Home » Intelligent Design » Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Biogeographical Distribution

Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Biogeographical Distribution

We have now reached the fourth part of my series on Wikipedia and the evidence for common descent. In previous entries, I discussed Wikipedia’s arguments for common descent based on comparative physiology / biochemistry, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Now I am going to address the arguments from biogeographical distribution. Biogeography is essentially the study of the geographical and historical distribution of species in relation to one another. The argument holds that species are related in accordance with their geographical proximity to one another.

Click here to continue reading>>>

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

21 Responses to Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Biogeographical Distribution

  1. Wikipedia

    Ah yes, that mighty champion of all that can be counted on as truth. Why just the other day my next door nieghbour’s 12 year old Son logged in and corrected some mistakes he found.

  2. Very interesting post. Thank you. I lived in Madagascar for a short time and got to feed carrots and bananas to wild(ish) lemurs. I always assumed that they were left overs from when Madagascar broke off from Africa.

  3. The exceptions to the rule that amphibians, terrestrial mammals, earthworms, etc. are not on oceanic islands are pretty minor/pretty close to large land masses. If special creation happened, why did God leave them off of Hawaii etc.? They do just fine when humans introduce them.

    Luskin-esque arguments that play up minor/dubious exceptions, and ignore well-documented overall generalizations like the above, are not going to convince any serious scientists.

  4. NickMatzke_UD:

    If special creation happened, why did God leave them off of Hawaii etc.?

    Hawaii didn’t exist at the time of Creation.

  5. I posted this in the previous Wikipedia thread, but by that point it was on page two. I hope it’s alright if I post it again here.

    Semi-Off Topic:

    Several months back, Wikipedia introduced a page ratings system, where users could rate Wiki articles in five categories (trustworthy, objective, complete, well-written), on a scale of 1-5.

    Those ratings are now being made public.

    The article on Intelligent Design> currently has scores of 3.2 in well-written, 2.8 in completeness, a lousy 2.5 in trustworthiness, and a dismal 1.9(!!!) in objectiveness.

    These are the worst scores, by far, for any article I’ve seen on Wikipedia, well below controversial subjects like abortion and Christianity.

    Let’s hope this is more than a dog-and-pony show and this actually leads to action being taken.

  6. When was the time of creation for the different created kinds? Do tell.

  7. Before Hawaii existed.

  8. Was that the same time when you think whales had hind fins and humans had tails?

  9. I never thought humans had tails- that is something you invented because you have nothing else and need to spew lies.

    And the evidence says whales had hind fins and the Bible says day 5 of the Creation week (for whales).

  10. Joseph

    And the evidence says whales had hind fins

    Then the same evidence from atavisms says humans had tails. You can’t have it both ways.

    and the Bible says day 5 of the Creation week (for whales.

    All science so far! I thought ID is not about the Christian God being the Designer, right?

  11. GinoB:

    Then the same evidence from atavisms says humans had tails.

    Except the human tail is not an evidence from an atavism. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Stop being such an obtuse evotard.

    and the Bible says day 5 of the Creation week (for whales.

    All science so far! I thought ID is not about the Christian God being the Designer, right?

    TRY to stay focused- Nick and I were discussing the Creation week.

    You need to take your medication and calm down…

  12. And AGAIN- the human “tail” does NOT resemble any primate tail.

    So if it is an atavism that means humans evolved from something other than a primate.

  13. Joseph

    And AGAIN- the human “tail” does NOT resemble any primate tail.

    Yes Joseph, it does.

    Human Tails

    The Human Tail – An Atavism

    So if it is an atavism that means humans evolved from something other than a primate.

    Humans are primates Joseph. The last common ancestor shared between modern humans and modern tailed primates was roughly 30 MYA.

  14. A good article for showing flaws in biogeography being used by evolution.
    biogeography is a favorite subject to this YEC creationist.

    BANG. The marsupials are brought up. EXCELLENT.
    This YEC insists marsupials are just placentals who adapted in the farthest areas from dispersal from the Ark probably to increase production to quickly refill the planet.
    no reason for connecting the dots in the southlands.

    there are better ideas.
    Sceptism about convergent evolution.
    how can creationists question the odds of evolution but not question the greater odds of a whole order of creatures having identicle members as other orders? !

    Marsupial moles are just dumb old moles with pouches.

    It does not make a case for evolutionary biogeographical conclusions.
    Its all presumptions as usual.

    In fact biogeography should ot be used as evidence for a theory of biology.
    Its not biology research.
    Just a line of reasoning which they need to keep up their hunch they are right.
    just scoring where critters are does not count for science in biology.
    They have no biology science evidence.

    The monkeys in S America are not from Africa but from asia by way of North america.
    They walked over with everyone in a post flood tropical earth.

    Biogeography is no friend to a evolution concept of massive evolution going on everywhere. In fact the world in the fossil record becomes a small united place.


  15. And AGAIN- the human “tail” does NOT resemble any primate tail.

    Yes Joseph, it does.

    Liar- primate tails contain bones and human “tails” do not.

    Try again…

  16. GinoB,

    Which primate’s tail does the human “tail” resemble?

    I said it doesn’t resemble any primate’s tail and you said it does, so which primate’s tail does it resemble?

  17. Joseph

    Which primate’s tail does the human “tail” resemble?

    It resembles all of them through the additional C1-C3 coccygeal tail vertebrae, with corresponding musculature, blood circulation, and nerve tissues.

    Which whale’s hind fin did that atavistic dolphin’s resemble?

  18. 18

    Before Hawaii existed.

    Oh nice, THERE’S a scientific answer.

    You’ve made it pretty clear your a YEC in later messages. “Following the evidence whereever it leads”, eh? And I thought someone on UD or the DI was trying to sell us the line that ID accepted the old age of life and the Earth. Didn’t you get the memo? Or is ID such a “broad” science that it can include YEC?

  19. Nick,

    Just because I understand the Bible does not mean I am a YEC.

    As for a scientific answer, well your position doesn’t have any- what does that make you?

  20. Responding to GinoB-

    I asked:


    Which primate’s tail does the human “tail” resemble?

    GinoB responds with:

    It resembles all of them through the additional C1-C3 coccygeal tail vertebrae, with corresponding musculature, blood circulation, and nerve tissues.

    It doesn’t resemble any primate tail anyone has ever seen- you are lying again, as usual.

  21. To recap and expose Nick matzke’s ignorance-driven agenda:

    Nick asked:

    If special creation happened, why did God leave them off of Hawaii etc.?

    I told him that Hawaii did not exist during the Creation week

    So Nick asked:

    When was the time of creation for the different created kinds? Do tell.

    Jokingly I said “before Hawaii existed” and then corrected that with what the Bible says- remember NICK brought up the special creation and God, not me. I was just using readily available references as Creation relies on the Bible.

    So after all that Nick throws a little girly hissy fit- got those panties all in a know heh Nick- and says that I am a YEC just because I understand their position.

    Nick you have got to be one of the worst scientists that ever existed if that is what you infer from our discussion.

Leave a Reply