Two things being related does not imply direct descent
Hmm, that almost sounds like the title of some creationist/ID argument against evolution! However, for those creationists/IDers out there, it is not. Don’t be too disappointed, but really, what did you expect from me?
I came across a creationist blog here on WordPress by a fellow/lady of the name thebibleistheotherside. In the following post, thebibleistheotherside discusses how whale fossils are deceptive, don’t show the relationships evolutionists believe they show, etc.
Thebibleistheotherside states in the post that:
DNA samples were taken, and the result suggested the hippo (which eats plants) evolved into a meat-eating whale.
Thebibleistheotherside clearly says here that hippos, not a relative or ancestor of hippos, evolved into whales. This implies that whales directly descended from hippos.
Of course, this is not what evolutionary biologists believe or teach. Rather, genetic studies have shown that whales and hippos are closely related–the whales evolved from an ancestor to hippos. I pointed this out to thebibleistheotherside in the comments on the post.
Yet thebibleistheotherside continues to equate the two. He/she even goes on to quote Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan, who clearly demonstrates on his own website that he does, of course, believe hippos and whales are related, but not that whales descended directly from hippos.
Thebibleistheotherside either clearly does not understand the difference between the two, or is being purposely deceptive to create a straw-man argument.
I don’t know which I’d prefer; on the one hand, it might be somewhat comforting for this person to be purposely deceptive, because it would show that their brain is working properly. On the other hand, I can’t stand to witness Christians being purposely deceptive, as it gives all Christians a bad reputation.
Either way, it is disturbing indeed.