Saturday, April 03, 2010

Ah, I have so missed the Denyseitude.


Here's Canada's pre-eminent IDiot, Denyse O'Leary, with another novel argument against "Darwinism":

... [a writer's] editor had demanded that I account for the fact that humans share 98% of our DNA with chimps.

I asked her a simple - and, to me, obvious - question: Let's kidnap a guy off the subway in Toronto. Yes, that is a felony offence, but maybe we can manage the whole thing discreetly and get the charges dropped, if he agrees that it was all a private matter anyway ...

(would help if he was a friend or relative - of course, we could, at worst, be charged with wasting police time ...)

But now! We've got him! We will put a chimp from the local zoo of similar age beside him (securely buckled in, because we would not want anything bad to happen to our man).

If both are more than 30 years old, and are normal specimens, how many people will believe that they are 98% identical?

What woman, otherwise consigned to being a spinster, would marry the chimp if she didn't get the man? After all, the chimp is supposedly 98% of a man.

So Denyse's argument is that, even with that remarkable genetic similarity, Darwinism is clearly false since people still refuse to date outside of their species? Really? As a hard-core conservative, Denyse, are you sure that's the argument you want to be making?

I'm just asking.

10 comments:

Lindsay Stewart said...

or conversely, all prettied up in her bestest elasticated thingies, what self respecting chimp would want to have a go at that dusty loon?

Lindsay Stewart said...

though, in denyse's defense, if she's wearing diapers they're probably functional, unlike kinked out conservative politician david vitter.

Cherniak_WTF said...

She calls herself a journalist? Fuck me...

I wonder if she realizes that we have "Indictable Offences" and not "Felony Offences".....


Nevertheless, she is a complete loon.

Noni Mausa said...

Heh. It would be fun to remind her that something above 60% of all those genes are shared by most of our life forms, including C. elegans, Drosophila, iguanas and the slim and lovely wild babirusa.

Sheesh, did nobody tell this bonehead that most of those genes are the building blocks that keep organisms alive and functioning at all? They keep cell walls intact, filter out urea, and juggle blood sugar and proteins?

Gee, is she going to tell us that because the exact same alphabet and language constitutes her writing and Shakespeare's plays, therefore she is really thirty chimps with typewriters? I could believe that.

Sir Gallahad said...

Denyse says,

Darwinism is clearly false since people still refuse to date outside of their species"

A female chimpanzee, could possibly be the answer to Bocanut's dating problems.

The real question is can we get the chimpanzee to agree.

I don't think even a chimpanzee wants anthing to do with Bocanut.

Cherniak_WTF said...

I always felt pity for some of dr roy's companions - what compelled them to date outside of the species?

Lindsay Stewart said...

molecules!

DM said...

Atheists


GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE…


you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…

but you LOST…

THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

*************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element…

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

********************************
***************************LIGHT*********
************************************

Martin said...

I must say that "IF CHIMPS AND TEH HUMANS IS 98% SIMULAR WHYZ THEY NOT LOOKS ALIEK!?!!1!??" is probably going to outdo "Why are there still PYGMIES + DWARFS" in the Canon of Creationist Thermostupid.

Steve said...

"IF CHIMPS AND TEH HUMANS IS 98% SIMULAR WHYZ THEY NOT LOOKS ALIEK!?!!1!??"

Well, for one thing... they DO look alike. Really - if we weren't one of the two species in question, we would have no problem accepting the 98% genetic similarity based on the visual similarity. We have no problem believing that a housecat and a tiger are closely related and they look a LOT more different from each other than a human and a chimp do. We have no problem believing that, for example, a gorilla and a chimp are similar to each other, and they look just as different from each other as we do from chimps. (And to be fair, we need to compare chimps against how we would look if we didn't wear clothes and didn't shave - our natural biological look is not as pink and hairless as we like to think.)