# Show this to your Evolution teacher...



## jcfynx (Dec 23, 2009)

1. Which evolved first, male or female?
2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
5. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?


----------



## Viva (Dec 23, 2009)

only a smartass would be able to answer these


----------



## 2-Tailed Taymon (Dec 23, 2009)

This=BULLSHIT


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Dec 23, 2009)

This=Epic Fail.


----------



## Darkwing (Dec 23, 2009)

Fail.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 23, 2009)

Fail.


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 23, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?*No way to tell. *
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?*This doesn't even make sense.  *
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.* People assume it's magical and works for everything.  That's enough to cover 9*
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?* If you're stupid enough to believe evolution would work like that, then there's no helping you. *
> ...


Answered in bold.


----------



## lobosabio (Dec 23, 2009)

My troll-o-meter is redlining.  Regardless...



> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?



Point is irrelevant.  You don't need sexual differentiation for evolution to work, only reproduction.  So the question as to which evolved first, male or female, doesn't actually matter.



> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?



See answer to question 1.



> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.



Why do I get the feeling they don't exist?

Also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.html



> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?



Because the creature either died off via a) mass extinction or b) dying off naturally.  And if the species died off due to "b" it would indicate that the traits possessed by that particular species were not advantageous to the environment.  Thus it is unlikely that that particular set of traits would arise again if they did not work in the first place.



> 5. Which came first:
> ...the eye,
> ...the eyelid,
> ...the eyebrow,
> ...



Whose eye?  Whose eyelid?  Whose eyebrow?  Making a sweeping question like that does not work as there are many different kinds of each of the the things mentioned.  Are we going to go with octopus eyes or human eyes?  Animals with two eyelids or three?  



> 6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?



Question unanswerable as you did not give enough specifics in question 5.



> 7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?



Specialization.  Over time, each species because so specialized to their particular niche that they couldn't breed with another species.  If they could produce viable offspring, then they would be the same species.



> 8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!



Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals.  Now where's me million dollars?



> 9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?



They aren't.  Have you never heard of tiktaalik before?

More info:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html



> 10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)



Because a coin is inorganic and therefore does not evolve.  Nice use of false analogy there.



> 11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?



They are.  The reason why you don't see any of them is because they take so long to form.  For some perspective, the oil we are currently pulling up was formed from prehistoric critters.  That's just how long it takes.



> 12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.



I don't think there are that many.  And why does it matter, anyways?



> 13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?



Because the people who put up those prizes are creationist twats who would rather stab themselves in the crotch with a rusty spoon than admit to being wrong.



> 14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?



Who said the earth was under populated?  Some would argue that the Earth is currently over populated.  The reason we haven't started dying off is because we've artificially increased the carrying capacity.



> 15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?



Because different continents have different environments and different environments have different niches.  And as long as their are different niches there are going to be different species.  It's impossible to produce the exact same species if you don't have identical niches.


----------



## Aurali (Dec 23, 2009)

Oh JC~


----------



## Captain Spyro (Dec 23, 2009)

And the point...?


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2009)

Is this shit from GrandmaMail.com?


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Is this shit from GrandmaMail.com?


Is that an actual site or are you just poking fun because it's always grandma's who believe and send this stuff around?


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2009)

I wish it was real :V


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Dec 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I wish it was real :V


lol.


----------



## Seas (Dec 24, 2009)

*facepalm*
Jesus Christ, JC....


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 24, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
> ...



16.  Why do you ask so many questions...?


----------



## lobosabio (Dec 24, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> 16.  Why do you ask so many questions...?



Because he suffers from verbal diarrhea and a terminal lack of brain cells.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 24, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
> ...



This looks like a job for...

SMARTY PANTS! 

1. Hermaphrodites came first by a long shot. 
2. They came at the same time and in the same species, dummy. 
3. I'll pass. I don't give enough of a shit to do any research for this. 
4. Because the odds of that would be incredible. 
5. Flatworms evolved the first eyespots, light sensitive patches of skin. They avoided light instinctively, as that is where the things that ate them lived. 
6. Not sure, but complex eyes came a long way after eyespots. I'm not sure if gastropods have what you would call "eyelids" and such. Tear ducts are only found in vertebrates I believe... 
7. Because that's how evolution works. Species split over time. Population A of species 1 may be separated from population B. Over time the species evolve into two different species and become sexually incompatible. 
8. I could describe just about everything up to the Cambrian explosion... 
9. They're not dummy. They're effing everywhere. 
10. Statistically there is somewhere in the universe where a perfect 25c piece has formed by chance. Also, we did not show up "by chance," it was by the forces of Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. 
11. They are. Derp. 
12. There aren't that many. Did you know that snakes have legs though? 
13. I don't think there is such a reward. I'll put 5$ up for proving God though. 
14. Underpopulated? Seriously? Underpopulated? Really? Our planet is fucking infested with life. 
15. Pangaea mother fucker. Look it up.


----------



## Valdyr Nordvindr (Dec 24, 2009)

At first the stupidity of the OP angered me, but then I realized that this was too fail to possibly take seriously


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 24, 2009)

This is fail. Take a damn class on the topic.


----------



## Jasterk (Dec 24, 2009)

OH YOU


----------



## Lazarus905 (Dec 24, 2009)

This thread reminds me of this. Bananas, atheists nightmare Just as funny.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 24, 2009)

Any machine is incapable of comprehending itself fully. Humans are biological machines.  The human mind and functions are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Evolution is real. Creationism is  an outdated idea based on prescientific thinking.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 24, 2009)

regardless of whether there was a counter-revolution or not, it's clear to me that the CCP is largely bourgeois-dominated now: its membership is open to businessmen, and overlaps very closely with wealth ownership in the country. it may be the case that, since the socialist state was not smashed through counter-revolution, there are basic structures in the PRC which favor the working class, but there are almost no people in the CPC leadership which are in the working class, and almost no people in the Chinese capitalist class who don't have a good friend or a relative in the CPC. it's very difficult to see how this could be described as the dictatorship of the proletariat, when there are relatively few proletarians in the power structure and relatively few bourgeois outside the power structure. 
furthermore, it's pretty clear that most of the productive development which has occurred since the 80s is not of the sort that would make socialism easier, but is in fact mainly production of bourgeois and petty bourgeois consumer goods, either for export of for consumption by the Chinese capitalist class. per capita agricultural output has grown quite slowly, and while certainly some of the industrial technology could be converted to serve mass needs, it's hard to imagine that even with a slower, more haphazard development on the old Maoist model, developing productivity for socialism by socialism would not be more successful, considering the kinds of improvements already achieved in the Maoist era (I don't have to describe these to you) when people were still figuring out basic things about how to make the system work. with the NEP this was not really the case; there was no prior experience with socialist planning at all, besides the fairly unsuccessful War Communism policies, so Bolshevik skepticism about their ability to figure out how to recover on that basis was fully justified. in the case of China, the CPC oversaw some pretty impressive improvements in the countryside and a less impressive but still solid growth in industry through socialist economic planning, so they can't really fall back on that
and lastly considering the extremely high and rapidly increasing levels of environmental degradation (among other growing problems that are hard to reverse), it's quite clear that if the plan is to temporarily develop the productive forces in order to build socialism later, they're totally running out of time and unless the current economic stimulus evolves into the reintroduction of building socialism soon, the losses in living standards will outweigh the gains
the old Leninist thesis that the class character of a state cannot be changed without revolution may stand in the way of interpreting the PRC as a capitalist society (as do some other Marxist ideas as you mention), but if that is the case, then we should throw out Lenin's view, which is really not that shocking a thing to do. I see most of this stuff about primary characteristics and such to be dialectical nonsense anyway


----------



## Lobar (Dec 24, 2009)

You got these from Way of the Master, I can tell.


----------



## webkilla (Dec 24, 2009)

ITT: OP needs to learn to troll harder

1/10


----------



## Hir (Dec 24, 2009)

hi no one cares





bye


----------



## Sparticle (Dec 24, 2009)

http://membres.lycos.fr/fredrichung/forum/obvious%20troll.jpeg

Or else you're just retarded.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 24, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female? *Hermaphrodites.*
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female? *Again, hermaphrodites.*
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods. *+- couple houndred years. Some some.*
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years? *Because it's not intelligent design :V*
> ...




I'd want to see all the "FAIL" people actally asnwer those :V
Come on, genuises, share your amazing knowledge of something you are so sure of as to shun people who try undermine it. Of course it's false, but YOU prove it.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 24, 2009)

The answer to all of the "why" questions in the OP are: Adaptation to fit their surroundings, dumbass.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 24, 2009)

It's jcfynx, guys.


Seriously.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 24, 2009)

BTW, also to all "FAIL" people, you all posted in the thread. Successful troll is successful, stupid people are stupid.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 24, 2009)

hey jc wanna yiff?

edit: what's an evolution teacher anyway? :V


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 24, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> edit: what's an evolution teacher anyway? :V


 any teacher who  has half a brain not to teach Creationism in the classroom.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 24, 2009)

I like you, OP.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Dec 24, 2009)

15.  Because continents are not the exact same.  Ex: Antarctica to Africa

:3



LizardKing said:


> edit: what's an evolution teacher anyway? :V



A teacher that evolves?


----------



## net-cat (Dec 24, 2009)

Haha.

I'm not sure which would be more amusing to me...

If this guy were a troll or for real.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't know which to hope for, troll or real. 

If he's a troll, I just got pwned. 

If he's real, I think I may have to blow my brains out.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 24, 2009)

Others have answered the other questions well enough that I won't bother with adding answers of my own.  But these questions:





jcfynx said:


> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
> 14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
> 15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?


...can only be answered in one way:

OMGWTFWWBROFLOL

I find it hard to believe there could be anyone dumb enough to seriously ask those questions.

If humans nuked ourselves into extinction, who in their right mind would think the surviving animals could possibly re-evolve into humans?!  Humanoids?  Yeah, I can see that happening... but humans?  

Question 14 still has me laughing.  The Moon is underpopulated.  The Earth?  Saying the Earth is underpopulated is like saying the Sun doesn't have much Hydrogen in it.

And question 15... wha?  Evolution is about the divergence of species, not the duplication of them.  If I want another cow, I don't want for Nature to evolve one.  I find a bull and have them do the nasty.  BAM, another cow.

[Edit] I know he's a troll, but I had to answer that level of epic stupidity.  Like waving a red flag to a bull.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 24, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> A teacher that evolves?


 TEACHER IS EVOLVING... *dun dun dun* TEACHER EVOLVED INTO UNIVERSITY PROF *da da da*


----------



## outward (Dec 24, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
> ...


 
16. If your God is so awesome, why did he make you so retarded?

I'LL GIVE YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION.


----------



## ChakatBlackstar (Dec 24, 2009)

To the OP: Are we supposed to show are evolution teacher this to make them think they've failed and possibly give us front row seats to a real life headbanging?


----------



## Ratte (Dec 24, 2009)

outward said:


> 16. If your God is so awesome, why did he make you so retarded?
> 
> I'LL GIVE YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION.



For the lulz.


----------



## makmakmob (Dec 24, 2009)

Ratte said:


> For the lulz.



Guys, Ratte just solved religion, you can all go home now :V


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 24, 2009)

ChakatBlackstar said:


> To the OP: Are we supposed to show are evolution teacher this to make them think they've failed and possibly give us front row seats to a real life headbanging?



I think that's the idea. 

It's sorta funny though to imagine what would happen if you did show it to your teacher. 

"What the hell? Is this a joke? No you don't get extra credit for explaining how he's wrong."


----------



## Kirbizard (Dec 24, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Haha.
> 
> I'm not sure which would be more amusing to me...
> 
> If this guy were a troll or for real.


If he's a troll he's showing how dumb some people are, if he's for real he's proving it. c:


----------



## Thatch (Dec 24, 2009)

net-cat said:


> If this guy were a troll or for real.



It's jcfynx, it's quite self-explanatory :V



outward said:


> 16. If your God is so awesome, why did he make you so retarded?
> 
> I'LL GIVE YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION.



Wow, you're stupid.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 24, 2009)

Kirbizard said:


> If he's a troll he's showing how dumb some people are, if he's for real he's proving it. c:



"I DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM NO MONKEY!" 

Yeah... you didn't make it too far.


----------



## outward (Dec 24, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Wow, you're stupid.


 
I think 90% of the people ITT has realized that even if OP is a troll...we all like to make our snarky jabs at him.


----------



## outward (Dec 24, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> I think that's the idea.
> 
> It's sorta funny though to imagine what would happen if you did show it to your teacher.
> 
> "What the hell? Is this a joke? No you don't get extra credit for explaining how he's wrong."


 
My Biology teacher in Sophomore year told the entire class that the archaeopteryx (the feathered dinosaur/bird thing) was a massive hoax when she was 'teaching' evolution.

> : (


----------



## Ratte (Dec 24, 2009)

outward said:


> My Biology teacher in Sophomore year told the entire class that the archaeopteryx (the feathered dinosaur/bird thing) was a massive hoax when she was 'teaching' evolution.
> 
> > : (



IT'S A HOAX

THE FOSSILS WERE PUT THERE BY THE GOVERNMENT

GO BACK TO CHURCH


----------



## Thatch (Dec 24, 2009)

outward said:


> I think 90% of the people ITT has realized that even if OP is a troll...we all like to make our snarky jabs at him.



Yeah, like a band of infuriated primates. "OMG TROLL FAIL FAIL U IDIOT BIBLEHUMPER". There's nothing glamorous in discovering an obvious troll, especially one who does it notoriosly. Just so you know, it was exactly that what he trolled you all for, not the creationist shit. And most of you fell for it badly.


----------



## outward (Dec 24, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Yeah, like a band of infuriated primates. "OMG TROLL FAIL FAIL U IDIOT BIBLEHUMPER". There's nothing glamorous in discovering an obvious troll, especially one who does it notoriosly. Just so you know, it was exactly that what he trolled you all for, not the creationist shit. And most of you fell for it badly.


 
And you're just a different breed of primate, aren't you?


----------



## Aurali (Dec 24, 2009)

It's JC... come on people you know him.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 24, 2009)

Quick answer to all these questions:

If evolution didn't exist, then was it really by design that you had to be dense enough to asktroll these questions? Is that *really* what your grand purpose is?

Alternative answer:

lolsuccessfultrollissuccessful.

Either way, troll or no, the first part stands.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 24, 2009)

What the heck is an Evolution teacher


----------



## Squeak (Dec 25, 2009)

Obvious troll in obvious...


----------



## Isen (Dec 25, 2009)

I went to super conservative Christian schools until college, so this was actually a pretty accurate representation of a biology class in my high school.


----------



## Shindo (Dec 25, 2009)

jc is such a lil rascal


----------



## Telnac (Dec 25, 2009)

Isen said:


> I went to super conservative Christian schools until college, so this was actually a pretty accurate representation of a biology class in my high school.


I'm so sorry.

I'm a creationist myself (Apparent Age Creationism, which is like Creative Evolution, except for the few of us Christians who can understand the concept of a 5th or higher dimension outside that of time.)  But seriously, people actually teach bunk like this _*in school?!*_


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 25, 2009)

_*RATTE CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND LOCK THIS THREAD?*_


----------



## Isen (Dec 25, 2009)

Telnac said:


> But seriously, people actually teach bunk like this _*in school?!*_


Yeah.  That wasn't even the worst part.

I think I'm a better person for my weird educational history in the end, and it wasn't all bad, but still.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 25, 2009)

Here's what I want to know: Why is it necessary to teach _the origin of life_ in school? I don't think even most die-hard creationists deny that evolution, even in some form, exists. The point of contention is whether or not that's how we came to be - Which... Really, who gives a rat's ass? We've got vague ideas based on both science and faith, and frankly, none of them are solid. Why is it even necessary to teach either of these bullshit things? It just keeps perpetuating the whole retarded-ass "LOLCREATIONISTSAREDUMB" and "STFUGODLESSCOMMIEBASTARDS" arguments.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Here's what I want to know: Why is it necessary to teach _the origin of life_ in school? I don't think even most die-hard creationists deny that evolution, even in some form, exists. The point of contention is whether or not that's how we came to be - Which... Really, who gives a rat's ass? We've got vague ideas based on both science and faith, and frankly, none of them are solid. Why is it even necessary to teach either of these bullshit things? It just keeps perpetuating the whole retarded-ass "LOLCREATIONISTSAREDUMB" and "STFUGODLESSCOMMIEBASTARDS" arguments.



The origin of all life is a very important subject, and something that people need to understand. Also, young-earth creationists believe that evolution is, in every way shape and form, a hoax. 

Also, none of it solid? Evolution has been more-or-less proven to be true, creationism more-or-less proven false.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 25, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> Also, none of it solid? Evolution has been more-or-less proven to be true, creationism more-or-less proven false.



The idea of either doesn't go back far enough to really, truly, 100% prove that either is correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt, such that the arguments will cease.

Heeeeence, why bother teaching it?

It isn't truly that important. It's important to research (our understanding of life in general is, in fact, important), but how is it so important in the long run to teach kids one way or the other?

Personally, I'm more an advocate of evolution, but why in the bloody hell is the topic of the origin of the universe and life and everything so terribly important? It's important neither to me nor to you in the long run unless somehow someone conclusively discovers how everything began and everything that happened after that.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The idea of either doesn't go back far enough to really, truly, 100% prove that either is correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt, such that the arguments will cease.
> 
> Heeeeence, why bother teaching it?
> 
> ...



Because a basic understanding of the origins of life is one of those necessary pieces of knowledge. Same reason kids need to know the capitals of certain countries, the dates and details of major historical events and the names of certain important people. 

Also, if you want to get technical, nothing can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Ever heard of the expression "I think therefor I am?" All you can know is that you know, and even that can be called into question depending on how you define awareness. The fact remains that evolution is the only theory regarding the origins of life that has demonstrateable evidence, and thus must be accepted as truth until proven otherwise.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> BTW, also to all "FAIL" people, *you all posted in the thread*. Successful troll is successful, stupid people are stupid.



Funny, but you posted in this thread, too.........


----------



## Lobar (Dec 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Here's what I want to know: Why is it necessary to teach _the origin of life_ in school? I don't think even most die-hard creationists deny that evolution, even in some form, exists. The point of contention is whether or not that's how we came to be - Which... Really, who gives a rat's ass? We've got vague ideas based on both science and faith, and frankly, none of them are solid. Why is it even necessary to teach either of these bullshit things? It just keeps perpetuating the whole retarded-ass "LOLCREATIONISTSAREDUMB" and "STFUGODLESSCOMMIEBASTARDS" arguments.



"Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." â€”Theodosius Dobzhansky

Evolution isn't just bio-historical trivia.  It's absolutely central to nearly everything learned in biology in the last 150 years.  Knowing how life evolves and how all life is related is essential in preventing the creation and spread of drug-resistant diseases, and how the results of animal studies do and do not relate to the human body, to give just a couple examples.


----------



## Milenko Foulcraze (Dec 25, 2009)

Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny, but you posted in this thread, too.........



Yeah, but have you noticed WHICH posters I meant?

Note - It's not Jashwa or Azure and two or three other people. You too, I guess, I saw your post and it wasn't all BAWWW.



outward said:


> And you're just a different breed of primate, aren't you?



Yes, I can proudly admit to having the SAPIENS in my specie's name.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 25, 2009)

> The fact remains that evolution is the only theory regarding the origins of life that has demonstrateable evidence, and thus must be accepted as truth until proven otherwise.


See, not that I disagree with evolution, but I disagree with this line of thinking. Why is it so important that, even though no be-all-end-all evidence exists to support it as fact, it gets taught as fact? The concept of evolution is fairly commonly accepted among most people, and it's fairly well-documented. But the whole point of contention between the two camps is that there just isn't enough evidence to support (insert evolution or creationism here).

I'm not arguing that evolution itself shouldn't be taught. I'm arguing that perhaps, considering that knowing how the universe came to be is impossible for us except based on wild stories and theories based on a very small sliver of time and space immediately around us, it may not be entirely necessary or even prudent to teach _any sort of origin theory_ as *hard fact* in schools. It's *especially* considering that we have no direct evidence that it's something that should be thought about, not told. Just think, at one point, it was taught as fact that the world was flat, and that if you went to the edge, you could fall/jump off. Why should we make that mistake again, mis-educating millions of people, all for the sake of advancing faith/theory? Sure it's a "best guess" in either faith or theory, but teaching any theory of the origin of life as fact is doing a disservice to the future generations.

@Lobar: Again, I'm not talking about the idea of not teaching evolution as a fact - I think that most (sane) people would agree that evolution does indeed exist. However, not everyone agrees on the origin of life itself, which is something that frankly isn't terribly important either to biology nor to life in general, especially not important enough that we have to make theories and faith fact. The whole "WELL IF THAT ATHEIST PROPAGANDA IS GOING TO BE TAUGHT THEN TEACH GOD'S VERSION" and "WHY ARE YOU PUTTING BIBLE STUDY IN SCHOOL" argument shouldn't even exist in the first place - Just remove both or even better yet, go over both and get the students to think about what they believe. Neither is hard fact.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 25, 2009)

The good news is that evolution doesn't teach the origins of life.. so that is just another creationist red herring.   Even if Darwin mistitled his book, people need to remember that Darwin is not the only evolutionary expert out there.

As for the teaching of creation, that's bullshit.  It's not a 50/50 thing.  We can't "teach the contraversey that isn't science" alongside the facts of evolution because someone thinks theory means a guess.  Theories in science are pretty damn solid.  Gravity is a pretty well trodden concept, but because we don't have full information on how it operates in certain conditions, it's still a theory.  We don't hear "teach the contraversey" in that, do we?

No, the fact is, we shouldn't fucking go over both.  We should go over the current scientific consensus and leave the churchin' in church.   I'm tired of people saying we should teach ID.  It's not a fucking science.  It's already got it's answers "goddidit" and it doesn't really want anything else.

You wonder why American students can't find their ass with a map, this ID vs Evolution debate shows PRECISELY why.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

Runefox - Oh wow, you just compared several centuries of careful research to people believing the world is flat. Congratulations.


----------



## Aurali (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Runefox - Oh wow, you just compared several centuries of careful research to people believing the world is flat. Congratulations.



that and on microbiological levels, evolution is clearly provable.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

Aurali said:


> that and on microbiological levels, evolution is clearly provable.



Every animal breeder will say that on macrobiological too.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 25, 2009)

There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution.  Just evolution.


----------



## Aurali (Dec 25, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution.  Just evolution.



microbiological.. the bacterial level..

:/


----------



## Koray (Dec 25, 2009)

First evolution:

Cosplay sex machine....


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution.  Just evolution.



True, those are just terms coined by people who are afraid to say "Here this microbe fucking changes on it's own to make a worse sickness. It's fucking evolving, just like everything else" so instead they prance around as if evolution of complex organisms wasn't just as apparent from fossils.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

Aurali said:


> microbiological.. the bacterial level..
> 
> :/



microevolution refers to in-species, population evolution
macroevolution refers to evolution occurring at a level higher than single populations (ie: species, genus phylogeny, etc)


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 25, 2009)

But it's all the same kind of evolution.  It's the same process.

This whole "micro" and "macro" evolution was a made up terminology by creationists so they could concede some evolution without giving it all away.  But it still is all the same mechanism.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> microevolution refers to in-species, population evolution
> macroevolution refers to evolution occurring at a level higher than single populations (ie: species, genus phylogeny, etc)



...True, though it doesn't hurt that it's mostly presented on bacteria and viruses.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> But it's all the same kind of evolution.  It's the same process.
> 
> This whole "micro" and "macro" evolution was a made up terminology by creationists so they could concede some evolution without giving it all away.  But it still is all the same mechanism.



No, it's a term created by scientists and used by scientists.
We used it in every biology and paleoanthropology course I took at university.

They are distinctly important processes as one is more holistic and the other is mechanist, and any reductionist idea between the two is difficult to simply be like "A YEP".



szopaw said:


> ...True, though it doesn't hurt that it's mostly presented on bacteria and viruses.



Both are present in bacteria and viruses and it happens just as much in larger lifeforms.
The process by which infectious bacteria and viruses "microevolve" is much different than how a population of dicking gazelles choose other dicking gazelles with a certain feature and thus eliminate an allele and differentiate themselves from other gazelles. The idea that gazelles of one species and another species are different is subject to macroevolutionary study.

Pick up the edited volume by Eliot Sober "The Philosophy of Biology," and become the most boring asshole to your friends and family.
(But this will give some interesting insight into why microevolution (and then later macro) is such a pain-in-the-ass subject)


----------



## ADF (Dec 25, 2009)

Did banana man play a role in this list?


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Both are present in bacteria and viruses and it happens just as much in larger lifeforms.
> The process by which infectious bacteria and viruses "microevolve" is much different than how a population of dicking gazelles choose other dicking gazelles with a certain feature and thus eliminate an allele and differentiate themselves from other gazelles. The idea that gazelles of one species and another species are different is subject to macroevolutionary study.



Yeah, I know, it's all about the complexity of the organism. A virus will evolve more easily than algae, which in turn are more prone to change than a bear.
Still those are kind of rigid and artificial frames. I mean, where does ther barrier between species stand? A human and a monkey are different species because we can't have offspring. A horse and a donkey or a zebra can have offspring but it's usually sterile (though not always). But a wolf and a dog can have completely healthy pups. How much genetically different (because I'm aware that most are almost identical, save the morphology) will have one breed of dogs to be, to become considered a different species?
It's just this problem with terminology which comes from the times when all was believed to be eternal and unchanging.

So while oficially you are most completely and undoubtly right, in life it just doesn't have sense. But it's like that in many other branches of science, that I know ;/
(BTW, I mean this to GraemLion's point that evolution is evolution, my bad with misundestanding microbiology)


----------



## Lobar (Dec 25, 2009)

@Runefox: You are seriously undervaluing the weight of theory in a scientific context.  Contrary to popular belief, concepts in science are not sorted and labeled according to how "proven" they are.  For a concept to be a "theory", it means that is a testable explanatory model for our current set of data.  For example, the germ theory of disease is still, and will always remain, a theory.

As for 100% proof, it simply doesn't exist outside of pure mathematics, and even if we had it, it still wouldn't shut the creationist crusade up.  All we can do in science is to continually experiment in ways that should only produce expected results if we're right, but for all the observatioal data we have for, say, gravity, it doesn't epistemelogically 100% prove that the next time you pick up and drop your pencil, it won't fall up.  As far as getting as close to 100% as possible goes, though, the evidence for evolution from a single common ancestor by natural selection is damn near rock solid.  I would literally bet my life against a free sandwich that it's never overturned.  Creationists are nearly on par with the remaining existing flat-Earthers now.  The only difference is that we can't throw a satellite photo of evolution at them.

And evolution *is* a fundamental concept of biology, and one not worth giving up to appease the willfully ignorant.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> Did banana man play a role in this list?



Most likely, the insistance that men and women evolved seperately is a shibboleth of his particular variety of stupid.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> See, not that I disagree with evolution, but I disagree with this line of thinking. Why is it so important that, even though no be-all-end-all evidence exists to support it as fact, it gets taught as fact? The concept of evolution is fairly commonly accepted among most people, and it's fairly well-documented. But the whole point of contention between the two camps is that there just isn't enough evidence to support (insert evolution or creationism here).
> 
> I'm not arguing that evolution itself shouldn't be taught. I'm arguing that perhaps, considering that knowing how the universe came to be is impossible for us except based on wild stories and theories based on a very small sliver of time and space immediately around us, it may not be entirely necessary or even prudent to teach _any sort of origin theory_ as *hard fact* in schools. It's *especially* considering that we have no direct evidence that it's something that should be thought about, not told. Just think, at one point, it was taught as fact that the world was flat, and that if you went to the edge, you could fall/jump off. Why should we make that mistake again, mis-educating millions of people, all for the sake of advancing faith/theory? Sure it's a "best guess" in either faith or theory, but teaching any theory of the origin of life as fact is doing a disservice to the future generations.
> 
> @Lobar: Again, I'm not talking about the idea of not teaching evolution as a fact - I think that most (sane) people would agree that evolution does indeed exist. However, not everyone agrees on the origin of life itself, which is something that frankly isn't terribly important either to biology nor to life in general, especially not important enough that we have to make theories and faith fact. The whole "WELL IF THAT ATHEIST PROPAGANDA IS GOING TO BE TAUGHT THEN TEACH GOD'S VERSION" and "WHY ARE YOU PUTTING BIBLE STUDY IN SCHOOL" argument shouldn't even exist in the first place - Just remove both or even better yet, go over both and get the students to think about what they believe. Neither is hard fact.



Neither or both eh? Well, neither isn't really an option, people need a basic understanding of biology. If you don't know how it started or how it progressed you really can't say you know much about it at all, so knowledge of biology more or less revolves around knowing something about evolution. 

But both? 

I do hope you realize that there is more than one creationist religion out there. Should we teach them all? Ought we to teach that earthquakes are the result of pissy turtles?

What about other subjects in which there is a shred of controversy? Should we introduce the idea that the moon landing was, in fact, a hoax? You cannot definitely prove it wasn't. Go ahead, try. 

Evolution is as certain as something can get, the 99.999 bar. We can see it happen today, we can see how it happened yesterday and for a million years before. I don't care how many people doubt it, it doesn't change the fact that evolution has stood up to all the tests and trials necessary to be accepted as a fact.


EDIT: Oh, and tons of (at least legally) sane people believe that evolution is crap and throw it out lock, stock and barrel. Even people in certain high-ranking political office...


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 25, 2009)

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this.

If the evolutionary theory is given up because better evidence exists and a creationist model better fits, then I would gladly accept that evidence and the theories it supports and walk away from the theory of evolution.  That's science.  That's how science works.

Creationists though will never become evolutionists, no matter how much evidence is in play, and no matter how discredited their hypotheses are.   It's just not something they can do, because the end is already written out.  They have to make the facts support their conclusion, which is unscientific.  They can never be scientists unless they are willing to forego their hypothesis when a better one presents itself.

Science uses facts to support or reject a hypothesis.

Creationism uses a hypothesis to generate acceptance or rejection of the observations.  

It can't be science, period, until it puts the cart after the horse.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 25, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution.  Just evolution.



rofl


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

Ratte said:


> rofl



i get what he's trying to say
even if he's wrong


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 25, 2009)

Well, I'll freely admit I'm wrong with regards to the micro/macroevolution, after doing more research on it.   It is a commonly used term.

That being said, when creationists use it, they mean that it represents TWO processes.  The "microevolution" is possible in their eyes.  Macroevolution is simply impossible in their eyes.  

I know a lot of evolutionary biologists personally.  My .. dislike / distrust of those words come from a rant from one of them who said something along the lines of  "the differentiation of the terms is absolute bullshit."  Appeal to authority, I know, but still.. he really didn't seem to like me phrasing it like that.  And apparently neither did his colleagues.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 25, 2009)

Doesn't it take a lot of microevolution to get macroevolution or am I just retarded?


----------



## moonchylde (Dec 25, 2009)

In B4 Flying Spaghetti Monster


----------



## ADF (Dec 25, 2009)

Ratte said:


> Doesn't it take a lot of microevolution to get macroevolution or am I just retarded?



Macroevolution is basically just allot of microevolution.

It's like a walk to the kitchen is a micro journey; while a walk to the shops is a macro one. The process is exactly the same, it is just a difference in duration.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> Macroevolution is basically just allot of microevolution.



But one thing that bugs me - where's the border between those? In theory of course, because nature doesn't differantiate between micro- and macro-.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> Macroevolution is basically just allot of microevolution.
> 
> It's like a walk to the kitchen is a micro journey; while a walk to the shops is a macro one. The process is exactly the same, it is just a difference in duration.



That was kind of my point, but yeah.

Evolution is interesting.


----------



## ADF (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> But one thing that bugs me - where's the border between those? In theory of course, because nature doesn't differantiate between micro- and macro-.



There is no difference really, just the range of observations; whether looking at small changes over the short term or large changes over the long term.

Creationists got it into their head at some point that macroevolution was impossible; were was microevolution is possible. Which makes no sense, because it is just lots of the same process.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> There is no difference really, just the range of observations; whether looking at small changes over the short term or large changes over the long term.
> 
> Creationists got it into their head at some point that macroevolution was impossible; were was microevolution is possible. Which makes no sense, because it is just lots of the same process.



Well, I think the argument is that species overall are static (as in they never become anything other than what they are as a species).
But that populations can change (because you otherwise can't explain differences in skin tone, since those are traits that have evolved independent of one another).


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> There is no difference really, just the range of observations; whether looking at small changes over the short term or large changes over the long term.
> 
> Creationists got it into their head at some point that macroevolution was impossible; were was microevolution is possible. Which makes no sense, because it is just lots of the same process.



Exactly what I mean, Micro and macro- evolution, while in their definitions true, are in truth terms coined by people who didn't want to tell creationists and the like a simple STFU, and in the end pretty pointless. People just got used to them.
If physics can strive for unifying it's theories, why can't biology? At least the point where standart physics becomes useless and quantum mechanics step in is still pretty visible, even if not sharp.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Exactly what I mean, Micro and macro- evolution, while in their definitions true, are in truth terms coined by people who didn't want to tell creationists and the like a simple STFU, and in the end pretty pointless. People just got used to them.
> If physics can strive for unifying it's theories, why can't biology?



They're not pointless terms.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> They're not pointless terms.



They're not USEless, but everything would work just fine without them, which technically does make them pointless. And there wouldn't be so much confusion. Science should work for erasing unneccesarily complication in it's description o the world.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> They're not USEless, but everything would work just fine without them. And there wouldn't be so much confusion.



I'm not going to coddle idiots to forfeit important knowledge for people who are looking for useful specifics.
That's a good way to turn science into a true Ivory Tower.







The divide refers to the point at which the two species are genetically distinct enough that they cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring.


----------



## pheonix (Dec 25, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> 1. Which evolved first, male or female?
> 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
> 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
> 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
> ...



1. Male, cause guys are just that awesome.
2. not even 1 million.
3. That would take too long.
4. Cause they are obsolete.
5. the eye socket, duh.
6. maybe 1 or 2.
7. If you need to ask that question then it's just easier to call you stupid.
8. That's not a question damnit. ]:<
9. Cause they haven't been found.
10. That's just the way it is. no math solution.
11. Dumbest question so far.
12. nothing is useless though you can live without some things.
13. I laughed.
14. Underpopulated? It's not.
15. Cause then there'd be no reason to have more then one continent now would there?

Done for the fuck of it.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

pheonix said:


> Done for the fuck of it.



repeat
only this time with an evolutionary biology class
high school bio would do it


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I'm not going to coddle idiots to forfeit important knowledge for people who are looking for useful specifics.
> That's a good way to turn science into a true Ivory Tower.
> 
> 
> ...



In my opinion that division IS just coddling people who refuse to acknowledge a part of it, and I see that as a problem. I admit I made a fool of myself previously with the definition, but the main point still stands mevermind where you put the border. I'm a fan of unifying like phenomenons, and that's that.


----------



## Dyluck (Dec 25, 2009)

what exactly is an 'evolution teacher'

i wasn't aware that was a class

unless you meant 'biology'


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> In my opinion that division IS just coddling people who refuse to acknowledge a part of it, and I see that as a problem. I admit I made a fool of myself previously with the definition, but the main point still stands mevermind where you put the border. I'm a fan of unifying like phenomenons, and that's that.



Nevermind where you put the border?
Yeah, nevermind where populations become distinct species, nevermind that.

Evolution is just i dont know whatever man i think its good and stuff happens and like dicks get bones or something i dont know leave me alone im trying to watch tv

Look, you want to make words mean nothing, that's fine, stop making sense; but, seriously, words have meaning and these concepts are important and even if it unifies everyone behind some ridiculous rhetoric - if you don't understand what you're talking about, it really isn't any different than creationism.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 25, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> what exactly is an 'evolution teacher'
> 
> i wasn't aware that was a class
> 
> unless you meant 'biology'



bilology


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Nevermind where you put the border?
> Yeah, nevermind where populations become distinct species, nevermind that.
> 
> Evolution is just i dont know whatever man i think its good and stuff happens and like dicks get bones or something i dont know leave me alone im trying to watch tv
> ...



And where do they? At the point where they can have only sterile offspring like horses and zebras? Why are wolves and dogs separate species then? Their offspring is completely healthy and fertile. I'm sure there is some very specific explanation for that, but it only adds to complicating the matter only for the sake of saving some archaic ladder of organisation that was formed at the dawn of actual biology.
And why put the border at the point where populations become species, as blurry as it is, and not between single cell and complex organisms, as I admittingly foolishly thought at first?
That's why I dislike the concept of diferenting between those, the fact of it's most likely origins only adds to it.

And you're taking what I'm say to the extremes. I don't want words to mean nothing. Simplifying something doesn't mean it becoming "some boring yadda yadda, I'm busy playing mario". Simple does not have to equal stupid. I'm thinking like physics teaches me, I admit, but science is science, and one truth is the same for all things "The world is simple, but not boorish". You can form one unified theory which leaves place for the neccesary modifications for specific use, according to which level of organisation you apply it to. 
It's stated that macroevolution is basically a lot of microevolutions,  so why not just drop the term entirely and say simply - evolution, just adding "irreversible" when it is, and not when it's not, instead of going through mental gymnastics, trying to fit it into rigid frames set previously by people who did not know what we do now.
It's how it's done everywhere else, so why would biology be special in this aspect? Chemistry went through it just fine. Unlike physics, biology doesn't have the problem that the mathematical basis becomes too complicated in one model and another needs to be introduced.

Call me a fool all you want, but I will not cease to think that these problems need to catch up with the rest of modern science.

I'll end it here, everything else I'd say would just be repeating this.


----------



## jcfynx (Dec 25, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> This is fail. Take a damn class on the topic.



All I need to know I learned from 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution



ChakatBlackstar said:


> To the OP: Are we supposed to show are evolution teacher this to make them think they've failed and possibly give us front row seats to a real life headbanging?



Yes, you get it.



Runefox said:


> Why is it necessary to teach _the origin of life_ in school? I don't think even most die-hard creationists deny that evolution, even in some form, exists.



You would be surprised. "If people came from monkeys...why are there still monkeys?"


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jc, look what we have done to your thread D:


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> And where do they? At the point where they can have only sterile offspring like horses and zebras? Why are wolves and dogs separate species then? Their offspring is completely healthy and fertile. I'm sure there is some very specific explanation for that, but it only adds to complicating the matter only for the sake of saving some archaic ladder of organisation that was formed at the dawn of actual biology.
> And why put the border at the point where populations become species, as blurry as it is, and not between single cell and complex organisms, as I admittingly foolishly thought at first?
> That's why I dislike the concept of diferenting between those, the fact of it's most likely origins only adds to it.
> 
> ...



*Dogs and wolves are the same species.*

If you can't be bothered to even look up the most basic aspects of your understanding of biology, why would you even begin an argument or debate on it?

And if you come up with any concept, anyone who doesn't buy it will find some way to rhetorically twist it. Microevolution and macroevolution are different concepts with different concerns to the BASIC FUNCTIONS OF HOW EVOLUTION OCCURS AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THEY ARE SEPARATED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

You know, though, "evolution is just a theory."
Because people say this, though, you don't simply make evolution a law to suit the purpose of having it make better sense to them. They simply need to learn what the concept means.

Now what don't you understand about macroevol vs. microevol?

ps: i didnt call you a fool, thanks


----------



## Thatch (Dec 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> *Dogs and wolves are the same species.*
> 
> If you can't be bothered to even look up the most basic aspects of your understanding of biology, why would you even begin an argument or debate on it?



Okay, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not on with current trends, but from what I know, taxonomists themselves still battle on that. Is a dog Canis lupus familiaris or just Canis familiaris. If they actually came to a consensus, then please tell me, at least it'll be one point less to argue about.

As to the rest, I wrote all I wanted, and I don't want reapeat the same over and over. Let's just drop the topic then.

ps: I guess I just feel like one in this convo, guilt talking


----------



## Jelly (Dec 25, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Okay, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not on with current trends, but from what I know, taxonomists themselves still battle on that. Is a dog Canis lupus familiaris or just Canis familiaris. If they actually came to a consensus, then please tell me, at least it'll be one point less to argue about.
> 
> As to the rest, I wrote all I wanted, and I don't want reapeat the same over and over. Let's just drop the topic then.
> 
> ps: I guess I just feel like one in this convo, guilt talking



There's a consensus.
Canis lupus is both dogs and wolves.
Occasionally a paper will come out regarding morphological differences (which make certain dogs incompatible with others due to mechanical issues), which might clear up why exactly microevolution is important to distinguish from macroevolution when discussing this kind of stuff.

Well, I suggest you read a basic bio book (I'm not trying to offend you) on the subject, because I can't apparently explain why its important that they're different.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 26, 2009)

Actually.. domestic dogs are C.l.f, not C.l. in most taxonomies.  It was redone in 1993 to show a subspecies of wolf.  

The thought will be within the next few thousand years they will speciate.

But taxonomy is a weird thing.  SI and ASM hold the C.l.f tax for domestic dogs, switching it from Linneaus' canis familiaras and canis familiaras domesticus.

Heres the itis entry.

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=726821


----------



## ADF (Dec 26, 2009)

Runefox said:
			
		

> *Why is it necessary to teach the origin of life in school?* I don't think even most die-hard creationists deny that evolution, even in some form, exists.


Remember that evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. 

It's a common mistake considering how much misinformation creationist spread on it. If they had their way; they would be disproving evolution by arguing it doesn't explain gravity. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

A video that touches on the subject.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 26, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> There's a consensus.
> Canis lupus is both dogs and wolves.
> Occasionally a paper will come out regarding morphological differences (which make certain dogs incompatible with others due to mechanical issues), which might clear up why exactly microevolution is important to distinguish from macroevolution when discussing this kind of stuff.



Oh, I see, fine there then.



jellyhurwit said:


> Well, I suggest you read a basic bio book (I'm not trying to offend you) on the subject, because I can't apparently explain why its important that they're different.



I see you don't want to. And I did read upon it a little yesterday, I'm just not a fan of such a construction. But it's not like I'm gonna work in the field, so nevermind that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Creationism is  an outdated idea based on prescientific thinking.


..which was popular at around the same time grunting, flea-picking, and getting eaten by wild cats were all the rage!


----------



## Lobo Roo (Dec 26, 2009)

Most of these are questions any idiot should be able to figure out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Which evolved first, male or female? At the same time, of course. An entire species evolves, not simply one individual animal.


2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female? What are you even asking?

3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods. 

4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years? They went extinct for a reason, dumbass. Obviously they couldn't adapt to changing enviroments - why would something re-evolve if it obviously won't survive?

5. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?

Why do we care?
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?

Again, why do we care?
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

We didn't, dumbass. 
8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!

Let me explore every inch of the earth, as well as look into the past with my magic powers...oh, wait, I can't do that. Idiot.

9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing? Same as last question - we haven't been able to search the entire planet for fossils, and we aren't fucking magical. Just because something hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)

A coin isn't alive, dumbass.
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

They are. You do realize it's a very slow process, right?
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.

I can only think of one off the top of my head, and the appendix probably had a use in our past - just because we haven't lost it yet, doesn't mean in thousands of years it won't disappear from our system.

13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?

Same answers as before, dumbass. You go search the entire planet, from the top of the earth's crust down to the magma - let us know when you're done.
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

How do you judge whether a planet is under or over populated? Got another planet out there you're comparing Earth to? 
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents? 

Because all continents are different. A naked molerat would fucking die in the Artic, ever think of that? 


------------

Really, these are idiotic questions. Since I'm sure you're a religious nut, I just have one question - why can't you show me absolute proof of a god?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 26, 2009)

Lobo Roo said:


> Really, these are idiotic questions. Since I'm sure you're a religious nut, I just have one question - why can't you show me absolute proof of a god?


Don't go there, Lobo. Religious nuts tend to prove points with violence when cornered.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 26, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Don't go there, Lobo. Religious nuts tend to prove points with violence when cornered.



I've yet to see one go so far as to use a Bible as a physical weapon.
Which is a shame, because those things are always hard-backed and XBOX HEAVY.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 26, 2009)

Lobo Roo said:


> Since I'm sure you're a religious nut



We have the winner for Oblivious 2009.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 26, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I've yet to see one go so far as to use a Bible as a physical weapon.
> Which is a shame, because those things are always hard-backed and XBOX HEAVY.



http://www.parable.com/content/preview/metalcross.jpg


----------



## Kommodore (Dec 26, 2009)

No one is this stupid.


----------



## moonchylde (Dec 26, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I've yet to see one go so far as to use a Bible as a physical weapon.
> Which is a shame, because those things are always hard-backed and XBOX HEAVY.



I had a Book of Mormon launched at my head when I was traveling across Utah a few years back. Does that count?


----------



## Ratte (Dec 26, 2009)

SILLY UTAH


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 26, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> All I need to know I learned from
> 
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution



Well, that's your problem right there. Conservapedia is not only *not *right, "it's not even wrong" - *it's so far off any semblance of reality* that it's more or less verbal diarrhoea in text form.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 26, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Well, that's your problem right there. Conservapedia is not only *not *right, "it's not even wrong" - *it's so far off any semblance of reality* that it's more or less verbal diarrhoea in text form.



I think he's trollin' Mayfurr :v

You can lower yer missiles.


----------



## FluffMouse (Dec 26, 2009)

What is this ass vomit?

We didn't evolve by 'chance'. We evolved over millions of years of TRIAL AND ERROR. We're not the first version of humans. We evolved this way because it was essential to our survival. We have no fur, our skin is frail and squishy, our feet are flatter than other animals, we can't climb trees like monkeys.. but we can utilize tools to our advantage like them. We just evolved to do it better and comprehend shit, and question things. We needed some sort of civilization in order to work together and survive.

Also, how heavy was the brick that hit you in the face before you thought to compare a humans evolution to a COIN? WHY would a certain shape be essential to a metals existence? That's the same ridiculous thinking that most crazy conservatives are guilty for. Thinking that everything revolves around humans and was created FOR humans. Just because we're top dog doesn't mean that other things aren't equally as essential to OUR survival as well. 

And there are fossils today. But it takes a long ass time and we have only been around for so long. (As creatures that can understand fossils)


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 26, 2009)

SugarMental said:


> Wonderful words



Can we make out? <3


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 26, 2009)

At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt, probably because part of me wanted to crush him like a bug. 

Now... 

http://stellarspectral.com/memes/trlht.jpg


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 26, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> You would be surprised. "If people came from monkeys...why are there still monkeys?"



Because people like you somehow still manage to breed.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 26, 2009)

OMG OMG IT'S DA NEW SHIT FROM JCFYNX THEY BE BANGIN THIS IN DA CLUBS Y'ALL!!!


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 27, 2009)

How is this still going?

We all don't like JC, he's trolling, and evolution happens. The end.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 27, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> We all don't like JC



are you shitting me? JC makes using this forum a performance art unto itself, probably without even trying that hard.


----------



## Aurali (Dec 27, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> How is this still going?
> 
> We all don't like JC, he's trolling, and evolution happens. The end.



JC is awesome, and your a horrible person for saying otherwise


----------



## Ben (Dec 27, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Well, that's your problem right there. Conservapedia is not only *not *right, "it's not even wrong" - *it's so far off any semblance of reality* that it's more or less verbal diarrhoea in text form.



You _really think_ there are people out there that take Conservapedia seriously?

Well, aside from the people who founded it anyway. But I doubt you would find any of them amongst the rank of furries.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2009)

Ben said:


> *You really think there are people out there that take Conservapedia seriously?*
> 
> Well, aside from the people who founded it anyway. *But I doubt you would find any of them amongst the rank of furries.*



They live. They are among us. They are conservative furries. 

Fear them.


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 27, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> They live. They are among us. They are conservative furries.
> 
> Fear them.


Laugh at them.  Disrespect them.


----------



## Rytes (Dec 27, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Laugh at them.  Disrespect them.




revolt against them, Break them


----------



## Dyluck (Dec 27, 2009)

bind them, gag them


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 27, 2009)

Ben said:


> You _really think_ there are people out there that take Conservapedia seriously?



Sadly, yes. I suspect Cyb_rf_x does :-(


----------



## joey2joey (Dec 27, 2009)

It's a trap, he just wants people to get laughed at and called an idiot by their science teachers.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 27, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Sadly, yes. I suspect Cyb_rf_x does :-(


I think he means people with cognitive ability that's to specs.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 27, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> are you shitting me? JC makes using this forum a performance art unto itself, probably without even trying that hard.



He trolled people by being an obvious failtroll. THAT is art, I agree fullheartly.


----------



## Ben (Dec 27, 2009)

szopaw said:


> He trolled people by being an obvious failtroll. THAT is art, I agree fullheartly.



Indeed. The fact that he gets banned from so many IRC chats is an absolute travesty. ):


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 27, 2009)

Like Lolijoke says, "You know you're a good troll when other people are telling you how to troll."


----------



## MayDay (Dec 27, 2009)

joey2joey said:


> It's a trap, he just wants people to get laughed at and called an idiot by their science teachers.



IT'S A TRAP! 

*Cough* Excuse this geeky outburst


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2009)

MayDay said:


> IT'S A TRAP!
> 
> *Cough* Excuse this geeky outburst



Wrong. 

It's a tarp. 

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j309/SIMPLYB1980/tarp.gif


----------



## jcfynx (Dec 27, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> They live. They are among us. They are conservative furries.
> 
> Fear them.



I believe they prefur the term "confurvative."

My source: http://community.livejournal.com/confurvatives

- Jean-Claude H., FPS-loving Confurvative Repawblican Fursauce-Drenched Furry


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2009)

jcfynx said:


> I believe they prefur the term "confurvative."
> 
> My source: http://community.livejournal.com/confurvatives
> 
> - Jean-Claude H., FPS-loving Confurvative Repawblican Fursauce-Drenched Furry



... 

I intentionally avoided using that crime against the English language.


----------



## Jack (Dec 27, 2009)

love it!
"suck it darwin!" lol


----------



## Bacu (Dec 27, 2009)

WIN


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Dec 28, 2009)

An eye needs several components to to function properly so apparently all of these things evolved along with each other. Because an iris itself would do no good. But then how did these components "know" to evolve together? Was there a sub eyeball at one point?

 And why require two parties to reproduce? Would not one party be more effective? In addition to that something like sex would be nearly impossible to have evolved.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 28, 2009)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> An eye needs several components to to function properly so apparently all of these things evolved along with each other. Because an iris itself would do no good. But then how did these components "know" to evolve together? Was there a sub eyeball at one point?
> 
> And why require two parties to reproduce? Would not one party be more effective? In addition to that something like sex would be nearly impossible to have evolved.



Eyes started as small patches of light sensitive skin. Then they became more intricate and able to pick up shapes and colors. Unfortunately, at this point they were very vulnerable to damage, so crude skin covers formed over them. These became eyelids. Eventually the "eye" became separate from the skin surrounding it, and muscles formed to allow it movement. 

Male/female mating allowed for greater specialization within the species. Mating pairs had an advantage against predators. While one was weighed down with offspring, the other could defend it. Gradually this caused the formation of two different types best suited for their roles.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 28, 2009)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> An eye needs several components to to function properly so apparently all of these things evolved along with each other. Because an iris itself would do no good. But then how did these components "know" to evolve together? Was there a sub eyeball at one point?



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

Oh hi


----------



## Lobar (Dec 28, 2009)

Oh good Eerie's back.  Will he listen this time around?

Even the most primitive vision (basic sensation of light/dark) is an obvious advantage wherever light is present, and anything slightly better is a greater advantage still, so it turns out that eyes evolve rather easily, starting as simple patches of light-sensitive proteins on the skin, then a protective transparent layer of skin above, which is repurposed in future generations as a lens, and so forth.  Eyes are so easily produced through evolution that there is even a species of fish with a second pair of eyes that evolved from scratch on their own, rather than just duplicating the existing pair.

On the other hand, the blind cave fish, living in a lightless environment, has complex eyes, but they are completely covered to protect the useless eyes from injury.  The blind cave fish's eyes have an easy evolutionary explanation (the eyes are vestiges of light-dwelling ancestors), but represent a ridiculous and unnecessary design flaw for anyone suggesting the blind cave fish was simply created "as-is".


----------



## Kreevox (Mar 14, 2010)

wow a lot of furs are atheists, this thread proves it, it's quite funny how hostile they are to these questions


----------



## Leon (Mar 14, 2010)

Dead thread was dead.


----------



## SirRob (Mar 14, 2010)

*Ignores entire thread and looks at your title* Does this mean you're no longer my friendhog? ):


----------



## Bando (Mar 14, 2010)

Doomsquirrel said:


> wow a lot of furs are atheists, this thread proves it, it's quite funny how hostile they are to these questions



Holy shit necropost


----------



## Icky (Mar 14, 2010)

How do you people find these threads to necro, anyway? Are you digging around for hot topics down in the trash heaps of FAF or something? 

Oh, and that granny email website had the best blonde joke of all time.


> Joe Namath, a black guy, and a blonde walk into a bar. The bartender looks at the three of them and cocks his head at the sight of such an unusual trio.
> 
> "Uh, what can I get you?", he asks.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRob (Mar 14, 2010)

I love subtle humor.


----------



## Surgat (Mar 14, 2010)

*Thread Necromancy*



Doomsquirrel said:


> wow a lot of furs are atheists, this thread proves it, it's quite funny how hostile they are to these questions



The post prior to yours was from last year. :|


----------

