Evolution for dummies (updated)
Created on: October 5th, 2006
Evolution for dummies (updated)
I'm serious, it's all evolution is about. The only sensible way to deny this is to deny gene theory, and denying gene theory is retarded anyway.

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Since image source is cut off, C*ckthirsty image is from www.c*ckthirsty.com
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Good site.
October 5th, 2006
(-1)
Congratulations you just explained Natural Selection. This is an important part of evolution, but it does nothing to explain macro-evolution. Try again!
October 5th, 2006
(-2)
hahaha ONE!
October 5th, 2006
(1)
i saw a mud crab the other day
October 5th, 2006
(-2)
Naw it won't get downvoted cuz it's not funny. It WILL get downvoted because it's not a good argument. Hell, I know evolution exists and I was almost persuaded to the other side by this ytmnd.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
sexually attracted to its predators, i lawled
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Korf, I agree. I'm gonna add a frame to it. Should I repost it?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
yeah, pretty good as is, just fix a bit
October 5th, 2006
(0)
theres a difference between this type of evolution (that i beleive in--survival of the fittest) and the type of evolution where new species evolve from old ones (which i do not beleive in). I beleive that a stupid moron who dies is doing a favor to society, but I do not beleive that his genetic mutations are helping us move ahead as a new species. also, you have crabs. and 5 for the c*ckthirsty @ da end. ^_^
October 5th, 2006
(0)
korf jus wonderin, do you beleive in macro evolution?
October 5th, 2006
(1)
There's no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those are false terms invented by creationists. What they don't understand is that lots of small changes over time add up to large changes. Using this kind of logic, a creationist wouldn't believe that if you keep travelling one inch at a time, you'll eventually go a mile. It's a false distinction where none exists. If any creationist can explain to me (via PM, since I'm too lazy to keep checking the comments) why evolution would suddenly stop after
October 5th, 2006
(0)
right, zerotron, yet everyone teaches macroevolution in schools and universities like it is pure fact and proven--that's whats retarted.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
A bunch of little changes and not continue, please do so.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I know, but try telling them that. I added the frame to make it more obvious to the fools populating this pool of idiocy.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Crab B is Thirsty for Predator c*ck!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
If you think you're going to prove macro-evolution with one frame you're either a genius beyond my comprehension or you're crazy.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
5
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I wish I had more talent with sound effects though, I would've timed the "Giant enemy crab" line with the appearances of the crabs.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Your claim that evolution is merely natural selection is quite obviously false. Given two crabs, one will survive. Therefore, humans descended from monkeys. Did I get it right?
October 5th, 2006
(1)
Once again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MICRO OR MACRO EVOLUTION. No reputable scientist uses those terms. It's a false distinction created by creationists to try to confuse the issue. Geologists don't say that a lot of 'micro - erosion' won't add up to 'macro - erosion' so the grand canyon couldn't possibly have been formed by a river.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
No, my claim is that if there are limited resources, only the ones with the better adaptation will survive and transmit their genes. Over time, we see more individuals like the better fit. I think I'll add a crab C to it. It'll make it clearer.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution." However there is the problem of speciation at which point one member cannot reproduce with a member of its former species... so there have to be at least 2 to propogate their new species...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
wait..so the better crab wins, thus it can send the better CRAB genes on, but then it evolves into something not-crab? what?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Of course to say that it is a problem is not to say that it is wrong. Also my opinion about micro and macro evolution are meaningless because I study philosophy and economics and I don't really need to study the issue to determine whether or not creationism is right or wrong because it is ridiculous and has no scientific or rational basis.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also speciation typically occurs separated from the other would-be species but... it's probably the only problem left for evolutionary science. It's like string theory for evolutionary scientists.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I just know that the retarded crab made me laugh for about two minutes, so yeah.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
why the hell would creationism have to have a rational or scientific basis? rationality and science (physics and such) were created along with this universe!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also I'm an idiot for differentiating between micro and macro as I've been debating too many creationists lately...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
i'm afraid the creationists have this one right. The process of a population of crabs learning, through natural selection, to see and to not be on fire, only gets us from a sh*tty crab to a good crab. Biogenesis still needs to be explained away (the vastness of space and the Anthropic Principle are good for this) and also the process of speciation. We haven't managed to evolve, in a lab, two separate branches from the same family tree which are no longer able to reproduce with one another.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Because rationality works inside its own mechanism even if you believe that all of rationality is essentially false. Rationally, If P then Q means that given P, Q follows. God may say that this is meaningless because Q does not follow from P whether rationality says it does or not, but that doesn't make it rationally incorrect. Thus, you can have a rational argument on everything in the universe and say "or God could say that it's wrong."
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but there's no reason for a creationist to accept it as a mechanism for the creation of ALL LIFE EVERYWHERE OMG until you account for that stuff as well.
October 5th, 2006
(1)
But if they can't carry a rational argument then they fail at rationality and only God can save them. And there's not much reason to believe in him (any).
October 5th, 2006
(0)
no u dont understand--rationality and physics are natural things--God is supernatural, above all that, outside of time, outside of everything. He always was--do you think that makes sense? nope. But I beleive it's true.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
To answer spazdor... go to speciation on wikipedia because... you might change your opinion. And that's not even from looking very deep. In all honesty, if you want to debate the validity of evolution, GO RESEARCH IT and talk to some people that know. Also, don't go looking for strawmen. Find the best, most accurate, and most reputable sources and try and prove them wrong. Although, you'll need a hefty scientific background even to start disproving...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also, Korf - you've got an interesting thing there. Can God make a contradiction true? I say no - not even an omnipotent being can say P ^ ~P and be right. He can't draw a square circle (at least not on a Euclidean piece of paper) and he can't tell you that Q does not follow from P after you've proven that it does; the best he can do is make P universally false and make fun of you for having proven a tautology.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Oh and Dali if you change the font to glowing text smoothmedia style i'll give this an 11!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
BTW if I was faced with any hard problem, I would never say "well i'm right cuzza GOD!!" I would always try to find a rational explanation--but for the creation of the universe, I dont have to have one, because if B follows A, but B is the only thing rational, then A doesn't have to be, A is supiernatural and can be C for all I care.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Nickster did you know that dying people telling accounts of their death is considered actual proof of the existence of hell which then automatically and magically proves the existence of god? Well, if you didn't you're an idiot.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Updated. Check it out.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
The only problem with arguments from the supernatural is that my supersupernatural god sh*ts all over your supernatural god, and supernatural god can't do anything about it because he's not supersupernatural.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
lookin'...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I find it interesting that you use other YTMNDS as your arguments. But I digress--remember, anything and everything you hear with "Christianity" on the label isn't necessarily what I. and most Christians beleive. I still have to take into account what this other YTMND says, make my own opinion on it, but I never even heard of it before a couple of weeks ago. (and i'm sure you didn't either). It's funny how athiests always slap everything they hear about Christianity and Christians and God into one group,
October 5th, 2006
(0)
4 because it doesn't glow.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Lol @ Korf... It's tortoises all the way down.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Actually scratch the whole "make everything glowing text" deal. Just make one letter of the first slide glowing. That'd be awesome!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
find controdictions that will obviously show up in the face of 20 different Christian beleif systems, and then say "Well, since this and this, I MUST be right!!" Oh, and by the way--here's a little problem I want you to do:
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Let's say I have two options when I die, and so do you-- IA (i'm right and there is a heaven): I die and go to heaven IB (i'm wrong, and there is no heaven): I die and do nothing for eternity. YOUA (you're right and there is no heaven): you die and do nothing for eternity. YOUB (you're wrong and there is a heaven): you die and go to hell. Which is the better security option? The only bad choice here is if someone doesn't beleive, and then they are wrong. all other choices are Good or just "whatever."
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Your new argument is flawed on two points: First, this would imply that T-Rex size crabs would destroy all other crabs. Second, a crab that evolved a machine gun for an arm would obviously survive better than crab C, yet we see no crabs with machine gun arms. Explain THAT.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
now you're just joking around.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
OK, good job pulling Pascal's Wager out on us... Hole #1: Belief is not voluntary. I would have just as much trouble choosing to believe in God as you would have choosing not to. Hole #2: All that demonstrates is that it may (contingent on your first God proposition) be more *useful* to believe in God than not to. It doesn't argue for or against the actual *existence* of God.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
The reason we don't see T-rex sized crab C's is that there isn't the resources to support them. Also, the size change over time. However, bigger crabs might be slower and have a harder time getting away from predators, and get eaten. And crabs don't have machine guns for one of three reasons: 1. They don't kick enough *ss 2. It's a complex structure that would require too much energy to sustain. 3. Because it just hasn't happened yet, as mutations are totally random.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
ps, that was directed to the Nickster.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Don't ever bring up Pascal's wager again. It's retarded. Also, I'll prove why mine is the safe bet and yours is stupid. If there is no god, I get to live my life and then die. If there is a god, I get to live my life and then die. I win! Also, if there is a god and he is merciful he will send me to heaven regardless. Also, he wouldn't be so vain as to send me to hell because I didn't have blind faith in him. Win for me! I win either way by simply following rationality.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I need to make a forum where I teach evolution. Would be far easier to get my point across than a YTMND and a comments section...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
when did the crab with bigger claws turn into multiple crabs? and since when has any observed mutation been benificial to a species?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also I must admit when you said "He always was--do you think that makes sense? nope. But I beleive it's true." I thought you were an atheist and were mocking faith as is so easy and fun... and so I mocked it by mocking whetstone which is also fun. Unfortunately you're not and so my mockery fell on unwanting ears.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
when a lion with 6 legs develops, and can run 3 times as fast and can catch its prey easily and even though it is a new species, so it cant mate with the old lions, but magically there's a whole pride of them-----let me know. =^)
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I was hoping the machine gun arm thing would let you know that I was kidding. Also, these last few comments have all been in an attempt to make you forget about my first few because I mentioned macro-evolution and made myself look like an idiot.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also, evolution is NOT an argument against the existence of a sentient god. It's just the truth, and an argument against christian creationnism. Like I often say, I'd rather see christians believing the unscientific intelligent design theory than christians believing the retarded creationnist theory.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
haven't read the bible in a while, have ya korf? sorry but that wont work.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Evolving a crab with a machinegun arm would require a steady source of sulphur, elemental carbon, and saltpeter or equivalent dietary source of ozidizing agents. If there are no such sources, then the machinegun crabs will die out because they can't get enough food to make ammo. Perhaps on the evolutionary path to machinegunnery, there are more stops; more sophisticated eyes with which to aim the guns, larger body masses with which to metabolize the presumably large animals that machineguncrabs
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I know it was a joke. The T-rex size thing was an argument often used by creationnists, so I decided to be serious with it. And I was silly in my machine gun arm reply too.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
could kill and eat; larger brains, with the capacity to discover things like metallurgy so's to create better barrels and ammo, and goofy websites to eat up all their time OH WAIT I'M BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT ME
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"and since when has any observed mutation been benificial to a species?" Since when does this have anything to do with evolution? Observation is not the only type of proof! Also, not all mutations that last are beneficial. Some are detrimental. However, if they are not detrimental enough to make the species fail at surviving, then they last on. It's not an exact science. Also, if a crab develops a machine gun arm and bad acne, then all future crabs have acne. Sucks for them.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Intelligent design hurts me much worse because it is a logical fallacy =(
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also, I wanted to mention that a species of shrimps has evolved a gun like claw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_pistol_shrimp
October 5th, 2006
(0)
So I had a friend back in the day and he was in a band and they had this cool song called "Use Your Machine Gun Arm" true story that's where all this madness comes from.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Dali wins the internets.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I thought you said don't lump all Christians into one category. Not all Christians hold the bible as absolute truth. Thus, my argument stands.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also I have no reason to believe that god exists or that Jesus was divine or that god does not exist or that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. Also, I have good reason to believe that it is quite possible for everything that all religions, and especially Christianity, stand for can be propogated through use of fear tactics and appeals to things that make no logical sense.
October 5th, 2006
(-1)
In fact many religions are propogated on similar grounds to Christianity and they all claim to be true and yet they cannot all be true. Thus, I have a rational dilemma. Which to choose? Thus, I stand at square one, weak atheism, and I'm open to all possibilities. Unfortunately I am well versed in fallacies and scare tactics and red herrings and strawmen arguments and I do not believe in faith. Period. Faith is a flawed concept.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I wish this would have stayed on front page. Having more people seeing it would have rocked.
October 5th, 2006
(-1)
But if you can rationally prove that your religion has a basis or give some reason other than blind faith to believe that there exists something that you categorize as supernatural (and nothing supersupernatural) then I will not jump to the conclusion that there is something on faith alone. This jump is made by Soren Kierkegaard who believed that it was irrational to believe in God but he did so anyways. I do not. He's a genius and you are not, thus you cannot convince me.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Well, Lofi, you're disputing Pascal's wager by changing the premises of the argument. If you accept the (ludicrous) premise that there is either a) no God, or b) a God exactly as described by the King James Bible (gotta specify - different Bibles say different stuff) then there is either a finite payoff for living a fun but Godless life, or an infinite payoff for living a pious and boring life. If the chance of God is nonzero, then your utility is indeed maximized by going to church.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
so now all Pascal's gotta do is prove that the only possible God is the one described in his bible. I'm sure *that* proof will be trivial.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
i meant Korf. What a hell of a typo. I'm drunk.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I'm trying to make a YTMND using a video of the pistol shrimp. How do I turn a video segment into a gif?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
It's too bad that your premise is ridiculously flawed. First, I have no reason to believe that there is infinite anything to be gained. It is not from a reputable source. Want me to disprove it? I just read a book that says that if I believe in god a supersupernatural god who supercedes all other supers to his supersupernaturalism will give me twice as much pain and suffering as the aggregate of all possible gains of any other possibilites. Thus, I should for sure not believe in him.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Now, the real answer of course is that I have no reason to believe that it is an actual possibility that god exists. To say that something is logically possible and to say that something is actually possible are two different things. It is logically possible that I am a hamster. I can't logically prove to you that I am in fact a person as all I have is experience from my senses. I could be a hamster. You are a hamster and I eat hamsters for breakfast. See how ludicrous this all is?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"I'm trying to make a YTMND using a video of the pistol shrimp. How do I turn a video segment into a gif?" You need a program to rip the frames into images or into a gif...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Where do I find that? Know of a good one?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I use Adobe Premiere.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I mean... if you have any friends that do video editing they will have something... or you could ask some other ytmnder or buy some cheap one.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Presupposing the existence of god in order to argue for the benefits of believing in him is a very bad way to argue. I hope I proved that with my supersupernatural god example.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also give me some reason as to why it is ludicrous that there is no god. I've never read or heard anything that once made me feel like there was any reason for a god to exist. All I've ever experienced would make it seem that whatever God there would be could've done a hell of a lot better job. There is no evil in the universe greater than the Designated Fat Friend, and no just god would ever allow for the DFF's existence.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also I think it is important to note that the non-existence of god is not a premise but a default. In order for someone to assert that something exists they must provide reason for it. Cogito ergo sum. I exist. Either a.) prove to me, rationally, that a god exists or b.) I have no reason to believe that god exists. I will not make the positive assertion that there is no god, as this is ludicrous (Bertrand Russell says that it is logically impossible to prove it, and I agree with his argument).
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Hahaha, will be posted soon, check it out!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
So, the premise that there is no god and that there is god both need to be proved. This is not to say that atheism is wrong, it is to say that strong atheism is wrong. Strong atheism has nothing to do with weak atheism. All things have the burden of proof and, unless proven to _________, we do not assume that they ___________.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"Hahaha, will be posted soon, check it out!" How did you get it .gif'ed?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Used the AVD video processor demo.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
i'm saying it's ludicrous to suppose that there can either be no god, or else the judeo-christian god as described in that book over there, and that no other configuration of supernatural entities is possible. I suspect my sarcasm flew under the radar there...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Well, you did say you were drunk, and the last guy I thought was kidding about being religious actually turned out to be religious. Kids and their beliefs and their sarcasm, they all sound the same!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I'm beginning to think it's not your sites, it's just you... nothing I've seen from you has been funny! And your obsessive commenting on your own sites denotes hints of basement-dwelling. I'm only commenting because I'm sure you're on Spy and are going to come downvote all my sites now. Quit trying to shove a POV down anyone's throat, this is a comedy site. If you want to troll biblethumpers, take it elsewhere. Slideshow, fail.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
◄I'll give you 2 for presentation, but a) You don't even understand evolution yourself as you are equating it with natural selection. Sorry, but most creationists believe in natural selection. It's just something that happens over time. what creationists reject is the notion that your crab will one day manage to become a tiger or a human. b) you misspelled adeu and c) the core fundamental of evolution is that all animals come from a common ancestor- so you might have to completely redo your YTMND.►
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Hi everyone!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"b) you misspelled adeu and c) the core fundamental of evolution is that all animals come from a common ancestor- so you might have to completely redo your YTMND.►" b.) adieu means whetstone is an idiot c.) Natural Selection is the process by which evolution occurs. Also, there are several strains of original cellular objects that became what we know as life and life-like objects. You can learn about them in middle school with the rest of us.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
It could be that all creatures in the animal kingdom come from one common ancestor, as the genetic data would imply, but they could have also come from two similar starting points which would give the same statistical impression. Evolution is not in any way tied to the notion that all animals come from the same common ancestor, but there is plenty of evidence to support this contention and it is likely true. Read a book, as I have told you many times, whetstone.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
^_^
October 5th, 2006
(0)
As a hardcore conservative Christian I say you get a 4 cause this site was very funny, and well presented, and made valid arguments. I'm not sure if I believe in evolution or not, and frankly I don't think it really matters if it's true or not, as I don't see it contradicting the Bible. However, your site does seem to imply that we shouldn't see any blind animals at all except in extremely rare mutation cases.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also, I don't think the difference between humans and all other animals (the ability to think, reason, and question things, among others) can be explained by the slow process of mutations. Humans have something animals don't have which science cannot explain or has yet to explain by genetic differences. Thus there's no reason to think that a monkey could be born "mutated" in such a way that it could use logic or reason.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
btw, was the c*ck drinking gay fuel?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
lol at c*ck getting sensored, even though I was only using it as a valid term for the animal.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Well, I had the responses I wanted for this YTMND. As for you Gendo, I'd just like to remind you that the process took millions of years. One smart monkey wasn't born right there out of the blue, it's that the smarter ones would be the ones survivng. Over time, and a LONG time, the monkeys eventually get smarter and start thinking more clearly. I'd also like to remind people one thing: I'm not trying to convince you that it's true. It's just that I'm tired of people throwing this idea around without...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
...having any idea what they're talking about. Evolution resumes itself to what I said in the animation, and a bit in the comments. Other things have been added later (like the common ancestor theory which whetstone mentionned, and I agree that the common ancestor theory, though nice, has several flaws), but in essence, this is what evolution is all about. Evolution is about small changes over time appearing because of natural selection. It DOESN'T prove humans have evolved from another species of...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
...primates, it DOESN'T prove that we all evolved from a common ancestor, it DOESN'T prove anything but that organisms change over time, and it DOESN'Y deny divine intervention. I didn't include the boring debate over the definition of species in the animation either because I wanted to keep it simple. I think I'm going to post one about intelligent design too just to be fair. Though intelligent design is unscientific, it makes more sense than creationnism, and should replace it as the religious theory.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
YAY FOR SMART.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I understand that the theory says it took a long long time, but my point was that what humans have over monkeys isn't just an improvement like being smarter or taller or whatever. It is an entirely new concept that animals don't have, and I believe it is a line that can be drawn between those who have reason and those who don't; so nothing can be made that sort of has a first step to reason but doesn't quite have it yet.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
your mom is c*ckthirsty
October 5th, 2006
(0)
The problem with saying "what humans have over monkeys isn't just an improvement like being smarter or taller or whatever" is that what they have different is measurable. It's all in the DNA. If someone thinks that it takes a big leap to get from a monkey to a human, they need only look at the differences in our genome. 2% or something? Also arguing from ignorance typically doesn't prove anything...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
If you don't know anything about a particular topic, the appropriate verbiage is "I have no reason to believe _____", but that has no bearing on whether or not something is true or has been proven a billion times.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"However, your site does seem to imply that we shouldn't see any blind animals at all except in extremely rare mutation cases." Natural selection doesn't determine the right mutations, it only determines what are left. It also, handily, determines that reproductive techniques that generate more genetic variation have a higher likelihood of generating beneficial allele combinations, especially in lesser forms of life (less advanced, more vulnerable to outside pressures).
October 5th, 2006
(0)
One thing that is important to remember is that it doesn't determine what is right, only what it left. If you created the best species possible, it would have the highest possible likelihood for survival. However, that does not mean that if it were to evolve it would survive. If it were to evolve and then a roaming band of starving tigers were to roam by and devour them all... well then the world beat the odds.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Natural selection is a proven method of propogating beneficial allele frequencies in the actual living world. Proven not as in proven like Stanley Steamer but proven as it in actually happens. Because it happens, and because we analyze the genomes of various life forms and we see that they are extremely similar (and we can statistically trace their likely evolutionary patterns to a degree and know with absolute certainty the amount of uncertainty) and thus we conclude, based on natural selection...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
that we likely evolved from lower life forms. We didn't evolve from the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee evolved from something which, far back enough, was some species who developed into two different species. These two species evolved for millions of years and now we are at the point where we are. "Humans have something animals don't have which science cannot explain or has yet to explain by genetic differences." Well, we can tell you the exact genetic differences...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
and the only step left is to a.) analyze which genes contribute to which functions and b.) determine how the hell the brain works at all. The second step is the key, really, and it will probably take a lot longer than the first. The brain is a complicated organ. Also, dolphins have big brains, but they are incredibly stupid. Read up on it. Most of their brain is dedicated to keeping their brain warm, and only a very small portion is actually neurons dedicated to though.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
While you're on the right track, I think you should add a Crab C, with a slight difference from Crab A. It would get the point across more. Honestly, I'll be glad thousands upon thousands of years from now (if we're even still around) when humans are clearly different then they were in the present day so we can just put this to f*cking rest.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Also animals are able to behave at the intelligence level of a child, so in order to understand what makes a human different from an animal it really is important to determine what makes a human different from a human. That is, what faculties in the brain develop from infancy to adulthood, how do they develop, and how do the mechanisms that determine these faculties operate... Neuroscience is really complicated, though, and some of the stuff is just madness. That'd be an interesting ytmnd...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"I'll be glad thousands upon thousands of years from now (if we're even still around) when humans are clearly different then they were in the present day so we can just put this to f*cking rest." Well, we don't have any natural selection anymore, but we will have genetic therapy and things of that nature so we can create uber-humans or Barry Bondsian creatures (without roids) as I would call them.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
BWAHAHAAH!! Excellent. I felt sorry for Crab A after the update.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Well... Crab B will be able to breed when intelligent life decides it has equal right to crab a and some dumb human keeps breeding them... Which is why evolution no longer applies to today with technology and retarded people breeding *coughs*
October 22nd, 2006
(0)
DURRRRRRRRR! :3
October 29th, 2006
(0)
evolutuon ftw!!!
October 29th, 2006
(0)
'cuz everyone knows that beingonfireness is a hereditary genetic trait. also, a preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with. A for effort and topic.
November 4th, 2006
(0)
lolololololololol
November 7th, 2006
(0)
Korf-a-thon ftw.
November 8th, 2006
(0)
bout time someone made this.. ps. STFU KORF
December 8th, 2006
(0)
LOL at everybody who equates Evolution with religion. It isn't a baseless belief, and doesn't need to be taken on faith. It is simply the best theory we currently have to explain the diversity and development of every organism, ever. It just happens to be a remarkably sound and rational one.
December 8th, 2006
(0)
And yes, some scientists do use the terminology of micro and macroevolution; it's not a conspiracy of the creationists, but more of an attempt to make a distinction between the testable, observable changes of gene heritability, and a divergence of (mostly fossil) traits significant enough to be termed a speciation event. Check out Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, or the mechanisms described in the process of exaptation for some good food-for-thought.
January 14th, 2007
(0)
Into this Deep, and in the general fall I also; at which time this powerful Key Into my hand was giv'n, with charge to keep
January 20th, 2007
(0)
Good job.
February 8th, 2007
(-1)
.. can we just all agree that saying were on this site, and saying I'd be really surprised if any of you had a ph.d in biology, that more then likely it isn't just Creationists or Evolutionists that are getting it wrong/don't know sh*t, but the fact that we ALL have no idea what the f*ck were talking about? K Thx.
February 8th, 2007
(0)
*points to the fact that he's a student of biotechnology*
February 20th, 2007
(0)
You forgot mutations, but 5 nonetheless.
April 2nd, 2007
(0)
Ha! Great explanation for all of the stupid out there. That'll show them... Oh, and I didn't need the c*ckthirsty thing for it to be funny. The retarded crab cracked me up every time it came!
April 4th, 2007
(0)
Wow, this finally passed the 1000 views.
June 19th, 2007
(0)
HEY COOL
August 15th, 2007
(-3)
needs moar cp and/or jailbait imo
September 1st, 2007
(0)
crab B, ftw