If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Evolution taught humans to stand upright to see over the savannah...except we started standing upright before the savannah came about. You win this round Creationism. But just wait until we talk about the appendix   (economist.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, evolution, savannahs, creationisms, grasslands  
•       •       •

6813 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-20 08:36:54 AM
I dont wanna live on this planet anymore.
 
2013-02-20 08:38:21 AM
If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!
 
2013-02-20 08:39:35 AM
That's some great 4th grade thinking right there.
 
2013-02-20 08:40:41 AM
except we started standing upright before the savannah came about.

Reading fail.
 
2013-02-20 08:40:45 AM
"The tide goes in, the tide goes out: you can't explain that!"

-- Some stupid old guy who has his own TV show
 
2013-02-20 08:40:58 AM
To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested


Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.
 
2013-02-20 08:41:01 AM
FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...
 
2013-02-20 08:41:35 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Mommie and sons were sexing each other up when daddy wasn't looking?
 
2013-02-20 08:41:40 AM
You got it backwards, subbo. TFA is saying that the grasslands were there first.
 
2013-02-20 08:43:03 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.
 
2013-02-20 08:43:30 AM
Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.


Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.
 
2013-02-20 08:44:04 AM

Son of Thunder: You got it backwards, subbo. TFA is saying that the grasslands were there first.


The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!
 
2013-02-20 08:44:31 AM
First I'll join the line of people telling <b>subby</b> they are an idiot

Second, one form of the "grasslands impacted our evolution towards bipedalism" was that they coincided with one another. As referenced at the very end of the article, there was nothing in the most general formulation of the hypothesis that precludes human ancestors moving in to the grassland as a new niche and adapting to it. We see that sort of thing happening all of the time.
 
2013-02-20 08:45:23 AM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


Yeah, I know about that, that info was in gospels that were not put into the Bible.

Much like the Crucifixion.  There is not a detailed account about that, but Christians in 14th century Europe ginned up the tale in order to blame the Jews for the Black Plague.
 
2013-02-20 08:45:26 AM

Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.


Plus I read an interesting hypothesis about how early hominids could have escaped lions by standing up in waterholes.  Those who couldn't stand were eaten.
 
2013-02-20 08:46:29 AM
How did symbiosis/symbiants evolve? Answer that, Darwinians!
 
2013-02-20 08:46:50 AM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?
 
2013-02-20 08:47:46 AM
If science is right and religion is wrong, why does science keep having to changing its story while religion has been stalwart in its model of the world for the last 6000 years? Hm? HMMMMMM? Explain THAT scienticians!

God Is My Co-Pirate: Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.


I have to imagine it is. The Economist generally uses too many big words and facts to keep the interest of the sorts of idiots who would normally post that sort of thing. They prefer to wait until these stories have trickled down to their local news rag and lost all context and substance.
 
2013-02-20 08:48:08 AM
A PHD in geology and a BA in Geography.
It's not like she has a time machine and photographic proof.
It's more like speculation on her part.
Wild, wild speculation.
Alas, it is backed up with more research and proofs than any biblical story of cockamamie proportions.
 
2013-02-20 08:48:37 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


I'm no bible "scholar" but some of the thumpers I know say that there were another group of people to which I say to them Jesus Christ.  They look down upon me which is hard because I walk upright and not slouched with my head crammed in a book of stories.
 
2013-02-20 08:48:55 AM
Uh, subby? The article states that the idea that the reduction of forests into savannahs leading to walking upright is likely incorrect, not because we walked upright first, but because the savannah basically existed in some form long before we walked upright. You kinda got it backwards.

FTA: "Close examination of the cores shows that the nature of the grass changed over the millennia, as species that were adapted to dry conditions took over from those that prefer wetter weather, but savannah of some form there always was.

The climatic change she observed was already known about. It was the reason people suspected forests had given way to savannah. But, contrary to that suspicion, Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested, so the idea that people were constrained to walk upright by the disappearance of the forests is wrong."
 
2013-02-20 08:49:06 AM

gadian: Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other. I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages. Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.
 
2013-02-20 08:49:40 AM
I did not know about this grassland theory. I always assumed that early hominids were scared into walking upright by a time-traveling Charlton Heston.
 
2013-02-20 08:50:22 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


God.

QED.
 
2013-02-20 08:51:10 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever.


I hate that argument.  Every time a transitional form is discovered some window-licker comes along and asks, "well, what about the 2 new holes in the fossil record?"
 
2013-02-20 08:51:55 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Cain and Abel where not the only chilrens of Adam and Eve. Cain had a wife whom the bible did not name. Adam and Eve also had another son Seth after Cain slew Abel who also had a wife the bible did not name.
 
2013-02-20 08:53:10 AM

I_C_Weener: Son of Thunder: You got it backwards, subbo. TFA is saying that the grasslands were there first.

The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


iheartguts.com

\still looking for the Table of Contents
 
2013-02-20 08:53:17 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: If science is right and religion is wrong, why does science keep having to changing its story while religion has been stalwart in its model of the world for the last 6000 years? Hm? HMMMMMM? Explain THAT scienticians!

God Is My Co-Pirate: Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.

I have to imagine it is. The Economist generally uses too many big words and facts to keep the interest of the sorts of idiots who would normally post that sort of thing. They prefer to wait until these stories have trickled down to their local news rag and lost all context and substance.


I've spent too much time in the politics tab. I've lost the ability to distinguish between trolling, sarcasm, and sheer pants-on-headishness.
 
2013-02-20 08:53:33 AM

Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?


I didn't tell the story, I don't know.  His angels apparently sucked too, given the rebellion and all.  Maybe the guy isn't handy with the tools.

proteus_b: Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.


It was either a Jewish mom joke or a joke about the ex wife sexing up the kids.
 
2013-02-20 08:55:44 AM

fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...


Um?
 
2013-02-20 08:57:02 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?
Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Some explain that even if they were doing what would be considered incest to populate the world, it wouldn't be considered incest back then, as they were "pure" by God's standards, so it doesn't count.  Read the story of Lot and his two daughters.  There's supposed to be an important lesson to be learned from that, and the only thing I get is "If you're going to have sex with your father, the oldest daughter gets first dibs."

Slackfumasta: gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?
Answer me that, Jesus freaks!
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.
How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

There were multiple, contradictory versions of the Bible.  Heck, the first chapter of Genesis and the second chapter of Genesis contradict each other on how humans were created.  So it's possible there's a  version of the Bible that talks of this stuff.
 
2013-02-20 08:57:17 AM

I_C_Weener: The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


So the answers to the question of how we came to be lies in a useless organ that many people have removed due to it's propensity to become infected?

Who knew?
 
2013-02-20 08:57:35 AM

Slackfumasta: gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?


Disobedient giraffes
 
2013-02-20 08:57:48 AM

Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.


Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet
 
2013-02-20 08:57:53 AM
Human beings are so egocentric.  Hell, we even believed that the sun revolved around us.  And even at this point, many people still can't believe that there's intelligent life out there.  We're the most important, smartest, most adaptive, awesome creatures the universe has ever seen.

Want to hear the tiniest little laugh ever?  Tell a horseshoe crab how awesome you are.  It's been around for 445 million years.  Doesn't make the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have walked the earth seem that impressive does it?  And if you want to go back to earlier forms of humanoid, go ahead.  It still doesn't amount to much.

And so, with our tremendous knowledge and experience, we assume that walking on two legs is the evolutionary forward pass.  Wrong!  Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the majority of mammals move about on four legs?  And the fossil records taken from mud imprints indicate that around 2.3 million years ago the homo habilis (one of the earliest human forms) actually hoped around on one leg.  These early creatures could be knocked over by a strong breeze.  They couldn't outrun anything.  As a species, they were doomed to failure.

Then came the homo erectus, the first two legged human-like mammal.  Two legs proved superior to one, but they were still no match for their four legged predators.  The four legged animals were more stable, stronger, faster, and smarter.  Why smarter?  They had more complete diets because they were apex predators.  Humans were mostly living off scraps and unprocessed grains at that point - not exactly brain boosters.

Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

Think about how much more you sit than your grandparents did.  Sitting is not a far cry from crawling.  In a few dozen generations, we'll laugh at pictures of people like Oscar Pistorius, with their fools goal of two functional legs.

Bottom line, don't assume that you are on the upswing of your species evolutionary path.  You're probably going extinct anyway.
 
2013-02-20 08:58:00 AM
Remember, disproving one theory of evolution of man does not prove creationism, as this still happened millions of years ago.  So before the trolls go wild, or the dnrtfas spout off - the fact that the humanoids standing happened and was not correlated with the Savannah doesn't mean man was created out of dust and magic 6000 years ago.
 
2013-02-20 08:58:57 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?
 
2013-02-20 08:59:05 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.


I blame the "History" channel.
 
2013-02-20 09:01:24 AM
dcmagnets.ru
Actually, tall and skinny radiates heat more effectively in warmer climates.
 
2013-02-20 09:01:29 AM
The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.
 
2013-02-20 09:03:18 AM

gadian:
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?
 
2013-02-20 09:03:45 AM

nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?


I get a kick out of those people that say yes this particular story is an allegory but Jesus soooooo definitely walked on water for realz!!!!eleventy
 
2013-02-20 09:05:45 AM

jaggspb: nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?

I get a kick out of those people that say yes this particular story is an allegory but Jesus soooooo definitely walked on water for realz!!!!eleventy


Jesus walked on water.  He forgot to tell everyone there were rocks underneath.
 
2013-02-20 09:07:22 AM

Graffito: God Is My Co-Pirate: Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever.

I hate that argument.  Every time a transitional form is discovered some window-licker comes along and asks, "well, what about the 2 new holes in the fossil record?"


felipec.files.wordpress.com
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Hey, Professor, I'm a Flying Spaghetti Monster. You seriously believe I've descended from some kind of flightless manicotti?
Farnsworth: Yes!
Banjo: Oh, please. A far more logical explanation is the undisprovable science of Creatureism. All life was created in its present form seven thousand years ago, by a fantastical creature from outer space!
Farnsworth: Bunk!
Banjo: Oh! If you elitist, East Coast evolution is real, why has no one found the missing link between modern humans and ancient apes?
Farnsworth: We did find it! It's called Homo erectus!
Banjo: Then you have proven my case, sir, for no one has found a link between apes and this Homo erectus.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Homo habilis!
Banjo: Ah-ha! But no one has found the missing link between ape and this so called Homo habilis.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Australopithecus africanus!
Banjo: Oh-ho! I've got you now!
[time passes]
Banjo: Fair enough, but where, then, is the missing link between apes and this Darwinius masillae? Answer me that, Professor!
Farnsworth: Okay, granted, that one missing link is still missing, but just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Banjo: Things don't exist simply because you believe in them. Thus sayeth the Almighty Creature in the Sky!
 
2013-02-20 09:08:15 AM

Oldiron_79: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

. Cain had a wife whom the bible did not name. Adam and Eve also had another son Seth after Cain slew Abel who also had a wife the bible did not name.


Two unnamed wives, eh?

Deus ex machina?

Or otherwise known as pretty shiatty storytelling?
 
2013-02-20 09:08:23 AM

kitsuneymg: Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?


I actually heard all this from a Rabbi and I still don't know if he was just yanking my chain with most of what he was saying.  He was just summarizing some different interpretations of the origins of humanity.  I don't know anything about the Christian take on any of it or if any of it was ever an "official" part of any religion.  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.
 
2013-02-20 09:08:59 AM
I find amusing how some atheists fall all over themselves advocating for the existence of extraterritorial life, despite the fact we have zero proof that life exists anywhere in the universe except for Earth.

Their views on the subject are no more based on actual hard evidence than some theist expounding "God did it!".

/I want to believe
 
2013-02-20 09:09:17 AM

entropic_existence: Second, one form of the "grasslands impacted our evolution towards bipedalism" was that they coincided with one another. As referenced at the very end of the article, there was nothing in the most general formulation of the hypothesis that precludes human ancestors moving in to the grassland as a new niche and adapting to it. We see that sort of thing happening all of the time.


I think the point is that they were already so well spread out that they were in the grasslands anyway. Sometimes evolution takes a while, and I think the article was right in supposing that perhaps early humans just failed to take advantage of the evolutionary niche for a while. After a few million years, the right kind of adaptation started to take shape. Mutation is, after all, random.
 
2013-02-20 09:10:19 AM

jaggspb: nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?

I get a kick out of those people that say yes this particular story is an allegory but Jesus soooooo definitely walked on water for realz!!!!eleventy


A first hand account of an event is far different than a fable. Surely you can spot key differences in the two narratives.
 
2013-02-20 09:12:04 AM
At some point, walking upright became a more efficient trait, and humans who could walk upright were more successful, had more children, and became the dominant type of human.

That's logic.  That's evolution right there, sports fans.
 
2013-02-20 09:14:51 AM

nmemkha: jaggspb: nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?

I get a kick out of those people that say yes this particular story is an allegory but Jesus soooooo definitely walked on water for realz!!!!eleventy

A first hand account of an event is far different than a fable. Surely you can spot key differences in the two narratives.


very true so was Jesus nonchalant about it or was he all "hold my wine and watch this" when you witnessed him doing that?
 
2013-02-20 09:15:59 AM
We evolved to stand up so that we could do things with our hands while we walked, such as using primitive iPhones.
d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net
 
2013-02-20 09:16:37 AM

sudo give me more cowbell: I think the point is that they were already so well spread out that they were in the grasslands anyway. Sometimes evolution takes a while, and I think the article was right in supposing that perhaps early humans just failed to take advantage of the evolutionary niche for a while. After a few million years, the right kind of adaptation started to take shape. Mutation is, after all, random.


That was exactly my point.
 
2013-02-20 09:16:42 AM

gadian: Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

I didn't tell the story, I don't know.  His angels apparently sucked too, given the rebellion and all.  Maybe the guy isn't handy with the tools.

proteus_b: Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.

It was either a Jewish mom joke or a joke about the ex wife sexing up the kids.


To be fair, God was sick that day and couldn't attend "How to recognize and stop potential angel rebellions" lecture
 
2013-02-20 09:17:45 AM
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-02-20 09:18:47 AM
Yeah so some animals stand upright to seem more intimidating and larger when threatened. Trick a predator into backing down. Maybe our ancestors just decided upright at all times is better?
 
2013-02-20 09:19:36 AM
Slackfumasta:

How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-20 09:26:57 AM

Rizhail: The climatic change she observed was already known about. It was the reason people suspected forests had given way to savannah. But, contrary to that suspicion, Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested, so the idea that people were constrained to walk upright by the disappearance of the forests is wrong."


Perhaps they ones that had a small predisposition to walk upright could see there was something on the other side of the road, so they crossed it and had a nice meal.  Having a full tummy made the mommas happy, and then we all know they are more likely to do the deed if you feed them.  So the upright ones, like many new immigrants, bred like crazy.
 
2013-02-20 09:29:04 AM

Ostman: Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.


This.  We didn't evolve opposable thumbs for the purpose of using tools. Tool use was the effect, not the cause.
 
2013-02-20 09:30:43 AM

Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?


Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.
 
2013-02-20 09:32:33 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Rizhail: The climatic change she observed was already known about. It was the reason people suspected forests had given way to savannah. But, contrary to that suspicion, Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested, so the idea that people were constrained to walk upright by the disappearance of the forests is wrong."

Perhaps they ones that had a small predisposition to walk upright could see there was something on the other side of the road, so they crossed it and had a nice meal.  Having a full tummy made the mommas happy, and then we all know they are more likely to do the deed if you feed them.  So the upright ones, like many new immigrants, bred like crazy.


So you are saying that early humans were like chickens...crossing the road to see what was on the other side...until they stood up and didn't need to cross to see.  Wait...where did the roads come from?
 
2013-02-20 09:35:04 AM

gadian: kitsuneymg: Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

I actually heard all this from a Rabbi and I still don't know if he was just yanking my chain with most of what he was saying.  He was just summarizing some different interpretations of the origins of humanity.  I don't know anything about the Christian take on any of it or if any of it was ever an "official" part of any religion.  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.


How can Mary be immaculately conceived?  If so, what is the point,  God could just have made Jesus immaculately conceived?

If she was immaculately conceived, why would she die, if she did not, what happened to her?
 
2013-02-20 09:35:24 AM
I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.
 
2013-02-20 09:36:54 AM

Nutsac_Jim: gadian: kitsuneymg: Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

I actually heard all this from a Rabbi and I still don't know if he was just yanking my chain with most of what he was saying.  He was just summarizing some different interpretations of the origins of humanity.  I don't know anything about the Christian take on any of it or if any of it was ever an "official" part of any religion.  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

How can Mary be immaculately conceived?  If so, what is the point,  God could just have made Jesus immaculately conceived?

If she was immaculately conceived, why would she die, if she did not, what happened to her?


Dunno about her conception - I think it was supposed to be the old and dirty way, but didn't she ascend to heaven in her physical form?
 
2013-02-20 09:37:52 AM

gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.


One word:  tail gloves.  Or maybe we'd call them socks.
 
2013-02-20 09:38:13 AM

I_C_Weener: Son of Thunder: You got it backwards, subbo. TFA is saying that the grasslands were there first.

The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


CSB: I was born without one. I am evolved.
 
2013-02-20 09:39:18 AM

I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.


Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?
 
2013-02-20 09:40:47 AM

mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.


They're only opposing theories if you worship a god too dumb and shortsighted to use an elegant, long-term tool like evolution to shape creation.
 
2013-02-20 09:43:34 AM

gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?


Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.
 
2013-02-20 09:44:26 AM

gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.


That, or gills.

Supplemental gills would rock, and it's not like we don't have them in the womb.

Be tough on the scuba manufacturers, of course...
 
2013-02-20 09:44:49 AM

I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.
 
2013-02-20 09:46:01 AM

kerryclendenon: Remember, disproving one theory of evolution of man does not prove creationism, as this still happened millions of years ago.  So before the trolls go wild, or the dnrtfas spout off - the fact that the humanoids standing happened and was not correlated with the Savannah doesn't mean man was created out of dust and magic 6000 years ago.


Yeah, proving Creationism would take explaining why God created the entire universe as a massive fraud to fool his own creations as an excuse to torture them for infinity if they believed what they saw. If you are a Creationist, it is hard to not see the God you are worshiping as an evil and devious entity that is just toying with us, and therefore much more in line with the way the Devil is described than the attributes used to describe God.
 
2013-02-20 09:47:01 AM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Is that a tail in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?
 
2013-02-20 09:47:06 AM

I_C_Weener: Only if they were used for sexual purposes. Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Heh, okay, "taily" made me giggle like a 4th grader.
 
2013-02-20 09:48:06 AM

mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.


And instead of people dying from tooth/jaw infections, we fix it now and they get to live and have offspring, thereby NOT removing the extra teeth genes from the gene pool.
 
2013-02-20 09:48:29 AM

fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.


Almost, but not quite chemically identical. Search for "Kinetic isotope effect" and "Isotopic signature in plants", also "C3 carbon fixation" and "C4 carbon fixation"
 
2013-02-20 09:48:33 AM

Jake Havechek: Much like the Crucifixion. There is not a detailed account about that, but Christians in 14th century Europe ginned up the tale in order to blame the Jews for the Black Plague.


Crucifixion ain't no fiction. So-called Chosen frozen, apology made to whomever pleases, still they got me like Jesus. I'd rather sing, bring, think, reminisce 'bout a brother while I'm in sync.
 
2013-02-20 09:49:27 AM

xria: Yeah, proving Creationism would take explaining why God created the entire universe as a massive fraud to fool his own creations as an excuse to torture them for infinity if they believed what they saw. If you are a Creationist, it is hard to not see the God you are worshiping as an evil and devious entity that is just toying with us, and therefore much more in line with the way the Devil is described than the attributes used to describe God.


That and his creations without an ounce of free will decided to rebel against his decisions.  How does one screw up that badly?
 
2013-02-20 09:50:36 AM
One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.
 
2013-02-20 09:55:33 AM
Time Begins?  says who?
www.gentilsalaud.com
 
2013-02-20 09:58:28 AM

dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.


That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...
 
2013-02-20 09:59:36 AM

clane: Time Begins?  says who?
[www.gentilsalaud.com image 768x710]


Time requires the existence of mass which implies the existence of space.  The big bang, as the theory goes, was the origin of mass and space and time.
 
2013-02-20 10:00:52 AM
The real question is: when did headline trolls like subby evolve? Did they predate Fark? The Gutenberg press? Cave paintings?
 
2013-02-20 10:02:50 AM

clane: Time Begins?  says who?
[www.gentilsalaud.com image 768x710]


Time magazine. Says so right there in the lower-right corner!
 
2013-02-20 10:06:58 AM

justinguarini4ever: I did not know about this grassland theory. I always assumed that early hominids were scared into walking upright by a time-traveling Charlton Heston.


there is a severe lack of cheston pics with lol captions.  therefore, i could not answer your funny with a funny.
 
2013-02-20 10:07:34 AM

dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.


This theory has been discredited, much to the displeasure of its very loud and butthurt proponents. Lots of those "fact" such as fat distribution are misinterpretations. See  http://www.aquaticape.org/
 
2013-02-20 10:08:19 AM

stonicus: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...


I'm pretty sure our weak sense of smell is from natural selection.  If you weren't able to smell how awful everyone else smelled living in a one-room cave 24-7, then you were more likely to have sex with one of them, which in turn keeps your genes alive.  The picky smell sensitive people went outside and got eaten before they could have sex.

I should be a scientist.
 
2013-02-20 10:09:05 AM

Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet


NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.
 
2013-02-20 10:10:21 AM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.


Considering how retarded the human race actually is, I think we can accept this as fact.
 
2013-02-20 10:12:06 AM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.



The Island of Misfit Toys does exist!!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MDSKoMptZt0/TtcTlmxW-PI/AAAAAAAAJEw/4Ug5eUP L etI/s1600/island+of+misfit+toys+charlie+in+a+box.jpg">
 
2013-02-20 10:14:16 AM

mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.


the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.
 
2013-02-20 10:14:43 AM

stonicus: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...


Sharks beg to differ.
 
2013-02-20 10:15:12 AM

NJR_ZA: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Almost, but not quite chemically identical. Search for "Kinetic isotope effect" and "Isotopic signature in plants", also "C3 carbon fixation" and "C4 carbon fixation"


Huh. You learn something new everyday.
 
2013-02-20 10:16:01 AM

spentmiles: Human beings are so egocentric.  Hell, we even believed that the sun revolved around us.  And even at this point, many people still can't believe that there's intelligent life out there.  We're the most important, smartest, most adaptive, awesome creatures the universe has ever seen.

Want to hear the tiniest little laugh ever?  Tell a horseshoe crab how awesome you are.  It's been around for 445 million years.  Doesn't make the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have walked the earth seem that impressive does it?  And if you want to go back to earlier forms of humanoid, go ahead.  It still doesn't amount to much.

And so, with our tremendous knowledge and experience, we assume that walking on two legs is the evolutionary forward pass.  Wrong!  Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the majority of mammals move about on four legs?  And the fossil records taken from mud imprints indicate that around 2.3 million years ago the homo habilis (one of the earliest human forms) actually hoped around on one leg.  These early creatures could be knocked over by a strong breeze.  They couldn't outrun anything.  As a species, they were doomed to failure.

Then came the homo erectus, the first two legged human-like mammal.  Two legs proved superior to one, but they were still no match for their four legged predators.  The four legged animals were more stable, stronger, faster, and smarter.  Why smarter?  They had more complete diets because they were apex predators.  Humans were mostly living off scraps and unprocessed grains at that point - not exactly brain boosters.

Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

Think about how much more you sit than your grandparents did.  Sitt ...


I actually wasted 30 precious irreplaceable seconds of my life reading this.

Like Pocket Ninja, but nowhere near as clever or funny.
 
2013-02-20 10:16:53 AM
All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.
 
2013-02-20 10:17:30 AM

nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?


This is why I have you favorited.
 
2013-02-20 10:20:52 AM

talulahgosh: mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.

the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.


Scientific method requires faith that the universe is causal at all times.
 
2013-02-20 10:26:42 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


Not necessarily. Genes turn off and on over the course of your life. So let's say someone gets a random mutation but it doesn't express itself. For all intents and purposes this person is just like every other. They breed, their progeny inherit the trait. This goes on for X number of generations and spreads through a portion of the gene pool. Then, for whatever reason (right grouping of chromosomes, new environmental factors etc) the mutant gene turns on. Now a whole subset of people express the adaptation that has lain dormant in the population. If that subset is large enough, it won't suffer inbreeding even if they have a significant advantage from this "new" mutation.

/I hope that answers your question
//I am not a biologist
 
2013-02-20 10:31:11 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


They had more than two kids and yes Cain married his sister.
 
2013-02-20 10:34:58 AM
It wasn't because of the grass, it was because of our thumbs.

The more we started using our thumbs, the less we wanted to walk on our hands.
 
2013-02-20 10:40:50 AM

Lee451: How did symbiosis/symbiants evolve? Answer that, Darwinians!


Here's one example: Mitochondrion.

But for the lazy, here is a Wikipedia article about Symbiosis and evolution.
 
2013-02-20 10:41:28 AM

Fano: Slackfumasta: gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

Disobedient giraffes


I'm gonna start a Emo band, just so I can use that name.
 
2013-02-20 10:43:37 AM

Baryogenesis: walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

  smart phones and ipads.
 
2013-02-20 10:44:33 AM

genner: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

They had more than two kids and yes Cain married his sister.


And the reason we don't do that anymore is because of random genetic mutations over a long period of time.
 
2013-02-20 10:45:36 AM

Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?


God has a sense of humor. Look at our duck-billed, beaver-tailed, egg-laying venomous platypus friends. I have a feeling he just threw a bunch of darts at a dart board to find out what traits it should have.
 
2013-02-20 10:47:28 AM

proteus_b: gadian: Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other. I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages. Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.


So he had to cut his own foreskin off, ouch!
 
2013-02-20 10:50:08 AM
gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.
 
2013-02-20 10:51:02 AM

Graffito: clane: Time Begins?  says who?
[www.gentilsalaud.com image 768x710]

Time requires the existence of mass which implies the existence of space.  The big bang, as the theory goes, was the origin of mass and space and time.


No it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to describe an empty space time containing no mass or energy.

Conversely, it is true that in most mainstream theories, the Big Bang was the origin of time and space as well as the creation of mass/energy, but that's not a necessity. Lots of cosmologists are interested in theories in which the Big Bang is in fact a Big Bounce -- previous universe collapses, is instantaneously* zero in size, then begins to expand again looking exactly like a Big Bang. In some variants the universe is not completely zero, because of quantum effects. In both scenarios, although time and space are recreated anew, the mass/energy is the same from one universe to the next, and there might even be "imprints" from previous cycles that might allow a test of this idea.

Unfortunately, it turns out to be devilishly difficult to get from "wouldn't it be cool if the universe were cyclic?" to actual models that work quantitatively, not least because the details of quantum gravity become critical close to the singularity.

*For certain values of instantaneous. One of the problems with Big Bounce theories is understanding how to get through a pure singularity: when both space and time vanish, it's hard to understand how the system "continues" and time resumes. QM may come to the rescue.
 
2013-02-20 10:54:00 AM

grokca: proteus_b: gadian: Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other. I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages. Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.

So he had to cut his own foreskin off, ouch!


Yes he did...
 
2013-02-20 10:54:01 AM
Often evolutionary changes occur randomly and with no particular purpose; changes that are not necessarily beneficial or detrimental. When changes in the environment suddenly favor those random changes, the species is extraordinarily equipped to survive.
 
2013-02-20 10:59:17 AM

Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

guns.

FTFY
 
2013-02-20 10:59:33 AM

Ishkur: It wasn't because of the grass, it was because of our thumbs.

The more we started using our thumbs, the less we wanted to walk on our hands.


We needed our thumbs to roll the grass, so it was the grass.
 
2013-02-20 11:00:29 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?


What "random mutation" are you referring to?  The ability to control metal?  It's a very long process.  The changes are not that radical in individuals.
 
2013-02-20 11:03:29 AM

Gandalf_is_dead: Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.


Yeah, I've used immaculate conception incorrectly.  I meant the whole virgin-birth thing.
 
2013-02-20 11:05:10 AM

dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.


THIS! I always liked this theory instead of the Savannah theory.
 
2013-02-20 11:06:53 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


From the book of Genesis:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
 
2013-02-20 11:06:57 AM

shortymac: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

THIS! I always liked this theory instead of the Savannah theory.


Maybe God is Aquaman!
 
2013-02-20 11:09:35 AM
spentmiles:
Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

How did the trees escape the lava?
 
2013-02-20 11:14:23 AM

1000 Ways to Dye: spentmiles:
Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

How did the trees escape the lava?

 
2013-02-20 11:14:58 AM
Picture of Ents walking fail!
 
2013-02-20 11:19:35 AM
1000 Ways to Dye:

How did the trees escape the lava?

The trees were immune to the lava. Surely you've heard of a volcanic ash.
 
2013-02-20 11:26:45 AM

mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.


Surely you can't mean that believing in "dark matter" or "dark energy" makes about as much sense as believing that the Jesus was the son of "God" sent to Earth to "save" mankind?

We don't know shiat, and anyone that claims we do is a straight up liar.

If you believe ANY "theory" about creation, be it "scientific" or "divine powers", your dumb ass is doing so based on FAITH and not FACT.
 
2013-02-20 11:28:16 AM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Want to guess how everyone knows you've actually never read Genesis?
 
2013-02-20 11:28:50 AM

sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.


Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.
 
2013-02-20 11:33:39 AM

gadian: there was a land of God's failed creations...


www.yellowmaps.com
 
2013-02-20 11:44:00 AM
I can't imagine what advantage walking upright would have?

Oh, yes I can.

redroom.com
/yay evolution
 
2013-02-20 11:46:00 AM

KingsleyZisou: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?Answer me that, Darwinists!


Over time most of the species will end up with a sufficiently positive trait, and they will all be partially descended from the same mutant in most cases - after about 40 generations every individual is descended in part from virtually every individual that had any surviving progeny 40 generations ago - this is why virtually everyone with any European heritage is probably descended from Charlemange, because of the exponential rise in descendants as each generation passes, in much the same way as the old story about the grain of rice on the first square of a chess board, doubling it for each square, and way before you get to the last square on the board you have more grains of rice than have ever been grown in history. Generally it will take many more that 40 generations for a trait to truly dominate unless it has exceptionally strong survival implications, of course.
 
2013-02-20 11:49:42 AM

gadian: I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.


Wait...the bible has a land of misfit toys?
 
2013-02-20 11:52:51 AM

trappedspirit: gadian: I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.

Wait...the bible has a land of misfit toys?


Not quite. I believe the OId Testament makes a reference to a Land of Misfit Goys.
 
2013-02-20 12:01:55 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Our holy father Prometheus created us from the soil of Mother Earth. Adam and Eve is just a myth created by apostates.
 
2013-02-20 12:09:38 PM
api.ning.com
 
2013-02-20 12:10:59 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

LULZ, they are so sad and lonely
 
2013-02-20 12:11:15 PM

Gandalf_is_dead: gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.


But if Mary could be immaculately conceived, why not immaculately conceive Jesus?

This one makes about as much sense as Muslims belief that Jesus was switched bodies with Judas.

ie: If you are going to just *poof* make jesus ascend to heaven afterwards, why not just *poof* him before he he/judas was crucified.

I've asked on this one, and I get the same 'it is best not to question' that I get when I ask how some fundy why we can see galaxies that are obviously more than 5000 years away.
 
2013-02-20 12:16:21 PM

1000 Ways to Dye: spentmiles:
Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

How did the trees escape the lava?


They were petrified trees.  Being made of stone, they were immune to the effects of the lava.
 
2013-02-20 12:16:33 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Gandalf_is_dead: gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.

But if Mary could be immaculately conceived, why not immaculately conceive Jesus?


Technically, Jesus wasn't conceived at all, since there was no man involved. It was more of a possession.
 
2013-02-20 12:27:19 PM
I knew we were all descended from meerkats
 
2013-02-20 12:27:35 PM

gadian: Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

I didn't tell the story, I don't know.  His angels apparently sucked too, given the rebellion and all.


Angels can't rebel. They don't have free will.
 
2013-02-20 12:28:49 PM

I drunk what: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 194x259]

LULZ, they are so sad and lonely




I'm sure your breakroom is full of hookers and blow.
 
2013-02-20 12:33:15 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 194x259]

LULZ, they are so sad and lonely

I'm sure your breakroom is full of hookers and blow.


of course it is, i'm an atheist so my junk is 10' long and women adore me, because i own science

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-20 12:35:54 PM
Spandex disproves Creationism

God did not create Spandex, chemists Sandquist and Shivers did at Dupont. They should be memorialized for one of Mankind's greatest evolutionary leaps.

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-20 12:36:25 PM

gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.


You can have a tail or you can have gluteals but not both. But, yeah, that would be kind of cool.
 
2013-02-20 12:37:05 PM

WippitGuud: Nutsac_Jim: Gandalf_is_dead: gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.

But if Mary could be immaculately conceived, why not immaculately conceive Jesus?

Technically, Jesus wasn't conceived at all, since there was no man involved. It was more of a possession.


Jesus was an extra terrestrial.  OR myth between us non-retarded groups
 
2013-02-20 12:40:23 PM

shortymac: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

THIS! I always liked this theory instead of the Savannah theory.


Anyone who really accepts the savanna theory should be forced to try to survive, butte nekkid and without any tools, on African savanna for 72 hours. "See better" my hairy white butt.
 
2013-02-20 12:41:03 PM

mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.


In the past your teeth would fall out and those were the backups.
 
2013-02-20 12:42:51 PM

fredklein: NJR_ZA: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Almost, but not quite chemically identical. Search for "Kinetic isotope effect" and "Isotopic signature in plants", also "C3 carbon fixation" and "C4 carbon fixation"

Huh. You learn something new everyday.


If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the same boat. I just assumed any difference in structure would be trivial to plant uptake. That'll be a good one for bar trivia.
 
2013-02-20 12:45:25 PM
There's living in Savannah, though.

www.world-guides.com

 
2013-02-20 12:45:32 PM

Farce-Side: I_C_Weener: The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

So the answers to the question of how we came to be lies in a useless organ that many people have removed due to it's propensity to become infected?

Who knew?


Just do a basic internet search. Here's just a couple of recent articles on the purpose of the appendix:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/17/your-a pp endix-is-useful-after-all.aspx

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/#.USUK21rthj0

And the conversation continues...
 
2013-02-20 12:48:59 PM

mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.


Um, because there were no dentists back in caveman days and teeth fell out or were damaged. Therefore, getting a new set of back molars to replace possibly rotten/damaged ones makes some sense.
 
2013-02-20 12:49:13 PM
The article writer is so blindingly stupid that they forgot that according to the jesus freaks, the African savannah has always been there.

How's that for a conundrum?
 
2013-02-20 01:03:53 PM
If creationism is true how come animals aren't still magically appearing? :D

Creationism is just a theory. :D

Nature put the cambrian explosion into the fossil record in order to test our rational ownership of Science.  Evolutiondidit. :D

Creationism is the tinfoil hat theists wear to keep logic out of their brainwaves.  ~sir arthur of camelot
 
2013-02-20 01:06:08 PM

Ed Grubermann: Angels can't rebel. They don't have free will.


Angels can't do anything, because myths don't exist, just like Jesus.

the "adults" that do believe in angels can be pointed at and laughed at, because they are retarded
 
2013-02-20 01:09:37 PM
Diagonal:

Anyone who really accepts the savanna theory should be forced to try to survive, butte nekkid and without any tools, on African savanna for 72 hours. "See better" my hairy white butt.

Anyone who really accepts the aquatic ape theory should be forced to swim butt nekkid and without any tools in an African river.

/Aquatic ape supporters claim that crocodiles were not interested in eating hominids.
 
2013-02-20 01:11:52 PM
Evolution taught that we stood upright to see over the savannah?  Really.  Because I don't recall ever seeing anything, ever, anywhere, where evolution "teaches" that we stood upright to see over the savannah.  Has anyone ever theorized that we started standing in order to see over the savannah?  Yeah I think I've read that.  The leap from that to "evolution's validity is invested in the dogma that man first stood to see over the savannah" is continental.

Evolution also did not teach that we must save the whales, or that every snowflake should have a pony, or that we should move beyond gay marriage to marriage between chimpanzees and parakeets, or that only the United Nations knows who should and should not be permitted to swagger into a bar with a .38 strapped to this thigh.

/in case you were wondering
 
2013-02-20 01:11:55 PM
I remember being taught that it was likely that we evolved to walk upright because it was more efficient for carrying and using tools.  That also seems to make more sense, as a lot of animals in grassy areas can stand upright but still walk on all fours (ground dwelling rodents, for example) Obviously, it's always speculation as to why a trait was selected for over others, but I think there are a lot of reasons bipedal locomotion could have evolved besides "tall grass"
 
2013-02-20 01:24:47 PM

I drunk what: If creationism is true how come animals aren't still magically appearing? :D


They aren't? I read articles where we discover new species almost on a daily basis.
 
2013-02-20 01:27:09 PM
I think we all know the real reason we started standing upright.
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-02-20 01:31:12 PM

WippitGuud: I drunk what: If creationism is true how come animals aren't still magically appearing? :D

They aren't? I read articles where we discover new species almost on a daily basis.


24.media.tumblr.com

i can see how ordinary scientific evolution would appear to be miraculous magic to a simpleton like yourself, but don't worry about rational logic let the adults handle it
 
2013-02-20 01:33:05 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.

One word:  tail gloves.  Or maybe we'd call them socks.


I find it interesting (as does Douglas Hofstadter, who did a chapter of one of his books featuring them) that the German word for glove is literally "hand shoe."
 
2013-02-20 01:33:47 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Humans being humans, do you think for one moment that we WOULDN'T use our tails for sexual gratification?
 
2013-02-20 01:34:44 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.


These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.
 
2013-02-20 01:42:03 PM

DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.


i'm ok you're ok
 
2013-02-20 01:49:08 PM

fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.


Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.
 
2013-02-20 01:52:56 PM

DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.


They can't. Creationist theory is based on religious writing taken at the literal level with, it appears, very little understanding. However for scientists to think that they have answers is, I believe, also suspect. (Although with far less dangerous consequences.)

Like most I enjoy my own little experiences of schadenfreude, and when a scientific 'certainty' isdisemboweled, well that's just tasty :)

As for your bacteria, seems they were quite hungry. Starved of normal nutrients they went for what they could digest (with difficulty?) and wasplentiful. Quite normal I would assume.

More Bordello please!
 
2013-02-20 01:53:09 PM

ciberido: Humans being humans, do you think for one moment that we WOULDN'T use our tails for sexual gratification?


There once was a well-endowed male
who was also well-blessed with a tail
During sex he'd employ it
To help her enjoy it
You're in luck girls... his love is for sale.
 
2013-02-20 01:56:35 PM

Fano: Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

Disobedient giraffes


No, the evolution of the giraffe is single-handedly the fault of Ford.

/read your bible!!!
 
2013-02-20 01:58:43 PM

Ed Grubermann: God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.

These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.


I dunno, i think there might be something to this alien stuff

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/440-what-is-the-likelihood-o f- alien-hybridization-at-some-early-point-in-our-evolution/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/27/atheist-richard-dawkins-makes-so me -startling-comments-on-religion/

i recall a very good lecture about the origin of life on earth and how it could have been aliens but i can't remember where the link is
 
2013-02-20 01:59:16 PM
That's right, Subby. When some evidence arises that doesn't fit with the current scientific theory, we toss out the entire theory.

i651.photobucket.com

...except in the  real world, we modify the theory to explain the new evidence!

Science, FTW!
 
2013-02-20 02:06:59 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


The only "logical" answer:

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 02:11:45 PM

I drunk what: DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.

i'm ok you're ok


Meh.  I do parodies better.  Check out this thread where I was "doing a (fairly spot-on) parody of IDW"(Robseace)

I received glowing reviews:

"Ok, that was a nice touch... "
"You're so fun. I like you. "
"He's crazier than a rape squirrel on bath salts."
"I so very much hope IDW visits this thread... I want to see an IDW vs vactech death-match!"
 
2013-02-20 02:14:01 PM

Lee451: How did symbiosis/symbiants evolve? Answer that, Darwinians!


"you either belief [sic] it is true or you do not." - Lee 4:51
 
2013-02-20 02:22:43 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Time for your taily...

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-20 02:24:41 PM

Ed Grubermann: God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.

These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.


24.media.tumblr.com
Problem?
 
2013-02-20 02:27:37 PM

safetycap: That's right, Subby. When some evidence arises that doesn't fit with the current scientific theory, we toss out the entire theory.

[i651.photobucket.com image 850x665]

...except in the  real world, we modify the theory to explain the new evidence!

Science, FTW!


...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.

I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.
 
2013-02-20 02:38:12 PM

spentmiles: The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava


um, you know what lava does to trees, right?
 
2013-02-20 02:38:32 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Adam and Eve had three sons named in the Bible:  Cain, Abel, and Seth.  Adam had other, unnamed children.

"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."  Genesis 5:4


Incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses.


/just noting what's in the literature; not a "Jesus freak"
 
2013-02-20 02:40:31 PM

k1j2b3: mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.

Um, because there were no dentists back in caveman days and teeth fell out or were damaged. Therefore, getting a new set of back molars to replace possibly rotten/damaged ones makes some sense.


That's probably also true. But it is also true that if you look fossils of our prehistoric ancestors had larger jaws than modern humans do. According to the prof in the one anthropology course I took in university jaw size evolved faster than tooth count which is why we are stuck with more teeth that can fit in our jaw (which is evidence of human evolution).
 
2013-02-20 02:50:03 PM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


The myth of Adam's first wife is an attempt to explain the two different versions of humanity's creation found in Genesis 1 and 2.  In the first, man and woman were created simultaneously; in the  second, God created man first and then woman from man's rib.  The myth arose that Adam was dissatisfied with his first wife and sent her away.  God then made Eve.  Eve tickled Adam's ribs, apparently.

In medieval times, the first wife was identified with the demon, Lilith..
 
2013-02-20 02:56:02 PM

kitsuneymg: gadian:
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?


Lilith never appeared in the Bible.  She's a bit of folklore.
 
2013-02-20 03:06:34 PM

Gandalf_is_dead: gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.


Patriarchal society; Jesus inherited his nature from his Father.

farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-20 03:09:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: kitsuneymg: gadian:
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

Lilith never appeared in the Bible.  She's a bit of folklore.


www.tvgasm.com
 
2013-02-20 03:11:23 PM
I was always under the impression we began walking upright because our species became more ground oriented. Standing upright allowed us to move away from potential predators, and regardless of the lack of tall grass, would still allow early man to see predators from further away. Essentially, we left the defenses of the trees and slowly stood upright. Then again, I'm an idiot so don't listen to my ideas.
 
2013-02-20 03:16:06 PM

vactech: I want to see an IDW vs vactech death-match


1.   This thread is closed to new comments.

2.  IDW is no longer with us, but i'd be happy to debate you instead of him, but i must warn you i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.
 
2013-02-20 03:38:02 PM

sylwedydd: However for scientists to think that they have answers is, I believe, also suspect.


So, both sides are bad?
 
2013-02-20 03:39:38 PM
I think I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666 compared to the current evolution of a creationist attention whore.
 
2013-02-20 03:45:05 PM
Not sure about how all of you got here.
But I'm just here to observe you all.
And the only thing I've learned in over 50 years of watching humans is you want to probe my ass now.
 
2013-02-20 03:51:18 PM
Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.


Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.


When God closes one door, another one opens.
 
2013-02-20 04:11:05 PM

vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.


Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...
 
2013-02-20 04:15:50 PM

Fano: I think I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666 compared to the current evolution of a creationist attention whore.


i know, don't you hate when people think these threads is about them?

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THIS GUY^^ SAYS LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ

/if it pleases you

thanks to people like you Fark has EVOLVED into a much better echo chamber, much more efficient

now if we can just get that annoying vactech censored-banned, we will be making some real progress

what is his deal?

please post more often so that we may agree with you :D, the IB has been getting kinda slow lately, those ad revenues aren't going to pay for themselves :D
 
2013-02-20 04:26:04 PM

RobSeace: vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.

Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...


Alas. I decided to retire the IDW parody mode right around the time when IDW went to anti-IDW.  Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.  There were a few threads where between me and IDW posting full insane derp that I wondered if that lead to the mods saying enough is enough, and then coming down hard on poor IDW.  There was even this one thread where Drew popped in, almost to say "Hey! I'm watching you two."

//I gotta' admit.  "Being IDW" is quite a rush of derptastic proportions though
 
2013-02-20 04:31:31 PM

stonicus: [dcmagnets.ru image 425x239]
Actually, tall and skinny radiates heat more effectively in warmer climates.


Another theory I've heard. Standing upright limits your direct exposure to the sun during the hottest parts of the day. It places your head, which is covered in blood vessels, in the cooler moving air and allows you to radiate more heat.

The blood vessels in your skull are bi-directional -- when cold blood flows to the brain along the spine and when warm it flows first across the scalp to radiate as much heat as possible so you don't cook your own brain. Brian surgeons take advantage of this as it can be manipulated by placing the head and neck in certain positions and reduce bleeding during certain surgeries. The brain produces a lot of heat. See: Brain Cooling

Fun, related fact: dark colors radiate heat faster than light colors. I learned this from an old HVAC guy. (Metallic colors are even better, but I've yet to meet a silver person.)

There are a lot of good reasons to walk on two feet besides: free hands, endurance running, seeing over tall grass. I don't know that we'll ever be able to say one reason caused the transition. It's probably as simple as the population that moved better on two feet was able to move out into the grasslands and ocean margins where there was very little competition and that environment shaped them in many ways at once including encouraging true bipeadalism.
 
2013-02-20 04:36:20 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from? Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Not a Jesus freak, but Adam and Even come from Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, God makes two people, at the same time, from dirt. I suppose it could be argued that people descended from intermarriage between A & E's kids and the dirt couple's. The problem with this theory is that none of the rest of Genesis 1 and 2 can be reconciled (e.g. the creation order is different).

Well that, and Genesis all has about as same credibility as the Epic of Gilgamesh (featuring the original version of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark story.)

Well okay that, and what sensible person would worship a God who blames babies for the offenses of mythological characters?
 
2013-02-20 04:43:22 PM

vactech: Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.


Nope.

I drunk what: thanks to people like you Fark has EVOLVED


and there ain't no shortage of his kind, meh

ultimately you can thank the IB:

images.fineartamerica.comencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

all their years of hard work and dedication finally paid off :D

i have finally seen the light, join us
 
2013-02-20 04:44:07 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.



If the mutation results in a dominant trait (which provides a reproductive advantage), then one individual is all that is needed.
 
2013-02-20 04:48:43 PM

vactech: RobSeace: vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.

Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...

Alas. I decided to retire the IDW parody mode right around the time when IDW went to anti-IDW.  Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.  There were a few threads where between me and IDW posting full insane derp that I wondered if that lead to the mods saying enough is enough, and then coming down hard on poor IDW.  There was even this one thread where Drew popped in, almost to say "Hey! I'm watching you two."

//I gotta' admit.  "Being IDW" is quite a rush of derptastic proportions though


Having studied IDW for a couple of years now.  I've come to the conclusion that his game is one that spirals out to trolltastic levels, but is centered on his one gambit, which is intended to drag, what he calls "IB'ers", kicking and screaming towards (what could be), a very straight forward discussion about the non-physicalhypothesis.  It's that simple. Basically, he feels with that hidden away in his back pocket, it gives him cause to show up to a site centered around beer and squirrels with huge ballsacks, and start insulting everyone.  If he were really a "straight shooter", he'd just post on a phillosphy blog comment section.

But like I said, I'm a big fan.
 
2013-02-20 05:53:25 PM
Hagenhatesyouall:
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.

Ocam's Razor
"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."
"It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer"
"A plurality is not to be posited without necessity"

Tell me, do you see the word 'faith' in there anywhere?
 
2013-02-20 06:10:51 PM
It didn't look like anyone pointed this out, so here goes.

Efficiency hunting. Useful pretty much anywhere. Critters can go faster, but an in-shape human can go longer. Eventually the critter tires out and the human catches up and clobbers it over the head or pokes it with a stick.

Upright walking is what gives us the advantage.
 
2013-02-20 07:50:54 PM

Hagenhatesyouall: ...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.


Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Nothing is ultimately knowable. That doesn't mean things can't be found out and understood.

Faith is not required. What we do is ACCEPT the statistical probability of our current understanding of our observations of the faculties and properties of the Universe given the available evidence.

That's all we can do.
 
2013-02-20 07:54:28 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Spandex disproves Creationism

God did not create Spandex, chemists Sandquist and Shivers did at Dupont. They should be memorialized for one of Mankind's greatest evolutionary leaps.


Or burnt at the stake.

i126.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 08:10:44 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: talulahgosh: mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.

the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.

Scientific method requires faith that the universe is causal at all times.


I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.
 
2013-02-20 08:20:21 PM

UnspokenVoice: I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.


Faith is not the right word. It's more like the current interpretations are "placeholders" until better interpretations come along.
 
2013-02-20 08:51:49 PM

Ishkur: UnspokenVoice: I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.

Faith is not the right word. It's more like the current interpretations are "placeholders" until better interpretations come along.


Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model, I am okay with it. It may be incorrect but I'll go with the greater likelihood of being correct or at least having greater providence.
 
2013-02-20 08:56:58 PM

UnspokenVoice: Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model


Depends what your definition of "faith" is.
 
2013-02-20 09:31:19 PM
Ah, it's threads like this that still make FARK worth reading, if only to reassure myself that I'll have work until I choose to retire.
 
2013-02-20 10:24:23 PM
You win this round Creationism.

I've heard that joke before.
 
2013-02-20 10:46:44 PM

Pitabred: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.


That could be true with C14, but C13 is stable, so its ratio doesn't change over time.
 
2013-02-20 11:17:17 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.
 
2013-02-21 12:25:20 AM

Ishkur: Hagenhatesyouall: ...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.

Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Nothing is ultimately knowable. That doesn't mean things can't be found out and understood.

Faith is not required. What we do is ACCEPT the statistical probability of our current understanding of our observations of the faculties and properties of the Universe given the available evidence.

That's all we can do.


Semantics, pure and simple.

Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.

Some have faith in a God / Gods, others have faith in numbers and observations.

In the end, it's all the same.
 
2013-02-21 12:57:15 AM

Precision Boobery: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

What "random mutation" are you referring to?  The ability to control metal?  It's a very long process.  The changes are not that radical in individuals.


Your question has nothing to do with mine. A bit of straw man,. perhaps?

My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.
 
2013-02-21 12:58:21 AM

Inhalien: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.


You're right. We can't have that. They are too much fun to listen to the way they are now.
 
2013-02-21 04:31:04 AM
This is why I don't like evolutionary: ..psychology, botany, anatomy etc. etc...  They are full of post-hoc hypothesis and when one doesn't pan out, well... here is another explanation!!

This is not science... even religion is better since at least it has moral teachings and values. (Not all) Evolutionary sciences are like fairy-tales.
 
2013-02-21 05:31:05 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Precision Boobery: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

What "random mutation" are you referring to?  The ability to control metal?  It's a very long process.  The changes are not that radical in individuals.

Your question has nothing to do with mine. A bit of straw man,. perhaps?

My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.



It doesn't have to be complete dominance. Even partial dominance can confer a reproductive advantage. In the case of hemoglobin S in humans, one copy provides a conditional reproductive advantage (malaria resistance, which in malaria-prone areas outweighs the disadvantage of the sickle-cell trait) while two copies are a distinct disadvantage (full-blown sickle-cell anemia).

Evolution through natural selection. It works.
 
2013-02-21 05:38:34 AM

Inhalien: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.



Acceptance of evolution as a basic principle of biology = atheism? The Catholic Church (among others) would like a word with you.
 
2013-02-21 06:38:52 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


It's hard to grasp because of the time-scale it happens over. In that a single member of the species could have an overall effect on a population over hundreds of thousands of years. And animals (and people) are born with weird mutations all the time.

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees. So they're more likely to survive and mate.
Or, now they're too warm in their current range, so they either die off or slowly migrate north. Then the goldfinches with thicker plumage are separated out from those without it, and they're now a different species adapted to live in a colder climate than those without the mutation. And they're also subject to different climatic conditions with could favour different mutations than the goldfinches left down south.

This all happens over the span of generation, not quickly (from our point of view), so a few animals born with a small difference could eventually have a big impact on their populations.

/Again, not a scientician, so feel free to rip my theory to pieces.
 
2013-02-21 08:26:42 AM

Ishkur: UnspokenVoice: Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model

Depends what your definition of "faith" is.


LOLZ I totally agree with everything this guy says ^^ LOLZ LULZ

or your definition of Nature

The definition of NatureNature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world.

It's the stuff that has organic labels at the supermarket.The definition of Naturena·ture noun \ˈnā-chər\

Definition of NATURE

1
a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence
b : disposition, temperament
2
a : a creative and controlling force in the universe
b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual
3
: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
4
: the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -used in phrases like the call of nature
5
: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6
: the external world in its entirety
7
a : humankind's original or natural condition
b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
8
: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
9
: natural scenery
See nature defined for English-language learners »
See nature defined for kids »
Examples of NATURE

He devoted himself to the study of nature.
That is a color not found in nature.
Hunger is nature's way of telling you to eat.
Gravity is one of the basic laws of nature.
The differences in their natures was easy to see.
She's very competitive by nature.
Origin of NATURE

Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born - more at nation
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to NATURE

Synonyms: character, clay, colors, complexion, constitution, genius, personality, self, tone
[+]more
See Synonym Discussion at type
Learn More About NATURE

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "nature"
Spanish-English Dictionary: Translation of "nature"
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about "nature"
Browse

Next Word in the Dictionary: natured
Previous Word in the Dictionary: natural wine
All Words Near: nature
Seen & Heard

What made you want to look up nature? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).
 
2013-02-21 08:40:24 AM

vactech: But like I said, I'm a big fan.


aaaaaaww, pining for IDW how sweet, next thing ya know they will be pining for Bevets...

Fano: I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666

you guys are just adorable

have we started started pining for Gilruiz1 yet? he still alive?

i'm going to pine for abbey before he became a shill, i miss original thought

oops, er, i mean't  I LOVE how abb3w always agrees with us, that's what makes him so awesome!  Long live the IB! :D

has anyone seen FloydA or mamoru lately? i need someone to agree with :(
 
2013-02-21 08:50:23 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.


I get what you're saying, but it's actually the opposite of the Adam and Eve situation.  With small populations, the problem is that recessive genes and random mutations can be amplified.  Your issue with a single mutation in a single individual is that it would be diluted.

Random mutations occur all the time, with most of them being selectively neutral.  In large populations they may or may not spread, but will largely not be expressed or have any bearing.  Speciation tends to happen when a subpopulation is split from the larger group, allowing these mutations to spread in a much smaller pool of individuals.  I personally think this is the reason for the apparent pattern of punctuated equilibrium: the small populations aren't preserved in the fossil record except in the rare cases where they develop some new and useful trait, after which they appear to suddenly burst onto the scene, already distinct from their nearest relatives.

Basically, inbreeding can result in a new, better adapted species, but more typically produces British royalty.
 
2013-02-21 09:33:52 AM

Erix: Pitabred: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.

That could be true with C14, but C13 is stable, so its ratio doesn't change over time.


Guess I was wrong, but there's still this:  http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf

I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.
 
2013-02-21 09:36:29 AM

Pitabred: Guess I was wrong, but there's still this: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf

I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.


Link didn't work for me.. what's it about?
 
2013-02-21 09:57:27 AM

Erix: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentation s /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf


Here,  http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf it's linkified. Basically, it says the plants can just do it
 
2013-02-21 10:10:00 AM

Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

It's hard to grasp because of the time-scale it happens over. In that a single member of the species could have an overall effect on a population over hundreds of thousands of years. And animals (and people) are born with weird mutations all the time.


Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mate.
Or, now they're too warm in their current range, so they either die off or slowly migrate north. Then the goldfinches with thicker plumage are separated out from those without it, and they're now a different species adapted to live in a colder climate than those without the mutation. And they're also subject to different climatic conditions with could favour different mutations than the goldfinches left down south.
This all happens over the span of generation, not quickly (from our point of view), so a few animals born with a small difference could eventually have a big impact on their populations.

/Again, not a scientician, so feel free to rip my theory to pieces.

 
Seriously, I'm having trouble dealing / conceptualizing what I'm trying to say, but the above bolded text is the heart of the problem. I don't think it's likely at all. There are millions of genes, and the likelihood of the same random mutation happening more than once in the generation is slim to none. Evolution works, but I think we're missing something.
 
2013-02-21 10:15:21 AM

Pitabred: I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.


the ones that believe in abiogenesis, alien farming or those retarded nutjobs that believe in invisible sky wizards?

i almost said Intelligent Design, but then i just remembered that the alien farmers would be considered an intelligent entity in this case, and i don't want to give any credence to creationistards as actually possibly being right :D
 
2013-02-21 10:16:39 AM

Erix: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.

I get what you're saying, but it's actually the opposite of the Adam and Eve situation.  With small populations, the problem is that recessive genes and random mutations can be amplified.  Your issue with a single mutation in a single individual is that it would be diluted.

Random mutations occur all the time, with most of them being selectively neutral.  In large populations they may or may not spread, but will largely not be expressed or have any bearing.  Speciation tends to happen when a subpopulation is split from the larger group, allowing these mutations to spread in a much smaller pool of individuals.  I personally think this is the reason for the apparent pattern of punctuated equilibrium: the small populations aren't preserved in the fossil record except in the rare cases where they develop some new and useful trait, after which they appear to suddenly burst onto the scene, already distinct from their nearest relatives.

Basically, inbreeding can result in a new, better adapted species, but more typically produces British royalty.


Yes, thank you. Distracted by the problems of the new job, and couldn't put my finger on it.

Regarding inbreeding, a hypothetical question. If Adam and Eve were created "perfect" (i.e.: all genes properly formatted, with no mutations/breakages) -  or a very small breeding population of proto-apes had evolved that had no genetic flaws - then inbreeding would not be a problem, correct?
 
2013-02-21 10:17:55 AM

Hagenhatesyouall: Semantics, pure and simple.


No.

Hagenhatesyouall: Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.


Science is not based on faith, then.

For one thing, it is a process, not a conceit.
 
2013-02-21 10:23:18 AM

Hagenhatesyouall: Some have faith in a God / Gods, others have faith in numbers and observations.
In the end, it's all the same.


Faulty logic.

Equating something that you can not see with something that you can see and asserting that both have the same value and validity within the same apparatus of investigative inquiry is not just dishonest and wrong, it is categorically insane!

You are essentially advocating a reality of schizophrenic solipsism and psychosis!
 
2013-02-21 10:25:46 AM

I drunk what: Pitabred: I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.

the ones that believe in abiogenesis, alien farming or those retarded nutjobs that believe in invisible sky wizards?

i almost said Intelligent Design, but then i just remembered that the alien farmers would be considered an intelligent entity in this case, and i don't want to give any credence to creationistards as actually possibly being right :D


Dr. Raven would like a word with you.

/Obscure - yes.
 
2013-02-21 11:00:27 AM

Ishkur: Faulty logic.


willberwillberforce.com

I agree with everything this guy says^

you see hagen it's not your fault that you're that stupid, it's just because you don't understand Science and Logic, which is why your psychotic schizo solipsisms are confusing you into believing that it's the same when Scienticians have logical proof of their beliefs vs religiotards who believe in invisible sky wizards

the difference here is that we are not retarded like yourself

i hope that helps

the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown, vote democrat

//death to christians
 
2013-02-21 12:44:41 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Regarding inbreeding, a hypothetical question. If Adam and Eve were created "perfect" (i.e.: all genes properly formatted, with no mutations/breakages) - or a very small breeding population of proto-apes had evolved that had no genetic flaws - then inbreeding would not be a problem, correct?


That's the argument that I've heard regarding that.  Inbreeding is taboo because it results in unhealthy offspring as rare mutations and recessive traits are preserved.  If there were no mutations or unhealthy recessive traits, then inbreeding wouldn't be a problem.

So if not for original sin, you could theoretically fark your family members guilt-free.  Weird.
 
2013-02-21 01:10:04 PM

I drunk what: the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown


t-squat.com

Wrong again, sciencetard.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:54 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mat


I don't think it's that unlikely for a certain mutation to show up more than once per generation. If you look at people (and the birds thing was just a theoretical example, so I don't want to get hung up on it), how many are born with missing fingers / toes, or spina bifida? If these mutations had been an advantage at some point in our evolutionary history, enough people seem to get it per generation that we'd all have them now. But even though they're a disadvantage, they still show up in relatively large numbers in each generation.

Unfortunately I don't have the numbers to back this up, so if anyone does, or a solid fact that disproves this (not just in my people example above, but as a principle in general), please clarify.
 
2013-02-21 01:29:58 PM

sxacho: I drunk what: the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown

[t-squat.com image 600x310]

Wrong again, sciencetard.


oh? and what is the correct answer?

/this ought to be good
//about to put the smackdown on yet another religious idiot
 
2013-02-21 01:38:55 PM

I drunk what: oh? and what is the correct answer?



In 1884,  meridian time personnel met
 in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
 the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day  and  ignored  the  other  3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
 proved wrong today. This a major lie
  has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
  it proves every believer on Earth a liar.


Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
 Days
 Same Earth Rotation.
 
2013-02-21 01:52:29 PM

sxacho: I drunk what: oh? and what is the correct answer?


In 1884,  meridian time personnel met
 in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
 the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day  and  ignored  the  other  3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
 proved wrong today. This a major lie
  has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
  it proves every believer on Earth a liar.


Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
 Days Same Earth Rotation.


yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there

vote democrat
 
2013-02-21 02:07:30 PM

I drunk what: yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there


It's not religion, educated stupid fool! This is the science! The math of four simultaneous corners! Did you not understand the picture I posted above? How many corners did you see? See?

Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the beginning of human existence.
You have to be evil to ignore  this math.
 
2013-02-21 02:31:40 PM

sxacho: I drunk what: yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there

It's not religion, educated stupid fool! This is the science! The math of four simultaneous corners! Did you not understand the picture I posted above? How many corners did you see? See?

Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the beginning of human existence.
You have to be evil to ignore  this math.


This is your brain on christianity.  Any questions?

LOLZ LULZ LOLZ  This is what republicans actually believe^^^
 
2013-02-21 04:29:52 PM

Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mat

I don't think it's that unlikely for a certain mutation to show up more than once per generation. If you look at people (and the birds thing was just a theoretical example, so I don't want to get hung up on it), how many are born with missing fingers / toes, or spina bifida? If these mutations had been an advantage at some point in our evolutionary history, enough people seem to get it per generation that we'd all have them now. But even though they're a disadvantage, they still show up in relatively large numbers in each generation.

Unfortunate ...



Spina bifida is a developmental anomaly. Genetics has little or nothing to do with it, although it's conceivable that something like decreased folic acid uptake is genetically related and could indirectly cause an increased risk of neural-tube anomalies.

Missing digits can be either genetic or developmental. The most common genetically-related variant (claw-hand deformity) is incompletely dominant. It may have been a disadvantage to a hunter-gatherer, but modern civilization has largely eliminated the risk of its causing premature death (this is true of other seemingly harmful mutations/genetic variants as well).
 
2013-02-21 04:54:23 PM

Ishkur: Hagenhatesyouall: Semantics, pure and simple.

No.

Hagenhatesyouall: Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.

Science is not based on faith, then.

For one thing, it is a process, not a conceit.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-21 07:59:18 PM

dehehn: I think we all know the real reason we started standing upright.
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]


Dont know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I happen to really like this theory.  And I think there is significant merit to the proposition.
 
2013-02-21 08:00:57 PM

CheapEngineer: Lilith never appeared in the Bible. She's a bit of folklore.


The council of Nicene saw to that.
 
Displayed 238 of 238 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report