Thread: Darwin's 200th Birthday

Hate to break it to ya, Howie...

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Hate to break it to ya, Howie...

That's Bizarre.
I thought I had looked before I posted to see if someone had recognized this.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I must be loosing my eyesight, as it is not as critical for me to survive.

Neither here nor there - what are your thoughts on the Poll there B Eagle?
Are people that stupi -ignorant?

No. Just Americans.

Seriously, anybody over here who doesn't believe in natural selection is viewed as a wacko or an idiot.

Originally Posted by Howie

That's Bizarre.
I thought I had looked before I posted to see if someone had recognized this.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I must be loosing my eyesight, as it is not as critical for me to survive.

Neither here nor there - what are your thoughts on the Poll there B Eagle?
Are people that stupi -ignorant?

Oh well, you did present some interesting information.

People choose to be ignorant. The evidence for evolution is undeniable. Nobody disputes that viruses and bacteria evolve, that's a fact. Yet some people, despite this knowledge, give the argument that "macro evolution cannot be applied to more complex organisms". The fact that simple organisms evolve quickly displays just that - that simple organisms evolve quicker. They choose to deny knowledge, and therefore, are fools.

Originally Posted by Xei

No. Just Americans.

Seriously, anybody over here who doesn't believe in natural selection is viewed as a wacko or an idiot.

Natural selection isn't even a matter of belief. The only thing that really needs to be "believed" is genetic mutation. The natural selection part is pure logic.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Natural selection isn't even a matter of belief. The only thing that really needs to be "believed" is genetic mutation. The natural selection part is pure logic.

Religion flies in the face of logic.

Spoiler for LYRICS:

In there beginning there was nothing
not even time--
no planets, no stars, no hip-hop, no rhyme.
But then there was a bang like the sound of my GAT:
the universe began and the shit was phat

The universe began as a singularity.
Nobody knows what went on then, G.
For ten million trillion trillion trillionths of a second,
the state of the universe cannot be reckoned.

The fundamental forces were unified--
we've no theory to describe that,
though I've tried. Then the forces
split and the universe was born--
it was hotter then a priest watching
kiddie porn.

Protons, neutrons, and electrons came to pass
as photons collided, changing energy to mass.
Three minutes go by, temps to cool one billion
down from one hundred million trillion trillion.
This reduced heat allowed a new event:
the formation of heavier elements,
still it was millions of years 'fore the first star glowed.

IF YOUR DOWN WITH THE BANG SING ALONG HERE WE GO!

It was the big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.
the big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.

Hold on now, what about inflation?
That's a little tricky and could use some explanation.
Inflation, one could barely state,
was the time when the universe expanded at a rate
that was faster then the speed of light, but that over-simplifies and it ain't quite right. Still the for purposes here, it will have to do, 'cuz I ain't got the time to explain it to you

ROCK

DAMN

It was the big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.
the big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.

The beginning of time, and the birth of all matter
Say it took seven days, you're as mad as a hatter.

It was millions of years 'fore the first star glowed, if your down with the bang sing along, here we go

It was the big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.
The big pow piz-ow bang a dang diggy diggy boom diggy boom pow boom the Big BIZANG.

the big bizang...

The big bizang...

BOOOOOM....

the big bizang

The lack of a missing link, a transitional fossil showing an organism in an "in between state" existing as both animal "A" and animal "B" continues to remain a top of debate.

Yeah. In your world.

In the real world the hard work of thousands of palaeontologists the world over has discovered thousands of different organisms and linked them all to the tree of evolution.

Do you want a fossil of every single organism that ever lived? The vast majority of organisms are not fossilised.

Originally Posted by Lucid Lobster

The lack of a missing link, a transitional fossil showing an organism in an "in between state" existing as both animal "A" and animal "B" continues to remain a top of debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Watch that series of videos. There's quite a few parts, but it'll refute that statement using visuals. Mmmm...visuals...

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Watch that series of videos. There's quite a few parts, but it'll refute that statement using visuals. Mmmm...visuals...

So we're resorting to Youtube videos as supporting evidence?
Oh well. I'll see your Youtube and raise you a couple of hundred thousand anthropological and palaeontological experts. Sadly, depending on the "side" one is on, one tends to see and use evidence presented by those that support one's views.
One could even find valid supporting scientific evidence that the earth is flat if one so chose to believe in such theories. Hence our predetermined beliefs sometimes get in the way of objective reasoning and we by nature seek out those facts (and Youtube videos) that support our beliefs and present them as evidence.