TweetI can't believe you just made me watch that dipshyt Bill Maher.
But anyway. I like Seth's respons. and he would. He probably will on a Family Guy.
"Evolution's a myth."lol...jeez...That's like the bumper sticker on the cars right beside their fish and child's honor status. "You might've came from monkeys."lol. uh man.
Those people. 50,000yrs ago. Those weren't monkeys. Never were.
I can see where the intellectualy challenged would even say something like, "well, they all look the same to me." But nope. There's more to it than that.

This is what scares me about most of the country's education system. That's basic Biology. 9th grade. Some might've got it another year. She apparently never got it.

Tweethaha...I had to watch McFarland's response again. Perfect.

TweetThis ass maher is comlaining about odonnel and her belief back then in 1998 12 years ago and what about his friggin screw ball liberal belief that has destroyed this country

TweetFuzo, that was not the point at all. Why do you insist on going around the issue and making it about Maher. The point is that she doesn't believe in evolution and says things stupid like why aren't monkeys still evolving. The point is, you can't have people that think this way running the country. It doesn't matter what Maher's views are.

TweetHey, I know people who believe in a talking snake talking a woman into eating a real apple, and because she did, women have been cursed ever since with a menstrual period every month

Tweet

Originally Posted by Dzone

Hey, I know people who believe in a talking snake talking a woman into eating a real apple, and because she did, women have been cursed ever since with a menstrual period every month

I'm gonna go ahead and leave this one alone..lol

Tweet1998 she said that 12 years ago and now bill di ck head maher wants to now show the clip. Just like the witch thing.Plus maher is a dumb ass liberal piece of shit

Tweetwhat was odonell doing on mahers show back then? was she something special back in 98? She just sounds like some ultra right wing college student

Tweet

Originally Posted by straydoglogic

Fuzo, that was not the point at all. Why do you insist on going around the issue and making it about Maher. The point is that she doesn't believe in evolution and says things stupid like why aren't monkeys still evolving. The point is, you can't have people that think this way running the country. It doesn't matter what Maher's views are.

I didn't watch it yet, but I can't take Maher so not sure if I will. But at any rate, what is wrong with not believing in evolution? I don't believe in it either, and a lot of people don't. The whole thing is silly in my opinion, and I feel exactly the same way apparently, if she said why aren't there monkeys still in the transformation stage. I just can't but the notion that humans used to be monkeys. I don't buy into a lot of the junk scientists talk about. But what in the world is wrong with her not believing it, and why is it so wrong for her to rebuttal it that way? That is exactly what I have always asked.

Have you ever studied the string theory? I did, and wrote a paper on it in college for my Physics class. I got a B- for not understanding the topic clearly enough. It was very complicated and dealt a lot with quantum physics, which does not interest me, nor do I understand it very well. But what I did come out learning was that these scientists can think up some pretty bizarre theories on how things came to be. I don't buy the string theory, nor do I buy into evolution. Maybe humans have always been here, I don't know, but I sure don't believe we evolved from monkeys. Heck, maybe monkeys evolved from humans. Who would be able to say for sure that's not the case?

Evolution is one more thing the government is attempting to brainwash students into believing, along with the New Deal, and global warming or climate change, or whatever the heck they decide to call it at the time.

Tweet

The point is, you can't have people that think this way running the country

atleast it would be better then to think that way instead of this liberal dumb shit thinking his way,what would be worse. Thinking about evolution or having the rich pay for the poor and having gov control evryones lives and having the rich getting taxed 50% and the rich paying for the poor..Somone please tell me why the rich who were once poor made it in life and just because they have made it this blowjob president wants to tax them more I could go on and on but you get my point.

TweetHERES SOME INFO



Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.
Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.
Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.
Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

TweetScience was one of my interest. (is) whatever.
There was in fact an evolution of the homosapien. We are bi-pedal primates along with the great-ape family. That does not mean that we and apes are one, the same, or that we came from apes. I'm way rusty on this, and the only college-credit study I received in this area was in high-school.
One study that comes to mind was concerning the neanderthal and cromagnon. Now, I realize that the evolution chain daes way back, but I'm just concerned with the developement that leads to the modern human right now. The neanderthal and cromagnon were on the earth at the same time. About 30,000yrs ago, the neaderthal went extinct. The Cromagnon in Europe continued to evolve. There is pletny of evidense of these 2 sub-species. Or, The Neanderthal would actually be te subspecies having not survived to evolve. That also separates the modern human from the neanderthal.
If you read into these 2, evolution isn't a stretch of scientific theory by any means. We're still evolving evryday. The average man is steady evolving into whatever his ethnic culture and interest are. It happens here in America. We are breaking records every year. Man is still evolving. You gotta think. We're a very new species.
People evolve over short time periods, in less than a lifetime, to their habitat, or the habitat that they create for themselves. Bone and muscle will evolve in just a few years to what's needed for that human's needs. This happens in extreme cases, of course. To happen so quickly. But it does prove evolution in a sense.

Just like my biology teacher said. I'm not saying that the Bible is a fairy-tale at all. I'm just talking about what science has proven. Over theory. proven facts. The cromagnon evolution is fact. Take it back 10million year, and I'm not interested in that far of a stretch and theory that comes out of it. I guess if it can be carbon-dated. Then I'll take it for fact. Which can't reach back that far.
Just look what happens when 2 different ethnic races mate. There is a small example of evolution. You have a new unique "breed". (might be a little stretch, but I'm reachin for an example in simple terms.) There have been animals that are removed from their natural habitat, and they evolve for their new climate. Another example.

There's allot of theory past carbon dating. Theory is theory. Fact is fact. And on the Odonnel thing. She might have never got past the theory part of evolution from a damn chimp. I would need more too. So, I'm not gonna hold hr over the coals for that statement. It doesn't have anything to do with governing a nation of humans. No-one needs to be a scholar in evolution, math, or religion to run this country. The governing and running of America is pretty cut and dry, and outlined well.
I still haven't found that one politician that I agree with 100% on every issue.

Tweet

Originally Posted by JsJs24

I just can't but the notion that humans used to be monkeys.

Common misconception. We never used to be monkeys, we stem from the same branch of the evolutionary tree. We are more closely related to chimpanzee than we are monkeys. Look at this chart and better understand how it works. We didn't come from monkeys.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ution_Tree.JPG

Study biology,geology and the like and it's pretty evident that evolution cannot be disproved.