I happened across this picture in a GIS for something else (a Malawi cichlid). I looked at it and thought, “WTF?” so I went to the original page, where I discovered a creationist’s blog. The author was using this image as evidence that evolution is false, since these fish from Malawi and Tanganyika are so little different as to be essentially the same. It was this person’s belief that they should be at least in the same genus, if not the same species, divided only by “Tanganyikan subspecies” and “Malawi subspecies”, and because they are not, science is wrong. God created them, and he wanted them to look mostly the same, with a little difference due to the fact that they live in different Rift Lakes. Looking at the drawings, I can see how someone might think, “Hmmm…they do look alike!”

Pretty convincing, even for someone who stands firmly behind Darwin as I do. Those are drawings, though…artistic depictions. What happens if we look at images of the living fish themselves? Since cichlid colours vary by individual, we’ll be as unbiased as we can under the circumstances. We’ll choose our images from a standard (i.e. not advanced) GIS by species name, taking the image that best represents the colour/pattern of the majority of images, providing it is at least 300 pixels wide and of reasonably good quality.

The first pair in the drawing is Tanganyika’s Julidochromis ornatus, and Malawi’s Melanochromis auratus. Both gold with black stripes running the length of the body, and near-identical in the drawing.

Julidochromis ornatus:

Melanochromis auratus (holding female, but we’ll ignore the bulge of the buccal sac):

Hmmmm….okay, they’re pretty close with both long and slender, though the juli’s jaw is very much narrower and more pointed. Also significant that the male auratus looks nothing like the juvie and female; he is black with white stripes/white dorsal. Still, I’m a helluva nice guy, so I’ll throw you a bone and call this pair “pretty close”.

The next pair are Tropheus brichardi (Tang) and Pseudotropheus microstoma (mbuna). I really had to look for pictures of the microstoma, since even the venerated Cichlid-forum doesn’t list the species, which is anything but common. Our Bible-thumping friends must really have dug deep for this pair! 😉

Tropheus brichardi:

The “elusive” Pseudotropheus microstoma. Actually, except for the yellow on the caudal and rear of the dorsal, it looks very much like another mbuna that I keep myself; Ps. saulosi.

Uh-oh…naughty Bible-thumpers, you’re fibbing to us! A person would have to be fucking blind to call these fish similar enough to be evidence of creation, and if anything, they’re evidence for evolution. Or did your Invisible Sky Wizard break his glasses the day he created them?

Now for a couple of skinny guys…Bathybates ferox is our Tang, and from Malawi, a hap called Rhamphochromis longiceps.

Bathybates ferox:

Rhamphochromis longiceps:

Oh, come on God-folks…two slender fish with nondescript, silvery bodies? One has some barring and the other has none. Uh…yeah, exactly alike. No, you’re not getting this; those fish look as much like a herring as they do one another.

Here we have a couple of lumpy-heads; fronts are Tangs, and the other guy is commonly called “Malawi Blue Dolphin” (though I don’t think it looks much like a dolphin, and it’s certainly not a mammal).

Cyphotilapia frontosa:

Cyrtocara moorii:

Wow–they’re practically identical! Both are large, fronts sometimes have blue on the lower fins, and both have nuchal humps. Yessir, practically the same fish–God obviously did that!!!11one Idiots…have you never seen the CA cichlids with the nuchal humps? No, not yours. Unless God used FedEx and they fucked up his order so two ended up in Africa and the rest in Central America, I’m giving this one to Darwin.

Our final pair are Lobochilotes labiatus from Tanganyika, and from Malawi, Placidochromis milomo. Our God-drawing shows them looking remarkably similar except for differences in the width of their bars. Now, let’s see the real thing…

Lobochilotes labiatus:

Placidochromis milomo:

No, you’re not getting this one, either. The resemblance begins and ends at “they both have rubbery lips”. If your God created these, then he fucked up.

So, to recap, the first pair is a pretty good match if you ignore the fact that only juvie and female auratus look anything like a juli. Second pair, not even fucking close. Third pair, these fish look so generic that they’d match with hundreds of others. Fourth pair, there is some slight resemblance, but no more than there would be if I compared those fish to some of the big Central Americans that develop nuchal humps and fudged the colour in my drawing. Yes, like you did. Last pair…fageddabouddit. Your comparison drawings are nothing more than God-propaganda, and that is because you have no fact to offer. Suck it, God-lovers.