The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 67    Average: 3.8/5]
148 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 23801
Rating: 3.8
Category: Science
Date: 04/03/10 02:00 PM

148 Responses to Evolution in Five Minutes

  1. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    Link: Evolution in Five Minutes - Science never looked so cool as in this five minute clip of species evolving over time in a five minute clip.
  2. Profile photo of Winter_ICE_0
    Winter_ICE_0 Male 13-17
    976 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    *flame suit*
  3. Profile photo of scotchbot
    scotchbot Female 18-29
    171 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    more like this please IAB
  4. Profile photo of NotAllowed
    NotAllowed Female 18-29
    526 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    that`s a pretty animation, but i hope people do understand that`s nothing but a pretty animation, since it`s grossly misinformative..
  5. Profile photo of ShadowRyder
    ShadowRyder Male 18-29
    2127 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    I love this! More like this please!
  6. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    *flame suit*

    I`m hoping that won`t happen this time, but you people are nuts, so whatever.

    I was a cool video.
  7. Profile photo of Zerocyde
    Zerocyde Male 18-29
    3256 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    "in this five minute clip of species evolving over time in a five minute clip."

    lol
  8. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    "in this five minute clip of species evolving over time in a five minute clip."

    Three cheers for redundancy, w00t.

    Anyway,cool clip, but I was enjoying the music too much to care about the animation.
  9. Profile photo of jazzmaverick
    jazzmaverick Male 18-29
    36 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    hey i saw this documetary walking with monsters i think its called

    it was pretty good
  10. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    @jazzmaverick
    I think it was called walking with dinosaurs.
  11. Profile photo of Nlupu
    Nlupu Male 18-29
    229 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    So Im a fish?!
  12. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    Awesome, you guys posted my suggestion! I was about to give up on trying submit stuff here. Thanks ;)
  13. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    no Nlupu, but you have a common ancestor with whales....isn`t that great?
  14. Profile photo of idiotfilter
    idiotfilter Male 18-29
    3916 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    maybe this will help people realize that macro and micro evolution are the same thing...
  15. Profile photo of duckflash
    duckflash Female 13-17
    570 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    i still dont get why people get insulted when someone mentions that we come from monkeys. this is way cooler than religion, dumb christians dont know what they`re missing.
  16. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    hey i saw this documetary walking with monsters i think its called

    I think it was called walking with dinosaurs.

    There are a series of three documentaries. In order of the period of time they cover:

    Living with monsters
    Living with dinosaurs
    Living with cavemen

    I think this video contains clips from each of them, mostly living with dinosaurs. They`re all typical BBC science/nature documentaries, i.e. brilliant.
  17. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    i still dont get why people get insulted when someone mentions that we come from monkeys.

    Some people get insulted because they think it demeans them. They don`t understand.

    Some people get insulted because they think it negates their religion. Religion doesn`t need a reason.

    Some people get insulted to a lesser extent because it`s wrong. No-one who knows anything about the subject is saying we came from monkeys. The evidence indicates that monkeys and us (and all the other simians and all the other hominids that used to exist) came from a common ancestor.

    If you imagine the whole thing as a tree, that common ancestor is the roots and monkeys and humans are different branches near the top of the tree.
  18. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    Oops...the documentaries are called walking with monsters, dinosaurs and cavemen, not living with.

    The books for them are good too, as they go into much greater detail. Before I read the walking with cavemen book, I didn`t realise how messy and complicated the pithecus/hominid tree was.
  19. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    So Im a fish?!

    That seems unlikely. Internet access is pretty difficult underwater and fish aren`t well equipped for typing. Or thinking.

    It`s likely that humans have a very, very far ancestor that lived in water and bore some resemblence to a fish (but wasn`t a fish).
  20. Profile photo of Mantistador
    Mantistador Male 18-29
    2200 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    I like how the basis for evolution appears to be the idea of "lets get as f**king big as possible*
  21. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    that`s a pretty animation, but i hope people do understand that`s nothing but a pretty animation, since it`s grossly misinformative..

    I thought it wasn`t bad for 6.5 hours of video hacked down to a few minutes.
  22. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    I like how the basis for evolution appears to be the idea of "lets get as f**king big as possible*

    That works well on the basis of the bigger you are, the harder you are to kill.

    If you want big, check out the Paleozoic period. It was a mental rainforest time, with hugely elevated levels of oxygen (~35%, compared with ~21% today). The upper limit on insect size is strongly dependent on the amount of oxygen in the air. With that much oxygen, you had eagle-sized dragonflies, dog-sized spiders and other such charming things.

    Although the most impressive animal for me on the size factor was Quetzalcoatlus. A conservative estimate for wingspan is ~11m. That`s ~35 feet. That`s about the same as a light aircraft.
  23. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    Thanks angillion, I`m gonna look up that documentary, should make for some interesting weekend watching.
  24. Profile photo of icfire504
    icfire504 Male 13-17
    341 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    So wheres the part that shows how the big old thing a 4:30 turns into the monkey?
  25. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    Pretty much a waste of cgi time. Too many `missing links` and gaps in the fossil record. If evolution took so long, There would a very nice and gradual progression. Instead, What we see are large differences in growth and development from one example to another. This is why some anthropologists now believe that evolution speeds up (sometimes with a few thousand years) then slows down. They have yet to explain how or why that would occur repeatedly or how animals jump from being one species to another without the problems that occur with inbreeding.
  26. Profile photo of ManicRapture
    ManicRapture Female 13-17
    682 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    this is from the tv specials, "walking with monsters", "walking with dinosaurs" and "walking with mammals". kinda lame-ish.....
  27. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3291 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm
    At about 300,000,000 years, I thought they were going to start selling car insurance.
  28. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    So wheres the part that shows how the big old thing a 4:30 turns into the monkey?

    Somewhere in the other 6 hours and 25 minutes of video, and even that only gives a brief overview at best.
  29. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    If evolution took so long, There would a very nice and gradual progression.

    Why?
  30. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    animals jump from being one species to another without the problems that occur with inbreeding.

    Looks like someone doesn`t understand evolution.
  31. Profile photo of Batmanners
    Batmanners Male 18-29
    4006 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    To Crakrjack:

    If you notice how quickly it grows from a tiny reptile to a Dimetrodon-like creature, you see it does in fact speed up at times.

    I`m actually of the opinion that mankind is in a process of rapid evolution. Our environment has changed drastically in the past 200 years, and I feel our DNA is responding by making man taller.

    The signs are subtle, and might be nothing, but if you notice how much taller than their elders every generation gets... It`s a personal opinion, but the few signs are there, the disappearance of wisdom teeth, man getting taller, I`m even guessing brain capacity enhanced.

    It`s obvious with the findings that scientists have made that date the earliest samples of humans (Cro-Magnon man, 35,000 years ago) looking much like we do now. And to consider that the past 200 years may have brought more change than the past 30,000 years is facinating.
  32. Profile photo of Revelations
    Revelations Female 18-29
    34 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:05 pm
    "Anyway,cool clip, but I was enjoying the music too much to care about the animation"

    I too enjoyed the music way too much. But brilliant clip.
  33. Profile photo of Batmanners
    Batmanners Male 18-29
    4006 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    By the way: It`s plain and simple.

    If you don`t believe in evolution, you`re ignorant. You can believe the Bible if you want, but don`t ever think for a second that the Bible can submit a smidgen of proof against evolution.

    The Bible was written 2000 years ago... Evolution has PROOF of life before God`s first interaction with man.
  34. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8306 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:09 pm
    Wow, 5,000 years compressed into 5 minutes. Awesome! :-P
  35. Profile photo of bomberouno
    bomberouno Male 18-29
    185 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    "So wheres the part that shows how the big old thing a 4:30 turns into the monkey?"

    I hope you are joking. Dinosaurs did not evolve into monkeys.

    "There would a very nice and gradual progression."

    Do expect us to find a fossil from every single species along the evolutionary line? Many species that were unsuccessful adapted rapidly and there wouldn`t be as many fossils as a result. On the other hand, species that are successful because of their unique adaptations, thrive for a long time with little changes, and because of this there are many fossils. As well, there are untold factors in the process of fossilization, and the preservation of samples that make filling n the record difficult.

    As we find more fossils, the record becomes more complete which strengthens our knowledge of evolutionary progression. This is what has also strengthened the theory of evolution over time.

    Remember its a puzzle, which you slowly piece
  36. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    In honor of the music used in the trailer for 300:

  37. Profile photo of domisgood
    domisgood Male 18-29
    4868 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm
    nice video, music was cool too
  38. Profile photo of _Perfection_
    _Perfection_ Male 18-29
    1788 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm
    I was like oh snap he`s got legs now!
  39. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    what `missing links?`
  40. Profile photo of Harleq
    Harleq Male 18-29
    108 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    "They have yet to explain how or why that would occur repeatedly or how animals jump from being one species to another without the problems that occur with inbreeding."

    The Christian Church has yet to explain to me how it is possible for the whole human race to exist as a result of inbreeding.
  41. Profile photo of sarinablue
    sarinablue Female 18-29
    4 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    That`s not what happened! 5 min? But 7 days is not a rational time line to you...
  42. Profile photo of Thepwnsher
    Thepwnsher Male 13-17
    283 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    i remember seeing this movie in 4th grade
  43. Profile photo of iBegrindin
    iBegrindin Male 18-29
    133 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    LOL at Lionheart`s comment.

    But where did all those fish in the beginning of the video come from? They didn`t even try to explain that...

    "In the beginning, there were fish.
    Lots of them."
  44. Profile photo of razlem
    razlem Male 13-17
    533 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    I saw this entire documentary. It was actually pretty cool.
  45. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4682 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    "They have yet to explain how or why that would occur repeatedly or how animals jump from being one species to another without the problems that occur with inbreeding."
    Because every animal that ever existed got fully fossilized, ready to be found by palaeontologists right?

    Also the missing link idea is old and outdated, since the discovery of homo erectus, Australopithecus, Neanderthals etc.
  46. Profile photo of Alistair36
    Alistair36 Male 18-29
    29 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    For inbreeding ask royal families they know best, 5 minutes covered millions of years of evolution no ones watching a documentary thats millions of years long, starts with fish cause scientists don`t know exactly what happened at first so they stick to acts not theory for a better learning experience.

    I want to know what monkeys may have evolved from though =/ Thats they only reason I watched this lol
  47. Profile photo of smithno13
    smithno13 Male 18-29
    252 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    Also, notice that every stage of evolution seemed to go from small to big, then small again.

    The average human height has been increasing over the past 1000 or so years.
  48. Profile photo of dotrom
    dotrom Female 18-29
    92 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    that was less bad ass than the music was.
  49. Profile photo of zombiejedi
    zombiejedi Male 18-29
    57 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    "In the beginning, there were fish.
    Lots of them."- iBegrindin
    lol
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 7:59 pm
    I want to know what monkeys may have evolved from though =/

    i) When you say `monkeys`, do you mean monkeys, apes, simians or primates? They`re overlapping but different classifications.

    ii) How far do you want to go back with the evolution of monkeys (or whatever you meant)? Go back a little way and it`s other monkeys. Go back further and it`s the same little mammal as it is for humans. Go back further still and it`s different again.
  51. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    The odd thing about the "missing link" argument is how few people realise that there`s no such thing in the theory of evolution. So whenever you see a creationist dismissing evolution because of this "missing link", you know they`re not speaking with any understanding.
  52. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:05 pm
    "That`s not what happened! 5 min? But 7 days is not a rational time line to you..."

    The video is not suggesting all that change happened in 5 minutes. The numbers at the top are years. Notice they are counting down rapidly.
  53. Profile photo of sgrin27
    sgrin27 Male 18-29
    77 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    So monkeys just pop out of nowhere? oh thanks science.
  54. Profile photo of basherrr
    basherrr Male 18-29
    242 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:22 pm
    Fake & Gay.
  55. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    So monkeys just pop out of nowhere? oh thanks science.

    Do you really expect any great detail in a five minute clip covering over 500,000,000 years?

    100,000,000 years per minute.

    5,000,000 years since the first hominid.

    So if you cover that period evenly, you have 3 seconds to cover the entire history of hominids.

    Also, there weren`t any monkeys in that video.
  56. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    LazyMe484: I`ve read quite a lot about that theory, The more you read the more you realize the `speed bumps` and `sudden change` doesn`t make sense.

    Scientists have split certain groups into separate species when they could both still breed with one another and have viable offspring, Which is contrary to the definition of `Species`. They`ve taken many other liberties with the scientific method to try and prove evolution. Others have committed outright fraud, Look up `Piltdown Man`. There is no evidence that the environment influences DNA to the point of changing species.
  57. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    It`s contrary to *your* definition of `species`.

    You cite a person who committed a fraud. This is far from being the damning dismissal of science you portray it as being:

    i) It isn`t clear that the fraudster was a scientist. It`s isn`t clear who they were. A relatively minor point.

    ii) It was challenged by scientists right from the beginning.

    iii) It quickly became marginalised and even completely ignored within science, because it wasn`t scientifically sound and new evidence increasingly indicated that its classification was wrong and irrelevant.

    iv) It was proven false by scientists.

    In fact, the Piltdown Man hoax is very strong support for the validity of science because it perfectly demonstrates how the inherent repeated testing by independent people that is a key part of science makes fraud much harder to do.

    Such a fraud wouldn`t stand up for an hour today.
  58. Profile photo of H3AD5orT4ILS
    H3AD5orT4ILS Male 13-17
    13 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    Epic caption fail. Redundance ftw.
  59. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    "i still dont get why people get insulted when someone mentions that we come from monkeys. this is way cooler than religion, dumb christians dont know what they`re missing."

    DUCKFLASH STARTED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  60. Profile photo of vfr4
    vfr4 Male 30-39
    185 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    This didn`t happen in my jar of peanut butter, therefore it does not exists. Scientific method wins again.
  61. Profile photo of cheezer
    cheezer Male 18-29
    112 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    spoiler!! he dies in the end... then rises again, havant seen him since.
  62. Profile photo of DarkFerret
    DarkFerret Male 18-29
    2749 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 11:48 pm
    With out even looking at the comments i knew it would be a religious debate, and i wont get into it. But i would like to point out... if not monkeys, then where/what the hell DID we come from?? idk, seems fairly cut and dry to me... and mind you, it wasn`t the chimpanzee`s of today, it was prehistoric stuff, so to be offended just doesn`t make much sense. and that`s my 2 cents, take it or leave it.
  63. Profile photo of RyanF701
    RyanF701 Male 18-29
    2486 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 11:49 pm
    I HAVE PROVEN GOD OR A GOD DOESN`T EXIST THROUGH WAYS OF SCIENCE. ALSO, THROUGH WAYS OF SCIENCE I HAVE PROVEN SCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST. ARGUEMENT OVER, I WIN.
  64. Profile photo of DarkFerret
    DarkFerret Male 18-29
    2749 posts
    April 3, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    also, music ftw!! i want that song!!
  65. Profile photo of Alistair36
    Alistair36 Male 18-29
    29 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 12:01 am
    I don`t care what species just monkeys in general what did they evolve from. I looked online and could find nothing.

    Dinos come from lizards,, before lizards fish before fish micro organisms. Was it straight from micro organisms to simians or is there a missing link there to like humans?
  66. Profile photo of Dragonlord
    Dragonlord Male 18-29
    734 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Two problems:

    1. The underwater scorpion at 1:01. There were so many individual things wrong with that scene, I don`t even know where to start.

    2. The apes appear out of nowhere. We follow the evolution of the dinosaurs, and then suddenly divert to a branch that separated tens of millions of years prior. It would have been better to show the evolution of man, and have the dinosaurs as background during their reign.

    Oh, and 4:46 = Patterson film recreation? :P
  67. Profile photo of Crucible
    Crucible Male 18-29
    1815 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 12:29 am
    I love the terrible caption for this link.
  68. Profile photo of Dragonlord
    Dragonlord Male 18-29
    734 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 12:30 am
    "Was it straight from micro organisms to simians or is there a missing link there to like humans?"

    Not one, several hundred. As I said in my previous post, this didn`t follow the evolution of man. The split would have been around the 300 million year mark, give or take.

    Why they didn`t follow the dinosaurs into the birds is beyond me. It does seem rather careless to just stick humans at the end.
  69. Profile photo of Puddingbrood
    Puddingbrood Male 13-17
    75 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 2:28 am
    So it`s:
    micro organisms > fish > crocodiles > dinosaurs > apes?
  70. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 2:55 am
    Alistair36: "I don`t care what species just monkeys in general what did they evolve from. I looked online and could find nothing."
    Just type in "evolution of hominids" into google and follow the first hit. (Wich was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution for me. )
  71. Profile photo of ProXLaw
    ProXLaw Male 30-39
    122 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 5:17 am
    Some day people will figure out that humans are the descendents of an alien life form to this planet. We were sent here millions of years ago for committing crimes on our mother planet. We are the dregs of that society and this is our punishment. The "visitors" are just monitoring our progress. Happy Easter!
  72. Profile photo of pantelisk
    pantelisk Male 13-17
    112 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 5:50 am
    there was a few jumps between reptiles and mammals ect, but I guess it would be alot more difficult
  73. Profile photo of iBegrindin
    iBegrindin Male 18-29
    133 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 6:10 am
    "...starts with fish cause scientists don`t know exactly what happened at first so they stick to acts not theory for a better learning experience."

    "micro organisms > fish > crocodiles > dinosaurs > apes?"

    How frustrating. I know evolution doesn`t try to explain the origins of life (though that is the name of the book Darwin wrote his proposed theory in), but it has to be based on the fact that life originated somewhere somehow. Obviously.
    Would all the evolutionists please tell me how our universe came into being? I believe the Big Bang Theory is the common answer, but is there a newer theory with more evidence that I don`t know about?

    And if it is the Big Bang Theory...
    •S: (n) big-bang theory, big bang theory ((cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperatur
  74. Profile photo of iBegrindin
    iBegrindin Male 18-29
    133 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 6:20 am
    (continued)
    But where did all that matter come from? To say "it`s always been there" is the equivalent of saying "God has always existed." It can`t violate the first law of thermodynamics ("conservation of energy: the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes"), so it must have always been there.

    And then there`s the second law of thermodynamics (entropy: the disorder in the universe always increases). So why on earth (so to speak) would so much perceived order come about from all of this, with the countless numbers of stars, galaxies, and celestial bodies? And then the order of complex organisms such as ourselves? Mind boggling!!
    Many say it is mathematically impossible for the first organism to have arisen through the proposed theories; one estimate says a "1/10^40,000." Mathmeticians say anything greated than 10^50 is "impossible."
  75. Profile photo of iBegrindin
    iBegrindin Male 18-29
    133 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 6:27 am
    Science is so crazy! Now I`m excited, because there is still so much left unanswered.

    Yes, evolution is the accepted theory, passed off as "fact" these days (we can`t actually observe macroevolution). But I think it is intolerant of others to declare those who accept the creationism theory "ignorant." There are many things science still cannot answer, but to rule out supernatural causes because they have no empirical evidence seems rather narrow-minded. One must remain a critical thinker in all circumstances, whether one idea seems to be absolute truth in comparison to another, or not.

    Okay, I`m done ranting =)

    On a side-note, you don`t have to believe in creationism to be a Christian. You just have to accept that there is a God, and that he loved us enough to send his son to pay for our sins. Then you`re set for life and after-life.

    Happy Easter!
  76. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 7:18 am
    It`s not `My` Definition it`s THE definition.

    spe·cies (spshz, -sz)
    n. pl. species
    1. Biology
    a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

    Here is an example a horse and a donkey can interbreed, But the offspring is a mule and it`s sterile (it can`t have offspring).

    Another, There are sparrows on isolated islands that have developed different shaped bills, However they are still `Sparrows` and could interbreed and have viable offspring. Scientists, However, Say that since these sparrows are so isolated they have become their own `species`.
    It`s intellectually dishonest, and they know it.
    But they use it as an example of `evolution`, When all it really is is inbreeding.

    A poodle looks a lot different than a pug, but they could breed and have viable offspring, Their differences are not evolution, It`s thousands of years of
  77. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 7:19 am
    breeding.
  78. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 7:20 am
    That music was annoying!!
  79. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Congrats, iBegrindin. You`ve been added to my list for having the IQ of a bag of hammers.
  80. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 8:06 am
    "There are many things science still cannot answer, but to rule out supernatural causes because they have no empirical evidence seems rather narrow-minded."

    The problem with creationism and the reason people think it is ignorant is because it tries to pass itself off as science when there is in fact nothing scientific about it. It, and all offshoots of it like intelligent design, have been universally rejected by the scientific community. You just can`t test the supernatural.

    "And then there`s the second law of thermodynamics (entropy: the disorder in the universe always increases"
    - This law only applies to a closed system, organisms are not closed system.

    "But where did all that matter come from?"
    - with the atomic bomb we saw a small amount of matter converted into a large amount of energy. With the big bang the exact opposite happened. An incredibly dense amount of energy was converted into matter.
  81. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 8:48 am
    Guys, its just a compilation of segments of video from a documentary called walking with donosaurs, combined to fit the music. Don`t try extract any comprehensive theories from it. If something confuses you then go watch the whole documentary.
  82. Profile photo of zmeace
    zmeace Male 18-29
    807 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 9:04 am
    just look up on youtube

    HOMER SIMPSON EVOLVES
  83. Profile photo of zmeace
    zmeace Male 18-29
    807 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 9:08 am
    i love how this is posted on easter
    considering christians dont believe in evolution, they believe in creationism
    and easter is one of the christians most holiest days
  84. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2578 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 9:21 am
    With that music, all I could think of is
    "Evolution, F°CK YEAH"
  85. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 10:18 am
    iBegrindin: "But where did all that matter come from?"
    Brassbull: "- with the atomic bomb we saw a small amount of matter converted into a large amount of energy. With the big bang the exact opposite happened."
    And where did the energy come from?
    In fact, this is the toughest question cosmologie has yet to answer. (And usualy cosmologists tend to answer it not by "we don`t know yet", "there`s some theory" or "additional research is needed" but with "we f*cking hell don`t know and we haven`t got the slightest idea where even to begin")
    If you`r some kind of deist this is the crack science offers you. But the answer "god made it" isn`t good enough for me `cause it only raises the question: "Where did god come from?".
  86. Profile photo of sarinablue
    sarinablue Female 18-29
    4 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 10:39 am
    OMG! That makes sense. Totally never going back to church. Dude, your video has opened my eyes ;)
  87. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 10:53 am
    First law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be creeated of destroyed, only transformed. Energy is therefor pre-existing and by that logic.

    Energy = God

    I am not suggesting it is conscious, intelligent, or omnipotent.

    The scientific community has not found an answer for everything, but what is important is that they are constantly trying to find answers.
  88. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
    Where did the original matter come from? Well, there are a few really good possibilities. One is, the big bang was the collapse of a higher dimension, creating this one. As for the origin of the higher dimensions, it`s quite possible that they just always existed. It`s no more far fetched then suggesting a big floating magician in the sky has always existed...
  89. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
    I don`t care what species just monkeys in general what did they evolve from.

    I wasn`t asking which species of monkey you were asking about. I was asking what kind of animal you were asking about. I`ll assume you mean "every primate other than humans", in which case, the answer is "something not quite a primate". Boring answer, but that`s the way it is. A small, tree-dwelling animal somewhat like the more arboreal species of treeshrews today. Kind of squirrelly. That would also be the far ancestor of humans.
  90. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Was it straight from micro organisms to simians or is there a missing link there to like humans?

    That question threw me. Straight from micro-organism to primate? How could that happen? It would be like a bacterium suddenly turning into a dog. I`m flailing for an answer that fits that question asked seriously.

    The whole "missing link" thing is a red herring anyway. There are many links, not just one.

    For the classic "missing link" from "ape" to "human" (although in fact humans are apes), you`re looking at dozens of links.

    For a "missing link" from micro-organisms to primates, you`re looking at millions of links over a period of several billion years. The process of evolution is far, far more gradual than you`re thinking of it as being. What would be considered a rapid, radical change in evolution would be considered "looks the same to me" to most people.
  91. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:30 am
    But I think it is intolerant of others to declare those who accept the creationism theory "ignorant."

    That alone would be enough to un-mask you as a fraud, even without the rest of your last few posts.

    Creationism is not a theory.

    If you know that, you`re lying.

    If you don`t know that, you`re fundamentally ignorant about the very basics of the issue.

    Either way, you`re just repeating propaganda that has been debunked thousands of times already. Presumably the idea is to replace truth with lies by grinding it down with repetition. It takes far less time to copy and paste the same propaganda than it does to expose it as false (again).
  92. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    It`s not `My` Definition it`s THE definition.

    Obviously it isn`t, because it doesn`t accurately define the word.

    However they are still `Sparrows` and could interbreed and have viable offspring. Scientists, However, Say that since these sparrows are so isolated they have become their own `species`.
    It`s intellectually dishonest, and they know it.

    Intellectually dishonest to not follow your preferred definition of the word `species`. Yes, of course it is.

    Their differences are not evolution, It`s thousands of years of breeding

    What do you think the difference is, apart from the fact that breeding implies it was deliberately guided by people?

    You have faith that evolution doesn`t exist and never has. That`s quaint in a way, but it`s still silly. Either that or your god is faking all the masses of evidence for a laugh, which would be a pretty nasty joke on their part.
  93. Profile photo of Sohltofangy
    Sohltofangy Male 18-29
    103 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    For all the work they put forth, I think they did a pretty bad job at fully explaining evolution. They skipped many vital steps in evolution and filled it with holes. =/
    Still not terrible.
  94. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Its just a compilation of segments of video from a documentary called Walking with Donosaurs, combined to fit the music. Don`t try extract any comprehensive theories from it. If something confuses you then go watch the whole documentary.
  95. Profile photo of Hitaki318
    Hitaki318 Female 13-17
    193 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    Man, what a bummer. I thought of a question I would post on here, but I realized it`ll probably start a huge argument. What happened to you, IAB?
  96. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Alistair36: "I don`t care what species just monkeys in general what did they evolve from. I looked online and could find nothing."
    Just type in "evolution of hominids" into google and follow the first hit. (Wich was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution for me. )
  97. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    i do believe This link summarizes evolution as we see it more than the vid posted here!
  98. Profile photo of quaintness
    quaintness Male 13-17
    1086 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm
    Creationism has no science to back it up, it is a literal account of a by no means special book, whose adherents portend to know things based on authority and not skeptical inquiry.

    Evolution however has been confirmed by the fossil record, Darwin`s observations while on the Beagle, and most importantly, through DNA sequencing.

  99. Profile photo of Snow_Crash
    Snow_Crash Female 18-29
    211 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    It`s like a souped up version of the Dilbert theme :P
  100. Profile photo of Dfaulted
    Dfaulted Male 13-17
    1920 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    "It`s like a souped up version of the Dilbert theme :P"
    300 music
  101. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    Angilion: Obviously it isn`t, because it doesn`t accurately define the word.

    So then, The dictionaries are wrong now eh ?

    Intellectually dishonest to not follow your preferred definition of the word `species`. Yes, of course it is..

    I didn`t expect you`d own up to scientists being wrong about it. There might be hope for you yet.

    You have faith that evolution doesn`t exist and never has. That`s quaint in a way, but it`s still silly.

    No sillier than Mr. Dawkins and other evolutionists believing in abiogenesis or panspermia.





  102. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    Evolution however has been confirmed by the fossil record, Darwin`s observations while on the Beagle, and most importantly, through DNA sequencing.

    Evolution is still a `theory` and has not been proved. Not one animal on earth has ever been observed giving birth to a new species other than it`s own.

    Darwin`s observations were mainly of the effects of inbreeding among isolated groups. He found no new species, Just variants of existing ones.

    DNA has shown similarities among animals. Considering just how much information is in a genome a 1% difference may sound small, But in actuality it makes a huge difference.

    Also the odds of even the simplest of cells, Just randomly coalescing from a `primordial soup` is akin to hitting the jackpot on 500,000 5-reel slot machines.

    It has been calculated that the odds of one protein molecule, a hundred amino acids long, coming into being by chance alone are approximately 1 X 10-65th power.
  103. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 4, 2010 at 11:58 pm
    10-65th power is larger than the number of atoms in the entire milky way galaxy.
  104. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 12:59 am
    Evolution is still a `theory` and has not been proved. Not one animal on earth has ever been observed giving birth to a new species other than it`s own.

    You don`t know what a theory is and you don`t know what evolution is. You haven`t a clue about the subject and you cling desperately to your ignorance as a shield for your faith.

    You don`t have to, you know. You could interpret evolution as the method your god created to allow the life they created to adapt and change.
  105. Profile photo of eskimo9
    eskimo9 Male 18-29
    703 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 1:16 am
    Thank you Angilion, I`ve been (quietly) saying that for ages, why can`t God have created evolution? It would seem ridiculous to just zap everything into place instantaneously, although by God`s infinitely long viewpoint, 14 billion years could be an instant.

    CrakrJak: "akin to hitting the jackpot on 500,000 5-reel slot machines." Highly improbable, yes, impossible? No. What are the odds of having an all-seeing, all-knowing Creator? One in AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE. No idea how big that would be.
  106. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 1:52 am
    Angilion: I`m neither `ignorant` nor uneducated.
    I`m a college graduate and have argued this topic with many learned individuals. There are very real scientifically grounded papers and books written about the problems with evolutionary theory. Maybe you just choose to ignore them, Then you choose to be ignorant. Science is not bad just because it doesn`t `fit in` to popular scientific belief.

    There are many theories that used to be unpopular that are now held as sacred by scientists. Popular belief can and will change.

    2000 years ago everyone believed the sun orbited the earth. 500 years ago the earth was believed to be flat. 120 years ago it was impossible for a human being to fly. 50 years ago an 8-bit computer weighed 30 tons. 20 years ago the internet was only a dream. Only 10 years ago was the human genome mapped.

    My point here is, Be open to new information and don`t just close your mind because you believe in any particular fallible human being
  107. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 2:04 am
    The scientific community has not found an answer for everything, but what is important is that they are constantly trying to find answers.

    In all actuality, The answers they get pose even more (and harder to answer) questions.

    None of them answer the really important questions in one`s life. Who am I ? What is my purpose in life ? How can I find happiness ? Do we have a soul ? What happens after we die ? .. and many many others.
  108. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 2:16 am
    CrakrJak: "Angilion: I`m neither `ignorant` nor uneducated."
    Sorry, but ...
    "Evolution is still a `theory` and has not been proved. "

    that tells me you are. This argument is only used by people who haven`t the sightest clue what a theory is and how science works. It is also among the first ever discussed. Anyone still coming up with this nonsense must have completely missed the discussion so far - or is a troll.
  109. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 2:28 am
    CrakrJak: "None of them answer the really important questions in one`s life. Who am I ? What is my purpose in life ? How can I find happiness ? Do we have a soul ? What happens after we die ? .. and many many others."

    That`s because those questions are not the scope of science. Look for discussion of these with some philosophers.
    And, btw, `intelligent designism` dosn`t answer them either.
  110. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:08 am
    CrakrJak, when you make statements such as this one:

    Not one animal on earth has ever been observed giving birth to a new species other than it`s own.

    you make your utter ignorance of the theory of evolution very obvious. You are arguing against something you have no understanding of, which continues to make you look silly.

    You called creationism a theory, which makes your ignorance of what constitutes a theory equally obvious.

    Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory with more support than would be necessary to call it fact outside a scientific context. In a scientific context, it is impossible to prove anything other than the correctness of mathematical equations.
  111. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:16 am
    In all actuality, The answers they get pose even more (and harder to answer) questions.

    Which is a wonderful thing. Although in reality, the answers we`ve already had from science have transformed the world and are so reliable (a feature of science) that we all trust our lives to them daily without the slightest hesitation.

    None of them answer the really important questions in one`s life.

    Of course they do. Questions such as "How can I not die from an infected cut?" are really important, and that`s just one of innumerable questions answered by science.

    Who am I ? What is my purpose in life ? How can I find happiness ? Do we have a soul ? What happens after we die ?

    Questions no-one can answer with any evidence and so anyone can answer them with anything. Also, nothing to do with science. Your objection is as sensible as dismissing paper because it doesn`t make good boats.
  112. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:21 am
    Thank you Angilion, I`ve been (quietly) saying that for ages, why can`t God have created evolution? It would seem ridiculous to just zap everything into place instantaneously, although by God`s infinitely long viewpoint, 14 billion years could be an instant.

    Also, if you were an immortal omnipotent deity, might you not create something inherently changing, within certain constraints, to be of interest to you? Think of how popular sim games are with people and just scale it up.

    Maybe there is a god or gods and maybe our purpose is to alleviate their boredom. Earth, the IAB of the gods!
  113. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:23 am
    My point here is, Be open to new information and don`t just close your mind because you believe in any particular fallible human being

    If anyone came up with a more plausible theory than evolution, I`d consider it. Of course, it would be incorporated into science.

    You`re offering deliberate ignorance as an alternative to trying to find answers. I`ll pass.
  114. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:27 am
    There are very real scientifically grounded papers and books written about the problems with evolutionary theory.

    Yes, starting with Darwin`s first book. The distinction is that scientists address the problems with thought, refining the theory. You advocate ignoring all evidence and dismissing all science.

    Science is not bad just because it doesn`t `fit in` to popular scientific belief.

    Absolutely true. Also completely irrelevant to your position, which is opposed to science. You are not proposing a scientific challenge to the theory of evolution. You are attempting to usurp and corrupt science to use it against itself, like a parasite infecting a host or a virus taking over a cell to make more of itself.
  115. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:39 am
    As an aside, for at least all of recorded history people have known that the Earth was rounded.

    There is even a written statement that the Earth orbits the Sun, with supporting observations and deductions (i.e. science), from the 3rd century BC (Aristarchus of Samos). Who simply stated that the Earth was spherical without proving it, because it had long been accepted as fact by his day. Also in the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes of Alexandria calculated the circumference of the Earth, using a stick and his intellect. Over 2000 years later, there are still people trying to drag us back into ignorance.
  116. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 3:49 am
    In case anyone thinks to dismiss my example of infection as being herbalism rather than science, consider how ancient herbalists approached the issue:

    They made an initial observation (that infection occurs) and decided to find a solution.

    They chose a plant or combination of plants, or parts of plants, that they thought would treat the infection (a hypothesis).

    They tried the treatment and observed the results (an experiment).

    They created an explanation for the infection and the results of their experiments (a theory) and used that to select plants for treatments (prediction, a key part of a theory).

    So they, or at least the organised ones, were following the scientific method. Their theorising was complete twaddle, but that`s not the point and to be fair to them it`s only more modern technology that shows it to be obvious rubbish.

    Also, of course, it was just one example of many thousands of important answers from science.
  117. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 4:22 am
    that tells me you are. This argument is only used by people who haven`t the sightest clue what a theory is and how science works.

    I have a theory that you sir are the real troll here. There is a basic rule that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Nothing is so firmly known that it cannot be overthrown by new evidence.

    Btw, I`m not talking about `mathematical proof` in that statement. I`m talking about weight of evidence being so overwhelming that it is virtually `proved`. Understand ?
  118. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 4:27 am
    That`s because those questions are not the scope of science.

    Then why do scientists get involved with discussing religion at all ? They should keep their nose out of it and quit calling people that believe in God "Delusional", "Fanatics" etc..
  119. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 4:41 am
    You called creationism a theory

    I said no such thing

    You`re offering deliberate ignorance as an alternative to trying to find answers. I`ll pass.


    I`ve offered knowledge not ignorance and not as an `alternative` to finding answers.

    your position, which is opposed to science. You are not proposing a scientific challenge to the theory of evolution.


    Another unfounded accusation. I am not opposed to science sir. I`m proposing that perhaps the current popular belief of the mechanics of evolution does not fit the evidence. Many scientists disagree about parts of the theory. There are anthropologists right now that won`t even speak to one another because they each have their own sub-theories.

    you are.. like a parasite infecting a host or a virus taking over a cell..


    Getting into insults now are we ?
  120. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 4:54 am
    Monday, April 05, 2010 4:41:33 AM
    You called creationism a theory


    I said no such thing


    yeah you did when u said and I quote

    `evolution is still a theory and has not been proved` !!!

    assuming animals give birth to new species is an ignorance of the theory of evolution.

    A poll done in 1991 in the US (havent time to look for a more recent one on the way to work :/)
    5% of scientist believed in creationalism the rest believed in evolution.
    Kinda overwhelmingly in favour of evolution.
  121. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 4:58 am
    So they.. were following the scientific method. Their theorising was complete twaddle.

    Now your making my point for me. Just because some one claims to be following the scientific method doesn`t mean their theories are right. The method does not elevate the evidence to fact or give it more credence. Scientists have invented evidence in the past to support their theories. Many scientists have had their life`s work scuttled on the basis of new evidence. Usually it wasn`t that their work was `bad`, They just worked with what they knew and it turned out to be wrong. Such is the very nature of science.
  122. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 5:18 am
    McDuff73: Wrong! I never even mentioned the word `creationism` or the words `intelligent design`.

    You`re trying to `put words into my mouth`.

    assuming animals give birth to new species is an ignorance of the theory of evolution.

    No it is not ignorance, At some point according to evolution the animal/plant/fungus changes species and becomes a new one. Otherwise everything would be of the same species.

    Donkey`s and Horses are said to have a common ancestor (possibly pliohippus, I`d have to look again). In any event, chromosomal alterations took place that prevent horses and donkeys from having offspring that can reproduce sexually, According to evolution.

    There have been no such chromosomal alterations observed by man (other than those altered by the scientists themselves) in nature.

    And please don`t use viruses as an example. Viruses are not even complete cells and they have to take over the mechanics of cells to re
  123. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 5:19 am
    ..reproduce.
  124. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 5:27 am
    CrakrJak: "Then why do scientists get involved with discussing religion at all ? They should keep their nose out of it and quit calling people that believe in God "Delusional", "Fanatics" etc.."

    We can agree on that one. Everyone is entiteled to an own opinion, but scientist should make clear where they speak as scientists and where they just state a personal opinion.
    Scientists may and should speak up (as scientists) against religious "fanatics" only if religion gets in the way of science or society.
    Like proposing to teach "intelligent design" in schools.
  125. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 5:39 am
    Then why do scientists get involved with discussing religion at all ?

    Excellent. By the same line of argument, creationists should not get involved with discussing evolution, or indeed any science.

    Goodbye!
  126. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 5:43 am
    On one point, and only one point, CrakrJak is right and I am wrong:

    CrakrJak has not yet explicitly stated in this thread that creationism is a theory. That was iBgrindin. I mistook the two due to the similarity in their views.
  127. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 6:02 am
    your right sorry you said `evolution was still an unproven theory`

    Have to go work will answer the rest of your post from there.
  128. Profile photo of TxP
    TxP Female 70 & Over
    1190 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 7:12 am
    hahah as i was watching an ad that said "study christianity" popped up on the vid
    its only ironic if its the more extreme christianity though :P
  129. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 8:27 am
    Its either ignorance or a deliberate misrepresentation of the mechanics of evolution to believe that new species are born in one small leap from the old.
  130. Profile photo of mischeif954
    mischeif954 Male 18-29
    616 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Creationists shouldn`t have a say in science?

    Without creationists the science you know today wouldn`t exist religion is not against science and science is not against religion they co-exist for the things we can understand, its on all the unknown things that they become two different extremes.
  131. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm
    "Excellent. By the same line of argument, creationists should not get involved with discussing evolution, or indeed any science."

    I meant that philosophically, I don`t hear Christians calling mainstream scientists "fanatical" or "delusional". There is philosophy in both religion and science, Much of it is similar. It`s the parts like "String Theory", "Dark Matter", "abiogenesis", "panspermia", "Irreducible Complexity", and "Quantum Entanglement" that get people riled up on both sides.

    "Its either ignorance or a deliberate misrepresentation of the mechanics of evolution to believe that new species are born in one small leap from the old."

    You`re right, It would take one big leap by many specimens all at once in order for them to survive and not suffer the problems of inbreeding (except asexual specimens). The speciation problem is nothing new.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    Ok, Something went haywire there with my last post.

    Wiki - Species Problem
  • Profile photo of alikabul
    alikabul Male 18-29
    695 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 6:32 pm
    Meh... Fatboy Slim did it way more awesome ages ago. Fatboy Slim - Right Here, Right Now
  • Profile photo of alikabul
    alikabul Male 18-29
    695 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    And to quote Southpark: THE SIMPSONS DID IT!!!
  • Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm
    A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational `beliefs` defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them

    Still undecided on wether your deliberately misrepresenting or just not understanding evolution some information for you to digest:-

    Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species

    More Fuzziness on Boundaries <--- wee bit of swearing in the text in that one.

    Observed Instances of Speciation
  • Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 5, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    Lol at the simpsons version
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 6, 2010 at 5:26 am
    2 Cor 4:18 We look at not at things seen, but at things not seen.

    Have you ever personally seen the Easter Island figures ? Have you ever seen an electron ? Of course not, You accept it by faith in either the photograph or the science.

    Faith is the acceptance of the unseen, It doesn`t require a majority or weight of `evidence`.

    I`ve seen people without faith, They are paranoid and fear everything. It`s sad.
  • Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 6, 2010 at 7:50 am
    No I accept that the figures on the Easter Islands are there or there are electrons because there is rather a lot of evidence to prove both, its not a matter of having faith.
    Faith is what you have when there is NO evidence to prove what you believe to be true.
    I have no faith and am not paranoid nor in fear of anything.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 12:43 am
    "I have no faith and am not paranoid nor in fear of anything."

    Yes, You do have faith.

    You have faith that you will wake up tomorrow and not be dead. You have faith that people will stop at stop signs/lights and not run you over. You have faith the money in your pocket will be honored when you buy something, Even though It`s just paper and ink and has no real monetary value of it`s own. Faith is not just tied to religion, It allows us to function normally.

    You have faith or else you have fear. You had `faith` that I`d comeback and read your comment, Even 2 days after this thread left the main page.
  • Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 3:52 am
    You live in a very narrow or blinkered little world dont you, you assume I care wether you respond or not, much like I assume that I will wake each morning and assume that others will stop at red traffic lights. I assume that my money will still be accepted even if it is just paper and ink, I can assume all of this because I have evidence that it has happened time and time again.
    Faith or fear may help someone of religion function but faith has no bearing on me or I assume others of my ilk.
    I actually posted two & a half hours after your last one not 2 days see how you stretch reality there to fit you world view.
  • Profile photo of Urso
    Urso Male 18-29
    3 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 8:34 am
    To CrakrJak:
    Just trying to get a few points clear:
    -The gaps in fossil records is easily explained, as you have to consider the fact that for a deceased living being to be fossilized it has to occur in very special circumstances.
    -You don`t understand the difference that exists between species and subspecies, and the implications that those 2 differente classifications have. For 2 living beings to be different species there has to be incapabillity for them to produce offspring for more than 1 generations, which is the case of the horse and donkey, as their offspring is infertile they are 2 different species; even if the offspring is fertile but is unable to generate offspring two living beings are considered different species. In the case of the sparrows, they are all different subspecies as they can inbreed between each subspecies but even their fertily rate is much lower than the normal standard
    (cont.)
  • Profile photo of Urso
    Urso Male 18-29
    3 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 8:43 am
    -You cannot deny the fact that every living being from bacteria to mammals has the exact same genetic code. which is a major point for common ancestrality to all living beings.
    -You say that it has never been witnessed an animal giving birth to a new species; but every year different species of insects are found (they are more prone to mutations due to a much higher reproduction rate then the rest of the diploid animals). And if you consider plants, it is aknowledge that nowadays between 30-80% of existing plants are a result of polyploidy wich can only be explained by evolution.
    -If evolution wasn`t real how can you explain the fact that there is still search for new antibiotics in medicine. If it wasn`t through the evolution of the bacteria and other type of infecting beings, with all the antibiotics that exist, you would not need new antibiotics that are capable of destroying the same type of desease but caused by evolved bacteria (the nowasays problem of the "superbugs
  • Profile photo of Urso
    Urso Male 18-29
    3 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 8:50 am
    -Darwin`s inability at the time to fully explain evoltuion, he considered variability in a species but couldn`t explain why, was due to the lack of knowledge, at the time, of the genome. Most important is the fact that the discovery of the genome only proved a stronger point in favor of evolution.
    -In your comments you disregarded the evolution of men itself. Even nowadays the physicals characteristics of the human being is changing, which only proves that we are evolving, not yet to a difference species but we already are a different subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.
    -You don`t need faith to aknowledge the existence of the electrons, you only have to see a photograph of an electron, or electron cloud. While if you consider a god, show me a photograph that proves existence.
    -You can keep your faith in whatever you want, that`s your right but don`t try to say that somebeing created all life in earth, and it didn`t change troughout the billion of years, as it has been proved.
  • Profile photo of Stelly
    Stelly Male 30-39
    317 posts
    April 7, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    Wow, gotta love the "essay arguments" when IAB post poo like this.....I didn`t read ANY of it, but I guarantee it goes like this - Darwin was wrong, NO Darwin was right, your a moron Darwin was wrong, yea well your an idiot Darwin rules blah blah blah blah why does it matter?????
  • Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 12, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    yeah stelly, education matters.
  • Profile photo of imx36degrees
    imx36degrees Female 18-29
    62 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    I looove how a simple video like that can turn people against each other.
    Ahahah.
    These posts have added to my great day :]
  • Profile photo of wolvorine45
    wolvorine45 Male 13-17
    1 post
    May 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm
    its actually evolution in 5:48
  • Leave a Reply