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

[Total: 32    Average: 2.8/5]
53 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9533
Rating: 2.8
Category:
Date: 10/01/11 08:30 AM

53 Responses to Unintelligent Design: Could`ve Been A Bug Planet

  1. Profile photo of bex753
    bex753 Male 40-49
    221 posts
    September 28, 2011 at 3:58 pm
    Link: Unintelligent Design: Could`ve Been A Bug Planet - Just enjoy the ride while it lasts.
  2. Profile photo of Klamz
    Klamz Male 18-29
    689 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 8:50 am
    This guy sounds like he`s masturbating in the first half of the video.

    What`s the point of this anyways? Stating the obvious...

    Why not make a video about how microchips have only been used for a fraction of human existence, WHO CARES??????????????????

    IT HAS NO POINT!
  3. Profile photo of Aints
    Aints Male 18-29
    153 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Kind of depressing.. But I do agree. And that is also why I find it hard to enjoy life really...
  4. Profile photo of Aints
    Aints Male 18-29
    153 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 9:00 am
    Klamz... You sound like you were masturbating the first half of your statements.

    What`s the point of you posting anyways? Stating bullshi...


    Why not just type a comment about how microchips have only been used for a fraction of human existence, WHO CARES??????????????????

    YOU HAVE NO POINT!
  5. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
    OH look, a video of a dude who thinks he is intelligent ranting about poo we already know. Awesome post.
  6. Profile photo of AtheistAlien
    AtheistAlien Male 30-39
    809 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
    can somebody cure this guys diarrhea of the mouth please?
  7. Profile photo of lemmingboy15
    lemmingboy15 Male 18-29
    635 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 9:13 am
    "IT HAS NO POINT!"
    i think that was what he was driving at, klamz.
  8. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6944 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 9:24 am
    We know life has no meaning. Owls are still cool.
  9. Profile photo of PringleMan
    PringleMan Female 13-17
    1356 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 10:00 am
    heheh, diarrhoea of the mouth....

    yea, I didn`t listen to a thing this guy said, but I`ll still laugh at poop jokes.
  10. Profile photo of syke22
    syke22 Male 18-29
    1136 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 10:06 am
    As quoted from the Big Lebowski,
    What the drat are you talking about?
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Well isn`t he just "Mr. Goomey".
  12. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 10:12 am
    Just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

    Well... judging by just the video, life will go on for quite a while let. It`s survived numerous mass extinctions.

    The video is clearly wrong on many other things, but aside from that,

    pessimists... they`re noobs.
  13. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 11:20 am
    Intelligent design is not a foregone outcome of evolution.
  14. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    Ok...
  15. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm
    I refuse to believe that mankind and all the wonders around us are just the top layer of a pile of trash.

    No matter how many times you mix up a pile of trash it`s still trash, it takes an artist to turn trash into something good, useful, or artful.
  16. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm
    Yes, life is messy and it will be if people
    hang to their egocentric ideas that makes them
    morally superior to others

    Religion, language, color... Anything that
    has to be with culture is a potential reason
    to go to war and destroy each other

    But nobody wants to loose his identity, and
    nobody should because that`s what defines you,
    it`s a big paradox, but that`s just life
  17. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    Typical argument, things are too perfect and complicated for me to understand, therefore god must have done it.
    When will people realize that there is no need for god to explain the current world. Although there are many ways the world could have evolved, its complicated state doesn`t mean god must have done it.
  18. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm
    grindinblade: What you are eluding to is that the Mona Lisa could be painted by Jackson Pollock and that is just not plausible no matter how you twist it around in your mind.
  19. Profile photo of funnehkitteh
    funnehkitteh Male 18-29
    528 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 5:09 pm
    @Fatninja01 stop stealing my thoughts! ;-)
  20. Profile photo of Revolutioniz
    Revolutioniz Male 18-29
    911 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    @CrakrJak "I refuse to believe that mankind and all the wonders around us are just the top layer of a pile of trash"

    it doesn`t take an artist to perceive a beauty or conceive a use in trash.. it does not take an artist to make use of the world around him. or adapt to life. your head is on backwards...
  21. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 6:37 pm
    Unintelligent design does NOT equal pure chaos. Simply because God didn`t write the rules of efficiency and physics doesn`t mean there aren`t any. Saying that unintelligent design equals chaos is like saying the reason things fall to the ground isn`t because of gravity but it`s because God wants it too, because without God it`s impossible for the universe to create such a force as gravity without him. It`s like saying nothing can exist without being intelligently created, because without God the entire universe is pure chaos.
  22. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 11:17 pm
    Revolutioniz: It might not take an `artist` but it does take some sort of intelligence, it doesn`t just happen by chance.
  23. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 1, 2011 at 11:29 pm
    Crakr, with all due respect, if your understanding of evolution is that thinga happen by chance, then you don`t understand evolution.
  24. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 12:25 am
    davymid: Adaptation doesn`t happen by chance, that`s my point, it also doesn`t happen by survival of the fittest because there are a lot of creatures out there that rely on only one or two food sources, which should mean likely extinction for them given natural fluctuations in the availability of those food sources.

    It`s not random chance that an animal adapts to it`s environment, but adaptation alone doesn`t create new species. mutation could, on the other hand, create a new species but it is entirely random.

    Mutation is a spin of the roulette wheel, mutations are almost always detrimental to organism, and in order for any `good` mutation to be passed along you need several males and females all with that same `good` mutation to pass it on and become a new species. Since most of those creatures won`t have a single mutation at all, the odds of creating a new species through mutation is astronomical.
  25. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 1:04 am
    @Crakr
    Wow, your false argument is so monumentally elaborated
    that I ALMOST buy it

    "Survival of the fittest" isn`t even used by biologists anymore
    and Darwin himself said it shouldn`t be taken to literally
    because it`s meaning was entirely different from "Natural selection"

    That aside, even if a species rely on a single food source, that
    doesn`t mean it isn`t the "fittest". Biology, and nature in general,
    don`t respond to our conceptions referring to something beneficial.
    For example, a frog won`t start eating tomatoes because it thinks it
    would help to survive when there`s no food, so that`s isn`t really
    a reason to consider a species like "not the fittest"
  26. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 1:13 am
    @Crakr (Continued)
    Your second argument is just plain wrong
    Yes, mutation is random and you could say it`s almost always "detrimental"
    to the species, even though it doesn`t have a purpose, but we know that.

    Now, what`s wrong with your thinking is the part where you think you need
    several specimens with the same mutation to be passed on. That just isn`t
    the case.

    When there`s a specimen with an X mutation, it just needs to have offsprings
    for that mutation to be passed on and, eventually, become a new species with
    all of those new specimens who have the mutation. And it becomes a new species
    because, supposing it was a beneficial mutation, it helped the individuals to
    survive and have an advantage over other mutations

    But, maybe most importantly, it seems like you think a new species means a totally
    different animal, which in scientific language it is, but new species are almost
    always very very VERY littl
  27. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 1:14 am
    But, maybe most importantly, it seems like you think a new species means a totally
    different animal, which in scientific language it is, but new species are almost
    always very very VERY little different, commonly speaking

    (Sorry for the long post)
  28. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 7:10 am
    iceblack: You need to look at speciation again, once something becomes a new species through mutation it can`t breed with it`s former species and have offspring that are fertile.

    A good example of this is that you can mate a horse and donkey to get a mule, the mule is sterile and can`t breed.
  29. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 7:21 am
    Assuming the mutation occurs with a dominant gene trait it only takes passing that dominant gene to carry the mutation on and that`s a 50% chance per offspring. Sorry Crakr but you`re off a bit.
  30. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 7:23 am
    Mules aren`t a mutation. They are the offspring of horses and donkeys....
  31. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 7:31 am
    Mutations are typically subtle changes. Most are, as you say, detrimental but as such cause the carrier to die out before the trait can be spread. Only the very rare strong mutation leaves the host better able to survive and therefore procreate thus spreading the trait. Inter-species breeding has nothing to do with genetic mutation and spreading the mutation. Only by repeated mutations and many many years are there enough changes to distinguish two blatantly separate species like horses and donkeys to which your logic would apply.
  32. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7559 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 7:48 am
    Why are we argueing evolution again. Can we just leave the ignorant idiots who are incapable of working it out alone. Most of the educated world accepts evolution- just bone heads and religious nuts who won`t. They honestly are a minority- we should not give them air space except to laugh and point. Oh yes- we do....
  33. Profile photo of cola3
    cola3 Male 18-29
    55 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 8:01 am
    this guy is such a douche. sure he is entitled to his opinion but everything is dumb to him. everything is beautiful. everything we have ever seen and touched and loved and lived was made from the dust of a star. you can look into the sky at night and see everything that ever was and ever will be. a predator eating a prey is beautiful. this is the only life anywhere that we know of and he writes it off as a "dumb molecule" replicating itself. and sure humans are full of hate, but humans are also full of love. he can sit in his wet diaper and whine about stupid everything is, but i dont think he really understands. we are the cosmos. the cosmos became self aware when we did. now it is time for the cosmos to appreciate and discover itself.
  34. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 9:53 am
    "A good example of this is that you can mate a horse and donkey to get a mule, the mule is sterile and can`t breed."

    And yet, as one simple counter-example that springs immediately to mind (because I saw one last night), coyotes and wolves can interbreed despite being two entirely different species. Crakrjak, here`s the Coywolf....
  35. Profile photo of slimofswiv
    slimofswiv Male 30-39
    116 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 12:16 pm
    zzzzzzzzzzzz, shut up, hopefully americans will die out and do us all a fcukin favour
  36. Profile photo of Steelgrid
    Steelgrid Male 30-39
    2700 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 2:25 pm
    "zzzzzzzzzzzz, shut up, hopefully americans will die out and do us all a fcukin favour"

    Wow next time germany decides to knock on your door, we will sit back and laugh while they rape you......

    Douchebag
  37. Profile photo of Steelgrid
    Steelgrid Male 30-39
    2700 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    "iceblack: You need to look at speciation again, once something becomes a new species through mutation it can`t breed with it`s former species and have offspring that are fertile.

    A good example of this is that you can mate a horse and donkey to get a mule, the mule is sterile and can`t breed."

    And yet you can cross breed dogs all day. Through cross breeding the dogs take on the traits of the other species thus eventually creating a new offshoot species of dog.

    Or did your book fail to give you that answer?
  38. Profile photo of Steelgrid
    Steelgrid Male 30-39
    2700 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    LOL I choose you Crackr!!

    Crackr uses struggle, it has no effect.

    Crackr retreats into the ghost ball.
  39. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 6:07 pm
    @CrakrJak
    Last post, because this is getting really frustrating

    A new "species", which is something kinda subjective, is an animal
    with a considerable mutation that can be categorized differently
    from other species, even their relatives

    But, for that to happen, there has to be maybe hundreds of generations
    between the "first" offspring with that mutation (At a genetical and
    minor level) and the specimen that has that same mutation but now slightly
    visible to make a real difference

    You won`t see a major mutation coming from parent to offspring in one
    generation only.
  40. Profile photo of magoo22
    magoo22 Male 30-39
    660 posts
    October 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm
    "You won`t see a major mutation coming from parent to offspring in one generation only."

    Yes you could, but it is highly unlikely.The reason why we`re each slightly different from our parents is because we`re a mixture of their DNA, and a mutation can happen in any generation.
  41. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 12:06 am
    Davymid: From your own link, "It is possible for wolves and coyotes to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but wolves usually kill coyotes, a fact which displaces questions of their status as two separate species." Which means Coyotes and Wolves might not be separate species and are possibly misclassified.

    You really need to read you own links before you add them to your comments.
  42. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 12:10 am
    iceblack: Still at some point,adaptation or not, a gene mutation must occur to form a new species.

    Without new species you do not have evolution, you just have different breeds of the same species. like the different breeds of dogs.
  43. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 12:18 am
    CrakrJak
    Didn`t I say that?
    I just made it clear that mutations are not
    big enough to make new species from one generation
    to the other

    Also, "Breed" is a term used for artificial breeding,
    (Redundant much?), which means that it isn`t used
    for natural mutations-evolution, it`s used for
    domestic and controlled interbreeding
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 1:18 am
    iceblack: And I`m saying that speciation is not a gradual thing, if it was we would`ve seen it within mankind`s time here on the planet.

    In fact according to the fossil record speciation happens in the `blink of an eye` geologically speaking, then slows nothing for a long time. The theory is called `Punctuated Speciation`.

    Of course this begs hundreds questions as to how and why this `Punctuated Speciation` occurs and what triggers this through most of earth`s fauna all at the same time. Look up `Cambrian explosion` and `Mammal explosion`, they really put Darwin`s gradual evolution theory in doubt.
  45. Profile photo of ukulelemike
    ukulelemike Male 40-49
    129 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 5:40 am
    These guys really sound like a couple guys having some beer at a bar talking about stuff they really don`t know much about. Might as well be talking about football scores for all the sense they make.
  46. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 11:31 am
    @CrakrJak
    OMFG!!!
    You see it all the time! What are you talking about? Don`t
    you see on the news, CONSTANTLY, that viruses EVOLVE and become
    immune to vaccines? That`s evolution!!!

    Did you know that the human skull is 10% bigger than it should
    be for the baby to born naturally and not be a potential death
    to the mother? That`s because we now have artificial ways to get
    babies to born, like caesarean section. a procedure that allows
    those babies to live and pass their big-headed genes to their
    offsprings
  47. Profile photo of iceblack
    iceblack Male 18-29
    551 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 11:37 am
    @CrakrJak
    And OMG! PLEASE UNDERSTAND what you read before you come here and say
    all that nonsense! "Punctuated Speciation" or "Punctuated equilibrium",
    like the Cambrian explosion, are in fact strong evidence for Darwin`s
    theory

    It states that species evolve to adapt to their habitat, what you don`t
    seem to understand is that Punctuated equilibrium says species remain
    non-evolutionary because the geological aspect is the same

    Mutation happens, but the species is now adapted to that geological state
    and that`s why new mutations die and "normal" species keep living and passing
    their almost-non-changing genes to the next generations

    Only when there`s a geological extreme event, there`s a major change in
    species. Like high levels of Oxygen in the Cambrian Explosion, that allowed
    organisms to develop and be bigger, now that they could take much more
    oxygen from the atmosphere... Really, thi
  48. Profile photo of Theyoyoguy
    Theyoyoguy Male 18-29
    462 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    well that`s one way to look at life. It`s a good thing we humans have EMOTION and can perceive life as much more than an existence of merely reproducing and finding food. dumb ass only shows clips of animals because theyre the ones who exemplify the crude nature of life. humans are on the threshold of surpassing this and he has no decency to even acknowledge it. this man is a total pessimist/realist/atheist douchebag who is trivializing life while he yet breathes and continues to thrive and survive in our modern world where he has the drating time to sit down and have these thoughts instead of constantly worrying about being someone else`s prey or not having dinner to eat
  49. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 3, 2011 at 10:48 pm
    iceblack, save your breath. You`re trying to educate the fundamentally (pun intended) uneducatable. CJ sees punctuated equilibrium as evidence of God`s Creation, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, whatever. When in fact, it`s just hard evidence of evolution. Let him be.
  50. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 4, 2011 at 11:03 pm
    iceblack: Viruses can`t `evolve`, first off viruses don`t even have complete DNA, they need other cells DNA and mechanisms to replicate. Viruses may adapt, but they don`t speciate, Please learn some biology before you continue to try to `educate` someone smarter than you.

    Davy: I do not `see punctuated equilibrium as evidence of God`s Creation...`, As I`ve said before science does not limit God, who`s omnipotent. When I argue science, it`s science vs. science. When I argue theology, it`s theology vs. theology. Problem is you see any challenge to Darwin`s theory, any mention of possible intelligent design and you immediately defend the status quo, in knee-jerk fashion, as a creationist plot to somehow kill science. Scientific research should be open, free and transparent enough that it allows challenges to all it`s theories, but unfortunately science only seems to advance one coffin at a time.
  51. Profile photo of SumRandom1
    SumRandom1 Male 18-29
    794 posts
    October 5, 2011 at 10:52 am
    we are the only proven creature to have imagination and learning from others experience by reading something or listening to someone else story, thats why we imagined god all through history of time, and will continue to do so, from the egyptians to the scientologists, imagination will always drive the unexplained, while in reality earth will go on with or without our species......that is all
  52. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 5, 2011 at 7:59 pm
    When I argue science, it`s science vs. science. When I argue theology, it`s theology vs. theology
    Interesting you put it that way, as Intelligent Design (i.e. Creationism) *IS* theology and is *NOT* science. It is untestable, unverifiable, experiments cannot be performed to test its validity, and it makes no predictions whatsoever, four of the cornerstones of science. Evolution on the other hand, is the very cornerstone of modern biology.

    If I seem to "immediately defend the status quo, in knee-jerk fashion", I do so in the same way that I would attack a so-called chemist who spoke of the four elements of air, earth, fire and water in favour of the periodic table, or a medical practioniner who spoke of the four homours in favours of modern anatomy. Evolution is a fact, if you want to deny it to yourself and others, then that`s up to you. Doesn`t make it any less true.
  53. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 5, 2011 at 9:48 pm
    Davymid: From your own link, "It is possible for wolves and coyotes to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but wolves usually kill coyotes, a fact which displaces questions of their status as two separate species." Which means Coyotes and Wolves might not be separate species and are possibly misclassified.

    You really need to read you own links before you add them to your comments.
    Hold on, just caught that one. Meaning, Crakrjak, that even though they can interbreed, as one species predates on the other, "displaces questions of their status as two separate species" means that it "removes questions as to their being two different species". Displaces = removes, right?

    They are clearly different species, as one species usually doesn`t predate on it`s own species but on others.

    Jeez man, you know to twist facts and statements like a pro. You shoulda been in politics.

Leave a Reply