Yay Darwin!! (700 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.38 on 20 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Smoothe (View user info) at 2004-11-08 11:02:30 EST
How can we still be debating evolution? I just read another article in which some ignant bastid is trying to promote ignance amongst our youts. OK, so the whole origin of life thing is still up for debate. I don't really care what your beliefs are as far as how it all started, that's for another conversation. What I care about is ignant folks pushing ignance along by censoring our education.
I heard a speech by our "Constitutionalist" candidate - Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka just before the election. He's against teaching evolution. Shall I quote?
"They're trying to tell us that our great-grandaddys were pieces of slime in some primordial soup. And they're trying to tell us that our grandaddys were some kind of scaley fish with legs coming off it. And they're trying to tell us that our daddy's were monkeys!"
Fuckin' A. Purposely keeping oneself in the dark about science due to a disparity between what religions say how it happened vs. the educated world has got to be one of the worst crimes of humanity. Evolution is a scientific process rooted in observation, and yes, some speculation. To deny the theories on the origin of life is fine - none of us have figured it out yet, which in and of itself is fine. But to deny physical proof is something else all together.
Let's take a look at what exactly evolution is.
Genetic variation: the "theory" that within populations, or species for that matter, there is variation in the genetics giving rise to variations in the function of populations within a species. What this means is, some organisms are just born more adapt at surviving. This brings us to our next point:
Survival of the fittest: Seeing that individuals within a population vary, some are more apt to survive certain environmental stressors. Seems to make sense. A bird without feathers isn't likely to fly. And sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
Natural selection: sort of the same thing as survival of the fittest, but also incorporates genetic variation. Basically some organisms are born with a survival advantage, and those without advantage are selected by nature. For extinction.
To summarize - within populations and species, the genetics of each individual will vary slightly. These variations help some members of the species survive longer and therefore increases there chances for reproducing and therefore passing on the survival genes. Nature will weed out the lame ducks. I don't really get where god comes into this.
Darwin caught his most opposition when he used these observations to speculate beyond what his research can prove. He tried to derive the origin of life from his observations. And zealots freaked out.
Now calm down and stop promoting ignance you dumb bastards. OK, so the writing wasn't all that great, but I had a point to make. If I catch one more story about a book burning in Texas, I am going to have to use force to remove these weapons of mass stupidity and ignance forever.
User Reviews
Submitted by Darwin (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:03:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not one for banning evolution in schools, but I do think we need to rethink how biology is taught to our students. It's really not useful in many ways.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-11-10 12:24:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
smoky, I found this on your link.
Macroevolution does exist and has been studied a number of times:
-Cheetham, A.H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryyozoan: rates of morphologic change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology 12: 190-202.
-Bateman, R.M. et al. 1998. Early evolution of land plants: Phylogeny, physiology, and ecology of the primary terrestrial radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 263-292.
These are two good ones I have on hand. There are libraries on this stuff. Types of macroevolution are adaptive radiation (see studies on Galapagos finches, Hawaiian Drosophila, and angiosperms) and stasis (see studies in Bryozoa). Both references above discuss the stasis and radiation.
Ignoring arguements do not make you right.
Submitted by Sofa_Ace (user info) at 2004-11-08 16:23:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-11-08 14:38:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
Creationists readily believe in Micro evolution but oppose Macro evolution. Get a clue before you start quoting what one idiot said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and what happens when a bunch of micro-evolutions happen to the same species? no one believes that a man was born of an ape. What we believe is that, when apes began using tools, they needed to free their hands. This led to them using their hands less and less when they walked until eventually they didnt use them at all. The reason we don't have enough evidence for this is because it takes millions of years to happen. We do have fossil records, but most christians dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate. If you look at the fossils of "Humans" going back throug th years, you will see a gradual increase in cranial capicity, proof that the brain is growing.
For the reord, I'm an agnostic. I think that evolution _could_ be correct, just like christianity, muslim, buddhism, hinduism, deism, or any other religion _could_ be correct ... or completely wrong. Maybe the truth is still unknown to us.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2004-11-08 14:51:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Of course, a major part in any species Evolution is now known to be played by one element:Luck
One unlucky rockfall a coupla million years ago and the world would be poulated by talking crabs, maybe.
woop woop woop woop woop
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-11-08 14:38:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Creationists readily believe in Micro evolution but oppose Macro evolution. Get a clue before you start quoting what one idiot said.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:27:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Heh. You spelled 'bastard' like i'd say it.
Submitted by Arrrrrrrrrr (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Creationists should be sterilized so they can no longer pollute the genepool. Just a form of natural selection, which, of couse, they don't believe in, so why not?
Submitted by Geggy (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:19:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I completely agree...Those dumb bastards want to put a sticker in the text books saying that evolution is just a theory and that it is not factual. NEWS FLASH!!! Gravity is just a theory too...are we going to put a sticker in the texts about that incase there are a group of people out there who don't "believe" in gravity?
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:02:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yough ahr sow dum! Ignant is spehled whith an "or" sumewher in their. Stoopid reetard!
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-11-08 12:31:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ignance!
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-11-08 12:28:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
nope
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-11-08 12:18:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://funwavs.com/wavfile.php?quote=4664&sound=312
Submitted by Smoothe (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:51:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Duke, you are a fucking retard if you can't pick up on purposeful misuse of spelling and phoenetics.
Submitted by Duke_Diggler (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:47:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
good topic,and you have the correct view, i just think you are an idiot who doesn't understand what you are writing. I mean you call other people "ignant" and say they have "ignance". You are ignorant yourself moron, the words are "ignorant" and "ignorance".
Submitted by Sofa_Ace (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:44:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WE don't even know if Darwin really lived, none-the-less if he was the son of God.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:33:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/22602
You cannot confuse micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is scientifically valid and there is a great deal of evidence for it, whereas macro is an increasingly obviously wrong theory as to how we ended up the way we are.
Submitted by El_SAMO (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:24:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by boredgurl210 (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:09:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I loved the way you went back and forth from intelligent talk and "ïgnance."
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:09:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:07:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
ignance?
What on earth is that old boy?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-11-08 11:07:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ignance?
What on earth is that old boy?