What Other Proof of Evolution Do You Need?

[Nbadan]

http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/44/pic2843318qz.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

If it hadn't been done 1,000 times before, it might be worth a chuckle.

[Clandestino]

i thought it was going to be manny

[ChumpDumper]

Old hat.

Visual aids are no longer necessary.

[exstatic]

Actually, very little evolution has taken place between those two particular primates. Throwback jerseys? Nah, but Dubyah is definitely a throwback primate.

[mookie2001]

its funny because its true.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Clandestino not only is a retired army veteran, he also voted for Bill Clinton, and is vehement in defending people who don't defend the constitution.

[Nbadan]

Speaking of evolution...


-snip-

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

-snip-

AOL (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019)

A nifty little antidote on the evolution versus IE debate from a separate forum...

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

[Nbadan]

Evolution as fact...

So it's a "theory" - so what?


theory - an explanation or system of anything.

Many anti-evolutionists will say "Yes, but it's only a theory, it's not real is it?" People who say this are confused about what a theory, in the scientific sense, actually is. From my emails I know that the single most common misconception about evolution is to confuse the fact and the theory.

Evolution is a fact. Shocking and controversial this might sound, but bear with me. I'm not talking about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I'm talking about the changes in the gene pools of all species that occur every single day due to births and deaths. If you accept that most members of a species do not all have the exact same DNA (which is easily demonstrated), and you accept that sexual reproduction combines the DNA of two parents to form a slightly different combination of genes, and you accept that not all creatures survive long enough to be able to reproduce, then....

You have accepted that evolution is an observed, natural fact. That's all it is. A change in the genes over time. Evolution happens. Things evolve. That's what it means. There is no debate in the scientific community as to whether or not evolution is a fact. It is a fact of nature, just like gravity.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is an attempt to describe what is happening, how and why. The theory describes the facts and the evidence. The theory comes after observation of the facts. The theory of evolution may be hopelessly wrong (although it has stood the test of time for 150 years already), but that would not change the fact that evolution occurs - we would just have to find a new and better theory for explaining it.

Link (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html)

[Clandestino]

Clandestino not only is a retired army veteran, he also voted for Bill Clinton, and is vehement in defending people who don't defend the constitution.

not retired, just completed a term of service.. but yes, a veteran..

[Cant_Be_Faded]

not retired, just completed a term of service.. but yes, a veteran..


LOL

Clandestino you truely are a man of puzzling circumstance.


I bet you speak fluent spanish and turn a cold shoulder to all of your cousins who have committed crimes too.