I decided to rewatch the Ken Ham -Bill Nye Debate last night. I already knew how Ham and Andrew Fabiche distorted the e. coli discoverey - it was evolution, not just a "switch turning on/off" - but this is really disturbing. When I discovered this I was pretty upset. But rather than go into a diatribe, I'm just going to post this. This is a screenshot (sorry for the fuzzyness of the image) of the debate when Ham is talking about dog evolution. Check out the chart presented by Ham:

tAnd here's the original chart from http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.137/journal.pge...

notice anything? fell free to fact check yourself, but to me it's obvious. I can't sugar-coat it - Ken Ham lied.

Views: 191


You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 27, 2015 at 10:25am

Lou yeah it was a bit strongly worded and I'm backing away from that position. Having read about Glen morton's Demon - link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html - and my own experience, I'm more convinced that Ham means well, but his own perceptions self-deceive him and it works both ways - evolutionists see evo, creationists see creation, etc. Now, I'm predisposed to believe the OEC side, but I have to stop and look for the assumptions made even in the literature by science and YEC. Hopefully, my blog posts and not my rants reflect this attempt at honesty.

Comment by Lou Hamby on May 27, 2015 at 8:16am

Philo and others interested, here is a an evolutionary site, read the information on wolves and how convoluted and unsure real experts on the wolf is?


For me it is a Darwinian fabrication to infer that all dog species came from one original ancestor a wolf?  In a multi-platformed creation event, there were many specific types or kinds created to specific eco-niches.  When you read the scenario some say they "showed up (wolf) in North America first, but no then others think elsewhere? The charts above all imply "wolves as ancestors?  Why? Take the Irish Wolf Hound, this animal has been in existence as long as mankind has been around? How long do you think the African dog on the plains has been around?  These animals have not hybridized? What about dingo's and others location specific species????

Comment by Lou Hamby on May 27, 2015 at 7:45am

Philo you inferred this was a rant, so I will not address that... But here are some observations and a totally different point of view...  First of all I think to say he (Ken) lied is a little bit of a stretch, while Ken and some of our authors have published questionable assumptions and inferences to say he out right lied I don't buy that!!!  Sorry!  I have found Dr. Oard and DR. Snelling both publish information that leaves out certain pertinent information and so one is lead to only conclude one answer.  Dr. Snelling on H*** Erectus is very interesting as his bottle neck is at the ARK and so this would infer that all pre-flood humans were H*** Erectus?  

So now getting back to the graph?  Mary made an excellent point!!! I would like to know for sure what graph was used.  Assuming this was the one...  Here are some observations and comments from my point of view.

1.  Please note the ages inferred by the graph, while "I" can totally accept these dates, a YE person who is camped out on 6,000 years will have a hard time accepting this since "all" of creation happened in a certain time frame, therefore any changes or mutations would have certainly arrived after such a date?

What bothers me a tad here is that God did create original kinds. And what one fails to employ here is that dogs have similar design via their DNA code.  But its not just design but eco-niche and distribution.  Mighty GOD when he covered the earth with life teaming from all sectors, there were original dog species or kinds of you will that had a certain geographic location.  I can infer this becasue of my study on reptiles and while similarity in reptiles are well observed, there is a distribution which is specific to the specie due to its habits and eco-niche design, via the code in their DNA.  Having said that Phil...  What ever the originals were...SUch as the African dog, the dingo, the Chihuahua, certain wolf species and foxes etc.  There was an original copy of certain species employed across the face of the earth.  That is a fact!  Because of the historicity of the Biblical narrative, God created all life in the beginning, and that life began replicating itself through what ever chronological time frame since creation. (6.000, 10,000 50,000 years?).

What we know is mutations and variation cannot change a body plan to a new species?  However one must observe that the "only" way a body plan can be changed is through the procreative DNA?  So what ever mechansim you employ in your inference there must be a change to the DNA or genes in the procreative cycle.  THe only known avenue for this is hybridization.  NOw PHil you know and all of us know that man has cross bred species so that you take a boxer we and cross him with a Shepard and you get something completely not the original body plan.  We observe this in nature such as the Goode's horned lizard.  Look it up (Hybrid).  So most or many of the dogs living today and even subspecies are all hybrids.  there are some original types.  In nature these hybrids would have never happened, but occasionally a species will cross over into another distribution zone and hybridization amongst similar animals happen... (Galapagos Pink Iguana) So ergo we have a clear mechansim for dog species???  

Here is were I diverge from Ken or others, they adopt an evolutionary inference about ancestorship, I believe there was an original copy, not only that the bible infers to me anyway that GODs creation was a multi-platform creation, not cell to elephant, but specifically animals of all species and kinds being created or spoken into existence across the whole of the earth including dinos...(A cel is jsut part of the whole of all creation)  So my observation above I do not concur with "either" of their explanations, and Ken while being a creationists "plays" with a format that is based on gradualism but certainly both men realize dogs of all animal kinds are very much part of a hybridization mechanism, and man is responsible for this we have dogs we know that the Egyptians cross bred.

I believe Ken is a fine Christian and has integrity in spades, while I might not like his bed side manner, he in that debate stuck up for the WORD of GOD and I think its a little disrespectful to assume Ken purposed a lie? Within the context of this framework, Ken could just be mistaken?  So is Bill Nye, the actual graph is incorrect in my humble opinion as far as reflection of biblical creationism.  And dog species (original blue print kinds) have been around from the beginning?  They did not just "show up", they were created original kinds.  Many different species of Dogs across the earth.  

I guess what bothers me, is the inference that one certain type of Dog could change its DNA through some kind of self-determinism over time into many different species with distributions across the earth?  Why is any scientists stuck on an ancestor?  Much of this goes back to Darwinism?  But the fact of the matter Hybridization in Dogs is well known by all, but original kinds were spoken into existence on a multi-platform fast creation level and not on some slow mechansim that is employed to have created certain kinds after the original.  What we know as fact Philo is that DNA code does not change itself. Its fixed!!
I am the son of my father and mother.  I am not a clone of them, I am unique and a combo of the two but I am fully human.  It is the same with horned lizards, dogs etc.  Unless one infers an unproven mechansim, the only thing we observe in the animal kingdom is that original body plans have replicated themselves over what ever chronological time period and outside of hybridization there is no mechanism in mutations or variation that can change an original to a whole new species. (T-rex fossil evidences)  DNA code has got to be changed in such instances, and that "known" instance is hybridization? I don't know what your sister inferred? 

At worse Philo some creationists are pushing variability in species without a mechansim that we know DNA cannot produce?  Procreative information "must" be changed and without a mechansim for it, its just not possible...So what is the "Its obvious"????

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 26, 2015 at 11:58pm

charles, that's definitely possible and my sister said the same thing. This was a bit of a rant post, which I sort of regret. Either way I'm better now, but still searching for truth for myself. Thanks for your post :)

Comment by Charles Jones on May 26, 2015 at 3:10pm

Someone asked about it (I don't remember if it was on AiG or Ken's Facebook page), and AiG said the chart was flipped just to make it easier to see the divergence from a common ancestor as the "creation orchard" model predicts. Which makes sense because, if they weren't comparing the chart in this paper to their creation orchard chart (on the right, beside the upside down chart), the chart on the right really has no purpose on the screen. He also said in the debate, "Notice that this diagram [on the left] is very, very similar to this diagram [on the right] that creationists propose..." He wasn't lying or trying to make things hard to read; he was just trying to make two charts that say the same thing but start from different directions look more visually similar.

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 23, 2015 at 1:18pm

Mary, it wasn't from a book, as far as I know. Ham just took it from an online article, which I linked to (They may have moved it, here it is again: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pg...) and he referenced in the video. That's how I found it, I googled the name of the scientific paper - "Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dog" - and then I read the article and noticed the picture was reversed. I did a double-take. I couldn't believe it. Aside from the dates mentioned in the chart, there wasn't anything in the article that disagreed with the main idea of baraminology. Oh and the fact that Ham quote mined the article in the previous quote. Here's the quote:

"We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 45, Table S10). Considering a full multi-population demographic model with gene flow, we infer that dogs diverged from wolves at around 15 kya (CI: 14–16 kya). Examination of previous estimates shows a wide range of suggested divergence times [24], [25]. However, most of the discrepancy between different studies can be traced to differences in the assumed mutation rate. We assume an average mutation rate per generation of 1×10−8 and an average generation time of three years. However, we observed that CpG di-nucleotides, which we filtered out from the data, contribute roughly 30% of mutations in these canid genomes, similar to what was observed in human genomes [19]. Thus our assumptions regarding mutation rate imply a genome-wide rate (i.e. including filtered sites) of 1.4×10−8"

The paper was about whether or not the dogs we have today evolved from several sources and using genome analysis of amaylase in dogs. My main point was why did Ham flip the chart? To prevent the audience from reading it clearly.

Comment by Mary White on May 22, 2015 at 8:33pm

One would need to see the copy (hardcopy?) that the AIG team used, instead of relying on the current web posting.  I recall reading of a debate where a creationist was called wrong, but the debators were using different editions of a book.

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum


Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service