- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rush Limbaugh thinks evolution is a hoax because gorilla never became human
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:40 pm to lsuwontonwrap
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:40 pm to lsuwontonwrap
quote:
quote:
Will we become asexual in order to survive?
You don't know what "asexual" means, do you?
Perhaps you don't as well.
1
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:41 pm to RedRifle
quote:
C'mon Stanford
Touche.
quote:
Various species come from a primate. It doesn't mean we descended from chimps per se. It means that we are all primates and those other primates may or may not exist. Evolution in itself is not mutually exclusive.
I should have been more clear - I'm not talking about gorillas and humans.
I'm talking about species where the are incredibly close predecessors that still exist today. Natural selection would seem to imply that those inferior species would be overtaken by the evolved forms. I guess my question is better framed as this - over hundreds of thousands of years, I wouldn't think there would be so many "close cousins" in the animal and plant kingdom.
Again, I'm not questioning evolution, but perhaps I'm thinking of it too literally.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:42 pm to lsuwontonwrap
YEAH! Why didn't all fish sprout legs and leap from the sea? 
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:43 pm to Black n Gold
Yeah...I know of several couples that weren't gay until they chose to be...did not have a physical attraction for the opposite sex but chose to do life together. More of that is going on than you think. We used to just call them emo
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:43 pm to PortCityTiger24
quote:
There are definitely more now because it's embraced and there are people actually choosing to be in same sex marriages who aren't "naturally" gay.
Being "gay" is a choice and evolution in and of itself is irrefutable but that doesn't mean it disproves intelligent design.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:44 pm to PortCityTiger24
quote:
There are definitely more now because it's embraced and there are people actually choosing to be in same sex marriages who aren't "naturally" gay.
More now because its embraced? More people are coming out of the closet in the West because they dont fear as much ridicule as in the past. Its as simple as that and like I said homosexuals will be able to reproduce through artificial means sometime this century.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:44 pm to JamalSanders
quote:
Being "gay" is a choice and evolution in and of itself is irrefutable but that doesn't mean it disproves intelligent design.
I never said it did.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:45 pm to ruzil
quote:leave obama out of this
You don't know what "asexual" means, do you?
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:46 pm to lsuwontonwrap
I was waiting for the humanoid to exit the jungle myself.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:46 pm to lsuwontonwrap
If you were listening to the show and knew the context, he was clearly having a go at people who think we evolved from apes as opposed to evolving from a seperate ancestor species.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:50 pm to slackster
I suspect that if the top 300 posters on this board had to write a 750 word essay on 'Evolution' it would make for a great deal of entertainment. That is, if they did it based on current knowledge, and what they thought it was. Not if they researched it. I'm sure most papers would be rife with inaccuracies.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:51 pm to slackster
quote:
Natural selection would seem to imply that those inferior species would be overtaken by the evolved forms.
Not really, no. It doesn't mean or imply that at all.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:53 pm to lsuwontonwrap
The fact that evolution is often considered some crazy left wing belief or "theory" is reason enough that the Republican party needs to start distancing itself from overly religious and preachy candidates (like Ted Cruz). Rush Limbaugh is undeniably an intelligent man, albeit misguided. But he is living breathing proof that intelligent individuals can believe in something so strongly that they are willing to overlook overwhelming scientific evidence just to prove their belief to themselves. In my opinion, that is not a good quality in a President.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:53 pm to southernelite
quote:Animals have evolved as necessary for climate/environmental reasons.
So, according your idea of evolution, humans should be the only species?
Humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys, and as uncool as it is to be a simpleton like myself, I remain in the belief that humans have ALWAYS had dominion over animals.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:53 pm to Black n Gold
I would say it's like the gluten thing. More people eat things that are gluten free because it's a fad than some real condition they have.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:55 pm to slackster
quote:
I should have been more clear - I'm not talking about gorillas and humans.
I'm talking about species where the are incredibly close predecessors that still exist today. Natural selection would seem to imply that those inferior species would be overtaken by the evolved forms. I guess my question is better framed as this - over hundreds of thousands of years, I wouldn't think there would be so many "close cousins" in the animal and plant kingdom.
Again, I'm not questioning evolution, but perhaps I'm thinking of it too literally.
That's a good question.
So unless a meteor or catasphoric WIPES out a whole species then while natural selection can start to kill off a species the species in itself can adapt and while it may fully evolve into a new species (over time) it can also make slight changes keep from going extinct. For example. Woolly mammoth. They could still technically exist today in cold climates AND the elephant could exist. However they were killed off by humans and not by natural selection per se.
I think the opponents of evolution have made it seem like it is a one stop shop. New model comes out and then old model is completely gone.
Look at evolution as cars. New model is out but old ones are still there. New ones have things that make it more more relevant for the current world that we live in. But you still find someone driving a car with a tape deck. Eventually the 2016s and the 1996s may all be extinct or you may find one or 2 in a garage somewhere.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:55 pm to slackster
quote:
I guess my question is better framed as this - over hundreds of thousands of years, I wouldn't think there would be so many "close cousins" in the animal and plant kingdom.
These species fill different niches in different parts of the world. Most of them have gone extinct and died out, but the different "cousins" wouldn't exist if they weren't able to compete in their own niche in the location where they are. Even still if you are talking specifically about gorillas then there aren't very many of them left at all anyway, and they only naturally occur in a very isolated geographic area. Hence they haven't been competing with humans at all, probably until recent destruction of habitat by humans.
How this last question is fair enough. How the Rush quote in OP is phrased, if it is even legit, is not. It implies a whole host of misunderstandings of a basic concept that is taught as a basic part of education. Even if you don't have a science background you should have some understandings of the basics of this. I guess he came from a different time before it was quite as standard, but it's still not very excusable.
I'm not going to assume the presentation in the OP is entirely legit though, given the biased source.
This post was edited on 6/1/16 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:58 pm to SCwTiger
quote:
Humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys
That's true. They didn't.
quote:
I remain in the belief that humans have ALWAYS had dominion over animals.
K. Its not true though.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 2:59 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Not really, no. It doesn't mean or imply that at all.
Fair.
Let me put it another way. I understand that mutations occur and the beneficial ones stick. I also understand that species will evolve to fill in the voids. That being said, over a long enough period of time, I'd think apex species would fill up such wide swaths of the food chain that the amount of unique species would constantly be dwindling. Perhaps that is the case and I'm just not aware.
Or to put it another way, if there was originally a Patient Zero primate, and he/she mutated with a beneficial trait, over the course of many generations it would seem that the beneficial trait would eventually dominate the species because the evolved primate had all of the advantages of regular primates PLUS the mutation - sort of like upgrading the trim level on a car.
Posted on 6/1/16 at 3:00 pm to JamalSanders
While I agree with you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, I disagree about homosexuality being a choice. That may be true for some, but there is undoubtedly a genetic component to sexual orientation. Scientists are already actively identifying genes, gene modifications, and environmental factors related to sexuality.
Page 3 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News