Evolution Graffiti

Submitted by: Snoogans 10 years ago in
/evolution_grafitti.html

The evolution of man, on a wall (scroll right).
There are 116 comments:
Male 2,605
Addendum: Note that my Genetics example implies only two alleles determining height. Multiple alleles will skew the probability accordingly.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution."

Evolution does *not* depend on chance but rather processes that are in turn limited by other processes. We didn`t *happen* to come together as we did; the processes that preceded us simply made it an inevitability.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence..."

It`s convenient to think of the universe as having been developed by coincidence but it`s not strictly coincidence. Coincidence implies that the universe contains a vast range of possibilities and that we happened to form from an endless chain of accidents. This is *not* so. Every event or process the universe undergoes limits the succeeding results in a linear fashion.

[Here`s a deal. I can sufficiently demonstrate how we are the result of linear processes but it`d simply take too much room to post out here. It`s a lot of writing but if you want to hear it I`ll make the effort and write to you in PM. If you want to read my explanation I`ll write it for you but only if you agree to remain objective and docile so as not to waste my time.]

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall."

BlueAdept, please. That`s not evolution, that`s genetics. If two parents are heterozygous for the genes that determine a tall or short phenotype, then theoretically 1/4 of their children will be short. Genetics is responsible for why we have variation, but it is not responsible for why there exists a wild-type of each organism, which is attributed to natural selection which *does* fall directly under the domain of evolution. You should educate yourself some more.

"That is a semi-example of Natural selection"

It`s not even "semi".

"But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct."

Agreed, except that the greater parts of evolution have not as of yet been proven false, therefore it is accepted as true. This is how science works.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn`t need them or at the least, have them?"

You just implied no human is perfect, which reinforces the contradiction in my previous post.

"It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation."

Your definition should negate why you think the complexity of the eye is incompatible with evolution. If indeed evolution is capable of transferring organisms to a higher state of complexity, why couldn`t evolution apply the same principle to the eye?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye."

We already *know* the eye is complex, as is all life. The question is not whether it is complex, but whether said complexity could have arisen in nature without intelligent interference. According the evolution, the answer to that question is yes.

"If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do."

If God wanted us to be created in His image, then, yes, we would be the same as God. As you have and I have already pointed out, we are not, and so there exists a paradox, or at least a contradiction. Let me guess: that part of the Bible wasn`t literal either?

0
Reply
Male 75
But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct. The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence, that my (rather remarkable, if I do say so myself lol) body was a product of time…I don’t care how long it took, the chance that all this could come together just so, is too infinitesimal.

An atheist friend of mine once told me that he wished he could have the faith I do to believe in God, but in my mind, it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution.

0
Reply
Male 75
My thoughts on what evolution is? It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation.

Now, I will say this…parts of evolution are correct. A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall. The same can be said for if two short people have a child. That is a semi-example of Natural selection, taking out that there really is no obvious advantage to being tall over being short. Since we still have short people in the world, we see that as true.

0
Reply
Male 75
*sigh* Where to begin...to save myself time and space, I`ll point you to this video which does a fairly good, if not complete take on the complexity of the eye. It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/380760/does_god_exist_the_eye/

Now about God and Us. There`s nothing to state that God is vain. He created us in His image, yes, but there is nothing that says He wanted us to be perfect. If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do. And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn`t need them or at the least, have them? There is no comparison.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
On final note: *why* and on what grounds do you consider the eye too complex? Surely you can present some physiological evidence and knowledge that backs up that claim? I feel you`re just regurgitating what you`ve been told by the popular religion community or a pastor. (Ted Haggard made the same claim that the eye is seemingly impossible without intelligent design and has actually, albeit unwittingly, demonstrated he knows next to nothing of the processes of evolution.)
0
Reply
Male 2,605
To me it makes more sense that, yes, we were shaped and developed by the environment and yes, in that sense, *designed* from the environment, but that this designing is necessarily *unintelligent*. Life has every appearance of having been designed step-wise and unintelligently, with each further development thus enabling yet further development, which builds upon itself again and again to form an organism. It`s useful thinking of ourselves as nothing more than the sum of an arrangement of groups of different cells that perform different yet complimentary functions.

I fear perhaps your rejection of evolution stems from, *perhaps*, your misinterpretation of it, and so I would ask that you explain, in your own words, what you feel evolution is.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...and I`m certainly not like that."

That is certainly appreciated, but I don`t feel you are keeping as open a mind as you claim to.

Think about this: an omnipotent being creates a creature with the intention of that creature being in his (omnipotent being`s) image. One would then conclude that this being would want to make that creature as perfect as possible so as to adequately reflect his (omnipotent being`s) image, assuming of course that this being is vain, which is a fair assumption to make if we further assume this is the Judeo-Christian God found in the Bible. Okay. So why, indeed, is the creature not perfect? Why do we need myelin sheaths around our neurons to help send signals when a perfect being shouldn`t need such support? Why does protein production require multiple STOP codes rather than just one?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think)"

It`s not as complex as you think. Anything can be broken down to its sum parts but in doing so we`ll only find that some parts rely upon others to work. All this means is that those structures existed before the others were formed upon them and so on and so forth. Anyone who says it`s too complicated hasn`t either done adequate research or is deliberately neglecting the potency of evolution.

"And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many `blind` followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism."

Of course. This is nothing new. But do note that the validity and truthfulness of an argument is mutually exclusive from how many people happen to accept it. History is filled with so many former popular ideas (supported by the majority) that have since been debunked by science.

0
Reply
Male 75
Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think), there are too many things that don`t work with Evolution for me to ever follow it.

And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many "blind" followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism. But that doesn`t make me one of them, as hopefully this points out. I`ve asked myself all the questions, I`ve thought of things through both viewpoints and still Creationism makes more sense.

That`s not to say I`m going to condemn you guys and tell you that you`re all going to Hell...I keep an open mind. Too many people take the stereotypical `holier-than-thou, look down my nose at every other belief` as the way all Christians act, and I`m certainly not like that.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved..."

That you even need ask how the human eye evolved puts you rather in a bad position. This is a popular case for creationists to refer to because they cannot even conceive of how the development of an eye can be broken down into a step-by-step process. It`s been done before and I`m not an optometrist but if you really wanted an answer, I can direct you towards those who can, yes, fully defend evolution`s processes in respect to the eye.

What you`re not considering is really how simple the eye indeed is. If an omnipotent being (God) designed the eye, why did it only enable the eye to process light radiation from such a limited spectrum? Wouldn`t an omnipotent, caring being want its creation to have the best sight possible? Creationism just doesn`t add up.

0
Reply
Male 167
heh... my I.Q tests say 155 to 160... I say you`re wrong Blue Adept. Evolution is true and I go with that guy who said once they can prove how to make a cell, evolution is set in stone, pretty much. Did anyone else notice that the pictures were perfect, but they had been put together from different pictures? If you look at the rail on the bridge, you`ll see that it must be different photos taken from different angles, yet the graffiti matches up perfectly. And all this evolution v creationist crap, if you`re happy in blindly following something that covered its ass by saying "god is mysterious, you can`t prove or disprove that" you can`t go ridiculing evolution because it`s "just a theory" and may be wrong. I believe it`s right, because scientist made an informed decision on it, not decided to tell some people stories that they had no idea would have such a big effect. Go watch that episode of Penn and Teller: Bullpoo on Creationism.
0
Reply
Male 75
lol I`m retarded? As this is coming from a 13-17 yr old, I won`t take offense. Like Broadwaylove(and I actually kinda don`t want to mention it, cause it`s so similar that it may appear I`m being spurious) all the I.Q. tests I`ve taken have put me in the 120-140 range. So my intelligence is not in question, merely what I believe.

You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved(and that`s only a couple of the many things evolution can`t explain), and I`ll back Evolution. Until then, I`ll believe what I`ve found to be the most logical explanation.

0
Reply
Female 878
That kind of art creeps me out.
Just the way it`s drawn.
Like.
I don`t know.
0
Reply
Female 1,120
that was pretty cool but i can`t imagne how a bird would turn into a bear or imagine a dinosaur walking around on its knees..
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Ha ha, I think I recognize your writing-style up there, Mr. `unnamed poster -` it`s been doing that to me lately as well.

Broadway, cut "Lost_in_time" some slack, eh? He went through great pains assuring everybody that the post in question wasn`t directed towards any particular individual, especially you!

0
Reply
Female 158
that was pretty sweet.
0
Reply
Female 187
ah see, I don`t care that much to have a row with someone.

Devolution was a bad term to use. By Devolution I mean that rather than evolving into a more complex organism, one evolves into a less complex organism.

It was just my personal (and I will admit uneducated) opinion.

As for the person who made the digs at me being an idiot:
It is rather perplexing that you would venture so far as to make a guess at my intelligence from a single post on a dinky little internet site.
If you must know. (and I know that you will not believe me) I scored a 130 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test.

0
Reply
Male 223
Blue Adept is a retard. -.-
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"I just have one question...if we evolved from sushi... where did the SUSHI come from?"

The broader question you should be asking, LKJSlain, is not from what other organism an organism evolved - as that only pushes the question further - but rather how did an individual cell (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) form. If scientists can suggest the means by which the first cell formed and demonstrate such in a lab, explaining all subsequent life would be a piece of cake. We need not look for answers at www.godandscience.org as, assuredly, it yields none.

"Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."

BlueAdept... I swear...

If you can prove evolution to be false, I promise you the scientific community will gradually abandon evolution. However, evolution as a theory has to this day not been proven false, which coincidentally is why it is so widely accepted.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
BroadwayLove:

"If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible."

Devolution implies an organism reverting to a precursor species (traits, chemical make-up, all), something which at this time has not been reflected in the evidence.

"It goes along with that law of Science that I`m too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder."

Wrong. You`re thinking that an organism, because of entropy, will break down to *exactly* the same species it was before (devolution), when in actually if evolution was incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we`d lose whole organ systems and limbs and life as a whole would not be possible. See my post here on page 4 addressed to BlueAdept.

I expect, BroadwayLove, that unless you thoroughly familiarize yourself with scientific premises, you and I will have a rather serious row on these forums sometime in the future.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Evolution IS just a theory..."

Davymid, myself, and any others that take issue with others who say evolution is *just* a theory are fully aware that evolution is a theory. We know and appreciate this fully. What we take issue with is the suggestion of belittlement by saying evolution is *just* a theory. A theory in scientific nomenclature is the second most powerful explanatory statement, behind `law`. Being able to categorize evolution as a theory should speaks volumes for its potency.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
Davymid, I`ve thought that in ecological terms, the Earth is a closed system? But even in physics terms I thought a closed system is one that can accept inputs but cannot project outputs?

In any case, regardless which system Earth indeed is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (and thus matter) declines towards entropy as opposed to organization, meaning that energy tends not to be concentrated in a given area for very long. However, this does not conflict with evolution for several reasons, a significant one being that if evolution failed under the 2nd Law of Thermo., life itself would not be possible. Hmm.

Just because there tends to be a general decline towards entropy does not mean that individual concentrations of energy cannot be stable. Life is possible because every chemical bond involved in life is at a stable level or is made to be at a stable level.

According to BlueAdept, we shouldn`t be able to build buildings...

0
Reply
Female 9
you know.. SARAH OF BORG, and all of you who think this is stupid graffiti.. Graffiti, if the motif is correct... sends out messages. Sometimes clear as glass... or subliminal. This piece is clearly set out there for a "blind".
Dont you see?

the world of man started out.. natural. evolution happened. All living beings were part of the food chain.. only normal right? That`s hwo the world started out. It was peaceful. When "man" was created or evolved.. it should have stayed that way, the way of life. But with weapons.. firearm.. We dont follow the way of life.. instead... we are killing each other. Sooon enough mankind will be diminished and it will be back to the way it was meant. It`s a message.. instead of finding resources, we find trouble.

P.S. Grow up, get wise. Open your eyes to the real world. You will be surprised. =]

0
Reply
Male 12,138
BlueAdept,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution, the two have nothing to do with each other. This is to do with the fact that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (the earth is an open system due to solar energy input). I have better things to do than to explain the whole thing to you- go look it up.

This (Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution) argument you put forward was first proposed by the "Young Earth Creationist" David Gish. This is the same David Gish who argued that the Grand Canyon was created in a day by Noah`s Flood. This should set some mental alarm bells ringing.

Needless to say, both arguments have long ago been shot down by the respected, international scientific community as being utter bunk.

0
Reply
Female 818
Impressive.
0
Reply
Male 80
What`s with the thing right after the mammoths? )-|
0
Reply
Male 75
Theory - "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." (taken from Dictionary.com)

I follow actual science. When the second Law of Thermodynamics(laws which are uncontested by scientists) states basically that all matter tends towards entropy(chaos, or disorder), and the theory of Evolution says otherwise...I`m going with the real Science.

0
Reply
132
I was disapointed that the evolutionary line was inaccurate on a scientific basis, but then I noticed that it actually is because its flipped.

Also, for the whole "fact vs theory" thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...

0
Reply
Male 907
I absolutely agree with Sarah:
"I`d rather they kept to it rather than using false science to make some political point."

There is science and then there is politics. When you start creatively mixing something pure facts with something pure choice, you get a confusing message.

0
Reply
Female 1,984
"its just too hard to grasp the concept that humans were once fishes"
They`re two different species - we`re RELATED, but to phrase it as homo sapiens were once fishes is ignoring the concept of the word "species".
0
Reply
Female 224
its just too hard to grasp the concept that humans were once fishes
0
Reply
Male 108
Creationists are idiots. Do you even know what the word "theory" means in scientific terms? A testable observation derived from FACT. That`s right, FACT. Evolution is widely accepted in all respectable scientific circles. I can`t even blame it on you living in the backwoods, because there is plenty of evidence in support of evolution if you`d just look instead of blindly accepting what you`ve been taught.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
dude thats the best graffiti ive ever seen
0
Reply
Male 988
oh, it`s political. Damn, i was enjoying it.
0
Reply
Male 332
Technically it would still tell the same story whether the picture has been flipped or not, depending on where you start walking... I think they just drew it right to left and put it up left to right because that`s the way we read and it makes more sense.
0
Reply
Male 177
What he said.
0
Reply
Male 177
If you look at the posters in the bus stop, you can see that the picture is flipped. So you actually need to read it from right to left.
0
Reply
Male 1,704
**READ**

If only i got first post on this...

really wanted everyone to see that the pictures have bin mirrored (check the bus stop pic (the advert is backward) so really we should be startin from the other side and scrolling left!

0
Reply
Male 778
I started watching this and kept commenting "I don`t remember the idea of us coming from that dinosaur" or things like that but as it got to the guns and then went down it was kinda like.. "Ohhh... neat!" its actually pretty cool, and gives wonder to the mind.
0
Reply
Female 251
cool BUT EVELUTION IS SO FAKE!IT IS FAKE I TELL YOU FAKE!!!!!!AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 724
Hats off to who ever made it.
0
Reply
Male 554
A bit average.
0
Reply
Male 164
Of course it turned into an anti war thing.
0
Reply
Male 317
And also to finish my statement, a fact can be disproven as well. A theory is just a loose term created to use instead of the phrase an `educated guess.` Facts are one thing, theories are another. Just because something has been proven factual doesn`t mean there is a possibility it may be incorrect as well. Welcome to the world of science, where nothing has to make sense; but if it`s proven and you disagree, we`ll burn you at the stake. :-D
0
Reply
Male 317
A theory is NOT defined as `unprovable.` A theory is an incorporation of facts, hypotheses and laws that lead to a given conclusion.

For example: I theorize that you are an idiot. It doesn`t mean you ARE an idiot, but the given facts lean in the direction that you are. If now, you give me an IQ test proving you aren`t an idiot; then my theory has been blown out of the water. However if that IQ test comes back showing you are of lower intelligence, my theory just became a fact. Almost anything can be a theory when you look at from a certain point of view. (And I wasn`t talking to anyone directly, it was just an example, so don`t take offense anyone)

0
Reply
Female 187
If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible.
It goes along with that law of Science that I`m too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder.

And a theory is defined as unprovable. We may have EVIDENCE but we have no PROOF therefore, you who believe in evolution, have fun.
You who believe in Creationism, woot woot!
and you who believe in Alium theories, call me, we`ll get coffee sometime.

Stop Fighting

0
Reply
Female 1,984
--"good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes."

If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".--
maelstrom_x, evolution is a scientific fact and theory. It is the most plausible theory we have.

0
Reply
Male 139
oh yeah... cool graffiti was what i meant to say
0
Reply
Female 207
with all this talk of Devolution i have the urge to listen to some Devo- "whip it good".
oh right, the graffiti- it was cool people, lets leave it at that
0
Reply
Male 317
"Devolution is actually possible. Some people think that it is already happening because the stupid people just keep poping kids out while smart people set out to change the world for the better and they need no attachments if they want to do this."

Actually, evolving into a stupider form of life is still evolution, not devolution. Devolution would be returning to a form of primate life that has already existed... IF, that is, evolution has actually happened (just to please all you creationists out there).

0
Reply
Male 244
""Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."

Someone doesn`t know the definition of "Scientific Theory."

Also, graffiti was cool, obviously not scientific, but very cool.

0
Reply
Male 1,425
holy wowzers!
0
Reply
Male 1,078
thats awesome
0
Reply
Male 180
DAM
thats down
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Either way, the grafitti was pretty cool. Isn`t that what we`re supposed to be discussing here?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
In the same line of reasoning, the "Theory of Evolution" can explain all life on earth. If one day a six-headed fire-breathing sponge-beast which eats sand shows up, with no evidence ancestors, fossils, or any way in which it could have evolved, then we`ll have to re-think the "Theory of Evolution".

And crump, saying "we have no idea why or what causes gravity" isn`t correct. Indeed, Newton came up with the "Theory of Gravity" as an accurate wy to predict the behaviour of bodies, without knowing why or what caused it. We now understand that Quantum Physics (Einstein et al) is the "engine" of the "Theory of Gravity" (Newton`s original idea), just like we know understand that Genetics (Mendel et al) is the engine of the "Theory of Evolution" (Darwin`s original idea).

0
Reply
Male 12,138
crump199, you`re 100% right in that a theory can always be disproven and shouldn`t be taken as fact, agree completely. To call it a "Theory" is a kind of escape-hatch built in by science in case a better idea comes along later.

Newton`s "Theory of Gravity" lays out the laws of physics. That is, when I drop a ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls. If one day I drop a ball and it flies upward out of my hand, then indeed we will have to revise the "Theory of Gravity". Pythygoras` Theory (thanks for the reminder almightybob1) lays out the laws of geometry. If we one day find a triangle which doesn`t obey Pythagoras` "Theory", we`ll have to re-evaluate that one.

0
Reply
Male 332
Alright, evolution IS a theory, but it`s a theory with proof. If someone were to reorganise the evidence we have and made another theory that made sound scientific sense, then we`d have a debate.
But as it stands, we have a theory with evidence against a theory that intrinsicaly can never have evidence for or against it. I`m not siding with anyone, but this is comparing apples to oranges people!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Exactly, davymid. Pythagoras` Theorem is still called a theorem but it`s set in stone.

I like how BlueAdept knows for certain that evolution is "incorrect" and yet we`ve heard nothing in the press that it has been conclusively disproven. What you mean is, YOU think it`s incorrect. I think it is correct. Neither of us knows for sure because, surprise surprise, neither of us was there. Don`t pass off your opinion as fact when it is no more valid than anyone else`s.

0
Reply
Male 139
Evolution IS just a theory... the only reason people accept it as fact is because it`s the theory that makes the most sense.
When somebody comes up with a better theory with more facts to back it up than evolution has, then people will be saying "how can all those nuts believe in evolution when this theory is so much more plausible?"

When scientists use the word "Theory" yes they`re saying it`s an accepted scientific understanding of how things work as you so put it, but they`re not saying it`s 100% correct...
And the theory of gravity is just a theory too, we can measure it, but we have no idea why or what causes gravity, just theories.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`ve been biting my tongue because this is a cool post, which is not meant to be scientific, just a clever statement on human nature using the medium of grafitti.

But I can`t hold back when comments like "Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that." (^^BlueAdept) start appearing.

When scientists use the word "Theory" it has very special meaning. It usually means an accepted scientific understanding of how things work (until then it is just a hypothesis).

Saying evolution is "just a theory" is wrong. Newton`s ideas about gravity is called by scientists the "Theory of Gravity", just like Darwinian ideas are called the "Theory of Evolution". But no reasonable person would suggest that gravity is not science, or that it doesn`t exist.

Anyway, not trying to stoke the fires of a science vs religion debate, just trying to blow the myth about the whole "Evolution is just a theory" false debate.

0
Reply
Male 75
lol every time I see something like this, it makes me laugh and wonder how people can really believe in Evolution.

Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that.

0
Reply
Female 670
Not quite accurate (we didn`t evolve from dinosaurs, birds did), but still cute.
Yes, I said cute.
0
Reply
Male 5
Devolution is actually possible. Some people think that it is already happening because the stupid people just keep poping kids out while smart people set out to change the world for the better and they need no attachments if they want to do this.
0
Reply
Male 317
thegreatbana, you seriously made me laugh my ass off. As for the graffiti art, I liked it. Devolution isn`t possible. If anything, we would evolve into something completely different from anything that has ever existed... oh and Jesus was an alien and all things live to serve Bill Gates: Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy. ALL HAIL BILL GATES!
0
Reply
Male 33
how the drat did he get away with that?... i mean...someone would see that
0
Reply
Male 1,882
"good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes."

If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".

0
Reply
Male 4,393
wow good job
0
Reply
Male 58
Amazing message.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[email protected] it. Now all the nutty creationists are going to flood this with comments. The graffiti is, of course, not scientifically correct, but evolution sure as hell is. I`m so glad I`m not religious. : )
0
Reply
Female 1,007
I wanna be a giant tail-humping turtle again.
0
Reply
Male 21
It wasnt scientificcaly accurate. After the amphibious period the animals branched off and evolved independently.

Otherwise, all living things would be humans.

0
Reply
Female 648
I just have one question...if we evolved from sushi... where did the SUSHI come from? ...

www.godandscience.org/answers

0
Reply
Female 273
That was really neat-o
0
Reply
Male 2,049
Mintspong. get rid of your 56k modem
0
Reply
Male 437
So...we`re going to turn into sushi.
0
Reply
Male 737
That was really ace.
0
Reply
Male 1,496
Widest. Link. Ever.
0
Reply
Male 54
took to long to load so i didnt get to see it :(
0
Reply
Male 425
What the? Humans didn`t evolve from dinosaurs. Boo.
0
Reply
Female 2
It`s kind of strange how the graffiti is perfectly lined up but the pictures aren`t...
0
Reply
Male 384
why does it go backwards
0
Reply
Male 356
ashes to ashes, rust to dust.
0
Reply
Female 403
that was really cool, I liked it
0
Reply
Male 1,289
thats really deep.
0
Reply
Male 244
good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes.

BUT WHO GIVES A poo! MAN< THAT WAS CLASS!

0
Reply
Male 330
Just wait for it CZX11.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
I liked it allot, i find it amazing that they started at the buss stop and actually made it end at the end of the wall.
0
Reply
Male 178
Wow no religion vs. evolution fight this time WOW!
0
Reply
Female 1,412
I like it =] Who cares if it isnt scientific...Not me =]
0
Reply
Female 441
that was frickin SWEET!! i luv grafitti
0
Reply
Male 350
wow cool
0
Reply
Male 4,680
Must have taken a while... the dinosaur part was my favourite.
0
Reply
Male 2,720
^ spoken like a true.
0
Reply
Male 91
^^ actully no the reason they painted like that is because of devolution yes, i am christian but i do know alot about the evolution things. The reason they go back like that is because there are no natural preadeteors causeing a devolution supposeible
0
Reply
Male 1,016
they did it backward so people going the opposite way could see it from the beginning
0
Reply
Male 222
WOAH

Took A LOT of paint...

0
Reply
Male 1,385
nice
0
Reply
Male 1,275
It seemed a bit rushed at the end, with the humans evolution, they had no detail on that one
0
Reply
Male 2,216
...wow

and SarahofBorg, do realise that we also didnt evolve from dinosaurs, who seemingly evolved from other breeds of dinosaurs, its just a bit of artistic and political license.

0
Reply
Male 4,012
Awesome, I wonder where it is.

0
Reply
Male 144
so true...
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Everything about it was scientific up until then, I`d rather they kept to it rather than using false science to make some political point.
0
Reply
Male 380
Sarah they are saying we are de-evolving through our actions (killing = primitive). Not scientifically.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Evolution never works backwards, they got that part wrong.
Also, they forgot the part about all the nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants going off and melting down and killing everything that has a vertabre.
0
Reply
Male 145
Grafitti with a message... I like it.
0
Reply
Male 2
wow......
0
Reply
Male 182
I find it ironic, but says something. Mostly at the point which the humans have weapons, then starts digressing backwards. Mankind could learn from the idea...it`s not the technology which makes us advanced, but our attitude.
0
Reply
Male 21
Freaky, not really anything else....
0
Reply
Male 36
...Heavy
0
Reply
Male 869
Link: Evolution Graffiti [Rate Link] - The evolution of man, on a wall (scroll right).
0
Reply