Show Mobile Navigation
 
Humans

Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man

Jamie Frater . . . Comments

Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human body become unnecessary. What is most fascinating is that many of these parts of the body still remain in some form so we can see the progress of evolution. This list covers the ten most significant evolutionary changes that have taken place – leaving signs behind them.

10

Goose Bumps
Cutis Anserina

Gaensehaut

Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.

Dig into the incredible science of evolution with The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution at Amazon.com!

9

Jacobson’s Organ
Vomeronasal organ

Gray51

Jacobson’s organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special “smell” organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson’s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Single’s evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.


8

Junk DNA
L-gulonolactone oxidase

Stone72-Fig3

While many of the hangovers from our “devolved” past are visible or physical, this is not true for all. Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disbled the gene – whilst leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA. This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting.

7

Extra Ear Muscles
Auriculares muscles

Gray906

Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason – but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards) – particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.

6

Plantaris Muscle

Gray1242

The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet – something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.

5

Wisdom Teeth

Wisdom Teeth 01 En

Early humans ate a lot of plants – and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get all of the nutrients they needed. For this reason, we had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, our diets changed, our jaws grew appropriately smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Some human populations have now all but completely stopped growing wisdom teeth, while others have almost 100% likelihood of developing them.

Life can get pretty deep. Turn off your brain for awhile and enjoy the 2001 film Evolution at Amazon.com!


4

Third Eyelid

Gray1205

If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye – that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa.

3

Darwin’s Point
plica semilunaris

800Px-Darwin-S-Tubercle

Darwin’s point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.


2

Coccyx

Sacrum

The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail (as tree swinging was replaced by hanging out at the local water hole grunting neanderthal gossip), but we did not lose the need for the coccyx: it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.

1

Appendix

Gray536

The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwin’s suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time – just hanging around doing nothing.

Contributor: JFrater

Jamie Frater

Jamie is the owner and chief-editor of Listverse. He spends his time working on the site, doing research for new lists, and collecting oddities. He is fascinated with all things historic, creepy, and bizarre.

Read More: Twitter Facebook Instagram Email



  • Hemza3000

    Well I'm sure this list won't cause any problems…

    • KinKin

      Not a’tall.

  • Mikey

    God invented the appendix to tell us when we are sinning. People who have their appendix removed when it becomes infected are commiting an abomination in the eyes of the LORD. Over 9000 sinners have their appendix removed every month, and all of them go to Hell.

    Pfft, you evolutionists will say anything to try and discount the evidence you see with your own eyes! Open your Bibles and stop questioning the LORD your God! Jesus is an hero!

    • Tura

      lol, which page in Bible talks of the appendix?

      I think there is one obvious oversight in this list: toenails. Fingernails are useful, you cannot pick up a needle from the table without them for example, but all you do with toenail is bang them on stuff. Also every time I have done that and lost one, the resulting hole in my toe gets infected.

    • Aaron

      I love you, especially your closing statement.

      "Jesus is an hero!"

      God loves Grammar, your going to hell

      • smgth

        "An Hero" is a meme.

        Look it up.

        You're an idiot.

        God loves people who try ancorrect people and wind up being ten times stupider.

      • Daniel Stewart

        *you’re

        If you’re going to call someone out on their grammar, even though their statement was a meme, you should at least learn to grammar yourself.

    • felipe

      Sarcasm? :P

    • andrew

      My mother had her appendix removed at age 2. She's now a minister and an extremely devout Christian. Now, tell me, are we capable of sinning at AGE TWO?! If you think that you can sin when you're a baby, then you're going to hell.

    • Yes Man

      Come one lets not judge this guy. He was obviously high when he posted this.

    • Coco

      LMAO!!! Jesus is an hero.

  • WatDoUCare

    evolution is complete and total bullshit (dont bother replying, as i only visit comments once)

    • felipe

      So this message is not for you: religion is the tool for desperate or silly people to get robbed and laughed at.

    • Brian Tristam Williams

      Perfect. You represent your beliefs appropriately. You talk, but don’t listen, so it would appear that you don’t consider anything but what you have made up in your own little head.

      • Donnie

        The same could be considered to anyone else. People won’t consider anything except what they already decided they believe, and therefore, hardly ever give the idea of creation (or any idea that’s controversial) the benefit of the doubt. Also, I’d like to point out that if people can be convinced of the existence of aliens and UFOs and any number of unproven mysteries through extensive “evidence” and “witness accounts”, none of which unquestionably proves anything…is it so much harder to believe in a God/religion through evidence and witness accounts (i.e. Bible). A very intelligent atheist, CS Lewis was determined to disprove the Bible/God but ended up becoming a firm believer in God despite his intentions.

        • pablo

          its the determined atheists or the militant atheists who are more vulnerable to conversion by organised religion.atheism shouldnt be professed as a religion to feel “strongly” about.its about dispassionate reasoning.however if a numbskull tries to jeer you for being an atheist ,its then the problem starts.
          “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. – Mark Twain”
          https://listverse.com/2010/09/17/20-more-quotes-by-atheists/

  • Doodlebug

    'Evolution is just a lie'

    No no no my friend. You have evolution confused with cake…… The 'cake' is a lie.
    Evolution is just the way things happened.

    FACT.

    • Orly

      Constantly calling something a “fact” doesn’t add any truth to it. Even if the majority of the population believes in it, that doesn’t make it true. Just like how the majority of the people believed in the geocentric theory; the planets in the solar system revolving around the Earth. And besides, if our brain is just a product of chance over billions of years, how can you trust your thoughts and your reasoning process? Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards.

      • Seriously?

        ^Wow

        • Simcha

          Yeah…wow. Ok, Orly, While you’re first three sentences are sane rational statements, the last two are completely off the wall (3/5 is not a bad track record by the way.) Our brain is not a product of “chance” it’s a product of environment. Natural selection means that the traits that conferred greater chance of survival are more likely to be reproduced in the next generation. An unreasonable brain (that is, a brain that comes to conclusions not supported by reality, or a brain that doesn’t understand external stimuli) would be distinctly detrimental to survival. If the human brain doesn’t compute correctly then when a lion tries to eat my face off my brain shrugs and says “it’s all good” I die. As a result, I don;t pass on my genes and the faulty brain dies out.

          • pablo

            there is a difference between a chance and natural selection.people who know jack about evolution try to blabber propaganda thats fed to them by religous bodies.

          • Derek

            Religion, particularly the modern Judeo-Christian belief, used culture adaptations to overcome nature’s ability to thin the herd. We American’s think we are so progressive but the times of arranged marriages between pubescent adolescents are not that far behind us; and still active in some parts of the world. These children are afforded the protection of the family from social and predatory danger. Now forbid any practices with the potential to reduce inception (birthcontrol and mastrubation) and the hormonal teens are left with one alternative driven by their base instinct.
            It is utterly fascinating to me when religious nuts (again especially Jew, Islamic, and Christian) repeat or simply make up their own rhetoric to defend a faith they don’t even understand for what it really is. A parable of astrology. Most educated people put little to no faith in astrology anymore, but somehow fail to see that connection between the old and new testaments. The old testament is a narrative of the sun’s movement through the astrological phases also called ages. Taurus influene is clear in countless referrences to bulls. As the “age” changes to Aries so do the profit figures and then referrences to rams are predominant. Pices begins the new testament with numerous prophets and characters described as fishermen. You all have heard the “give a man a fish,… teach him to fish..” line. Even the frightful armageddon is a misinterpretation of end of the age as end of the world. It is simply saying that the age of Pisces will give way to the age of Aquarius; thus referrences to water bearer or pitchers.
            Show me something in these religions that is not directly borrowed from either astrology or the egyptions. Until then they can all have a cup of kool-aid and shut up trying to talk about anything scientific, modern, or real.

      • Your absolutely correct. The purpose of repeating the word “fact”, is because people like you continually argue that it is not true, and we can’t think of a simpler way to say it that you folks might understand better. The mountains of proof are actually what prove it to be a fact.

  • zigra

    One of the best signs of evolution in humans is the maintenance of the sickle cell trait in many people of African descent. Those that carry one copy of the gene that makes red blood cells the shape of a sickle/scythe have resistence to malaria. Copies of both genes for the trait are lethal, but malaria is worse, so the sickle cell gene has never died out. A great example of selective pressure for a not-so-great gene by a pathogen.

    • roll

      That’s awesome.

      That’s just like saying if you cut off your leg you can’t get athlete’s foot.

      • Bob

        roll, that’s completely NOT what he’s saying. Read about the large vs small appendix, that’s a little closer to what he’s saying.

  • bucslim

    Freca – cats have that doubly thingy on their ears so that they are more aerodynamic when you toss them out the window.

    • JustWow

      ^– Made me laugh for 5 minutes straight

  • Matt Ryan

    It is amazing that there are still people in this world that believe in the fairy tale of Creation. Their simplistic views on what is "Truth" is just another sign that simple people would rather have simple answers for complex ideas. To deny the beauty of life and its complexity in changing and adapting is the true abomination. What ever force or spirit that is part of the universe is the blasphemy. It is the simplistic morons that keep arguing over whose imaginary friend is better, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, that keeps causing all the pain in this world. Embrace the true beauty of life and the never ending growth and development of life on this planet instead or hiding in your cave waiting for an old white guy in a beard to show up and say "your an idiot for holding on to those silly fairy tales and not appreciating the life that you are part of". Just my rant, I have had enough to idiots and zealots.

    • Caitlin

      First of all, please learn to use the correct "your" and "you're." Evolution equates the beauty and majesty of this world to chemicals and accidents, but God's version of the story is the truly amazing one: There is a plan for this world, and God was the divine artist of all this beauty. How can everything just "fall into place" so perfectly? I know that's what everyone says, but seriously. How can we have just the right elements in our air to breathe, just the right bacteria that happen to live in our digestive systems to break down our food, etc.? That is no accident! Please don't call creationists idiots. We do have solid, scientific proof. See my other comments or visit some creationism webpages to learn more! It is truly amazing!!

      • Tucker

        Hey, Caitlin I suggest that you do a little bit of research before posting. There are innumerable examples of non-perfection in nature. Such as several nerves in a Giraffe’s neck that go away from the brain then almost all the way down to the shoulder, then back all the way up to their axis (a vertebra in the neck), then all the way back down to the shoulder without connecting to anything in the actual neck, is this perfection? Also in human testicles one of the Vans Defrins travels for almost twice as long as it needs to in order to get to it terminus. Is this perfection? No.

        Also, in a science you do not find evidence to fit your theory, you find evidence and subsequently make your theory. Ignoring all the evidence against Creationism is pseudoscience.

      • Bob

        It isn’t an accident, you idiot. It’s called Evolution by Natural selection. Go read the Origin of Species before you ignore darwin’s work and just call us all accidents. You clearly have no knowledge of evolution.

      • steph

        Caitlin, it does not all perfectly fit in to place, for one, and also why we have the right elements and just the right bacteria in our digestive systems is because the world started like that, and life adapted to it so it can live!! just like there has to be other life in other planets, and might have to live in 200 degree heat, but their life was made to stand that heat, like we are able to stand our planet! dude, i’m a teenager, and you’re probably a full grown adult that still believes that crap.

      • Darwin didn’t even get to see his work flourish.

        Please Caitlin, do some solid research into Evolutionary theory. I mean, REALLY get your head around it. The world is beautiful but, like others say, NOT perfect. The Earth is very, very old and lots of things have changed over time. If something didn’t work anymore, it would die out. Climate change, epidemics, mutations, genetic shift/drift and so on. And why is YOUR religion the correct one, anyway? With all your open-mindedness and willingness to learn wouldn’t it be impossible to pick one? Many support creationism. You can’t have scientific proof to support magical creation. It’s an oxymoron. You’re not an idiot, you’re just not well researched. If you’re going to argue against evolution, at least take the time to thoroughly understand what it is you’re arguing against.

        • PageUp

          “You can’t have scientific proof to support magical creation.”

          Of course you can’t explain the creation of something by the things within it. Take a computer for example. Now if I ask you how this computer came into existence, but you cannot use man as your answer — you have to explain how it happened within the components of the computer. You’ve already eliminated the only logical answer. Am I supposed to believe that this computer’s circuits and connections, which enable it to do vast amounts of functions, happened by blind chance? The creator obviously has to be outside the creation. You cannot explain how a building or a factory was made without using an outside source. I mean if I handed you a simple pen, both of us already have the preconceived idea that it must have been made by someone. Whether it’s the pen itself or the factory that made the pen, the creator is always beyond the creation.

          • toolazytothinkofaname

            Dude, computers have nothing to do with it. Since they aren’t alive, they can’t evolve. Anf of course an invention (like a computer) had to be created by someone. But you clearly show no understanding of basic principles of science when you really think of giving a computer as an example.

          • Anti-nutjob

            Did you just compare something that isn’t living to something that is? Worst argument ever…

          • Jose

            First of just because evolution is true doesn’t mean there isn’t a god. This fact seems to be missed in this argument consistently. Also how do you apply your computer analogy to the creation of god and you can’t just say god is eternal because according to your reasoning everything must have been created by something

      • Pip

        No, not an “accident”. Which part of natural selection did you find difficult?

    • t

      Hitler was an atheist

    • crazycuzof4

      Hitler was an atheist.

      • Daniel Stewart

        Hitler was a Catholic. Learn history.

        Why would it matter anyway? There are good and bad atheists just like there are good and bad theists. This has been shown time and time again. It has no bearing on the debate at hand.

  • lena

    cool list

  • Jono

    There’s empirical and physical evidence that humans have grown taller over the last few centuries.

    • rafa

      yes but thats not because of evolution, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in the gene pool. Humans still have more or less the same gene pool as 1000 years ago, these genes for "height" code for a potential maximum height, these havn't changed. However better nutritional awareness and availability of a variety of foods, better quality of clothes, central heating in houses and end of child labour (for the most part anyways) meant less energy was wasted and more can go into growth

  • Hemza3000: the risk is always there, but regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, these are still at least all interesting scientific looks at humans :)

  • MPW

    Great list. I expected to see the appendix and Third eyelid, but I still learned 8 new things. Thanks! :)

  • loop

    As always, fascinating and a learning experience!

  • max

    nice list, i learn so much from this website.

  • Odorikakeru

    A timely list. If I remember correctly (I’m sat in front of the internet right now, and too lazy to check), in 2009 we are celebrating 150 years since the publication of On the Origin.

  • phlegm thrower

    this website is getting better everyday. but i think i have developed some kind of disorder…. i think its called listversis addictutitis or something… i became addicted to this website, and I selfishly hide from my friends , colleague even family, i dont want them to learn about this website and the cool trivia that it contains… I even copy from listverse and paste it on forums just to impress my friends and other people…oh my god, its getting worse, please help me, is there a cure? is there a cure? my eyes are twitching like sarah palin!!

    • Maria Cyprus

      oh my gosh, me too!!!
      i am completely addicted to this site, and especially your lists jfrater.
      I was always the source of lots of ‘useful’ information to my friends, now i’m more like a waterfall!!
      :)

  • mowi
  • Haas

    lol and still people are talking about evolution as if it some kind of fake thing. How much proof do you need….

    • Ari

      I am not sure these things are proof of anything except that our scientific knowledge is limited. For example, one of the items on this list should already be taken off– the appendix, as it turns out, has a purpose, and is not a vestigial organ as previously assumed. It contains the good bacteria utilized in the digestive tract.

      • Debunking Creationism

        Saying that the appendix has no known use is outdated. Your right it has been found to harbor good bacteria. This does not take away from it being a vestigial organ. A vestigial organ is one that no longer serves it’s original purpose. Just because the body has adapted it for another use changes nothing.

    • I think in this day and age it's ridiculous that evolution is still debated. I mean, if we can map genomes, which pretty much conclusively show our relation to other species, why is evolution such an issue??? On a related note, my roommate's girlfriend doesn't believe in evolution, not for religious reasons, but simply doesn't think it's plausible. I don't know how some people get into university.

      • Bob

        Evolution is a persuasive theory but the evidence is far from proven.

        By the way, I can’t comment on your roommate’s girlfriend who got into university, but I find the proof for evolution less than conclusive and I have a law degree and a masters in Finance.

        There is a large confirmation bias going on. In other words, the evidence is made to fit the theory.

        Which is a great pity because it holds back scientific progress.

        By the way, I have no religious beliefs.

        • Kobe

          The only thing the hold science back is the lack of communication between scientists and laymen like you. The truth is, even budding yeast has huge genetic homolog when compared with humans ( meaning that genetic sequence between humans and yeast are striking similar as well as many of its functions). Evolution is a fact, the mechanisms of evolution is theory. Gravity is a fact, the mechanisms of gravity is theory.

    • Mia.

      You know theirs a group of people that still believe if you go far enough into the ocean you will fall of the edge of the world and people that believe we never made it to the moon. And they think pictures of the earth are just greenscreens. I mean how more obvious does it need to be for them?

  • zz

    I can move my ears!

  • Oz

    Having traveled to and from the third world often (F.Y.R.O. Macedonia to be more precise)I have found that there is great use for wisdom teeth in the modern world.

    In a time before prosthetic teeth, needing molars to chew, yet being so worked, many molars would rot, become cavity infested, and eventually need to be pulled out. The wisdom teeth are like a replacement for the poor.

    I’m no dentist/pro in the field, but I have observed this to be the case.

  • zz

    Do you know about why people have different types of feet? For some the big toe is the longest while others have longer middle toes.. Why??

  • ringo710

    I am now througholy convinced that this is one of the best websites on the internet. btw, how long before some fundies get here? 24 hours is my bet.

  • astraya

    Are sufferers of listversis addictutitis less likely to breed by hiding from colleagues or friends and not meeting potential partners (hopefully not “family”!) or are they more likely to breed by impressing the pants off any potential partner that they do meet?

  • Sneeuwpop

    Odorikakeru, i don’t know if they’re related in some way, but 2009 is also the year we “celebrate” darwin’s 200th birthday. We call it the year of Darwin in Holland (he was born on the 12th of february 1809).
    I’m not sure if this is international or just a dutch thing :)

  • Qeremius

    mowi got it right. Scientist have found that the appendix does have a purpose. I’ve heard this several times in the last year or so.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

  • Tomo

    I was initially going to go off the handle about darwinism v. creationism etc. However, JFray your comment (no. 4) put things in a different light. So… good list.

    Darwin is already in hell, y’all know that right.

    • Ari

      To the best of my knowledge, Darwin wasn't an atheist. Why do you assume he's in hell?

      • Bob

        I’m pretty sure he was.

        • Kyzalie

          Darwin was initially catholic. He became troubled when he started to make observations like those of the Galapagos finch because it didn’t fit in with religious beliefs. That and the later death of his children saw his unquestioning faith crumble. Double check those facts, though. I’m a zoology major but I’m spinning those facts off the top of my head from over a year ago. I don’t know if he died an athiest.

    • KJJ

      ah, to be ignorant is a dream :)

  • Pingback: Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man - The List Universe | filingual.com()

  • davo

    this list isn’t accurate. god put all those things there to test us. just kidding, i’m not an idiot. ;)

  • Hemza3000

    “this list isn’t accurate. god put all those things there to test us. just kidding, i’m not an idiot. ;)”

    Those are exactly the types of statements that I resent. Calling religious people idiots is extremely hateful. I let atheists believe whatever the hell it is they do or don’t want to believe in. Why can’t you do the same? Idiot.

    • Dave

      Provide some evidence for ludicrous religious beliefs and we'll stop thinking of you all as idiots. Until that point you're a collection of people who irrationally believe in unsubstantiated myths and legends while disregarding all evidence to the contrary. If that doesn't make you an idiot I'm not sure what does.

      • Frank

        Apparently you're unaware that scientist make up bogus info pushing the evolution thesis, and other scientist knowing of these falsifications still promote lies…even in school text books.

        • rafa

          hahaha and you're an expert on this are you? just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean it's not true hahaha "thesis" he says

          • Conor

            “hahaha “thesis” he says”

            reading this part of your comment literally made me laugh out loud … unfortunately, I was half way through drinking coffee at the time

        • Yes Man

          And you are aware? Were you there? Thats amazing you must be like a two hundred years old!

      • Randomgood person

        I think of religion this way why be a good person jest because you think you will be smited by some unseen god and will be rwarded in the afterlife when u know being a good person is already the right thing to be I think that’s being a bit selfish being a good person jest to save ur own @$$

      • Randomgoodperson2

        Random good guy is right think of it this wu someone asks u y I helped them an u might (not saying u will) respond “I did this good deed for you because “god” told me to” If someone aske me y I did it I would tell them “because I new it was the right thing to do and I did it out of the kindness of my heart” not to brag but in my life I have saved 3 peoples lifes and helped out 20 others I don’t believe in god dose tht mean I’m goin to hell?

      • Habla

        okay, that's harsh, just' becuz they have faith in something you cannot see, does not make them idiots it makes them hopeful. I'm agnostic so i'm pretty much in the middle of this kinda debate, however i'm of the firm belief that we should just leave each other to think how ever they want, rather than degrading them for a different opinion.

        • Matt

          Agnosticism is not a belief position. I’m agnostic but I’m also athiest; you can be agnostic theist too. ‘Gnosticism’ only addresses what you can claim to know; theism what you believe to be true. There is a difference. In light of the fact there is absolutely no evidence to resolve the question of whether or not God or gods exist, were are all by definition agnostic.

          • Bob

            That is not true Matt. Agnosticism implies a 50 precent chance of each side being right. Which is false, there is no evidence whatsoever to support a god hypothesis, therefore it cannot be seen as likely. The flying spaghetti monster people show this. Besides, if your an agnostic about the christian god, are you also an agnostic about Allah? How about Zeus? If we would simply be agnostic about anything disprovable, then the impossible becomes plausible and even likely. Which is a wrong point of view.

        • Matt

          Secondly, having faith in the existence of unsubstantiated phenomena, contrary to the lack of any reasonable indication is irrational. The term ‘idoits’ is both subjective and provocative, so let’s ignore it. More useful words to describe a religious affirmation might include: wishful, mis-guided, dishonest, credulous, unwarranted, unjustified, conflicted, contradictary, dis-ingenuous, deceptive, mis-represenatitive, deceitful, devisive, exclusive, stultifying, ignorant, arrogant, dangerous, maleavolent, ambiguous, arbitrary, irresponsible, unfounded, ritualistic, coddling, gullible, redundant and sociopathic.

        • Monzy

          Habla means stupid in Arabic, are you an Arab? If we let the idiots be, they will kill every living thing on this planet.

      • Apparently to kill, steal, lie, bribe, drink alcohol, curse, sexually abuse, disrespect, call false witness, enslave, prostitute, rape, envy, etc.. are all prohibited in religious beliefs..

        Ludicrous huh? I guess most religious people are idiots.. As a matter of fact, what is the purpose of your existance except to be whatever “society” expects from you?

        • Bob

          So it says some things that are morally right (and a whole lot more that are morally wrong, but you didn’t mention that) and gives a sense of purpose to your life. Now how exactly does that in any way lend any credibillity to your god hypothesis? It doesn’t. Even if you believe that the world would be an immoral and awful place without religion (which would be rediculous, atheists have morals eventhough they dont think they have to answer for what they did in the afterlife) that doesn’t mean in any way that it is true.

    • Cacovsky

      I'm an atheist and I do not "believe". I'm convinced by evidence.

    • toxic7

      I don’t think the poster was calling religious people idiots… just the ones who continue to deny the fact of evolution even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Believe it or not, a great number of Christians believe in science as well as God.

      • Colt

        Thank you for your unbiased comment why does evdryone have to argue I personally do not have too force my beliefs or opinions upon others

  • ArizonaBay

    all hail over mighty overlord Jesus!/GOD/Satan.

  • Q: Are we not men? A: We are davo.

    “Those are exactly the types of statements that I resent. Calling religious people idiots is extremely hateful. I let atheists believe whatever the hell it is they do or don’t want to believe in. Why can’t you do the same? Idiot.”

    Yeah, but if you don’t believe in evolution then chances are pretty high that you are an idiot.

  • Pingback: Diez huellas de la evolución en el ser humano moderno()

  • phlegm thrower

    astraya

    i believe listversis addictutitis sufferers are more likely to breed because of the huge number of people they impress… it is however unconfirmed if it is genetically passed on

  • Can we please have an alternative for those of us that know evolution is just a lie?

    Top 10 Signs That God Created Modern Man perhaps?

    • Dnom

      Feel free to start one.

    • Henry

      I find it odd that those who believe in evolution have produced a ridiculous amount of evidence, yet religion has put out practically none, yet religion acts as though a few guys writing a black book a few thousand years ago is all the proof in the world. Also, if evolution is "just a lie," why would Darwin put out this "lie" in the first place? Considering Darwin was Christian, I'm sure he didn't just randomly decide to go against the church.

      • Caitlin

        I am sure that Darwin truly was convinced that his ideas were real. I am a firm creationist and strongly oppose evolution. The fact that so many people say that creationism has no scientific proof is just amazing to me, because I have read multiple books on creationism that really knock the socks off of evolution's "proof". There is an entire creation museum in northern Kentucky, which is extremely insightful and has tons of knowledge. It compares evolutionary thinking and creationist thinking side by side. The first time I went, I was still leaning towards believing in evolution, but they really did a great job presenting factual knowledge to prove otherwise. I strongly suggest that everyone go there to learn what creationism really is all about. As to this list, how do they know that we really had a tail? Are there fossilized men with tails? No. Our tail bone supports us in sitting and positions the anus. Tonsils and the appendix, "vestigial" organs thought to be of no use, have significant roles in the movement of bacteria- like the one person said, the appendix holds the good bacteria, and the tonsils work to soak up infection and fight off bad pathogens. The little knob on the ear? I'm sure that it's just another knob in the ear just like we have hips and other shapes to our bodies. Why wouldn't God make His creatures with similar characteristics? Why can't a cat have toes and a cow have toes and us have toes and not attribute it to evolution? God made man in His image, meaning that we have the same appearance as God, the perfect design, so it makes sense for God to incorporate this design into other animals since it works nicely. I am not going to try to de-bunk this entire list, since I am not a professional, but I do want to say GIVE GOD'S CREATION A CHANCE. Go to some Christian websites, such as Ken Hamm's, and study it over. To Christian haters, I know that there have been many horrible people who claimed to be of the Christian faith, and I am so sad that those are the people who have become stuck in people's minds as Christians. There are just so many true Christians out there who just try to do good and show love. I love all of you, even though many of you probably think this is all bull and may hate me. I hope that something comes along and changes your minds!

        • Jesus

          You're a moron

        • nicole

          wow your the first creationalist i actually like. i love you too! I'm christian too btw but I only follow the morals not creationalism, i like you're point though about how things just work.

        • the peoples united athiest front of judea

          beware of creationists masquerading as scientists! there are a few of these religious deceivers who go through university and get the degree so they can pretend they have real crediability.

        • Kyzalie

          I would be incredibly interested to see what “evidence” was so amazing to sway you in favour of creationism. I’m not a Christian hater. Understand that. What religion signifies to me is narrow-mindedness and an inability for independent thought. Religion was created to bring order into an ancient society that had little to no understanding of the nature of the world. Bringing in an unseen, all-powerful god stopped people from being afraid when they saw things that they did not understand, and lessened the fear of death. The fact that modern society still follows this ancient book so hypnotically astounds me. I was devoutly religious until I becamed enough to question the natural world. “God did it” just did not cut it for me. Science filled that hole SO much better. If you knew even half the science (the real science – journals etc.) behind modern evolutionary theory, you’d leave religion behind.

          • Boss

            Lol, Ken Ham!

    • fel

      I really hate religion. People should have the right to believe in whatever or whoever they want, but institutions like cristianism and catholicism should be punished for what they did in the past, in the same way nazism was.

    • Yes Man

      Thats the funny thing. THERE IS NONE.

  • Noisicerp

    How does “natural selection” diminish the size/effectiveness of the unnecessary parts?

    Maybe the now “unnecessary parts” were once a detriment to our survival, hence those lacking or with smaller parts survived.

    The descriptions simplify evolution, especially number 2. Not poking my stick at the list though, IT’S GREAT. I’m going to borrow a book on evolution! Such an interesting subject!

    • Cookie

      Natural selection isn't the only kind of evolution. Read up on genetic drift! Selection is usually what acts on mutations that are "good" or "bad" (for an organism's fitness), but drift acts on mutations that are just neutral, like being born without vestigial organs.

  • dann

    oh snap!…i knew the ‘adam and eve’ shtick was unlikely..

  • Ghidoran

    Awesome.

  • Ernmas

    I just loved the list! My son can wiggle his ears…but alas I can’t.

    Anyone know why some people have more control over their tongue muscles than others? Being able to roll it into a tube, the cloverleaf thing, etc? What causes that?

    • Kyzalie

      Put pretty plainly, genes encode for proteins. These proteins make structures like bones, muscle etc. If a child inherited specific genes that encode for more (or differently arranged) tongue muscle proteins in certain areas of the tongue, then the child will have increased strength of movement in those areas = awesometonguestuff.

  • Mom424

    Excellent list Jamie. Some stuff I didn’t know. Wish I wasn’t working, I’m gonna miss the brou ha ha.

  • stooge

    WatDoUCare shows the type of mindset that believes in Creationism. Unthinking, closed minded, paranoid idiot.

    Mond, care to get us started because i can’t think of a single example of proof that God created mankind.

    Hemza3000 i also resent religious types being called idiots but belief in God is completely different to believing that the Old Testament is an accurate scientific account of exactly how the universe was created.

    • Caitlin

      People who truly believe in Creationism should do their research, and so should evolutionists. They should look at both sides very carefully and figure out what doesn't fit. I am a creationist, and my friends who are all creationists are like this. We seek the truth, not comfort, which is what many people categorize religion as (a crutch, something to make people feel better, etc.). I am very open-minded and will exhaust all resources to get to the bottom and truly understand my beliefs and why I believe them. I have only skimmed the surface in my research on creationism, but I plan to get the answers and publish a website or book about all the questions I have had. I feel that being open-minded means that a person will look at an issue from all sides of the argument, research, and only then make a decision as to what they believe, based on proof from the research. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

      • Bob

        Show me some of your creationist proof.

  • Q: Are we not men? A: We are davo.

    stooge – how is belief in God so far removed from belief in the accuracy of te Old Testament? Belief in God is a childish superstition with no basis in fact. Why should we treat it any differently from any other delusional behaviour?

  • bucslim

    I’m just glad God left my coccyx where it is. I appreciate it’s role in the positioning of my anus. I mean, you can’t just have your anus position in a sloppy, haphazard way. If anuses were left to their own devices, then we’d have anarchy. What if we all had anuses in different positions?

    All hail the coccyx and it’s role in our daily lives!

  • OldManJack

    Most recent research is supporting the idea that the appendix is still in use as a reservoir of helpful digestive bacteria in case of catastrophic digestive infection (e. coli for example)

    http://www.healthcentral.com/acid-reflux/news-190443-66.html

  • stevenh

    Bucslim:
    Based on the comments so far, I predict that we will have ‘anus anarchy’ for the rest of the day.

  • bucslim

    So, wait, are you saying in number 4 that the guy/alien in Men in Black wasn’t an alien after all because he blinked two sets of eyelids? What then, was the entire point of that movie? If Will Smith doesn’t chase down a cephelapod, then he isn’t exactly qualified to be in a special division of INS. Division 6 I think it was.

    Just because people have an over developed set of eyelids doesn’t make them aliens, people. The prejudice needs to stop!

    • Kyle

      They weren't eyelids. They were gills. J said so himself.

  • bucslim

    God gave us wisdom teeth so that escapees from Nazi Germany can continue to have jobs. They can continue to torture, maim and persecute anyone they want all in the name of ‘dentistry.’

    Every ‘dentist’ I’ve ever been to positively revels in the agony of their patients. They tell you to never stick anything sharp in your mouth, then the first goddamn thing they do is start jabbing your tender gums with that ‘mirror’ and pokey thing. Then they shoot you up full of novicane and drill all fricken day with an evil and sadistic grin on their face.

    The advertisement says ‘gentle and painless dentistry’ and by gentle they mean ‘all out butchery’ and by painless they mean, ‘I’m gonna hack this thing out with a rusty hammer and a dull chisel.’ All the while they’re hamming it up and saying shit like, “You might feel some pressure here.” and “The bleeding will stop soon.”

    Bastards, all of them!

    • Caitlin

      I am going to school to be a dental hygienist. Yes, sometimes dental work is painful. This is going to sound harsh, and I am sorry for this, but usually, that pain would not have to take place if the patient had properly brushed his or her teeth and flossed like they should. I have all my life and have never had a single cavity. I love going to the dentist, and my dental hygienist and I are friends on Facebook! Maybe some dentists are mean and hateful because they are so frustrated that people don't take care of their teeth. I will try to be as effective, yet gentle, as possible when I am cleaning people's teeth, and I will never be happy if I hurt someone. But know that much of the pain you may experience can be eliminated if you are proactive with your oral health! If the dentist seems like he or she is enjoying hurting the patients, you should probably find a new dentist!!

  • rick

    evolution is no more a belief than gravity. it is fact regardless of what emotion you attach.

  • phlegm thrower

    This is a Poll…cast your votes

    Who do you think is the pinnacle of human evolution?

    A. John McCain

    B. John McCain & Sarah Palin

    C. Brad Pitt

    D. Britney Spears

    E. spongbob squarepants

    F. someone not american/european

    • CAPTAIN RAY

      BRITNEY SPEARS

  • Callie

    Wait…why don’t we need our little toes? I thought we needed all our toes to balance.

    Though come to think of it, my pointe shoes wouldn’t have hurt nearly as badly at first if I didn’t have a little toe.

  • Peri

    #3 I actually have two Darwin’s Points on both ears, more prominent on my left ear than my right. Wonder what that means?

    • Yes Man

      "It means you're going to hell!"
      Nah just kidding

  • Freca

    A question to #3 (Darwin’s Point)

    Why do cats have those pocket-like skin-doublings on the edge of their ears?

  • Mikey

    BLASPHEMY.

  • jake ryder

    If I have the ability to grip and manipulate things with my feet and Darwin Points on my ears does that make me a throw back on the evolutionary scale?

    I am the missing link.

    • JustSayin'

      You're what's known as an "atavistic anomaly," jake.

  • Tricia

    Freca. Awesome question. I like to play with that thing on my cats’ ears. They are not fans.

    Also, I’d like my tail back please. As a two legged creature, I could use the balance.

  • smurff

    Fantastic list – I knew 3 of them.

    Just a pity not everybody sticks to the topic !

  • STL Mo

    ~~SIGH~~

    Why do some have to call those who believes that God created the heavens and the earth “idiots”?

    Why do some have to tell those who believe in evolution that they’re going to hell?

    It’s comment sections on posts such as these that make me HATE the Internet. And it’s the main reason why I never –except for this one time — comment on any post like this. Used to do it — got into huge and nasty flame wars. But it taint worth it anymore. I’d rather talk to someone face-to-face about what I beleive and why.

  • logar

    Love the list- I’m guessing this could have been twice the size. Sometimes I think that I’m evolutionarily advanced because I have almost no nails on my pinkie toes. It really hurt my foot modeling career.

    Other times I think I’m a throwback because I have a tail. Granted, it’s in the front, and it’s not vestigial.

    • ian

      LOL

  • Bre

    I can open doors with my feet.

  • phlegm thrower

    creation began with the BigBangBus theory

    • steph

      You mean the Big Bang Theory? ;) yea I believe it too.

  • zigra

    STL Mo – I am right there with you. There are certain sites I cannot visit anymore because the comments are so inflammatory and antagonistic. The commenters on this site actually are more reasonable than most – hopefully it stays that way, since I love Listverse.

  • Bob

    Wow, I love how listverse just tolerates all sorts of hate speech these days. Of course, since listverse PUBLISHES that hate speech, it’s better to say that listverse PROMOTES hate speech.

    Anyway, all of these “explanations” are just hiding the only real fact in this list, and the only real answer “science” can honestly give to most of the questions in the universe: we don’t know. What’s an appendix for? “Oh, it must be some evolutionary leftover.” Well, it very well could be, but how do you know? Answer: you don’t.

    • felipe

      You're right… it makes more sense to believe an invisible man in the sky created it so we can be happy.

  • Callie

    “Other times I think I’m a throwback because I have a tail. Granted, it’s in the front, and it’s not vestigial.”

    That made me giggle

  • Mosha

    “Of course, since listverse PUBLISHES that hate speech, it’s better to say that listverse PROMOTES hate speech”

    Disadvantage of free speech that one, you do actually have to put up with what some people say.

    By-the-by I have met many Christians who could accept we were placed here by God but have been allowed to evolve (albeit not from apes, but just as the species of man).

    Good list. I am intrigued though by the references to how certain percentages of the population no longer have a certain attribute. And more specifically, why some traits seem to die off quicker than other traits (and in fact how the traits really die out at all – I thought it all became junk DNA).

  • bucslim

    STL Mo, zigra – Al Gore invented the internet just for this very purpose. This way we can all get together and bitch about each other. It allows a forum for guys like Bob to tell us we’re all haterz.

    It’s a form of evolution that you’re not taking into account. Instead of being the old fogey who gets mad when your football goes into his yard or being a loudmouth jerk at a game, you can come to the internet and get your ya-ya’s out by calling everyone who disagrees with you a douchenozzle.

    I don’t know about you, but instead of being repulsed by all of this, it just draws me in like a kitty skittering across a polished wood floor after a ball of yarn. I get evolutionary reminant goosebumps just thinking about it.

  • When I was in 2nd grade, a classmate had the ability to wiggle his ears. I was insanely jealous. I practiced for weeks and weeks and weeks to no avail. I simply could not produce a wiggle…not even a tremble. I could, however, dislocate and relocate the knuckles of my fingers, which freaked out everyone, including Sister Petronella!
    My youngest daughter has the oddest ability I’ve ever seen, discovered by her at the age of 3. She can will her nostrils closed, just like a seal! It looks absolutely bizarre.

  • Doperhoper

    It was your first list on medicine right ? I liked it and it was actually first list that I already had the image in my mind what Im gonna see next. Those functionless organs are called “rudimentary Organs” in medicinal language. That Third eye thing is still common among animals (dont remember for sure but I think they were camels or eagles!) their main function is to clear the eye of the dust etc. A reasonable blow to one’s coccyx region can be lethal !

  • GTT

    36. bucslim – January 5th, 2009 at 6:50 am
    I’m just glad God left my coccyx where it is. I appreciate it’s role in the positioning of my anus. I mean, you can’t just have your anus position in a sloppy, haphazard way. If anuses were left to their own devices, then we’d have anarchy. What if we all had anuses in different positions?

    All hail the coccyx and it’s role in our daily lives!
    —-

    OK, I admit I copis that because it was the first comment that made me laugh on this list… However, all subsequent comments by bucslim made me laugh just as hard but I thought it might get old to copy them all. Hats off bucslim… Thanks for making my day. :)

  • copperdragon

    Other body parts that might eventually be lost to evolution:
    Ear hair
    Nose hair
    Ear lobes (the lower fleshy part where most earrings hang)
    Eye brows (since a lot of women shave them off and paint them back on, they must not be very necessary)

  • madmex

    The Frog Prince

    Once upon a time a billion years ago there was a frog. The frog reproduced and had tadpoles and they reproduced and had tadpoles. This continued for a billion years until one day instead of tadpoles…a human popped out. He grew up to write Purple Rain, Little Red Corvette and Raspberry Beret and called himself Prince. He lived happily ever after.

    The end.

  • MT

    I love this list. I also believe in God and in evolution.

  • Stizzy

    The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.

    Isnt it still kinda important if 81% of people still have it? :S

    • tim

      Sorry, that would be 91%.

  • GTT

    22. Mikey: I had surgery for peritonitis caused by a ruptured appendix at the age of 7. What sins could I have commited at that age?

  • Stizzy

    I dont think Mikey was being serious somehow.

    That said, anyone who knows the difference between right & wrong has the capacity to sin.

    If two boys under 10 can kidnap, torture and murder a 2 year old, I’m sure there are plenty other sins a child can commit.

  • Stizzy

    As this list goes, tis interesting but seems like a whole lot of “we don’t know what this stuff really does, but because other animals have something similar we’re assuming its an evolutionary knockoff”

    If anything, doesn’t it kinda suggest that humans are going the opposite way and de-evolving? Is it that we “no longer need” certain things or simply that too much genetic damage has been done for everything to function as it once did. It doesn’t kill us or inhibit us but then how are we to know if we don’t even know what it would be like to fully have these things?

    If everyone got a genetic defect that removed a kidney, would it mean we no longer need two?

  • krazz

    it took all of 21 comments before war broke out…great list. liked this one a lot

  • bucslim

    GTT – thanks for reprinting my anus post.

    Uh, . . . I read that last sentence again and it just doesn’t seem right. Didn’t a few dudes in the embarrassing deaths list die of something posted in their anuses?

    Anyway, a new thought just popped into my walnut sized brain. That Darwin’s point thingy is a wrong man. Instead of posting a picture of a monkey with a pointed ear, Jfrater shoulda posted a picture of Spock. What, the Listverse now is hating Vulcans?

    Sheesh, if Darwin would have just watched ‘The Squire of Gothos’ episode 17 of season one of Star Trek, all of this shit would have been sorted out much better. It’s crystal clear proof that Vulcans populated the earth millions of years ago. C’mon JFrater, do some research!

  • DC

    segue, I also have a few weird abilities…one of them is that I can shake my eyeballs. I found out I could do it when my twin randomly shook them and I was like hell no she can’t have all the glory!!

    BTW, to whoever said that the appendix is how God tells us we are sinners…my brother had his appendix out when he was 9, so he is a sinner? That is why I don’t like a lot of creationists, they shove their beliefs down your throat and they are often extremely hateful. How much evidence is there for evolution?, and then how much evidence is there for God?

    I don’t mean to be so annoying but don’t make hurtful comments about people you don’t even know, that’s not what religion is about, it’s about LOVING thy neighbour!
    (I believe in God and evolution btw)

  • Blogball

    Very educational list.
    I thought the goose bumps (#10) was one of the more interesting ones on the list.
    I was just thinking though that sometimes I get goose bumps when I experience something that moves me. So if I was with my mate and she said or grunted something that moved me she would think that I was cold and afraid of her. That would be a bummer.

  • Callie

    copper I think eyebrow shaving is a personal preference, and I don’t think enough people do it to make it evolutionarily (not sure if that’s a word?) moot. Besides, if that was the case, they wouldn’t have to continue to shave them because they would stop growing back.

  • bucslim

    I think the book of Romans should be renamed Appendix because Romans is where we find out that we are all sinners.

    Actually the appendix thing comes up in Ephesians.

    ‘Lo, I have placed a part of thine body, which I formed from dust, to remind thee of thine sinfulness. Let each of you seek out dudes with sharpend schythes to remove your reminder, and sin no more. From thine lower gut, let an incision be made to retrieve the ultra sinful reminder of thine sinfulness. After two days lying prostrate and eating only of the frozen curd, let thou receive an inflated reminder of how greedy schythe wielding bastards charge for removing your sinful, non usable worm like organ. Unless thine is enrolled in a sinful HMO, then thou shall take a number to wait until called.’

    I’m paraphrasing here. . . .

  • Rolo Tomasi

    Very good list on a tough subject, I enjoyed reading it. Too bad that its mostly bolgna (or boloney? , baloney?) There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that evolution is a real concept.

    I am not a religious person in any way, but evolution is a joke, just take a look at the fossil record. The fossil record is incomplete at best.

    If you truly follow the fossil record instead of having anthropologists fill in the blanks with “theories” then you will realize that human beings essentially just appeared one day out of nowhere.

    Do we come from apes? Of course not. Do we share 95-98 percent of our DNA with them? Sure. But we also share 90% of our DNA with a banana. Does that mean we evolved from bananas?

    Anthropologists have continually falsified records and fossils to prove theories. That is a fact. Every one of them wants to be the one that discovers a new species of something or find proof of a continous time line. But guess what there is none.

    A human skull is a human skull. An ape skull is an ape skull. Just because one ape skull brow line is higher or the skull is thicker or thinner or whatever, doesn’t mean that its a new species or some descendant.

    Think about it. If the human race were to go extinct and aliens come 1,000,000 years from now and dig up our bones, and they find a normal skeleton and then they find Yao Ming’s skeleton. Does it mean Yao Ming is another species?? Of course not. But this is what these people want you to believe.

    • JustSayin'

      I just love armchair anthropologists. Do you approach your job with as much preparation and thought as you have the field of evolutionary biology, Rolo? Those silly scientists…

    • "Anthropologists have continually falsified records and fossils to prove theories. That is a fact."

      You have a very funny definition of "fact". The size is not the only evidence a scientist need to declare a new species genious. Unlike in religion, science demands a ton of proof to be taken seriously.

  • Island_Boggs

    great list!!

  • No Wai!

    The above comment is false! Yao Ming is an eternal and will never die, so the Aliens from a million years in the future couldn’t possibly find his skeleton.

    As to the rest, you gotta go with the evidence. If you find new evidence which points to something else, great! If not, then 2+2 will remain 4 until you get more of a reason for it to be equal to 5 than ‘Because god told me so and he loves me’.

  • Christine

    Fascinating list! I can wiggle my ears, I don’t find that to be all that interesting, just a fun thing to show to people who can’t.

    I just had my wisdom teeth out 6 months ago too. I only developed 3 of them and one of the removed ones still has a huge gap. Is that normal? The other 2 closed up already…

    If we lose our ear lobes, what will I hang my earrings on?? =)

  • Cedestra

    All things in moderation and live and let live. Why do we have to start taking pot shots and fundamentalists and atheists? We’re bigger than that, people.
    I was told I am missing both the plantaris and the arm muscles that are missing in a small percentage of the population. It’s supposed to be an evolutionary step.
    Thank you, Jamie. As someone in the medical field, I find lists like this fascinating. Great list.

  • oz (13): That is true – though I believe I read that the wisdoms only become useful molars if they get a chance to move while you are still young. Having said that, I have 3 of my four wisdoms through and they are all healthy and functioning.

    astraya (16): that is a good point – maybe I need to include a few boring lists so that we can ensure that natural selection does not root out listversers!

  • Noisicerp (27): Natural selection ensures a larger appendix because people with smaller ones are more likely to get sick from it – potentially developing peritonitis which can kill and still does even in modern times. It is slowly breeding out the small appendices :)

  • Randall

    Rolo Tomasi:

    Rolo, if ignorance was tuna fish, you’d be Chicken of the Sea.

    Listen and try to allow some education to worm its way into that concrete-reinforced skull of yours.

    A) there is every proof imaginable that evolution is a fact, pinhead, and said proof does not repose merely in the fossil record–which is incomplete, yes, but not a blank slate onto which you can paint your garbled, down-home gibberish. In short, the proof for evolution is interweaved amongst many disciplines and is not limited to paleontology. Microbiology alone gives us a big piece of the puzzle, which combined with evidence from various other sources, allows for a very strong supporting structure that underpins the theory. If you want to try to knock holes in it, then, you have to do better than whining about the lackings of the fossil record. This simply shows you know nuttin’–and like all such people, you would have done better to keep your fat mouth shut and try to learn something in life instead of thinking you know better than legions of trained scientists and researchers. But I know, I know… in keeping with the pattern of all self-satisfied blow-hards, wherever they may be, you wanted to show off on the internet by pretending you were “in on” the secret truth whilst the rest of us are just chumps. I know. There there.

    B) The fossil record may be far from complete, and certainly the fossil record for hominids has some holes, but to say homo sapiens simply popped in out of nowhere is not only just plain wrong, but shot full of stupidity to boot. There is, in fact, a strong lineage that has been established from hominid ancestors (that are clearly NOT homo sapiens but also just as clearly are far more closely related to us than our nearest current relatives, chimpanzees) down to the form that is Us. I, as it happens, am proud of this lineage. You? Well maybe you’re embarrassed because you realize you come from the trailer trash slice of the Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus part of the pie. I don’t know.

    Ah, but I forget—you believe scientists have “continually falsified records and fossils,” (which, by the way, is NOT a fact–saying it’s so don’t make it so, “Rolo”) so obviously this established lineage means nothing to you.

    That you could make such an accusation with a straight face (one assumes it was so, anyway) when it is in fact patently absurd shows that you are either A) in the possession of some sort of irrational bias, despite your proclamations about “not being religious” or B) you are off your nut. Or, quite likely, you are both.

    Shut up and go away and darken no further web doors with your blathering idiocy. There’s a good fella.

    • tim

      Hi Randall,

      Unfortunately, I would have to agree with Rolo as he was more accurate. Evolution not only fails to explain the absence of new genetic specified information (as it requires) the very mechanism that supports it is completely inadequate – mutations and natural selection has never been witnessed to produce new structures. Mutations have instead been witnessed to damage existing genetic information, not a single example of a mutation building on it. Combining this with the fossil record indicates only one possible method for evolution to function – punctuated equilibrium – which unfortunately requires huge amounts of new information increasing mutations to occur in an extremely short time period. The fossil record does not demonstrate evolution, it demonstrates animals in statis. There are many examples (EG turtles) where animals have 'evolved' and have not changed throughout the entire fossil record.

    • Caitlin

      Did you seriously need to talk to him like that??? Geez. If all of religion turns out to be fake, I will still be glad that I was a Christian during my life on Earth so that I will have been a part of a loving community instead of out-right hatefulness.

    • Daniel

      Im with Caitlin on this one. and besides , i think it takes more faith to belive in evolution than it does to belive in Creationism. i mean, come on, how can you believe that one day a tiny single celled ameoba decided he wanted to walk and started growing legs

  • For those who are saying the appendix DOES have a use (based on new research by Parker and associates), this is new research and definitely not conclusive. Furthermore, if Parker is right, this is only beneficial in poor countries with a lot of diarrhea. In the west, people who have their appendix removed have no physical impairment as a result :)

  • Joss

    Where’d the good lists go?

  • Randall

    jfrater:

    Three recent excellent lists worthy of the old “Book of Lists,” pal. Nice work.

  • Freca (46): That soft fold on the cat’s ear is called a “tragus” and it is there to make mobility easier in the ear – which is why cats can push their ears completely flat and do other big movements with them. Humans have it too – it is the little bulb that points in to the ear from the face side – some people push it in to block out noise, rather than putting their finger directly in their ear.

  • Randall: Thanks :)

  • Kreachure

    Okay. I’ve wanted to say a couple of things about some comments here, but I was too shy to do so (that, or bucslim’s unbrittled imagination scared me away :P) But I just can’t resist.

    Evolution is not only real and provable, but scientists (and anyone else) can see it happening before their eyes if they want!!!

    Never mind that science understands enough about biology and genetics to know that evolution is as a naturally occurring process as mitosis and reproduction. Never mind that paleontology’s study of fossils is thorough and NOT incomplete (fossils may be usually incomplete and scarce, but that doesn’t mean that the study of them is also weak). Yeah, never mind all that.

    Evolution happens all the time around us!

    Hard to believe, you say? Well, then, let me help you out with that…

    (I’m certainly no expert, but I’ll give a couple of examples of evolution happening right in front of our noses.)

    Why do you think microorganisms are able to develop drug resistance? That’s right, bacterial strains EVOLVE the resistance to drugs if the dosage of drugs are wrong! There’s no two ways about this: bacteria which survive do so because they have adapted in order to be superior and resistant. That’s the very definition of evolution!!

    It’s also common for geneticists to study fruit flies. Why? Among other things, because they’ve frickin SEEN them evolve! That’s right, fruit flies have been recorded to evolve over a few decades by scientists. That’s factual.

    That said, it’s also a fact that science still has a lot to learn. There’s still many things that science can’t explain. But unlike Creationists, they don’t claim they have all the answers already.

    Finally, I believe in evolution AND in God. That’s not a contradiction. Everyone should have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe. The only contradiction here is a few Fundamentalist groups ruthlessly imposing an archaic belief that promotes ignorance for the sake of keeping their churches full, and which hard modern science has proven wrong.

    And I’ll stop here or we’ll never hear the end of it. (Well, either way, I’m sure we’ll never actually hear the end of it! :P)

  • munro

    i find it interesting that evolution with all the empirical and fundamentally proven evidence in support of it is still considered a lie. while blind faith and a story book of fables are all the evidence some people need to conclude that absolutely everything is controlled by something or someone.

  • Randall

    I had my appendix removed (along with my hapless gall bladder–the loss of which I strongly regret now) some five years ago.

    Now. I have observed that during certain conjugal activities… ahem… with the ladies… you know what I mean… well anyway, I have observed that during such fleshy fun times, that a strange collection of mutterings, whistlings, and other odd sounds seem to emanate from the region of my midsection. Through consultation with learned colleagues here at Big Eastern University–where I am happily employed–and through further extensive communication with spiritual Buddhist teachers and masters in the High Flung Secret Realms of the Himalayas (I prep schooled with some of those guys) I have come to the conclusion that these strange sounds are coming from my pancreas, which I have been told by these great minds is a highly excitable and dirty-minded little organ that would be addicted to porn if only it could find a way to A) pay for a subscription to “Jugs” and “Cherry” magazines and B) have them somehow delivered to it within my bodily folds. Failing this, it sits there and waits and watches like the perverted voyeur that it is, and when I’m enjoying some fun time with a lady friend, it starts mumbling along like a lecherous old perv at a peep show.

    The conclusion reached by my learned colleagues is that the function of the appendix is to shut the mother-f**kin’ pancreas up at such times so it does not embarrass us. A useful, if admittedly VERY arcane function. Further research is warranted.

    Oh–I did ask why it couldn’t be that the gall bladder performs this function, seeing as I had mine out at the same time, as previously mentioned. Rampache Limpoch, the Low Lama of the Ramapushnuti Abbey in Kuala Lampur (I roomed with him for a year back in the old days–he was a terrible study partner in maths, not being able to keep his mind off Heather “Bunny” Sidwell–who sat two rows over from us in class–the lama had a thing for pale trust fund girls) answered (rather snootily) that everyone knows that the gall bladder’s only other function–aside from storing extra bile–is to increase our resistance to nausea when watching daytime television. Which explains why I don’t puke anymore whenever I’m forced to watch “The View” in the waiting room at my dentist’s office.

  • bucslim

    My appendix has a use. It helps my coccyx re-align my anus. That makes my Darwin’s Points rise.

    Also, I get goosebumps sometimes when I’m peeing. What does that mean?

  • copperdragon (65): interesting point about brow hair – that is probably one of the few regions where the hair serves a useful purpose these days – which is to keep sweat out of our eyes when it rolls down the brow. As for the rest, I suspect (like you) that it will eventually pass away and we will look like aliens.

    On a seperate note, those who are upset over the creation/evolution debate, don’t be – we all have our own views and the days are long past where people are locked up for having the “wrong” one. It is possible to believe in special creation without being angry at those who don’t, just as it is possible to believe in evolution while not hating those who don’t.

    And let us not forget, the largest Christian religion in the world by a long way (Catholicism) is not fundamentalist and allows for the belief in evolution as God’s method of creating man :) The two need not be mutually exclusive.

    • JustSayin'

      Not fundamentalist? Maybe regarding the evolution thing. But don't tell the gays, 'cause the ol' Pope ain't too keen on them…

  • Kreachure

    That is to say, Creationism is something that fundamentalists want Christians and Catholics to believe is a core belief of their faith, when in fact it’s not. But don’t tell anyone, shhh……

  • Kreachure

    96. jfrater: ahh, you took the words right out of my mouth with that last paragraph. Creepy… :P

  • Blogball (76) goose bumps also occur in situations of awe – which sounds like what you are describing :)

    Everyone else: I think the comments about the appendix disease being for sinners was meant as tongue in cheek :)

  • The Dude

    great list! very informative and fascinating.

  • bucslim

    Randall – take some Beano and you won’t have those noises coming from your midsection. You disgusting pig! Good God man, now I have that image of you wrestling around with the monobrow Planter’s Chashew chick. GHNANAAAGGGH!

    And by the way, it’s “Juggs” – can’t believe you got that wrong.

  • Mr. Plow

    One of the best lists I have read in a long time!!! Great start to 09.

    As a Christian, I have no problem with this list. I find it close minded and intolerant that there are those posting here that feel my belief in a higher power somehow makes me an ignorant, fairy tale believing, anti-science/research zealot.

    How about we leave God outta this one and talk about this great list?

    No one is trying to convert anyone in here one way or another…get over yourselves.

  • bucslim: Thanks for the hilarious comments – they are definitely much needed in touchy topics like this :)

  • londonafter

    pretty interesting list…

  • Rolo Tomasi

    86. Randall Thats great! thanks for your insult. But where is your proof dummy. “Microbiology alone gives us a big piece of the puzzle” which piece is that?? The one you didnt mention or too ignorant too know, or too lazy to look up?

    “Ah, but I forget—you believe scientists have “continually falsified records and fossils,” (which, by the way, is NOT a fact–saying it’s so don’t make it so, “Rolo”) so obviously this established lineage means nothing to you. “”

    So I just made that up right? How about the Piltdown Man?? If you dont believe me here is the link, you piece of crap.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

    Yeah, I know… and this guy was supposed to be a “trained scientist and researcher”. Do I need to paste more links or is this enough for you.

    And by the way. Watch who you call ignorant, I have a Master’s Degree from Rutgers University, what is your level of education??

    Just because I choose to post a comment that is succinct doesn’t mean that I am talking out of my ass like you are. You are not fooling anyone with a fancy worded reply that is long and drawn out, but doesnt say a damn thing. Where are your facts? your empirical data?

    I dont see any of that, the only thing I see is a cheapshot by some punk hiding behind a keyboard who, like many other people, thinks that by trying to sound sophisticated that they are actually saying something intelligent when they are not.

    No Im not religious, yes I have taken more than a few biology and anthropology courses. When better proof comes out about evolution I will be convinced, until then dont come at me with insults and petty gripes

  • zigra

    Sorry guys, I wasn’t trying to stifle debate so much as comment on how in so many other sites actual debate is replaced by name-calling. In the spirit of debate, I am going to challenge Rolo Tomasi to show some data that bananas and humans share 90% of their DNA, and remind him that humans did not evolve from apes, but that we share a common ancestor. And give him a virtual dope slap for ruining my favorite L.A. Confidential reference.

    Kreachure’s comment 92 is excellent.

  • Pingback: Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man « Jen’s Blog()

  • Rolo Tomasi

    Let me change my wording. To make myself perfectly clear. Evolution may or may not exist.

    If you want to tell that some animals have gained or lost features to adapt to their environment fine. I will give you that. I am not unreasonable.

    But human beings DID NOT come from chimps or apes, or bananas.

  • Tom

    Cool, I have Darwin’s Points on my ears, I didn’t realise only 10.4% of the population had them.

  • Skydiver

    Rolo Tomasi, I urge you to do some research before spouting pseudoscience and misguided “facts” that aren’t facts at all. I suggest you start your research by looking up the word “fact” in the dictionary.

    Then, research how a scientific theory becomes just that, a “theory”. Read about the peer reviews, repeated experiments and scrutiny a theory has to be put through before it’s accepted and a paper is published. There are no scientific “facts” only theories because scientists are always learning and science is ever changing. The only realm of science where you can use the word “fact” is in mathematics.

    After you’re done with that bit of research. Do some light reading on something called “Natural Selection”. Forget that you may have heard that things just happened by “chance” or by “accident”, these are faith based buzz-words that creationists love to use to cloud the issue and quantify their claims, which don’t even go as far as being “theory”. There was no chance involved in natural selection at all, in fact it’s far more complex than “God did it” which is a far more immature and illogical claim. Keep in mind that Evolution and Natural Selection are not the same thing, Evolution is a result of Natural Selection. This bit of research should then give you enough raw knowledge to hit up YouTube and watch some videos by people called Thunderf00t and Potholer54, just do a YouTube search for these names. Watching these brilliant and informative videos should prepare you enough for the writings of authors like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Shermer. Once you’ve perused a few of their books. Read the bible, front to back. It’s unfair to make any opinions on the beliefs of anyone unless you can understand (not necessarily agree with) their beliefs. Unfortunately, most creationists aren’t willing to take that same step.

    After that, you should be educated enough to make comments regarding this topic and come to realize just how ridiculous your last comment was.

    Best of luck!

    Nice list jfrater!

  • Patrask

    Interesting list. Can’t say I believe in evolution per se but it was fun to read nonetheless.

  • zigra

    Actually, let me apologize for that – I should reach out to Rolo since obviously he has great taste in movies. That can be our common ground :)

  • bucslim

    Awesome! Another Randall v ______ (insert name here) fight! Now I can put down my copy of Juggs and rubberneck the carnage!!!!

    Wheeeee!!!

    We used to use hip bones from tapirs to beat down the monkeys from across the tracks, now we get to see a real rumble brewing! I’m getting goosebumps (not from peeing this time)

  • WHY3278


    This is beyond foolish!!, WE DID NOT COME FROM ANIMALS! LMAO

  • fred

    I lol’d at this list

  • Skydiver

    WHY3278… ignorance is bliss. We ARE animals.

    Please do just the slightest bit of research before you give an opinion on something you obviously know nothing about.

  • Pingback: Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man « pretty much just like you()

  • littleboots

    Please tell me why in animal societies the weak and and sick are left to their own devices and generally die, thus leaving the rest of the pack/herd to evolve physically stronger and smarter, whereas us humans cater to the weak and sick and stupid, even cushion the world for them, even give them awards? This is what’s slowing down evolution for the human race. That being said…great list, great comments, and I guess if we were collectively more intelligent the Rolo Tomasi’s of the world would not exist. Give him an award…lol

  • bucslim

    I think when I was growing up in the 70’s my dad must have beat me so much my Jacobson organ was damaged at an early age. The only pheromones I sense now come from hairy, sweaty large women. And since it’s supposed to help you detect the potential dangers in attracting such bruisers, it’s pretty much a worthless piece of shit now because I sense no danger.

    Well that and the fact that the pheromones I give off usually smell like fermented baked beans and Heineken.

  • sadtosee

    It sickens me to see things like 113. Our education system is extremely poor if it lets out people who refuse to accept that they are part of nature. I would think people like that should be required to attend extra classes to remove the brainwashing which prevents them from thinking.

    Regardless of religious beliefs, we are part of the animal kingdom. We are related to animals. We are not created in situ by a diety. The bible uses parables to describe it’s intent. Not fact.

  • sadtosee

    116: Aparantly you have not spent much time viewing animals.

    They DO tend thier weak and sick. They just dont have as many resources available to them to do so. If you must have proof, google for the recent video of a dog which is dragging a wounded dog off a busy freeway at great risk to itself.

  • Callie

    buc:

    I know we aren’t supposed to carry things over from other lists/forums, but your perusal of juggs proves my prediction for you in 09 came true (I hope, for your sake)

    ..maybe I should take my show on the road

  • WHY3278

    I hear what you say Skydiver, but it’s too funny LMAO, and why must i be ignorant becuz I dont believe what you believe??, when i said animals, i thought you were smart enough to know what i meant, but i guess not, anyway, moving on, what you consider evidence is just you desperatley searching for answers LMAO

  • Alencon

    Bravo Randall Bravo!

    I think we should nominate Rolo for the “Highest Concentration of Ignorant Statements in an Electronic Media Award.”

  • littleboots

    well, i do tend to view animals often, and u missed my point…the dog got hit on the highway, cause he did not know better, so will die…and eventually they will learn not to go on the highway, however humans will put up signs and guardrails on the highway warning humans that they should not cross cause its dangerous, something we should know already…so the guy ignores the signs, gets hit, and wonders why society did not do more to protect him…and perhaps sues cause there wasn’t enough signs…lol then we give him an award…hehe

  • Randall

    Rolo:

    If you possess a Master’s from Rutgers then I’m the next United States Senator from New York–and last I checked, I ain’t Caroline Kennedy–though I used to fantasize about her quite a bit when she and I were both younger, and I had that paper route in Hyannisport.

    Either that, or your Master’s is in “Marketing” or some other inane non-scholarly field—because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. So don’t try to “impress” me, clown.

    And I don’t divulge personal details about myself on the internet, by the way—though clearly I could choose (if I wanted to) to simply make up a whole slew of credentials for myself. How would you know?

    BUT suffice it to say that I graduated from AND currently work at institutes of higher learning that would kick Rutgers’ ass in a fight and send it home crying, you butthead. At least so says every ranking of national universities I’ve ever seen.

    And yes, I possess a Master’s Degree myself–does that make you happy? What if I told you I had a degree that trumped yours? What if I told you I was a PhD and taught this shit? Would it make a difference to you? Clearly not. So get off the kick, jerk.

    Now… since you chose to be disrespectful, you’ll suffer the consequences.

    “Randall Thats great! thanks for your insult.”

    Insults, Rolo. Insults. Plural. I didn’t serve you just one. Go back and check. And you deserved more than you got.

    “But where is your proof dummy. “Microbiology alone gives us a big piece of the puzzle” which piece is that?? The one you didnt mention or too ignorant too know, or too lazy to look up?”

    YOU are going to sit here and have the GALL to accuse me of being too lazy to look something up–or being too ignorant to KNOW something–when YOU are the cloudbrain that actually typed a comment stating that evolution was just a load of bullshit with zero proof underlying it? You’re going to have the gall to get at me for not GIVING you citations and links so you can go take a peek for yourself at what ANY goddamned FIRST YEAR BIOLOGY STUDENT KNOWS?

    Here we have a well-supported and STRONGLY proven theory that has only grown MORE substantially obvious and correct over time, given both research and discoveries made since it was first formulated—a theory that is the MAINSTREAM of modern biology, the very backbone of it–and YOU are essentially saying that it’s nothing but a big conspiracy and a total lie. Sure. And I’m the one who’s “ignorant” here. Okay.

    Take a look at Kreachure’s post up above–he was kind enough to supply a couple links for you, Rolo. But the fact is you’re capable of looking things up for yourself. Your PROBLEM is that you don’t do it. You want links and little written proofs from me or anyone else, go find them over on the thread where this was discussed by MANY of us ad nauseum, under “Your View–Should Creationism be Taught in Schools?”

    Ah… but wait… you’ve since amended your foot-in-mouth statements to say that okay, maybe you’ll cop to evolution being real, but humans did NOT come from chimps or apes! Yeah, okay, Rolo.

    “So I just made that up right? How about the Piltdown Man?? If you dont believe me here is the link, you piece of crap.”

    That’s your only example, clearly. And thanks but no thanks, Rolo. I don’t need a Wikipedia link to Piltdown. Everybody and their grandmother has heard of it. Most famous hoax of its day or any day for that matter. Yup. And one of a number of scientific hoaxes that can be counted on ONE HAND. YOU had stated that scientists have been falsifying evidence for years, all over the place. YOU are the one who made the ridiculous statement here… an extraordinary claim if there ever WAS one. Since the rule is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I suggest you start coughing up more than just the lonely Piltdown Man.

    “Do I need to paste more links or is this enough for you.”

    No Rolo, it’s not enough. I need enough “links” and examples to call into question the veracity of modern biology and paleontology and about a dozen other disciplines–which is what you CLAIMED you had knowledge of.

    So I suggest you get linking.

    “Just because I choose to post a comment that is succinct doesn’t mean that I am talking out of my ass like you are. You are not fooling anyone with a fancy worded reply that is long and drawn out, but doesnt say a damn thing. Where are your facts? your empirical data?”

    WHERE IS YOURS? YOU are the one attacking an established science, Rolo. It isn’t up to ME to sit here and offer you a parade of proofs. It’s up to YOU to offer up a parade of substantial challenges. THAT is how science works. And if you HAD in fact ever REALLY studied science, you’d KNOW that.

    “No Im not religious, yes I have taken more than a few biology and anthropology courses.”

    And obviously slept through all of them.

    But in fact your swipes at me are–most likely–simply the redirected truth about yourself. You demand that I provide links, essays, proofs, etc. for the ESTABLISHED science that supports and in essence proves evolution and, in fact, the ascent of man biologically. Such information is available to any high school biology student. Now, it would of course be nothing for me to go around on the internet and find you a few links, moron. Would it shut you up and make a little light bulb go off in your head that would tell you you’re wrong about all this? Of course not, because if you haven’t figured that out by now, you won’t figure it out just because I did the work for you.

    But since this seems to be a little sticking point for you, here–in all of five seconds, I did a quick search on the web and came up with two links. I could have easily given you dozens. I could easily send you to issues of Nature, and the New Scientist, or any number of other scholarly journals. Better still, I could send you back to the biology courses you claim to have attended and suggest that this time you pay attention.

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm

  • bucslim

    Doesn’t your ‘junk’ DNA imply something to do with your genitals?

  • bucslim

    Oops – sorry Callie, forgot your prediction. I just wished everyone on the bus would stop staring at me.

  • logar

    Rolo:

    The Theory of Evolution does not state that man came from apes/monkeys/whatever, but that apes/monkeys/man shared a common ancestor in the distant past. As for our genetic similarity to a banana… well, we’re all just branches off the same tree, and if you go down in time far enough, you’ll find every living thing has a common ancestor.

  • WHY3278

    oh and 113, sadtosee and sadpot whatever I’m delighted i makes you sick LOL, you should be even more sick at this list but instead you choose to believe that just becuz there are similarities that we come from them. oh yea, and trust me, you no nothing about me, im the last for that brainwash card.

  • Cubone

    Excellent!! Is there a list showing changes in other animals?
    Excellent comments as well . . .

  • amandalia47

    It’s a shame that every type of animal and plant that ever existed did not choose to die in a way that would enable it to be perfectly preserved for Rolo Tomasi as proof that evolution actually happened.

    I myself find it perfectly acceptable that there are “holes” in evolution. I find it hard to believe that so many steps of human and animal evolution have survived this long anyway.

  • Callie

    “If you want to tell that some animals have gained or lost features to adapt to their environment fine. I will give you that. I am not unreasonable”

    Isn’t that a general definiton of evolution? Don’t contradict yourself in your own post, that’s just in bad taste.

    And your banana arguement is invalid and just the type of thing people desperately throw out when they don’t have facts to back up. The DNA is similar, yes, because ALL DNA in living things is similar. Bananas, humans, monkeys, craygfish, it’s just rearranged per species. However, as I understand it (I admit I’m hopeless at science..I was an english major :) ) The human GENOMES make us, well…human. I assure you bananas have no human genomes, Rolo. However, chimps, apes, gorillas and even house cats do have some parts/variations of human genomes in their DNA.

  • surfboy

    Hey Guys!

    jfrater- Thanks for the list and also calling it “signs” and not “facts”. More than one person has been convicted by a body of “signs” or “facts” or “evidence” or “proofs” and CONVICTED WRONGLY.

    To my other Friends:
    PLEASE do not confuse adaptive traits with evolution.
    PLEASE remember that “facts” can point in a number of directions.
    PLEASE be quick to listen- and slow to speak.
    PLEASE remember that name calling is the last resort of the wrong. And we ALL might be wrong!
    PLEASE Love one another!

    Remember- LIFE is AMAZING!! Take more time to enjoy it!!!

  • zigra

    All the degree posturing reminded me of the radio program Dr. Science – he’s not a real doctor, he has a master’s degree – in SCIENCE!

  • bucslim

    I had a Junior chemistry set when I was a kid and we used the magnifying glass to burn ants and other stuff. I also got pretty good grades in High School.

    So it’s with that firm basis that I say evolution is wrong. Everyone who disagrees with me is going straight to Hell. So remember to eat your vegetables, take out the garbage and say your prayers.

  • Alencon

    I seem to remember reading that Will Rodgers, or perhaps Mark Twain, once said that he never let his schooling interfere with his education.

    Rolo, I have forwarded your claim to have a Master’s Degree from Rutger’s University to the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts there along with a suggestion that he might want to review the school’s academic policies.

    He has assured me that the school would be horribly embarressed if someone exhibiting the degree of ignorance shown in your two posts would even be allowed on campus never mind be granted any sort of degree.

    There are several things you need to learn. (1) What a scientific Theory is. (2) The difference, in science, between a Theory and a Hypothesis. (3) That an exception, Piltdown Man (among others), does not represent the norm. (4) How the scientific method works.

    Allow me to suggest that you make a tour of the great universities of the world, including your claimed alma mater of Rutgers, visit the science departments and see how many reputable scientists and academics you can find that do not accept the fundamental concepts of evolution.

    This is not the ad popularum fallacy either. When the overwhelming majority (at last count something like 99.8%) of knowledgable, intelligent experts accept an explanation for the evidence as it is understood, then there’s a pretty darn good chance that explanation is valid.

    By the way, that’s what a scientific Theory is. It is simply an explanation for some natural phenomenon based upon the evidence as we understand it. Evolution is simply an explanation for the variety of life found upon planet earth based upon the evidence we currently have.

    Scientific Theories are NEVER proven. They are always tentative pending some new evidence or a better explanation for the current evidence.

    There is currently lots and lots of speculation and argument within the Theory of Evolution among scientists about when, where, how and why, but there is no question about IF.

  • Hemza3000

    Allow me to clear up some of my previous statements. I do believe the human race has evolved over the years and I do acknowledge this to be nature’s doing. However, I believe that all existence, including nature, was created by a greater being… yes God. I also believe I have the right to believe this without being called an idiot. It’s a sad day when people get insulted for their beliefs on listverse.com. Please, all of you, show some respect to whatever an individual has chosen to believe in and leave it at that..

    Can’t we all just… no I can’t say it.

  • YogiBarrister

    Zigra #106 “Zigra #106 “I am going to challenge Rolo Tomasi to show some data that bananas and humans share 90% of their DNA, and remind him that humans did not evolve from apes, but that we share a common ancestor.”
    Good point! An interesting fact about human evolution is that we share that common ancestor with chimps, but not Neanderthals. You have to go much further down the tree to find our common ancestor with them.
    Here’s a question for which I’ve never had a satisfactory answer. Why do all living things have to evolve from a single source? Why couldn’t there have been multiple, slightly different simple organisms to emerge from inorganic chemicals that were somehow quickened at different locations or times?

  • Alencon

    YogiBarrister,

    Current evolutionary theory hypothesises common decent from a single source or common ancestor.

  • JayArr

    I concur with Mr. Plow – this IS indeed one of the best lists I’ve seen on this site in quite a while.

    I knew, immediately on reading the title of the list for the day, that this one would spark the old ‘creationism’ vs. ‘evolution’ debate. In that regard, I’d like to propose the following:

    Let’s assert, for the sake of argument, that there exists (or existed) a power greater than any known to us at this time which created our earliest possible animal ancestors, whatever those ancestors may have been… and from that time to this day, our ancestors have evolved and branched in various ways (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) to create, among all others, “homo sapiens sapiens” some 250,000+ years ago.

    Okay, so I realized I have not read all the comments thus far, and suspect someone may have already made valid points of their own, so I’m more than willing to take a few clovis-pointed spears and broadhead arrows if I’m all out of line here. :-)

  • bucslim

    Hemza3000 – listen pal, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. And it’s my right to make fun of it. OK? I’ve been called an idiot several times, and well, it’s because I’m an idiot.

    But I believe that when a true idiot calls somebody smarter than he is an idiot, well it just lifts us all up to a higher plain of conscienceness.

    Telling others to calm down and talk rationally in here is like telling AJ Foyt to slow down a bit.

    See, I’ve just raised the bar here.

  • Hemza3000

    Yeah, you’ve raised it but we’re still sub-zero. You think it can’t get better than people making fun of eachother’s beliefs? I really don’t think it’s asking too much to respect eachother’s beliefs. Make fun all you want but do it with dignity.

  • Freca

    90 jfrater
    Thank you for the explanation
    :)

  • Dre

    Out of curiosity, these are all examples of body parts that we still have but no longer really need. Right? Do we have any examples of body parts or things that we know without a doubt that early humans had that we no longer have?

    I’m a Christian and I believe that evolution occurs on some level through ‘natural selection’. I don’t believe that we came from apes who were once fish who were once bacteria who came out of a bang from nowhere. But I do believe that through natural selection, we have adapted to our surroundings and needs. The above list to me supports my views in this sense: If humans no longer need it, why are we still born with it? Why hasn’t natural selection over the thousands or supposed hundreds of thousands of years simply bred these ‘needless’ items out of us?

  • Reyairia

    Honestly I think that those people who refuse to believe in man’s ancestry are just to arrogant to believe that they are related to monkeys and instead come from God.
    Honestly, that’s the most arrogant belief I’ve ever heard in my life, and IMO that just further proves our relation to apes.

  • Alencon

    Hemza3000,

    You have every right to believe whatever you want to believe.

    However, you most assuredly DO NOT have the right to be exempt from criticism for believing what you believe. Even if it’s somewhat coarse criticism.

  • Reyairia

    “Why hasn’t natural selection over the thousands or supposed hundreds of thousands of years simply bred these ‘needless’ items out of us?”

    Useless items take much longer to disappear than harmful ones. For example, if a squirrel is born white, it cannot camouflage itself against bark and a predator is more likely to see it, and thus its genes are totally swept off the gene pool before it can probably mate. Meanwhile, a person with an appendix is just as likely to have children as someone who doesn’t. Hence, the process is far more slower. In fact, such useless items ARE disappearing, but the human species is still in the process of doing so.

  • YogiBarrister

    Henza3000, I don’t believe you are an idiot for believing in God. I think it may help people to adapt to a hostile environment. While I’ve seen ample evidence that proves evolution exists, proof of a god is scarcer. I choose to believe in God nevertheless, it helps me cope with the vastness of a freezing cold and nearly empty universe. Believing, or at least examining evolution scientifically, also helps people adapt. It’s more challenging to figure out how things work as opposed to blowing off the topic by saying, “God did it”.

  • RandomPrecision

    another awesome list! what other signs of evolution are there?

  • rambo

    Bluclism: Maybe you got goosebumps while you were peeing because you were ashamed at what your junk DNA had done to the size of your reproductive organs.

  • bucslim

    Hemza3000 – no I don’t think it can get better. Just go to the Black President or Global Warming or any other ‘our view’ section and take a look at how stupid some of the stupid arguments are. It’s a stupid avalanche of ingorance and an abundance of extra chromosomes and sloped foreheads.

    Look, any jagov with a keyboard can hustle in here and say ‘YOU SUCKZERS – PWND!!’ then run back to ebaum’s world to watch the squirrel on waterskis. It takes a person with my background, talent and endless wit to truely bring some smarty pants back down to the slimey pit with the rest of us. And since I’m the smartest person in here, I rarely get any back talk.

    Half the reason I come in here is to watch Randall disassemble someone’s argument while calling them a senseless turd. My feeling is people need to step it up a bit and fire up that weed whacker brain and give as good as you get!

  • zigra

    Dre: One problem with evolution discussions is that everyone focuses on things we can easily see when really evolution is all about genetics (if you here the term “neo-Darwinism, that’s what their talking about. Darwin didn’t know about DNA per se.). See my post #38 (sorry about the self-promotion) about the gene causing sickle cell anemia. There is also a gene called CCR5delta32 that is found in about 7% of caucasians but not people of African descent. There is speculation that this gene mutation protected people against black death and was selected for and passed down. So even though you can’t see it with your eyes, that prevalence of that gene changed in the population, and that is evolution.

  • babygirl2882

    I love this :) Nice list, very interesting!

  • zigra

    Eeek – I meant “they’re talking about” not “their talking about”. I’m just lazy – not stupid!

  • Hemza3000

    I agree wholeheartedly with YogiBarrister.

    “However, you most assuredly DO NOT have the right to be exempt from criticism for believing what you believe. Even if it’s somewhat coarse criticism.”

    I believe I do, who do you think you are to get to say whatever comes to mind about my religion. There are some things that are off limits. The things I believe in are absolutely none of your business, nor should you think you have the right to say whatever you can think of just because of the fact that nothing is fact in my defense.

    Take your time on that last sentence.

  • bucslim

    Thank you Rambo! Finally I have an answer to that 3 inches of angry blue steel. Only now I don’t have to pay a therapist anymore.

    And in that last post of mine, truely should be truly.

    Your’s Turely, bucslim

  • Alencon

    Dre,

    Understand how Natural Selection supposedly works. It is most assuredly NOT intelligent. If a genetic change confers a reproductive benefit, then it will tend, over time, to allow organisms with that change to produce more offspring which have a higher probability of having that change, which in turn will produce more offspring and so on and so forth.

    Eventually the “change” becomes the norm. If a change has an adverse affect upon reproductive probability, then it will tend to die out. If a change has no affect, it may or may not die out or become more common simply based upon random considerations or the luck of the draw.

    Therefore a characteristic that is no longer needed, but also confers no particular reproductive disadvantage, may or may not eventually die out. There is certainly no Natural Selection imperative for it to disappear.

    In other words, vestigal organs that hang around even though they have no particular function is precisely what the Theory of Evolution predicts will be the case.

  • The_Patient

    I agree with Hemza, I also believed we were a;; created by God, although we have “evolved” in some ways bla bla.
    But without getting into everything and regardless of whether I believe in whatever, interesting list! :0)

  • Daddy247

    It is well documented (but altered for the sake of acceptance) that in the time of Christ approx 26% of humans did, in fact, have tails. Jesus was not crucified for his beliefs or his claim to be the holiest, but for the fact that he had not one, but two tails. All hail the Two-tailed Jesus!!

  • Rolo Tomasi

    My degree is in Political Science. So you may ridicule that if you want. Im no expert, but i guess i will defer to everyone else. Since there are obviously so many scientists and experts in this thread.

    I admit I am wrong, evolution and natural selection are very real. Unlike some of these other *&^% , I can admit when I misspeak.

    But please.. I dont think that apes/chimps eventually turned into humans. Which is what I assume most of you are getting so worked up about

    So I will ask a question. and I will, with an open mind, listen to any reasonalbe answer

    How come there aren’t apes or chimps turning into human beings right this second? Where are the monkeys that are bipedal and losing their hair? Where are the half man half ape creatures? I’m not being sarcastic, this is a legitimate question I have.

    If there is a clear answer than I will definitely consider joining the other side.

  • Alencon

    Hemza3000,

    You said.

    “The things I believe in are absolutely none of your business, nor should you think you have the right to say whatever you can think of just because of the fact that nothing is fact in my defense.

    Take your time on that last sentence.”

    I’m not even sure what that last sentence means. But I will say this. You’re 100% percent correct IF your beliefs are kept private.

    But, and here’s the big but, as soon as you put them in the public square, they are open to criticism. As soon as you put them in the public square, especially if they are used as a justification for any of a number of things from limiting someones free speech (which you’re sort of attempting to do aren’t you) to outlawing gay marriage (which you may or may not care about, it’s just an example), then they become everyone’s business.

  • Daddy247

    Dear sweet Rolo,
    Thank you.

  • bucslim

    Anyone else here wondering why Rutgers University gives out Masters Degrees to someone who can’s spell or use punctuation worth a shit?

  • Rolo Tomasi

    lol. good one. If you enjoy controversial topics check out my latest list:

    https://listverse.com/crime/top-10-cases-of-human-cannibalism/

    As usual. Its chock full of opinion and bias.

  • bucslim

    Guess I ruined my last post by f’n up my own spelling. . . guess that proves my earlier comment about me being an idiot.

  • DiscHuker

    from what i have read so far, it doesn’t seem possible to rationally disagree on this topic. for the “scientific” minds out there, is it possible for a person to disagree with the evolutionary theory and yet still be “rational”?

  • zigra

    Rolo – I know you are not real and live only in the imagination of Sargeant Edmund Exley. But I will use my knowledge of you to trap my murderous lieutenant. Love, Jack Vincennes

  • Rolo Tomasi

    why dont you give me a break. Im at work. I dont have time to correct all my punctuation. If I was some internet troll who has nothing better to do. Than maybe everything would be grammatically correct to the point of perfection. I guess that makes me some sort of ignoramus.

    By the way you misspelled the word can’t. Fool.

  • Peri

    #75 DC – I can do that too! Used to do it a lot when I was a kid and freaked everyone out.

  • Daddy247

    All of your wonderfull comments are noted. Thank you for your participation. May the Two-tailed Jesus bless you all.

  • Callie

    Rolo-

    Political science is more politics than science. Go over to the “who should be the next president thread” and have a jolly time.

    I see you’ve dropped your banana argument pretty quickly. First evolution is a silly concept. Then it may exist. Now it does exist. Why, Rolo…you’ve evolved! Imagine that.

  • Callie

    Bah that posted without me being done.

    Explain to me, if you now believe in evolution, and see the OBVIOUS similarities to humans and chimps, both physically and in our genetic makeup, where or what exactly you think humans evolved from?

  • bucslim

    Just doin my job here Rolo. No hard feelings.

  • Hemza3000

    Why are people giving Rolo a hard time simply for asking a question?

  • Dre

    @ Zigra in post 152:

    Although I never heard of that example, that still fits into my world view. Like I said, I do believe in evolution in that sense, that genes mutate for self-preservation and things like that. But I don’t see how that means God isn’t in the picture still. If I believe God was powerful and brilliant enough to design and create us and everything, then I also believe he was brilliant and omnipotent enough to have the foresight to give us the ability to naturally select and ‘mutate’ over time to adapt to our surroundings and environments. No?

    @ Alencon in #157
    When you say that natural selection is not ‘intelligent’, is that kind of a subtle way of saying intelligent design is faulty? I’m not a proponent of intelligent design or creationism because i’ve never really researched what their views are.

    Thanks for your explanation though on natural selection. But to be honnest I find it kind of hard to follow/understand. Is there an example you can give to flesh out your explanation a bit more from an animal or from humans?

    And to others, I’m still wondering if there are any muscles or bones that we know early human beings had wihtout a doubt that we don’t have anymore.

  • Daddy247

    hemza. You and your question must leave at once.

  • JayArr

    Rolo Tomasi (160) – One thing I’ve learned is that evolving creatures tend to become more and more dissimilar than similar. Convergence of two separate species/Genuses is even more rare than parallel evolution from an earlier split.

    Truth be told, there are certain ape/chimp species that DO act socially and/or ‘technically’ more like humans than their counterparts. There are a number of examples, but I don’t really have time to note them… you can search on social behavior and tool use among apes/chimps, and there should be plenty to glean. Some apes do in fact go prematurely bald… isn’t nature grand!?

  • Daddy247

    honest. h-o-n-e-s-t. honest

  • Randall

    Rolo Tomasi:

    I’m sorry, but I just cannot believe anyone possesses a Master’s Degree in ANYTHING—even Poli Sci—and doesn’t know BY NOW that evolutionary biology has NEVER claimed that our species, homo sapiens, and its hominid ancestors evolved from CHIMPS or other currently existing species of great ape.

    That is the kind of mistake that uneducated people have made since Darwin first published Origin of Species. It’s *somewhat* excusable when we’re talking about someone who’s uneducated–though again, by now, after this kind of thing has been covered in HIGH SCHOOL biology classes since god knows when–I’d hardly call it excusable–but at ANY rate…

    For someone who claims to be educated–who claims to possess a Baccalaureate degree–LET ALONE a Master’s–well maybe it’s just because I work in higher education and have taught myself, but Jesus H. Christ…

    If you’re telling the truth, Rolo, and you really did get that degree—then I’m telling you the god’s honest truth–you didn’t EARN it. And Rutgers should be ashamed for having it awarded it to you. And your high school should be ashamed of graduating you, and your college, wherever you got your Bachelor’s, should also be ashamed.

    For someone to get that far in the educational system and NOT know this very basic thing–it just boggles my mind.

    It would be one thing if you were some home-schooled religious nut who spent six hours in church every Sunday and was brought up to believe that every single word of the Bible is literally true—and you then went to some godawful “institution” like Liberty University…

    Well never mind. I don’t know what more to say about all that.

    Fine then. Listen.

    Evolutionary theory does not claim that mankind and its ancestors descended from chimps, gorillas, bonobos, or orangutans, or any other currently-extant species of primate. Okay? It never has claimed that. RATHER what it says is that we primates share, FAR BACK in the family tree, a common ancestor. Current theory states, from the evidence gathered over decades, that OUR branch of the tree split from the chimpanzee branch (they are our closest living relatives) anywhere from 8-15 million years ago. Some scientists support the lower number, but my understanding is that a larger number, due to a stronger interpretation of the evidence, support the higher number.

    At any rate, this does NOT mean that we “descended” from chimps. What it means is that we once had a common ancestor, and that ancestor gave birth to BOTH lines of specie–OURS and the chimps. Last I knew there was evidence that this common ancestor had even been firmly identified, but I’m not that in touch with the latest news on this.

    Anyway, to DENY this is just silly. We share MORE genetic characteristics with chimps than ANY OTHER species on the planet. CLEARLY we are closely related, and by the theory of evolution, we therefore CLEARLY had a common ancestor at some point. The question is when and what that ancestor was. That’s all.

    I frankly don’t understand what your problem with this could possibly be—or what anyone’s problem with it could be.

    As for your other question… as to why there are no apes turning into human beings right now… good god. I’m still floored. But fine, again, I’ll answer it. The reason is, again, that NO ONE has ever claimed that the apes currently existing alongside our species developed into US. WE evolved on a separate line and are RELATED to the other primates on earth–but that again ONLY means that we share ancestry WITH them—NOT that we came FROM them.

    Are other apes currently evolving? Maybe. Evolution is an achingly slow process brought on by adaptation, selection, and mutation. Most mutations don’t work. Occasionally one comes along that works as good or better than the original model, and if that mutation can successfully breed it may continue. In the case of the great apes, this does NOT mean that they would or could mutate into anything like “us.” OUR current make-up and appearance, etc. is due to chance (or, if religious folk prefer, god’s selective intervention into our evolution). Your question in regards to apes is no more sensible than if you asked it about lobsters–the reason there are no apes evolving into half-humans is the same that there are no lobsters evolving into lobster-men. Now, sure, if an ape were to evolve bipedalism and such, they might end up looking and acting a lot like us—but that’s because of our close physical construct and certain shared general traits. But the LIKELIHOOD that they would end up so isn’t much better than that lobster managing it.

    Should apes evolve in some fashion, then it will be in ways that further them as a species–it might not necessarily mean greater intelligence or bipedalism or anything of that sort. It might simply mean that they became more successful at adapting to changing habitats, or they become stronger, or gain keener eyesight, or what have you.

    Do you understand?

  • Daddy247

    Randall. If I wanted to read a novel, I would just turn my sister and ask her what she is reading. Then throw her out of the bed.

  • STL Mo

    How about some more humor: In the movie Gettysburg, Longstreet, Pickett and Pickett’s three bridage commanders discuss Darwin’s book. They argue back and fourth until Pickett says:

    “Sirs, perhaps there are those among you who believe you are descended from a ape. I suppose there may even be those among you who believe that I am descended from a ape. But I challenge the man to step forward who believes that General Robert E. Lee is descended from an ape.”

    To which Armistead replies: “All the world trembles before your towering intellect, George.”

  • zigra

    Dre,

    I believe in both God and evolution, and it seems like you are trying to make sense of the world just like how I am, although in a slightly different way, and that’s great. I appreciate thoughtfulness even if the thoughts lead to different conclusions than mine. More to the point for me in my post is that when people hear the word “evolution” they think of apes turning into men. Evolution encompasses much more than that.

  • Randall

    Isn’t it past some little asshole’s bed time?

  • logar

    “How come there aren’t apes or chimps turning into human beings right this second? Where are the monkeys that are bipedal and losing their hair? Where are the half man half ape creatures? I’m not being sarcastic, this is a legitimate question I have.”

    Rolo, many people think that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution, and that apes etc. should be evolving into us. This is just not the case- they are just as “evolved” as we are. Their ancestors just took a different path to get to 2009. They, like everything else, are evolving, and (most believe) natural selection will guide them in that process.

    As for man-apes, or missing links… unless you believe in Sasquatch, any cousins of homo sapien have been killed off/naturally de-selected. We are just better at survival than they were.

    Not that I’m an expert or anything. A couple evolution courses and some biology courses go a long way.

  • Rolo Tomasi

    I am willing to concede that we evolve within our own species. Meaning, as a species we might become taller, faster, stronger, more adept at certain things and these changes seem to come from within.

    Ridicule me, insult me, I don’t care. I believe human beings were created by a higher being and placed on earth sometime in the not so recent past. There I said it. I wanted to leave God out of it but I guess I can’t.

    I you are atheist. That’s your prerogative. If you believe in both than thats fine too. But one thing I am not is a creationist in the traditional sense. I just think that the argument that we evolved from apes is flawed. If we evolved from a common ancestor it still implies that we were animals at some point.

  • freya

    To #65:
    I doubt evolution would ever erase eye-brows because human’s need eyebrows to define emotion.

  • shamzahm

    I read half the list before going to school, and all day i was looking forward to reading the rest of it. haha, listverse keeps getting better, i love the last couple lists, they are awesome.

  • joanne

    whenever i feel too lazy to bend and pick something off the floor i use my feet

  • amazed

    Which is harder to believe?

    1. Man evolved over a score of millenia from apes.
    2. Man evolved in one single step from clay into his present form.

  • Daddy247

    Randall. Please stop cutting, pasting, and modifying Wiki articles and please keep the cursing to a minimum.

  • zigra

    My last sentence was misleading – I will reiterate that apes did not evolve into humans.

    And humans are animals.

  • foebea

    Rolo: Please pay close attention. This is the stuff most 3rd graders have learned.

    There are 5 main classifications of living things, one of which I assume you belong to. They are: Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia. Can you guess in which you reside?

    Animalia are those of a multicellular form with specialized eukaryotic cells; have their own means of locomotion.

    Man is, was, and forever shall be an animal.

  • Daddy247

    I think when god made us out of clay,

  • Jordan

    wow, alot of debate! wicked list though

  • SlickWilly

    Rolo: If you concede that there are genetic changes that are happening that cause animals to evolve within the species, and evolutionary biology has determined that these processes are the same ones that cause a new species to arise, what process is there in place to stop one species from giving rise to another?

    Since you concede that microevolution occurs, I don’t understand what about the process makes you believe macroevolution couldn’t occur. I am not trying to ridicule you here, but I *would* like to know what kind of reading you’ve done on evolutionary theory.

  • Rolo Tomasi

    I’m trying to undertand Randall. But im not very fluent in asshole.

    Because you are more informed about Darwin doesn’t mean you are any smarter than I am. I resent anyone who is coward enough to insult someone through a computer. If we were sitting in the same room, you know you would never speak to anyone let alone some one who is probably twice your size in that disrespectful manner.

    There are ways to disagree you asshole. I never once insulted someone directly until some douchebag named Randall came around.

    Ok. We DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS. We came from a COMMON ANCESTOR. I understand. But you are still saying we evolved from some kind of animal. Right? That is the only thing that I disagree with.

  • Daddy247

    I’m sorry, but I just cannot believe anyone possesses a Master’s Degree in ANYTHING—even Poli Sci—and doesn’t know BY NOW that evolutionary biology has NEVER claimed that our species, homo sapiens, and its hominid ancestors evolved from CHIMPS or other currently existing species of great ape.

    That is the kind of mistake that uneducated people have made since Darwin first published Origin of Species. It’s *somewhat* excusable when we’re talking about someone who’s uneducated–though again, by now, after this kind of thing has been covered in HIGH SCHOOL biology classes since god knows when–I’d hardly call it excusable–but at ANY rate…

    For someone who claims to be educated–who claims to possess a Baccalaureate degree–LET ALONE a Master’s–well maybe it’s just because I work in higher education and have taught myself, but Jesus H. Christ…

    If you’re telling the truth, Rolo, and you really did get that degree—then I’m telling you the god’s honest truth–you didn’t EARN it. And Rutgers should be ashamed for having it awarded it to you. And your high school should be ashamed of graduating you, and your college, wherever you got your Bachelor’s, should also be ashamed.

    For someone to get that far in the educational system and NOT know this very basic thing–it just boggles my mind.

    It would be one thing if you were some home-schooled religious nut who spent six hours in church every Sunday and was brought up to believe that every single word of the Bible is literally true—and you then went to some godawful “institution” like Liberty University…

    Well never mind. I don’t know what more to say about all that.

    Fine then. Listen.

    Evolutionary theory does not claim that mankind and its ancestors descended from chimps, gorillas, bonobos, or orangutans, or any other currently-extant species of primate. Okay? It never has claimed that. RATHER what it says is that we primates share, FAR BACK in the family tree, a common ancestor. Current theory states, from the evidence gathered over decades, that OUR branch of the tree split from the chimpanzee branch (they are our closest living relatives) anywhere from 8-15 million years ago. Some scientists support the lower number, but my understanding is that a larger number, due to a stronger interpretation of the evidence, support the higher number.

    At any rate, this does NOT mean that we “descended” from chimps. What it means is that we once had a common ancestor, and that ancestor gave birth to BOTH lines of specie–OURS and the chimps. Last I knew there was evidence that this common ancestor had even been firmly identified, but I’m not that in touch with the latest news on this.

    Anyway, to DENY this is just silly. We share MORE genetic characteristics with chimps than ANY OTHER species on the planet. CLEARLY we are closely related, and by the theory of evolution, we therefore CLEARLY had a common ancestor at some point. The question is when and what that ancestor was. That’s all.

    I frankly don’t understand what your problem with this could possibly be—or what anyone’s problem with it could be.

    As for your other question… as to why there are no apes turning into human beings right now… good god. I’m still floored. But fine, again, I’ll answer it. The reason is, again, that NO ONE has ever claimed that the apes currently existing alongside our species developed into US. WE evolved on a separate line and are RELATED to the other primates on earth–but that again ONLY means that we share ancestry WITH them—NOT that we came FROM them.

    Are other apes currently evolving? Maybe. Evolution is an achingly slow process brought on by adaptation, selection, and mutation. Most mutations don’t work. Occasionally one comes along that works as good or better than the original model, and if that mutation can successfully breed it may continue. In the case of the great apes, this does NOT mean that they would or could mutate into anything like “us.” OUR current make-up and appearance, etc. is due to chance (or, if religious folk prefer, god’s selective intervention into our evolution). Your question in regards to apes is no more sensible than if you asked it about lobsters–the reason there are no apes evolving into half-humans is the same that there are no lobsters evolving into lobster-men. Now, sure, if an ape were to evolve bipedalism and such, they might end up looking and acting a lot like us—but that’s because of our close physical construct and certain shared general traits. But the LIKELIHOOD that they would end up so isn’t much better than that lobster managing it.

    Should apes evolve in some fashion, then it will be in ways that further them as a species–it might not necessarily mean greater intelligence or bipedalism or anything of that sort. It might simply mean that they became more successful at adapting to changing habitats, or they become stronger, or gain keener eyesight, or what have you.

    Do you understand? No….wait….I’m a complete failure to my entire family. I’m only online because my wife left me and my parents resent me. I will go and die now.

  • Randall

    Daddy247:

    Little trolls like you are pathetic. And here, I’m giving you the attention you so obviously crave. But one would think that instead of trying out failing one liners on a web site where adults are having conversations, you’d be better served by getting out to live your life, find a girl, etc. Me, I’ve done all that stuff, many times over, and continue to do so. I have no doubt that your life experiences are far, far more lacking.

    If you think I borrow or steal anything from Wikipedia or any other source on the ‘net, bully for you, you little prick. I invite you to prove it or offer up even the slightest bit of evidence for it. In fact, I got my knowledge from years of study and education, from reading BOOKS and earning credentials at various accredited institutions.

    The thing is, usually when someone on this site doesn’t like what I have to say, they come after me for it, and oh well–that’s just an argument for me to take on. But to be accused, even tongue in cheek, of taking ANYTHING from Wikipedia–which I have about two points above ZERO respect for as an authority–that irks me.

    So tell you what, kid… if you have something serious to say to me, then out with it. Otherwise, go pester someone else… or better yet, get your lazy ass out of that chair and go outside and kick a soccer ball around or something. Just some fatherly advice from an elder who doesn’t really care, but is trying to be kinder to you than you deserve.

  • Hemza3000

    Daddy247, the whole witty one-liner schtick is getting really old. Be gone.

  • Randall

    jfrater:

    Jamie: Can you do something about this post #198? Thanks.

  • GTT

    128. WHY3278 : I am still trying to figure out what you meant to say… Please remember that on this site, we post in ENGLISH.

    Oh sorry… Was that too catty? I just couldnt resist… (It´s been a tough day at work and I needed to vent… :) )

  • Daddy247

    Did that daddy guy hurt your feelings, Randall?

  • Randall

    Rolo Tomasi:

    I’m not the only one here who’s calling you out on this Rolo, so get off that kick.

    “Because you are more informed about Darwin doesn’t mean you are any smarter than I am.”

    Well, it’s debatable as to how one defines “smarter.” I personally am not trying to claim that I am “smarter” than you, Rolo. That was not my intent. However, given that all things are more or less equal, I think it’s rather obvious that you have been lacking in curiosity and a willingness to investigate facts and open up your mind to them.

    “I resent anyone who is coward enough to insult someone through a computer.”

    And I STRONGLY resent someone who claims be to be a product of the higher education system of our civilization and makes the outrageous, absurd statements YOU have made.

    “If we were sitting in the same room, you know you would never speak to anyone let alone some one who is probably twice your size in that disrespectful manner.”

    In fact, I would, Rolo. And I’d be interested to know how it is you assume that you are “twice my size,” and interested in your theories how, even if that were so, it would make you *right* in your statements. Are you saying that the bigger guy gets to decide what is right and wrong, now?

    “Ok. We DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS. We came from a COMMON ANCESTOR. I understand. But you are still saying we evolved from some kind of animal. Right? That is the only thing that I disagree with.”

    Disagree with it all you like; scientifically you haven’t a leg to stand on, to do so.

  • bandman09

    I agree a lot with STL Mo. Just because we have different opinions doesn’t mean we have to act like a buntch of a-holes and either damning them to hell or degrading them. Live and let live i say.

  • i worship Randall

    Stop it. Posing as another poster in order to put words in his mouth is very bad form.

  • Hemza3000

    Allright, that was a new level of low Daddy. I’m gonna stop posting now. Enjoy.

  • Pingback: Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man « Matt’s Notepad()

  • Rolo Tomasi

    Ok. See. post # 204. That is how you respectfully disagree. Your tone in the last post is an excellent guideline of what your future posts should resemble when ever you take the opposite side of a very controversial topic.

  • Skiffo

    Nice List.

    oh, and am I the only person who realizes that evolution doesn’t disprove religion?

    You people keep trying to start shit with religious folk, or the religious folk go on rants about how evolution doesn’t exist, but depending on your religion or how you interpret it, evolution fits in fine.

  • Mr. Plow

    Daddy247…9/10 on the troll.

  • foebea

    Skiffo:
    Nope. I know that evolution can nicely fit within the genesis idea. Unfortunately though there are those within religion (not talking of anyone here, just people i work with) who hold that the bible is strictly literal and they will not accept anything which is not word for word written out within the bible.

  • amandalia47

    :( Why are we all being so mean to Randall? I think he makes a very strong side to his argument.

  • DK

    @ amandalia47: it’s because of our ability to post without registering, you can put in any name you like & create a post. Most people who frequent here are mature enough not to try & fake that they are another poster,but obviously someone is screwing around here. Trying to impersonate the site owner (post 213) is incredibly stupid, btw.

  • bucslim

    This isn’t the real bucslim either. The real bucslim is off working up a batch of junk DNA.

  • amandalia47

    Thanks DK, I thought it might be something like that, but I found it kind of weird that the fake comments are highlighted in green just like my comments are! Scary! Yeah, saw #213 myself… I wonder if the real jfrater has seen that yet :)

  • Corey

    I think the most interesting and convincing evidence for evolution comes from human/animal fetuses. Most fetuses, including birds, reptiles, mammals, etc., look exactly the same for the first few weeks of devlopment. Humans have tails, webbed fingers/toes, and many other evolutionary traits.

    As for the big debate that’s inevitably happening… I hate the ideas of creationism and religion in general, but everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. However, it is EXTREMELY ignorant to say that you “don’t believe in evolution”. Evolution is a proven fact. It can occur in mere years and has been observed to do so in labs as well as nature. You can dispute the origin of the universe if you would like, but refuting evolution will not help your credibility.

  • Epimethius

    Personally I think this is an interesting list. For the record I believe that man was created by God, but the how is a little hazy. I also know that evolution is a (and I wish I could underline this) a theory. I don’t claim that God’s creation (note I am not refering to that pseudo-science of creationism which has sooo many holes in it it hurts my brain) of man doesn’t have holes in it but it is a belief and thus hard to verify (and so is evolution for that matter). Science hasn’t really proven that random chaos out of the blue, in the course of millions of years, created the thing we know as man. I also don’t claim to have a masters or a degree in anything related to biology. However, I have a basic knowledge of the idea (thank goodness for all the wacky creationism that was thrust down my throat as a kid. All the holes I saw in it as a child, made me do a little self-education on the topic) and thats enough to know that the theory of evolution, is a likely event based on things like junk DNA, muscles that don’t do anything anymore etc. However, it is not a certain thing, and those who adhere to it should be aware of that fact.

  • Daddy247

    I’m gonna shut my stupid face right now.

  • Daddy247

    Sorry, folks. I just don’t know when to shut up, do I?

  • Corey

    I wonder if the name-copying trend is just one person, or a whole group of morons with nothin worthwhile to say and no lives? It’s too bad we don’t have a way to filter these trolls.

  • paradoxo

    one of the things I like about the comments section of this site was the air of civility.

  • GTT

    197. Rolo Tomasi:

    I´m not trying to offend, fight or otherwise harass you but you should really refer to post 193 by foebea. We not only evolved from some type of animal, we still are animals, mammals in fact. I´m guessing you´re referring to the furry-all-over kind of animal (and still, we fit that too, look at your arms, legs and the chests and backs of some men)…

  • STL Mo

    Jamie – might I respectfully suggest you close comments to this post?

    It’s degenerated into a monkey-poo-flinging contest.

  • DK

    @Amandalia47: Yeah, Apparently I’m now victim to the idiot as well (226 wasn’t me…the post doesn’t even make sense since I’m a girl). If Jamie hasn’t seen that particular post yet, he will soon, I used the “Report Abuse” button to draw moderator’s attention to it.

  • Daddy247

    Wait. Hell, yeah I’m gonna offend!

  • Reyairia

    “I also know that evolution is a (and I wish I could underline this) a theory.”
    In science terms, a theory isn’t the same of proposing an idea that seems to fit. That is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is considered a theory when there is OVERWHELMING evidence to support it, that it may as well be fact (of course, you can never prove something in science). The Theory of Evolution is just as much of a fact as the Theory of Gravity, yet I never see anyone dispute the Theory of Gravity as “a theory” for “God made the pen fall because He wanted it to.”
    Honestly, IMO they’re the same.

    Also, I’d like to bring up the fact – and yes, I mean t he fact – that in ancient Hebrew terms, seven meant infinity. Genesis isn’t the only example.
    Matthew 18:21, 22 Peter asks Jesus
    “How many times shall I forgive my brother? Seven times?”
    And Jesus said
    “not seven times but seventy times seven.”

    Were Matthew and Jesus implying for you to do the math? No! They implied to ALWAYS and FOREVER forgive. I think this was what Genesis was trying to convey; That God created the world in a long period of time and the *forever* aspect of it means that He is STILL creating it, hence, evolution.

  • Reyairia

    Ugh, I meant Peter, not Matthew towards the end, yeah.

  • DK

    Reyairia-I’d never heard about the “7 meant infinity” thing, but I like it. I personally believe in both God & Evolution (*gasp*), I’ve felt for quite some time that there’s got to be a way for both to work together, and this bit of info you’ve given helps me to “figure it out” thanks!

  • foebea

    Post currently number 205 starting “Did that daddy guy” was not me, just fyi. It seems as though the numbers have been offset a little as well. I think this comment thread is broken. :D

    Okay everyone, move to the next list!

  • Reyairia

    DK- the irony of it all is that I’m an atheist. I was raised a Catholic, by a Catholic mother who taught me all this, and it’s partly why I dislike creationism so much; because even the bible makes sense of evolution.
    People can believe what they want to believe, but when they try to interfere with science when they don’t even know their own material well, it’s ridiculous. This is why I have such a strong beef against creationists, another is that I want to actually study evolution.

  • astraya

    Hi! It’s now early morning in Korea, and I’m checking out the discussion. Has anything happened here while I was sleeping? (yawns, scrolls through 242 comments)

    jf: this one kind of exploded!

  • astraya

    Gosh, 10 more comments just I was typing a fairly small comment.

  • simuun

    someone should do a study…where thery take the average number of words in the first few comments and compare them with the ones at the end….i’m sure there’d be some correlation from where the comment is and how many words are used on average. (seriously, scroll from the top to bottom on any of the comments and you’ll see them magically grow!!!)

    The comments always begin with the one liner cool/nice list comments, and end somewhere around a debate between who sucks more or whether or not god exists/evolution/etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda.

    Then a new list is posted, and it starts all over again!

    TG for List Universe!!!

  • copperdragon

    So here’s a serious topically-related question…

    In the last 100-150 years, black African-American men (and some women) who were brought to American as slaves, have
    1) evolved, OR
    2) by process of natural selection
    have become stronger, larger and to some degree faster, than their white counterparts or their tribal relatives who stayed behind?

    If it was just a matter of exercise and working long hours in the fields, it would have only lasted a generation or three, but today a large majority of black men are simply born “bigger”.

    Is this evolution? or natural selection?
    Is it happening virtually before our eyes?

  • Reyairia

    @copperdragon:
    Considering that African Americans were considered subhuman, they may have been selectively bred by their slaveowners. A very strong slave may have been given several women to have children with, meanwhile a weak, sick one would probably have died in the fields.
    It’s kind of creepy when said…

  • Reyairia

    Of course, I’m not an expert in the field.

  • Adia

    I heard that they had found a reason for the appendix. So it has rhyme and reason it’s just not absolutely neccessary. I’m getting along just fine without mine. But this was a really awesome list. I have the bump on my ear and I was born without wisdom teeth. Does that make me high or low on the evolutionary scale? Wait, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know your answer.

  • astraya

    What is the plural of coccyx? This world needs more coccyxes, to keep all the arseholes in their place! (Party icebreaker: “Are you an anus or a coccyx?”)

  • Good lord, has everyone gone insane?

  • Reyairia

    @segue: I believe that happened around 300 AD.

  • astraya

    Somethat that seems to have been overlooked in the focus on “evolution” is the other word in the title – “man”. What about “modern woman”?

  • Blogball

    STL Mo (# 231)
    I think it’s even getting worse than that so I’m thinking maybe we devolved instead of evolved from that monkey flinging poop.

  • Reyairia

    Blogball- Now we throw political correctness and papers.

  • copperdragon

    i think they were using “man” to indicate “human” or “mankind” as a species, despite the obvious physical differences between the genders.

    it would be interesting if anything on the list applied specifically to one gender or the other. Or if either gender had lost or gained a COMMON body part that the other gender didn’t

    The only thing I can think of is nipples on men. they seem to be extraneous. I know that all human embryoes begin as “female”, and have the extra chromosome added late in development, but I would think that evolution would somehow weed that out. Maybe not.

  • Blogball

    Now its comment 224

  • MT

    My theory on evolution has always been that it’s like God’s way of baking a cake. We are all the finished product; a delicious, good smelling, warm, yellow cake with chocolate icing. But we didn’t start out that way. First we were the ingredients, eggs,sugar,yeast,etc. Then we were mixed together and baked for awhile. Then we were finished on the kitchen table with icing and, if it’s your birthday, maybe a few candles. Now if at certain points in time someone peeked in the oven they would just see some tan colored, bubbling goo. Nothing human like at all. Maybe some of the goo was in cupcake pans and would eventually become bite sized cakes instead of the full sized model. If we go back even farther in the process we just see the white flour or grains of sugar or even broken eggs yolks..that looks even less like the finished product. But when it’s done the final result is spectacular and something we all love (even if you are on a diet). The point I’m trying to make is that evolution is just Gods process for making the finished product…..Man,animals,plants, etc. And while we measure in hours or years or centuries, His timer is infinite. Sometimes the recipe even changes to suit His taste. Accept evolution as a natural process God uses in Creation but also realize we are so small that we can only see the occasional recipe change that occurs for an instant over the course of infinity. Don’t debate the obvious. We can all be right on this one.

  • copperdragon

    and what about “third nipples”? Is that one of nature’s attempts to evolve in a particular direction?

  • Cyn

    FYI –
    some housework done. trash removed. comment numbering is off. you reference comments by # at your own risk.

    @trollz and other obnoxious types –
    you are not welcome here. your trash will be removed. save yourself some time and go dump your load elsewhere.

    :)

  • DK

    Thank you Cyn!!

  • Cyn

    DK – :)

    seriously..its just a list on the internet folks. calm down. chill out. and play nice.

    as for protecting your identity as a long standing community member.. *sigh* .. atm..i’d say just have some indication in your comment. the existing trash gets/will get cleaned up. in the long term..maybe J can come up w/ a way to ‘lock in’ an ID. dunno.

    i would prefer you not use the report abuse button regarding identity theft. if you feel its not being caught and cleaned up readily enough..contact J or myself via forums or email.

    eventually this comment section will be clean. ;)

    and again….trollz and other assorted idiots are not welcome here.

  • Shadow

    I’m glad that Mowi pointed out the fallacy of Number 1. In extension of that, I’d like to remind everyone that none of us knows anything, and so we should really try to refrain from speaking of things as though we do.

  • imAdork

    I guess I just can’t escape the topic of evolution, can I? I’m currently in Academic Decathlon and one of the subjects that we need to study is Evolutionary Biology. Isn’t it ironic that I’m reading this list instead of studying. Thanks Jamie for making me feel lazy. Oh, by the way, very interesting list! If all the reading I had to do was in list form, I would probably understand what the heck I was reading. And one more thing I would like to say to some people: Be open-minded! Believe it or not, more people will listen to your opinions if you listen to theirs.

  • krchuk

    I think it would be very nice to evolve into doglike flexibility. That way less talking crap and more ball licking. :)
    Everyone would be happy! There would be no more religion …

  • Juliet

    Amazing list! Vestigial remnants are so fascinating and also so humbling in a way. They remind us, perhaps, that we aren’t so terribly advanced as we’d like to believe?

    Very cool. Got me thinking.

  • I have modified a few names in some of the comments to make them accurate :)

    Two things:

    1: Argue civilly
    2: If evolution is true, it does not deny the existence of God – so there is no point arguing so bitterly in that direction – both can be true. This is not a list to disprove God – it is a list to point out some of the changes in humans over the many many years that we have been on the earth.

    Finally here is a quote from Pope Pius XII on the matter of evolution:

    “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” Humani Generis, 1950

  • phat jon

    listverse? How about listfight.com?

  • Juliet

    Hey MT – I like your theory. I also believe in the something similar, but your analogy is much neater than mine. :)

  • Shadow

    “#26. mond – January 5th, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Can we please have an alternative for those of us that know evolution is just a lie?

    Top 10 Signs That God Created Modern Man perhaps?”

    I say prove it, then maybe we can have it. I’m feeling generous though, so I’ll suggest a tactful title change to:

    “Top 10 Signs That God May Have Created Man”.

    I left out the word “modern” because of course if God created modern man, then who created the previous versions? Leaving it in invalidates your hypothesis.

    And on a related topic… WHO CARES??!! Jesus Christ people, it’s an internet list. Some of you are acting like someone just shot your mother, grandmother, and [offensive reference to another family member self-censored].

    Remember kiddies, arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you’re still a retard.

    • JustSayin'

      Wow. That last line is jaw-dropping. Stay classy, Shadow!

  • 233. copperdragon: So here’s a serious topically-related question…

    In the last 100-150 years, black African-American men (and some women) who were brought to America as slaves, have
    1) evolved, OR
    2) by process of natural selection
    have become stronger, larger and to some degree faster, than their white counterparts or their tribal relatives who stayed behind?

    If it was just a matter of exercise and working long hours in the fields, it would have only lasted a generation or three, but today a large majority of black men are simply born “bigger”.

    Is this evolution? or natural selection?
    Is it happening virtually before our eyes?
    ****
    copperdragon, just a guess but, as the black race became more and more able to make a decent living, they were able to properly feed their children. As time went by, and they became more financially adapted into the mainstream, this meant that women, even prior to becoming pregnant, could be fed proper diets, hence producing larger and stronger babies.

  • Puff

    Great list JFrater! I guess I knew about many of these pointless human attributes but I never figured they were part of our “adaptation” (which is a safer word to use than evolution lol) to life on our ever changing planet. I see that this list has already created much tension between Intelligent Design and Evolution. I would have to say that I believe that we as a species adapt to changes in climate, diet ect. but I believe this system of adaptation was created by Him ^. After all why would he create this planet for us only to have us perish due to its ever changing climate. This list was informative enough though so that even an avid Catholic could find it interesting.

  • Talanic

    I’m another in the “Believes in God and Evolution” camp. Belief in God (or in Gods or Goddess or nature spirits or who or whatever you want) does not require the blind embrace of irrational concepts; indeed, I note in my religious studies that most major religions are actually the same at their core. Look at every one of them and you’ll find that their teachings boil down to, at their very heart, “Don’t be a dick.”

    To quote Pope John Paul II:
    “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

  • Yun

    Randall said:

    “jfrater:

    Jamie: Can you do something about this post #198? Thanks.”

    So, you’re allowed to obscenely and abusively mock people’s opinions, but someone making fun of you is an issue for the moderators? If you can’t take a mocking, you might want to stop being such an unashamed asshole when it comes to stating your beliefs.

    ———-

    On topic: It needs to be said that “Theory” and “Fact” are not the same thing. Evolution is not a fact; it is a theory whose competitors have been disproven. Evolution has not been “proven” because science cannot “prove” anything; it can only disprove the alternatives. This is not to say that I don’t believe in evolution, (like JFrater and Kreachure I reject the idea that evolution and religion are incompatible) but that evolution is the most likely theory does not make it not a theory.

    Those who complain about closed minds would do well to open their own.

  • greencat

    when will us men lose our foreskins???

  • Mikey

    Anyone who believes in God is a moron.

  • Mikey

    “I’m another in the “Believes in God and Evolution” camp. Belief in God (or in Gods or Goddess or nature spirits or who or whatever you want) does not require the blind embrace of irrational concepts;”

    Except for that of their being a God.

  • greencat

    I will believe in God until they can explain how everything came from Nothing.

  • DDRM

    I find it more interesting to try guess what the next evolutions are likely to be…

    (or creation update patches if you prefer :)

    I say:
    – longer more flexible thumbs for texting.
    – a second wrist to make typing more efficient without strain
    – a less efficient digestive system that doesnt digest sugar or fatty foods.

  • DDRM

    ^ Actually greencat here’s the latest progress

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

    The overview theory being that fluctuations in the quantum energy in the dimensions above the 4 in our space/time universe caused matter to come into existence.

    Unforunately you’d need to subscribe to a similiar belief that in an infinite potential of the eternal multi-verse, that infinite random energy fluctuations can converge and create matter just as life arose from random molecules.

  • copperdragon

    segue:

    modern medicine and diet certainly would play a part, but I was looking more at the cause/effect of their forced movement and subsequent treatment/development in the US. which precedes and directly relates to their situation.

  • Dre

    I just wanted to repost a question I had made a couple of hours ago. Do we have any evidence of bones or muscles that humans no longer have, that we have evolved out of, that early human beings that supposdedly lived 100k years ago had? Because everything stated in this list appears to be things that we still have on/in our bodies that we no longer really need.

    and @ Zigra, i echo your sentiments

  • Puff

    Lol DDRM. Yea we’ll prolly develop another thumb for Halo 3 and lightning fast reflexes to pwn all those noobs.(Maybe we can also develop the ability to spell too.)

  • Aoede

    It is crushingly depressing to see people reject something they haven’t even read up on.

    “We didn’t descend from apes and fish!” refutes evolutionary theory just about as well as “The Moon isn’t attached to the Earth!” refutes lunar influence on tides.

  • Randall

    Yun:

    Get off it. There’s a HUGE difference between offering up an actual argument–which I did–and childishly posting someone’s own words with a tacked-on, meaningless, unfunny piece of garbarge on the end.

    On the other hand, *I* AM funny; I have wit and some style. I ALSO present a reasoned argument when people, such as Rolo, say ridiculous and absurd things, cloaking it as truth–CHECK his original comment. And I mean his ORIGINAL one, when he averred that scientists have been FALSIFYING evidence for evolution. It was an outrageous absurdity and *deserved* the response I gave it.

    The simple fact is that people like this can’t take being forcibly stood up to. And people like you don’t get it when someone does so.

  • four toes… so we could be like Disney characters then?

  • DiscHuker

    randall: i’m with you that rolo spoke like a child who dropped their ice cream. however, you have to admit that there has been scientific falsification of evidence for the purpose of trying to bolster the claims of the evolutionary theory. to say that the idea of scientists falsifying evidence to be absurd isn’t quite taking into account the public record.

  • Lammy

    I have one question. If we had all these great uses for all these things: tails, plantaris muscles, pointy ears, pheremone detectors, etc., why the heck did we lose them? Why would nature find a need to discard these things? I wouldn’t mind a tail or better hearing. Why would the same process which causes us to be taller, more intelligent, cause us to lose all of these useful traits?

  • deepthinker

    Great list! Almost 300 comments already… not a big surprise. I love to read the argument comments about evolution vs. creationism… as if any one comment is going to change the other person’s mind. Believe what you want… I believe both. God created evolution. Beat that.

  • sharlu

    facinating list! i had my wisdom teeth removed and my my my did that hurt . . and i agree that evolution doesn’t have to vs god . . we can all live together gosh! PEACE :D

  • Pingback: The Great Geek Manual » News Round-Up: January 6, 2009()

  • Mr. Plow

    Mikey’s logic, belief in God = moron.

    MLK = moron
    Obama = moron
    Kepler = moron
    Newton = moron
    Einstein = moron (He did not believe in a ‘personal god’ but in Spinoza’s philosophies which, to be very brief and basic, equates God with nature.)

    Mikey me boy, you are an intolerant fool. It amazes me here on LV that nearly every religious debate is sparked by intolerance of those who do not believe.

    Now, obviously I have not read every comment in the history of LV…but I have been lurking since the beginning, and generally most of the time it’s intolerance for the religious beliefs of others that spurns these kind of commentaries; nothing but flaming, insults, and fallacies.

    Not once have I noticed a religious poster start a debate off with “well, you disagree with me, you are going to hell” or “here let me try on convert you here on LV.” (Not that it has not happened here, but in my experience, I have not seen it.)

    Intolerance one way or another is still intolerance, more than that it is intellectual sloth.

    Besides, only a fool would enter into the ‘does god exist’ debate in a forum like this…as if you could possibly make a coherent, intellectually honest defense one way or another in a comment section.

    And what the hell would a post like, ‘so you think God exists? Where is the proof?’ prove anyway? That you can recycle a debate right out of some teenager’s myspace blog or devianART page?

    Anyone who seriously debates these things know that religion and it’s validity is far to broad and complex a topic to boil it down to “religion is dumb” or “God exists because you can’t disprove it.”

    Religion\science debate has been going on for thousands of years, all of us in this thread are not going to hash it out in here…so let’s give it a rest.

    Einstein once said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

    Can most of us not agree with that? If you don’t, check out his writings and thoughts on religion, I think you’ll learn quite a bit about having a nontraditional spiritual or atheistic viewpoint and maintaining a respect for other beliefs\philosophies…or in other words, humility (something we all could use some more of from time to time.)

    It’s too bad most of the commentary has been derailed into yet another pointless religious debate on the internet because it was a GREAT list.

  • Lammy

    Nobody answered my questions. I thought they were good questions.

  • Turd Ferguson

    The theory of evolution is not trying to discredit religion, only trying to present a plausible explanation to physical evidence recovered. Evolution does not try explain the origin of life, only the origin of species. It also does not deny that God fuels evolution.
    Evolution and religion can coexist perfectly.

  • foebea

    @Deapthinker “God created evolution.. beat that”
    I think I might be able to beat that. How about this: Evolution created god.

    Not just randomly reversing your words either. There are works which attempt to show religion is an evolutionary necessity. Explains why so many unrelated cultures have religions which seem to have a similar basis.

  • foebea

    @Lammy:

    We lost them because they were no longer needed. We quit living in trees, so we don’t need the grabby feet. We got up on two legs, so the tail was no longer needed – though would have been fun to keep. The tail maybe helps balance fourleggers especially when they attempt to go up on two legs for whatever reason. Hearing and sight went away maybe due to our place on the foodchain. We became so good at what we do that it was no longer a priority and we could focus that energy on growing our brains.

  • RandomPrecision

    two tailed jesus?

  • Mav22

    Wow. Awesome list!

  • Puff

    278. Mr. Plow: Thank you for taking the time to, hopefully, straighten Mikey out. Its quarter to 11 here in Michigan and I don’t much feel like dealing with an idiot this late.

  • sheltiesan

    This is a great list!! I believe in God and Evolution. I’ve got the Darwin’s Pointe, also. I only got halfway through the comments. Will have to return to finish them. Such defensive people about what they believe. Some people just take some things way too personal. Then again, others are too pushy with what they believe. “Why can’t we all just get along?” LOL! :)

  • foebea

    This is the internet. Angry debate is a rule, i think. No one expects to change anyone’s mind.

  • DiscHuker

    foebea: do you know what else might explain why so many different cultures have a similar religious base? that it is based on truth.

  • foebea

    DiscHuker: As I don’t have the required background to fully backup my statement in an intelligent fashion, I will definately conceed that to you. If I had more knowledge on the topic I would attempt to debate the truth upon which it is based. My assumption is that it is based on two things, not related, and not necessarily combined. The harvest, and control of the people.

    My consideration when writing the earlier post is of religions which are not compatible with each other. For instance, Buddism and Wiccan. Both provide the followers with advice and rules on how to live life in harmony with others. They help society work on a large scale. It does not show that there is a god or gods or any higher plane. It simply helps people to live fruitful lives and deal with thier fears. This would be a very useful thing to the survival of any species which is capable of complex thought.

  • bucslim

    Cyn, please think twice about getting rid of the idiots. I won’t be able to comment anymore and I really think my fans, all two of them, will be disheartened.

  • DiscHuker

    buc: am i one of the two? if not, your fan base just went up by 50%.

  • rocklobster

    Arguing on the internet is proof that we are de-evolving.

  • Rascalian

    since when did evolution become an actual true science? It has been theories from many different people in many different fields and somehow theories have become “fact”. Now before you freak out and call me a fanatical religeous nut, i will say that even though i was raised to believe in creation and that evolution is just a tool of Satan and his followers who would slander God, i stopped believing what other people told me and looked for answers myself. As much amazing things are in this planet/galaxy/universe, science and religion have tried to give us answers. When it comes to where things come from and how long we’ve been here…who cares. We’re here. I’ve been here for awhile, and so have you…fighting over it is quite pointless.

  • Cyn

    292. bucslim –
    well…obviously i’ve not gotten rid of all the idiots…
    you’re still here!
    ;)
    *rimshot*
    thank you, thank you. i’ll be here all week.
    be sure to wait your tipress on the way out.
    :)

  • foebea

    Theories are not fact. As mentioned earlier, facts only exist in maths. Evolution is not fact, it is a theory. As a theory, it is put to the test against other theories, and over time has become the generally accepted scientific theory to explain the multitude of life on earth. This does not imply evolution is a correct theory, it just remains the best current explaination, and stands up as a sound theory by way of the scientific method.

    Religion is not disproved by evolution. Religion is not testable by the scientific method as it makes use of so called blind faith. God cannot be found in a lab, cannot be measured.

    Evolution is not disproved by religion. Even the pope has said that evolution fits within catholicism.

    Some day we may have a better theory to descibe life. Until then, people will continue to test evolution and find things which support it and look for new proofs which can destroy it. Scientists love to prove new theories.

  • bucslim

    I’m just tryin to shine a little ray of sunshine into our little patch of disgruntled and insulted posters. I want everyone’s viewpoint to be taken seriously and never be hurt or to see their self esteem circling the toilet. I’m like a jelly doughnut who’s anticipated as it’s place before the waiting customer just as it surely will be missed as the last delicious bite is savored on it’s way to the satisfied stomach. (which is pretty close to the appendix and coccyx.)

    Disc, you’re the man. You already know what side of this debate I fall on.

  • Incubus

    Little toes do provide a marginal advantage in balancing, particularly when it comes to not rolling over onto the outside of your ankle.

  • gcat

    sorry… I just wanted this specified… “junk DNA” = satellite DNA. And in my belief there is such a large amount of satellite DNA that there must be a use for it. In fact, this “junk” DNA has already been found to be beneficial in slowing cell division and protecting against mutation.

  • gcat

    and what about the lactase enzyme!?! what better evidence do we have for evolution?

  • gcat

    Instead of religious debate, can’t we have a discussion on the science of it? I find that type of conversation is more rewarding for everyone.

  • Foible

    The appendix has been found to have a purpose! It is a biological safehouse for beneficial bacteria. When an intestinal purging phenomena occurs, such as ingesting antibiotics, the appendix keeps a healthy population of friendly bacteria alive and ready to repopulate your guts.

  • lo

    evolution: the idea that when an organism comes into being with a new genetic mutation (created randomly in the process of DNA/RNA synthesis) that enhances its ability to survive, it does survive and breed successfully. if its offspring inherit the mutation and also prosper they will live longer and reproduce more successfully than members of the species who lack the mutation. given enough time this will result in the mutation becoming universal or at least very widely present in all living members of that species. it will be the norm and the species will have changed, will have evolved.

    this exits without doubt. it has been seen in the careers of individual researchers observing bacteria who EVOLVE resistance to an antibiotics, viruses that EVOLVE to thrive in more host species (this is why people and governments worry about avian influenza. if “bird flu” was guaranteed to only sicken birds and did not have the potential to EVOLVE to infect humans it wouldn’t be a current global concern.) and fruit flies bred purely to observe the new mutations they develop -as many of these traits are useful for other research.

    no one who is capable of rational thought and possesses an inkling of understanding of the scientific method doubts or debates this.

    another thing worthy of note: there is no such thing as “de-evolution/devolving”. it is a fallacy that evolution progresses to an ever more complex organism. an organism progresses towards a form that is most suitable to keeping it alive in its environment and ecosystem over many many generations, or it dies off. there is no rule that this “best fit” state will be more complex than the “best fit” of ages ago. this is why ginkgo trees, and some sharks and crocodilians are called “living fossils” by some, they found a fairly simple form that worked (without their conscious intent, or course) and there must not have been any wildly beneficial mutation for some millennia, so they stayed basically the same. and basically all the things on this list show features of humans that are becoming less complex (like not having a tail) because the trait offered no significant survival advantages, but they are still examples of evolution, not de-evolution.

    and as a final note, several commentors here have fallen, perhaps unknowingly, into Lamarckian thinking. the “we pluck out eyebrows, so they should go away,” and “how long will foreskins last?” come to mind. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was they guy who thought body modification done AFTER a species was born would somehow change their offspring. he was wrong, but as the mechanisms of genetic inheritance were unknown to him, we can cut him some slack. the most used example of why this theory is wrong is the domestic dog. certain species of dogs have had their ears and/or tails snipped shorter by their human owners for style basically as long as the breeds have existed -yet all their puppies have been born with the long ears and tails every time.

    you can read about lamarck here:

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

    and speaking of dogs -they are a very strong example of selective breeding! all domestic dog breeds from chihuahuas to mastiffs to poodles are the SAME species -humans selectively breeding them for traits made them so different. this shows you the wild potential of forms and behavioral traits in the genetic material of just one animal. evolution does the exact same thing -but the environment does the selecting, by the method i outlined at the very beginning.

    i really don’t see how any THINKING person of normal intellectual abilities could just throw all this out and by saying “it’s only a theory! hogwash and balderdash!”

    science is not in the business of proving things -it can only find the most likely theory by disproving alternatives and gathering supporting data. this does not invalidate it as a process for understanding reality!

    after all, GRAVITY is still only a theory. does that stop it from hurting when you fall down?

  • lo

    p.s. good list jamie!

    i’m happy to say i have darwin points -i never knew most people don’t. :)

  • YogiBarrister

    Copperdragon #243, most genetic mutations occur in males. That is really the primary reason why we exist in the first place. The Y chromosome is just a little nub that backs up only a few of the genes on the X chromosome. Therefore many mutations on the males’ X chromosomes manifest themselves in our physiology. If it is a beneficial or harmless mutation, it gets passed on to the next generation and eventually hardwired into both the females’ X chromosomes.

  • foebea

    lo: I’m on the side of evolution, but will take a moment to try and bring up one of the foremost detractors positions to try and clarify the debate.

    The issue is not that evolution is not happening, most religious folk see it and understand and agree to a point. The issue they perceive is not that changes are occuring, but rather that evolution results in entirely new species branching from others.

    Of course a rabbit can change the color of its fur based on environment to hide from attackers, in snow only the white rabbits live on. But for white rabbits to result eventually in flying donkeys is a large leap to handle. Not saying there are flying donkeys, just rambling. You get my meaning I think.

    For the fish to grow legs is visible in nature. There are fish with legs. There are fish with lungs. The difficulty is for that fish to then leave the ocean, change into a deer and run away seems quite a stretch. This type of change occurs over such a long period of time with almost no evidence to support it that it seems insane to accept it as truth.

  • foebea

    I.. uh.. hope that is a correct characterization. If not, I don’t mean any ill by it.

  • RandomPrecision

    arguing on the internet is like racing in the special olympics…

    …even if you win, you’re still retarded.

  • foebea

    Heheh.. I think that has been posted several times in this thread. It’s quite trite, but an important reminder.

  • RandomPrecision

    i’d rather hear more about this two tailed jesus

  • foebea

    Interestingly enough, the phrase “Two Tailed Jesus” was originated on this very page, otherwise I would try to help you out. Maybe the coiner could write up a nice long article giving it some depth. I’d read it. Twice.

  • lo

    foebea- i think it is people making jumps like “a fish becomes a deer, a rabbit a flying donkey” that confuses them. the thing about evolution is that it is soooooo gradual. the only reason we can see it in bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, etc. is because they reproduce so VERY much more quickly than we do.

    when we talk species we need to remember (as randall stated before, even if he was pissed off) that it’s not a matter of a chimp (or a bonobo to be more precise) becoming a human, rather that both of us shared an ancestor way, WAY back who was neither chimp nor human. that ancestor had offspring that diverged slowly and the closer we get to the common one the more similar the two divergent groups would have been.

    it’s helpful to think of animals that are closer on the same brach of the great evolutionary tree. for example, think of a smaller, feathered dinosaur like Archaeopteryx slowly, feature by feature, becoming a bird. here’s a site for further reading on that, from the University of California Museum of Paleontology:

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

    i fully agree with you that this kind of time, measured on a geologic scale of the 4.5 BILLION years our planets been around, boggles the mind -any mind. it’s just too big for us short lived humans to really grasp. but i strongly disagree that there is “almost no evidence.” there is quite a bit of evidence, both in the fossil record and now -very excitingly- in comparative genetics. just because the evidence is technical in nature and deserves a good bit of study and a little bit of expertise to fully understand does not mean it isn’t there.

    for the record, i see science as a field totally separate from god -the methods used to understand each of them, empirical observation vs. faith, are not applicable to the other.

  • lo

    and bucslim-

    this comment is the highlight of the whole list for me:

    “I’m just glad God left my coccyx where it is. I appreciate it’s role in the positioning of my anus. I mean, you can’t just have your anus position in a sloppy, haphazard way. If anuses were left to their own devices, then we’d have anarchy. What if we all had anuses in different positions?

    All hail the coccyx and it’s role in our daily lives!”

    i’d cry if your idiocy was banned! ;)

  • foebea

    Very well said. Thanks!

    When I wrote ‘almost no evidence’ I implied as compared to other, more universally accepted theories such as gravity and fluid dynamics. Those types of theories are completely testable at will. Evolution on the grand scale cannot be tested in the same fashion, rather can only be inferred from available evidence.

    Every time I hit a ball with a racket I see the results. It’s easily repeatable by any layman.

    To test evolution beyond casual examination of records requires specialized training and equiptment, and even then we do not have the resources or ability to run a complete test which would show what seems evident. Its too big. It’s simply out of reach of the general public, and requires a certain amount of blind faith.

  • sdggrant

    @22. Mikey

    Go back to 4chan please.

  • Lynn in Oregon

    So I read the list and immediately looked in the mirror for third eyelids and ear points… neither of which I have, so does that mean i’m ahead of the curve?? :)

    I also don’t have “moons” on my fingernails which everyone thinks is weird… so i’m either an evolutionary sprinter or recently landed here from a more advanced civillization (now if my brain would just catch up!)

    Oh, and why do men have nipples? The only thing I could think of is that they were useful for quieting a crying baby when “mom” was busy.

    Anyone?

  • foebea

    The third eyelid is the fleshy bit in the corner. It used to be able to move across the eye.

  • rh
  • Paulb

    THERES NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION, GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!

    lol jkjk , great list!

  • lo

    foebea- thanks for the thanks :) i think we are on the same page about people understanding this issue.

    just in case anyone is going to rip up my explanations of evolution above, i found a critical typo: it says “certain species of dogs have had their ears …” -species, should read BREEDS right there.

    context makes this pretty clear, but as my later point is that all domestics dogs are ONE and the same species, i don’t want to be accused of a self-contradicting post.

    good night y’all and sweet dreams :)

  • Hemza3000

    @Alencon
    “As soon as you put them in the public square, especially if they are used as a justification for any of a number of things from limiting someones free speech (which you’re sort of attempting to do aren’t you) to outlawing gay marriage (which you may or may not care about, it’s just an example), then they become everyone’s business.”

    I put absolutely nothing in the public square, hell, you don’t even know what I believe in. All I’ve asked for is the right to keep that private and to not be called an idiot for it. And I’m not limiting anyone’s freedom of speech, I’m just asking that if it must be done, it be done in a respectful manner, which appears to be a lost cause on most of these guys here.

  • Melina

    Randall-
    Youre sexy.

  • Freca

    In my opinion, the next step in evolution will be the disappearance of the differences in skin color.

  • Freca

    265 greencat:
    “I will believe in God until they can explain how everything came from Nothing.”

    Well, a single atom consists mostly of emptiness. We may say what you call “everything” they are nothing…

  • sdggrant

    To the people arguing that we must have been made by god because something can not come from nothing I ask you this… If everything must have a starting point then where did god come from? Did he just go *poof* and make a dramatic entrance to an existence consisting of nothing but him?

    I’m not saying that a god does not exist because how the hell do I really know until I die? Until you can tell me why god can appear from nothing and yet the universe can’t I’m going to have to throw my dice in with the evolutionary crowd.

  • Sugen

    i like the description of the appendix: hanging around and doing nothing.

  • motophiliac

    First of all, having to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to comment would be an easy thing to fix…

    Anyway, enough bitchin’ and on to an interesting point about the appendix.

    We now live in an environment where there is little or no selection pressure on a functioning appendix. The post said that dodgy appendices are removed. If natural selection were allowed to take its course, the death of humans with appendices would ensure that these extra organs would eventually be selected out of the loop. However, with modern medicine enabling the existence of the useless organ, it will probably be around for a long time yet.

    Bet even, if the economy keeps up the way it is at the moment that cellulose-processing appendix might come in useful again.

    What created God? Either something had to or, if he’s always been here, why would he have been? Why not just have him out of the equation and save yourself time and energy by saying that the universe has always been here?

    Loads easier.

  • Pingback: What Makes Human Unique | Natural Health & Organic Living Blog : NaturalBuy.com()

  • We don’t know that the universe has always been constant.

  • stooge

    Davo, the existence of a God is unprovable at this time. It could be expressed in gambling odds as 50/50, it is just as likely a God exists as doesn’t. It is organized religion invented by mankind that is BS. There are people out there open to the concept of a creator but not organized religion.

    I believe that creationism is one of the most damaging myths ever created by organised religion. It is demonstrably wrong yet there are thousands perhaps millions worldwide who believe it.

    I believe in evolution for 2 reasons:

    1. Its currently the best theory we have and every day it gains more strength.

    2. Even if it proves to be wrong I don’t want to spend eternity with a bunch of weirdo creationist douches

  • loop

    To those among you who are so narrow-minded as to perhaps not consider that “Science” might be a God’s gift to his children, that they might gain insight into his wisdom and workings (evolution), I suggest you heed “His” advice found in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 4, verses 12-13.

  • Stizzy

    What we see in bacteria isn’t “molecules to man” evolution. It’s adaptation. It’s a loss of genetic information and not a gain. Sometimes these adaptations can be beneficial but it’s still a LOSS of genetic information.

    This bacteria may be able to survive a man-made poison within a lab, but would be less adept to flourish in the wild and would likely be “selected” against. Inheritence of the mutation that allows them to resist antibiotics was simply already there in some bacteria or passed along by others. It’s nothing new, simply a resurgence of what was already present.

    Take away the lab induced environmental factors and the adaptation would likely go back the other way.

    “What created God? Either something had to or, if he’s always been here, why would he have been? Why not just have him out of the equation and save yourself time and energy by saying that the universe has always been here?”

    God created and exists outside of time. The concept of there being a “beginning” and “creation” starts with him. The universe on the other hand is within time and therefore has a definitive beginning. You can’t simply say it’s always been there.

    And why is creationism one of the most damaging “myths” created? Because it challenges people to think about other possibilities and examine the evidence from another perspective. I believe that to simply accept something because you are told it is so is foolish. To investigate yourself and come to your own conclusions as a result seems far wiser. If one person looks at the evidence and concludes its evolution, yet another looks at the same evidence and concludes creation, why is the one who settles on creation seen as an “idiot/fool/stupid/retarded/etc etc.” The simplest explanation people have for what they don’t understand is that there is something wrong with the other person when perhaps the problem lies with themselves.

    I do not believe in “molecules to man” evolution. I believe natural selection and adaptation is observable but no matter what changes occur, one thing remains the same…dogs are dogs, cats are cats, horses are horses, monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans. If one kind of cat has more doggish looking features than another, does that mean that cats and dogs split off from a common ancestor millions of years ago? Or is it simply a matter of “those things looks similar”.

    If all creatures have similar anatomy and traits, is this again evidence for a common ancestor or for a common designer. Just like a mechanic may have his favourite tools and parts and he’ll modify these to design pieces of a car, a boat, a plan and a motorbike. One didn’t evolve through natural processes into another.

    I believe God instilled in all creatures a vast capacity to adapt to surroundings in order to survive in this world. It shows his love of versatility. Heck, I like to look at the “Universe” as “United Versatility”. Many different things, all under one incredible head. I believe vast changes have gone on in all species of creature over the thousands of years we’ve existed and that what we see today is probably far removed in some ways from what was originally created. It’s not a stretch to imagine that mankind were once able to do things we can’t even imagine today.

    Just look at some of the most amazing ancient monuments which scientists, philosophers and archeologists are still baffled about. Huge stone blocks, how were they moved? Pyramids of incredible design. Many today ascribe this to aliens, but the same problems with the origin of life here simply transfers to them. Is it so much of a stretch to imagine that mankind was simply far more capable than he is now?

    Could it be that mankind could hear better (hence the change in ears), had a greater sense of smell, had more flexible feet and uses for DNA that we can’t figure out now? Is it that we no longer need certain parts or that due to gradual degridational mutation, we’re simply not as flashy as we used to be? Kinda like modern cars not being as durable as old fashioned ones.

    However the current line of thinking points towards “Older? Dumber/Primitive”

  • shar

    One link. I think it says it all…

    http://www.explosm.net/comics/818/

  • Anon

    Last night I got as far as post 265 before our server freaked out and put paid to the internet. My notes are in this and the next post:

    NOTE ONE

    Randall is back with a vengeance. Yippee, (Pay special attention to the word ‘vengeance’!)

    Buc on top form made me keep changing Y-fronts till my bladder ran dry. He’s up for the LV Golden Orb, for sure.

  • Anon

    NOTE TWO.

    This ‘front tail’ people are talking about. Surely not a vestigial virgin?

  • Anon

    NOTE THREE

    Rolo Tomasi IS Piltdown Man.

  • Anon

    NOTE FOUR

    This thread prompted me to wonder whether the sense of humour is a redundant organ in decline throughout the species, or an evolving, advanced function. Clerarly the biggest collective group to be born without one is fundamentalists of all kinds. I wonder if jfrater can supply us with the relevant percentage, as per his ’10’?

  • Anon

    Now I’ll Plow through the rest (sorry to take your name in vain Mr P).

  • robneiderman

    Forgive me if this was mentioned. I couldn’t stand reading all the comments about religion bashing/evolution denial, so I skipped to the end.
    The plica semilunaris is the remnant of the third eyelid, not Darwin’s Point. It’s even shown in the diagram, but it’s the subtitle for Darwin’s Point.
    Fun list, but a lot of comment posters are a-holes.

  • shar

    I’ve also been considering whether Common Sense, Logical Progression, and Lateral Thinking are going to fall by the wayside too, in the US anyway, as they seems to be less and less common among some of the fastest growing social groupings in the country. I.e Christian Fundamentalists.

    Raised as a Catholic, I can clearly remember Fr Reilly explaining the story of Adam and Eve to us when I was in 3rd Class (about 8 years old). He told us how throughout the Bible, stories are used to convey simple morality to people in a way they can simply understand. When we asked about Adam and Eve, he said that it was a story, and that Eve never took the apple from the serpent, but that it was a metaphor. He also explained that Job was never eaten by a whale. It too was a metaphor.

    How about a list on the Best Metaphors in the Bible? That could spark some controversy too…

    Lets put the Mental back in Fundamentalist…

  • GTT

    270. Dre: there is a great link that Randall posted above regarding the evolution of the pelvis. I´m a little fuzzy on the details but basically it said Lucy´s (A. afarensis) pelvis was better suited to bipedalism than our modern one. Unfortunately, modern babies with the bigger heads (and brains) would not have fit through Lucy´s pelvis so the design changed to adapt to our bigger heads. Yeah, you should better read it for a better explanation. :)

    ————–

    317. Lynn in Oregon: I have moons too! Is that weird?? Anyway, as to your men nipple comments, I´ve read somewhere that in extreme cases some men have been know to spontaneously start lactating (I think there was a case in Sri lanka not too long ago). Fascinating really.

  • bucslim

    robneiderman – you better not be calling me an a-hole or I’ll realign your coccyx, which in turn, will wreak havoc on the alignment of your anus. And we all know what problems that will have on your excretory system.

    Anon – sorry about you running thin on your Y front supplies, whatever the hell that is. Not sure I want to know. And I’ve already scoped out a tux to wear at the LV Golden Orbs Gala. I’m going with Liz Hurley. After the ceremony I’ll check out her golden orbs.

  • Anon

    And now, to be frivolous for a rare change:

    littleboots, 116,

    “Please tell me why in animal societies the weak and and sick are left to their own devices and generally die, thus leaving the rest of the pack/herd to evolve physically stronger and smarter, whereas us humans cater to the weak and sick and stupid, even cushion the world for them, even give them awards? This is what’s slowing down evolution for the human race.”

    I don’t recall seeing this particular characteristic, but I have read several classic books on animal behaviour and watched plently of wildlife TV. So a logical evolutionary answer doesn’t seem difficult to deduce.

    In large, homogeneous unspecialised or readily replaceable socieites, whether social, such as bees, ants and wasps, or random herds of African grazing mammals, shoals of fish, flocks of birds or swarms of insects, the numbers are the protection and are sacrificied readily for the survival of the species without the least concern by the rest.

    In small, territorial social groups such as packs of wolves and early man, which are specialised and vulnerable, numbers are absolutely critical. One individual might make the difference between group extinction or survival in a food hunting strategy, or fight with a rival group or predator. In the latter case numbers are *big* like the standing hair of the frightened cat. Think of the number of times throughout history clever military leaders have used dummy men or equipment to fool an enemy.

    Let’s suppose there were two sets of early man. Those who left their wounded, less competent and sick to die. And those who took risks by devoting precious time to the recovery of their infirm, wounded and less able. The rules of survival clearly indicate which was more successful set in the form of ourselves, their modern, evolved descendants. Just take the exemplary Rolo, whom we are all nursing along rather than abandoning or assassinating intellectually (aren’t we?). Well every rule has its exceptions. Besides which I haven’t touched on the opposing Anon’s Law of Conformity & Outcasts, which explains such phenomena as bullying!

    Some posters, especially those of a religious cast, will no doubt find this explanation a typical cold, heartless scientific explantion for the wonderful phenomena of charity, self-sacrifice and medical and other care we see in the world around us. Well, just consider how the basic sex drive has flowered into Valentine’s day and romantic films. Or the need to eat to stay alive has led to French cusine and five-star restaurants. Or our need for mobility has taken us out into space. Indeed, everything we value can be traced to such basic beginnings. The fact is, we create our own wonder world by cultural evolutionary build-up, and I find this just as magical as anyone else does. It didn’t ‘come from nothing’ either, which the religious like to posit as the alterntaive to their view. The potential was/is there in the universe, whether you want to refine it as God (which I don’t) or anything else.

    END OF DAILY PHILOSOPHICAL RANT

  • Anon

    Buc,

    *Y*s are that little blue garment Superman forgets to put on till last. They help to give support to front tails, dangly bits, coxxyces, ani and the like. The plurals in the last sentence refer to collectivity, not evolutionary freaks, by the way.

    Are those orbs for sharing? (The gorgeous pliable ones, I mean.)

  • Anon

    Back to frivolity.

    If it hasn’t been raised in the bit above I’ve yet to read, can anyone tell me if there is a direct correlation between shivering and goose-pimples? In other words, is shivering dependant on goosies? I ask because involuntary shivering is known to serve the evolutionary purpose of generating heat by movement when we are threatened by low temperatures (as perspiration helps us to cool down in heat).

  • ringtailroxy

    OMG… you skip 1 day due to relative boringness of recent lists and WHAMMO! miss out on all my faves… Randall vs. the Creationists, Kreacure’s charm, and my honey Bucslim’s diabolical wit! Good vs. evil… Reason vs. Fantasy…Evolution vs. Creationism… that’s the last time I take an all day horse back ride in the Everglades!

    after the 124 comment, I just had to comment on 119.

    concerning the video of the dog pulling it’s injured ‘buddy’ out of the road…

    people…

    not to break your bubbles, but that dog was merely mounting and attempting to MATE with the deceased dog! YES! NO LIE!

    I am specializing in animal behavior (ethology) and after watching the video 3 times, I realized that a dog will PICK up and CARRY an object to safety… war dogs in Vietnam did this to their fallen handlers… not wrap their front legs in a “hug” and drag their companions away! The only reason the companion dog moves off the road is the vigourousness of the humping motion actually pulls the limp, unconscious, and blood-slick dog across the lanes of traffic.

    now, this is all my speculation, spoken amongst other classmates, we are in agreement, and I wish there was more info on the injured dog… I am willing to bet the dog was in estrus & actively pursued by an amorous male…

    males in nature can sometimes kill their prospective mates in heir attempts to procreate…I have seen the Muscovy ducks on my lake drown females in their robustness to gang-bang her…

    ringtailroxy

  • Anon

    Buc,

    I recall reading in the thread about embarrassing deaths ofsome greedy guy having gold poured down his throat. It led to delicious thoughts about golden orbs …

  • suoehprom

    I was with you until that comment about the little toe, my uncle lost one in an accident and had to completely re-learn how to walk, it’s extremely important in balance. Now I’m unconvinced about the rest of your submissions.

  • STL Mo

    I’ve resisted making a serious comment on this subject, but I find it highly offensive when someone suggests that those who believe in the Bible “need to get a clue” or are stupid or backwards or uninterested in science, etc.

    At the risk of people thinking I’m a neanderthal, I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible and I guess I’m one who some sneer at as “fundamentalist.” And what is a fundamentalist but someone who believes in God and what He has revealed in His book?

    Many Christians, to their discredit, don’t engage their minds when discussing science. Likewise, many atheists don’t engage their minds either when discussing faith. They act as if all Christians are just sitting with their fingers in their ears going “la! la! la! I can’t hear you!”

    As for me, I believe because of the evidence: Christianity is historic and evidential. (I can direct any open-minded person to resources, if they care to pursue them.) I’m not so naive to think that one post on one thread on one webb site will change any minds, but please consider: When I behold science and all the wonderful and amazing discoveries made, I don’t think that God is discredited or invalidated. Exactly the opposite: Science validates God. I marvel at the wonders of God with each new discovery. I marvel at the ingenious mechanisms that populate the cell. I am stunned at the incredible and incalcuable vastness of space. I wonder at the simple beauty of a flower unfolding its petals. I am delighted at the laws of physics and mathematical precision of many things in nature (as much as I can understand them, that is).

    As a Bible-beleiving Christian, I don’t fear science or its discoveries. I revel in them. Not for nothing do I read Popular Science, Discovery, National Geographic and etc. I honor the men and women who do the research, even when I believe their conclusions are wrong or don’t support the evidence the way they think it should.

    I thoroughly enjoy science fiction, as my previous and subsequent postings attests. One of my first cousins is an award-winning author of sci-fi and he’s definitely no Christian. Yet I thoroughly enjoy his stories, and not just out of family loyalty.

    As far as I am concerned, science validates God. It doesn’t negate Him. (And yes, I think the theory of evolution is ultimately not supoprted by the evidence. I beleive that God created the heavens and the earth. I never commented on the question thread on whether creationism should be taught in schools, but my feeling is that teaching the THEORY of evolution is fine, as long as it’s understood that there are other competing theories. I’m not an advocate for religion in the classroom, and would also like to see much more honest and open-minded vetting of intelligent design before it’s ever taught to the same extent as Darwinian evolution.)

    Now, I used to engage in online flame wars with a couple of hard-core atheists, but wound up accomplishing nothing more than discrediting myself and my arguments. The anominity of the Internet greatly increases people’s courage, and they say things in such a way that they’d never say to someone’s face.

    I disagree wholeheartedly with the conclusions of the theory of evolution yet recognize that the search for answers leads to discovery and the advancement of civilization. As Christians, we need to join the search and gently but confidently offer our answers, instead of standing in front of people and yelling “NO!”

    An please, for everyone who doesn’t believe in God, please accept that you can be Christian and a scientist.

    Cheers, all.

  • bucslim

    I know you’re all waiting for my next bit of satirical wit, but let me take a note from Jerry Springer and waylay you with my own opinion of this matter. I’ve always believed in God and had an evangelical upbringing. For all you naked intellectual pagans dancing around the maypole out there, I’ve never felt it my place to make sure you’ve heard the word of God today. In the same vein, I don’t really like it much when I’m painted as some dopey zealot with glazed over eyes who sends regular checks to the scripture screaming dude on TV dressed up in a snazzy suit and has his hair shellacked. I believe what I believe and don’t really give a shit if you think I’m stupid or deluded, I’ve been called worse and my bark is a little thicker than all that.

    Ok the scientific stuff works and makes sense to me, and I don’t really consider it to be an affront to my faith if I acknowledge some of it. And I admit I don’t exactly know every arguing point. But I don’t buy into all of it, because I have a brain and I can actually choose to believe some things and call the rest bullshit. I fully admit that the American brand of Christianity has a patent pending on stupidity and established the brand name for buffonery. But if you’re going to tell me this thing called life is all explained in the lab with test tubes, a bunsen burner and a diffy q math equation, well I think you’re full of shit.

    The kind of shit that comes out of a properly aligned anus.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

  • bucslim

    Thanks STL Mo for making my last post virtually worthless.

  • bucslim

    Gotta spread some love for my girl roxy who brought us all back to sanity with lurid tales of necrophiliac dogs. She just has a way with putting a fine point on things. What a sweetheart!

    Anon – not sure the golden orbs thingies would pour down the throat that easily, but it’s the effort that counts.

  • Anon

    Mr. Plow, (279),

    I could not and would not waste my time trying to find out who casts first LV stones. All I can say is that as a tolerant, practicing atheist, I have read some massively unchristian and clearly unprovoked attacks on anyone who does not subscribe to religious belief. For my sins (sorry!) I have even been driven to explain my point of view with great care to some of the more intelligent intolerant, who, although I concede and tolerate their viewpoint without qualification, stubbornly refuse to reciprocate. In fact, although I acknowledge decent tolerance on both sides, it strikes me that the religious intolerant have been if anything more intolerant in their individual persistence than the secular intolerant. Here I am including *first strikes* of a religious nature against evolutionary science, for example, as in this thread (22, although I concede it might have been a deliberate shit-stir. If so it’s indistinguishable from the *real thing*). Again I bear in mind how the religious are taught they are supposed to comport themselves. I won’t press the point though, not least because I find intolerance equally offensive from whatever quarter it originates and at whomever (undeserving) it is aimed at. My point excludes fierce logical no-holds-barred debate, by the way, or reaction towards anyone in particular who has asked for it, religious or secular.

  • ScottyBGood

    Following up on the “Why do men have nipples” debate.

    It’s so we know how far we can safely wade out at the beach. :)

  • Anon

    bucslim, Mr Plow, et al,

    “Some posters, especially those of a religious cast, will no doubt find this explanation a typical cold, heartless scientific explanation for the wonderful phenomena … we see in the world around us.

    “The fact is, we create our own wonder world by cultural evolutionary build-up, and I find this just as magical as anyone else does. It didn’t ‘come from nothing’ either, which the religious like to posit as the alternative to their view. The potential was/is there in the universe, whether you want to refine it as God (which I don’t) or anything else.”

    That comment refers equally to Life on Earth and *everything*.

    Sorry to quote narcissicistically (what else should a botanist do?) from my own earlier post. However, I get a little tired of being told by believers that atheists MUST be stuck with the alternative believe everything originated from nothing or test tubes. I tend to wonder whether that reveals more about them and their internal vision than me and others who share my view.

  • Rhodri Brady

    These points may have been made but hey,

    Goose bumps close the pores so that liquid cannot get out and cause more chilling due to evaporation.

    There is no reported evidence that humans have active sensory neurons like those in working vomeronasal systems of other animals. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that suggests there are nerve and axon connections between any existing sensory receptor cells that may be in the adult human VNO and the brain. Likewise, there is no evidence for any accessory olfactory bulb in the adult humans, and the key genes involved in VNO function in other mammals have pseudogeneized in humans. Therefore while the presence of a structure in adult humans is debated, a review of the scientific literature by Tristram Wyatt concluded, “most in the field… are sceptical about the likelihood of a functional VNO in adult humans on current evidence.

    It had been said that Auriculares muscles are useful for facial expressions. As well as for great party tricks.

    Plantaris acts to:

    * plantarflex the ankle joint
    * flex the knee joint
    Plantaris may also provide proprioceptive feedback information to the central nervous system regarding the position of the foot. The unusually high density of proprioceptive receptor end organs supports this notion.

    Read this interesting article arguing that the removal of wisdom teeth does more harm than good. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3504237/Wisdom-Teeth-Removal-More-Harm-Than-Good

    The third eye-lid is known to keep dirt out of the eye.

    Studies have shown that those without an appendix tend to have a weaker immune system.

    Just a few points I wanted to make.

  • Duane Gish

    I hear there are some creationists who are afraid to go out in the garden because they think they may be treading on the kind of dirt they believed that God made Adam and Eve from. Get an education. Go read a book. There is no sky fairy.

  • Anon

    PS

    Someone raised the very valid point above that your belief is your own until you make it public, abobe all to support a point. As an exit-closet atheist I’m have no problem with that. So if a Christian *uses* the Bible in support of a view, he or she has then rendered the Bible a legitimate target. This is equally true of Origins. That there is subsequent collateral damage to bystanders is, I’m afraid, one of the consequences of debate. If you can’t stand the heat …

  • Anon

    Sorry about the garbleage.

  • Anon

    Rhodri Brady, 356,

    While you’re still here, if you’re still here.

    are you able answer my earlier question as to whether there is any co-ordination between goose bumps and shivering to generate warmth?

  • bucslim

    Anon – a well reasoned response is always appreciated, quotes or no quotes.

    Look we can do this ‘where did the atoms come from’ or ‘who created God’ ring around the rosey thing all day to the point where Socrates himself would start to get bored and proceed to hook up his Wii. We’ve debated this very point until the dead horse we’ve been kicking gets up and kicks us all in the collective balls.

    Anyone who says they absolutely knows what happened at the cosmic grand opening couldn’t be more full of shit than the Winnebago after a trip to the Ozarks. Some say it all came together and exploded into bits of life stuff, I say the Big Guy lit the match on that gas can. It’s just when this Torquemada v Hawking cage match spills into the audience, that’s when things get messy.

    I’ve stated where I’m at and I’m fine if a few satanic heifers flip me off when they go into the chasm.

  • 4Real?

    Man, there has been some DUMB s### said so far. And that was just scanning…

    To the atheists/nonreligious entities: To pretend like an education, or modern science provides all answers to everything is just as bad as proclaiming the bible serves that function. Which really, if you ask me, is what makes atheism no different from Christianity. You can never know anything until you realize that you truly know nothing.

    To the anti-evolutionists: The majority of you seem to inject personal offense into all things that don’t agree with your illogical and borderline defenseless argument. To automatically dismiss at least some level of evolution is downright stupid, and not really worth anyone’s time but your own.

    Both sides need to grow up and realize that you can disagree strongly with somebody without acting like a total tool bag.

  • smerkis

    I think my face is proof that we used to me monkeys

  • Randall

    bucslim:

    This is the most we’ve heard from you in ages. I see the change in medication is doing its job. Good. Give modern medicine time, and it gets things right.

  • Anon

    foebea, (291),

    “DiscHuker: As I don’t have the required background to fully backup my statement in an intelligent fashion, I will definately conceed that to you. If I had more knowledge on the topic I would attempt to debate the truth upon which it is based. My assumption is that it is based on two things, not related, and not necessarily combined. The harvest, and control of the people.”

    *It* being religion s.l.

    How about an overwhelming third. The need of curious, expanding Homo sapiens minds everywhere to explain the inexplicable. Surely the birth point of both science and religion? Science took the path of what became explicable or might be explained by observable evidence. Religion continued and continues to claim the lot. I am not denying anything here, by the way, just defining. Homo sapiens, especially when in a position of social power or authority, also has great difficulty in coming to terms with that deceptively simple little phrae, “Sorry, we/I don’t know.” Knowledge = authority. Authority = knowledge. Q.E.D.

  • bucslim

    Randall – at least my medications don’t cause me to make fart noises when I’m rolling around in bed, unlike some people I could mention.

  • Anon

    buc, (352),

    “Gotta spread some love for my girl roxy who brought us all back to sanity with lurid tales of necrophiliac dogs.”

    It’s got me thinking about a religion I had in mind for another thread: reincarnation. (Carnation, what else for a botanist?) That bow wow couldn’t have been called Edgar Allen Poe in another life, you don’t suppose?

  • Anon

    Forsooth,

    By my Darwin’s points shall ye recognise me as an evolutionary. Yeah!

    Is it because I happened to have arrived at third agehood, or has anyone else noticed how ears keep on growing while the rest of us stops and eventually begins to shrivel? I used to have such admirable shell-likes too. So questions: Do one’s Darwin’s also keep on getting larger too? And WTF with all this improved aural apparatus do we just keep getting deafer and deafer as time goes on (see appropriate Simpsone clip)?

    Pardon? What was the answer? Could you please write up a bit louder.

  • Acula

    When Rolo Tomasi spouts off obviously flawed arguments, the advocates for evolution who proclaim it as undeniable fact come out in droves to tear him apart, belittle him, and humiliate him.

    But when reasonable people with reasonable arguments, 332 and 349, speak out, they are conveniently ignored. I would really like to see someone who is so sure of the evolutionary theory respond to both of them they way they did Rolo. After reading the other comments and seeing it repeated over and over that evolution is practically a fact, I would think that it would be easy.

    This seems to happen on this site whenever this subject is breached.

  • LunaticMoon

    Great job !!

    The latest Scientific American has some cool stuff about evolution in humans like ability of adult humans to digest milk and cause of hiccups.

    Could you please generate more related lists

    Thanks

  • Speedle

    I don’t totally agree regarding the appendix. Some current theories surrounding probiotics mention the place of the appendix as a central repository for useful bacteria in the body.

  • Daddy247

    But, hey. What do I know? I’m a single guy still living with his mother.

  • Daddy247

    I’m such a loser for posting these comments.

  • Daddy247

    I agree, Randall and I love you so much!

  • Daddy247

    Me, too.

  • Anon

    369 asked for a reply to 332.

    The following goes further back from evolution than I would care, but here goes:

    “The universe on the other hand is within time and therefore has a definitive beginning. You can’t simply say it’s always been there.” (332)

    I’m neither physicist, mathematician, theologian or philosopher, but my gut reaction is this:

    No, any more than you can say you or I have always been here. But you can reasonably hypothesise that the components (or forces) we are made of have always been around in some form or other and always will be *here*. That presumably applies as well to the forces (laws of nature if you like) that shape us . It may not be so, but then you have to come up with an equal or better alternative and one which avoids a finite (mortal) beginning and ending to *everything*. If a supernatural God dunnit makes sense to you, fine, I have no problems with that. My wife believes the same. For me however, that simply leaves a mass of irreconcilable contradictions unless I consider that *God* and *everything*, including ourselves, as one and the same thing, rather than elements apart. Using crude logic, I assume infinity has to embrace *everything*. Ergo, if you split *everything* into any number of parts, from God and His Creation (two) downwards, you are positing finites. For me a finite is something that can be counted. 1 God. 2 Jesus. 3 Holy Spirit. 4 Creation. If you have God as everything, there is no counting except for the infinite number of finites that go to make up that infinity, which include you and I. I’m sure far cleverer theologians than I must have come up with their answer to this. But didn’t they also find an answer to how many angels could gather on a pinhead?

    OK. That’s the best I can come up with, given my educational and intellectual limitations. The nice thing about unquestioning belief is that you can lean on *systems* or gurus. When atheism isn’t simply indifference, it requires you to rely largely on your own resources. There are no Churches of Atheism. Nor a Bad Book that says, In the Beginning there was No God and He didn’t Make Anything. Hahaha. So start throwing your stix and stones. Or if you are an embarrassed fellow atheist, replace my homespun, cod-philosophy with a better reply.

  • Melina

    Holy crap this is intense.

  • Reyairia

    Foebea:
    “Evolution on the grand scale cannot be tested in the same fashion, rather can only be inferred from available evidence.”

    Yes it can. Scientists have done it with bacteria, with fruit flies, and have observed it in as little as 100 years with bats in North America when figs were introduced.

    Even if you look at dog breeds, like mentioned beforehand; a labrador is more likely to mate with another labrador, before going on to a poodle or a St. Bernard. This means that the dogs are *beginning* to diverge into separate species. One animal isn’t just born a different species than its mother. Two “species” in the process of diverging become less and less likely to mate with one another until they do not mate in the wild at all, or barely – which then results in a sterile hybrid.

  • Anon

    As to the request to answer 349, I consider what we observe and experience in this life, as detailed there, and any conclusions or meaning we might draw, sit at least as comfortably in my *non-supernatural* overview.

    Then take this part-sentence in 349:

    “I disagree wholeheartedly with the conclusions of the theory of evolution”

    I neither consider that to be a *reasonable argument*, as you state 369, nor is it answerable rationally. In fact, its pure Rolo or even protoRolo!

  • Anon

    Reyairia, (378),

    Provided we bear in mind that a broadly different but equally compelling set of breeding barriers apply in the plant kingdom.

  • foohy

    STL Mo:
    Very well said. I completely agree.

  • Anon

    Acula, (369).

    Finally. Are we living in a different website? I have seen evolution explained with the greatest scientific authority, care and detail in several different LV websites. Sure you aren’t letting a little worm of paranoia nibble away?

  • anthony p

    ya know if the whole planet would get over themselves and stopped being so analy retentive about others beliefs there would be a hell of less war. I mean seriously what are we all 5 years old get over it, agree to disagree.

    I think all men will end up bald, ive been losing my hair since i was 18 and i have noticed a lot of others have been to, soemthing about us not needing the cover from the sun like we once did.

  • physics

    Interesting observation 369. Whether you believe in evolution or not, I highly recommend a book called, “The Biotic Message” by Walter James ReMine. It gives the most detailed study of evolution theories I’ve come across (much more than any university biology book, for example)… and it pays to be informed before venturing arguments and opinions. With this knowledge you will no longer gloss briefly over sickle cell anaemia as example of natural selection… you will see how things are much more complicated with the third allele present in the population in small numbers – an allele that is advantageous but does not increase in frequency because genes tend not to act alone.

    You will understand that evolution requires an increase of information in the population. Natural selection may cause certain genes to be eliminated… which is a loss of information. Therefore, we cannot simply say natural selection automatically causes evolution. Yes, adaptation and natural selection have been seen, but through loss of information. Mutations that cause an information increase need to be seen for evolution to be supported by operational science (i.e. science using the method of repeatable experiments).

    You will come to see there are different evolution theories. My uni biology book says evolution is a fact and that the theories are explanations for that fact. The Biotic Message helps us to note that evolutionists who subscribe to Gradualism have done a pretty good job of pulling apart Punctuated Equilibrium, whilst evolutionists who subscribe to Punctuated Equilibrium have likewise done a good job of pulling apart Gradualism. There’s so much more there on the debates between evolutionists that the general public and most students are never exposed to.

    You will come to note Haldane’s Dilemma poses an incredibly important question. In a nutshell, the mathematics of population genetics, using the believed rate of mutation in humans per generation, can be used to calculate how much time is required for an apelike ancestor to evolve into a humnan. Food for thought and I would encourage anyone to check out Haldane’s Dilemma on the Internet. If you’re serious about the truth then you’ll check it out.

  • anthony p

    how about a world pinnic rather world war 3

  • anthony p

    make that picnic

  • Davo

    Hemza3000, the comment after you number 22 Mikey. I rest my case. same with 26.
    you’re all uneducated. you ignore fact. None of you have read the bible properly and ignorantly believe despite fact and logic. you’re an embarrassment. I assume none of you take any vitamins or would accept chemo if you got cancer, because as you all know, god has planned everything from the beginning and the above involved science to be made. hypocrites.

    24 is right on.

    its like you calling me an idiot for believing that cities have bulidings.

    pfft. you’re dealing with an intellect that is way, way beyond yours (clearly)

  • ?.?

    I just find the thought of someone more powerful than us, created us, the universe, everything and nothing, silly. I wish I believed that when you died you went to a heaven and everything was perfect there, but I know that when you die, you’re dead. *poof* Gone. All that’s left of you is you’re rotting or cremated corpse.

  • lo

    Reyairia-

    i think it was my comment on dog breeds you were referencing. i’m not a vet (i’m actually in the process of becoming a botanist, so cheers to anon the botanist!) but just from observation i don’t think it’s true that a lab will have any preference to mate with another lab when left to its own devices.

    my point was the opposite, that domestic dog breeds are a brilliant example of artificial, human induced trait selection. (another place where this is very obvious is is traditionally bred livestock and agricultural plants. when the parents for new stock are controlled, be it by hand pollination, artificial insemination, etc. desired traits are concentrated/developed over time.)

    when i was in south american cities with large street dog populations, those individuals that were not actually purchased pets taken in at night, seemed to be all tending towards “medium-large sized mutt” because of their indescriminent breeding. it’s very interesting to see that very small dogs (like my beloved pomeranian!) vanish from the feral population quickly. this may be because the are less able to compete for food and more likely to be killed in a fight, so their genes leave the population. or it may be because a small female dog impregnated by a large one is very likely to die trying to birth puppies to big for her frame and the pups die too, again genes selecting for small stature leave the gene pool.

    a much better place to look for a species diverging into two is wild wolves and domestic dogs. they are still nearly identical in terms of genetics -and can produce fertile hybrids- but it’s pretty clear they are on (and have been on) diverging evolutionary paths.

  • Anon

    physics, 384.

    “If you’re serious about the truth …”

    Reads surrounding posts, especially 387, asks “What’s truth then, who defines it?”, leaps onto dead horse, flogs it mercilessly and gallops off … Nowhere.

    Is tempted by the ebb and flow of this thread to ask where the human brain fits into evolution, but horse rises from the dead and advises against. Gives ex-dead horse a bale of hay in gratitude and exits stage left under own steam.

  • Char

    Loved this list :) only ones i really knew about were the coccyx and appendix so learnt quite a bit!

  • Hemza3000

    @Davo, #387
    Who said anything about a Bible?! I never said I was Christian.

    And this: “I assume none of you take any vitamins or would accept chemo if you got cancer, because as you all know, god has planned everything from the beginning and the above involved science to be made. hypocrites.”

    That is just shamefully bad logic. You know what happens when you assume right? Well, it also makes you look like a fucking idiot.

  • anthony p

    Wow you certainly are and agitated bunch, ya know that whole thing about everyone is entitled to their own opinion, agree to disagree and all that yada yada ohhhhhh and let not forget the one from when you were all 5 years old, if someone hits you dont hit them back. You would be suprised how much they apply to today, Hemza can you imagine how much nicer your day would be and how much less time you would be angry if you had just let it go, agreed to disagree and moved on………Just saying, seems a bit childish when you resort to name calling.

  • Reyairia

    lo-
    “but just from observation i don’t think it’s true that a lab will have any preference to mate with another lab when left to its own devices.”

    I have. My grandparents had one male labrador, a female labrador, a female beagle and a mixed breed. The labrador couple had 6 litters, meanwhile the labrador only had 2 litters with each of the other female dogs.

  • Hemza3000

    @anthony p
    Great now I’m the guy with the anger management problem…
    I’ve honestly been trying to be civil here, I’ve been ridiculed and called names all throughout this thread, see for yourself. Honestly, I’m proud to say I didn’t lose my cool until the 392nd post.

  • Muttley

    Item #1 on the list was “The Appendix” and part of the description read: “most scientists agree with Darwin’s suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had…”

    Absolutely – this is why 1.8-metre humans have an appendix approximately the size of their little finger (uninflamed) while a Koala – at just under 1 metre – has an appendix between 5 and 6 FEET long!

    And Matt Ryan – As many wars and “uglinesses” have been perpetrated in the name of greed, wealth (oil, water, gold. land etc) as there have in the name of religion: World Wars 1 & 2 had nothing to do with religion – It was the Jewish CULTURAL ideologies & practices as opposed to their faith or religious practices that caused them to e despised by Hitler.

    THe Wars of Alexander, The Persians, The Egyptians, The Greeks & Rome, The 100 Years War, The 30 Years War, The Napoleonic Wars, The Russian & French Revolution, The English, Spanish, American, Germanic Civil Wars, The Wars of 1812 and the Revolutionary, The Korean, Vietnam, Iraqui (Editions 1 AND 2) and Afghanistan – were ALL fought for reasons which had NOTHING to do with religion, faith or a belief in God.

    Try and become a little less bigoted to those who believe in something greater than themselves – you might become a better person for it.

    BTW – You’re going to burn in Hell, too!!!! :-D

  • lo

    i will respond to 332:

    “What we see in bacteria isn’t “molecules to man” evolution. It’s adaptation. It’s a loss of genetic information and not a gain. Sometimes these adaptations can be beneficial but it’s still a LOSS of genetic information.
    This bacteria may be able to survive a man-made poison within a lab, but would be less adept to flourish in the wild and would likely be “selected” against. Inheritance of the mutation that allows them to resist antibiotics was simply already there in some bacteria or passed along by others. It’s nothing new, simply a resurgence of what was already present.”

    this is simply wrong. a new mutation is not a “loss of genetic information” it’s the gaining of new. and 332’s understanding of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is flawed. see my comments 304 & 313 for details on how natural, evolutionary trait selection occurs in ALL living organisms and how new species form.

    when a bacteria, lets say the one responsible for tuberculosis, is exposed to “poisons” not in some lab petri dish (those this too has definitely been done as a controlled study) but in many, many human bodies who are being treated for the disease there will sometimes emerge a few strains of the bacteria that are not killed but the administered “poisons” and breed on. they are now drug-resistant-tuberculosis, a real problem we humans face today.

    there are real concerns that the widespread use of antibiotics in the modern world, in the food given to the animals we eat, the hand wash we use, and medicines that may be too freely prescribed (this last one is changing as physicians understand the threat) and often not taken long enough by patients who “feel better” or just forget to finish the full course are providing ample environmental conditions for many kinds of bacteria to become untreatable. this is why there is a constant quest for drug developing company to find/create new antibiotics -penicillin stopped curing everything a long time ago.

    if you read my other comments i think they refute the points made in 332 and 349, even though they came before them!

    and as a final note, “intelligent design theory” is a philosophical belief system, not a science.

    it is not open to empirical testing and is not falsifiable, so it is not science, it’s philosophy.

    this doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to think about or even teach in the right academic discipline, just a VERY bad thing to teach in a SCIENCE classroom if we want our citizens to have any sort of education that can compete on a global level (that refers to the states, where this is such a big deal. i don’t know if other countries are struggling with this question.)

    • tim

      Sorry lo to say this, but according to your own comments – intelligent design is not falsifiable and is therefore not science is an untrue claim. Because evolution is not falsifiable. Shouldn't that therefore make it not science. The very point of falsification is to test a theory. Science requires that you can theoretically produce an experiment in order to falsify a theory. Nobody can ever produce an experiment that can falsify evolution (not because Evolution is 'fact', but because the overwhelming faith and support in evolution drives scientists to find a way to explain away the contradiction).

  • south

    ah yes the awesomely controversial topic of evolution, I’m a religious guy myself, but i have absolutely no problem with the idea of evolution…religiously that is. God’s done crazier stuff like bringin people back from the dead, healing the blind and such, i certainly dont understand how he did that, and it doesnt offend me to think that he could have set evolution into motion, but scientifically its just not there. Adaptation is 100% true. Say its the start of the ice age, and there are fox(es?) that use to live in the plains and woods but now everything is iced over. they use to be red for the most part, but after a long amount of time almost every fox is white or grey in appearance. This would be because the fox already had the trait for white hair, and the ones with the white hair have an obvious advantage for hunting and hiding from preditors and over time the trait would take over aas dominate. Thats adaptation, something is already there, and it is brought forward by natural selection.

  • lo

    Reyairia- i can’t and won’t refute your experience, it’s real.

    just remember that one male dog and 3 females is a VERY small test sample.

    who’s to say who they would have bred with if there had been 100’s of choices? that’s why the street dogs interested me -there are TONS of them in some places -some governments go on periodic “cleaning” campaigns where they poison as many as they can, but they never all go away.

  • Mr. Plow

    353. Anon

    You have no need to ask me for forgiveness for anything…it’s not my place…and it’s none of my business anyway.

    I was simply making an observation from personal experience here on LV that I see a lot of intolerance when religion is brought up.

    You disagree, c’est la vie…who starts these fights here is not something we are going to objectively know anyway…simply a matter of opinion.

    Really, I don’t care what people believe. I consider myself a pretty libertarian and don’t really care…as long as you are not imposing your will on someone…believe whatever you want. I would vote for a satanic president, if they truly believed in individual liberty (full disclosure, I voted for Paul.)

    What really gets me worked up is intellectual dishonesty. A degree from a university or a stated belief in what they think passes for logic does not an intellectual make. A belief in evolutionary biology does not in any way intellectually elevate one person over another who may believe in a alternative theory.

    More often that not, religion is made into nothing more than a whipping boy for pseudo intellectual wannabes who somehow believe their atheism is proof of their superior intelligence.

    It’s that condescendence, that air of moral superiority, their arrogant dismissal of the ‘idiots who believe in some boogy-man in the sky’ as mere children who could not possibly understand the complexity and depth of their self proclaimed brilliance, that unearned sense of self-importance…that is what is so grating.

    Not that I am accusing you or anyone else specifically. In fact, I believe you are one of the more articulate posters here, and have wondered when we would have an exchange like this.

    I am sure you would agree, it’s this intolerance and intellectual dishonesty that is rampant in most public forums on the internet that make discussing these topics nearly impossible.

    You can be intelligent and believe in a higher power, just as you be intelligent and can deny the existence of said higher power.

    I think, once again you would agree that the rub is in the respect you show, the tolerance you display, and the intellectually honest framing of your opponents arguments.

    Respectfully,
    m-plow

  • south

    adaptation – proven, traits that are already there can become more prevelant through natural selection, but evolution as most people define it -evolving from one species to another, adding of information, goo to worm to slug to dog to monkey to person. COMPLETELY unprovable, more far fetched than OJ’s innocence

  • anthony p

    395 and down

    Im not saying you have anger issues, i’m just saying that you are all argueing your beliefs and clearly none of you will give in because that would make you feel like you lost a little bit of yourself so why not agree to disagree and get on with your bloody lives, im telling you this is how wars start.

    **Save the world 2009, agree to disagree and laugh at yourself***

    As for the name calling, thats just a little sad to be honest. Thats gies for everyone.

  • Tom3289

    Excellent list. One point about wisdom teeth however. I do not believe it is as much that as our diet changed, we have evolved to have smaller jaws. Rather, since the foods we eat are much softer and easier to chew than in our ancestral days, our jaws develop less as we age. I am certain that if you raised a child eating the same foods as our ancestors, his jaw would be large (Brad Pitt-esque) and his third molars would grow in just fine.

    It doesn’t make sense that our jaws just evolved to be smaller because having ill-fitting third molars is a large evolutionary disadvantage.

  • Anon

    Mr Plow,

    Thanks for the reply. I’ll take the opportunity to walk back and give my ex dead-horse another bale of hay!

    I was never in conflict with you personally. I think where and how we humans align ourselves spiritually and philosophically is not too different ftom politics. The fanatical extremes that are supposedly as far apart ideologically from one another as can be, often have far more in common than with their ‘moderate’ partners near the centre, who in turn have more in common …

    I expect you to defend your corner against dishonest attack from your *opponents*. My job is to protect what’s important to me, although I admit to having ridden in defence of the Bible in LV when it was under absurd atttack. I was merely pointing out above that people who use the Bible to negate evolution and other science are exactly for me as your nemeses are for you. As dishonest, or perhaps sometimes even more so. For they unthinkingly accept as undisputed science what would otherwise nowadays expose them to ridicule (planet as a globe in space orbiting the sun, not flat and the centre of the universe, gravity and much else, even the concept of some flexibility in species as evidenced by proven domestic breeding programmes, etc.). But anything that appears threatening to (their) dogma and can still be denied is denied, and presented as mystic, inexplicable Divine work, with its alternative reational scientific explanation(s) pilloried as effective blasphemy.

    Now that’s not how my wife, or you or the many religious folk I know and respect behave. But you know the attitude is alive and well and living in this very thread.

  • romerozombie

    Once myself and everyone here has died and moved on to the afterlife, I and Darwin will be laughing at all your stupid anti-evolution faces.

    I’m agnostic.

  • lo

    anthony p-

    “i’m just saying that you are all argueing your beliefs”

    that’s actually a fundamental problem in this debate (not only here, everywhere) while religious beliefs are just that: beliefs, defined and reinforced by faith, science is not a matter of belief on its most basic level.

    science is about observing the natural world and noting how things work -this part is not about “beliefs.” gravity is going to work no matter how much someone chooses not to believe in it.

    now when it come to the larger theories people draw from many small observations, “belief” may enter the picture, like when someone says “there are 15, repeatable, sound experiments supporting theory A, and 2 supporting theory B. so the weight of the evidence supports theory A (at this point this is all the summation of observed and recorded phenomena, not beliefs) -so i choose to believe theory A is more valid (that’s were the belief kicked in, they were still free to support theory B and even design more experiments to find more support for it, in fact people making these choices is what moves science along!)

    but it would be a mistake to see the scientific method itself as purely a belief structure, it’s designed to be the very opposite :)

  • loop

    Screw you all! I’ll live in the “here and now” because there is no proof to one extent or the other! And I am a former priest! Find God’s proof in the day-to-day experiences that we all share. It’s not “biblical”, it’s not ” empirical”. It’s about believing in SOMETHING!!! It’s not the “name” you put to it, it’s the life you live behind that belief!!!

  • Mr. Plow

    Anon,

    Well said my friend. Fair enough. See you around.

  • anthony p

    sigh…….. So let me get this straight, people like to argue for the sake of argueing even when they know there is no chance of one side caving in leaving both parties angry and frustrated……..im starting to see why the world is screwed.

  • Reyairia

    lo:
    Yeah, I agree. Further studies would have to deal with such things, but you have to admit, it would make sense if it were true.

  • Anon

    I think the dead horse floggery of all this is pointed up by lo’s 397 comment.

    It’s a very careful, informed and detailed explanation about bacteria all of us with a bit of nous should be able to pick up on and absorb.

    What have opponents of it got to offer? They cannot carefully explain in similar detail some positive alternative theory to evolution to account for how all this observable action comes about/has come about, because no such alternative explanation exists (and I mean explanation, not statement of belief and faith, i.e. organic life is so complicated and wonderful the only answer is – doggonit, er, sorry, goddoneit). If it did, it would immediately be in the scientific domain (scientists are VERY ambitious folks!). All they can do is to treat this knowledgeable and detailed explanation by lo and others as an Aunt Sally and try to knock it down negatively. To do this they basically draw on information science itself in its openness provides (i.e., science’s healthy internal disputes, revelation of its own very occasional frauds, and so on). This is the classical fundamentalist ploy because there is no other available. And as we are seeing here, (a) it simply doesn’t work, but (b) even so, those who cannot win seldom admit defeat (Rolo grudgingly, but how sincerely?).

  • joshyboy

    cool

  • Audrizzle

    My boyfriend actually has quite pronounced Darwin’s Points. They’re little triangles of skin right where the guy in the picture just has a little bump. He didn’t even know about them until I read about them somewhere.

  • Anon

    anthony p, (409),

    “sigh…….. So let me get this straight, people like to argue for the sake of argueing even when they know there is no chance of one side caving in leaving both parties angry and frustrated……..im starting to see why the world is screwed.”

    Aha, so you are coming ROUND to the point that left me tempted to put the human *brain into this equation!

    *I’ll confess I first spelt that as *brian*, as in ‘Life of Brain’

  • Bill Jefferys

    Oddly, a new use for wisdom teeth was reported today in the Washington Post. They are the only teeth that may be a source of tooth stem cells, and in 5-10-15 years may actually be useful for growing new teeth for replacing them in individuals lucky enough to still have them.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401941.html?referrer=emailarticle

    This doesn’t undermine the thrust of the article, of course.

    Bill

  • Beatrix

    the top of my ears do not fold over (they are kind of like elf ears) :) My dad has almost the same ears but his are slightly folded but not so much. No one else in my family has this trait and I have never seen anyone else with the same characteristic. does anyone else have this ear trait?

  • anthony p

    414

    I cant spell to save myself, or should i say, i type faster then my brain can spell the words. So shall we start our own more tolerant planet? I here Mars is nice this time of Year (thats a mars year not an earth year)

  • Anon

    anthony p

    I wonder if we could insist that immigrants to the Red Planet had to carry tolerant behaviour and no conflicting characteristics in their genetic makeup? From what little I know of the *gene-scene* that would be difficult indeed from scratch, I’d say impossible. Passivity can be bred into domestic animals over time, but would require selective breeding programmes and eugenics (i.e. INTOLERANCE!) which would be a tad difficult for a group bred for TOLERANCE to apply! Hahaha.

    Mars bars are richly sustaining nosh though, and I suppose there would be an infinite supply. Which would mean all the colonists’ teeth as well as their wisdoms would not only become redundant, but would rot and drop our anyway. Parents would then give rise to unaggressive, toothless children on the Planet of War by conscious will, thus rapidly forming a new Lamarckian species, Homo martiensis.

  • lo

    where are people getting this idea? i’ve seen it at least twice in these comments and have never heard it before:

    “Thats adaptation, something is already there, and it is brought forward by natural selection. (398)” it was also in 332’s original thoughts on bacteria.

    is there some creationist group teaching that all genetic features in all creatures are pre-determined and unchanging? that all possible genetic variants and the traits they code for are “already there?”

    because that’s false. it’s well known to be false.

    the way organisms create new strands of DNA or RNA is complicated (google DNA synthesis if you want to know more), and in this complicated process sometimes mistakes are made, resulting in a brand NEW sequence of DNA that may code for a trait that this new organism’s parents NEVER had. THIS is what is known as a “genetic mutation” resulting in a “mutant” organism, terms everyone’s heard.

    a real world example of this human dwarfism. there are many kinds and some are inherited from parents who were little people themselves, but most are the result of new, random mutations that have nothing to do with the parents genetic history.

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dwarfism/DS01012/DSECTION=causes

    i’ll be really, really sad if some group is actively teaching that mutations don’t occur and all DNA & RNA exists locked in some stable “created” state.

    i care about these things because i am a scientist and i feel you do ill to people when you purposefully teach them faulty information -doing so takes away the tools they need to make their own informed decisions about the nature of the world :(

  • smithstar4

    I believe another fact that proves evolution is the fact that all men think Uma Thurman is sexy as hell.(I’m also a scientist)–Oh,and how about Irving.Yeah you “creationists” don’t wanna talk about him.Irving was just a tiny speck of energy floating thru a void,minding his own business,singing “Me and my shadow” when he started,for no reason,to expand.Finally Irving blew up and became McDonalds,and Wallyworld,and Disneyland and Canada and well…just everything.How do you religious types with your fantastic stories explain that?

  • Anon

    Thanks for flying the flag, lo.

    I have done it and am doing it in other threads, but there is a limit, and I’ve reached it on this one. It looks as though other *regulars* may have too.

    So your persistence is both welcome and valuable.

  • lo

    anon (anon the other botanist, perhaps?)-

    thanks, i’m about done with this one too, but my last question was sincere, as it’s such a weird interpretation of what “adaptation” means, i find it odd that multiple distinct posters (assuming no name-grabbing) would subscribe to it. my gut feeling was they “learned” this definition from somewhere, as opposed to both reaching it independently.

    and if they did, i’d like to know the source of the disinformation. being dumb, or ignorant of truth, is one thing, being informed falsely by an “authority” is quite another.

  • lo

    p.s. to anon (assuming you’re the botanist, i’m a student of the discipline myself)

    i’m thinking of submitting an “amazing plants” list and have most of the candidates for inclusion picked out. it’ll be my first list if i do -and jamie accepts it. :)

  • robneiderman

    Bucslim:
    I wouldn’t dream of calling you names. Also, please leave my coccyx where it is. I’d hate for my precious anus to lack support. As the article said, “the coccyx supports the position of the anus.” I know there’s a political joke in there somewhere. How about if we replace “the coccyx” in that sentence with “the vice president.”

  • astraya

    anthony p and Anon: Kim Stanley Robertson’s Mars novels touch on the psychological requirements for colonisers of a planet. Initially the colonists are in cities, and the first novel begins with a murder. Later, they spread out, and there’s enough space and few enough people (perhaps no more than a million people on a planet the size of the land area of earth) that people don’t have to bump into each other if they don’t want to.

  • Vera Lynn

    ringtailroxy (346)
    I have seen male ducks hold down a female and rape her.And they ran a train on her too (gang rape). I couldn’t believe it the first time I saw it. Unreal. If I hadn’t have seen it, I would never believe it.

  • Nicosia

    I can pick up things with my feet- Does that mean I have a strong plantaris muscle? Or am I just cool?

  • evilk8

    i love watching Salem (my cat) use her Jacobson’s Gland to sniff out interesting things… sometimes her Daddy’s gumboots!

  • ajju

    I heard once that human being once had tail.. and in our body we still have some remains of the same.. is it true?

  • David.Seth

    Doodlebug (#31)

    i just lol’d a bit

  • lo

    yo! ajju (429)-

    it’s #2 on the list. are you being sarcastic? or did you not read that far down?

    ok, i’m getting aggressive, bed-time for me, ‘night y’all.

  • Pheenix

    Whatever. I totally still use my feet to pick stuff up all the time!

  • viks

    wow what a chutiagiri

  • Jill..NOT Jillian!

    Why does everything have to be about religion?
    get over yourselves.

    good list jfrater.

  • bucslim

    Vera Lynn, ringtail,

    Since when does a discussion on evolutionary traits in man shuffle off into a blow-by-blow account of animal gang rape? It’s 7:30 in the am and I wasn’t really expecting that.

    My typical day at work starts around that time every day. And since the Boss won’t be in for another 20 minutes, I like to come to the site expecting someone to carry on the ridiculous and petty evolution vs. creation discussion. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my two older brothers and I had to sit in the back of the Chevy Impala for the drive to Gramma’s house for Thanksgiving. We’d always start fighting. “Dad, Stan touched me. No I didn’t, besides he won’t set still.” and on and on for the next two hours. Then we’d all give each other wet willies and charlie horses until our Dad would reach around the front seat to do the Three Stooges triple slap.

    That’s why I read this post ok? It reminds me of the good ole days. I wasn’t expecting to read about a duck train, ok? We don’t need to hear about the armadillo S-N-M or the hippo reach arounds or the anteater dirty sanchez or hyena’s in latex. This isn’t a Wild Kingdom version of Penthouse forum.

  • mowi

    scientists found that out not religious people.
    there is no god

  • JayArr

    Yun(261) Anything that can be repeated consistently can be proven. Science CAN prove that 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen do in fact comprise a water molecule. This can be repeated almost infinitely (given enough of the two elements) and proves that, with enough water, all the rats in the sewer will drown if they can’t find a floating ** to climb onto. :-)

  • Jeremy

    People who study creation theory do accept evolution. Wow, big surprise huh? How can I say this? Because the word evolution simply means change over time. Which is observable in the present. Also observable by comparing fossils of surviving species with their living counterparts and looking for differences. Creation theorists also accept Natural Selection. Why? Also observable.

    The difference is that creation theory FOLLOWS THE EVIDENCE that evolutionary/selected change = stasis or loss of information. Evolutionary Biology on the other hand insists against observable evidence that somehow information can be introduced through chance mutations and natural selection (remember natural selection can only occur to an organism already in a life cycle. Natural Selection does not explain the RISE OF LIFE in the first place. That’s an altogether different field of study).

    IN EVIDENCE:
    Each of the examples cited in the list above involves a LOSS OF FUNCTION through LOSS OF INFORMATION. Loss of function does not explain a rise of new and separate species, say for instance a dinosaur growing feathers from scales and becoming a bird. Somehow the bird has new and different information encoded in its DNA. Where did it come from?

    Can you cite ONE example of a net gain in information brought about by observed natural selection and observed evolution?

    And actually many of the cited examples of “non-functional” organs in humans have been proven to have a function.

    The Appendix is now theorized to have a major role in the immune system’s function. The belief that the appendix is nonfunctional has been outdated for many years. Just because an organism can survive with out one of its parts does not make that part functionless. If I cut off my left hand, I would live a healthy and normal life, with little major difficulty. Yet it provides great function. Also ear muscles allow us to flex our ears assisting in the clearing of pressure in the sinus network. Oh and the coccyx? I quote from the article “it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.” What evidence is there that it ever served any greater function? If humans or their ancestors never had tails, can you agree that we would still need a coccyx? The evidence shows that we do. Life wouldn’t be very pretty without it.

    Dogs are a great example of selection albeit influenced selection: look at the multiple varied schema available in one species of animal. But they are all still dog species as are wolf, fox, etc.

    PLEASE, if you are going to comment on what I have written, use a thoughtful, logical method of attacking my arguments. Don’t go back to the same old “you’re stupid, creationists are stupid and therefore we don’t have to answer any questions” response.

  • Randall

    Jeremy:

    Enough with the nonsense, okay? Your creationist tactics don’t work here, there are intelligent, educated individuals on this site (myself amongst them) some of whom clearly have a far stronger grasp of biology than you do.

    First of all, the dog example is ridiculous and people have tried that one here before. Variations WITHIN a species–breeds and such–are no argument against evolution. I can’t believe that people even keep trying that one. In fact, I’ve never understood how this is supposed to impress anyone as some kind of “inconsistency” within the theory of evolutionary biology.

    Your argument about the appendix is equally silly. Go here:

    http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CB/CB360_1.html

    But of course the pattern with creationists is that they refuse to listen to actual science–they prefer to engineer and fabricate their own, to further their religious agenda.

    As for your claim about mutations not being able to increase information (another oldy that’s long been debunked) here we are, from the same site:

    “It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term “information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

    A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
    Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
    RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
    Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on “gene duplication” gives more than 3000 references.

    According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism’s genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

    The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

    Enough Jeremy. You’re not fooling anybody. Go back to your insular and scared little existence where REAL science is the enemy, and stop trying to warp it in order to further your agenda that would drag our civilization back into the dark ages.

  • bucslim

    Guess I watched too much “Gilligan’s Island” as a kid. Either that or that damned paperboy tossed my copy of Biochemistry and Thermodynamic Endocrinic Secretions Weekly in the bushes again. Little bastard!

    I’m just glad we’re back on topic instead of duck gang bangs.

  • Anon

    Wow, Randall!

    As deadly as ever, and the only four-letter word I could lay eyes on this time was ‘gene’! Your regular fight-fans may miss the throws, body-crunches, plus cries of “foul” from fallen, winded opponents, but I’m impressed, deeply impressed.

  • Anon

    buc,

    I have some remarkable pers. obs. on frog gang-bangs for your tomorrow morning 7.30 early call, if you wish. The affair can also end in mors amore for the object of carnal desire, I believe.

  • Anon

    lo,

    I’ll be back botanically with you when I’ve had time to settle down, get a bit of (botanical!) work done and shake froggy frigging out of my mind.

  • lalo

    viva el choped con aceitunas

  • Jeremy

    Hey Randall,

    All I did was ask some questions. Why do you have to respond as if I am some kind of Creation Conspirator who is out to get you? And what weight does insult add to your argument? I respect that you and others have I am sure a (good) education that you bring to the table when you argue. But your education alone does not invalidate any of my questions. I am glad though that you did not stop there. Unlike most people whom I have asked the same questions, you have some factual research to offer. I am glad to read it.

    1. I certainly was not trying to disprove evolution through the (very brief)discussion about dogs. Many of my friends have tried to use dogs as an example of evolution in action! I just was pointing out that there is a very wide variety within a known species. No scientist I know of would consider these observable changes to be Macroevolutionary in any respect. Again, with this topic, I am pointing out that creation theorists do accept that Natural Selection can occur. If it can be this easily done artificially, then we certainly will expect to see it in Nature and we do. There are millions of observable developments as the result of Natural Selection going on every day.

    2. The appendix. Guess my point here is that while I know that vestigial does not mean functionless, many others do not grasp this truth. The term Vestigial organs implies a former, now lost, use that is unknown to us. The only evidence given for its vestigial nature is “Its absence causes no known harmful effects.” I just don’t see how a). minimal function necessitates former, greater function. and b). how, if it is a “vestigial” organ that somehow this is proof of macro-evolution. A human with an appendix that had some prior, greater function, would have, indeed been human, no?

    3. My argument about information is largely in reference to the items listed in this article which all (you must agree?) involve a loss or suppression of genetic information. Each item discussed was vestigial or “leftover” in the opinion of the writer. I think that the items which you listed in your articles are much better evidence for information being introduced into a system providing the necessary impetus for “upward” evolution. However, each of the instances which you provided are on a micro-evolutionary scale (which I stated creation theorists agree with, right? I mean they have to – they are observable. And they do). I guess though that those examples you gave aren’t as much fun to talk about as, say, a vestigial tail bone that must have once had greater function than the very important function it still has. Which of course is why the author chose the items he did. Overall, I suppose my point on this topic, is that these examples given in the piece are very poor evidence for Macro-Evolution, as turning on the genes or adding back in the genes that provided their “former” function would not necessarily change the human involved into another species, as none of the given examples would prevent the human involved from breeding with another “modern” human. I know I know, species means more than ability to breed, just saying.
    Further, it looks like the examples cited were done in a lab setting under artificial conditions. If dog variation within species through artificial selection is not evidence for or against macro-evolution or creation, how is this? Or maybe you do think that dog variation is evolution in action?

    4. Who do you think I am trying to fool? At what point was I hiding something or being deceitful? The article is an argument for evolution. An argument for something implies that there is an opposing argument. What makes you think that someone who asks questions along a creationist or ID vein of reasoning is somehow less of an inquiring mind? My Christian belief (never tried to hide that, although I guess because I did not come out and say it first thing) necessitates inquiry into the world around me. Believe it or not Christians are encouraged to be open minded and not just receive teachings blindly but told to search out truth and knowledge and wisdom.
    Science and what you call “REAL science” is not my enemy, and I certainly do not live in an insular and scared little existence as your bigoted pre-formed expectations have caused you to believe. Why would I have even read this article?

    And finally what kind of conspiracy theorist are you to think that I have some type of agenda simply because I raise some questions that I feel should be answered? Isn’t that part of Science, to question what is known and demand the answer to questions that are not answered in one’s own mind?

    Maybe you feel all of the answers have been given. But when one doesn’t accept or understand the given answer would you advocate that he stop asking for further or more explicable evidence? Man believed the earth was round long before it was circumnavigated. It didn’t stop him from “PROVING” it by making the trip, right?

    So you are either doing one of two things:
    1. Telling me to stop asking questions, or
    2. Insinuating that asking the question is anti-science and therefore part of some anti-science agenda.

    What’s next? The space aliens have a secret agent in the white house named Karl Rove?

    Have fun ridiculing me point by point :)

  • DiscHuker

    jeremy: nice response. however, from my experience here randall will still come back firing no matter how meekly you approach. have fun with that and we will have fun reading.

    randall: i love when you blast ignorant folk. however, jeremy seems to be far from that. respond to him as you would a respectable man. we here at LV pride ourselves on reasoned disagreement and respect. let’s see it act out.

  • bucslim

    Anon, anything that involves milt, frog spawn and semi-stagnent water, well, SIGN ME UP BROTHER! I’m as giddy as a hillbilly with a fresh pack o Red Man tobaccy and a date with my cousin!

    Disc, I encourage you to head over to the global warming debate or the black president debate for some fine examples of ‘reasoned debate and respect’ as you put it. Anything that tiptoed on the edge of disagreement with the masses got more hostility than Ted Nugent wearing a sandwich board that said ‘I kill puppies with a lawnmower’ at a PETA convention.

  • Anon

    jeremy,

    “If humans or their ancestors never had tails, can you agree that we would still need a coccyx? The evidence shows that we do. Life wouldn’t be very pretty without it.”

    No. False argument. We might need a structure that functioned as a coccyx. Or a differently designed anus. Or a differently designed *sit-upon*. That is in no way the same as an indispensible coccyx. That organ clearly has the structure of an otherwise dysfunctional tail. I’m not a biologist, but imagine the coccyx doesn’t need to articulate and doesn’t therefore require articulations to perform its present function. The coccyx may not be redundant, but its fussy articulations are.

    Multifunctional organs are one of nature’s neat forms of efficiency. The organ you pee and copulate with is one of them. The hole you stuff cake into, spew it out of, breathe through when your nose is blocked, bore others stiff with by going on about subjects like evolution, cry for help through, stick you tongue out of, (I won’t go into more delicate uses), etc, is another. Would you care to tell me which of those was *first use*, or indeed whether whatever was our first need for a mouth is still extant?

    It would seem pretty reasonable to suppose that the communicating (noise-making) aspect of the mouth followed its breathing and eating functions. After all, plenty of mute simple organisms have mouths. So if we as a species didn’t need one to eat through, wouldn’t we still need a mouth in order to communicate? No again. There are are other possibilities, even if you discount silent signals (i.e. our own sophisticated sign languages). A certain Frenchman called Pujol once obtained a considerable amount of fame and a modest fortune by being able to convey a rich sound world via his back passage! That mutation would surely have gained him breeding advantage in a dumb world, and had he passed on the genes we might all be known as Homo flatulentus by now.

  • lo

    hey jeremy-

    with about 450 comments here you are forgiven for not reading all of them.

    however, if you would like to see refutation of your points by someone in addition to randall i invite you to read all of my comments, in order:

    304, 313, 321, 389, 397, 406, 419

    they cover pretty much every issue you’ve raised, and of course they do it without insulting you, as you weren’t even here yet. but they show your ideas -particularly this bizarre “loss of information” idea- are wrong.

  • GTT

    400. Mr. Plow : where is the “applause” button for that post? Very well said.

  • Jade

    It does not make sense to me that the small toe is no longer useful an may eventually vanish. I will have to research this further.

    Great list, as usual.

  • Randall

    Jeremy:

    I only have a moment here so I’ll have to return later to answer your latest post in its entirety, but I have to warn you, I don’t take kindly to the “what did I do?” little innocent routine. YOU entered this site posting a LENGTHY comment that is lifted almost verbatim from the usual handy-dandy “Lies and Distortions Creationists Can Use to Fool and Mesmerise the Gullible kit” and then you have the GALL to turn the puppy eyes on us with THIS bullshit:

    “All I did was ask some questions. Why do you have to respond as if I am some kind of Creation Conspirator who is out to get you?”

    A) NO, Jeremy, you didn’t just innocently “ask some questions.” You regurgitated very well known and typical Creationist propagandistic “distortion science” PRETENDING it was just a set of “questions,” as though we are to expect that widdle you thought this crap up on your own. If you were REALLY just “asking questions” you could have easily looked this stuff up on the net yourself (or better yet, a college biology text–but I bet you wouldn’t touch one of those with a ten foot pole) and got your answers. Instead, you came here and played the old game of “asking questions” when in fact what you were doing was presenting a Big Lie to further your creationist propaganda aims. Don’t BS me, kid. I can see right through you.

    B) Don’t worry, slick, I don’t think you’re “out to get me.” But I AM out to get YOU, and you can damn well bet when people like you raise this crap up, I’ll be here to slam you down with the FACTS and the TRUTH. And again, don’t play innocent with me. It pisses me off and insults my intelligence. You and I both know damn well what you were doing, so knock off the act.

    “And what weight does insult add to your argument?”

    If you think you’ve been insulted Jeremy, you don’t know me very well. I treated you more delicately than you deserve. Don’t push me.

    “But your education alone does not invalidate any of my questions.”

    No, but my answer does, and it has. Your “questions” have been dealt with. Now go peddle them elsewhere where the less informed might listen to you. Or better yet, grow up and knock it off and accept that maybe god works in ways none of us will EVER understand, and it doesn’t behoove our human intellects to go around denying what science clearly shows us–it demeans ourselves, and demeans god to boot, since he gave us these freakin’ brains in the first place. Instead of feeling threatened by evolution and all of its attendant ramifications, go invest yourself in true spirituality–examine your own life, and help the poor, and leave the world a better, kinder place. Stop trying to force the rest of us to peel back the layers of civilization that our ancestors have worked so hard to build up.

    “I am glad though that you did not stop there. Unlike most people whom I have asked the same questions, you have some factual research to offer. I am glad to read it.”

    Very well then… read and learn. If you’re actually capable of doing so with an open mind, then I hope you will.

  • Anon

    buc,

    Hear, hear. That was low power stuff indeed from Randall by his own towering standards, which I took as relative respect for jeremy. The mere absence of the usual fistful of colourful Randall descriptive epithets showed enormous restraint. As I hinted, I suspect his faithful fans will be distinctly downcast at the lack of red-pigmented fluid on the canvas as it is. I doubt anyone will get better pulled-punches from him (with luck!).

    Yeah, and what’s with all this LV gentility of a sudden anyway

    Froggy would a-wooin’ go. I bet y’all have a Cajun recipe for frogspawn. Or do you shake it up with ya Jack Daniel’s for a nightcap or sumpun’?

  • Anon

    But he’s definitely warming up.

  • Anon

    Let’s spell it out.

    Randall is an unreconstructed stick man and always will be. He’s not Bugs Bunny. He doesn’t need to see in the dark. Tapered orange root vegetables are foreign to his nature.

    O.K.?

  • Jeremy

    To Anon in #448. I’m not gonna argue every point just for time. I understand redundancy of use, etc. I wonder though, do you think the “it should have been designed better if it were designed” argument is really valid? I think its a bad one. It’s humorous to me when I’ve seen documentaries describe things such as the human eye or the eye in general as a clunky, poorly formed organ that is a danger to its owner. Kind of like arm-chair quarterbacking. You said “We might need a structure that functioned as a coccyx.” Hmm, we’ve got one. Why improve on a design that works fine?

    Maybe it could have been designed better or evolved better, I don’t know. But it would not be the first time that parts of an animal that seem useless or even detrimental were later discovered to have a purpose.

  • Mom424

    Jeremy; Excuse me for interrupting but you yourself have just given the best argument against intelligent design. “Maybe it could have been designed or evolved better” takes the wind right out of the fundamentalist argument. That just can’t be if God is perfect and infallible. Makes complete sense if we’re using something that was originally used for some other purpose.

  • Jeremy

    “Lies and Distortions Creationists Can Use to Fool and Mesmerise the Gullible kit” Hey, where can I buy this!?

    Seriously. Yeah you’ve probably heard the arguments I made before. I suppose I should thank you for being so condescending to me Randall.

    You’re right I’m sure that I have “Creationist Propaganda Aims”. What would those be?

    I’m not sure how believing in evolution makes one a better or worse person. So what’s the harm if a few people continue to ask the same questions? I know, it would be terrible if one child was ignorantly seduced into the horrible horribleness of believing the horrible lie of Creation!

    I am sure we’re on the brink of slipping into the dark ages if people believe in Creation. That’s a good joke. Next you’ll be calling me a flat-earther or some such.

    One big question in my mind Randy-man. If someone comes up to you with legitimate questions (if only in his own mind), is it educating him to blow it off as propagandist drivel? No matter where the source of information or disinformation, it seems that by the nature of science alone, questions should be answered. I’m not sure why that makes me a propagandist. I’ve enjoyed our verbal sparring here. I’m not trying to convert you so take it easy. Don’t you find it mentally stimulating at times to philosophically throw yourself to the wolves of discourse? Not sure how that makes me a bad person. Give me some cred man,it seems like most everyone in this comment pool is on the same side, or close to it, of the argument.

    So sorry if you thought I was trying to be innocent. I’m still just asking some questions, and wasn’t sure why you seem to take it so personally.

    *Puppy Eyes* – sorry they’re so Galling to you. try not to be so sensitive.

    Oh, and typically you assume in bigoted fashion that I’ve never been through a biology course in College. Actually I have, and did quite well in both courses. I realize this makes me no professional and no scientist, but you brought it up. Before you jump to conclusions, it was a secular university.

    And why are you talking about “god”. I really do find it hard to believe that you, Randall, believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. Now who’s pretending?
    I’m not one of those who think you have to be a Creationist to believe in God of be a Christian, but come on, really?

    And god gave us our brains? tut tut, I beg to differ, by your own opinion, even if you believe in god, how did that happen? You aren’t a directed theistic evolutionist now, are you?

    You said “…examine your own life, and help the poor, and leave the world a better, kinder place.”
    Come on really? You’re making moral judgments on me now? In a world of random chance and undirected order, upon what moral basis would I have to do any of that? I do examine my life daily, I do help the poor daily, and I strive to influence those around me with gentility and kindness. Preach to someone else please.

    “Stop trying to force the rest of us to peel back the layers of civilization that our ancestors have worked so hard to build up.”

    Am I really in a position to force ANYONE to believe that evolution is untrue just because I ask questions (propaganda or not)?

    Lastly I find it amusing that you assume that simply because one approaches a subject with an open mind as you so condescendingly expressed hope for me, that therefore they must in the end arrive at agreement with Evolutionary Theory. Your implication is that I certainly could NOT have arrived at my conclusions with an open mind. A very judgmental, bigoted and pre-conceived statement you’ve made, which leads me to believe sir that you yourself do not approach the subject with an open mind.

    I on the other hand choose to read the information given here, and generously recommended to me by yourself and others in the comment pool. But rest assured Randall, that this is not the first time I’ve heard all of the arguments. Could I make the same claims of your beliefs as you do of my questions after all?

    I will say that of all the people whom I have raised these topics of question and discussion with, yours has been the most reasoned and informed set of responses. I do thank you for that. Judging by others’ comments, I guess I should be surprised at your civility.

    I suppose now that the generally sarcastic tone I have set will from here devolve into a big nasty mess. Pun intended there :)

    Love you man.

  • Jeremy

    Mom424 read it again. you missed my point. I said “I don’t know”. the sentence that follows clarifies my statement.

    Did you not catch the part about armchair quarterbacking?

  • lo

    jeremy-

    it is obvious you don’t want to learn anything, only engage in a little comment war with randall, because you find it fun, i guess.

    if you wanted to THINK about this subject you would read my comments about it, as i invited you to at #449.

    maybe you can enlighten me on the SOURCE of this ridiculous idea that “adaptation is a always a loss of genetic information.” you can find details on my question about this at #419.

    i really do want to know who is teaching people this crap.

    thanks.

  • Anon

    jeremy,

    The other day I couldn’t find a supprt stick I needed for a plant in my garden. Support sticks are designed for the job in question, Rounded, smooth (or with clean nodes if bamboo), the right length, yjickness, taper, etc. You see one, you know one. I couldn’t find one. I found the angle-iron edging off an old piece of furniture. It had several kinks. I straightened it out as best I could stcuk in the ground and tied the plant to it. It FUNCTIONS exactly like a support stick. It is a support stick by co-incidence. But it doesn’t look like a support stick, it wasn’t designed like one, and it was designed originally for some totally different funbction.

    jeremy. You are clearly a bright guy and could work this sinmple stuff out for yourself. Randall is right, and I’m coming back when I have a bit more time to explain just why, and just how these ‘Trojan Horse’ ‘questions’ are exactly as he indicates.

  • Anon

    You can see I’m dashing this stuff off!

  • Dr. Donothing

    Actually number 1 was found to have a function. On I think foxnews.com I read an article that the appendix stores intestinal bacteria or something.

    google it or something JFrater, I’m too lazy to look for it myself lol.

  • Dr. Donothing

    I like all of them, except number 1 and the darwin’s point.

    I don’t understand where they get the reasoning for darwin’s point, or why that because ‘some’ people have this weird little groove in their ear it MUST be related to primates. What if it’s a relatively new feature that replaced the point from our ancestors?

    And number 1, for reasoning as stated above.

  • adam

    To the educated (believers in evolution, or at the very least – non-believers in creationism) you need to look around the internet more. You are using science and real logic against christian logic. This is not a battle that can be won any more than a battle between Obama and Darth Vader. They exist in different realms. Please save yourselves the effort.

    Signed, the rest of the internet that has seen this already attempted hundreds of times already.

  • lo

    adam, of course you are right.

    but the fact that people like young earth creationists (amazingly that idea has not surfaced in these comments, i probably just jinxed it) are clearly more in need of education of what “science” even is than anyone else around, yet are the same people who want to alter public education systems until everyone else is as ignorant as they are, never stops being disgusting. one always hopes that there are other readers who may genuinely be on the fence because they have little or have faulty information and could see the light of reason.

    maybe the 300 millionth time will be the charm, lol.

    everyone knows this is an exercise in futility, but what else can be done on the internet?

  • bxr3

    that lump in the throat, even my own mother associated with men. Some men do not have it, or it is small, or pointed. Some hermaphrodital women have it.That is some kind of evolution. What is it, and why? I only leanred it to be for an extraordinarily loud caveman, it protected muscle that creates our voice.Is it true? some even think it was for natural warriors and it was shield, but that seems far fetched.

  • Anon

    jeremy,

    “I will say that of all the people whom I have raised these topics of question and discussion with, yours has been the most reasoned and informed set of responses.”

    Addressed to Randall. My responses, although serious in essence, have certainly varied from lightweight to flippant in tone. I like to bear in mind that a wide range of lay people look on and need to be kept engaged as well as informed (which has greater relevance than might seem). You asked for replies to your questions. I would remind you that lo recommended to you his series of educated, careful and excellent comments with just that in mind. They are on the same intellectual level as Randall’s, yet you have completely ignored him and them. Your attitiude continues to confirm Randall’s accusation. If you cared or were genuinely interested you would have read and acknowledged. So I think the time has come to propose Randall or anyone else takes off the velvet gloves altogether. Personally, I won’t offer you the satisfaction of squealing “ad hominem” by using any of the words that are beginning to come to mind to describe you.

  • Anon

    adam, (465),

    “To the educated (believers in evolution, or at the very least – non-believers in creationism) you need to look around the internet more. You are using science and real logic against christian logic. This is not a battle that can be won any more than a battle between Obama and Darth Vader. They exist in different realms. Please save yourselves the effort.”

    May we make so bold as to ask what Darth Vader is doing trying to destroy Obana with his laser sword then? To climb out of the metaphor, can you tell me when you last saw an atheist scientist walk into a church and shout, “You are all living a self-deluding sham. This God you’re spending precious hours of your timer doesn’t exist.” No, they don’t do they? So why do Creationists think they have the F***** right to wreck the careful structure called evolutionary science that many of us not value as the search for the way part of our world functions. Not only that, but something that forms an integral part of our working lives.

    To hell with hardcore Creationists. The inability to turn them is immaterial. Scientifically they are alñready as damned as they consider we are spiritually. What we are fighhting for here are the hearts and minds of the uncommitted. They Shall Not Have THem.

    Supper beckons, I have to post without checking.

  • lo

    anon, my friend, i’m a woman! :)

  • lo

    and anon, thank you for supporting my comments. there is a (novelty, if i remember correctly) website out there that will analyze a writing sample and tell you the likelihood of the author’s gender. in both analysis of formal and causal style writing samples, i scored around 87% likelihood of male authorship. i think it’s being in the sciences that has shaped my writing voice :)

  • Anon

    Correction to 469, Para 2 ll. 5/6.

    … many of us value as the search …

    Other typos are obvious.

  • Anon

    lo,

    It gets better! Sorry, it was crass of me to assume. Being an unconscious, unintending and finally embarrassed gender offender is a not at all uncommon LV syndrome.

    How about if I say some of my best LV friends are women …?
    Or some of my best botanist colleagues …?
    Or my two wives (serial, not parallel!) …?

    Since I’m a man, if it wasn’t implicitly sexist and against the equality of science and modern society, I’d love to say I’m now even more pissed off with jeremy for ignoring you.

    You’re right though. Science speaks with one voice. Hahaha.

  • Skydiver

    Adam #465.

    Don’t be so quick to dismiss the argument as futile, this is exactly what creationists want us to do, it’s the only way they can continue.

    There’s an inherent danger when creationist nonsense is passed down to children who are indoctrinated with this spurious way of thinking. It immediately closes their minds and reverts future generations to 17th century thinking.

    I prefer to enlighten and let open minds think for themselves. We are all born atheist, it’s our default setting (this is NOT an insult, regardless of your beliefs now, you were born with none). Religion is indoctrinated into us, usually from a very early age. Creationists unfortunately, can be very close-minded and often refuse to listen to any reason or logic while looking for non-existent flaws, conspiracies(!) or “incomplete” theories in science (all science is theoretical) to try to back up the conclusions that they’ve already come to, which is the reverse of how science works.

    Most creationists come by it honestly, they were raised to think this way and the fear of eternal damnation is far too strong for most of them to even attempt to consider an alternative, let alone search for it. If there is any evidence that counters a specific belief (and there is a lot), it’s just easier to dismiss it, or blame Satan for it.

    So there is certainly a reason to speak up as someone who subscribes to the scientific method, critical thinking and the ability to be open to all ideas, but not immediately accepting them at face value. The reason is not to convert, there is nothing to “convert” to. The reason is not to “win”, we have nothing to gain by convincing everyone creationism is false, and that’s not the agenda, if there is one. Creationists on the other hand, have a lot to lose. The reason to speak up is simply to enlighten the youth whose minds are being shut by theological beliefs that prevent them from learning about some of the real wonders of nature and the amazing feats of mankind.

    Regardless of your beliefs, everyone should watch these videos:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0&playnext=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0&playnext=1

    They give a great explanation of evolution, what it is, and what it is NOT (most important!). Watch them with an open mind and remember that their creators have objectively explored both sides of the argument, are you willing to do the same? I guarantee that you’ll walk away a more enlightened person… and I promise you won’t go to hell for watching them.

  • Anon

    jeremy and all who have reacted to him ,

    Ah yes, back to jeremy of the innocent little questions. Complaining that he is being picked on. Harmless questions that Randall saw right through with his X-ray eyes.

    Well, I’m not blessed with those and don’t know whether it’s an agenda for real, or just co-incidence. But … jeremy, if you wander onto a raging battlefield with a perfect dummy replica of a M16, point it at combatants, look down the sights at them and allow your knuckles to whiten on the trigger, expect to get shot for real, and don’t whinge naïvely yours was only a plastic model. Or as they say, if it looks like, sounds like, smells like, acts like …

    Now, let’s see why anti-evolutionists love to pose innocent and reasonable-seeming little ‘Trojan Horse’ questions in public places such as websites. (Which also appears to demonstrate how scientific their credentials are.) Example:

    “Loss of function does not explain a rise of new and separate species, say for instance a dinosaur growing feathers from scales and becoming a bird. Somehow the bird has new and different information encoded in its DNA. Where did it come from?”

    Now a child, almost a baby, could understand all that simple language, the simple idea. It’s also implicitly inviting the uninformed, impressionable reader or onlooker to seriously doubt such a thing could happen and to question along with the questioner. Of course, there’s a perfectly good scientific answer as the questioner may in fact know. Anyone genuinely interested could have read up that answer and a great deal more besides. But here’s the rub. Such answers tend to be technical, and ‘n’ times more complicated than the question. So although accurate, to the point and conclusive, when supplied they are often not read or not understood by some, many or most lay persons. And if there is an agenda, the questioner will be perfectly aware of this from the word go. But the perverted question will have got across to the public and hit home. The dismissive answer will not. Creationist mission accomplished. Backdoor victory. Evolution is then ‘softened up’ for being discredited as a wicked untrue invention designed to destroy the faith of innocent babes and sucklings.

    That’s why Randall, Dawkins, and by now I suspect lo, and many of the rest of us get so angry with these immoral religious fifth-columnists. And may then be accused of aggression against harmless and sincere doubters: and probably of paranoia as well.

    I can’t be sure whether Jeremy is one of these cunning wolves in sheep’s clothing, but he SAF acts like one.

    I’ve stated the ‘Jefferson Code’ before in LV, but it bears repeating here. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    (I’ve been a while off air-writing this, hope it’s not repeating.)

  • Anon

    jeremy,

    “Give me some cred man,it seems like most everyone in this comment pool is on the same side, or close to it, of the argument.”

    We WILL ask jfr to topic flat earth, Your Opìnion. Then you can demonstrate your debating flair and sense of fairness arguing against the *most everyone* who will be under the curious and remarkable delusion that our planet is a globe.
    After all, we should go on questioning whether the Earth isn’t flat, shouldn’t we? By the nature of science, that question should be asked and answered.

  • Thos Weatherby

    The appendix does have a purpose. It’s there to store the bacteria that thrives in your intestines. When you have the runs and that empties your intestines, the appendix stores and releases the bacteria so you can get back to normal. If you didn’t have this bacteria, your food wouldn’t be broken down and your body couldn’t absorb the nutrients.

  • lo

    off topic:

    but i found the fun “gender guesser” site that will tell you if your writing style says “male or female”

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.html#Analyze

    it was developed by some college students, so perhaps i was remiss in calling it a “novelty’ site. but it’s fun none the less.

    and jeremy, if you come back here, i’m still waiting for your response.

  • Mr. Plow

    GTT, thanks man, it’s very appreciated.

    It’s unfortunate how ugly this thread has gotten. Randall is exactly the kind of person I am talking about in my prior post.

    The bitch of it is, I don’t even disagree with him about evolutionary biology/theory or the science its predicated on.

    But the whole ebully thing got old by 1995…the shit is tired. Nothing more pathetic than the internet toughguy.

    There is nothing heroic or impressive insulting someone you disagree with…and what is more, it has nothing to do with supporting an argument and everything to do with boosting an ego.

    “I treated you more delicately than you deserve. Don’t push me.”

    Great thing we have an arbiter of all things scientific…a great defender that verbally punish all those who challenge step forward in the name of truth and justice. Truley, an internet superhero…

    Give me a effin’ break.

  • lo

    mr. plow-

    have you read my comments (304, 313, 321, 389, 397, 406, 419)?

    i think they make the same scientifically valid points as randall, (and perhaps a few more) without insulting/baiting anybody.

  • BooRadley

    Wow. I’ve been wanting to add a comment since I started reading this list, but I kept needing to stop and do other things (life, you know…). Now that I am finally able to post, I find that most of what I had to say has been said, and very well, I might add.

    Randall, you are a wonder. lo,Anon – it has been a pleasure to read your comments. Bucslim – I LOVE the way you sneek in there when everyone is so serious and make me burst out laughing! Thank you! #366 was my favorite. (No offense, Randall, but I’m sure your sense of humor is able to take it.) I love LU!

  • lo

    481. BooRadley, your comment on bucslim just makes me want to repost my own comment on his, i’d skip the reposting if these comments weren’t so ungodly long:

    “and bucslim-

    this comment is the highlight of the whole list for me:

    “I’m just glad God left my coccyx where it is. I appreciate it’s role in the positioning of my anus. I mean, you can’t just have your anus position in a sloppy, haphazard way. If anuses were left to their own devices, then we’d have anarchy. What if we all had anuses in different positions?

    All hail the coccyx and it’s role in our daily lives!”

    i’d cry if your idiocy was banned! ”

    see, even scientists love good humor ;)

  • Tallu

    Great list to start off with =D
    But as soon as I saw it I knew you’d get the blah blah god created us…something or other. Which is cool. But completely pointless, seeing as though the list does not refer to us ever being apes, and only seems to say that we have experienced a change in diet, which is logical, we couldn’t always have been eating racks of marinated lamb for the last million years….Instead of an ape, perhaps God created us and we’ve evolved from a Tarzan-like guy who ate a lot of leafy veggies, climbed around on trees and needed a third eyelid.

  • DiscHuker

    lo: we know you are here. you don’t have to keep reminding us. perhaps no one is referencing your comments because they didn’t find them especially insightful or humorous.

    i’ve been in debate with 3 or 4 different people at times here and it is much easier to just stick with one person’s questions and comments. let jeremy and randall keep sparring.

  • Cernunnos

    i’ve got the folded point of the ear. o.O

    great list, jamie!

  • Cernunnos

    @ 26:
    if you would like a list of top ten signs that god created man, make one yourself then! no one is stopping you.

    i am however afraid that would be a top one reasons god created man, and the only reason would be “the bible says so.”

  • bucslim

    Boo, lo,

    Sure is a lot of love flowing here, my Jacobson organ now has painful priapism. I think I can get that drained or something. I’ll wait 4 hours to see if the swelling goes down before I call my doctor.

    And Boo, sorry about the folks leaving you chained up in the basement all those years. I know what that’s like because my parents locked me in my brother’s closet for 2 years where the only thing to keep me company was my brother’s stack of Swank magazines and a few TV dinners (salisbury steak) were slid under the door occasionally. (I found out what my junk DNA was all about)

    But I’m sure glad they let you out for some fresh air that one night when Scout was walking home.

  • Anon

    Mr. Plow, (479),

    “It’s unfortunate how ugly this thread has gotten. Randall is exactly the kind of person I am talking about in my prior post.

    Nothing more pathetic than the internet toughguy.”

    I’ll name a few then.

    trollz, not least those who usurp others’ names, and especially the rantingly obscene. The intellectually hypocritical and insincere, many of whom, sadly, claim to be religious, whose main concern is to torpedo important aspects of others’ lives by any means. A related ‘species’ to the last – intolerant fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes. Those who haven’t an idea in their head, but know how to express their ‘ideas’ perfectly in text nobody else can make out, or spelling that came by shaking up the letters and putting them down in any old order. Commenters who lose arguments, but haven’t the guts to acknowledge it: and just creep off without bothering to reply.

    I could go on for much longer. For me there are dozens of these gash types for every informed, honest, insightful Randall who (in the opinion of some) may overstep the mark, but puts time and thought into his replies. Personally, I tend to find Randall’s acidity a refreshing antidote to all the aforementioned e-dross.

    How about the rest of youse?

  • Anon

    Disk, (484),

    Don’t knock lo. If you read the thread through, you’ll find a type called jeremy specifically requested explanations for several stated evolutionary phenonemna. lo referenced her earlier explanations, which gave the required answers. jeremy then proceeded to comment that no one except Randall had offered a serious reply.

    Well?

  • DiscHuker

    here is a question i asked earlier that no one responded to…

    is it possible to have disagreement with the evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) and yet still be rational?

    from what i have read, to support any theory other than this one makes one “close-minded” “irrational” “dangerous” “ignorant” “fundamentalist”, etc, etc.

  • Jeremy

    Just have to clarify and offer an apology. It’s so easy to just type a sentence and it sounds good and then post it… I really do try to avoid being a light-the-fuse-and-run type of guy.

    When I wrote to Randall that “I will say that of all the people whom I have raised these topics of question and discussion with, yours has been the most reasoned and informed set of responses.” I was being, on reflection, particularly thoughtless in my reference.

    My intention was to convey that, aside from this comment thread, previous responses from other people, who are unrelated to this thread, have been particularly unreasonable and uninformed.

    I should say that ALL of you have been quite particularly reasonable and thoughtful in your discussions with me. Thank you all for your overall thoughtful debate and generally reasonable tone.

    I have not had the time yet to read everything referenced to me by lo and Anon as of yet. I am a working father, so as I am sure some of you know, research time escapes me very quickly.

  • Jeremy

    One thing… were you suggesting that you think I believe in a flat-earth in 476, anon? In post 445 I wrote “Man believed the earth was round long before it was circumnavigated. It didn’t stop him from “PROVING” it by making the trip, right?” Since then, man has established further proofs of the global nature of the earth including trips to space etc. Further research into this has shown that the earth is not perfectly spherical but bulges. So I don’t know if the questions about known facts of science ever should stop.

    I really don’t know of any conservative christian, creationsist, or other group that adheres to flat-earth ideology. I know there are some lone groups out there who still try to make the case, but as far as I know they are very limited or deliberate hoaxers and not legitimate organizations…
    As for the basis of inferring that a Christian may possibly believe in a flat-earth, the general reference point used for this is that in poetic passages authors have described the “four corners” of the earth. But those are no more anti-science than compass points (4 you recall). Other passages (not specifically poetic) describe the earth as a circle.

  • Mr. Plow

    Anon,

    “many of whom, sadly, claim to be religious, whose main concern is to torpedo important aspects of others’ lives by any means. ”

    I highly doubt any one’s lives are going to be torpedoed here on a LV comment forum. Let’s not get maudlin.

    Ganging up on some guy with a different point of view who is trying to be sincere is just plain lame…no matter what intellectual justifications you Randall apologists offer…it still is effin’ lame. The equivalent of a kid cherring on a bully at the side of a schoolyard fight.

    Gutless cheering on of a jerk becuase he is on your ‘side’ is just plain lame.

    As I have said earlier, I don’t disagree with Randall on the science of the discussion.

    And lo, my previous post is not reffering to you.

  • Anon

    jeremy, (492),

    I’m just off out. No. Re flat earth I was piss-pulling, squire! Of course I know you don’t believe in that.

    Er … do you?

    When I come back I’ll try to answer your one on feathers and scales from an angle that I hope will make sense to anyone here whose third eye (mental nictitating membrane!) closes at the mere mention of DNA and explanation of genetic mutation.

    Disk,

    The answer may be unfolding before your eyes.

    Second point. I haven’t seen any other THEORY supported than evolution. All the rest have either been questions about it (fair enough) or attacks on it.

  • TonyDee

    I have just read the Rolo vs Randall parts and i am impressed!

    …with Rolo.

    For being able to admit his errors and willing to look the alternatives which he/she soarly missed out on in the past.

    Its good to see that someone is willing to shake off their ignorance and learn. Good one Rolo.

  • TonyDee

    AM I A FREAK?

    This is me in this youtube video:

    _8xO6BN2r2Q

    or

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_8xO6BN2r2Q

    Who else can od that with their nose?

  • Jeremy

    Disc, thank you for your insightful question in 490. I think this is the overall question I have been concerned with. Probably the reason I felt insulted was that it seems that some here feel that I must have an agenda or I must be a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (a biblical reference, fun!) simply because of my personal beliefs. That somehow my creationist outlook disqualifies me from having a reasonable argument and discussion. Even ignorant, or stupid or agenda-based questions should be answered.

    I think though that perhaps my first impression of this group is wrong, as many of you have given very insightful and reasoned responses to some of my questions and further comments. Thank you for that.

    Of course I have not read all of the things referred to me by lo and anon, but right now my big question (I’ll elucidate it more clearly next paragraph) has not been directly answered I feel. And maybe all of the creationist “propaganda” I have been spewing has prevented me from making that question clear. To do that I have to go back to the article.

    I see and concede some points about the 10 items in the list article. If I were to be searching for signs of macro-evolution, I would expect to see the evidence given here, which is the result of the loss of genetic information which previously encoded for the, then non-vestigial, functions of the ten items in the list. Does anyone disagree that in order to lose an organ’s function, and pass that on to the next generation, DNA encoding for that function must be changed, suppressed, or lost? That’s what makes a genetic trait, passing on the “information” to use my taboo word.

    My (big) question is, given that this list, representing 10 examples of the loss of genetic encoding, is the “Top 10 Signs of Evolution in Modern Man”, where is the evidence of gain of information on a macro-evolutionary scale besides the fact that the information is in place for us to look at?
    Randall gave me some relevant information pointing to several apparent increases in genetic information, but these as I pointed out are on a micro-evolutionary scale. I would like to see evidence of this on a macro-evolutionary scale. I know the easy answer to this, is that given enough time, micro becomes macro, but many scientists don’t accept this and assert the theory of punctuated equilibrium which just sounds like an easy out to me. But maybe I just am not getting it.

    Can it be spelled out for me more clearly than just that the genetic encoding that makes us human rather than rats is there for us to observe, and we know that we share a common ancestor that had different encoding than both rats and humans, so the change in coding must have gotten there somehow, whether it was small and slow or fast and punctuated?

    I’ll try to read lo’s references today when I get time.

    And sorry my comments are so lengthy. As I said, I really try hard not to be a light-the-fuse-and-run kind of fellow.

  • KEV

    Don’t believe everything you read . I mean hell was invented to get people into christianity . And that is what keeps them there . Evolution is sound the bible is not . Yet still people will not open there eyes and accept the facts

  • GTT

    479. Mr. Plow: Just a tiny point of correction, it´s WOman… ;)

    ——————–

    480. lo: I think that´s exactly why you were not catagorized as the bully. I have to say, I loved reading your posts. I´m a big supporter of evolutionary biology and your arguments and links provided some very interesting details and explanations. :)

    OK, not to start another war (and I freely admit I´m not familiar with the intelligent design even after some preliminary research due to the fact that work keeps me from finding detailed sources), but what is exactly the difference between evolutionary biology and intelligent design? Is it just the fact that one promotes chance/randomness as the cause of mutations leading to evolution and the other promotes God? Or is there more to it? Please, please dont bite my head off. I completely agree that only evolutionary science should be taught in schools. It is, in fact, the only one of the two that can be called a science. If you want to believe that God had a finger in it and pushed things along, that´s between you and your God.

    ————-

    488. Anon : Agreed. There are hundreds of thousands of trolls and dribble-spewing idiots on the net (I usually skim through these and move on without giving them much thought). Randall´s posts are always very well thought out, explanations are clear, sources and links are usually given, etc. Overall, very informative reading. And if he´s blasting one of the above-mentioned idiots, then it´s even better. I have to say though, that not all people who have different views are idiots and people posting valid points of view should not be blasted. Can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone posted the exact same opinion? Differences of opinion are exactly what make threads like this interesting.

  • adam

    Well if no one is going to take #500 I guess I’ll jump on it.

    500 comments!! In 3 days.

    Nicely done.

  • Rolo Tomasi

    I admit I was persuaded to accept some things I previously did not. Good job by some people who obviously had well thought out responses. Unlike some of mine. Lol.. (but always entertaining)

    Assuming that the bottom line is: man came from an animal and is still very much an animal. I disagree with the principle. I think the science is compelling and for other arguments I always fall on the side of science. (Seriously, I don’t believe in ghosts, luck, superstition, loch ness monster, UFO’s , or things like that)

    I happen to believe very strongly that humans are far superior to any animal to have been evolved from them over time. Our level of consciousness is something that no animal on earth can approach. Reasoning, self awareness, sympathy, philosophy, love, existentialism, conscious, discerning right from wrong, and our capacity for extraordinary feats of science and wisdom are all abilities that animals cannot approach. Even our capacity for evil and cruelty is something that is not seen in animals.

    I mean you can go on about how your cat loves you and tell some Lassie story about how your dog rescued you from certain death, but it still doesn’t put them anywhere near our level.

    So anyway that’s just my opinion, I think God put us here, it wasn’t some giant accident. There is evidence of intelligent design.

  • Rolo Tomasi

    I admit I was persuaded to accept some things I previously did not. Good job by some people who obviously had well thought out responses. Unlike some of mine. Lol.. (but always entertaining)

    Assuming that the bottom line is: man came from an animal and is still very much an animal. I disagree with the principle. I think the science is compelling and for other arguments I always fall on the side of science. (Seriously, I don’t believe in ghosts, luck, superstition, loch ness monster, UFO’s , or things like that)

    I happen to believe very strongly that humans are far superior to any animal to have been evolved from them over time. Our level of consciousness is something that no animal on earth can approach. Reasoning, self awareness, sympathy, love, existentialism, conscious, discerning right from wrong, and our capacity for extraordinary feats of science and wisdom are all abilities that animals cannot approach. Even our capacity for evil and cruelty is something that is not seen in animals.

    I mean you can go on about how your cat loves you and tell some Lassie story about how your dog rescued you from certain death, but it still doesn’t put them anywhere near our level.

    So anyway that’s just my opinion, I think God put us here, it wasn’t some giant accident. There is evidence of intelligent design.

  • STL Mo

    Disc 490 and Jeremy 497 – You point out the very reason why almost never participate in online evolution vs creation debates.

    I’m so damn tired of being ridiculed as ignorant and stupid and “don’t read books” and “need to grow up” etc. because I believe that God created the universe, not chance. I’m the most well-read person that I know :) and would be very willing to talk to anyone about Christianity and a God-created universe, and how science complements them, and does not negate them.

    But not here. Alas, venues such as this always degenerate into poo-flinging matches, and who ever presents his argument better — and has more vocal cheerleaders — “wins.”

    Even though I’m tired of the online slurs by nameless and/or faceless people, I’m not bothered by it. If I was ever in a position to debate ol’ Richard Dawkins and he called me “insane” for believing in God, I’d say “Fine, I’m insane. Whatever. If you have something less sophomoric to say, then let’s go.”

    Relatedly, I’ve actually written a column on 10 mistakes **Christians** make when talking to non-Christians, and may submit it for Jamie’s consideration. Not sure though. I’d be willing to send it to people otherwise.

  • STL Mo

    (For the record, as if anyone asked me or cares, I agree with microevolution because it is provable and evidential. It’s the theory of macro-evolution that falls apart in my eyes, and I’d still have problems with it even if I weren’t Christian. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense, but as I said much earlier in this thread (somewhere in the 300s), I would not want it taught in schools unless it was properly and extensively vetted. Darwinian evolution has had about 150 years of vetting and etc. Intelligent design, as a theory, is still a babe.)

  • YogiBarrister

    STL Mo, I don’t think you are insane to believe in God. I do however believe that the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, etc. etc. offer very little insight into God, if he/she/it exists. They tell us a lot about people who lived when they were written and are valuable for that alone. The truth about God, IMO, can only be discovered through science and reasoning. Study astronomy, physics, math, biology, and chemistry if you want to know God.

  • JayArr

    Jeremy(438) The dog example is invalid. The reason for most dog variations are due almost exclusively to selective breeding over hundreds and hundreds of years. When allowed to breed on their own, you’ll eventually get something along the lines of the Australian dingo (simply an example) – a more generalized average of the various dog sub-species that went feral and bred freely over the course of several hundred years.

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    I don’t believe anyone here who is grown-up, rational and reasonable is accusing anyone else of being “insane” because they believe in god. I certainly don’t; I believe in god, myself, though our definition of god might be very different.

    It isn’t belief in god that this is about, however. Rather, it’s about undermining a very well-established science with a lot of distortion and “selectively edited” BAD science in order to further an underlying agenda–namely, to erode the Evolutionary Theory, because ever since said theory was codified by Darwin over a hundred years ago, it has been viewed by many Christians–particularly fundamentalists–as a threat to–even an assault on–religion and the very existence of god.

    When I look at so-called “macro-evolution” I see none of the problems you apparently see. Now… why are we viewing this (again) well-established science so differently? It would be one thing if it was truly an argument of science vs. science–i.e., an argument akin to the old one between the steady state theory and the Big Bang theory in cosmology and astro-physics. But it isn’t anything like that. Rather, it’s about an unsupportable and UN-scientific thesis (intelligent design) vs. an established, supported, and for all intents and purposes PROVEN hard science–evolutionary biology. And the reason for this argument? Because it’s the same old argument that Christians have been flinging at evolution all along–only now, because they’ve long since realized that assaulting science from OBVIOUS dogma doesn’t work (it’s clearly anti-intellectual and anti-civilization) they’ve learned to cloak the dogma in a pseudo-scientific fog so that they can stick the foot of doubt in the door.

    Ask yourself WHY. Why do you or why does anyone feel the need to find “intelligent design” in biology, or the universe for that matter? Why? Does it really threaten or undermine anyone’s faith if they CAN’T see the hand of god out there, or within the body? Does it, or should it, really undermine that faith if science in fact CANNOT show us the hand of god and indeed says that it can’t be seen in the data and evidence? What’s wrong with simply assuming that god ISN’T going to reveal himself in that way? What’s wrong with simply assuming that god IS, and leave it at that? Why does anyone feel this compulsion to fight science about it, when science doesn’t for a moment SAY that there is no god? It simply says that god isn’t there in the theory. But god could be above or beyond the theory. What does it matter? It isn’t the job of science to address the nature of or existence of god. So leave it be. Accept evolution for what it is and don’t let it bother you. (I’m not speaking here of YOU particularly, I just mean, those creationists and others in general who feel threatened by or upset by evolutionary biology).

    It doesn’t matter what god is or what god did or didn’t do. If you believe god exists, then that should be all you need. It doesn’t change the overall message.

    100+ years of evolutionary biology has only left us a strengthened, further supported and further proven theory. The ONLY people bickering against this are those who come at it from a dogma–no matter how well they hide it or deny it or sidestep it, the fact is that this is the case. And dogma has no place in science. The two are incompatible.

  • Sherry

    I, and my dependents do not need religion. At all.

  • STL Mo

    Randall – Thanks! (For the record, Dawkins really did say that believing in God is insane.)

    I know plenty of people who see the same kind of dogmatism in the way some defend evolution, but I, myself, no longer propagate that (because many evolutionists truly find the suggestion offensive). If you believe in something strongly, then you believe something strongly. Why does it have to be “dogmatic”? :)

    Repectfully, what you see as established science with Christians desperately trying to undo/stop it, I see very, very smart Christians who are also scientists saying “wait a minute; this doesn’t add up!” What is science, after all, but the search for answers through repeated testing and inquery? Part of my resistance to evolutionary theory is the fact that many scientists and assorted others seem to say “that’s it, it’s settled, you may not question it.” And that flies in the face of the spirit of scientific inquiry.

    I, personally, don’t feel “threatened” by evolutionary biology, but I do get upset when questioning what the majority says is ridiculed, dismissed, rejected AND regarded as “un-scientific.”

    Look at it another way: I could recite verifiable fact after verifiable fact after verifiable fact that proves the Bible is what it claims, yet you would still be skeptical. And that would be perfectly reasonable!

    It is also perfectly reasonable to disagree with the conclusions of evolutionary theory. It’s perfectly reasonable to put forth an alternative theory. That’s what humans do! We question, test, question, postulate, test again, discard theories, create new ones, test, test again, etc. etc. But notice that I said above (#502) that intelligent design is not something that should be taught in the classroom unless or until it is thoroughly vetted & etc. (It hasn’t been yet. It’s been rejected in knee-jerk fashion by committed evolutionists. Sorry.)

    NO ADVANCEMENT would ever take place if we didn’t continually question. Yet evolutionists continually tell me that to question evolution is “stupid” and, to use your word, “bickering.” (A serious question: Since evolution has been built upon & strengthened by scientists for 100+ years, why is that considered valid, while Christianity & the Bible have been built upon and strengthened by theologians and believers from ALL WALKS OF LIFE for thousands of years — and survived — yet it’s invalid?)

    Specific answers to your questions:

    “It isn’t belief in god that this is about, however. Rather, it’s about undermining a very well-established science with a lot of distortion and “selectively edited” BAD science in order to further an underlying agenda–namely, to erode the Evolutionary Theory, because ever since said theory was codified by Darwin over a hundred years ago, it has been viewed by many Christians–particularly fundamentalists–as a threat to–even an assault on–religion and the very existence of god.”

    Me: Actually, you’re right. Many DO see Darwinian evolution as a threat to Christianity because it seems that most anti-Christians these days use Darwin & evolutionary theory to say that there is no God & therefore you’re stupid if you believe it. With both Christians and evolutionists, it’s an either-or proposition.

    “Does it really threaten or undermine anyone’s faith if they CAN’T see the hand of god out there, or within the body?”

    Me: Not at all! Faith IS faith — belief in something that can’t be tested in the usual scientific manner.

    “Does it, or should it, really undermine that faith if science in fact CANNOT show us the hand of god and indeed says that it can’t be seen in the data and evidence?”

    Me: Again, not at all! And that’s a very good point you make.

    “What’s wrong with simply assuming that god ISN’T going to reveal himself in that way?”

    Me: nothing, really. As we Christians like to say, God moves in mysterious ways.

    “What’s wrong with simply assuming that god IS, and leave it at that?”

    Me: then we wouldn’t — or couldn’t — be called Christians, because Christians are not to simply assume that God IS, but to live according to what He says. I think Penn Gillette, a committed atheist, said it best recently when he said, words to the effect, that “If you believe in Jesus and that Jesus is the way to salvation, you must really hate people if you never share Jesus with anyone.”

    “Why does anyone feel this compulsion to fight science about it, when science doesn’t for a moment SAY that there is no god?”

    Me: While science itself doesn’t say there is no God, many scientists and athiests take what science says to say that there is no God. And as for me, like I wrote back in the 300s above, I do not consider science and faith to be mutually exclusive. I find them pretty compatible, in fact. What I fight against it the notion that the science is settled and it can’t be questioned.

    Thanks for your thoughts, Randall. Would that more Christians would dfend the faith as strongly as you defend your views.

  • YogiBarrister

    “Look at it another way: I could recite verifiable fact after verifiable fact after verifiable fact that proves the Bible is what it claims, yet you would still be skeptical. And that would be perfectly reasonable!” STL Mo
    STL Mo, I highly doubt this, not if you are saying you can cite even one fact that proves God wrote the Bible. On the other hand, and I’m no biblical scholar, I can prove just the opposite.

  • STL Mo

    Yogi – wasn’t saying that. I was, however, saying that the Bible is true.

  • Pingback: Top 10 Signs of Evolution in Humans « Dave Williams’ Blog()

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    “Repectfully, what you see as established science with Christians desperately trying to undo/stop it, I see very, very smart Christians who are also scientists saying “wait a minute; this doesn’t add up!””

    But my point exactly. Why is it only CHRISTIAN and likeminded (i.e. Muslim, Jewish–though I know of no well-known Jewish or Muslim opponents to evolution) people who are saying this? (Regardless of whether they’re scientists or not). Do you not see the problem there?

    “Many DO see Darwinian evolution as a threat to Christianity because it seems that most anti-Christians these days use Darwin & evolutionary theory to say that there is no God & therefore you’re stupid if you believe it. With both Christians and evolutionists, it’s an either-or proposition.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know of NO (or very very few anyway) truly intellectual people–or scientists–who support evolution who use evolutionary theory to negate god. In fact it’s just the opposite–most scientists I know have no quarrel with religion.

    Just because some lunkheads might use evolution to bash religion, that doesn’t mean the theory itself really is a threat. If it wasn’t evolution, they’d be using something else. The fact is that religion has been declining in influence and importance in the west for decades now, if not longer. This has nothing to do with evolution, but with the modern mind itself.

  • Anon

    Rolo Tomasi, (502),

    “I happen to believe very strongly that humans are far superior to any animal to have been evolved from them over time.”

    The standard reply is to compare humans with animals as being the latest result of a particular series of evolutionary steps (which one might do justifiably). However, I think the utterly compelling argument to contest your particular objection is essentially to compare humans with humans.

    Let’s just go back a matter of thousands of years (not even millions) before Homo sapiens invented the wheel or agriculture, let alone writing, printing, bricks and mortar, or even how to breech trousers, etc. Let’s assume we are considering a hot climate where even minimal clothing is not needed (as we still find today). We will put a family of those people in a clearing near a family of higher apes. The man may even be carrying a wooden club or spear. Now we will grant a Harrier jump-jet pilot time-travel facility and have him landing in that clearing as well. You are an alien investigator obliged to classify those three groups into two related sets according to *superior capacity*. Obviously the ape and the pilot are the pole extremes. With which are you going to put the primeval man? Of course you are bound to place him with the ape without hesitation. If not, please explain to me how a mere wooden stick makes a hominid nearer a fully equipped pilot in a manufactured Harrier than a *naked ape*? I would remind you that chimpanzees use wooden sticks as weapons.

  • Jeremy

    Randall, for purposes of clarity:

    I was going to use Wikipedia, which I refer to often, but thought for the purpose of avoiding wiki-criticism I’d at least go one step up with Dictionary.com’s (Random House Dictionary) definition of dogma:

    dog?ma
    1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
    2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
    3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
    4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

    While the first two definitions given are religious in nature, when you have described Evolutionary Biology as “well-established science” you fall under definition number four if I am not mistaken.

    Now, I know, I am being silly and nit-picking terms.

    I get your point and know what you mean about dogma vs. science, whether I agree or not. But do you also see from my perspective that when ID people and creation theorists raise questions (propagandist or not)and are slammed for going against the “settled or established opinion, belief, or principle” and are therefore delusional, agenda-driven or moronic, it feels like going up against dogmatic belief, the prescribed doctrine of the scientific establishment (definition 3)?

    You also questioned why ID’s or CT’s would be afraid, etc. I point out that in this comment thread you reacted to my posts with the opinion that I was some sort of propagandist who is part of some established creationist/ID group who is out to peel back all of the foundations of modern civilization and drag our future generations down into some creationist flat-earth Dark Ages. I smell a whiff of fear in that mindset. Where does that come from?

    I think we should all be able to discuss our questions and opinions without feeling afraid or paranoid that someone is out to undermine us or get us. I don’t. But wasn’t it fun having a delightful two day conversation? I know you’ve enjoyed it.

    I haven’t swayed my belief system in the least, yet I’ve gained some valuable information (from you) about various scientific subjects. Some of this I knew already, some I have a deeper understanding of now. I also have gained the experiential knowledge that not everyone out there is an idea smasher (this is a first!). Some great people on this thread have been very generous in considering and responding to my posts (lo and Anon, and yes apparently you Randall).

    Just be assured Randall that I never would expect that my poor personal arguments and explication of (propagandist :) ) creation theory would sway you in the least! I think you or someone else wrote something here about me or others trying to sway the ignorant ones here. Well, that wasn’t my intention. Actually, for the record, the creation groups that I know of do not wish for Creation to be taught in public school science classes. But it shouldn’t be treated like a crime if it is mentioned. Reasonable debate should be allowed. Actually, all of the private Christian schools in my area (I’ve taught English in both secular and private locally) teach evolution and creation in their science classes. It’s actually not true that Christians are afraid to be informed and educated as some have suggested.

    Yes many are afraid to hear the opposing views of evolutionary Science. But asking questions is foundational to getting answers, and both sides should be asking and answering questions without crushing the “ignorant”, right?

    p.s. I secretly think ID people are silly :) I think its actually a way for people to jump on the creationist bandwagon without having to accept that there is a God. And Christians who get involved with promoting it? I think they are being pretentious. If one believes God created the world then why muck about with ID? Aliens, really. I supposed they were designed by other aliens who were designed by other aliens…

    I see others are writing like mad, so forgive me if some of these points are redundant to those just preceding me!

  • Anon

    Jeremy, (497),

    “… a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (a biblical reference, fun!)”

    Absolutely intentionally so, be assured. Never mind that Anon fellow anyway. He’s got one of those funny peculiar British senses of humour. Anyone from a nation that can produce ‘Life of Brian’ is obviously liable to budgeon you with a bibliocal reference.

  • Anon

    … or if he’s been drinking before he types, a bibulous, b..b..bubbly…bibbly…oc…oc…ocally reference.

  • STL Mo

    Randall – thanks again. It’s not just Christians who question evolution. If you look hard enough, you’ll find non-Christians (not-religious) questioning it to. Not to say that there are vast, thundering herds of questioners. ;) But they do exist.

    And by the way, I’m very much aware that Christianity is declining in influence — in the West. (and there are a whole host of reasons for that.) But not the rest of the world. And declining influence doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Christ Himself said that if no one believed, then the very rocks would praise Him. (What a wild sight that would be.)

    And you make it seem like it’s only a few evolutionists who see evolution as negating God. It’s far more than that. But I understand your point. But the question goes both ways: why do evolutionists see Christianity as a threat?

  • Anon

    But the ‘chalice from the palace’ routine in ‘The Court Jester’ licks anything like that to a frazzle. Remember – the pellet with poison’s in the vessel with the pestle …

  • TM

    Why has a discussion of natural selection led immediately to a fervent discussion about God? Why not discuss evolutionary biology here instead? This is so typical of the US, where Christian fundamentalists are allowed equal air time with scientists on scientific topics. (Meanwhile, the contrapositive certainly is rare: I can’t remember the last time a pastor called on a geophysicist to provide counter-arguments to the Flood, or a military ethicist to rebut the genocidal prophecy of Obadiah.)

    Creationists have devolved this evolutionary discussion. What other scientific theories are still refuted so… biblically? If I claim that the continents drift over time, will my soul drift down to the underworld? If I write that the earth rotates around the sun, would missionaries rotate around me? God forbid I should even mention global warming and its anthropogenic causes, or I would surely be burnt at the stake.

    Congratulations and everything to those of you who testify your faith on this forum. But where are the evolutionary biologists when you need them? As for me, thank God I still possess another evolutionary throwback, that was not mentioned on the list: the healthy brain of a skeptic. (Not to mention a sharp pair of Darwin’s points!)

  • Jeremy

    Yay! another happy soul who thinks Creationists shouldn’t be allowed on this forum. Thanks TM.

  • Jeremy

    You’ve just elevated the discussion 10 points (I think I puked a little in my mouth when I read that condescending anti-free speech drivel).

    Tell me you actually think Creationist disbelieve observable evidence of plate tectonics and the general observable Copernican principle that the sun is at the center of the solar system? And somehow global warming is as established as these? Not sure how global warming fits into the creationists must be against it cause it’s science list anyway.

    You made me smile anyway. 10 points for the new guy!

  • GTT

    Randall: Bravo.

    You are absolutely right. It doesnt matter WHAT caused the genetic mutations and changes that lead to evolution. You chose to believe that they are all chance, I chose to believe that God caused these changes and led all species to where they are today (and is leading us constantly forward).

    For me, the SCIENCE of evolutionary biology is solid. I guess our only point on contention would be why a species evolves (again, for you chance, for me something else). In any case, that part should NOT be taught in schools. Belief in God does not belong in a classroom.

  • STL Mo

    TM – and that’s the kind of smarmy bilge that REALLY advances the discussion. Congratulations, and EXCUUUUUUUSE ME for daring to think I had something to say because I believe in God.

  • Anon

    As has been stated over and over, no one objects to evolution being doubted or questioned in a rational, honest and restrained way. Scientists do it all the time as they are bound to, and it resists structurally. That’s why it’s strong and almost universally accepted among the educated.

    Unfortunately, what we find all too often is that questions challenging evolution are framed in the “When did you last beat your wife?” style. And often by people who, to maintain the illustration, don’t even appear to know or care whether you have a wife, or even whether you are a man! In other words the idea is not to learn with an open-mind at all, but to try to destroy by whatever means: ridicule, intellectual dishonesty, using evolution’s (apparent) internal disagreements, over-simplification, and even, sad to say, downright perverted truth (to avoid using a 4-letter plural beginning with l).

    Evolutionary theory was never propounded to ‘destroy’ religious belief. It’s function is to try to explain observable phenomena in the best integrated and logical fashion. Please quote me from any scientific textbook which states (in so many words), “evolutionary evidence proves God does not exist”. (And I’m not asking for Richard Dawkins’s PERSONAL view here.) If that could be found and quoted, do all you religious folk suppose so many major belief-systems would have adopted evolution, as they now have?

    On the other hand, in the name of (their) religion and (their) God, people have relentlessly attacked the concept of evolution from the person of Bishop Wilberforce at the time of the publication of Darwin onwards. Please deny that if you will.

    Does it really surprise you that scientists involved with evolution and others who support them sometimes blow pretty hard in frustration and self-defence? Or that evolution has now attracted a certain wake of followers who, in their turn, have adopted what might be called the pre-emptive strike?

    Bedonebyasyoudid.

  • GTT

    509. STL Mo :

    I guess the problem with the questions that arise regarding evolutionary biology is that none of them are based on any scientific basis. If you question the theory using (and I´m totally making this shit up) some biological anomaly or some contradicting fossil evidence, then you have a valid point. Saying you question something because it just “doesnt feel right” is not “scientific inquiry”. Your belief in God is your own. God cannot be proven (or disproven) with the scientific method. Until we can do some serious testing on Him, He does not belong in science.

    By the way, I agreed with almost the rest of your post. You are completely right, science and religion are not an either/or proposition. One does NOT negate the other. Anyone who claims otherwise is just being closed-minded.

    ———————

    513. Anon : HILARIOUS!! However, I think he was referring to what some might call the “soul” of human beings.

  • GTT

    Anon: I think I´m missing something… What is the “When did you last beat your wife?” style??

  • Anon

    I’ll repeat what I’ve already pointed out somewhere. There are 10 physical features here. Plenty of brilliant people spend their working lives studying human (mammalian, etc.) biology, anatomy and physiology. Scientists are ambitious and ruthless people, always looking for some chink in existing *armour* or a new hint that will bring them fame and perhaps even a Nobel. (Read the Crick/Watson/Franklin story, inter alia.) If a scientist could prove God he or she’d have leapt light years ahead of Newton and Einstein in the pantheon. Untouchable for mortal fame. So just believe that all these features you see here have been examined inside out by people who understand them, and probably by a few who totally specialise in them. I recommend to stop banging you heads against a brick wall trying to question them or looking for flaws in our understanding. Don’t waste your time.

    Lay people sometimes try to put ideas about the group of plants we’ve studied in depth for years. They don’t even step onto the threshold we had reached after the first week or so. Any more than I would know what to do if someone put a dentists’ drill in my hands, or sat me in the pilot’s seat of an aircraft.

    Mext up: Mr Bean on evolution. Hahaha.

  • Anon

    GTT, (525),

    Ah, soul. (sorry, couldn’t resist it!)

    Quick reply. Well, we haven’t the faintest idea whether (advanced) animals might have a soul, or whether primitive man did, have we? The other day I quoted segue a wonderful clip I saw on aa wildlife prog of an orang looking with wonder and joy at a flower it had picked. That showed me infinitely more *soul* than I find in our drug-dealing neighbour who lights candles to the Virgin to bring him success in his crime.

  • Anon

    GTT, (526),

    “What is the “When did you last beat your wife?” style??”

    It’s the classic example (in Britain at least) used to illustrate the presumptive, closed or leading question, as opposed to open-mided, inquiring question. Relevant examples:

    Any fool can see it would be quite imnpossible for a type of dinosaur to gradually grow wings over time and turn into a bird, so evolution can’t possibly be true, can it?

    or

    I find it difficult to envisage how an earthbound dinosaur might develop wings over time and evolve into a bird, so can you please explain it to me?

    Of course, as I pointed out earlier, subtle sabateurs also like to phrase their destructive intentions in the second, reasonable style if they think the question is unlikely to get a convincing enough answer, or will be so complex technically that it will be overlooked by the impressionable.

  • Anon

    ‘sabateurs’ is a new LV construct coined by me which combines the religious connotation of sabbath, and the common meaning of saboteur. Phew, got out of that typo neatly!

  • Astonishingly, my brother’s family gave us a copy of “Ben Steins Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed” for Christmas. I didn’t know what it was about, but guessed it was a comedy of some sort.
    We popped it into the dvd player that night without having read the box at all (more the fool!), and watched with growing horror.
    At the end, we simply looked at each other and said, at the same time, “What was that?”
    I’m assuming you all know it’s Ben Stein’s attack on evolution, and his rabid support of ID. If you haven’t seen it, don’t waste your time. I have the link to Roger Ebert’s review, which should give you a decent overview of the drivel Mr. Stein tried to pass off as a documentary.
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

  • GTT

    Anon… hahaha… That´s OK, you made me laugh! :)

    Anyway, I´m not saying I personally agree with the “soul” statement, just saying that I thought that was what Rolo was referring to. You have a very good point though. Compare animal mothers in the wild vs. someone like, say, Casey Anthony and I would have no choice but to agree with you.

    On the other hand, I really do believe “soul” is what makes us (as in, human beings) capable of rational thought and inquiry, philosophy, self-awareness, etc. I have absolutely no doubt that animals experience awe, curiosity, even love but rational thought? Self-awareness? A capacity to think and ponder thoughts and ideals greater than ourselves or our daily necessities? I´m not so sure. That some people choose NOT to excercise this priviledge does not mean it´s not there.

  • Anon

    STL Mo. (517)

    “… why do evolutionists see Christianity as a threat?”

    Read me here (sorry, Disk!), or ask Richard Dawkins.

    The answer is because elements of the church, or people who define themselves as Christians (and obviously I except Christianity as a whole, expecially nowadays) have always threatened the science of evolution and continue to do so. Such concepts as having it banned, trying to discredit it by utterly dishonest means, attacking it in any way on the internet, etc. are alive and well. Surely you are aware of that? I imagined everybody who chipped in here would be.

    So it is Christians who have brought evolutionists to regard Christianity as a threat.

    Wonder what Jesus would have made of all this. Render unto science what is science’s, perhaps?

  • Anon

    GTT, (532),

    Entirely agree with you about human internal quality.

    My unanswerable questions would be: Was it there fully-formed from the start (which would oblige me to realign myself as a fully-fledged ID Creationist!)? Or did it evolve as per the stick to the Harrier, and perhaps as fast and dramatically? Instinct and what I have acquired of empircal evidence leads me strongly to the latter. As an unapolgetic evolutionist I have to believe that our spiritual quality either started up from nothing in Homo sapiens (which is hard to swallow), or developed from something in our ancestral line which may even be present in the same or some similar, perhaps latent, form in our nearest relatives.

    I’m a strong believer that what I call self-propagating cultural evolution has totally taken over from commonplace and tortoise-slow Darwinian evolution and natural selection in humanity. It’s our great biological leap forward (which I perceive might even run amuk and destroy us in its technological branch, which has outrun our ability to govern it). Like life coming out of the sea to land, if you will. I find it absolutely breathtaking, despite the risks. Without it I should lack almost everything that makes my life rich and worthwhile. I also do not ‘feel’ it ‘came from nowhere’. I believe we are tapping something latent in the universe. It’s just that standard religion does not supply the answer that satisfies me personally. Which is not to say it’s *wrong*. Beyond what I can observe I know nothing and see no reason to either believe or deny anything *that might be*. But as with evolution, my provisional bed to lie on will be the one that makes most sense for me, and no worries if I’ve got it right.

  • GTT

    Anon (530)… hahahahaha…. That´s twice you´ve made me laugh today!

    Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I had never heard that phrase before. Now I´ll know what it´s referring to! :)

    ———————–

    531. segue : I read the review, and is it totally wrong that I now think I have to watch it? It sounds like a comedy! ;) He wanted to call his film “From Darwin to Hitler.”?? Who is this clown?! And did ANYONE actually take this film seriously?!?

  • lulubelle

    What uneducated pap! The appendix is a producer of good bacteria and white blood cells which fight infection.

  • 535. GTT: Stein is an economist. He used to be a brilliant guy, but something in his wiring went horribly awry somewhere along the line. Even his economist output is so far off the mark this past year or two that it’s obviously some kind of mental mis-fire. Or he’s devolving.
    I said above , if you haven’t seen it, don’t waste your time. I meant that. It is a total waste of 90 minutes, and though it sounds like a comedy, it is *not* funny. It’s sad and scary. Can you imagine this clown-like little man attempting to make a mockery of Richard Dawkins?! He muddles about, thinking he’s asking “gotcha” questions, when all he’s doing is making himself absurd.

  • GTT

    534. Anon : You are completly right, they are absolutely unanswerable. You have to go with what makes more sense to you. Me? I believe in God but that doesnt stop me from connecting to what you said in your post. We may very well be tapping into something latent in the universe but then again (ring around the rosey… around and around we go!!) what is this strange energy/awareness/”it thing”/whatever that we are tapping into?

    ———————-

    Anyway, (and completely changing the subject) as I mentioned above, I read the Roger Ebert report on this Stein movie and it says an ID “scientist” states that the interlligent designer might very well be aliens? This is his argument for stating that ID is not religious?!? Am I not understanding ID correctly? Unfortunately, websense blocks the “Traditional Religions” catagories so it doesnt let me search! I thought ID only differed from evolutionary biology in whether mutations that lead to religion were random or if they were designed by God? Help!!

  • lulubelle
  • dole

    I’m glad I visit this site for entertainment purposes only. You people take yourselves way too seriously. Here’s a suggestion for 2009: GET LAID!

  • Mr. Plow

    533. Anon

    As much as you would love to play the poor science martyr, proving that science is under any serious or credible assault in the US or even Europe. Both places are decidedly more secular than even 50 years ago, and neither’s scientific communities are under any threat of disappearing because of a few Christian malcontents.

    You speak as if at any moment, the poor persecuted scientists of this world will be burned at the stake by a mob of angry Christians. Again, drop the maudlin act.

    As much as some would love to play the persecuted victim, there is no systemic nation wide effort of Christians to destroy evolutionary theory. Sure you have your fundies, but to assert that there is some life and death struggle for evolutionary biologists is just plain wrong.

    The numerous research institutes, universities, scientific organizations, numerous best selling books by authors like Dawkins or Dennet, popular documentaries such as Maher’s Religious, and more than anything, the increasingly secular nature of US citizens would all suggest that the scientific community is quite well ensconced or even thriving. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/religion

    The last 100 years of amazing technological advances in the US, specifically incredible feats in medicine, space exploration, physics…all happened in a predominately Christian country.

    While there are those that cling to archaic Christian beliefs, refusing to see the benefits of science and the reasons to study evolutionary biology…that is a price one pays in living in democracy.

  • Mr. Plow

    Oh yeah…

    Sorry ’bout earlier! Have a good one my sista…i’m enjoying your posts.

  • Mr. Plow

    542 is for GTT

  • STL Mo

    “That’s why it’s strong and almost universally accepted among the educated.”

    Anon – that’s the kind of garbage that boils my blood. The “educated” include MANY Christians. To say otherwise is arrogant, condescending, conceited and asinine.

  • STL Mo

    And Mr. Plow, you seem to imply that scientific advances happened DESPITE Christians, which is false.

    Scientist friends of mine would be quite surprised — and offended and annoyed — at this persistent notion that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and that they “cling” to their beliefs.

  • lo

    segue that “expelled” review is fantastic.

    ebert did something that made some “weird news” headlines a few months before that. in this commentary he answered “bible science” questions as a creationist would:

    http://tinyurl.com/a8of9e

    people who don’t know his views didn’t see it was satire.
    the cartoon “let the kids choose” at the end of the review you linked says a lot.

    i don’t think there’s a thing wrong with teaching creationism or its new incarnation “intelligent design” (yes, “hey, the great designer could be advanced aliens!” really is something they’ve stooped to saying when the IDers attempt to say their “theory” has nothing to do with religious belief. and then they say it’s science -sounds a little silly, doesn’t it?)

    as long as they are taught in philosophy or comparative religions courses where they belong!

    to be “science” something must be based on empirical observation and the conclusions drawn from these observations must be testable with experiments -it must be falsifiable.

    and ID is not. ID (read: creationism) think tanks like the “discovery institute” want us to believe that ID is falsifiable, and to support this they come up with an idea called “irreducible complexity” -that there exist (in their opinion) organisms that could not possibly have evolved step-by-step. uhmm, that’s not an EXPERIMENT, it an opinion.

    another weird thing they’ve tried is saying that finding a new planet with non-carbon-based life forms would “falsify” their theory, so we’re back to aliens (how strange!) they do not seem to understand that this is STILL not an experiment, so it also does nothing to prove “testability” or “falsifiability” of ID.

    the reason any of this matters (and freaks out scientists) is it corrupts the basic understanding of what even qualifies as science. this is bad.

    why? imagine you go to the ER after being in a traumatic car crash one day, and the examining physician says, “oh, instead of doing any imaging tests on this possible skull fracture and spinal damage, we’ll be sacrificing a chicken and examining the pattern of its entrails to determine how to treat you, because it’s my “belief” this is the more beneficial method. you’re unconscious, so who cares if you hold the “belief” that you’d be better served by modern western medicine. prepare the bird.”

    now i’m not knocking tradition societies anywhere on the globe who really do use entrails divination to make major decisions. it may even work, it may have a power i do not understand. but you’d have to show me a HELL of a lot of evidence that it consistently reveled a person’s internal state better than an MIR machine before i’d recommend teaching it in medical school!

    we can’t just say any old thing is science when it’s not, or it makes the scientific method worthless by robbing the discipline of all credibility.

    and i’m sorry if i’m not insightful or humorous enough (or perhaps enough of an asshole) for dischuker. for me, people exchanging ideas is more interesting than standing around watching a schoolyard -or barroom- fight.

  • lo

    mr. plow-

    about “poor persecuted little scientists” okay, that’s not happening.

    but Oklahoma, just joined the club with Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina who have passed, attempted to pass, or are now reviewing legislature to make all their public schools required to teach ID and “evolution alternatives” in the science classroom, which as i just noted at length, undermines the very concept of what science even is.

    i’m all for the states making their own decisions, but there are limits. if Louisiana passed a bill requiring all teachers to give equal time to the theories of holocaust deniers in the history classroom as an “alternative” it would probably not be tolerated. and not just because it’s such an emotional topic, but because the great preponderance of the evidence shows us the holocaust did occur, the “alternative” is a personal opinion NOT supported by the evidence. including it as “equally valid” would undermine the validity of the whole discipline of history.

  • Mr. Plow

    STL Mo,

    ‘And Mr. Plow, you seem to imply that scientific advances happened DESPITE Christians, which is false. ‘

    I agree, I should have been more clear on that point. Iwas simply trying show that science and Christianity can coexist and flourish, and they aren’t in direct conflict with one and other (as some would have us believe.)

    Sorry.

  • Anon

    STL Mo, (544),

    ““That’s why it’s strong and almost universally accepted among the educated.”

    Anon – that’s the kind of garbage that boils my blood. The “educated” include MANY Christians. To say otherwise is arrogant, condescending, conceited and asinine.”

    Oops, your agenda’s showing, darling!

    Until you can provide the readership here with any sort of proof to support your quaint accusation that I have even implied Christians are not educated (i.e. my wife, my family-in-law, my best friend from childhood, kiwiboi, Jamie Frater, Mr Plow, astraya … forgive me, my fingers are getting tired), I’ll be very happy to qualify YOU among the uneducated. I’d also suggest you’ve got too much red blood before your eyes to even read straight. I’m offering you to Mr Plow as a fine example for the collection that he appears to suppose is exclusively made up of the irreligious.

    I’ve noticed how violently you, as a so-called Christian, are starting to throw shit around. Who pulled your wire? Since I carefully gave up any hint of ad hominem aggression myself a long way back in LV as a deliberate policy, you are the first to have cast it my way. Congratulations. Now crawl back under your prayer mat, bother God and leave the rest of us in peace who want to to discuss evolutionary matters in a civilised manner. And thank your lucky stars you only wrote that ignoRANT crap to me and not to Randall.

    Reference: my full quotation from 524:

    “As has been stated over and over, no one objects to evolution being doubted or questioned in a rational, honest and restrained way. Scientists do it all the time as they are bound to, and it resists structurally. That’s why it’s strong and almost universally accepted among the educated.”

    Oh, and I hope you’ve embarrassed Mr Plow. If not, why not?

  • 546. lo: The Ebert answers as a “bible-scientist” bit is hysterical. How anyone with half a brain could misunderstand that it was satire is impossible for me to understand. OTOH, I am constantly astonished at the basic idiocy of much of the general public (one of the reasons I have been a fan of LV for a year is the overall intelligence of it’s denizens…some exceptions apply).

  • Anon

    Mr Plow, (541),

    “As much as you would love to play the poor science martyr…”

    Don’t misrepresent me with silly hyperbole. I thought better of you. I don’t feel like a martyr, I’m not acting like a matyr, nor am I writing like a martyr.

    I am warning to remain alert. Read my final quote: the price of freedon is eternal vigilance.

    As I’ve been reading some comments here, and yours to me in particular, memories of my readings in fairly recent history have been stirred. Something to do with how so many ridiculed the idea that a ranting little guy with a toothbrush in a comic opera uniform and a bunch of street thugs could conceivably pevert a great, democratic civilized nation. A nation that had produced Goethe, Schiller, Bach, Beethoven and co-ead the world in peaceful science. A nation that had learnt its lesson and would never go to war again …

    The truth is, Mr Plow, whether you care to admit it or not, that fanatics are dangerous in any quantity. And there are well-organised attempts to subvert evolution. And they are Christian based. And they use the media. Will you deny that?

    That much as a generality I am sure of. I rely for more precise details on US citizens in the frame.

    And if evolution is so low key and widely accepted, could you explain to me why so many Christians keep coming to these sites and getting so hot under the collar? They don’t like being got (back) at, but no one obliges to *attend*.

  • Anon: Mr. Plow reminds me of someone. Someone whose nick also began with Mr. You might recall of whom I speak. I’ve been watching this back and forth between the two of you, and the similarities are too obvious to be coincidence.
    Even the choice of nick, Plow, is too similar in meaning, in type, to be coincidental.
    Just a thought.

  • Anon

    STL Mo, (544),

    Well, I’m waiting. You accused specifically. I rebutted with specific relevant proof. Your turn. A back up or a back down? (I don’t want an apology, I didn’t choose words to leave you that option gracefully.)

  • lo

    550. segue-

    yeah, it’s either hysterical or horrifying (perhaps both?) that enough people in the states really DO believe those are the most valid answers to all those questions, that some people read the ebert piece and thought, “oh look, another high profile personality who’s a creationist. maybe he’s friends with ben stein.” because it could have been true!

    when i first saw the piece i thought “surely not ebert, he always seemed like a pretty sharp guy,” as i had know idea of his views on the topic. i googled around to determine if it was a joke -because nothing in america really surprises me these days. after all, sarah palin REALLY DOES subscribe to the beliefs ebert was highlighting, and she was just up as an option to potentially run the country. such fun times we live in ;)

  • lo

    -no idea-
    and earlier MRI, not MIR

  • Anon

    segue,

    Interesting thought … Well certain people have been known to change their akas you know … Hahaha!

    Whatever, I can always rely on my senses of humour and the ridiculous to keep me afloat. If you analyse carefully, you’ll find there’s not a lot of it about in certain other quarters here.

  • Mr. Plow

    lo,

    Your point about some state’s and ID is well taken. Now, being more of a libertarian type, I am inclined to let communities dictate their own standards (hence my opposition to the dreadful No Child Left Behind.)

    If a community wants to dictate education standards that are out of step with the prevailing thought, my stance is let them…their students will lack a essential part of science education…and eventually, more schools will adopt a more modern approach to evolution when their students are getting their butts kicked in college.

    “requiring all teachers to give equal time to the theories of holocaust deniers” Lo, let’s be fair. There is not nearly as much controversy with that issue, and even more to the point, unlike evolutionary bio, the wholesale slaughter of Jews (as well as other religions and ethnic\political groups) is not theoretical in the least.

    But your point, again, is well taken.

    Honestly, while our current understanding of evo biology should be what is primarily taught in school, I think it’s only reasonable that teachers at least mention, briefly, that there are other theories about evolution.

    It’s only intellectually honest to at least acknowledge that there are other avenues of thought on the subject.

    I’m not saying spend an entire class hour on it, maybe 5-10 minutes to acknowledge the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory.

    Then the teacher can explain why evolutionary biology is the best, albeit incomplete, theory…and why it will be primarily studied.

    This way, the students can be aware of the other schools of thought, and hopefully understand why academia has focused on evolutionary biology and not, for example, ID or creationism.

    It would also be a great teachable moment in regards to the scientific method. (Sorry, my degree is in education, I tend to think of how things can be explained in a classroom.)

    Before everyone jumps down my throat, I am not advocating creationism in school or that ID must be given equal time..just an acknowledgment of the diversity of opinion on the matter.

    However, just to be clear on the subject, I am advocating students learn the most up to date evolutionary biological theory.

  • Mr. Plow

    552. segue

    You would be wrong. Unless Mr. Yoo is a libertarian in the military who hails from MN.

    My nickname is no play on Mr. Yoo, I stole if from a episode of the Simpsons.

    -Call Mr. Plow, that’s my name, that name again, is Mr. Plow-

  • 554. lo: My brothers wife, who has always been the picture of the very upper class, woman’s lib, semi-intellectual, atheist (possibly agnostic), took Sarah Palin to heart. She has completely changed in every way. She is the one who choose Expelled as everyones Christmas gift, along with a book, The Keys th the Kingdom, which is a book for fundamentalist women on how to treat their men!
    Everyone in the family is flummoxed. No one knows what to say, how to react. It’s a difficult situation. I’m seriously considering saying, in my Thank You note, that it was a hilarious piece of satire.
    Pretending you just don’t get it, might be the best bet at this juncture.

  • 558. Mr. Plow: I said nothing about a Mr. Yoo. I did not mention the man’s name at all.

  • 555. lo: -no idea- and earlier MRI, not MIR
    ****
    MRI’s! Hell is 3 hours inside an MRI.

  • lo

    557. Mr. Plow-

    i have zero problem with public schools mentioning ID theory, and then taking it apart to teach the meaning of the scientific method of analysis and how to spot pseudo-science!

    that sounds wonderful! but these laws/potential laws (only louisiana really has passed one, so far) don’t want that. they want ID to be discussed as serious, competing SCIENCE.
    learn more here:

    http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/antievolution-legislation-oklahoma-003647

    i’m struggling to think of what else in education would be comparable -teaching that purely phonetic spelling in english is in competition with standardized spelling? or that texting/online abbreviations are in competition with grammar? that photosynthesis is in competition with “magic plants”?

    i just used history vs. “revisionist history” because it’s so hard to think of anything in another discipline where something has a genuine chance of masquerading as part of it, but is nothing of the kind. teaching that sounds are just a different type of colors (for people without synthesia)? it just doesn’t happen.

  • Mr. Plow

    Anon,

    While I agree that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and the danger of fundamentalism of all stripes.

    I disagree, and think that you are overstating the power and influence of Christians in regards to evolutionary theory.

    Once again, I think we are disagreeing on something that is really objectively hard to ascertain.

    “And if evolution is so low key and widely accepted, could you explain to me why so many Christians keep coming to these sites and getting so hot under the collar?”

    Because everyone, you, me, the Christians, all are vying to validate our world view. In a country like the US, we all must compete in the marketplace of ideas…and as you put it with the Jefferson (my favorite of the Revolutionaries, and one of my favorite writers) quote, that is the price we pay, in the media, in the newspapers, and in the LV.

    To throw another Jefferson quote out there, particularly apt “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    And perhaps even better, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

    Time for bed, good night all, I look forward to seeing where the conversation leads by tomorrow afternoon.

  • Mr. Plow

    segue,

    apologies, I thought you were referring to a ‘Mr. Yoo’ who i have seen post in the early days of LV.

    Either way, the only tag I have ever used on LV is ‘Mr. Plow.’

    Feel free to email a mod and have them look up the IP and the email I use to post with.

  • Mr. Plow

    lo,

    Perhaps a good example would be the Big Band theory? It is but one theory among others in describing the beginning of the universe. (There are also may different theories, as I am sure you are aware, about the end of the universe and time.)

    Or perhaps Pre-Columbus explorers in N. America, it’s accepted that Columbus was the first European to visit the Americas, but there are many other alternates such as Viking exploration, or even African or Chineese exploration.

    Again, I would reiterate, let the schools teach what they want. Eventually, when test scores are low, and parents start pulling their kids out of the ‘ID’ schools, either the schools will come around and catch up with modern science or fail and close. A kinda capitalism\free market for schools thing I suppose.

  • astraya

    Big Band theory????

    Glenn Miller, Woody Herman, Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman.

    Yeah!!!!

    (ok I know what you meant. I’ll stay out of this.)

  • Mr. Plow

    astraya,

    Well, I am a jazz fan at heart! ;)

    Okay, now I KNOW it’s too late, I am out for real this time!

  • lo

    565. Mr. Plow

    hhmmm, but in big bang vs. continual expansion/contraction they’re both actual physics.

    various scientific timetables on the population of the americas (notably NOT including “lost tribes of israel” or mormon indians as “Lamanites” ideas) are still all anthropology (of which archaeology is a sub-discipline.)

    only in the ID debate is non-science clamoring to be recognized as real science, thus changing the whole definition of what “science” consists of. history vs. “revisionist history” is still the best i’ve got.

  • Anon

    Mr Plow,

    “Honestly, while our current understanding of evo biology should be what is primarily taught in school, I think it’s only reasonable that teachers at least mention, briefly, that there are other theories about evolution.

    It’s only intellectually honest to at least acknowledge that there are other avenues of thought on the subject.

    I’m not saying spend an entire class hour on it, maybe 5-10 minutes to acknowledge the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory.”

    Mr Plow, I must open by correcting for the second time in this thread the canard that there are alternative THEORIES to evolution. There are not, unless you are going to take the term THEORY out of its scientific context and redefine it, with the negative consequences lo has indicated.

    Apart from that, if you will copy over to the topic ‘Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools’, you will find that while I have been attacking the concept it should be TAUGHT as a subject, I have also proposed and vigorously defended the very point you make there. In fact I have claimed it is impossible to teach evolution in its historical (and perhaps any other) sense without referring to the clash. Darwin and Huxley without Wilberforce? Laurel without Hardy.

    I agree, assessment of threat and fanaticism is difficult, and we will perhaps simply have to disagree on what represents free speech and what represents a threat to it. In my opinion any attempt to force a minority agenda against a benevolent majority interest, or to repress that majority interest is a threat to free speech and freedom of thought, even if it is masquerading as free speech and free thought itself. Fundamental moslems freely admit that they use the ‘idiotic’ freedom and openness of western societies to further their nefarious aims. Their ultimate stated aim being to destroy that very freedom.

    You might perhaps reasonably argue in reply that the little toothbrush-moustached monster might well have spluttered out early like a damp squib, that Christianity and Darwin’s work itself were in their time minority interests that had to struggle against what might have been seen as the common good. I’ll accept that if you’ll also accept that my concern is potentially valid and not paranoia, nor a martyr complex, or an attempt to stifle the legitimate freedoms of others.

    For Pity’s sake, Mr Plow, just how much freedom and capacity to influence do Christians want in our western societies? Haven’t they got all the means in their power already to convince anyone who is going to be convinced in a free, democratic society? And all the freedom of association and all the institutions they need to flourish in their own terms? Many a leading academic would be pleased to have the powers of a cardinal, let alone a pope!

    As we keep pointing out over and over, it is Christians who act actively against evolutionary science in society, not vice versa. Science, even Dawkins, and to a degree neutral society as well, is in effect reacting. You simply cannot deny that.

  • Anon

    astraya,

    Welcome, Oh welcome, mon ami!

    Hey, Big Band ain’t no Theory, man. It’s for real. I told you the bandamentalists don’t know WTF they’re talking about.

    Is it Big Bands before 17.50 p.m. next then?

  • bucslim

    Sorry folks, I ran out of material when we were actually talking about the list which is about 20 miles above where the comments now stand. I imagine a chimp on his knees praying for a merciful end.

  • Invertibrate

    bucslim (40)Technically,it was an arthropod, not a cephalopod.

  • Eq

    Hi,

    Nice website, but the list has no references, and is inacurate. For instance the Apendix serves a very usefull function in keeping the body healthy and in the recovery from illness. (lots of info available in medical journals and even google)

    Keep up the good work :)

  • Phil E. Drifter

    I have to go with 13. Oz – January 5th, 2009 at 4:17 am…

    I had horrible teeth thanks to my parents; growing up I had 9 years of braces, plus a face ‘frame’ (for lack of a better word) which I would attach by stringing tiny rubber bands from the metal bands on my rear molars, stretch them forward, out of my mouse, and hook them onto this face frame, because I had a severe underbite, that is, when I bit down, my lower teeth would be in front, not my upper teeth.

    Paired with the fact my mom (my only real parent) never taught me to brush properly (day and night, instead of just ‘when you wake up in the morning) at the age of 22 when my wisdom teeth finally erupted and started causing pain/discomfort, the dentist removed 3 wisdom teeth and for the forth he removed the cavitied tooth in front of it and let the wisdom tooth take it’s place.

  • Phil E. Drifter

    doh, mouth not mouse in the previous post. That’s what happens when you can type 70 wpm.

  • Anon

    buc, (571),

    No, no, no, dear boy,

    If you look carefully you’ll find buried deep, but not too far above your head here a reference of mine to the third eyelid as a nictitating membrane, not to mention a suggestion that a Harrier jet pilot might have more redundant functions than a cave man. (I.e. he no longer needs to bludgeon and drag his mate by the hair unless she burnt his Big Mac on the microwave). I forgot to add that a bigger Big Toe would better enable us to kick ass, as you folks so delightfully phrase it. But you may take that as read. Perhaps a mutational nictitating membrane in the lower regions might be the answer to embarrassment were the coccyx to lose out completely. As a final thought on those lines, how about ‘kicking coccyx’ as LV newspeak derived from this topic? Personally, I feel quite like a bit of kicking coccyx right now.

  • Hauke

    Amazing list!

    Just my own two cents to combine science and creationism:

    Every thing science and evolution claims is true. But in a split second (the time it took the first photon to emerge the big bang) god created everything. Since them he is watching and enjoying his creation.

    This therory has the advantage of not having to make up the dumbest excuses, why science is wrong and still leaves us with an all powerful god who gives life the only thing science cannot: Meaning.

  • Terry Wagar

    The Bible. Read it.

  • GTT

    563. Mr. Plow

    “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

    I think I might just print that and post it on my wall. Beautiful.

    ————–

    562. lo : I actually totally agree with you. Evolutionary science is the only SCIENCE in the bunch. And yes, talking about the other theories would be great as a teachable moment on what “the scientific method” actually is.

    Teachings of God and religion belong either in Church, your own home or a theology course, NOT a science class.

    —————–

    576. Anon: “Kicking coccyx”… I like it! :)

    —————–

    And if one more person mentions the useful bacteria in the appendix, I think my head will explode!!

  • GTT

    577. Hauke : I like you! :)

  • STL Mo

    Anon 534 – “Wonder what Jesus would have made of all this. Render unto science what is science’s, perhaps?”

    Me: NOPE. Considering he’s the author of the universe… :)

    Anon 553 – If I misunderstood/misrepresented what you wrote, then my apologies and I have no excuse. The reason why I didn’t answer you is because I stepped away from the computer for the evening/night.

    Sometimes I get really weary of playing defense and switch over to offense — which is where I sometimes trip myself up. Again, my apologies.

  • 562. lo: i have zero problem with public schools mentioning ID theory, and then taking it apart to teach the meaning of the scientific method of analysis and how to spot pseudo-science!

    that sounds wonderful! but these laws/potential laws don’t want that. they want ID to be discussed as serious, competing SCIENCE.

    i’m struggling to think of what else in education would be comparable
    ****
    lo, in Los Angeles, 15 years ago or so, the public school system tried to introduce an English program called Ebonics. It was ghetto slang as accepted, practiced, mainstream English. It didn’t go over well.
    Rather than preparing those youngsters for the real world, and real jobs, real job interviews, they were teaching them how to be stuck in the ghetto forever!
    Good plan? I don’t think so. Neither did almost anybody else.
    Fortunately, I don’t live anywhere near Los Angeles any longer. I live in the paradise that is the central coast of California. In a tiny Village. In the woods on the oceanside. Where both the land and the ocean are federally and State protected in perpetuity.

  • Maggot

    I’ve been living without an appendix for over 35 years, and my digestive and imune systems are still kicking coccyx.

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    This is now somewhat late, but I am a busy soul and only have so much time to pontificate on the internet.

    “Randall – thanks again. It’s not just Christians who question evolution. If you look hard enough, you’ll find non-Christians (not-religious) questioning it to.”

    You’d have to look VERY VERY VERY hard, STL Mo. Be honest. And how many of THOSE are just baldfaced crackpots?

    No, sorry. The fact is that the vast bulk of the opposition to evolutionary theory comes from fundamentalist Christians. And we all know it, so let’s not dance around the truth.

    “Not to say that there are vast, thundering herds of questioners. But they do exist.”

    Barely.

    “And by the way, I’m very much aware that Christianity is declining in influence — in the West.”

    Which is the whole of what was once known as Christendom, STL Mo. It matters that Christianity is declining in the west. It means that the western mind is abandoning it. And many people place the blame for this on the square shoulders of science–which is a stupid, bigoted, and childish thing to do.

    The truth is that Christianity has not kept up with the evolution of the western mind. Once, Christianity saved the civilization of the west, and furthered it, added to it, enhanced it, helped drive it. But those days are past, and Christianity hasn’t kept up. Or to put it more correctly, it wasn’t on the right footing in the first place to cope with the demands of the modern mind in this contemporary world. Our spirits are still lacking; but what we need isn’t a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but rather a real opening up to the message behind it. We don’t GET that from religion any longer… so some people, being fearful and small-minded, run to the usual reassurance of the Big Brother, allowing others to do the thinking for them, and/or cleaving to the literal word of the Bible, convinced that only “truth” is the same as REAL, and that if something didn’t happen “factually,” then it cannot be “true.” These are the people who have absolutely zero poetry in them–they’re just dull-witted, prosaic ciphers who are always responsible for the worst kind of atrocities and horrors in human history.

    Of course Catholicism still has its adherents who understand what it’s all about–but the failing of THAT religion has remained the same as it ever was—that for every ONE Catholic who receives spiritual strength and personal power from their faith, there are at least ten others who simply pay lip service to it, mindlessly moving through the ritual. And now even the ritual is watered down to the point where it’s hardly anything more substantial than the average protestant Sunday service. Whereas once the mass had power and affect and helped give an underlying structure to the lives of countless people. Now, it’s hard to see how it can be anything like that, to anyone. I think it takes real struggle to be a Catholic in the post-Vatican II world.

    Other people seek spirituality in beliefs and systems that offer more introspective spiritual support–Buddhism, for instance. And of course a lot of people just cop for atheism. But I think their number has always been the same. I believe there’s a spiritual need in all human beings that never changes, and sooner or later most people need to feed it, one way or another.

    But the sad thing is that Christianity COULD offer all the spiritual depth and support that Buddhism offers–a lot more, in fact. But Christianity doesn’t emphasize that part of itself and never has. Instead, it emphasizes the mythology of the Old Testament as fact (though they do have as much teaching power as they ever had) and divorces us from Jesus Christ by focusing on his deity rather than on his message and our capacity for emulating him. Indeed, it’s even considered blasphemy to say that we can and should try to BE Christ–even though, clearly, HE said it first.

    But no, Christianity has failed in delivering what we now need, and so many people blame science. The convenient scapegoat.

    “And declining influence doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.”

    Tell that to the ancient believers of now-dead religions. Whatever truth there is in Christianity is irrelevant if no one pays attention to it and it withers away. But the answer isn’t to bash and destroy science at every turn as the presumed rival. The answer is to figure out what it is people in THIS modern world DO now need. It isn’t what was needed two thousand or fifteen hundred or even five hundred years ago.

    “And you make it seem like it’s only a few evolutionists who see evolution as negating God. It’s far more than that.”

    Now, I didn’t make it “seem” that way. I SAID it. You need to show evidence and support for what you are saying—because I repeat–the vast majority of professionals in the field of evolutionary biology do NOT view it as a negation of god. It is CHRISTIANS and lumpen atheists who view evolution as a negation of god. Not scientists.

    “why do evolutionists see Christianity as a threat?”

    The answer is that they don’t. Pure and simple. EXCEPT when, as with all dogmatic tyrannies, it attacks science out of fear and bigotry, blaming science for the reversals and losses that Christianity as suffered–when it is largely ITSELF to blame.

  • Randall

    correction:

    In that sentence where the following appears: “…convinced that only “truth” is the same as REAL…”

    The word “only” should not be in there.

  • adam

    “why do evolutionists see Christianity as a threat?”

    A ‘threat’? No no, It’s more like a mosquito. We wished we could both speak the same language so we could just say “Fuck off and mind your own business!”

    If you want to try to argue against evolution from a purely scientific standpoint (as scientists have been doing essentially since the very day that the theory of evolution was first made public), by all means – go right ahead. But do not bring Christianity or any religion into the discussion because it simply has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

  • STL Mo

    Randall — You certainly have a passion, I’ll give you that. But if I give you a list of resources that illustrate that objectors to biological evolution aren’t just Christians, would you treat it seriously, or would you dogmatically reject them out of hand?

    I know I’ll never convince you otherwise, but cheers anyway.

    adam – “But do not bring Christianity or any religion into the discussion because it simply has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.” Totally disagree. It is highly relevant, because the quest for human origins is utterly meaningless without the “why” attached to it.

    And that’s why I think that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity. (Hey, if others can make the charge that evolution is a threat to Christianity, then the opposite charge is true, too. Only arrogance would say otherwise.)

    And why? Because the conclusions might NOT lead to random chance being behind evolution. And frankly, that scares some people. Maybe no one here, but I have seen it elsewhere.

  • Anon

    STL Mo (581),

    Graceful apology gracefully accepted by one who believes he is possibly the most cautious not to offend any (‘innocent’) bystander. Well I’ll believe that at least until you will post me a quote from a ‘crusading’ Christian who deliberately mentions and respects sincere atheists on an equal level with sincere-anything-else. The pope certainly doesn’t. I think he gives higher marks to the sons of fundamental Islam (for trying, albeit misguidedly?)

    “Anon 534 – “Wonder what Jesus would have made of all this. Render unto science what is science’s, perhaps?”

    Me: NOPE. Considering he’s the author of the universe…”

    I’m a bit confuded here. I think you are too. I have always understood God to be the ‘author of the universe’, as you put it, for the religious. Jesus was presented (figuratively!) to me as his son. I hardly think sons can claim what dad did. I was also paraphrasing what I take it you wouldn’t deny is a historical-scriptural verbatim quote by Jesus about rendering unto Cesar. Presumably as the author of the universe, that would have been if anything even more redundant?

    Since the only deistic concept that would make sense for me would be what I prefer to call Suoer-Gaia rather than God incorporating everything, including you, me and Jesus and the whole of science, not least the evolutionary process, the dilemma doesn’t arise there.

  • adam

    If you are religious and are here to truly learn the scientific reasoning underlying evolution and have come with an open, unbiased and objective mind (these prerequisites should have excluded everyone but I’ll continue just in case) my advice would be that this really isn’t the place to ‘learn’ about evolution or natural selection honestly (neither is wikipedia for that matter). Luckily I don’t think anyone here fits that description. For me, the vessel of evolutionary knowledge was called Grade 9 Science. But I’m Canadian. If you’ve finished school, and it has failed you in some regards. Try a library. Universities generally have great ones. There is the internet, but honestly, take a look around here. :-)

    But while I have your attention (that one person out there who is religious but is actually willing to question the world around them with an open mind) I would have to advise you to keep pressing forward and find the truth for yourself. Don’t let anyone else just tell you what to believe (here or anywhere else). I myself have a very healthy thirst for knowledge and truth. And I approach everything with as open a mind as I possibly can (doesn’t always work out – but I try).

    I tell you this as a raised Catholic and former alter boy, a former teenage non-denominational Christian, and an ordained minister. The result of my own personal search for knowledge and truth in relation to both Christianity and religion in general: I am now and until my death will be, an athiest. I guess that makes me a formerly ordained minister. Good luck to you.

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    “…But if I give you a list of resources that illustrate that objectors to biological evolution aren’t just Christians, would you treat it seriously, or would you dogmatically reject them out of hand?”

    I am not possessed of a dogma, STL Mo. Neither are the great majority of scientists.

    Frankly I think if you had such a list, you would have produced it.

    What I said stands. We all know that the vast bulk of anti-evolutionists are Christian dogmatists. Why do you deny this? Is it that you dislike being lumped in with such company? I wouldn’t blame you, if so. But then perhaps that alone should give you pause.

    And sorry, but again–you’re wrong in averring that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity. That’s just rubbish. Clearly, you don’t know, in real life, a single scientist–let alone evolutionary biologist. I do. Many. And not one of them fears religion—they in fact have nothing to say about it, and keep their personal beliefs on spirituality personal and private.

    Projecting the failings of creationists *onto* science and scientists doesn’t work, STL Mo. It won’t wash, no matter how many times you try to ladle it on and rub it in.

  • STL Mo

    adam – Thanks, but please understand, I really take offense at things like this from athiests: “If you’ve finished school, and it has failed you in some regards. Try a library. Universities generally have great ones.”

    People such as yourself ROUTINELY assume that because I don’t agree with evolution and am Christian, that I need to read a book or “visit a library.”

    That, sir, is bigoted and presumtuous. It may not have been your intention, and in the spirit of what you wrote, I don’t think it was. But that’s how it comes across.

    I believe in God BECAUSE of what I have read and studied. I reject evolution BECAUSE of what I have read and studied. If you, and other athiests, are to proclaim your worldly education and say that you agree with evolution because of what you have read and studied, then do me and people like me the same courtesty by avoiding the assumption that we aren’t educated.

    By the way, the “vessel for evolutionary knowlegde,” as you put it, for me was and continues to be what I’ve learned OUTSIDE of school.

  • YogiBarrister

    Today’s list, Medical abnormalities is an interesting tangent to this discussion. People ask how different species evolved from the same source, this is part of the answer.
    Anon #588- If ID turns out to be true, the intelligent creator could very well be the rock we are standing on. For example, say after that huge meteor struck some 65 million years ago, Earth decided, enough is enough, I’m going to do something about this. The whole purpose of human existence could easily be to provide a defense system for a planet, to prevent other rocks from hitting our rock. That’s how I interpret the meaning of Gaia. This theory is not more plausible than having a creator outside of the physical universe, but it’s a little more verifiable.

  • STL Mo

    Randall, this will be my last response to you. You don;t know a damn thing about me or who I know. You don’t know my education, my associations, my friendships and more. You have just all but accused me of lying. I don;t take that lightly.

    You only know your own assumptions, which you back up, but YOU DON’T GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY.

    I do have the list– which I was preparuing now JUST FOR YOU! — but I asked you if you would reject it out of hand. I can only assume now that you WOULD reject it, otherwise you would have said, “Yeah, sure.”

    And I know plenty of scientists, THANK YOU. In fact, one of my scientist friends, who I lead through confirmation, who you arrogantly assume doesn’t exist, is a committed, Bible-believing Christian AND a budding scientist who thinks evolution is full of crap and who, once she gets her PhD in chemistry, will be working in Africa to develop chemical-free water purifying machines.

    So, sorry, Randall. You are wrong.

    Declare victory if you want. My fault for trying to engage you.

  • Christopher Wing

    The people who say they believe in god and evolution obviously understand neither. They are mutually exclusive. Each Abrahamic religion (that’s what I’m guessing most of you are) clearly states in its texts that it is the word of god, and you must follow every bit of the bible to the letter.

    These means that to truly be a christian, you have to go all in on the adam and eve thing. You can’t believe some parts and not others. This isn’t me saying this folks, it’s your god.

    So, when science and faith collide, a true christian, jew or muslim, according to the rules of their ONLY religious text, must believe the word of god over the evidence.

    I hope you all understand your religions better, and see the lack of need for them.

  • lo

    587. STL Mo

    “And that’s why I think that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity……Because the conclusions might NOT lead to random chance being behind evolution. And frankly, that scares some people. Maybe no one here, but I have seen it elsewhere.”

    undoubtedly, there will always be “some people” of any persuasion who will hold onto whatever idea they see as “truth” until their last breath, damn any and all evidence of lack thereof.

    but people who really love science (and there are dogmatists in every field, period. there always individuals who will not abandon the theory they -or their mentor- built a publishing career on, but they are exceptions to the rule) would be EXCITED by an evidential proof of god -it would be the research coup of all time! as would any real evidence for a much debated phenomenon: aliens, cryptoid creatures, esp, ghosts. same thing for evidence of new ideas and particles in quantum physics (this we find more often.)

    science is about looking for the real nature of the universe, WHATEVER that may be, not only looking for evidence to support what we’d “like” the universe to be.

    this relates to your next point:

    “But do not bring Christianity or any religion into the discussion because it simply has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.” Totally disagree. It is highly relevant, because the quest for human origins is is utterly meaningless without the “why” attached to it.”

    i don’t really understand your response “is utterly meaningless without the “why” attached to it.”

    does this mean it is pointless to look for how life as we know it came into being, if doing so is not specifically to find support for our own pet theories on it? because looking for “the how” of it is an end in itself. all new knowledge is valuable, a new piece of the great puzzle of “life, the universe, and everything.”

    because of all this, a scientist would be remiss to have never even considered that supernatural forces could be in play -but in so doing it becomes clear, as i said way back in the 300’s:

    science is a field totally separate from god -the methods used to understand each of them, empirical observation vs. faith, are not applicable to the other.

  • adam

    “I believe in God BECAUSE of what I have read and studied. I reject evolution BECAUSE of what I have read and studied. If you, and other athiests, are to proclaim your worldly education and say that you agree with evolution because of what you have read and studied, then do me and people like me the same courtesty by avoiding the assumption that we aren’t educated.” STL Mo

    “You” meaning me? I hope you’re not honestly equating ‘worldly education’ with Grade 9 Science.

    “By the way, the “vessel for evolutionary knowlegde,” as you put it, for me was and continues to be what I’ve learned OUTSIDE of school.” STL Mo

    I think I see the problem here…

  • Anon

    STL Mo, (581),

    “And that’s why I think that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity. (Hey, if others can make the charge that evolution is a threat to Christianity, then the opposite charge is true, too. Only arrogance would say otherwise.)

    My arrogant reply then.

    I hardly think so. Fear in others can only be recognised, interpreted and ‘labelled’ by an observed expression, by some sort of physical manifestation. That expression in fundamentalists is and always has been demonstrated by their continual and active attacks on the science of evolution. If these people had the Divine confidence they claim, their example and faith alone would be all they needed to win hearts and minds. But it isn’t. They go on and on and on obsessively resorting to every semantic trick in the book and more besides to try to ‘win’, which of course they never can, well not ‘fairly’ (which morally interprets as ‘ever’).

    I would not claim that all the very occasional (SERIOUS) entries by evolutionists into the goddunit debate are responses to attacks, I simply don’t have that sort of evidence. I will only say that practically all I have ever read are are. Just take this thread as an example. Then copy me a post by myself, lo, Randall, GTT, Daddy 267 and others I haven’t got time to check for which illustrates a ‘fear’ of religion in general, or Christianity in particular. Yes, you’ll find some anger and frustration, such as anyone will feel when the same questions continue to be asked after endless patient exolanations. And not only here, but there and everywhere.

    Speaking personally, I can tell you that when the ‘coccyx support’ of dogma and clerical institution disappears, you find your gunga din doesn’t collapse, as they told you it would, but remains firmly in place. So a great weight is actually lifted off your mind (sorry anatomists, I’m not telling my arse from my elbow here, as it were!) and you feel stronger and more confident. That is what I also read in the accompanying posts of those whose views and outlook I flatter myself I share. Of course, you won’t believe that. But if I cannot put myself in your head to find how Christianiity makes you tick, how could you be so arragant as to claim you know how my atheism (or as I prefer to call it, gaiaism) affects me?

    A lot of people are not going to like this, but when the word spirituality is bandied about, I personally find my inspiration for it in people like Wilson, Sagan and (D.)Attenborough rather than religious gurus (excepting the Dalai Lama). The great knowledge of the former has lead them to a position of wonder and humility which is the very converse of ‘fear’ and the very epitome of intellectual spirituality before the astonishing fact of all we see, know, create and imagine. They are a tiny handful of the current leading lights of science, as incorporating evolution. I know hundreds with their same spirit, and if you read carefully with an open mind, you would find some of them here, and not all scientists either. In fact I reached that present career point via the humanities and find no more conflict between the two aspects of hiumanity than do the famous names I mentioned above.

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    Simmer down and just chill yourself, Testy. Nobody was calling you a liar; however, I do think you’re fooling yourself.

    And don’t lump me in with people calling religious types idiots who “need to read a book” or what have you. I acknowledge that you’re an intelligent person, but I don’t think you have a grasp of the science behind evolutionary biology. Rather, like many an educated and halfway-well-read layman, you seem to think that you can know a major, extensive science thoroughly enough to doubt it based on some discrepancies and inconstincies you may have been shown or even may have found on your own. Well this is a mistake.

    I am an amateur astronomer, and thus know a thing or two about the subject, as well as about cosmological physics. I recognize, as a tangent to this, that there are certain flaws and failings in current cosmological theories. Do I, however, thus go around arguing such theories and saying that I don’t believe in them, or deny them? No. That would be an error of deep foolishness on my part.

    I have a close friend who is a great electrical engineer. Basically this guy can build, fix, or cob together anything mechanical, electrical, or electronic. He works here with me alongside some of the top theoretical engineers and physicists *in the world.* Does he go around, however, arguing with them on the properties of physics and engineering, on the theory behind fluid mechanics or thermodynamics or what have you? Or in disbelieving widely-accepted and established areas of these sciences? No, of course not. NOT because of dogmatic respect for authority–but because this is out of the purview of his role in the field. He is a layman, and knows his limitations. Therefore he is acquainted with and to some extent even understands even some of the complex areas of the science… but he is not a scientist himself nor a theoretician. He doesn’t have a command of the science. He has some measure of capability in applying it, that’s all.

    Now, this list thing is just a waste of time. So you produce a list of professionals who doubt evolution and claim not be Christian—what of it? How many of them are actually evolutionary biologists? But even if you produced such a list, of say 50 such people–what of it? There are thousands upon thousands of biologists in this world. The overwhelming majority of them accept and support evolutionary theory as NOT just a sideline of the science but as a vital BACKBONE of it. A tiny list of dissenters proves nothing. And it certainly would NOT ever prove your apparent assertion that most of the people opposed to evolution AREN’T dogmatic Christians. In FACT, they are.

    It’s as simple as that. Currently Big Bang theory is the predominant paradigm in cosmology, astrophysics, and astronomy–and IT is built on less firm a ground, arguably, than evolution. But it is the paradigm, and for good reason–because the evidence supports it thoroughly. Do ALL professionals in those fields believe in it? No. Do most? Yes, by an overwhelming number. Does it matter what chemists or biologists think about Big Bang Theory or String Theory? No, not much. It’s not their field.

    “In fact, one of my scientist friends, who I lead through confirmation, who you arrogantly assume doesn’t exist, is a committed, Bible-believing Christian AND a budding scientist who thinks evolution is full of crap”

    And so you’ve just proven my point. She is a “Bible-believing Christian.” And she thinks “evolution is full of crap.”

    I would say that your friend, this “budding” scientist, needs to “bud” quite a bit more AS a scientist, to be frank. She’s heading towards a career in chemistry, but she thinks she can make pronouncements of such great CERTITUDE about a science that is OUTSIDE of her purview–biology. THAT is not being a good scientist, one could argue. Nor is it very professional.

  • GTT

    587. STL Mo – January 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    Randall — You certainly have a passion, I’ll give you that. But if I give you a list of resources that illustrate that objectors to biological evolution aren’t just Christians, would you treat it seriously, or would you dogmatically reject them out of hand?

    Can you please post the list? That claim just made me very curious. And not just any old names, people who have atually published in peer reviewed journals.

    ———————-

    adam: I totally agree with the evolutionary theory but it kinda puts people on the defensive when you imply that any degree of education would automatically make someone an atheist.

  • Anon

    STL Mo, (593),

    “You only know your own assumptions, which you back up, but YOU DON’T GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY.”

    In fact, as a generalisation, just the same assump`tion you made with:

    “And that’s why I think that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity. (Hey, if others can make the charge that evolution is a threat to Christianity, then the opposite charge is true, too. Only arrogance would say otherwise.)”

    Sorry to repeat your post. You asked for it.

    I took that as a similar discourtesy from your position of arrogance, not knowing me.

    Pot calling the kettle black.

  • Anon

    lo, (595),

    ” …would be EXCITED by an evidential proof of god -it would be the research coup of all time!”

    Assuming you didn’t read my earlier almost identical observation higher up … a remarkable co-incidence and piece of parallel thought! Not copied out of any kind of textbook or scripture either. The free mind of science rules, OK. Hahaha.

  • Anon

    STL Mo, (593),

    ” … evolution is full of crap”

    I’m sure you, I and even the detested Randall have no doubt how to qualify and regard anyone who wrote here:

    Religion is full of crap.

    You sound like you have a fear of losing. Lack of proper respect for the arguments serious opponents or their subject is usually a good flag.

    Q.E.D.

  • Maggot

    587 STL Mo: And that’s why I think that evolutionists are “afraid” of Christianity. (Hey, if others can make the charge that evolution is a threat to Christianity, then the opposite charge is true, too. Only arrogance would say otherwise.)

    And why? Because the conclusions might NOT lead to random chance being behind evolution. And frankly, that scares some people.

    Naw, the opposite charge is not automatically true. Not talking in absolutes here; certainly you can find some random evolutionists out there who might be “afraid”, some people might be “scared”. But I’d think this to be a very small and insignificant number. Reason being: from an evolutionist’s perspective, what is there to be afraid of?

    Scientific research is a quest to find answers via scientific method, whatever the answer may be. Science goes where the empirical evidence takes it. It is not a pre-plotted course or an agenda to disprove some preconceived belief-based notion. If scientific evidence were to point to ID, or alien intervention, or whatever, so be it. That then becomes the baseline theory, research continues, and no harm, no foul. What’s the big deal (from a “fear” standpoint)? Christian fundamentalists’ fear on the other hand, is a big deal, to all of them.

  • Maggot

    Sorry, lo, to basically repeat what you just said in 595. It wasn’t there yet as I was writing my own. I was a little slow with the refresh button… ;-)

  • Anon

    Randall has just put what needed saying into serious, well-considered, -constucted and succinct prose.

    I’ve already pushed the same point as a short metaphor, but thought it could maybe do with a second simplified launch:

    Learn a bit about aerodynamics at school. Read up about the history of flight, which fascinates you. Go so far as to study and learn the flight manual of a modern supersonic jet fighter. You reckon you end up knowing that ‘plane and its background pretty well, eh? Someone sticks you straight in the pilot’s seat and tells you to go ahead and fly it. They start the engines and pull the chocks away. Oh, dear! What are you going to do?

    Pick up a bit of elementary and general info on the superficial aspects of evolution. Listen to what people who have never studied it as a career have to say. Form an opinion into which you have thrown something only you and they consider of critical influence. Sit at the controls of evolution and, “Wow, look, it’s so simple, I can fly it just like these dumbos who’ve spent their life at it. They haven’t got a clue in fact. I’m MUCH better. Wheeeee!”

    And this one talks about arrogance!

  • Randall

    Anon:

    Actually THAT was a lot more succinct–and more amusingly put–than my little contribution. :-)

  • Dr Joe

    Sorry, but this list is in fact wrong. It has recently been shown that the appendix actually has a purpose in the human body. It secretes proteins that in fact support digestion.
    Research this pretty interesting.

  • DiscHuker

    randall, et al: so, being that none of us, to my knowledge, is an accredited evolutionary biologist does that mean that we can’t discuss this subject?

    being that i have a masters degree from a theological institution, does that give me the right to tell the rest of you to pipe down when that arena is breached? you (randall) gave us quite the lecture earlier about religion. on what grounds do you offer that, based on your own criteria?

    this panel isn’t going to solve anything. we are just here to discuss. so let the free exchange of ideas continue without telling some people they aren’t qualified to have an opinion.

  • Randall

    Dr Joe:

    That has not, in fact, been conclusively shown to be true, let alone proven. It may BE true, but it’s a long way from demonstrated.

  • Randall

    DiscHuker:

    I think you’re smart enough to realize that there’s a big difference between mere discussion and averrals that a subject is dead wrong or deeply flawed. We can discuss, of course. But with the caveat of admitting that we aren’t professionally qualified to DENY evolution, an established science.

    We CAN however, support it as having been established and in essence proven because it IS, in fact, THE established paradigmatic backbone of modern biology. We don’t need to be accredited biologists to know this. I, for example, am not a physicist by trade. However, I know that gravity is a real force, and I have some knowledge of how it works. I also know that there is a great deal of mechanical physics and some theoretical physics which describe and to some extent understand gravity. I know also that professional scientists, by overwhelming majority, support these views of gravity.

    I can therefore, as a laymen, reasonably and quite properly “believe” in gravity and aver that it is true and that the current science surrounding it is well-supported.

    HOWEVER, to DENY gravity under these terms would NOT be valid. Because the established scientific field accepts it as it is, to DENY it would be, in essence, an extraordinary claim–and would therefore require extraordinary evidence. Or, in this case, it would require extraordinary qualifications and knowledge on MY part to deny it.

    Do you see the difference? I’m quite sure that you do.

    ON the subject of theology, yes–I would grant you a certain authority given this is your field–but then theology is NOT a science. It cannot be “established” via experiment, observation, evidence and proof the way a science can, or a scientific theory.

    Nice try, though, DiscHuker.

  • adam

    Hypothesis -> pool of supporting evidence validating hypothesis independently verified and verifiable by other scientists -> Scientific Theory.

    This is Evolution. It is a Scientific Theory. If you wish to denounce or discredit this theory you must invalidate, at a minimum, the vast majority of the middle section of the above.

    As Randall has just pointed out – the Theory of Evolution has already been validated. It is not up to believers to further prove it here. Non believers may feel free to disprove it here if they so choose but to do so they must be willing to disprove the pool of supporting evidence. And no – the pool of supporting evidence is not the 10 items listed 10 miles up at the top of the page.

  • DiscHuker

    randall: good point.

    however, this is the bottom line that i think some “anti-evolutionists”, or whatever you prefer the term to be, find as a hangup. it goes back to the definition of dogma discussion from above. i quote you…

    “We CAN however, support it as having been established and in essence proven because it IS, in fact, THE established paradigmatic backbone of modern biology.”

    how many other things in the history of science could have been described this way that are now seen as laughable. when the microscope first allowed scientists to see amoebas and the like, they were described as “terrible beasties”.

    the only concession i, and i believe jeremy and maybe STL mo., am looking for is that there is the possibility that macro-evolution isn’t the final answer on this question. doesn’t the scientific method demand such a position?

    when falsifiability isn’t allowed to come in, doesn’t that mean that science has gone out the window.

    for me, God is supreme, Christ was a real man, the Bible is His actual word to humanity, so far as i know.

    these last five words are crucial to any dogma we are willing to stand by.

  • STL Mo

    Hookay. One more time. I hold nothing against anyone here (yes, Randall, I have calmed down; thanks) and bear no one any ill will.

    What I object to are the dogmatic assertions by evolutionists, here and other places I’ve opened my fool mouth online, that

    1) I’m not educated (my employers would be suprised to hear that)

    2) I didn’t arrive at my colclusions based on evidence (which is pure BS)

    3) I’m a backwards crackpot because I beleive God made the universe

    4) the science is settled, irrefuatble and can never be challenged (which flies in the face of the very nature of science, which is the search for answers. People like Newton would be greatly surprised at this mentality. The history of science is replete with examples of one many with a theory going against orthodxy — “settled” science — and busting things wide open)

    5) anyone who challenges it is such a small minority that they don’t matter/are irrelevant (see the point above)

    6) Christians who are scientists are ill-informed & need more education (this is so offensive that it’s beyond belief that anyone would say something so arrogant)

    7) Christianity offers nothing for the present (millions upon millions of believers around the world today would beg to differ)

    8) Science and religion should never ever mix period no matter what (Some of science’s greatest advancements came from religious men seeking to understand God. It’s only the present age that falsely claim the two cannot EVER mesh. In some areas, they can’t; that’s true. God is not testable in a lab. But they are’t mutually exclusive.)

    ___

    Now, let me reiterate that I don’t think creationism — intelligent design — should be taught in public schools. The science behind it needs much more vetting, much more study, before it can be. After all, Darwin wasn’t taught right away, right? (And for the record, I didn’t become a believing Christian until AFTER my college education–and one of my all-time favorite teachers was my high school chemistry teacher, not that that means anything significant.)

    Now earlier, when I was angry, I mentioned putting together a list. I didn’t make it clear that I needed to actually put it together; I didn’t actually have one yet. My apologies for being misleading. However, on this lazy Friday afternoon, I did some sniffing around and came up with the following resources.

    PLEASE NOTE: some of these are Christian and some of them aren’t. I couldn’t quite do what I initially said to Randall. But here are some resources that challenge Darwinian orthodoxy. Some will be familiar, no doubt. Some include religion in the mix, but please don’t dismiss them out of hand because of that. I stayed away from books that are purely theological in nature, and pulled ones that are written by scientists in the fields that evolution covers. I have not read most of these, BUT have just requested many of the from the library.

    Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee Spetner, physicist. This is a highly regarded book.

    Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, biochemist (and yes, I’m very much aware that evolutionists think poorly of him.)

    The Privileged Planet by Guiliermo Gonzalez, astrophysicist

    By Design: Science and the Search for God by Larry Witham, a science writer

    God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow, who is agnostic.

    The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins, famed medical geneticist who once lead the Human Genome Project

    Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth Miller, a biologist but not a creationist.

    The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard, a neurologist but not a creationist

    Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter, molecular biophysics

    Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C Sanford, famed horticulturist and inventor of the gene gun. And yes, he is a young earth creationist.

    The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth by Gerald R. Schroeder, physicist

    The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald R. Schroeder, physicist

    In addition, the following two web sites include lists of scientists and physicians who either object to Darwinism or object to the dogmatic assertions that the science is settled:

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    http://www.pssiinternational.com/

    Please note that these two web sites should be viewed with some skepticism, as I don’t know their vetting process to verify that the names are accurate and the signers are who they say they are. BUT, there are non-Christian scientific objections to biological Darwinism presented here (to various degrees — some reject a small part, some object all, some see a harmony between evolution and Christianity, some merely want more study.)

    So, take those two web sites for what they are, no more, no less.

    One more thing: Yes, I am very much aware that evolutionists (whether atheist, agnostic, or even Christian) vastly overwhelm those who object to Darwinism. (regardless of what some posts of mine dashed off in anger say convolutedly.)

    But please don’t shut us out – or condecend about committed Christians who are also scientists. It’s things like that that foster ill will, not understanding.

    Unless I get smacked on the head, I won’t be checking this thread anymore, so flame me if you want. But cheers, happy Friday, and a big thank you to Jamie for letting this crazy Christian repeatedly open my foot-shaped mouth.

  • STL Mo

    By the way – the apostle Peter is sometimes refered to as the “apostle with the foot-shaped mouth,” because he often spoke in haste before engaging his brain. I have that trouble some times…. ;)

  • Anon

    DiscHuker (612),

    ““We CAN however, support it as having been established and in essence proven because it IS, in fact, THE established paradigmatic backbone of modern biology.”

    how many other things in the history of science could have been described this way that are now seen as laughable.”

    Yes indeed. But take and analyse anything we once generally accepted as science and now, as you say, find laughable. You will NOT find it was rejected for an earlier, more traditional, less complex, less supported form of ‘science’ simply because it was, shall we say, ‘disbelieved’. Howeever, we do know humans have always used traditional belief structures of one form or another to try to obstruct progress. I will not exclude scientists themselves who try to cling to outmoded science, often for career or prestige reasons, among the obstructors.

    Quite the reverse. Science has proceeded by exactly that process which Randall so carefulyy describes.

    It also ill-behoves us to laugh at something with superior hindsight that could only have been interpreted that way in its context. Something that we would certainly have regarded as such ourselves, unless we were a great innovative pioneer.

    Like the technology it is the abstract converse of, science is progressive. It builds, even on its ‘laughable’ past.

    Nice try again.

  • Dr. Donothing

    The same people argue the same things on EVERY evolution/religion themed list.

    The dead horse is officially beaten. get on with your lives!

  • Anon

    STL Mo, et al.,

    Here is what may or may not be a final medium-sized thought. (I’m losing a lot of time here.)

    Two equally brilliant scientists are asked to design a machine to a common specification. A pragmatic technologically scientific process if you will. One of their machines functions splendidly. The other either fails to work, or is inferior in performance. We know which scientist is the better (in this instance). We know which machine works and will be chosen for development (all other things being equal!).

    Now, the same two scientists produce progressive theories of equal worth. We can therefore judge these academics on those terms as being equal and matched in their professional skills. They are both accurate and successful. Nothing to choose between our assessment of them. But say one is a totally committed Christian, the other a life-long atheist. It doesn’t take me to tell you that (although, cosmically, they might both be wrong) they cannot possibly both be right! We can therefore see as plainly as the nose on our face that belief has nothing to do with shaping practical science. That the outcome of practical science might influence belief is a totally different matter entirely.

    So take one each of atheistic and Christian evolutionay scientists. Unless the Christian allows belief to intrude on his objective judgement, they will both pursue whatever line science leads them down. Any divergence of opinion should result from scientific evidence or trained interpretation of evidence, and that alone. It could therefore happen that the atheist might support microevolution but not macroevolution, and the Christian scientist (sorry for the unintentional pun!) the reverse. That would speak volumes for the integrity of science and its methods.

  • astraya

    Anon: off-topic but I know you’re here. Last night my wife and I had dinner with friends and we were served soju (Korean liquor) flavoured with maximowiczia (or maximowiczii) berries. A quick wiki search this morning shows there’s a number of trees/plants with that name. Do you know which might be used as a liquor flavouring? (Un-urgent.)

  • Anon

    Dr. Donothing, (616),

    “The same people argue the same things on EVERY evolution/religion themed list.

    The dead horse is officially beaten. get on with your lives!”

    And the same people post:

    “The same people argue the same things on EVERY evolution/religion themed list.

    The dead horse is officially beaten. get on with your lives!”

    on EVERY evolution/religion themed list.

    Well, fancy that now.

  • Anon

    Terry Wagar, (578),

    “The Bible. Read it.”

    Oh, I’m so sorry. Everyone seems to have ignored you. Mind if I do as well now?

  • Anon

    Terry Wagar, (578),

    “The Bible. Read it.”

    Or are you making a claim using the past tense?

    Like, Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

    If so, bully for you.

  • Maggot

    616 Dr. Donothing:
    The same people argue the same things on EVERY evolution/religion themed list.
    The dead horse is officially beaten. get on with your lives!

    I would suggest that you get on with your own life, rather than worry about others discussing something that interests them.

  • Anon

    astraya, (618),

    Got you on the berries. Trust they shouldn’t be included in the recent Poisons You Love to Eat/(Drink) (can’t keep off the Poison’s in palace with pestle in the vessel, can I?)!

    I’ll come back later on the splendid Carl Maximowicz. Your question’s a bit like, can you tell me what Dave’s berries might be please? The return question being, “Which Dave?”

    My in-house sources don’t provide any suggestions, but if wiki has a list of plants with the specific epithet maximowiczii, I’ll see if I can narrow them down. The genera Maximowczia and Maximowicziella are both in the sedge family, so it’s not going to be them.

    Hope they were tasty.

  • Anon

    Dr Doolittle, (616),

    You see, hang around in silly sites, and sometimes Life comes to you. Well, not probably what you’d call Life, whatever that is, as if we cared.

  • astraya

    We ascertained that the husband of our hosts was slightly older than me, so he got to drink first. He has reproduced already, so maybe he doesn’t have to worry about accidental self-poisoning as much as reproductionless (at this stage) I do.
    I think the wine buffs would describe the taste as “zesty and exuberant”.
    Dave Smith, at the pub. You know him, don’t you?

  • takecare

    stumbled upon this site now and… well… didn’t read all the comments but how more proof do creationism believers need? c’mon!!! just let that theory RIP!

  • Anon

    Ah. THE Dave Smith. Of course. The zesty and exuberant guy.

  • Tall Girl

    I don’t believe in evolution because I don’t believe that scientists know very much at all. The more you learn, the more you discover what you don’t know.
    People have believed the most absurd things for centuries and labeled it “science”. People used to think that rats came from straw. People thought the earth was flat. Early alchemists thought you could create “gold” from other materials. People’s understanding of the atom continually changes. Scientists to this day still have very little understanding of what’s under the oceans, in outter space, or even how the human brain works. There is an infinite amount of knowledge to obtain and our human minds can’t contain it all. Theories and myths in the past centuries have been corrected and proven wrong, and that process will continue into the future. If science is continually changing and proving itself wrong, I will continue to believe in a God that has existed and remained the same for an infinite amount of time.

  • 628. Tall Girl: You’re really reaching here, aren’t you? So baffled by the question you have to go back to alchemy and the spontaneous creation of vermin?
    You are sad.

  • Anon

    Tall Girl,

    It’s so lovely to have a fresh mind on the scene, utterly and completely uncontaminated by reading all those 627 utterly tedious and boring comments that went before. Welcome, dear.

    The fact that you believe scientists don’t know very much at all at all is mind-blowing. In fact it’s exactly what scientists themselves say.

    O.K. Let’s just not believe in anything science tells us, then we won’t risk going wrong or being made fools
    of, eh? Why do heavy things fall? Cos God causes them to fall. Why don’t aeroplanes drop out of the sky then? Cos God won’t let them. Why is fire hot? Cos God makes it hot,

    Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Why hasn’t anyone thought of it before. I could have spent half my schooldays playing footie instead of learning boring science theories. Exam answers: God. God. God. God. Full marks for everyone. I told my wife (she’s a Catholic and a scientist). She thought it was brilliant too and wondered why SHE hadn’t thought of it. Then the snag occurred to her (she’s brighter than I am). “But my dear, we and millions of others like us whose work is involved with science would be out of work. How could we eat the food that God miraculously provides? Or have a garden with the flowers that God created one by one for us?

    So there you are, luv. Science is indeed continually proving itself wrong, but unfortunately it’s a big sham to provide employment for con merchants like us. Otherwise the rest of you would have to keep us on hand-outs. Or let God take care of us maybe?

  • Dean

    I’m sorry, but not one of these are based on facts… just because a dog has usefull goose bumps and humans don’t doesn’t mean we evolved. that’s just dumb. Just because a animal has something a human doesn’t that doesn’t mean we evolved. there is no proof of evolution. there is a reward for 250000$ if someone can prove evolution… and yet no one has calmed the money…

  • lo

    628. Tall Girl

    you basically just said that because scientists don’t know EVERYTHING in an infinite universe, it means ALL of their conclusions are wrong.

    whereas, you know ONLY ONE thing -there is a god, and yet your conclusion is the one we should trust?

    that may be the most egotistical thing yet said in 630 comments.

  • astraya

    “no one has calmed the money”

    Steady on, pound, good boy. Take a Valium and have a good lie down, penny.

  • lo

    631. Dean

    i thought you must be deluded about this “contest”

    you’re not:

    http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=articles&specific=5

    the reason no one has claimed the money is “Dr. Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism” wants THIS to happen:

    “How to collect the $250,000:

    Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

    When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

    Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
    Planets and stars formed from space dust.
    Matter created life by itself.
    Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
    Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).”

    dean, this is a ruse and you fell for it! no doubt “dr. hovind” is sincere and sensational in his challenge, but either knows so little about science that he doesn’t know what is wrong with his demands or -more likely- he knows enough that he knows his money is safe regardless of the status of evolution.

    the key? he wants it all “proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” science does not PROVE theories -it SUPPORTS them and DISproves alternatives. this is because science recognizes that an experiment may be repeated with an identical outcome a million times, yet differ on the millionths and first. science involves repetition and statistics (and things termed “statistically significant”) and a quest to find the best possible answer from all the known data. it can find something 99.9999999999999% likely to be true, that’s it.

    with that out of the way, look at the stuff he wants “proved” to him, starting with a decisive proof of the nature of the beginning of existence itself -so it’s not like he’s asking a lot, or anything?

    sheesh, the dr. hovid is like tall girl with a web page!

    wait, he’s better! he’s lke tall girl’s ego with a prison term!

    “Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist currently serving time in a federal prison for tax-related crimes.”

    that one’s from wiki, so maybe it’s false, but i doubt it. it appears to have an “ungodly” amount of fairly legitimate citations tied to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

    ;)

  • Anon

    astraya (633),

    ““no one has calmed the money”

    Steady on, pound, good boy. Take a Valium and have a good lie down, penny.”

    Come along now. Even in Korea you must watch or listen to the news and know that’s why we have a global economic crisis!

    Obama will sooth it.

  • Anon

    Dean, (621),

    Not to be a wet blanket and all that, but I’m given to understand the $250,000 for proving goddunnit has been around and unclaimed for rather longer.

  • astraya

    “Obama will sooth it.”

    Aye, forsooth!

    Or seeth under the collar if he can’t.

  • Anon

    Dr Kent Hovind.

    The name rings a bell from elsewhere in LV. To test my memory, I’m going to venture, without checking, that he’s currently under rather long US prison sentence for some kind of fairly spectacular tax fraud. Or am I confusing him with someone else?

    lo,

    I came straight here and wrote the above without finishing your post, went back, and it confirmed. Thanks. We can’t go on coming up with the same points coincidentally. People will start talking!

  • lo

    wow, i’d never heard of “dr,” hovind before -thanks dean! i’ve been reading some of the stuff wiki linked on him -like a debate with Michael Shermer, the article of which opens with a delightful quote:

    “Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”

    —Herbert Spencer,
    19th-century social scientist and Darwinist

    this is great reading, and without dean i’d not have found it.

  • Anon

    It doesn’t much surprise me people having trouble with the idea of evolution. It isn’t perhaps all that easy a concept to get your intellect wrapped around.

    I could therefore readily appreciate anyone saying, “I don’t understand how life happened, or how our present incredible biodiversity and all the life from the past now extinct came about.” Now that would seem to me a not unreasonable reaction from a lay adult.

    Instead we get the mind-boggling belief that everything in as near to its present form as dammit was somehow magically and supernaturally put in place. Rather like a child’s jungle set, or someone doing a painting. One minute there was nothing, blink you third eyelid and next thing up all the complex intermeshing ecosystems with everything there, and of course there would have to be all sizes and a good variety of each. One ladybird is going to feel pretty hungry with only one aphid in its tum. And where’s the next meal coming from? Or the baby aphids? I’m sorry, you can’t have it a bit at a time. It all has to come at once. Life is totally and utterly interdependant: a web and each population or species has its minimal survival numbers and prey number requirements.

    Is it really possible that modern adult brains which have been through a sophisticated education system and can express themselves to fair degree on the internet actually BELIEVE that? O.K. So here in Chile I admit we have a schoolteacher friend who believes stick insects are instruments of the Devil and turn into big horse-like creatures after dark. Not a lot of difference, I suppose.

    Why don’t we simply ask a ‘scientific’ Creationist to describe in practical terms the parapmeters of how they see life being created supernaturally and placed on earth. Would it all be set in poisition in a state of suspended animation, then woken with a snap of the fingers when all was ready? Interesting thought. And certainly one I’m sure none of those posting here in favour of Creationism have given a frraction of a second’s thought to. That’s the frightening thing about faith and belief. You can think and many do. But you are not in the least obliged to.

  • SparksFly

    So, like, what about those of us who believe in a higher consciousness AND know evolution is a fact? Who says god couldn’t be a scientist? I know evolution IS a fact; that we evolved from apes is the part that has not been proven yet.

    Personally, I think science and religion are ultimately inter-laced. The Golden Ratio, Fractals and many other things just leave the Big Bang out of the picture, in my opinion, because I simply cannot accept that this universe, as elegant as it is, is entirely random. I consider the Big Bang Theory as ludicrous as the Adam & Eve myth. Something, somewhere, with intelligence, started all this and maybe that something, somewhere is essentially more of a Cosmic Scientist than a god, per se.

    Theories in quantum physics support many of the so-called “mystical” things touted by non-dogmatic believers in a higher consciousness. For example, many physicists now think parallel worlds are not only a possibility, but a likelihood while those who adhere to Theosophy, for example, have touted for many years that there are other dimensions to what we call reality. One side says parallel universe, the other side says astral plane. We don’t really know, at this point, to where those disappearing particles are disappearing.

    I consider dogma touted by the major religions to be unnecessary BS created by men who wanted to control the masses and most of what religious fundies take literally is merely symbolic of the science behind the creation of *this* universe.

    The bottom line is that no one can prove there is a god nor can anyone prove there is not a god. And if an atheist acts like a religious fundie, i.e., having a closed mind, well, then…that atheist is just a fundie in different clothing.

    And I, for one Cosmic believer, am excited as hell about the LHC. I cannot wait for that puppy to get crunk, for real, so we can really see whether the Big Bang theory can be realized as more than a theory, or at least, a stronger theory. For now, though, I’m a string theory fan.

    Cheers!

  • joanne

    i always try to steer well away from anymore evolutionary lists to save me from pointless creationism vs. darwinism debates (by that i don’t mean either is pointless), but 600+ comments in less than one week?? jfrater must be working on a new “most commented on” list of lists

  • I’ve taken a massive dose of sleeping pills, but will answer, as per Anon’s “lay adult.” If I attempted to do so now, it might end up looking like gibberish.
    %-]

  • lo

    segue-

    were they ambian? ’cause those work like a charm (i’ve taken them as per prescription) but if they were, you might start “sleep commenting!” so should we presume that anything that shows up in the next 7-10 hours could be “under the influence”?

    sleep well friend :)

  • 644. lo: were they ambian?
    ****
    LOL! LOL! LOL!
    Remember all the hoopla about the bizarre side-affects of ambian some people experienced?
    I had them all. I did housework asleep. I cut up my bedroom carpeting using scissors and a meat cleaver, I’d cook, and bring the cooked things back to bed with me but not consume them…the scary one was a bowl of tomato soup, I’d go out driving, etc, etc, etc.
    Ambian and I are not great friends!

  • lo

    i once changed every light-bulb in my apartment -back when it was another apartment in another city, on “ambian mode” -regardless of whether they were working to begin with. the next morning i had to wonder what had transpired……my first awakening thought was “why is the step ladder beneath the hallway light?….
    :D

  • lo

    so, amibian and i are also “so longer friends”…… LV feels my insomnia instead (it’s a bit safer) :)

  • lo

    -no longer-

  • lo

    ambian, no longer, typos night and day…….

  • Freca

    According one of my close friends, the social welfare system in which people get money to bring up their children is an instinctive to certain groups of lazy, untalented, ignorant people to make children instead of work or any socially useful activities, this way they multiply themselves while talented and diligent people have less and less children, getting fewer and fewer in number, and this is a process of anti-evolution, disevolution in many countries in Europe.
    I tried to contradict to this friend of mine but failed.
    Hm.

  • 646. lo: “ambian mode”
    ****
    When I was going through the house cleaning in my sleep phase, I called it “the ambian faeries”.

  • As I’ve always understood evolution, life began in a primordial “soup” of what were, at the time, still nearly boiling hot oceans…or, at least, very hot. The first living things were probably single celled creatures who replicated through a process called Mitosis; that is, they cloned themselves. At some point, some genetic mutation occurred allowed some of the creatures to become multicelled, and that lead to sex.
    Once sex came into the picture, genetic mutations were more likely, and the lucky mutations, those which made the offspring more able to thrive in their environment, were more likely to survive and reproduce.
    As mutation upon mutation grew, things like gills and fins came along, then lungs, then legs, then the ability to live on the land full time, rather than just for a few minutes or a few hours.
    Once there were land creatures, there was all kinds of room to grow and differentiate, and so they did. Each found it’s own comfortable niche, and adapted, over time, to be even more comfortable in it’s niche.
    That is the basic background as I remember learning it. I’m sure that anywhere I went wrong Anon will point out my error (but so nicely, as always, that I never mind being told I was wrong).

  • Rolo Tomasi

    There are good comments here explaining the theory of how we biologically transformed into humans but I dont think any one has fully explained how we consciously evolved from senseless animals, to self aware and higher conscious humans.

  • Jesus

    I’m very very angry with all of you.

    Richard Dawkins: Get a proper Job
    Madam Blavatsky: Get a proper Job
    Emperor Constantine: I’ll get you

  • Skydiver

    I’ve been away from this post for a bit, it’s nice to see that perhaps some outside research is being done. I’m not usually one to comment on these type of forums but this topic in general is rather close to my heart. I apologize for the length of this post, I’m not trying to emulate Randall, but I’ve read most of the newest points, so I feel compelled to respond.

    lo,

    Kent Hovind is indeed in jail for fraud, tax evasion and an assault charge that I can find no further information on. He is a dangerous individual who has called himself a Doctor, yet has no credentials to back up that title. He received the credentials he does have from some back-woods Christian “College” operating out of what I can only describe as a “mobile home”. He also claims to have been a high school science teacher for 15 years, although his knowledge of science seems to be limited to around second grade astronomy backed up with biblical fiction. He lies; plain and simple. At his lectures, he fabricates stories about confrontations with fictitious scientists, teachers and professors (rarely or never giving a proper name and/or institution) and always seems to better their “limited knowledge” of evolution and astronomy with his knowledge of the bible. He always seems to serendipitously bump into these people on an airplane! Even staunch creationists like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort don’t support Hovind, what does that say about him?

    Good work in spotting his $250,000 reward scam which can obviously, never be claimed. In its most basic sense, he wants someone to prove that there is no god. Simply, it’s impossible to prove a negative. Regardless, it doesn’t matter because the onus is always on the person making the claim to provide the evidence to back it up. Therefore, the money will never be awarded; another fraudulent offer from the good “doctor”. My guess is any money he did have has been completely eaten-up by lawyers trying to keep him out of jail. You’ll notice that there is not a scientist in the world who will offer a reward to prove or disprove the existence of anything, it would seem that the creationists may be the one with the agenda, and the scientists are the ones seeking the truth.

    Good work lo, keep up the research. Give those videos I linked to earlier a watch, they’re compelling and basic enough (science-wise) for anyone to form an unbiased opinion on them.

    Moving on…

    SparksFly, I appreciate your candor and willingness to accept science while believing in a creator, it’s a valid concept, but also one that is flawed. First, science and religion cannot interlace, ever! The same way religion and mathematics cannot interlace, they are two separate entities. One is based on hypothesis and theory, the other is based faith, there is no faith in science. Scientists will never claim to just “know” the answer, they continually search for the answer and if they can’t find it, they say “I don’t know” until someone can find the answer. And even then, there still may be room for improvement. Creationists already have their conclusion, they “know” the answer, it’s unchanging despite any evidence provided that suggests otherwise. Consider this quote from Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark”:

    “Humans have limitations, and no one knows this better than scientists. But a multitude of aspects of the natural world that were considered miraculous only a few generations ago are now thoroughly understood in terms of physics and chemistry. At least some of the mysteries of today will be comprehensively solved by our descendants. The fact that we cannot now produce a detailed understanding of, say, altered states of consciousness in terms of brain chemistry no more implies the existence of a “spirit world” than a sunflower following the Sun in its course across the sky was evidence of a literal miracle before we knew about phototropism and plant hormones.”

    Second, quantum Physics is still in its infancy and is not nearly close to being understood. My knowledge on it is limited mostly to this: It doesn’t necessarily promote the idea of parallel universes or realities, but the thoughts behind it are certainly queerer than our finite minds could possibly comprehend. However, the “elegance” of the universe is anything BUT “chance”. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, please don’t fall into the trap of using creationist buzz-words like “chance”, “random” or “accident” when describing a process so beyond our idea of complexity, it’s simply overwhelming. Over-simplification always misrepresents, and it sullies the concept you may be trying to explain. Science does not explain evolution, or the Big Bang theory as a “chance” or “random” event or an “accident”, creationists do.

    A scientific god is not entirely out of the question, but if that’s the case, there are far too many examples of an imperfect scientific god, not to mention one that has a terrible sense of humor. If no one has ever pointed it out to you, you are what’s known as a deist; you’re on the fence. Keep reading and you may change your mind, or not, either way it’s fine, but keep reading anyway.

    It’s been said before, I will say it again…

    We did not evolve from apes! That is not what evolution is and when it’s overly-simplified this way, in the way most creationists will attack scientific theory. Their rationale that, “It couldn’t have just happened by ‘accident'”, or “one minute there was nothing, then there was something.” (which is an ironic argument considering the creationist theory is much the same), makes the whole process seem unlikely and in some way belittling to humankind. So it’s understandable that some people will take offense at the thought of having evolved from a lower form of life, or “animal”. But consider this: Humans were lower forms of life three thousand years ago. They were less refined, far less hygienic, more prone to diseases, and outside of their own communities, socially inept. These of course are not “biological” differences, and in no way an example of biological evolution, but behaviour goes a long way to separating us from lower life form animals. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor, not an ape. This is why there are humans, AND apes. Futhermore, people who say we evolved from monkeys are even further off the mark. This makes about as much sense as saying that we evolved from raccoons.

    This often seems like a futile argument but it’s one that needs to be discussed if only to enlighten parties on both sides so that we can continue to teach our children that there are no boundaries for mankind, unless of course we keep them locked in dark ages thinking and don’t allow them to explore the innumerable possibilities available to them. When we do that, they’ve already reached their bounedries.

    Don’t hold them back; push them forward!

  • Jesus

    Yeah, whatever, Heaven is now officially closed, we’re already over the official limit of 144,000 so unless you’re a celebrity or you have good drugs and don’t mind cutting us in your deals, it’ll be Hell for the lot of you.

    p.s. Keep praying, it fills the time

  • Anon

    Rolo Tomasi, (653),

    “There are good comments here explaining the theory of how we biologically transformed into humans but I dont think any one has fully explained how we consciously evolved from senseless animals, to self aware and higher conscious humans.

    Have you missed my 534 hypothesis? Or read and simply rejected it?

  • Denise

    The little toe useless?! I think not! If you are a dancer or a runner, an absent little toe does impact some moves where you have to do some difficult leaning maneuvers.

  • YogiBarrister

    The comment count at the top was 666. I couldn’t give the atheists the satisfaction. ;)

  • Freca

    Rolo (653)
    Psychologists and psychiatrists would tell you that human coscience is very fragile and if you analyze it you can see that it can be broken down to elements which may be linked more clearly to animals.

    On the other hand, animals may behave in a surprisingly human way. Don’t underestimate “animals”.
    (Don’t overestimate humans.)

  • Jesus

    You know why electrons spin? Because I say so that’s why.
    Anyone got a problem with that can take it up with satan,
    yeah that’s right my old buddy satan, he’s itching to
    kick some atheist arse right now, he’s slavering…

  • Jesus

    Anyway, like I said, Heaven’s closed now but we are working on a new project called ‘Dream Valley’, it’s like a streamlined, more local version with a few less features but a similar all-round experience for the visitor or ‘colleagues’ as we call all our guests.

    It’s not quite finished yet (opening ceremony scheduled Spring ’11) but when it is, it should be able to accomodate 11 Thousand souls in comfort with only some small light lifting duties. So something to look forward to there, signing out for the night now but be assured I love you (lots) and will keep you posted on any significant cosmic events.

  • Jesus

    I’m just gonna keep going until I hit 666

  • Jesus

    Idolater beware!

  • Jesus

    No rest for the wicked!

  • Jesus

    The prophecy has been fulfilled! I’m off to bed.

  • Anon

    astraya,

    Progress Report:

    I’ve been out all day, I’m a bit wind- and sun-scorched and more than a bit knackered!

    I have six ‘maxie’ candidates from basic research. Will try to refine down further, or at least give more info when time permits and the mood strikes.

  • Rolo Tomasi

    Anon: I did miss it. Very well put. That question may never be answered. It seems for some reason we were given or allowed to develop a conscience. We can only guess why and what for.

  • Pingback: Sickie blogging: Evolution is awesome, but it doesn’t help me now « satisfiction()

  • astraya

    This looks like the second “coming” of Jesus in the Anon-copyrighted-phrase “ejaculatory fluids” sense of the word. Jesus: get a life.

    BTW I posted in a forum, but may as well say it here as well: I was browsing through a Korean/English dictionary the other and found that Korean has a separate word for “involuntarily ejected semen”. There don’t seem to be words for semen in general or voluntarily ejected semen.

  • Anon

    astraya,

    Clever stuff, I love it, but your Freudian slip is showing.

    “I was browsing through a Korean/English dictionary the other and found that Korean has a separate word for “involuntarily ejected semen””

    Where I come from (deliberate pun) the phrase ‘a bit of the other’ describes an activity involving voluntarily ejected semen (with the exception of coitus interruptus, that is).

  • Jess

    Hey, don’t know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but the subheading under 3.Darwin’s Point, “plica semilunaris” is the actual name for the third eyelid, and should be under 4. Third Eyelid. Also, someone had asked what is the function of the little flap of skin on the back of cat’s ears. That flap is called the marginal cutaneous pouch and has no real known function, although it does exist in other carnivores as well.

  • Anon

    Rolo Tomasi, (668),

    “Anon: I did miss it. Very well put. That question may never be answered. It seems for some reason we were given or allowed to develop a conscience. We can only guess why and what for.·

    Thanks very much for your kind and welcome reply.

    Some time back a very good and intelligent friend and I were lamenting the cock ups humanity was making of the small planet we live on. Not least the destruction of biodiversity (our fellow life). Between us we listed all the magical natural phenomena and places we had enojoyed as children that had been totally obliterated and replaceded by ‘civilzed progress’. He concluded wryly, “I always felt we must have been given our big brain for something. Now I’m seriously beginning to wonder.”

  • Anon

    If repeating the word ‘cock’ here from my last posting (672) doesn’t get me into moderation as well, I’m at a complete loss to work out what did! Anybody?

  • Anon

    It did. GOSH! Well, it is Sunday, I suppose.

  • Mom424

    Anon: Sorry we slept in. I actually can’t even figure out why you’re being kicked to moderation. I wonder if it has something to do with me kicking a fake you the other day?
    Have a great day!

  • Cyn

    675. Mom424 – & Anon –
    not sure what this is about but i see no comments in moderation. so either someone has released them or something is happening w/ Anon’s side of it.

  • Mom424

    Cyn: I approved them. Sorry I assumed you must have slept in. :) There was no reason I could see for them to be there btw.

  • Cyn

    677. Mom424 –
    k. leave ’em up if there’s a next time. gimme a chance to see if i can figure it out..altho sometimes i can’t figure out what the keywords are either…wonder if J could give us a list? hhmm?
    as for ‘sleep in’…WTF?
    what is this sleep of which you speak? ;)
    like mommies sleep…
    nope. busy w/ my real job/life/calling/reason for being…
    :)

  • Anon

    Mom and Cyn,

    Thanks, you favourite insomniacs and narcolepts of mine. It was no Big Deal. A bit of a joke really, and would obviously be fixed in a trice. I was just amused and wondered why the word for the male of the jungle fowl species (or almost any bird), a very harmless word for the ‘thingie’, or a form of address my own father used should have blown the LV fuse. That’s all!

    I wasn’t aware someone had been taking my aka in vain of late. Still, there’s a lot of it about. Even the Sitemaster isn’t immune.

  • jimmylite

    some errors here… it is now thought that the appendix is a “bank” for beneficial bacteria; after an illness that can purge the gut of useful bacteria, the bacteria that remained safe in the appendix repopulate the body.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/health/research/17appe.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

  • Cyn

    679. Anon –
    sleep is highly overrated. ;)
    and its not just a parental thang..something to do w/ aging too. *sigh*
    older i get the less i want to sleep.

    as for word choice..
    cocktail weiners…cockatiel…cocker spaniel..going off half cocked…

    yup…anything w/ cock in it. ;) will throw comment into moderation.
    no..no..no.. i will not go there! ROFLMAO. i will resist a ‘cock in it’ remark…I WILL RESIST! ;)

  • beth

    wow…it took me 4.17 minutes to scroll from bottom to the top of the page haha…thats crazy

  • astraya

    Anon: Hmmm, yes. “the other DAY”. I was browsing through another dictionary yesterday and found that the same Korean word also means “building”. So: “I woke up this morning with a big building in my pajamas”.

    I was put into moderation for the word “cockatoo” (and unless I’m very much mistaken it’s about to happen again, so I may as well make it worth it:
    Hancock’s Half-Hour
    Cocker Spaniel
    Joe Cocker
    The Rolling Stones’ Cocksucker Blues

    Hi, Cyn!)

    *hi yourself..LOL..Cyn*

  • 683. astraya: So: “I woke up this morning with a big building in my pajamas”.
    ****
    I pity your poor wife.

  • YogiBarrister

    Whoever gets the last post in wins.

  • Anon

    astraya, (683),

    “I woke up this morning with a big building in my pajamas”.

    Not, I trust, the Hampton caught palace?

  • casey

    Well, I did it. Read all the way down (only skipped a few posts, honestly). My opinion on this “be mean to Creationists”(stick) vs. “be nice to Creationists” (carrot) debate goes something like this.

    Be both. Different strokes for different folks.

    Personally, my de-conversion required a firm hand (Dawkins and Hitchens in particular), probably because I never was sappy and wishy-washy like a lot of believers are. I suspect there exist other such reasonable (but resolute)people among the faithful, who just need a swift kick in the ass to get their (otherwise perfectly good) brains working properly.

    That’s why I can agree with Mr. Plow in principle, while commending in practice Randall’s vitriolic approach. It won’t work for the seriously delusional (who use their god-idol as an excuse or a vehicle for the production of all kinds of nonsense and mayhem) or the pathologically emotional/emotionally unstable (who simply *must* believe in something), but it worked for me.

    Plus, I can appreciate (and indulge in) the occasional rhetorical smack down. (And I hate the ridiculous post-modernist notion that a belief deserves respect merely because it happens to be held by a person.)

    Glad to see Jesus came by…finally!

  • Anon

    casey, (687),

    “(And I hate the ridiculous post-modernist notion that a belief deserves respect merely because it happens to be held by a person.)”

    In that case I don’t recommend, if you are an atheist (as I am), your marrying a believer (as my wife is to a degree), or having any friends or relatives who are religious to a greater or lesser extent (not that sure, but possibly somewhere around a third of mine are).

    Whatever may be touted to the contrary, real life is not quite the same as LV, you know.

  • Jesus

    @ Astraya 669,

    ‘Jesus, get a life’!!!

    I have one already, an eternal one.

    As i type this, i’m also crossing your name off the big list.
    Wave godbye to Dream Valley or even Purgatory with all the babies.

    Anyone else want to risk my wrath, get cutesy and see what happens.

    Deal

  • Jehu

    10. Goose Bumps

    If you are a human and did not evolve then goose bumps exist because when you are with your girlfriend and you see she has goose bumps you give her your jacket.

    9. Jacobson’s organ

    More evidence we are divinely created since if it was still operating we would go around sniffing each others crotch just like Dogs. Hard enough to get work done without being distracted by every ovulating female.

    8. Junk DNA

    So somehow natural selection thought it would be a good idea to disable vitamin C manufacturing in human bodies and this somehow proves evolution is true?

    7. Bad Ears

    We cannot wiggle our ears like animals so we must have evolved out of that ability. What survival ability did this confer upon our ancestors? Maybe we have non-wiggly ears because God did not want us all to look like Alfred E. Newman or Obama.

    6. Bad Feet

    We no longer have a muscle that allows us to eat our meals with our feet…almost like walking upright was more important than having two more hands on our ankles, who made THAT decision?

    5. Bad Breath and Teeth

    Some humans have wisdom teeth some do not…so what? Some believe there is no purpose to life or a God, some do not, how does this prove anything? If all humans did not have wisdom teeth you might be on to something, but since many of us had to pay big bucks for the Dentist to pull them out, perhaps it was a divine employment plan for dentists? But probably it is just a trait related to diet, environment etc. This is stupid even for evolutionists.

    4 through 1 Third Eyelid, Darwin’s Point, Coccyx, Appendix

    Vestigial Organs…so what? Most of us that believe in God see design and function in all of creation. Why do all mammals follow the design of one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones and five digits…from whales, to dogs, to men?

    Maybe the same designer would use the same basic template? Who would think that? Since as men (we think we are also intelligent) also engineer and design and delight to find multiple functions based on one design. In fact it is considered a hallmark of good engineering. Same for programing (Modular Code) Gahh, unbelievably stupid, and swallowed without critical analysis by the true brainwashed and smug believers of Darwin.

  • Jesus

    I bet buddha a quid that humanity would self destruct by 2012.

    He laughed, gave me a knowing grin (annoying), accepted the bet and said:

    “Freedom from the laws of life entails first being alive”

    I just gave him a blank look and went waterskiing, the inscrutable b******.

    Love ya

  • Jesus

    @ Jehu 690, question about the five digits…

    A common ancestor is a more elegant solution to this problem.

    Use your brain, that’s why i gave it to you (sort of).

    love Jesus

  • astraya

    Anon: Unfortunately, the Hampton caught fire in 1986. It has been repaired since then.

  • casey

    Well, Anon, I think you are making the mistake so many apologists make in confusing disrespect for irrational beliefs with disrespect for the people who hold them. I thought I made the distinction clear in the wording of the statement you quoted. But just to be clearer, I maintain friendships with several people who believe they have had paranormal experiences, my family are all Catholics (with the exception of a few Protestants), etc. The few of these to whom I’ve expressed my views on this subject do not appear to be particularly offended by them, and I have varying degrees of respect for each of their persons, regardless of the beliefs they hold.

    The thing I was really referring to is this petulant demand for respect with regard to irrational beliefs that you commonly hear from angry Muslims (and their post-modernist and apologist enablers)–for example, as an outcry against certain cartoons lampooning their criminal “prophet.”

    The implication is that people in a free society must curb their enthusiasm for historical fact, objective reality, and freedom of expression so as not to step on the over-sensitive toes of a few (million) zealots. Well, I say, if your idol needs nitwits and madmen to rescue its reputation (especially through threats and acts of violence)among its creations, then that doesn’t bode well for your idol.

    And more to the point, I’m a firm proponent of free speech who believes that the right to speak your mind comes with a responsibility to listen and rationally consider what others say (otherwise, with no one listening, free speech is pretty much useless). To demand that I “respect” the beliefs of others by keeping my mouth shut when criticism is in order, is the ultimate abdication of the aforementioned responsibility. I listen very carefully to others, because I respect free speech and the people who enjoy that right. I make no guarantees, however, about respecting the beliefs those people hold or the arguments they fail to make in support of them.

    In other words, my family and friends can keep their dubious beliefs, but they don’t expect me not to speak my mind about them if they come up, and this can evolve into an interesting conversation rather than a bitter dispute, because we love and respect each other, irrespective of our belief/non-belief in ghosts, karma, Elohim, magic, or nubile virgins.

  • casey

    @ Jehu:

    This is the kind of idiocy I have no respect for. Jehu is so locked into this ridiculous and unfounded belief that he flat out refuses to rationally consider contrary evidence on its own terms. Then he ironically makes reference to “the true brainwashed and smug believers” who accept evidence for evolution “without critical analysis.” Let’s hear your critical analysis of the proposal “God exists.” Oh, you never did that? Skipped that part? Well, I suggest you start by answering the question, “Which god?” and go from there.

  • Jehu

    692 NOT Jesus

    “A common ancestor is a more elegant solution to this problem.”

    To you it is, since a belief in God creating will not fit into your finite and evolved mind. There is no proof of a common ancestor, just speculation, just like my (to you) speculation. To me a designing God is a more reasonable and elegant solution, and yet strangely I can be a good chemist, or engineer or any kind of scientist but a Darwinist. Evolution adds NOTHING to our understanding of life or the cosmos.

  • sprucepinehollow

    Before I wade in here, let me ask you worshipers of evolution, why do you care if someone rejects these ideas? If there is no God, no designer, then all we have is ourselves, and the ideas of correct, incorrect, right, wrong, good, bad, smart, stupid go up in smoke. Nothing matters. So every time you argue for the “rightness” of something you are proving your meaningless ignorance. WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? Furthermore, if all of us just happened to evolve, there is no morality. Genocide, warfare, nuclear holocaust, killing all the damn whales, pollution, global cooking… these are just instances of humankind doing what comes natural. You are a bunch of hypocrites because you trash people who reject the idea of God, but you borrow from their system of ethics.

    These are examples of adaptation, not evolution. Some of these are examples of nothing except the author’s imagination. If anything, they are examples of devolution.

    -Goosebumps… We still have hair and we still have goosebumps. What has changed or evolved?
    -Jacobsons Organ… The author is using circular reasoning, starting with an unsupported assumption that we were once animals that sniffed around for each other, and now that we don’t, we have evolved. This, if anything is an example of adaptation or devolution. Bars, chat rooms etc. are not improvements.
    -Junk DNA… indicates mutations that lead to failure and a shared propensity for this among all life forms. It only leads to evolution in the minds of those who cannot consider any other alternative.
    -ears… clearly designed to work on heads that are vertically oriented and can be swiveled parallel to the ground any direction. No evidence of diminishing ear muscles. They’ve just always been that way.
    -Wisdom teeth… so we could digest cellulose with just the addition of 4 teeth? We lack the digestive equipment to handle large amounts of cellulose 4 extra teeth just wouldn’t make up for the yards and yards of intestine we are missing. No wisdom at all in the author’s assumptions. Something to chew on. Has anyone done a study on the teeth and jaws of ancient populations?
    -eyelids… I asked my cat about this one. He said that cats have been domesticated for millenia & their third eyelid is still just fine. Why do humans get all the good stuff?
    -Darwin’s point… What a convenient name! No one knows for sure what that damn point is supposed to do. Is the author just desperate?
    -coccyx… any fossil evidence anywhere of a “human tail?” The bone serves several purposes now. Where is the evolutionary process here?
    -appendix… no known use… lets see, we were saying that about tonsils for a long time. Are tonsils in this list somewhere? Since we don’t yet know the purpose of the appendix, let’s just suppose that it is a vestigial organ, and lets use our supposition as evidence of evolution.

  • Jehu

    Casey 695

    “Jehu is so locked into this ridiculous and unfounded belief that he flat out refuses to rationally consider contrary evidence on its own terms.”

    OK, how come no evolutionist I have ever talked to, including university professors, can even speculate how symbiotic life forms “evolved.” Look it up, then understand what is involved, then tell me how it could come about by any described evolutionary processes without outside directing intelligence. (Teleology) Cannot be done.

    As all evolutionists you have been sold an enormously simplified view of life from the microscopic to the macro. But that is because you are fairly simple and perhaps have a far more doctrinaire mind than even a medieval Catholic Priest.

    Then evolution cannot even begin to explain the difference between brain and mind, self-awareness, consciousness, and of all crazy things a moral sense or consciousness found only in man. But these are beyond you…you are already sooo much smarter than Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, or most of the founding fathers of America…all believers in God, almost all believers in creation. I am surrounded by the smartest people that ever lived here in the 21st century, just ask them.

  • Mark

    First, the lack of current functionality of some of these body parts does not prove that they were once heavily relied on. Because the appendix is not used today does not prove that it was once a critical organ. Same with wisdom teeth.
    Second, as is usually the case with evolution, there seems to be a constant attempt to suggest that if there is evolution, there can be no God. As if the two are mutually exclusive. I do believe in evolution, but I believe in God. How is that? There is NO PROOF in any fossil records of evolution BETWEEN SPECIES. No evidence to prove that species evolved into others. That is a theory. There is however, scientific proof of evolution within species. For example, a species growing larger over time, growing a longer tail, etc. So the bottom line is–if want to figure out where man came from, you have to have faith in something. You cannot prove with fossils God exists, and you can’t prove with fossils or carbon dating that he came from Chimps.

  • Jehu

    We are told that Giraffes have such incredibly long necks because environmental pressure fueled natural selection to winnow out the shorter necks. The genes kept being passed for long necks. Now we are not told what possible conditions could exist for the extraordinary effort and selection of genes, but it must have been quire extreme. Finally we have our present day giraffes, however all female giraffees are shorter than the males. Why did they survive? The pressure, we assume must have been the same upon the females to have longer necks.

    And thus evolution as sold to those that prefer to reject a creator (willingly) is filled with such utter nonsense. Even a moderately intelligent but unbiased mind must laugh at the contradictions in this theory. To bad Darwin invented it before it was known the fossil record would show no transitory species of higher orders…NONE! To bad he invented this theory before the incredible complexity of single cells was known.

    To bad he invented it before we could understand a single living cell is more directed and more complex than a large human city. And it is also at the same time self-replicating, and self-repairing, existing in symphony with other cells it could not possibly know about, yet devoting its existence to producing proteins and products for itself and those other cells.

  • casey

    @ Jesus:

    I have a question I’ve been DYING to ask you. You claim (through the book that is supposed to be YOU in print form) that 1) without faith it is impossible to please God, that 2) faith is the evidence of things not seen, and that 3) in the Kingdom of Heaven, we will see God. Doesn’t this mean (in accordance with informal logic) that in the Kingdom of Heaven, faith in God will no longer be required, and as such, it will be impossible to please Him?

    Oh, one more question: What’s the big deal? With your “sacrifice” I mean. Really. It’s not like you didn’t know that you would be…you know, RESURRECTED *three days later*! The prophecies all pointed to it and you knew who you were! Yeah, big sacrifice. Wouldn’t it have been more meaningful had you not known–like the rest of us? It doesn’t make you much of a pioneer, you know, or “in all ways tempted” as the rest of us. Not much of a savior if you ask me, considering you didn’t have to resist the doubt that accompanies belief in an invisible, inscrutable, and in all ways undetectable father. You didn’t give us an example of “faith”: you KNEW. “Oh ye of little faith” indeed. God, what a hypocrite. What a spoiled little daddy’s boy you are. Judas, now there’s a guy I can respect–a true zealot (except that he went soft in the end, poor fella–that is, if your sycophants’ accounts are to be believed).

    Anyway, no offense, son of man…I’m just saying.

  • casey

    @ Jehu:

    Let’s hear your critical analysis of the proposal “God exists.” Oh, you never did that? Skipped that part? Well, I suggest you start by answering the question, “Which god?” and go from there.

    All the great minds you belittle by mentioning them went through this process. I’ve read a lot of what they have to say. But you? You’re a pipsqueak who doesn’t understand the concepts he is criticizing. You have a lot of work to do explaining your god-concept and then supporting the proposition that it exists. Put up or shut up.

  • Jehu

    Nor can evolution even begin to attempt to explain the systems that exist in the human body, such as the immune system, that makes planning in the Pentagon for war look like Neanderthals using clubs. Or the ph buffering system of our blood, or the system used for blood clotting, and a thousand other coordinated systems that make no sense outside the context of a fully functioning body.

    I don’t even have time to list complex animal behavior of animals that understand physics, engineering principles, the bending of light between an air and water interface, the silk spinners of spiders and silk worms. War between ant species, including taking of slaves. Animal mimicry the behavior of the cukoo, the angler fish or trapdoor spider.

    You evolutionists believe in a cartoon two-dimensional presentation of life. If you actually studied it you would be in AWE! Instead you enjoy for your minds to be dead, so you will not have to render to God the worship He is due. If any charge could be laid to you evolutionists it is that you are mean and stingy, and will not recognize a mind far beyond yours, and far more beautiful. Instead you worship your dead bones found in rocks.

  • casey

    “Finally we have our present day giraffes, however all female giraffees are shorter than the males. Why did they survive?”

    Wow. That’s a blinding flash of intellect there. I’ll just play along. “They” survived because “they” were able to reach a sufficient amount of foliage, and the males were bigger because males of this species tend to be bigger than females. Of course, individuals don’t evolve, populations do–but I suspect that concept and its application here are both out of your depth.

  • Jehu

    Casey 701

    I have a question I’ve been DYING to ask you. You claim (through the book that is supposed to be YOU in print form) that 1) without faith it is impossible to please God, that 2) faith is the evidence of things not seen, and that 3) in the Kingdom of Heaven, we will see God. Doesn’t this mean (in accordance with informal logic) that in the Kingdom of Heaven, faith in God will no longer be required, and as such, it will be impossible to please Him?

    You argue like a child, are you young? God set up this present world so He would not overwhelm us with direct evidence, as then what happens to free will? To me faith is my inner knowledge that all is not futile, that this universe has meaning, and was designed for a purpose. My faith informs me then that I have a purpose. There are many things wrong in this world, but nearly all of it is caused by man. I can deduce the existence of God by the fact that the world in its natural state is beautiful. Perhaps that means nothing to you, but to me it is enough. Knowing this cosmos is created (or believing) it is created, and I find indescribable beauty in that creation, I then believe God is beautiful. With the most beautiful mind. If so, then I seek to know this being. What do you live for? For all eternity we will need faith in relating to God, because he is eternal and has no boundaries, it will take us an eternity to know Him…and the initial knowing of God up to the next level will always take faith.

    Oh, one more question: What’s the big deal? With your “sacrifice” I mean. Really. It’s not like you didn’t know that you would be…you know, RESURRECTED *three days later*! The prophecies all pointed to it and you knew who you were! Yeah, big sacrifice. Wouldn’t it have been more meaningful had you not known–like the rest of us? It doesn’t make you much of a pioneer, you know, or “in all ways tempted” as the rest of us. Not much of a savior if you ask me, considering you didn’t have to resist the doubt that accompanies belief in an invisible, inscrutable, and in all ways undetectable father. You didn’t give us an example of “faith”: you KNEW. “Oh ye of little faith” indeed. God, what a hypocrite. What a spoiled little daddy’s boy you are. Judas, now there’s a guy I can respect–a true zealot (except that he went soft in the end, poor fella–that is, if your sycophants’ accounts are to be believed).

    You ARE a petulant little child aren’t you? Try having someone crucify you even for half an hour, get back to me on what a little sacrifice that involved. Hamas just authorized crucifixion a few days ago, I am sure they would consent to do it to you.

    Now Christ knew he was going to die the most agonizing death known to man, and he went to that death willingly and he said he could call down thousands of angels to take him from the cross. Here is the situation. If you were the only human being that ever existed and you knew and saw God. But one day you decided to listen to Satan and you did something to defy God and broke relationship with him and were OWNED by Satan, who then commenced to torture you every day of your life and had legal right to do so because of your defiance and rebellion to God.

    And then God loved you enough to come to earth as a man and take your place in Satan’s torture chamber, and you go free, well you figure it out, because that is the case, Christ would have done this (DID) do this for every human being that accepts this sacrifice. Someday you will weep over this sacrifice and remember your words today with shame.

    Anyway, no offense, son of man…I’m just saying.

  • casey

    Jehu, do you ever disagree with your god? Do you ever get into an argument with this “mind far beyond yours?” Does this mind know things that you don’t? If so, then don’t you think it is quite arrogant for you to presume to speak for this mind, or to call its owner a “he,” or to suggest that “He” desires “the worship” you claim “He is due?” Where the fuck, exactly, do you get off making up god’s mind for it? Or is that it right there? Is “god” just something that is all in your head?

  • Pingback: Top 10 signs of modern man « Zeitgeist in a Petiole()

  • casey

    “Someday you will weep over this sacrifice and remember your words today with shame.”

    “But one day you decided to listen to Satan and you did something to defy God and broke relationship with him and were OWNED by Satan, who then commenced to torture you every day of your life and had legal right to do so because of your defiance and rebellion to God.”

    Ah, yes, there it is. The threats of eternal torture and shame. Now run along, skippy. You’ve been bested and you don’t even know it.

  • casey

    Jehu:

    P.S. My post directed at Jesus was in fact intended for HIM to answer, not you. Crom, you are presumptuous. Do you meddle in all of God’s affairs? If so, then maybe you should read his book. He talks about himself and what he wants a lot in there (the selfish prick). But I’m forgetting that you want to impose your own ideas on God and probably couldn’t give a rat’s ass what he says.

  • Jehu

    C.S. Lewis said ultimately there will only be two groups of people. Those who say to God, “Thy will be done.” And those to whom God says “Thy will be done.” Hell is not overt torture. Hell is the place created by God for the spirits who refuse fellowship with Him. It is the place where you can never again approach God, feel His presence, hope for greater things. You get what you want. A place where there is NO God to bother you…enjoy.

    The bummer comes in that you will not have a physical body, although you were created to have and want one. Even demons wanted to go into pigs rather than be out of a physical body. Hell is a place where you still lust, but have no way to fulfill that lust, a place where you still hate, but have no body to pour out that hatred upon them.

    God does not owe you another body, He owes you nothing but to leave you alone, as you wished all the time you were on this earth. Pout all you like…that is reality. God will not be held hostage to your blackmail, emotional or otherwise. All of us detest a grown man that still acts like a seven year old. God is the same way…grow up or go to your room, cept with him it is forever.

  • Jehu

    You seem upset about a God you do not believe in. Hard throwing rocks at God, since they just come straight back down.

  • Jehu

    By the way Jesus is not talking to you, just me.

  • jasmine

    thanks for sharing,good list,let us learn much more.

  • lo

    hey all, it’s been fun -and casey i commend you for reading all that! but i’m done with this one. if i look at it anymore i’ll just be filled with the desire to repeat myself to new people (and if they all care as much as casey, they read what i have to say. if they don’t care enough to do that, then i have little to say to them about this anyway.) the internet is a lovely place, and new lists are beckoning.

    so long live science! and jesus, it was nice of you to find the time to stop by ;) don’t neglect the folks back in south park though, they depend on you being there to tape your show!

  • casey

    “You seem upset about a God you do not believe in. Hard throwing rocks at God, since they just come straight back down.”

    No, they hit *you* in the head, because that’s where your “god” is. But keep preaching, brother. It’s entertaining.

  • Skydiver

    “that is reality.”

    oh the irony.

    Jehu, have you ever considered researching the possibility that you’re wrong? Have you read anything that contradicts religion in order to for an unbiased opinion. I have; I’ve read the bible, I’ve been to church and given religion a fair shake, and it just doesn’t jive. Are you afraid that by expanding your mind and learning that you’ll upset your god and end up in hell? Does that seem like a rational punishment by a god that has given you free will? Most religious people don’t take the opportunity to see any other side because they are so closed minded, there is no other side.

    I won’t get into any arguments with you because it’s pointless. The minute anyone plays the “god” card, the game is over, nobody has won, it’s just over.

  • DiscHuker

    jehu: i’ve never heard anyone say that hell is real but no one will have a physical body there. where did you get this from?

  • Mike

    Sorry, but your last one is wrong.

    The Appendix has been proven to actually have a reason for existence: it is a “holding point” for the repopulation of intestinal flora (the bacteria all humans have in their digestive system to aid in breaking down food) following diseases like Cholera and Dysentery that cause massive flushing of the bowels.

    http://www.wayodd.com/scientists-find-reason-for-the-appendix-protects-good-germs/v/8215/

    If you’ve got a sample of intestinal flora left, you can reboot and have a better chance of surviving the disease. Otherwise, you may be a candidate for a Stool Transplant:

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/367657
    http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/10/the-ultimate-pr.html

  • Randall

    I take a weekend off and look what happens… where was I?

  • SkylineR32

    Recent studies in the UK have proven that the appendix is not useless.
    When the human body is suffering from any infection that may cause diarrhoea, most of the beneficial bacteria that line the intestines will go into the appendix while the body clears itself out, and then re-emerge once they infection has passed. People who have had their appendix removed generally tend to take longer to recover from these infections as they have lost all the beneficial bacteria throughout the intestines and have to allow their body time to regain the bacteria from food they eat.

  • GTT

    701. casey :

    Jesus “knew” about God just as all of us “know” that there is a God. He did not have some sort of written document promisisng him anything. He “knew” because he had faith. And his sacrifice was not just about his death but about his suffering. All the punishments he went through? he was not exempt from pain as he experienced them.

    And yes, he too had a moment of doubt. He was, after all, human.

    ——————-

    715. Skydiver

    *sigh*

    Again with the close-minded thing. Why do you assume you have to be ignorant to believe in God? I´m not saying I agree with what Jehu was saying (at all) but the name calling and the put-downs are just boring and unnecessary. Argue ideas, not people.

  • GTT

    720. Randall

    Hope you had a nice weekend! Now, I´m very much looking forward to your posts regarding Jehu´s…uhm…theories. Please, do not delay! :)

  • Randall

    SklylineR32:

    “Recent studies in the UK have proven that the appendix is not useless.”

    In fact this is not the case–at any rate, not that it is “proven.” I’ve addressed this before. SOME research has indicated a “use” for the appendix—but no, it is by no means “proven.”

  • Randall

    GTT:

    Jehu, huh? I’ll have to read back and see what’s going on here…

  • Cyn

    Randall –
    just make sure its the right ‘jehu’ or ‘Jehu’ or whatever name its going by.

    being hit w/ major case of cowardly identity theft/impersonators today for some reason. on various lists.

  • Skydiver

    722. GTT

    Name-calling? Where am I name-calling? Calling someone “ignorant” is no more an insult than calling someone “mistaken”. I don’t recall calling anyone a “prick” in my posts, yet you feel that I’ve been unfair? Believing in god is not ignorant, I never said it was. Ignoring (note the word there) evidence and basing a conclusion, ANY conclusion, on faith and faith alone, is ignorant. My believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth because I “know it in my heart” would be incredibly ignorant.

    Moreover, I’m not arguing. Arguing with anyone regarding faith is indeed, futile. However, trying to enlighten someone with alternatives to something they’ve been indoctrinated with since birth (when they WERE in fact, atheist) is hardly arguing, particularly when the alternatives are entirely plausible and in many cases, proven. In my past posts I have provided authors, links and ideas to try and do just that. Stating an opinion and not taking the opportunity to at least hear another side is, by its very definition, close-minded. It’s likely you haven’t had this discussion with a faith-based person or worse, a fundamentalist christian before. They have their conclusion, and anything that suggests otherwise is immediately dismissed. Most, if not all, are truly closed-minded. That’s not an insult, it’s an observation.

    Perhaps rather than seeing my posts as inflammatory, you should look into some of the links I’ve provided to help with your knowledge on the topic. We seem to be on the same page here.

  • Randall

    Cyn:

    Jeez, aren’t the kids back in school by now? Mine are.

    Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Used to be that 15 year old losers who couldn’t get girls would hide out in their bedrooms reading comic books and stolen copies of Playboy, wishing that they were the Mighty Thor so they could get Miss March. Sad, but harmless. Now, thanks to the internet, we all get to be subjected to their pimply angst.

    *sigh.* With every little bit of progress, there is a cost…

  • Jesus

    Sigh, Okay, here we go.

    1, God exists in a symbiotic relationship with the universe
    (it’s like the chicken and the egg, even the angels have no idea about the origins of said symbiotic relationship and I suspect that my father doesn’t either. Either way it’s not the kind of thing he’d trouble himself fretting over).

    2, Yes the soul exists but it’s nothing like ANY of you imagine. If you think you have one, you haven’t. If you think you haven’t got one, you haven’t. If you study and work your whole life to attain one you MIGHT get one but probably not. It’s a bit like trying to get into Studio 54 dressed in a sack. Unless you’re Jade Jagger it aint gonna happen.

    3, Evolution is happening everywhere, all the time but time is a wheel and evolution, like cause and effect, works backwards and forwards through time. Get a grip on THAT.

    4, You are God. This is not blasphemy (I’m Jesus for God’s sake), ‘in his image’ means just that, inside his (self) image. Hard to explain this one but it’s kind of like multiple personality disorder without the disorder.
    Clue: Consciousness is infinite.

    5, Yes I knew I would be resurrected but it still hurt an awful lot. Besides my earth life was a metaphor for human existence, can I just refer you to GTT 722 who has a good handle on this.

    6, Hell is real but not forever. A small mis-translation (hey it happens). You need to go back to the original greek texts to check this but it’s there I assure you.

    7, Burn your Bible, Torah, Koran etc. OK, don’t burn them just don’t take them too seriously, chinese whispers.

    8, Love, love, love, love, love and love some more, I’m looking at you proponents of proposition 8.

    9, Stop praying for stuff, do it yourself. Only pray if you want to say hi.

    10, Get happy then spread that happiness. As Funkadelic said ‘Free your mind and your ass will follow, the kindom of heaven is within’.

    Bless

  • Cyn

    Randall –
    i wish it were just sexually inadequate and frustrated teenagers…unfortunately some of these folks are really kinda scary. why on earth take time to troll around, spam shit and make an ass of yourself on a freaking website…not only can you be traced, your comments are erased. such a waste.

    then again..maybe we’re providing a service to humanity here. the more time these losers spend online the less time they’re doing stuff IRL that could actually cause harm.

    anyway..just be careful about commenting.

  • Randall

    Jehu:

    Well, sport… your overwhelming ignorance of the science behind evolutionary theory is surpassed only by your obstinate unwillingness, apparently, to make the effort to understand what you’re railing against, or to listen to others who disagree with you.

    I despair, then, of making a difference with people such as yourself, and am as ever tempted to simply dismiss you. But ever the educator, I shall attempt to enlighten you on some of your more grievous errors. I would suggest you listen. I dislike repeating myself.

    “To you it is, since a belief in God creating will not fit into your finite and evolved mind.”

    Aside from being a very poor sentence, this is simply incorrect and in fact offers nothing in terms of an argument. It’s the equivalent of shouting “I know you are, but what am I?”

    I believe you accused a previous poster of arguing “childishly.” I submit that this is the worst case of a pot calling the kettle black since iron working was first invented.

    First of all, chump, it does not follow (as you seem to be assuming) that anyone who believes in evolutionary theory is an atheist or is incapable of reconciling their belief with a god who acts as a creator. I suppose this might depend on your definition of “creator”–i.e., how that creativity functions–but at any rate, it’s absurd to assume that all evolutionary biologists or that all who believe evolutionary theory to be true are, by extension, incapable of believing in god. In fact, we know that many scientists who support evolution actually DO believe in god—and actually a far more elegant god than one who simply snaps his ethereal fingers and makes up new species like a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. Your denial of said elegance doesn’t make you right–actually, it points out the crudity and awkward messiness of your “arguments” (which to be honest, I have had a hard time making sense of—particularly your first post, which seemed to barely make sense no matter how many different ways I turned my computer monitor up, down, and around). You would ask us, in essence (so it seems) to accept a god that can just do anything, without a care to revealing himself through science (as a means for understanding his actions). Then why, one wonders, should we bother with science at all? Why should ONE science be valid because god follows it, but another science be INVALID because god chose to do it all himself, leaving the evidence there to pester us?

    Of course, this silly “argument” doesn’t hold water anyway, because practically EVERY science creates some sort of problem for the strict, literal interpretation of a god who created the entire universe in six days, etc. It’d be amusing to hear what you allow for and don’t allow for, but after a fashion it would simply dull one’s ears, because one can only listen to nonsense for so long without getting a painful headache from boredom.

    “There is no proof of a common ancestor, just speculation,”

    Your ignorance of the science behind the paleontological studies tracing back our common ancestry with other primates is cute, but also makes me sad–sad that I share this modern world with people lacking so in inquisitive minds. But this has always been the case. Fear drives people further into the darkness instead of seeking out the light. Odd, that.

    At any rate, there is in fact a great deal of evidence supporting the idea of a common ancestor. It’s very solid, complex, and well-supported evidence. Does it answer EVERY question? Nope. That’s why science is not a dogma–it’s constantly learning, relearning and adapting to the evidence, and constantly seeking such evidence. The mere fact that the WHOLE story is not yet known does NOT “disprove” or invalidate evolution. In fact there is a large enough mountain of evidence to stand quite safely on the side of evolutionary theory and support it as true. Certainly there is enough evidence of a common ancestor to do so.

    “To me a designing God is a more reasonable and elegant solution,”

    Explain how this is so.

    “and yet strangely I can be a good chemist, or engineer or any kind of scientist but a Darwinist.”

    Engineers IN GENERAL are not, by definition, “scientists.” And no, you would NOT be a “good” chemist if you were a denier of evolutionary theory–besides many other reasons, because of the main one–namely that it would be outside of the purview of your professional discipline, and therefore you would not have the authority to actively DENY evolutionary theory. I have addressed this before. Evolutionary theory is the paradigm of modern biology for SCIENTIFIC reasons–for reasons of evidence, elegance of theory, and so on. This is not a “dogma” but rather is simply the predominant view, DUE to the evidence at hand. If you want to deny it, then you have to have extraordinary reason and evidence of your OWN for doing so. A chemist denying evolutionary theory, then, is the equivalent of a geologist telling a microbiologist that the well-supported theories governing the secretion, in cells, of certain chemical signals, is wrong.

    “Evolution adds NOTHING to our understanding of life or the cosmos.”

    An unbelievably ridiculous statement. All of modern biology is in fact founded on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory in fact governs our understanding of life itself on MANY different levels. And it relates, in a logical sense, to all sciences overall.

    Not one “argument” you’ve offered up SAYS anything, in reality, Jehu. In fact, all of your statements ring out clearly with the harping, clawing, obstinate shoutings and denials of the rabid dogmatist who has nothing actually on which to BASE his averrals—beyond his own rigid dogma.

  • Jesus

    It’s true, I’m angry and I live under a bridge.

  • Charlie

    “As far as I am concerned, science validates God. It doesn’t negate Him.”

    I actually don’t think you’ll find much argument there. Evolution doesn’t negate the existence of God.

    “(And yes, I think the theory of evolution is ultimately not supoprted by the evidence.)”

    What specifically do you have a problem with? This is a fairly blanket statement, and there is a mountain of evidence that lends credence and validity to evolution. You can’t just say I don’t agree with Evolution, not provide any facts as to why you believe that, and expect to be taken seriously. Can you be more specific?

    “I beleive that God created the heavens and the earth. I never commented on the question thread on whether creationism should be taught in schools, but my feeling is that teaching the THEORY of evolution is fine, as long as it’s understood that there are other competing theories.”

    There are? Like which ones? What supporting evidence do you have? And how much of that evidence can pass the scientific process with peer review, and reproducible studies? If those competing hypothesis’s want to be taken seriously they have to have evidence that can be verified. Intelligent design must have supportable facts that can be validated if it wants to be considered a workable explanation for how the earth and life were created.

    “I’m not an advocate for religion in the classroom, and would also like to see much more honest and open-minded vetting of intelligent design before it’s ever taught to the same extent as Darwinian evolution.”

    You act as if intelligent design has the same level of scientific rigor behind it as Evolution. I cannot find much new evidence that invalidates evolution. I was hoping someone on here could provide some, but I’ve been let down. Much of the arguments used in prior decades have been answered by new data on evolution. The gaps in the fossil records for primates has improved and still it seems to support evolution rather than disprove it. We are discovering more and more of those holes than there were in 1920s, or in Darwin’s time. Modern biology and genetics also seem to validate evolutions theory.

    In scientific terms a theory has been through peer review, and it’s experiments have been replicated by other credible scientists. That means there are some verifiable facts that form the basis of this theory. The theory of evolution has done this. In fact it’s done a lot of this. When scientist say the theory of something it is not an opinion. If an idea has not done this then it’s a hypothesis. These other “theories” you speak of have they been through this process as well? If not how can we expect to compare them for their validity?

    I’m open minded so long as you provide some facts that support your belief, and I really truly want to hear compelling reasons as to why evolution is wrong. I don’t understand why evolution is so controversial with so many religious people. If evolution was wrong I would expect to see more divisions in the scientific community, and I can’t find much evidence of that. College textbooks don’t discuss any other “theories”. It’s given that evolution is a real phenomenon. They don’t mix words and say well this is one possible way it could have happened. It’s pretty much decided. If there was more debate of this I would expect those textbooks to say so, but they don’t.

    You can’t just say anything, provide no basis for your reasoning, then say we’re not open minded. You can’t have it both ways. Provide some facts that support your belief.

  • Randall

    Jesus:

    Can I have my gall bladder back? I miss it.

  • Robby K

    None of this proves evolution. This is adaption to new enviroments and better nutrition. If you take a society that is hunting it will need certain skills to survive when they hunt sucsefully they breed with other good hunters. when you evovle your society other skills are needed. Therefore certain types of bodies will propogate more. Show me one thing that has evolved from another and convince me. And answer this simple question to my satisfaction. Which came first the chicken of the egg.

  • lo

    egg. without doubt.

  • Vincent

    To answer you question Robby K., regarding the infamous conundrum “What came first the Chicken or the Egg,” I believe it can be answered by simply looking at fossil records. Supposedly, life once existed through single celled life, like an aomeba. Through time, cells evolved into multiple cells creating a multiple celled organism. Now if you want to compare to todays standards, the chicken egg (or a single cell/sperm/egg) would have come first before the actual chicken (a multiple celled organism). Just my .02

  • Jeff

    Just the same old list of supposed evidences for the idea that impersonal, nonliving material brought forth living, personal being. Some would have you believe that the impersonal, nonliving material even created itself!

    Self Creating, Self Directed Material. Magic without a magician!

    Folks, the evidence (not “proof”) that this list purports to hold draws from examples of LOSS of function and utility (allegedly), not GAINING of any new functioning systems. But, all “change” is now enough for those In the Religion of Scientism, desperately trying to prove their Creation Myth.

    Heck, I am living perfectly fine after having a kidney removed. I guess that kindney was “vestigial.” Why have two in the first place? My gall-bladder will come out, soon. I know of people with portions of lungs removed, living well. Dang, Evolution, what were you thinking? Why such overkill?

  • Lilith

    To littleboots, 116.

    “Please tell me why in animal societies the weak and and sick are left to their own devices and generally die, thus leaving the rest of the pack/herd to evolve physically stronger and smarter, whereas us humans cater to the weak and sick and stupid, even cushion the world for them, even give them awards? This is what’s slowing down evolution for the human race.”

    —-

    Actually in many cases animals even tend to other species who may be sick or injured. http://webecoist.com/2009/01/05/disabled-animals-pets-rescue-owners/

    The video of the dog rescuing another dog on the freeway is there also.
    http://www.theindychannel.com/family/14890093/detail.html

  • Lilith
  • Lilith

    People keep talking about scientists using fruit flies so here is a link

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/uor-nsf061203.php

    and so it a little more diverse here is a link to a creationist site about fruit flies in evolution.

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

  • Anon

    Can someone suggest why the sort of people who are against evolution often cannot spell, or follow the rules of syntax, or understand semantic and scientific definitions, or construct a logical argument?

    Might it possibly have something to do with (cultural) evolution?

  • GTT

    727. Skydiver : Fair enough. Sorry about that short temper, after reading a few of those “You are so ignorant/foolish/naive/(insert favorite derogative here) bacuase you believe in God” I guess I kinda jumped when I saw the word. No harm done, I hope! :)

    ———————-

    733. Randall : Thanks! Your reply did not disappoint! (Although I was surprised that it was not as biting as I had expected!! :) )

    ———————

    746. Lilith : By the way, somewhere in the 700 posts above someone mentioned that it seems the dog is not actually saving the other one, it is actually trying to hump it… Apparently, when a dog saves someone/thing they drag using the teeth or carry to safety (think gods in Vietnam). This one was “hugging” which would indicate it was mid-hump. Fascinating really.

  • Lilith

    746. Lilith : By the way, somewhere in the 700 posts above someone mentioned that it seems the dog is not actually saving the other one, it is actually trying to hump it… Apparently, when a dog saves someone/thing they drag using the teeth or carry to safety (think gods in Vietnam). This one was “hugging” which would indicate it was mid-hump. Fascinating really.

    741. GTT: Yikes, well I did not read all of the comments so far but I did get to around 400. That is fascinating and awkward, to add humiliation to pain, I feel sorry for that dog.

  • Anon

    Jeff, (736),

    “Heck, I am living perfectly fine after having a kidney removed. I guess that kindney was “vestigial.” Why have two in the first place? My gall-bladder will come out, soon. I know of people with portions of lungs removed, living well. Dang, Evolution, what were you thinking? Why such overkill?”

    Hell, yes. The other day we got a puncture in the middle of nowhere with no spare and managed to drive out perfectly well on three good wheels. What a waste the fourth is. Oh, and I almost forgot. One of our headlights blew a while back. Not the slightest problem getting around with just the one. So we’re thinking of buying a three-wheeled jeep with just one headlight in the middle. We’ll probably call it ‘Tricyclops’. And while we’re about it, although most cars are built with a wasteful four brakes, my engineering pals tell me they would still stop reasonably well if you took three away. So we’ll be sure to have just one fitted. ID engineering without unnecessary overkill that, I should say, wouldn’t you, squire?

    Let’s suppose your “overkill” argument actually does carry weight then. As has already been pointed out before in this kind of debate, that would be a far greater put-down of any so-called ‘intelligent’ designer than of random evolution, wouldn’t it?

    Therefore I am proposing a revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) new hypothesis for LV called UD. (Work it out yourselves.) It needs a UDer. Q.E.D.

  • Pingback: If you doubt the evolutionary process.. « Fahl-out()

  • Randall

    DiscHuker:

    Sorry this is so late. I stayed away from the computer this weekend so’s I could do dirty things.

    “how many other things in the history of science could have been described this way that are now seen as laughable.”

    Actually, very few, if any. See, DiscHuker, “science” is a complex subject. In a purely historical sense the first “scientists” were the Ionian Greeks, who with brilliant, inquisitive minds, sought to answer the secrets of the universe that were puzzling them through observation and philosophy. Surprisingly they were right on some key points–but on many they were off the mark. What mattered, however, was that they bothered to ask, and seek answers to their own questions. This represented a new mindset for humanity, and it was followed up by centuries of Greek study and experimentation and observation. And anyone who knows me knows how deeply I love and respect the ancient Greeks.

    But was it always science? No, not always. Not in the sense that it followed what we today call the scientific method. In a broad sense, we call it “science,” but it was really a precursor, not the exact thing. It was a great achievement nonetheless, and not be trifled with. But let’s take, for instance, a “scientist” like Aristotle, who never even bothered to do experiments to back up even the simplest of his suppositions–nor did he give the evidence even a cursory glance sometimes. Why? Because he, like many of his fellows, believed that such “hard science” was like labor, and as such was beneath him, Aristotle being a genteel blueblood of a respectable Athenian family. Labor was for slaves and peasants. The noble Athenian intellectual was meant only for thinking and pondering. He didn’t get his hands dirty with experiment and thorough observation.

    And, as a result, Aristotle set back the cause of “science” for centuries. As THE authority of the rediscovered Classicism of the Middle Ages church, his errors and philosophical blind allies were taken as unassailable truth. It wasn’t until the scientific method established itself, gradually, during the Renaissance but properly during the Enlightenment, that what we would today call “science” really came into being. Strict empiricism. Repeatable experimentation. Theory built on evidence, and modified to FIT the evidence, instead of vice versa, when enough of the evidence–or a large enough peice of it–contradicted the theory. Openness to new ideas. A NON-DOGMATIC approach to thought and reason.

    THAT is science. And when that was truly established, in the era just prior to our modern age, it has made very few mistakes that one could call “laughable.” Rather, when mistakes have been made they have in fact been due to BAD science–i.e., a violation of the scientific method—for instance, in allowing dogmatism to intrude upon science, and when results are ignored or falsified, evidence poorly examined, experiments shoddily performed.

    YOU are assuming a natural fault in science, that it often sets its mind and then is later shown to be the fool. But this is not at all the case. Rather, it is that science is sometimes beset by fools who don’t know how to practice it.

    But since the various disciplines of our modern sciences became academically established, over the last 100+ years, there have been very few “mistakes” of the “laughable” sort made. There have been theories that were discarded, yes. But these were theories that stood only on the loosest of evidential ground in the first place. We have YET to see a major, paradigmatic shift AWAY from a powerfully supported theory in MODERN science that has followed the scientific method strongly and robustly. Only modifications to lesser suppositions. Chief example are the discoveries in astrophysics and astronomy, the bulk of which came in the mid 20th century. Prior to the establishment of evidence for the expansion of the universe, there really WAS no workable theory about it. As the evidence came in, the theory was formed. It has since been modified in various tangential ways but it has substantially remained solid. The universe is expanding. The Big Bang is suggested by this, and there is other evidence for the Big Bang which is in turn tied to the expansion and illustrates it. This is the paradigm and remains as such today.

    Evolution is built on far stronger ground, in fact. The evidence is clearer, more easy to grasp, and more substantial. Yet the expansion of the universe is clear and evident. Evolution is stronger still.

    “when the microscope first allowed scientists to see amoebas and the like, they were described as “terrible beasties”.”

    What of it? What does a silly label mean? The microscopic organisms in a drop of water ARE in fact ORGANISMS. “Beasties” is a cute word but describes, in a looser sense (but not by much) the same thing.

    “the only concession i, and i believe jeremy and maybe STL mo., am looking for is that there is the possibility that macro-evolution isn’t the final answer on this question. doesn’t the scientific method demand such a position?”

    No, because you’re thinking about it backwards. There IS in fact a great deal of SOLID and well-supported evidence for what creationists insist on calling “macro-evolution.” You are, however, choosing to selectively ignore it and play games with it. The scientific method has already established it. It is up to you, therefore, to present EXTRAORDINARY and CLINCHING evidence AGAINST it if you wish to prove it incorrect. You have not done so. No creationist ever has.

    “for me, God is supreme, Christ was a real man, the Bible is His actual word to humanity, so far as i know.”

    And what, pray tell, has this to do with biology, or for that matter ANY science?

  • BSMDBT

    Does anybody think critically anymore, or do you all just read something and ASSUME its factual and true. If the latter is a case, then you are a SUCKER. What is missing from all the entries in the list? PROOF and FACTS. Goosebumps to pick an easy one..they dont serve any function anymore according to the list…really? It seems they are a reaction to events occuring in the persons environment…no??? Seems like a function to me…but I dont know, I might just be too damn smart for my own damn good. Also where is the proof that goosebumps used to serve a purpose in humans in a different way?? the list never provides one iota of fact…just makes a statement, and expects you on blind faith…or total stupidity…to believe their statements. Ok, I need to be come more lemming like and check my brain at the door before I read such crap, but folks I am an accomplished scientist and this stuff insults my intelligence, and I dont find this particularly difficult to spot BS like this, its not rocket science, so it should insult your intelligence as well. Show me WHEN the ever elusive missing link was found (that millions of scientists still get billions in Government Grants to find..by the way)that shows that we evolved from primates to humans. See, if Im not mistaken, if the the Government funding is still out there for scientists to get, then the missing link STILL HASNT BEEN FOUND! Oh and if they did find it, show me the PRESS RELEASE…I bet you cant. Yet you lemmings believe this stuff as though there was huge press release announcing the discovery of the almost 200 YEAR QUEST for the missing link that Darwin theorized. Rubes, every damn one of you, shame on you for embarrassing your mothers by being so stupid.

  • Lilith

    Goosebumps are also caused by shivering, shivering keeps the body warm. ^^

  • DiscHuker

    randall: “ ‘for me, God is supreme, Christ was a real man, the Bible is His actual word to humanity, so far as i know.’

    And what, pray tell, has this to do with biology, or for that matter ANY science?”

    the point of that sentence was that tag at the end. “so far as i know”.

  • GTT

    742. Lilith : I know… It kinda made me sick to think about it when I first read it. I had not seen the video and you can understand why I dont want to watch it now… :(

    ——————-

    746. BSMDBT : ??? I´m sure if you repeat how smart you are a couple more times, even you might start to believe it.

    ——————-

    DiscHuker: Scientific theories are always open to revision but they remain the norm until new evidence proves them wrong. what is the point of saying evolution “might not” be the answer if, up until this point, there is no evidence to contradict it? In order to be taken seriously, Creationism needs to come up with hard evidence (testable, repeatable, etc) that contradicts the evolutionary theory. I have never heard an argument that didnt include either the Bible or that it “doesnt feel right to me”. Neither are valid scientific arguments.

  • Randall

    STL Mo:

    “What I object to are the dogmatic assertions by evolutionists”

    I know of no such assertions by any proper scientist who supports evolutionary theory. Where is your evidence that any of them are “dogmatic” about it?

    Just because anonymous people on the internet are saying this or that, that does not make them authorities on evolution. This is true of me, you, or anyone else on here. Anyone.

    “4) the science is settled, irrefuatble and can never be challenged (which flies in the face of the very nature of science, which is the search for answers.”

    It’s more than just the search for answers. Science is a process which follows a specific and very rational methodology.

    *I* have never said that evolutionary biology is “settled and irrefutable” in the sense that you mean. But what I HAVE said is that it stands on a body of evidence and empirical support that is more than substantial enough to remain uncracked by the odd spitball you or any other creationist tries to throw its way. IF you want to crack it, you have to present more solid and more substantial evidence than that which supports it. NOT out of any irrefutability, but because the body of evidence supporting it is legion, and has been built up over the last 100+ years to a level that makes it pretty damn hard to ignore or deny.

    Yet you deny it–and you would lecture others about the proper application of science. Rather amusing.

    “People like Newton would be greatly surprised at this mentality.”

    I’d be very careful about invoking Newton to your side. He was, yes, deeply religious. But he understood the scientific method as it stood in his day. Of course, he was also a mathematician, first and foremost–and one cannot second guess what view he may or may not have taken of this or that modern science. Newton was a man. Which made him fallible. Science, however, is not an individual. It is a massive, collective effort. It is self-correcting. Newton may have agreed or disagreed with any number of things we today know from science. But that doesn’t make him some kind of unique authority to resort to.

    “The history of science is replete with examples of one many with a theory going against orthodxy — “settled” science — and busting things wide open)”

    See the post I wrote to DiscHuker, above. Illustrate for us some of these examples that the history of science is “replete” with, and I’ll pick it apart for you. Modern, proper science following the scientific method has made very few, if any, glaring mistakes of that nature. You will certainly NOT find it in modern biology. You only WISH it to be there and WANT it to be there. Yet you are not up to the task of actually proving it to be there, and no creationist is.

    “7) Christianity offers nothing for the present (millions upon millions of believers around the world today would beg to differ)”

    And millions upon millions of others would agree with me. Church attendance has been declining in the west for decades. Even further back, the church has steadily lost power over the individual mind from its heights centuries ago to the point where today it is nearly inconsequential. To what do YOU attribute this? Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud and their other devil-inspired friends? Please.

    “Science and religion should never ever mix period no matter what”

    What I have said is that the two have nothing to do with another directly. Science does not and cannot address the existence of god or what is OUTSIDE of what can be empirically demonstrated. God, by definition, is that.

    In the reverse, religion cannot and should not deny evidence that is before our very eyes, nor should it pervert such evidence on dogmatic grounds or any other grounds.

    As for your list–it is in fact dead on arrival because you could not, as you claimed, present a list of NON Christian biologists who refute or disbelieve evolution. Beyond, perhaps, one or two or three (though we don’t even know if this is true, since you couldn’t present any background information for the authors–so we have no way of knowing who IS a Christian and who isn’t. Perhaps they all are. Perhaps none are. We don’t know).

    Anyway, again–what of such a list? As I said earlier, evolutionary theory is established and well supported by over 100 years of observation, study, and experimentation, and by mountains of EVIDENCE. Amongst the legions–thousands upon thousands–of modern biologists—the great majority of them believe in evolutionary theory and support it. So say you present ten who don’t. It doesn’t PROVE anything. To assail an established science requires extraordinary evidence and great numbers… not a handful of dissenters.

    Yup, tomorrow evidence might be found that proves the whole damn Bible was literally true from start to finish. But that evidence has NOT been found. And until it is, you need to amass a lot more than a few bits and pieces and the voices of a tiny group of dissenters. THAT is how science works. It isn’t that the dissenters are to be silenced because they violate a dogma–it is simply that the theory is agreed upon and if they wish to disagree, then let them present their evidence and the judgement will be made by the majority of accredited scientists in that field. So far, however, all creationists have are bits and pieces–and many of those are mere distortions and selective omissions. You aren’t there yet and you have a LONG way to go.

    *I* could present HUGE lists of biologists the WORLD OVER who DO support evolution–and book upon book and website upon website. Yet you choose to listen to the dissenters. That’s the bottom line here.

  • Anon

    BSMDBT, (745),

    “I am an accomplished scientist”

    So we notice from your cautious, dissertative, academic approach (compared with the rampant, uninformed, sforzando hyperbole of Randall, for example).

    But wait. Now I come to think of it, I believe I do vaguely recall once upon a time hearing many scientists of your school holding forth. If my memory serves me, they all belonged to a discipline called Christian Science.

    “I bet you cant”

    Sir, kindly remove and retain your cant for your own strictly private and personal use. None of us wishes to win it from you.

  • Randall

    DiscHuker:

    Listen, no evolutionary scientist is trying to deny your faith–nor am I. I in fact share some ground with you on your beliefs.

    But again I ask you–what does it have to do with this science, or any science for that matter?

  • Lilith

    742. Lilith : I know… It kinda made me sick to think about it when I first read it. I had not seen the video and you can understand why I dont want to watch it now… :(

    748. GTT: Yeah I can see why.

  • Randall

    BSMDBT:

    If you’re an “accomplished scientist” then I’m Brad Pitt and at this very moment Angelina is doing wonderfully dirty things to me that make me shiver.

    I wish only that it could be so… as you surely wish you were, in fact, an accomplished scientist–which I am quite sure you are, in fact, not.

  • Anon

    To return to serious animal behaviourism for a change, rather than frivolous human misbehaviourism.

    The highway-humping dog syndrome referred to sporadically above. While not claiming the two are in any way related, I remember seeing something of a similar nature in a wildlife programme about elephants. But in its way moving rather than grotesque. It’s well known that elephants can ‘envisage’ death. There is some evidence that they can both forsee its threat and also remember its passage (elephant’s graveyard). The footage showed a very recently dead cow of an extended family beside a water hole. All the adults kept touching and caressing her with their trunks, attempting to ‘awake’ her, or perhaps they were looking for a reason for her inertness. When all such efforts failed, the dominant bull tried to mate with her. The commentator (who was a professional field investigator of elephants) explained that this is a quite common phenomenon, and is supposed to relate to sex as one of the maximum expressions of life.

  • Lilith

    I love elephants their eyes are so expressive.

  • DiscHuker

    randall: i am not saying that has anything to do with science. my point is the unassailable nature of the position of many in the “evolution camp”.

    you are clear to state that competing evidence is needed for an alternative theory. and this is only right. however, many seem to take the stance that evolutionary biology cannot be usurped.

    my statement was to say, this is what i think is foundationally important SO FAR AS I KNOW. my position is falsifiable. would the average evolutionist say the same?

  • Randall

    DiscHuker:

    “you are clear” (I believe you meant “correct”) “to state that competing evidence is needed for an alternative theory. and this is only right. however, many seem to take the stance that evolutionary biology cannot be usurped.”

    NO proper scientist takes precisely that view. You must separate the words of lay adherents from professional adherents.

    However, what you must also admit that there is a VAST cadre of LAY PEOPLE (i.e., who are not professional, academic biologists or scientists) who are attacking evolution as a science, based on their own religious beliefs. It ought to be only understandable, then, why many professionals are a tad defensive about the subject. Imagine if chemists were being picketed and harangued by religious folk because the mixing of chemicals was somehow considered an offense to their religion, or what have you. Chemists would tend to get a bit defensive in time and be extra wary of people challenging their field–particulary those who are not, themselves, professional chemists.

    “my statement was to say, this is what i think is foundationally important SO FAR AS I KNOW. my position is falsifiable. would the average evolutionist say the same?”

    Well, I don’t quite understand what you mean by “falsifiable.” Your position can be falsified? But it’s simply a statement of faith in the teachings and/or theology of your religion as you know it. I don’t understand how you think this can or should be equatable with adherence to an established science. Why do you feel it’s some kind of victory if you get an evolutionist to say “so far as I know”? AGAIN—no professional scientist that *I* know is a dogmatist. They ALWAYS admit that they only know things as FAR as they know by the evidence, observation, and experimentation. I honestly don’t see what your point is. You want to paint evolutionary biology as a dogma–and I keep repeating to you that it is NOT that at all, and no scientist *I* know of views it as such.

    You are, I believe, confusing dogma with paradigm/dominant theory. This is not merely a play with words. The two are very different.

    But let me ask you a different question. Why do you feel compelled to disprove or assail evolutionary theory? What bothers you about it so?

  • bigski

    What a very interesting and controversial list and I read every post,no shit. I thought the debate between creationist and evolutionist thought provoking,the sincere one`s anyway. There don`t seem a middle ground and it look`s like it`s gonna stay that way. I believe in the theory of evolution and I don`t think im going straight to hell.Even more interesting were the discussions about duck raping & gangbang`s,dog necrophilia,dead horse beating`s and coccyx – anus alignment. Anon you spelled sumpin wrong in post 453 there`s no u in that word. (Told you I read them all).

  • Anon

    Good point, Randall. Those who aim to discredit evolution as being an unproven and potentially unprovable science demonstrate a number of fairly common attitudes. One is to point up what they report as hostile defensiveness and aggression by those who support evolution. (In fact I have a suspicion that any academic authorities on the subject who might frequent LV, far from itching to fight, would probably be bored stiff with the whole dispute and have better ways to waste their spare time. I’m getting pretty twitchy here myself as a mere ‘user’ of evolution.)

    Let’s examine this topic. It says nothing about religion. It is essentially about human anatomy. Why, then, does it or any similar subject attract a small army of attacking religious folks? They seem drawn to aggressive battle simply by sight of the word ‘evolution’, which they feel obliged to tear away at. Why is it so important, such a threat? And, curiously, to some religious but not others. There is nothing in the texts and procedures of the study of academic evolution that involves or threatens religion in either a negative or positive sense. It is, as Randall has remarked, irrelevant, at least until it forces the door and enters uninvited.

    There are types of music nowadays that I detest. Provided their noise doesn’t intrude into my existence, I merely avoid them though. As an atheist I don’t feel the urge to enter every building I see with a cross on it and start attacking the dogma and beliefs of its adherents. I’m confident enough where I stand not to need to bolster my view by destroying the opposition.

    So why?

  • Skydiver

    Forgive me for interjecting, but the answer is simple Anon. To Creationists, evolution discredits the bible. There is no mention of evolution in the bible. According to the creationists, the bible is the word of god, infallible and undeniable. By providing evidence that the book of Genesis is not accurate, it is threatening the very thing that they base their entire belief system on. If the book of Genesis is wrong, what else in the good book is wrong?

    As I said in an earlier post, Creationists have a lot to lose. It’s a bitter pill to swallow. However it’s all irrelevant due to the Satan card that would ultimately be played. “Satan” created the evidence to make us “think” that the bible is wrong… it’s a never-ending cycle. Science will always press on and discover truths, regardless of whatever dogma is present in the world and religion will always be there to try and suppress it.

  • astraya

    There is no mention of Australia or Korea in the bible, but that doesn’t stop me being a citizen of one and a resident of the other.

    Anyone who believes that the bible is infallible and undeniable obviously hasn’t reached the end of page 2. Page 1 and page can’t both be infallible and undeniable.

  • Jesus

    @ Lillith 755,

    They are such emotional creatures, it breaks your heart.

  • casey

    “701. casey :

    Jesus “knew” about God just as all of us “know” that there is a God. He did not have some sort of written document promisisng him anything. He “knew” because he had faith. And his sacrifice was not just about his death but about his suffering. All the punishments he went through? he was not exempt from pain as he experienced them.

    And yes, he too had a moment of doubt. He was, after all, human.”

    Well, that’s not according to the account in the Bible, you know, where it talks about Jesus and what he supposedly did while on earth (and what his sky daddy supposedly said and did to/for him, etc.). Do you submit to any kind of authority over this area of “knowledge”, or do you just make it up as you go along (like most apologists)? That comes across as rude, but it’s a legitimate question, which deserves an answer.

    Relevant scriptures: Matt. 3:16-17, wherein Jesus “saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him,” and heard “a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 4:1-11, wherein Jesus converses with the fallen archangel Lucifer himself, and *rebukes* him (something only the Godhead has the authority to do), and subsequently has *angels* minister to him! I could go on, but I think (I hope) you get the point.

    As to your suggestion that Jesus had a moment of “doubt,” I can only assume you are referring to his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. However, that was not a moment of doubt but a moment of weakness. That is to say, Jesus was not doubting God’s existence or his own supernatural identity at all (how could he be, after all the miracles and conversations with paranormal entities, not to mention the “fulfilled prophecies?”). Notice: “Oh my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.”

    So, my point still stands, unassailed: Jesus was not “tempted in all ways” (least of all by the possibility of unbelief, that nagging lack of evidence we all suffer under) as the Bible claims, and therefore could not have been a proper savior, at least not according to the proffered model for salvation. Then again, you could just make something (else) up…

    Furthermore, He was from a lineage whose descendants for all eternity had been previously put under a curse by God, barring them from serving in the Priesthood–so, he was not even qualified to be your High Priest, as the Bible claims he was. That’s a bonus argument, because I’m feeling generous.

  • casey

    @ Jesus:

    So, anything goes? You can be Buddha or Jesus or Muhammed or some other imaginary being that no one has thought of yet and you’re still Jesus? Under the paradigm you put forth, The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be a “Christian” deity. Without a holy book to ground the system of belief, you just have a bunch of people making stuff up, but, instead of writing it down and saying, “This is Christianity,” they merely content themselves, privately, with saying, “I am a Christian because x.” Either way, book or no, the collective “Jesus” is just a figment of our imaginations. But with your model, “Christianity” just means, “Whatever.” So, you’re the COOL Jesus. And so am I. I get it. No intellectual honesty or metaphysical precision required. Why even call it Christianity? Go one(?) step further and call it “Buddhinduchrislamwicca,” to embrace as many vague, incoherent, and contradictory notions as is possible.

  • casey

    “jehu: i’ve never heard anyone say that hell is real but no one will have a physical body there. where did you get this from?”

    He made it up, or someone else made it up. What did you think, the mighty Yahweh told him?

  • Anon

    Skydiver, (760),

    Point taken, but my question of why specifically target evolution still stands. Anyone who must believe Genesis literally has taken on the task of discrediting practically all modern science, not just evolution. Astronomy and geology surely represent demons of equal fiendishness? Nothing in modern science supports the literal biblical time stated for creating the universe, or a universal flood.

    Biological science supports evidence of a biodiversity in the time of Noah which would require an Ark scarcely smaller than the planet itself. So indeed does Creationism itself. If everything was created in one swell foop, then two of everything that is around now would have to have been rescued. Wilson cites some 1,413,000 known spsecies, but a grand total of life on earth as somewhere between 10 and 100 million species. That would require capacity on the ark for a minimum of 20 million individuals. One might, I suppose, allow that aquatic denizens were hardly in need of rescue, so rather fewer, but not significantly so. However, since they are supposedly not preying on one another the while, nothing is allowed for sustenance requirements whilst afloat. This would involve staggering billions more of organisms of all kinds.

    And supposing the New Testament to be even more critical, medical science might be chided for not supporting rising from the dead, and the laws of physics for denying walking on water (except to that eponymous lizard!). Not to mention ‘matter can neither be created or destroyed’ (vs miracle of fishes and loaves). After all, why should miracles be exempt if supernatural ID isn’t? And so on. Or is there a battle plan to engage and clobber one demon at a time?

  • Jesus

    @ casey, 764

    I didn’t call it christianity, you did.

    Blessed are the Jeep, they shall know diff. lock!

    Amen

  • Jesus

    Embracing contradictory notions is what it’s all about.
    There is no god but God and we need no messanger.

    Amen Ra

  • Jesus

    No you don’t get it. Try reading between the lines. Straight is the Gate.

    Shall Om

  • astraya

    Anon: In course of researches I found a website on “biblical astronomy”. The premise is essentially “If modern science and the bible disagree then the bible is right and modern science is wrong”. I didn’t post the URL to spare the susceptible (if any exist on this site).

    Yesterday as my wife was driving me to school there was a just-past-“full” moon “setting” in the west. As I walked up the stairs, the light of the “rising” sun shone in through the window. It is easier to use those terms than to go to a long-winded scientific explanation every time.

  • Jesus

    I just have to go back to Casey in 701,

    Sorry I missed this one,

    True, once the Kingdom is revealed, faith will no longer be necessary. That first part only aplies to humans in the Piscean era. Originally there WAS a footnote about this but over the years well I guess you know the rest.

    A blessing upon your line

  • Jehu

    Evolution as taught is incompatible to Christianity. The doctrine of original sin is null and void if men descended from various tribes of Apes. Since according to the scripture sin entered into the world (into humanity) by the disobedience of one man. Therefor (This is now an equation as God is scientific NOT religious). Therefore sin may be removed by one man.

    In a real sense all human beings were genetically in Adam and Eve. They were perfect, or rather innocent, they fell, all born from them inherit that sin. OUr nature is sinful, it is in opposition to God and nature. Anyone with kids knows this to be true. Man is the only creature that has to make laws against himself to protect his own environment.

    Christ then comes and takes away that sin nature in a real act of spiritual transference, that will eventually work out to our souls, and physical beings. But it is not automatic, you must accept by faith that this is so, otherwise you will die in your sin, no matter how smart you think you are.

    Now Adam could have been created directly out of some dirt, or God could have separated a Cro-Magnon man from his tribe and breathed his spirit into him, to create a human being. Scripture is satisfied with either event. However the Dawinian view is false, simply for the reason it denies original sin. Ever since Darwin the condition of man has gotten worse, our wars and genocide have grown in proportion and severity. And hatred for Christians and Christ is given a “scientific,” cloak.

    Not much different now days than Rome when they fed the Christians to the Lions, symbolic of now where Liberals, Secular Humanists, Communists, Islamicists and Darwinists have become BEASTS in both nature and their understanding. Scrape it all away, all the psuedo-scientific blather and you find the hostility and hatred to Christ and to His sacrifice.

    If you believe men descended from tribes of apes…you deny the sin and wrongness of humanity (fools that do not know history) so that you may deny the remedy, the ONLY remedy given by God for this sickness and condition.

    It says in Revelation that men will begin to perceive the reality of Christ and hate it so much they will ask for the rocks to cover them. This is not about physical rocks and dirt, it is speaking of this time we are in now, when it is known, and all our science shows, that God created this universe and life and men hate this so much they turn to the rocks and dirt for their truth, trying to hide from God, just like Adam had to hide his nakedness with a fig leaf. Nothing new under the sun…really, well except for this generation thinking they are the smartest that have ever lived, the sun rises from their butts. Yet they are the greatest fools that have ever lived.

  • Anon

    “Man is the only creature that has to make laws against himself to protect his own environment.”

    And the only one who builds spacecraft to get to the moon.

    Whatever next?

    In fact, man is the only organism with a developed enough mental capacity to have moved on from incredibly slow Darwinian evolution to incredibly rapid cultural evolution. Conscious cultural evolution ‘short-cuts’ random ‘common’ evolution by deliberate action. Hence man is indeed in a very true sense the only organism to ‘make’ laws rather than waiting for behavioural selection to imprint them gradually in the genetic makeup of the species. That animals do have their own innate ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘punishments’ against their own kinds is evident enough to any behaviourist, and may be seen not least in the way parent animals react when their young step out of line.

  • Skydiver

    As you can see Anon, there’s no reasoning because logic just goes out the window and is replaced by scripture.

    It’s an argument that can never be settled. Someone who is only willing to see things as they’ve been told they are, rather than thinking for themselves, will always find a way to skirt logic.

  • Anon

    Jehu, (772),

    I’m sorry to be a trifle impatient, dear boy, but to be honest, I have heard most of your spiel there before.

    But at least you make it quite clear that two people were specially created supernaturally and placed on earth as the ancestors of us all. And from that I must conclude every other creature we see around us was also created ‘ready-made’ by the divinity.

    Therefore, what I now want is the really exciting bit. Your explanation of how all our 10-100 million different organisms were actually deployed by God. Did he snap his fingers and, bingo! suddenly a whole functional terrestrial ecosystem or coral reef where there was nothing before? Or was there a tree here, another plant there, a smattering of bacteria, a few ants, then mice, the odd frog, followed by foxes, tigers, elephants, and so on? Perhaps starting with plants and going from the smallest to biggest creatures. A bit like we make a garden or stock a zoo? Or was it quite different from all these. Do tell us.

    And of course, the real thrill will be your description of the design of the Ark and the astonishing achievement of Noah in managing to gather together somewhere between 10 and 100 times more creatures than we can manage to name today in all our collections. Plus feeding and keeping them all. (Watering wouldn’t have been a problem. I see that.) Wow. My word. That is certainly impressive beyond all modern scientific and technoplogical achievements.

  • lo

    i can’t stay away from this list! the idea of calculating a “realistic” arc size is fantastic. pretty much as biblical “history” fails tests of realism and logic.

    so for this one remember to calculate not only space for 2 of every single species now known (though know i read some translation that said it 6 each of the “clean” animals and 2 each of the “unclean). also put some space in there for all the animals and insects and other things we haven’t yet discover (you think dirt is empty? there is a lot of biomass in there). now remember to add all the animals that EVER lived -dinosaurs and all if we’ve found it and nothing “evolves” it was all present at “creation.” even without accounting for aquatic creatures and some sort of sustenance for all the arc’s passengers and i’m siding with the person who voiced that it would need to be almost the size of our planet.

    and what did those animals eat and drink? and where did the waters come from and vanish to? and why of why does no one ever talk about the plants? cover every terrestrial plant on earth with water, especially brackish/salt water for some long amount of time (at least 40 days, right bible guys?) and many won’t survive, neither will viable seeds of everything.

    god did it ;)

    NOTHING about the arc tale is plausible as literal fact. don’t people (who believe these things) get annoyed that god appears to have used miracles sweepingly and
    indiscriminately all the time a few thousand years back, then appears to have quit and left humans to their own devices ever since?

  • Anon

    bigski, (758),

    MAN, I AM IMPRESSED. You got square eyes, yup?

    Sorry about the u. Where I come from we cain’t spell proper.
    You had me worried for a minute. When folks start on about words with u in them, well …

    But we do know ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ kinda has lots of zees in it. Yeah.

    (All this’ll make sense to you – but who else?)

  • Anon

    lo, (776),

    Oh, curses. You reminded me I made a screw up of my calculations. I included all the plant taxa for the ark. So now I’ll have to subtract those.

    Of course, in case you didn’t realise, they were huddled on top of Mt Ararat until the waters subsided. Noah took them there and planted them beforehand, while he was combing the planet for its wildlife (and domestic stock, clean and unclean). What a remarkable botanical garden that must have been.

  • GetALife

    People!

  • Manon

    Hey JFrater are you aware that this list has been posted word for word image for image at http://worldmysteries9.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man.html?

  • Jesus

    Go on a nice holiday you bad bad peoples

  • Randall

    Jehu:

    I note with interest that you utterly failed to address my comment to you (#729) above. I am not surprised.

    Your recent argument comes down to this, Jehu. You believe a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one that can be made; therefore you not only call science and those who believe in it “anti-Christian,” but you call OTHER CHRISTIANS who do not cleave to a literal interpretation “anti-Christian.”

    Ah… the true word of god is revealed, we now see, to only those lumpen morons who can only read the Bible as literal prose, not as metaphoric poetry. The latter, in fact, is offensive to them.

    They that hate poetry in their souls shall have no beauty, truth, or wisdom in their life.

    (I just made that up. Lousy, I know, but oh so true nevertheless).

  • Sonophos

    The Appendix has now been shown to have a use in Humans. It is part of the immune system and is active during childhood.

    It allows white bllod cells to be exposed to partially digested food thus leading to immunity to various bacterial and viral infection.

  • Anon

    Randall, (782),

    Excuse me for interrupting your fine flow, but I feel you left out something quite important for humanity. Poetry has many important lesser aspects besides the spiritual and profound, therefore:

    … shall have no sense of humour either in their life (not of Brian).

  • Randall

    Sonophos:

    AGAIN, this has not yet been PROVEN. It is merely INDICATED by some research. It is far from being an absolute certainty, and there is still much evidence to the contrary.

    Anon:

    Excellent point. We shall emend my terrible aphorism then and call it “ours.” Let it be carved in the timeless stone and the living rock for all to see and look upon in despair. So let it be written, so let it be done.

  • GTT

    763. casey :

    Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
    – Matthew 27:46

    And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, “Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
    – Mark 15:34

    I can quote too.

    ———————-

    772. Jehu
    “…when it is known, and all our science shows, that God created this universe and life…”

    What science?!? That is exactly the point of this argument. WHERE IS THAT SCIENCE?!

    ———————-

    775. Anon : I am thouroghly enjoying trying to picture the size of that ark. Must have been great!! hahaha… :)

  • DiscHuker

    randall: to answer your question.. “Why do you feel compelled to disprove or assail evolutionary theory? What bothers you about it so?”

    i don’t feel compelled. to a large degree i am playing devil’s advocate in this particular discussion. i don’t know enough to launch an assault on the science/evidence so i am simply arguing the logical fallacies i see in many of your like-minded brothers.

    as far as your second question, i do see potential problems with the conclusions that evolutionary theory leads to. granted, the science involved hasn’t concluded any of this, but that doesn’t stop the run of the mill amateur scientist from following the unpaved road to the end. your point about the professionals involved not guessing at the meaning of all this is well taken. however, i don’t deal with those guys in my circles. the people i work, play and live with who have no education on this topic beyond their high school or college biology classes or their brief glimpses at dawkins on the today show or oprah or something.

    while the responsible scientist doesn’t conclude that this means there is no God, the average citizen does. this is why it concerns me. anything that will keep people from the blessings of relationship with the Creator (and i don’t just use this term to stir the pot in this context. i love this descriptor of God) i want to “disprove and assail”. not so that i can be proved right in some argument, but rather so that they can experience “life and life more abundantly” (john 10:10) as soon as possible.

  • beth

    i’m so waiting for this list to push 1,000 comments haha

  • Anon

    Disc, (787),

    So instead of better educating people about evolution in order that they understand and respect the theory of evolution, its proper scientific intentions and parameters, the solution is to attack and discredit it (“disprove and assail”).

    Hmmmmm.

    Sounds a bit like categorising kitchen knives as dangerous weapons, because some folks use them as such, regardless of what they were designed for. Or not?

    I suspect you will only end up bringing people to your Creator (if you do) on a false trail. What will that serve? Indeed, I imagine you may well lose many who accept evolution and Christianity as perfectly compatible (whether or not they are).

  • Jeremy

    Wow! You guys are still talking here? I think Randall or one of you others should set up their own forum on the topics that have brought up here in the comments. And here’s why:

    Most of the comments in this thread are only vestigially related to the article above (get the pun?).

    Evidence in the article: 10 instances of human organs/parts which appear to show evidence of once greater form/function.

    Logical leap made by article: These 10 instances interpreted as lost function are the top 10 examples of (upward?)Evolution in Modern Man.

    My interpretation: There’s no evidence given IN THE ARTICLE for (upward/macro) evolution because the 10 examples cited only involve the loss of something.

    There is a lot more to be added to the discussion than the actual article provides. Which is why I say, since all of you folks are so excited to talk about this subject, you should perhaps find a forum to do so before this one is closed out (anyone know how long the mods leave these open?).

    Heck maybe I’ll do it. I’ll have to think about it, but I’ll let you know what I come up with.

  • Jesus

    A blessing upon your new venture, Jeremy

  • Jesus

    Go forth and populate it with Biblical scholars

  • Randall

    Jeremy:

    Very few threads are EVER closed. We’re old timers here, we know.

    And as for you, I notice that you failed (unless I’m mistaken) to ever ANSWER any of the points put to you god knows how long ago. So not terribly impressed with you popping back in here to make brief and perhaps snide observations about how we’re still talking about it.

    Your assessment of this list is still WRONG anyway, but of course it’s typical of your sort that you continue to harp on it as though what you thought was just so and the rest of us were just dead wrong.

  • rismeyes

    How can ‘darwin’s point’ even be used as a sign of evolution? The point on humans is on the inside part of the ear (not to mention hardly discernible) and on other mammals it’s on the outside. Talk about reaching for proof.

  • Cyn

    793. Randall –
    closing threads implies this is a forum not a website…eh..whatevah. call LV what you like..

    as for closing..i’d like to take these comments out back and put ’em down like a mad dog.
    the list itself is fine but way too many commentors need a whuppin’. ;)

  • gman

    Natural selection….YES. Evolution…most likely. Proven….not yet. Devolution is definitely more correct. 3 or 4 major camps on evolution theory, and they all spend their time disproving the other camps findings. They are right in their disprovings, and deluded to believe their own ideas. Let them come up with something credible, that 75 percent of their peers can’t disprove easily, and then the theory will start to formulate. Until then, keep trying.

  • Jeremy

    Randall,

    I apologize that my text conveyed a snide attitude that I can only argue in writing, not prove in fact, did not exist. Actually the fact that everyone is still writing about this is AWESOME.

    My point was that because so many threads (ok not this one?) often are closed after a certain point in time, and on the basis of everyone’s here peaked and vehement interest, a continued forum of discussion might be to everyone’s intellectual benefit.

    I stopped by just to see what had been said in my absence and found it intriguing that all of the folks were still having extensive dialogue on the subject(s). I also observed that many of the topics in the comments are only tangentially related to the actual article above (other’s in this thread have observed and commented to this effect).

    Please though, do enlighten me as to my error in my three points of assessment of the top ten list. I don’t believe I said at any place in post 790 that any of those three points of assessment disproved evolution. And I don’t intend to convey that you or others are “dead wrong”. Please review the article from the perspective of those three points and tell me which of my assessments are logically faulty and where the breaks in logic occur.

    Just for reference and clarity, my three points:

    1). Evidence in the article: 10 instances of specific human organs/parts which appear to show evidence of once greater form/function.

    2). Logical leap made by article: These 10 instances interpreted as lost function are the top 10 examples of (upward?)Evolution in Modern Man.

    3). My interpretation: There’s no evidence given IN THE ARTICLE for (upward/macro) evolution because the 10 examples cited only involve the loss of something.

    (Perhaps the evidence you might cite -point three- is that the loss implies equal and opposing genetic gain?)

    And as for not answering EVERY point, which you in your hyperbole call “any”, I just point out that in post 452 in response to post 445 you write “I only have a moment here so I’ll have to return later to answer your latest post in its entirety,” You did not do so. I don’t/didn’t expect you to.

    As for being gone for “god knows” how long. I’ve stated previously that I am a working father. Should I apologize that my life intervened with my “life” on the interwebs (Now that may be snide)?

    I really try to be gracious generally and not condescending, sarcastic or snide. I do admit that re-reading some of my posts, I see some evidence for that attitude. I apologize to you and others who may be the recipients of such.

    Remember too that it can be difficult to convey the attitude one actually has toward a topic, and altogether easy to convey the opposing attitude through text!

    Can you feel the love?

  • McCow

    The appendix… Is not useless…it has been discovered it stores bacteria, so to repopulate the gut with bacteria, after an illness, or diarrhea…..its very usefull

    bugs in us

  • saru

    Why can’t people think that maybe God is responsible for Evolution? I mean I would think that that would be in HIS best interest. right? I’m not religious at all, I very much believe in evolution but I have that argument to make?

  • saru: That is what the Catholic Church generally says – it is usually fundamentalists who disagree with the idea of evolution – thinking the Bible to be 100% literal description of history.

  • cymraegbachgen87

    I havent started to wade through the vast responses above – I will save that for a later date (probably during work as a bit of a distraction ;) ) I have seen a few comments go up on the sidebar of the site though and have gathered that this is a very touchy subject.

    I have always wondered, if various religious groups are so convinced that evolution is false, why do we not hear these groups calling scientists liars when they say things such as there is a possiblity of the H5N1 virus (“bird flu”) mutating (remember mutation is the engine that drives evolution) to a human transmissable disease. Obviously correct me if I’m wrong!

    Also, how do they claim the normal flu virus changes each year?

    O…and pet peeve…we have enough evidence through molecular biology and associated techniques to prove evolution and relatedness of species WITHOUT the fossil record!

  • Anon

    Greek columns on modern, evolved buildings that do not ‘need’ their support function.

    False nailheads on modern, evolved one-piece doors.

    The blind mantleshelf, which still carries ornaments and acts as a focal point, although its original primary function, surrounding an open fireplace, has evolved as central heating.

    The driver of automatic vehicles. Explanation: Some vehicles which run on tracks have evolved so as not to need a human at the controls. However, because passengers feel insecure without one, an ‘unnecessary’ ‘relict’ reassurance driver had to be installed in some cases.

    The sundial, once an important timepiece, now almosy exclusively ornamental and replaced by mechanical and digital equivalents.

    Five quickly thought-up examples of lost (original) function, now changed, vestigial or ornamental in evolved objects. Anyone going to deny their modern couterparts haven’t evolved? The advantage of our technology as against organic life is the speed at which evolution takes place, and ease with which it can be observed and described.

    Any more? There must be many.

    Apropos. Many or most man-made objects testify to a tendency to simplify externally with technological evolution: aeroplanes, ships, cars, buildings, phones, and so on.

  • casey

    763. casey :

    “Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
    – Matthew 27:46

    And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, “Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
    – Mark 15:34

    I can quote too.”

    So you can (who can’t?). But ignoring *my* quotes makes you seem less than honest. Anyway your quotes don’t support your argument; they support mine. A god that doesn’t exist cannot forsake. Clearly Jesus was talking to someone he believed existed. Again, as with your original example, these words do not express doubt in the existence of God.

  • casey

    Jesus:

    Well, then, you aren’t the Christ. Okay. Kind of a Joseph Campbell-esque myth-mash (get it?). Haha. Are you dreaming the dream or is the dream dreaming you? To get to Nirvana, embrace Samsara, just don’t let yourself know that’s what you’re doing. (After all, enlightenment should be surprising.) Am I almost there?

  • casey

    “My interpretation: There’s no evidence given IN THE ARTICLE for (upward/macro) evolution because the 10 examples cited only involve the loss of something.”

    I keep reading this statement. It should be pointed out that the whole proposed basis for “losing” these traits is predicated on the assumption that something “better” was “gained,” thereby making the legacy trait obsolete. If you want to oppose an argument successfully (not to mention honestly), you must be willing to present the argument in its entirety.

    By the way, very few proponents of evolutionary theory would suggest that evolution is directional (“upward”). And I don’t know how you identify the concept of directional evolution with this red herring “macroevolution” in the first place, since they are two distinct terms with very different meanings.

  • Gee – this list might end up being one of the most commented on! Only a couple hundred to go.

  • Jesus

    Yowza, Casey I think you might be on to something.
    I’m clearly not omniscient, the Joseph Campbell one went straight by me. Please explain. x

    Dream: both, don’t we all serve the dream?

    This method works up to a point but ultimately you must walk in awareness, n’est ce pas?

    Gold Star for Effort

    Au revoir

  • ElenaSFA

    800 and blah! Go jfrater go!

  • Jeremy

    casey,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution does not explicate movement from simple to complex? If it doesn’t, then can we “know” that the first life forms were single cell organisms? Why couldn’t the first organism then be something like a chimpanzee? Perhaps my knowledge of terms is lacking. By upward, I am implying movement from simple to complex (less to more). Is that not directional? Please explain, I’m not understanding. As for Macroevolution, again, perhaps my term is used incorrectly. I am speaking of large-scale changes, such as divergence from a common ancestor many millions ago into say, Monkeys and Rabbits. I understand that upward or directional evolution would be different than macroevolution as I’ve defined them. I just used them in the same parenthesis for succinctness as I am stating that neither are
    necessarily implied by the facts presented in the article.

    Forgive me, but I think I’m also not understanding this line – “It should be pointed out that the whole proposed basis for “losing” these traits is predicated on the assumption that something “better” was “gained,” thereby making the legacy trait obsolete.” Are you implying that this is a faulty thought underlying my point, or that this concept of gaining something “better” is what evolution theory implies?

    I guess what you can read from my statement (what I meant) is that the facts in the article only tell us that some functions were lost, nothing else. Obviously animals can’t always go on losing functions in their organs or they’ll run out of organs to be “vestigial” (I know this is silly but obvious).

    From that perspective on the article, I move to asking this: I would like to know how “negative” (I am only using the terms negative and positive here in the sense of deduction and accretion.)changes over time like a functional plantaris muscle deteriorating into a non-functional plantaris muscle implies for instance, “positive” changes like a non-heart or non-existent heart over time becoming a functional heart.

    Again, I am not using the terms negative and positive here in the sense of bad or good for the organism.

  • Jeremy

    Anon, in 802 are you arguing for Intelligent Design? All of the items you described were designed by arguably intelligent human beings. I don’t think the comparison holds up.

    Also, is this your rise of species: buildings evolved into carriages which evolved into cars which evolved into airplanes? Oh, this is funny stuff. Buildings are still buildings, cars are still cars, planes are planes. They just happen to use some of the same parts, nuts, bolts, screws, wheels, steel, plastic, glass, etc. Why? Because they were all designed by humans. Creationists like to call this “common design”

    And I got yelled at for pointing out that dogs were a good example of the wide variety of potential inherent in their ancestor’s DNA.

    You, you… Creationist you!!!!

  • Anon

    Talking of the most commented list. A few hours ago, quite by chance and without intention, I logged up post Nº 1000 in Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools (a topic, not a list).

    O.K. Altogether now. (Chorus): “Who gives a stuff!”

  • Anon

    Jeremy, (810),

    My tongue felt as if it might have been somewhere near my cheek. However, just as human financial economies and natural ones seem to obey certain common rules, so may organic evolution and technological development. So without pushing it to force the comparison, I was pointing out that in any kind of development, the presence of persisting, earlier, superseded or redundant features can go hand in hand with ‘evolution’. At the same time they clearly refer back to an earlier, less evolved type. (In technology you also get something similar to conservative, universal persistent features in natural history: for example the famous trademark de Havilland aircraft tailplane or the Rolls Royce flying goddess mascot.) Don’t take these comparisons too seriously. They aren’t intended literally … But don’t sneer them away either.

    “Also, is this your rise of species: buildings evolved into carriages which evolved into cars which evolved into airplanes? Oh, this is funny stuff. Buildings are still buildings, cars are still cars, planes are planes.”

    Of course they bloody well are are! How on earth did you imagine I was implying a prehistoric cave ended up as a Mars exploration space capsule! I don’t think you read me carefully, you wicked soul. I had hoped my presentation was clear enough. Greek civic buildings supported by columns evolve into modern buildings with symbolical, non-functional pseudo-Greek columns. Sundials have developed (rather than evolved) as clocks and been replaced, so that sundials are now largely ornamental, and so on.

    Curiously, you anticipated something I’ve been thinking of posting for some time. An amusing irony. The impossibility of ‘designing’ an experiment to test non-designed evolution! Circular logic will tell you it’s impossible, since any experiment can only be set up by an experiment designer! Dawkins’s elegant computer evolution simulation, where he sets up a simple line and allows random computer errors to accumulate and develop selectively into something ever more complex and attractive takes place in the context of ID (I, Dawkins!), inevitably. There is no way of setting up such an experiment randomly, with no input! You could try to say that therefore proves ID initiation against a random, Blind Watchmaker kick-off. But it doesn’t at all. It proves ID initiation is possible, but not a fact. It has no further scientific relevance unless or until you have your prima facie designer id-ed and pinned down, (which human beings are not). Nor does it prove a Blind Watchmaker start is impossible. So you are back at square one. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Or, like science, you ignore back beyond the point where there is nothing but your guess is as good as mine speculation (or my god is better than your guess, whatever).

    So no Creationist I. Unless organic evolution can be effectively disproved by the same rigorous scientific methods that support it, it’s my bag. As for what set it all off, that’s a mystery, which can only be entered by belief, speculation, hypothesis or hunch. I have my hunch, but may be completely wrong. Unlike the religious, I freely admit that and it worries me not in the slightest. Que sera, sera, as Doris Day used to sing.

  • Pingback: 10 signs of evolution in modern man « Ryan and Lori’s Exciting Adventures()

  • Mandy

    Humans are so silly.

  • David

    I have a Darwin’s point on my right ear, but not on my left. Never noticed before. Weird.

  • GTT

    809. Jeremy : (just so we are on the same page, I am using your definitions of “negative” and “positive” changes)

    EVOLUTION (as I understand it) refers to changes in a species in order to better adapt to its environment. In some cases it´s “positive” (as in, the gain of something) and sometimes it´s “negative” (we lose something that we no longer need).

    Can anyone correct me if I am wrong and then point me in the right direction? Randall? Anon? Help? :)

  • Skeptic

    26. mond – January 5th, 2009 at 5:45 am
    Can we please have an alternative for those of us that know evolution is just a lie?
    Top 10 Signs That God Created Modern Man perhaps?

    I agree with mond, I want to see that list too. It would be funny. You Americans make me laugh. I know I am assuming you are Americans but confident in the assumption.

  • Jeremy

    I hope I can post this link:

    I found this to be a very interesting commentary on selection and adaptation.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation.html

  • cymraegbachgen87

    Jeremy,

    What point are you trying to make with this link?

  • Jeremy

    Skeptic:

    I’m no professional, but here goes a list of ten I can think of off the cuff:

    1. The intricately complex language that codes our (and all) DNA.
    2. The (so far un-reproducible)complexity of the human brain and neurological system.
    3. Human Language (and the high complexity of even “primitive” languages such as Navajo as well as the oldest languages uncovered).
    4. Human Reasoning (but can we disprove that porpoises for example do not?).
    5. Interpretations of biological Evidence comparing animals, humans, plant, and microscopic life forms that would purport to show a common designer of all life.
    6. The massive complexity of our “simplest” cells.
    7. Opposable thumbs (what “other” animal has them?).
    8. Complex systems (lymphatic, circulatory, neural, etc.) and complementary organs which at some levels would not work if less complex or without its complement, and appear to have either arisen instantaneously at some level of complexity, or to have rapidly developed simultaneously.
    9. Upright gait (any minor variations in the human body whether through genetic mutation or physical debilitation cause this to be an impossible or harmful means of mobility.
    10. Genetic similarity of all humans. Some have estimated based on genetic similarity that all people may be as closely related as no more than 50th cousin. Why aren’t there more branches off the tree from times when human beings were more distantly separated and had less chance to interbreed? Populations who have been estimated by evolutionary thought to have been separated from other peoples for long periods of time (such as Australian aboriginals) show little or no appreciable variation in genetic material.

    I think though that you could probably take this same list and interpret it to be evidence that man did evolve.

    Also, I would probably do the same with the list in the article.

    I think what this says is, the discussion goes far beyond who can make the best list, and who can make the grandest claims about it. This is evident in the plethora and flurry of comments here!

    Obviously (to me) a list alone will prove nothing.

  • Jeremy

    cymr…, no point. I just thought it had some valid points to add to the discussion, especially in regard to GTT’s exchange with me in 815

  • Anon

    GTT (815),

    Well, as for evolution, I’m no authority myself by specialised training either, you know. I merely use its principles in our own highly focussed line of inquiry, where they make absolute and perfect sense of what we observe.

    However, I’ll tentatively agree with your observations until a genuine specialist comes along to develop or correct.

    Essentially gain tends to be achieved by random mutation. Let’s say a dark-skinned human race migrates to a sunless, northern clime. A pale-skinned mutation arises which doesn’t need cutaneous pigment protection from the sun, and absorbs more vitamins from whatever light there is, so prospering better. Or perhaps, even more likely, is found to be more attractive as a sexual partner as well. So the pale skin gene prospers, spreads and eventually takes over there.

    But suppose one of those pale skins marries a dark-skinned partner from another part of the world. Even their dark-skinned progeny may retain the genetic potential for pale skins, which could emerge again in future generations as ‘a force’ if relevant to adaptation, selection or survival.

    Now, let’s say some later dark-skinned folk move to the cold, sunless north. Their full-body pigmentation is no longer critical for their physical survival. It may however persist indefinitely in different importance because sufficient partners find it attractive and select it.

    Finally, let’s indulge in a bit of wild fantasy and suppose that cold-climate people who had developed all-white skins but retained black-pigmented hands were all the rage sexually. This race or population would have evolved (or to use a better word, adapted) away from hot-climate imperatives, but retained a small relict element of the former all-dark pigmentation in a different, but still selective function, sexual instead of protective. In the same way the little toe may once have acted in a prehensile fashion, which is no longer relevant. However, it still appears to be critical in its present reduced form for us to move about bipedally and retain our balance effectively. Change of use as a consequence of evolution. As long as we ‘need’ it in some way or other, it will obviously not disappear completely.

    I hope my hugely simplified little parable may explain something of the mechanics of evolution, adaption and selection. You’d be astonished how incredibly more complex the reality of genetics is. If you don’t believe me, try ‘Seed to Seed’ by Nicholas Harberd (a book written for general, lay reading, its author marvelling at what he observes). I’d prefer an expert had explained all this. If I’ve got it at all wrong, I’m braced for the consequent ton of bricks on my head!

  • Anon

    Jeremy (819),

    “1. The intricately complex language that codes our (and all) DNA.

    2. The (so far un-reproducible)complexity of the human brain and neurological system.”

    Look at it from the other direction. How many billions of years since organic life started on Earth has nature had to develop that complexity, minute step by minute step. How many generations from now to the present, how many living individuals between now an then? Totally and utterly mind-boggling. You can hardly imagine the number of bacteria on your own body right now.

    Now think about human computers such as you and I are using now. O.K. So every single cell in the meat and veg you ate for lunch is more complex than the most advanced human computer programme. Nobody should deny that. But we’ve only been at it for around half a century and look where we are already from a standing start. Give us five billion years and where do you think we might be? And please keep ID out of this. Again, I’m not making literal comparisons.

  • ibejeremy

    Anon,

    Here’s a little background behind into my “design” references. Thanks for calling me on that so that I can clarify.

    From my post in 514: “p.s. I secretly think ID people are silly :) I think its actually a way for people to jump on the creationist bandwagon without having to accept that there is a God. And Christians who get involved with promoting it? I think they are being pretentious. If one believes God created the world then why muck about with ID? Aliens, really. I supposed they were designed by other aliens who were designed by other aliens…”

    With me I see either direct creation or evolution. When I write in regards to design or common design, I am referencing the hand of God or nothing. IMO, ID doesn’t give any answers, because if aliens or some other force inside of time/space did it, then who made the aliens who made the aliens who made the aliens? Creation references a God outside of and eternally existing as creator of space/time. The only benefit I see to an ID outlook would be, if God created the world/universe etc., then evidence of design should be apparent, and study of it should be beneficial to scientific progress.

  • cymraegbachgen87

    Most items on that above list can easily be explained through natural selection and mutation. Complex systems come out of simple ones with the standard mutation rate as it is, especially when you consider the time scale is in BILLIONS of years! Funnily enough, 2nd year evolution at uni dealt with many of your issues…but the answers are REALLY complicated and you need a firm grounding in evolutionary theory to fully grasp it

  • GTT

    817. Jeremy : I´m confused about this link. Is this a valid scientific magazine? I´m guessing not so much from the way the article was written.

    WHAT IN THE WORLD DO FROZEN TV DINNERS (OR THE TV FOR THAT MATTER) HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?!?

    The article seems sincere in its attempt to explain evolution: vestigial traits, a hypothesis on the short stature of pygmies, so far so good. And then it goes on to say (and I quote):

    “For all these reasons and more, we need to be sceptical of headline-grabbing claims about evolutionary explanations for different behaviours. Evolutionary psychology in particular is notorious for attempting to explain every aspect of behaviour, from gardening to rape, as an adaptation that arose when our ancestors lived on the African savannah.

    Needless to say, without solid evidence, claims about how, for instance, TV dinners “evolved” should be taken with a large pinch of salt.”

    Either I´m not getting it (in that case, someone please enlighten me) or this article is full of it.

  • Anon

    jeremy,

    There is the option that ‘everything’ could be ‘intelligent’ and auto-functional. In a sense that would be ID. ID omnipresent for eternity and throughout eternity. But nothing ‘ready made’, more kit-form ID. Raw materials, perhaps simply modified energy, natural laws and momentum, the rest follows (including evolution)as a plant grows from a seed (don’t take that literally!)

    I have pointed out to painter friends that nothing ‘sees’ or is aware of what we (and other conscious life-forms) experience as, for example they portray landscape. So far as we know, most of the universe is as unconscious of its own existence, form and spacing as your nails or the hair on your head or your blood cells are aware of you or their part in your existence. That makes us the self-awareness of the universe, including in thought (i.e. such as we are expressing here now). Awesome bullshit, eh!

  • GTT

    Anon: Thanks, you explained my point much more gracefully that I did. Great little parable BTW. :)

  • cymraegbachgen87

    New Scientist is a valid and respected magazine in the Scientific Community. However, you must realise that it is a MAGAZINE and as such doesnt carry the weight of a journal such as Nature.

    If you read it fully, it is saying that tv dinners DIDNT evolve. It is dispelling MYTHS about evolution such as the myth purpotrated that EVERYTHING has evolved. The article was much easier to read in the physical magazine

  • cymraegbachgen87

    just noticed you included a quote which supports what I said…

  • Randall

    GTT:

    The New Scientist is VERY much a valid scientific journal. It is, in fact, arguably THE scientific journal in the UK, and has been for… well, at least since the 50s, to my knowledge.

    The problem, however, is that Jeremy has grossly misread the point and intent of the article. Perhaps he himself is not aware of what The New Scientist is about–it most definitely is NOT anti-evolutionary theory and is certainly not pro-ID (not last I checked anyway… and I should know, since I’m proud to say that I have an ex-girlfriend who’s published in The New Scientist more than once, in the past).

  • Randall

    cymraegbachgen87:

    The New Scientist may or may not be on the same level as Nature (but to be frank I always thought it was) but I’m not sure I’d dismiss it as a mere “magazine.” Certainly Nature deserves the vaunted title of “journal,” but my personal understanding has been that the New Scientist deserves it as well.

    But then I haven’t even looked at it in ages, so what do I know?

  • GTT

    Oh, good, thanks. I kept re-reading the article wanting to see what is was that Jeremy was trying to point out to me and I just didnt see it. :)

  • cymraegbachgen87

    Journals have new papers published in them. New Scientist publishes articles. Thats the distinction.

    Don’t get me wrong I love NS – I have a subscription to it!

  • NiNiNi

    God tastes like chicken!

  • ibejeremy

    Randall, how do you know that I “grossly misread the point and intent of the article” when I made no comment about it and suggested instead that it had valid points to add to this discussion? Thank you for clarifying for us the level of TNS and it’s weight in the scientific community and this argument. I appreciate your informed comment.

    Everybody,
    I smile (without snide-ness) at the knee-jerk reaction to my link – Because JEREMY linked to it, it must not be a “valid scientific magazine,” or oh, ok, but it’s just a magazine. After all JEREMY is a Creationist. And if he did read it, must be he just didn’t get it (CUZ HE’S STOOPID, remember?).

    I posted it because I thought what I read there was interesting, informative, and contributed to the discussion. Whether I agree with any assessments made (real or imagined by me) in the article I did not make clear.

    Randall, I am well aware that the article and the magazine is not anti, but pro-evolutionary biology. And as for ID theory, I think I’ve made my general disdain of it clear enough to everyone here.

    Did you all think that by my linking to this article I was proclaiming “this proves my point”?

    I have to admit, the tv dinner analogy at the conclusion left me baffled as well at first, GTT. Thank you for clarifying that Cym…

    As Cym pointed out succintly, the article “is dispelling MYTHS about evolution such as the myth purpotrated that EVERYTHING has evolved.”

    That’s what I found interesting in the article, the point that not every human activity must be a result of some evolutionary history. I know, I know, you are thinking this was my aha! moment, but I really want to take this line of reasoning no further than the author did. Many people try to explain every human activity in terms of evolution (must be our ancestors did something similar…). I found it interesting to see that Mr. LePage was refuting in some measure the claims of evolutionary psychology, or saying at least take them with a grain of salt.

    The reason I thought the article had a lot to contribute to the discussion is the many references and discussions of vestigial organs. This line, I thought was also interesting: “We tend to assume that everything has a purpose, but often we are wrong.” This is a criticism many make of creationists, but here he is applying it to evolutionary thought. Interesting…not making any judgments here, just interesting.

    So overall, just interesting to me. I know he has said a lot of things, which yes, Randall, are contrary to my beliefs.

    An important step in education is being able to learn from even those you don’t agree with, don’t you think?

    I’ll be gone for the night, so feel free all, to lance me to death vicariously :) Seriously, I appreciate the informed and thoughtful criticism and discussion.

  • casey

    Jesus:

    Joseph Campbell was a prominent author who explored the common bases (both psychological and anthropological) of the mythological symbols and motifs across the world’s religious traditions.

    He was also raised Roman Catholic, so I’m surprised you didn’t know of him.

  • casey

    Skeptic:

    “You Americans make me laugh. I know I am assuming you are Americans but confident in the assumption.”

    Not so fast, nucklehead. Three of the “Four Horsemen” are American citizens. And so am I; there are many rationalist, secular humanist, etc. organizations based in the States, one of which is represented at the UN. Your “confident” assumption, besides being unreasonable, is elitist and needlessly offensive. In other words, you made yourself look as stupid as the people you intended to attack. Bad move.

  • GTT