statements are dogmatisms rather than logical arguments. Would it interst you to know that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, allowed, rationally speaking, more than your faith commitment to close-minded atheistic evolution will allow:

      ” `Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.” Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

      And I do say close-minded, Human Ape, for the excellent reason that your blog, as it currently stands, is a testament to dogma rather than rational thought. You truly have nothing more to say? Then you have admitted that you are likewise through thinking, you are through considering new evidence, you are through revising your thinking in terms of new evidence and arguments… and these are all hallmarks of blind dogma rather than rational independent thought, you poor marionette.

      By the way, you Pharyngula fanboy, His name is Jesus. Only a child would keep using the sophomoric term “Jebus” and wonder why no one takes him seriously.

      Sirius Knott

  8. Human Ape says:

    Sorry, just one more thing then I will at least try to stop wasting my time here writing comments you will never publish.

    I noticed your “Comment #23” came from Uncommon Stupidity. This shows you get all your science information from uneducated morons. How do expect to learn anything from imbeciles who don’t know what they’re talking about?

    You could study the discoveries of 21st century scientists by reading what those scientists wrote about their discoveries. Believe it or not, scientists know more about science than the idiots at Uncommon Insanity.

    I’m sorry, but you are so typical. So afraid of reality you go way out of your way to know nothing.

    1. Comments I will never publish?

      I get this from someone who doesn’t even post to his own site anymore???

      Thank you for the associative ad hominem. When you simply insult a source and try to discredit it with insult, you’re really saying that you don’t have anything to say other than you don’t like it. You’re certainly not backing up your claims with evidence so much as mockery.

      BTW, the facts may be too much for you but there are PhD’d scientists with real educational degrees who disagree with the validity of microbes-to-man evolution and espouse the exploration of intelligent design.

      Try bringing a bigger brain next time, Human Ape.

      -Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s