PDA

View Full Version : Enjoy the Truth



I Am Right
9/1/2011, 04:36 PM
LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE
August 31, 2011


Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.

After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"

That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.

Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much."

To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin's time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. "Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record," Raup said, "such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

The scant fossil record in Darwin's time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.

And yet, more than a century later, Darwin's groupies haven't evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted -- without evidence -- that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.

Then in 1984, "the dog ate our fossils" excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The New York Times called "among the most spectacular in this century," Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.

Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures -- precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn't fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence -- it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.

And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.

Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not "evolution," it was "a revolution."

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

KantoSooner
9/1/2011, 05:19 PM
Suggest reading 'Your Inner Fish'. Colter's arguments are so far from any version of cite checkable history that they must be either intended as a joke or the most Goebbels-like of propaganda.
Seriously, the above cited book covers this entire debate and does so in clear, non-gibberish technobabble.
Happy reading.
Unless you inteded the article to evoke derision toward Colter. In which case, sorry to have taken the bait seriously.

crawfish
9/1/2011, 06:36 PM
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism

Stopped reading right after that untrue statement. The vast majority of mutations are completely neutral.

JohnnyMack
9/1/2011, 06:46 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314920673&sr=8-1

I love that at the end of her quote she calls THEM religious fanatics. Coulter is one of the biggest zealots on the planet.

SoonerLaw09
9/1/2011, 06:53 PM
Scientists disagree with each other on the meaning of the fossil record, just as Christians disagree with one another on what the Bible says about the age of the earth, if indeed it says anything at all about that.

A good rule of thumb when examining evidence for your worldview: don't just take one dude's word for it, whether he's a scientist or a preacher.

Frozen Sooner
9/1/2011, 06:56 PM
Card for political thread in the South Oval. Thread moved to politics.

jumperstop
9/1/2011, 07:39 PM
Stopped reading right after that untrue statement. The vast majority of mutations are completely neutral.

Agree, nowhere in Darwinism is mutation part of the theory. Unless the author misunderstands what mutation actually is. Still, I thought people stopped not believing in evolution like 25 years ago. It's a ****ing fact, get over it. Darwin may have not had it exactly right or whatever the author was trying to say, but his thoughts formed the basis of the theory.

If a Presidential canidate gives the answer, "Evolution, I think, is correct!", then I want no part of the retarded religous canidate. How can someone who is running for president be so stupid......

diverdog
9/1/2011, 09:50 PM
Agree, nowhere in Darwinism is mutation part of the theory. Unless the author misunderstands what mutation actually is. Still, I thought people stopped not believing in evolution like 25 years ago. It's a ****ing fact, get over it. Darwin may have not had it exactly right or whatever the author was trying to say, but his thoughts formed the basis of the theory.

If a Presidential canidate gives the answer, "Evolution, I think, is correct!", then I want no part of the retarded religous canidate. How can someone who is running for president be so stupid......

Agreed.


Why do Republicans gravitate to the lowest common denominator when it comes to science.

yermom
9/1/2011, 10:21 PM
Because that is their base ;)

KantoSooner
9/2/2011, 08:34 AM
Is Colter really this stupid? I've never really read her stuff, it seemed like just advertising to hype her teevee appearances, but is she seriously this dumb? Especially the comments on evolution of eyes and Steven Gould.

yermom
9/2/2011, 10:46 AM
from about everything i've heard her say, yes.

badger
9/2/2011, 11:16 AM
While I do agree that the fossil record is very convincing proof of where our various organisms came from and how they have adapted and survived through the ages, perhaps it is time to think about whether evolution is in fact about organisms physically changing, or mentally changing.

We are no longer living in mud shacks, because we've found more efficient and more secure homes to build and live in. We are no longer traveling on dirt roads in horse and buggys (unless you are Amish, in which case you might be) because we have more solid, reliable roads and faster modes of transportation.

Just as people's definition of Christianity may differ from person to person, perhaps we should subject "evolution" to the same treatment. Evolution... is a means of adapting mentally, not physically. The smarter, more willing to adapt people and living things survive and reproduce. The dummy plants and animals die off.

hawaii 5-0
9/2/2011, 11:25 AM
I think the mentality of Ann Coulter and a Chimp are still pretty much the same.

5-0

Trump/ Perry's thong 2012

Ike
9/2/2011, 12:00 PM
LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE
August 31, 2011


...stuff...

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Can anyone point me to an "Intelligent Design Scientist"? Thus far, the only papers I have been able to find on ID that actually contain anything remotely resembling "theory" are ones with math having little or no connection to reality (calculating probabilities based on silly ideas...ferinstance, leaving out of their calculations any mention of a mechanism for the formation or breaking of a chemical bond. Or not at all mentioning anything to do with the initial conditions.) and thus making their claims of improbability pretty laughable.

Turd_Ferguson
9/2/2011, 12:15 PM
I think the mentality of Ann Coulter and a Chimp are still pretty much the same.

5-0

Trump/ Perry's thong 2012Hack.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 12:23 PM
Scientists disagree with each other on the meaning of the fossil record, just as Christians disagree with one another on what the Bible says about the age of the earth, if indeed it says anything at all about that.

A good rule of thumb when examining evidence for your worldview: don't just take one dude's word for it, whether he's a scientist or a preacher.Duh!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 12:28 PM
So, you Leftists are STILL planning to vote for socialism and the Nannystate? GOLD, Jerry, pure gold!

jumperstop
9/2/2011, 12:43 PM
So, you Leftists are STILL planning to vote for socialism and the Nannystate? GOLD, Jerry, pure gold!

I don't know much about politics so I don't really think I should get into this too much. But I would rather have "nanny state socialism" than anyone who isn't sure evolution is fact....

jumperstop
9/2/2011, 12:45 PM
While I do agree that the fossil record is very convincing proof of where our various organisms came from and how they have adapted and survived through the ages, perhaps it is time to think about whether evolution is in fact about organisms physically changing, or mentally changing.

We are no longer living in mud shacks, because we've found more efficient and more secure homes to build and live in. We are no longer traveling on dirt roads in horse and buggys (unless you are Amish, in which case you might be) because we have more solid, reliable roads and faster modes of transportation.

Just as people's definition of Christianity may differ from person to person, perhaps we should subject "evolution" to the same treatment. Evolution... is a means of adapting mentally, not physically. The smarter, more willing to adapt people and living things survive and reproduce. The dummy plants and animals die off.

Plants can't think....evolution is physical.

And the fact that we are smarter is physical. Our brains are bigger and able to process more information than other animals.

Just because a hundred years ago people were still in horse and buggy, if the idea of the car was explained to them in detail they would still have the same capacity to understand the technology as someone today would. The reason we've advanced so much in the last century is because of technologies making it easier to have other technologies, not because humans got the ability to think more.

KantoSooner
9/2/2011, 01:12 PM
While I do agree that the fossil record is very convincing proof of where our various organisms came from and how they have adapted and survived through the ages, perhaps it is time to think about whether evolution is in fact about organisms physically changing, or mentally changing.

We are no longer living in mud shacks, because we've found more efficient and more secure homes to build and live in. We are no longer traveling on dirt roads in horse and buggys (unless you are Amish, in which case you might be) because we have more solid, reliable roads and faster modes of transportation.

Just as people's definition of Christianity may differ from person to person, perhaps we should subject "evolution" to the same treatment. Evolution... is a means of adapting mentally, not physically. The smarter, more willing to adapt people and living things survive and reproduce. The dummy plants and animals die off.

See Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene' for a good, if speculative discussion of 'memes' and the evolution of ideas and concepts. In its purist form, I think that corresponds to what you're saying....and it works precisely like physical evolution: the ideas which thrive are not necessarily the 'best' but only those with the mojo to reproduce. For every 'Golden Rule' idea, there are matching 'bad' ideas like racism.

Oh, and if it matters to you, this was Dawkins the biologist writing and not Dawkins the professional atheist. Much gooder reading. And amazingly cutting edge for something published in around 1976 or so.

hawaii 5-0
9/2/2011, 01:18 PM
Hack.



Right on time.


5-0


Trump/ Boudreaux 2012

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 01:42 PM
Ann Coulter is a noise without a purpose, a creator and destroyer of straw men, and a crafty panderer to the dismally moronic. She neither knows nor cares about evolution, religion, paleontology, Darwin, or science in general; she's only interested in whatever promotes the latest GOP agenda or seems to attack a "liberal" position, real or imagined. She's a partisan hack of the lowest order -- a queen of political porn.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 01:59 PM
Ann Coulter is a noise without a purpose, a creator and destroyer of straw men, and a crafty panderer to the dismally moronic. She neither knows nor cares about evolution, religion, paleontology, Darwin, or science in general; she's only interested in whatever promotes the latest GOP agenda or seems to attack a "liberal" position, real or imagined. She's a partisan hack of the lowest order -- a queen of political porn.stupid card...no, crazy card...no, EVILcard...YES!!!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 02:03 PM
"I don't know much about politics so I don't really think I should get into this too much. But I would rather have "nanny state socialism" than anyone who isn't sure evolution is fact"-jumperstop

I'm not surprised someone who doesn't know much about politics would be fine with the Nannystate.

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 02:11 PM
Mention the dismally moronic...

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 02:16 PM
You're always good for a 2-fer. Think of a way you can play the race card, and you've made your day, haha

I Am Right
9/2/2011, 02:36 PM
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --- George Orwell

yermom
9/2/2011, 02:43 PM
any freshman zoology student should be able to refute those evolutionary claims

jumperstop
9/2/2011, 02:54 PM
"I don't know much about politics so I don't really think I should get into this too much. But I would rather have "nanny state socialism" than anyone who isn't sure evolution is fact"-jumperstop

I'm not surprised someone who doesn't know much about politics would be fine with the Nannystate.

People who talk about the "nannystate" care too much about politics. Honestly if I lived in a completely socialist country I would not give a ****, and I think the US would benifit from socialist policies. I don't know about politics because I don't care to know. I spend my time caring about things that actually have an affect on my life. It doesn't matter how much conservative retards like you bitch about Obama and the "nannystate" or how much the libtards bitch about Teabaggers and Palin. Government policy is basically going to float in the middle. People like you who are way to in to politics are mostly unhappy people who want something and someone to bitch about.

Go ahead and vote for the guy who isn't sure about evolution...

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 02:55 PM
any freshman zoology student should be able to refute those evolutionary claimsThey can spew manmade global warming, too. So what? You guys are so predictable, transparent with your motives, and for as bright as some of you are, so illogical.

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 02:58 PM
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --- George Orwell

The false is not true, no matter how much you believe it. - Me

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 03:00 PM
You're always good for a 2-fer. Think of a way you can play the race card, and you've made your day, hahaShut your cake-hole, whitebread!

How's that? :wink:

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 03:09 PM
Why is Coulter attacking the 1859 version of evolutionary theory, anyway?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 03:52 PM
How giant of an intellect does it take to consider that evolutionary theory and intelligent design need not be mutually exclusive, anyway...unless one simply doesn't want to think a God of some kind is a possibility?

TUSooner
9/2/2011, 04:26 PM
So, you Leftists are STILL planning to vote for socialism and the Nannystate? GOLD, Jerry, pure gold!

This is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with how little Coulter knows about science or evolution. just sayin. in case you thought you had made a relevant comment

OhU1
9/2/2011, 04:28 PM
I always check with political opinion makers to detemine for me the truth of what's going on in the natural world.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
"So, you Leftists are STILL planning to vote for socialism and the Nannystate? GOLD, Jerry, pure gold!"


This is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with how little Coulter knows about science or evolution. just sayin. in case you thought you had made a relevant commentWell, we both know that it's PRECISELY the intent of you leftists to discredit anyone influential against socialism and an unconstitutional government in the USA. That MO is the norm . Stupid card, racist card, evil, crazy, always personal attacks. It still works, I know, or we wouldn't have elected the Democrats to power in both '06 and '08, and to some degree in '10. (Nevada senatorial election, and Delaware, too, come to mind)

OhU1
9/2/2011, 05:19 PM
RLIMC when one of your tea party candidates is quoted saying something stupid and educated people laugh, that is not a personal attack. The "stupid card" is pulled by Perry, Bachman, and Palin who speak out in wilful ignorance to pander to your lowest common denominator base of evangelical numbskulls.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/2/2011, 05:44 PM
No, the stupid card is you guy's playing it for personal destruction against anyone perceived conservative. I know you're not blockheaded enough to not undestand that. Maybe you don't want to own up to it, but that wouldn't, or at least shouldn't surprise anyone.

Stupid card: "willful ignorance", "lowest common denominator" base, "evangelical numbskulls" Maybe you didn't even catch yourself playing it. Maybe you "jest cain't hep yoursef"?

49r
9/2/2011, 06:57 PM
Looks like its "poke the gimp" day around here. Guess it has been kind of a slow day...

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 11:41 AM
No, the stupid card is you guy's playing it for personal destruction against anyone perceived conservative. I know you're not blockheaded enough to not undestand that. Maybe you don't want to own up to it, but that wouldn't, or at least shouldn't surprise anyone.

Stupid card: "willful ignorance", "lowest common denominator" base, "evangelical numbskulls" Maybe you didn't even catch yourself playing it. Maybe you "jest cain't hep yoursef"?

Sheesh. I must conclude that you don't even know what an "argument" is. Hint: It's more than just a "word fight." You dismiss legitmate, logical criticism as mere insults, and you offer the merest insults as logical argument. That's what makes you a "parrot." And that - not conservatism - is why you have no credibility. When people say stupid and incorrect things, its is not merely an "insult" to call them out for it. Sorry, but OhU1 took your head off and you don't even miss it.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/6/2011, 01:35 PM
Sheesh. I must conclude that you don't even know what an "arguemnt" is. Hint: It's more than just a "word fight." You dismiss legitmate, logical criticism as mere insults, and you offer the merest insults as logical argument. That's what makes you a "parrot." And that - not conservatism - is why you have no credibility. When people say stupid and incorrect things, its is not merely an "insult" to call them out for it. Sorry, but OhU1 took your head off and you don't even miss it.He's pretty goood at hurling insults. All you guys are. BFD! Grow up a little.
"you don't know what an argument is"= stupid card.
"logical criticism dismissed=stupid card
"parrot"=stupid card

Good going, tiger!haha

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 02:01 PM
I am far from the most intelligent or knowledgable or clever posters around here, on any subject. In fact, I'm wrong a lot, and I generally admit it when I am. But reading your lame regurgitations of cant and dogma makes me feel like a bona-fide genius, I mean like William F. Buckley or something. But I know I'm not, and I'm starting to just be mean, so I'll quit for the day.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/6/2011, 02:22 PM
Look, we disagree on so much, politically and economically. I don't think the socialism stuff ever works in the long run, due to various reasons, and faced with mountains of evidence. But hey, it's likely you will not believe that, until our economy collapses. I hope it doesn't happen, for all our sake.

SoonerProphet
9/6/2011, 02:44 PM
Look, we disagree on so much, politically and economically. I don't think the socialism stuff ever works in the long run, due to various reasons, and faced with mountains of evidence. But hey, it's likely you will not believe that, until our economy collapses. I hope it doesn't happen, for all our sake.
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/b/3/c/a/11949852781389506820spaventapasseri.svg.med.png

OhU1
9/6/2011, 03:01 PM
In undergrad a liberal Texas A&M biology professor gave Rick Perry a D = professor playing the "stupid card" :beguiled:


Last weekend I had some brews with a good friend who is very conservative and a current member of our state legislature. He supports Perry. I expressed doubts as to Perry's mental acumen for a position as lofty as "leader of the free world". My friend made the argument that Obama is very intelligent and has made a big mess of things. Therefore, intelligence is not very important to the position of President and Perry would be a big improvement! (Logical argument side note - is this an argument FOR ignorance? :fat: )

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 03:08 PM
Look, we disagree on so much, politically and economically. I don't think the socialism stuff ever works in the long run, due to various reasons, and faced with mountains of evidence. But hey, it's likely you will not believe that, until our economy collapses. I hope it doesn't happen, for all our sake.

I'm sorry, I have to reply. Only you could say that I advocate socialism. Your post shows me either that you are not paying attention to me, that you lack any understanding, or that you are suckered by the false dichotomy of the hard right. That false dichotomy is this: You are either a hard-right, rock-ribbed, Rush-fearing, tea pot, or you are a dirty red socialist. But there is a lot of room in between those extremes.

In fact, I am probably closer to being a libertarian than I am to being a socialist. But I think government is not evil per se and that it can and should do certain things you might think it shouldn't do. That doesn't mean I want the State running the economy or meddling in everybody's business or concocting a welfare state.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I take my political cues from Rolling Stone. Just because I don't hate Obama with purple passion and don't think he's the frikking Anti-Christ doesn't make me a Stalinist. Just because I voted for him last time doesn't mean that I adore him or his policies. In case you haven't noticed, we have limited choices in presidential elections: We don't usually get to vote for the best person for the job; we only get to choose between two unknowns or the lesser of two evils.

The reason I try to give you and a few others a hard time is because you don't appear to think. You swallow the dogma of the hard right, without considering any other views -- maybe even without being able to consider any variations.

I believe it's because you embrace the fallacy that it's either the Hard Right or the Abyss of Communism. Despite what the conservative sh!t-stirrers and their left-wing counterparts say, the world is not divided by a single bright line between Liberal and Conservative. But if you live and breathe propaganda and dogma, that's exactly how you come to see the world. That's exactly what the propagandists want you to do because.... CONFLICT SELLS!!

You can accuse me of fence-sitting, or waffling, or indecisiveness, or damned moderation, or whatever pejorative term you want, but I am going to try to figure out the right thing. Come election day, I'll make my choices based on what I have to choose from. I'm not going to jump on somebody's runaway train just for the sake of choosing sides, especially when both sides offer false choices between intolerable extremes.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/6/2011, 03:29 PM
Capitalism and the constitution have yielded the best, most prosperous and personally freee society I have ever read/heard about. Nannystatism and resulting criminality are bringing it down.
You admit to voting Obama. WTF were you thinking? I am trying very hard not to call you guys names that criticize your mental abilities, like most of you relish doing to me, and most known conservatives. I know your MO. To deny it is silly, or, if that's not your MO, WTF ARE you thinking?

Fraggle145
9/6/2011, 03:34 PM
While I do agree that the fossil record is very convincing proof of where our various organisms came from and how they have adapted and survived through the ages, perhaps it is time to think about whether evolution is in fact about organisms physically changing, or mentally changing.

We are no longer living in mud shacks, because we've found more efficient and more secure homes to build and live in. We are no longer traveling on dirt roads in horse and buggys (unless you are Amish, in which case you might be) because we have more solid, reliable roads and faster modes of transportation.

Just as people's definition of Christianity may differ from person to person, perhaps we should subject "evolution" to the same treatment. Evolution... is a means of adapting mentally, not physically. The smarter, more willing to adapt people and living things survive and reproduce. The dummy plants and animals die off.

Everything everyone else said. Dawkins was the first to really put this into a nice package with the "Selfish Gene" as far as the idea that knowledge and technology also evolve. You can readily see it in medicine. And you can "see" physical evolution in action as bacteria and viruses become resistant to different medicines. For more readily available physical evidence of megafauna look to human embryos (we all start with gills and a tail), vestigial organs (whales, snakes, etc...), Skull morphology of whales, and the list goes on and on...

Also to provide some context to the Stephen Jay Gould reference in the OP I refer to this quote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

jumperstop
9/6/2011, 03:37 PM
Capitalism and the constitution have yielded the best, most prosperous and personally freee society I have ever read/heard about. Nannystatism and resulting criminality are bringing it down.
You admit to voting Obama. WTF were you thinking? I am trying very hard not to call you guys names that criticize your mental abilities, like most of you relish doing to me, and most known conservatives. I know your MO. To deny it is silly, or, if that's not your MO, WTF ARE you thinking?

I'm sure if you told people who you voted for they would also ask, "Wtf were you thinking?"....people have different opinions and views of life. It's just most normal people are able to hear out the other side, all you've done this entire thread is bitch about the Nanny state while putting people who are making intellectually valid points down.

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 03:59 PM
Capitalism and the constitution have yielded the best, most prosperous and personally freee society I have ever read/heard about. Nannystatism and resulting criminality are bringing it down.
You admit to voting Obama. WTF were you thinking? I am trying very hard not to call you guys names that criticize your mental abilities, like most of you relish doing to me, and most known conservatives. I know your MO. To deny it is silly, or, if that's not your MO, WTF ARE you thinking?

Oh, dearie me. I gave you a more patient and respectful explanation of my views than you probably deserved. That is, I told you "WTF I was thinking" in one or two posts. Yet, you now suggest "we" who criticize you don't belive in capitalism or the Constitution?! WHY do you think that?! Because to criticize you is un-American?? Because Rush is God and Obama is the reincarnation of Lenin?!? Are you f***ing serious? Did you understand ANY of my post about the false alternatives? Did you try? Holy ****.....

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 04:00 PM
not worth saying twice.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/6/2011, 04:08 PM
I'm sure if you told people who you voted for they would also ask, "Wtf were you thinking?"....people have different opinions and views of life. It's just most normal people are able to hear out the other side, all you've done this entire thread is bitch about the Nanny state while putting people who are making intellectually valid points down.If you haven't seen enough evidence of what the Left does by now, what more do you need?

OhU1
9/6/2011, 04:21 PM
RLIMC, I voted for McCain and Bush before him. What do I win?

BTW many in your party love to nanny-state the individual to death and tell everyone how to live (economic freedom is valued as long as you have means). Many Republicans go to bed at night with the disquieting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having fun.

TUSooner
9/6/2011, 04:58 PM
If you haven't seen enough evidence of what the Left does by now, what more do you need?

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When you have a one-track mind, every light ahead looks like an oncoming train. When you draw the world in black and white, beautiful colors disappear. This horse is ready for the glue factory.

47straight
9/6/2011, 08:57 PM
Lol @biology.

OhU1
9/6/2011, 10:00 PM
Lol @biology.
Maybe I'll hire you to be my typist. Do you file and answer phones too? :tongue:

soonercruiser
9/6/2011, 10:08 PM
Enjoy the tooth, mother****ers!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SyEKEUipzsA/S9cquakfM-I/AAAAAAAAARs/Him-gV--5cc/s1600/Tooth.gif

LONG LIVE THE TOOTH!
:beguiled:

soonercruiser
9/6/2011, 10:12 PM
RLIMC, I voted for McCain and Bush before him. What do I win?

BTW many in your party love to nanny-state the individual to death and tell everyone how to live (economic freedom is valued as long as you have means). Many Republicans go to bed at night with the disquieting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having fun.

And many Demoncrats and liberals go to bed at night, and stay awake thinking about how more lucky or how smart conservatives are; or, how much money they want from rich Americans.
Soooooo.....:rapture:

SanJoaquinSooner
9/6/2011, 11:26 PM
I kinda agree with Michelle Backmann on abolishing the Federal Dept of Ed and all, but probably for very different reasons. Certainly not because I think "Intelligent Design" is a competing scientific theory.

SanJoaquinSooner
9/6/2011, 11:31 PM
I do agree intelligence is not sufficient to make a good president.

Which presidents were trained as engineers? Hoover and Carter. And even though they were engineers they were plenty smart. But good presidents?

OhU1
9/7/2011, 12:31 AM
I do agree intelligence is not sufficient to make a good president.

Which presidents were trained as engineers? Hoover and Carter. And even though they were engineers they were plenty smart. But good presidents?

Granted it takes more than intelligence, but at what level are we dipping a little low into the mental talent pool? Wish the Repubs could come up with someone more like a "MacArthur" and less like the "Gomer Pyles" they've been trotting out.

47straight
9/7/2011, 09:54 AM
Maybe I'll hire you to be my typist. Do you file and answer phones too? :tongue:

If you can match 75% of my present pay and the job is in Oklahoma, I'd happily do that.

Veritas
9/7/2011, 11:19 AM
Granted it takes more than intelligence, but at what level are we dipping a little low into the mental talent pool? Wish the Repubs could come up with someone more like a "MacArthur" and less like the "Gomer Pyles" they've been trotting out.
**** yeah. MacA is one of my heros, flaw and all.

SanJoaquinSooner
9/9/2011, 09:01 PM
Just for the record, in case GOP candidate Rick Santorum misled anyone: "Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens, Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man"] are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

SanJoaquinSooner
9/10/2011, 01:27 AM
‎30% of the alleles of homo sapiens are believed to be inherited from Neanderthals,
who are extinct,
except for a small faction spotted at this week's GOP presidential debate.

okie52
9/10/2011, 06:24 AM
‎30% of the alleles of homo sapiens are believed to be inherited from Neanderthals,
who are extinct,
except for a small faction spotted at this week's GOP presidential debate.

That 30% is alive and well south of the border (and, of
course, the millions of illegals).

SanJoaquinSooner
9/10/2011, 07:43 AM
[QUOTE=okie52;3337681]That 30% is alive and well south of the border (and, of
course, the millions of illegals).[/QUOTE

Well, if it isn't Johnny "One-Note" Okie.

okie52
9/10/2011, 08:56 AM
[QUOTE=okie52;3337681]That 30% is alive and well south of the border (and, of
course, the millions of illegals).[/QUOTE

Well, if it isn't Johnny "One-Note" Okie.

Heh heh. I hope it will always be a sour note for those that aid and support illegals.