I have been working on a theory which I have just completed and perfected. I believe it is unassailable and will naturally displace the current Darwino-Mendellian theory of evolution. This theory holds that humans are vessels for DNA material to replicate, by means of sexual intercourse. Alternatively, I argue that the purpose of evolution is more meaningful, having a religious aspect to it, and far different. I hold that the 'purpose' of homosapien life, anthropologically speaking, is for the organism to reach maturation and insert a large carrot into the anus. When a homosapien does this he produces an excitement and super-exalted subliminity through which he has direct contact with God. The truth of this reveals itself when the matter is though about properly. There is both empirical and rationalistic proof: Firstly, anyone who has taken a welllubed carrot up the anus knows firsthand the superabundant, paranormal ecstasy that eventuates. The orgasm is clearly metaphysical, not physical. Secondly, the shape of a carrot reveals a divine architect; designed so as to produce an anal orgasm: a) The skinny tip allowing for easy access and the widening body that facilitates sliding and the stretching of the sphincter b) The ribbed surface, that condom manufacturers have copied. The prostate gland is clearly the human soul. Descartes should have looked at the rectums of his cadavers for the soul, not the head. The prostate gland has no reason at all to produce extraordinary erotic pleasure. It follows therefore that God put in there as a portal to contact his children. The effect of an anal connection with the lord is what Kierkegaard called 'fear and trembling'. Kierkegaard is correct when he argues that it is the power of subjective truth that leads us to the meaning of life. Science can only take us so far. I have given a strong truthmodel for why the there is a spiritual purpose behind evolution from which we can deduce from, however, ultimately we must take that 'leap of faith'. The power of the beauty and sensation of belongingness that transpires when one masturbates with a carrot is the platform from which we leap to God. Women, as we know, do not have prostate glands, or souls. This is why they experience life superficially, obsessing over banalities and wasting their days decorating themselves. They are not on earth to experience true meaning but simply to make men and deliver them to their carrots.

so you mean all this time i thought it was survival of the fittest, it was actually the survival of the anus'est?

hmm. I see a couple of flaws in your hypotheses.
(1) I'm sure carrots are not indigenous to all parts of the world.
(2) I'm sure carrots did not always look/feel the way they do now since most vegetables don't. My guess is that they started out much smaller.

Kinda like buttholes? It's all so touching.

Anyway, I hear sticking a ginger root up there makes the whole thing really interesting: http://adultfriendfinder.com/intgrou...n_article.html

evolution begins with paragraphs.

I don't belive in evolution at all. I think it's pure bullshit and it's starting to come undone but the scientists are desperately trying to hold it together. There is not 1 piece of factual evidence to support evolution and it's based on assumptions.

If we evolved from monkeys, then we would be able to reproduce with them. The fact is, dogs reproduce with dogs and humans reproduce with humans.

And what about homologous structures? Evolutionists assume that if there are many homologous structures found in two organisms, they must be related to a common ancestor. They say that since a bird's wing and a whale's flipper have a similar number of bones and muscles that are used in movement, somewhere in their evolutionary past the bird and whale must be related. The observation of bones and muscles may be accurate, but the conclusion is based on a bias.

I think that there has to be some kind of creator, some kind of "God" figure. It's just all too complicated to happen by chance.

Also, if we have already reached our 'perfect' form, then why do we use a very small fraction of our brains, and why is their sickness, disease, and phsysical problems? If we're at the top of the evolutionary process, then why are we so defunct?

And why is it that evolution has just plain stopped ever since man has been able to observe and record the universe around him? Is this just a big coincidence that as soon as man is intellegent enough to observe evolution just stops? You can talk about punctuated equilibrium, but it's all just excuses to cover up a faulty theory that has come way to far in the scientific realm.

you're an idiot.

evolution is an incredibly slow process.

so over the past 6,000-10,000 years that man has been coherent at least, nothing noteworthy has happened?

And what evidence do you have besides you're an idiot and evolution is a very slow process? not a very good argument

that's right. ideas have evolved, obviously, but life on this planet has been around for millions of years. 6-10,000 years aint shit.


and we cant procreate with monkeys because THEY ARE A DIFFERENT SPECIES.

so no proof? i could to to school and hear some teacher say that but other than their word, what actual proof is there? there's no more proof to support that then if i said the whole world was created by an intelligent tree

First off, you don't know anything about evolution if you don't already know that 6,000 years isn't a long time in the scope of it. Hence, you can't disbelieve it - you don't even UNDERSTAND it.

You also don't understand evolution if you think it argues that monkeys should be able to fuck humans. I'm afraid you may actually be too stupid to comprehend evolution if you thought that.

Secondly, a lot of subtle things have happened over the last 6,000-10,000 years, if you look around. The way people look different regionally is one obvious example - humanity has diverged and developed different tendencies toward skin cancer, for example, and has developed different body shapes, average heights, etc. Compare the average Anglo-Saxon descended male and female to the average Japanese pair. The average Japanese couple has much less difference in their physicality (i.e. the men aren't larger by the same relative amount) than the A-S couple.

You may be disappointed because these changes just don't include things like growing wings and becoming half-pegasus. You saying "nothing noteworthy" has happened is sort of like saying you haven't noticed much in the way of continental drift in a while, therefore Pangaea never existed.

It only means you don't understand the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik


If this isn't a piece of evidence in favor of evolution (and no, it isn't "proof"), you have to ask yourself what would be evidence to you.

I understand it fine, I just choose not to believe it. I just believe differently. I believe that at one time man was created by someone/thing and that at one point a worldwide disasted scattered the small number of men throughout the earth. After a very long time of living in different conditions (i.e. Africa area vs. Canada area) had its effects on people. Kind of like Lamarck's theory of use and disuse, but without such drastic changes.

I believe that man has adapted, not evolved. i refuse to belive that a 'big bang' happened and all of our intricate organs and body systems just happened by pure chance.

oh, you'd hate science then.

evolution is adaptation.

I'm really sorry but you sound proud of your aggressive ignorance. You sound like someone who thinks they don't have to argue against all the work people have done laying out a biological march of time, dating fossils, doing animal reconstructions, etc., etc., basically just so you can believe whatever you want.

Creatures like the Tiktaalik make what you're saying too unlikely for anyone intelligent to believe. You say there's no "proof of evolution" but at this point it's understood in the science community that, to disprove evolution, you'd have to explain why there are remains of creatures who are obviously making pivotal progressions from shallow pools onto land (to use oxygen), in an age where the only other biological remains are, like, trilobites and spiders.

I think fundamentally you have no actual argument against evolution other than you don't buy it. By which I mean I don't think you have any argument on evolution's own terms which reveals any particular leap of faith which evolution makes. You probably also don't understand that evolution doesn't argue that there is no God...

Speaking of which, you've got a basic Schrodinger's cat problem, which is that there just haven't been any intelligent people who disbelieve evolution. Sure, there are intelligent people who believe we've evolved according to a divine plan, but even those people aren't stupid enough to say we were placed here entirely intact. There's actually no one of reputable intellect who thinks that, just insane Christians, who historically have gotten scientific things wrong over and over and over... but don't get me wrong. I don't think that's a "proof" in favor of evolution. I just think it's good intuitive thinking.

Yeah, that's nice. Don't have a reason, though, do you?

So it's a philosophical thing. You like to think the changes in humanity are based on the efforts made in one's own lifetime, rather than being a series of mutations.

That way, lives have a sort of meritocratic meaning, right? And we're all striving for something, and the losers deserve to be losers because they thus represent the weak? Like, if your group of people are stupid, they didn't succeed in a Lamarckian effort to improve genetically?

ok i dont intend to go on and argue because neither of us will agree one way or another, i just don't think evolution should be taught as a cold hard fact when it's not

2 questions:
(1) Do you "believe" in gravity?
(2) Do you believe flu shots are effective?

yes
maybe

(1) well the way science works is that nothing big like evolution or gravity is