If evolution is real, why can’t we go to the zoo and see monkeys evolving into human beings?

Over the last week or two, we’ve been having some fun here at the expense of Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party-supported Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware. We joked around about her puritanical views on masturbation, and we shared some laughs over her confession to having “dabbled” in witchcraft. Oh, and then there was that thing about her believing that scientists had created mice with human brains. But, yesterday, Bill Maher released a video clip from the archives of his show, Politically Incorrect, and, in it, I think that O’Donnell raised a great point. She said, if evolution is real, then why can’t we see monkeys evolving into human beings. I’ve been a believer in evolution for years, but I’d never really asked myself that very simple question. And, now, I’m having second thoughts about my beliefs. If evolution were real, wouldn’t we see monkeys turning into men? Wouldn’t we see their tails shriveling up and falling off? Wouldn’t we see them smoking pipes?

This entry was posted in Other, Politics, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Brackinald Achery
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Where’s the environmental incentive to evolve? Humans have to get jobs. Monkeys in zoos get to hang out and throw crap all day.

  2. Robert
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m still not sure if people, plants and animals actually grow. I’ve never seen them do it.

  3. Taco Tom
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    For one thing, humans share ancestry with apes, not monkeys. This includes chimpanzees and gorillas. Humans and chimps share about 96% of their DNA. Monkeys are far more distant relatives.
    Secondly, our lifetime is too short to observe that much change. From one generation to the next we see small changes. Larger, smaller, faster, stronger or whatever. Eventually, those changes may lead to the development of different species. It is likely that wolves, living close to humans developed different characteristics, including domestication, and became what we know as dogs. The two are no longer the same species, but are still close enough to interbreed.
    Thirdly, evolution has no goal other than survival. Species don’t evolve toward a destination or final product. Monkeys or apes don’t evolve into something “higher” like humans. They have evolved into what they are today. Better adapted individuals survive, less fit individuals don’t. If a species is not adapted to its circumstances, it becomes extinct. Whatever adaptation promotes survival in the next generation is selected. Hence, the more appropriate term is “Natural Selection”, not evolution. Evolution is no more the “survival of the fittest.”
    In that light, insects are way ahead of us. They certainly outnumber us*, and are quite likely to outlast us. * “us” could be read to include not just humans but all mammals.

  4. Edward
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    If you look at those old tapes of O’Donnell on Maher’s show, and look at her now, running for Senate, it’s kind of like seeing a monkey evolve.

  5. dragon
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    I like bananas.

  6. Pamela Beeks
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Come to think of it, I’ve never seen a gorilla read a newspaper.

  7. Different Robert
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I just saw this article and had to make this small comment.

    “If evolution were real, wouldn’t we see monkeys turning into men? Wouldn’t we see their tails shriveling up and falling off? Wouldn’t we see them smoking pipes?”

    This is not even remotely how the process of evolution occurs. An already born lifeform cannot ‘evolve’ in the genetic sense. Also there is no reason to assume that just because our ancestors were apes that the current species of apes would evolve in the same way that we did. They are not pokemon. Though it would be pretty cool if they were.

  8. Peter Larson
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Monkey’s already smoke:


  9. EOS
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Taco Tom,

    How does living in close proximity to humans alter the genetic makeup of wolves and change them into dogs? If apes evolved into humans because humans were better adapted for survival, then why are there still apes if only the fittest survive?

  10. Peter Larson
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    That’s a stupid argument.

  11. Peter Larson
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    You know as well as anyone that “superiority” is completely related to the environment one lives in. Fish are superior to humans underneath the water only in that humans will die in that environment.

    Not all apes survive well in all environments, humans do well in deserts, for example, whereas chimps don’t.

    But, engaging you is always a mistake, isn’t it, Stan.

  12. Alice
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    They say dinosaurs evolved into chickens, but I bet that dinosaurs didn’t taste like chicken! Take that, scientists!

  13. Posted September 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Ring species are the classic examples of speciation occurring now, where we can see it.

    And keep an eye on grizzly and polar bears. They can mate in captivity, and produce fertile cubs. Now hybrids have started showing up in the wild. This could be the start of something!

  14. Peter Larson
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Imagine trying to broast a dinosaur?

  15. Art H
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    OK, I know what I’m wearing to the Colbert rally – a “Show Me a Gorilla Evolve into a Human, Elitist Smarty Pants.”

  16. Robert
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    It’s been a million or more years and we still have guys like EOS. Explain that, Darweenies!

  17. dragon
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    He is his keeper’s brother.

  18. Taco Tom
    Posted September 27, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    I will answer you EOS, even though I doubt that we agree on basic terms. (For any discussion to advance, some basic agreed starting point must exist.)
    Mere proximity to humans did not cause dogs to evolve. The isolation of two breeding populations (one wild, one domestic) has led to Wolves and Dogs becoming differentiated from each other genetically. Not that much, though, as they can still interbreed. Right now we can see two populations of Canadian geese with different lifestyles. One migrates south for the winter, and the other stays around eating lawns all year. What will come of it is unknown. But as of now they have very different habits, and breed separately.
    If you look at the numbers of humans today and the numbers of apes, you might be able to answer your own question on that matter.
    If you aren’t sure yet, look at my comment on insects. They are certainly superior to us in both numbers and survival. Who do you think will inherit the earth in the event of nuclear holocaust?

  19. Posted September 27, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    I’ll probably regret it — but I’ll add that humans didn’t evolve from apes; we ARE apes. We’re part of the taxonomic family Hominidae, along with the other great apes. All of us apes evolved separately; we’re not going to evolve into each other. And “survival of the fittest” doesn’t mean there’s only one winning species; there are still chimps and gorillas around because they’re successful enough to keep making babies. As Taco Tom points out, we’re more successful than the others; we’re more adaptable to different climates and diets.

  20. Knox
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    What’s to regret, Doug?

    And thanks for your thoughts, Taco Tom.

    It’s good to have you both here, to counteract Mark’s silliness.

  21. EOS
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Taxonomic families are artificial constructs applied by biologists to facilitate making generalized statements about a group of individuals with a range of characteristics. If anyone has ever had a class in Logic 101, it is a fallacy to attribute characteristics to an individual based only on their inclusion in a group. If you don’t like current taxonomic classifications, wait 5 years for a completely different system.

    But what is scientifically observable is that species change slightly and gradually and within a very limited range based on the genetic variation within the population. Species change over time – isolated populations and climate change accelerate the process. But there is no scientific evidence to account for a mechanism that would supply novel enzymes and complex biochemical functions and pathways necessary for evolution of less complex lifeforms to change into highly complex lifeforms.

  22. Kim
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    For what it’s worth, I have, over the course of the last few years, observed EOS devolve into a slobbering, knuckle-dragger.

  23. EOS
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Too many big words for you Kim?

  24. Peter Larson
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    That’s a lot coming from someone whose knowledge of science is limited to what was taught in a 1970’s elementary school.

  25. EOS
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    That’s really something coming from someone who can’t even articulate a clear thought other than a personal attack. Don’t assume everybody’s knowledge of evolution is as limited as yours. Taco Tom and Doug have contributed significantly more than you.

  26. Edward
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Scientists are witches.

  27. Peter Larson
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm | Permalink


  28. Posted September 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    EOS — It’s true that taxonomic families are artificial constructs, but they’re not arbitrary. They’re part of a system of classification based on the usual scientific techniques of observation and analysis. I wasn’t “attributing characteristics to an individual based on their inclusion in a group”; I was pointing out that the individual is included in the group based on its characteristics. Chimps and gorillas are not earlier versions of man; man, chimps, and gorillas are all classed as great apes, based on those characteristics. Biologists propose that we and the other apes may eventually evolve into other species, or go extinct; but not that chimps or humans will evolve into each other, or that apes are an earlier version of humans.

    If you disagree with the current taxonomic classification of man, why? And what do you propose instead?

    I’m not sure what you mean by less and more complex lifeforms. Different species have developed different functions, and the complexity is not hierarchical. Corvids and cephalopods seem to be far more intelligent than other birds and molluscs. Our senses of smell and sight are less developed than those of raptors and dogs. We’re starting to realize that other species’ vocalizations are much closer to language than we thought (like recent studies that slowed down mouse squeaks, only to discover that they’re far more structured than we thought).

    As for the mechanism; yes, recent genetic mapping and DNA research show us we have even more to learn than we suspected.

  29. Smash the Teapots
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Doug, I appreciate your coming in and attempting reason, but I have to warn you that it’s unlikely EOS will take the time to try to understand. When facts don’t fit the reality which he’s constructed, he discards them. We’ve seen it on quite a few occasions. Speaking for all of us here, though, I appreciate your kind attempt.

  30. Posted September 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Teapots — EOS is free to answer what he likes. I posted for my own amusement; it’s a rainy day here in NYC. I just wanted to point out that we didn’t evolve from apes; we are apes. I like being an ape, and nobody can take that away from me.

  31. Taco Tom
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    And Doug, I welcome your comments, too. Yes, I know that EOS like to bait. And I doubt that I will change anyone’s mind. I did want to see other comments than simple name calling. It is much more work to think out a reply.
    BTW, disappointed I couldn’t attend the event at the Jalopy. More than an afternoon drive from here….

  32. Posted September 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Taco Tom — Well, that’s what sparked me too. Besides, I like contemplating taxonomy; and thought others might enjoy some talking points.

    The Jalopy event was fun. A bit more staid than our usual fare — no circuit blasting, transcriptions of old burlesque routines, sleaze from dead pals, or dangerous quack electrical devices — but fun, anyway…

  33. EOS
    Posted September 28, 2010 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Tom and Doug,

    It appears the 3 of us agree on the concept of Natural Selection and the fact that species change over time. I think we may not be in agreement on how significant those changes might be and whether slight genomic differences are sufficient means to account for the wide diversity of life forms present on the earth today. I don’t believe there is sufficient scientific proof to conclude that all life forms evolved from a common or a few common single celled organisms that spontaneously arose from inorganic materials in the primordial chemical soup.

    Taxonomy is a useful construct for biologists. The classification system isn’t arbitrary, but it is unstable, fluid, unsettled and somewhat capricious. My disagreement with taxonomic classifications is in the implied assumption that they characterize the common ancestry of widely differing species. I don’t think the existence of ring species, which I agree is an observable phenomena, proves the theory of evolution. There may be isolated populations of animals that have changed so much that that the ends of the ring can no longer interbreed, but in every observed case, the animals remained the same type. Birds are still birds, salamanders are still salamanders. Even observing simple organisms like bacteria which have a regeneration time of 30 minutes or less, we have never seen a change even as small as an evolution into a amoeba. Each kind always reproduces its own kind.

    There are not single organisms that can be collected and displayed as representations of an entire species. Biologists collect hundreds of specimens of a single species and display them as an incomplete representation of the variation within each species. Examples of every species can be arranged by size, or coloration, or a myriad of other physical or biochemical/genetic variations. The phenotypes within a population at a given location or time can vary significantly, but are always limited by the genetic pool of alleles available to the population.

    For example, Darwin’s study of finch beak types showed that the predominant beak types in isolated populations of finches varied with climate conditions, available food sources and locale. He hypothesized that these small observable changes in a relatively short time span could account for huge changes in speciation over millions and millions of years. I don’t believe that his hypothesis has (or can) be scientifically proven in reproducible laboratory experiments. In fact, the variation in beak types he observed in finch populations can still be observed today.

    I think all of recorded history has shown that life forms reproduce more of their own kind with each individual organism displaying slight variations within narrow ranges of genetic diversity. I think the basis for evolutionary theory today was discredited by Pasteur when he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory today rests on the premise that the Universe created itself, that something comes from nothing, and that effects have no original cause. I think the theory of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that systems naturally move from order to disorder and from complexity to decay.

    I think the theory of evolution is merely a rebellion against the moral constraints of God. We are more than mere animals because we were created in God’s image for specific purposes. Ape men or pre-hominids are a fraud perpetrated by an academic system deliberate in its attempts to destroy faith. Artists renditions of knuckle dragging ape men are based on recovery of minute bone fragments. Nebraska Man was based on the discovery of a single tooth that was later found to be a pig’s. Piltdown Man was shown to be a deliberate fraud. Peking Man was nothing more than a monkey and Lucy is merely an ape.

    I am guilty of baiting at times. But I do so in order to stimulate discussion of the issues and not to resort to name-calling or personal attacks which I do try to avoid but am not always successful. I think Mark does a good job at baiting me on a number of issues as this post seems to accomplish. It works – baiting isn’t always a negative.

  34. Hobo Sapien
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    So can I finally fuck my pet monkey?

  35. Taco Tom
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    “Evolutionary theory today rests on the premise that the Universe created itself, that something comes from nothing ”
    I sure never heard or read that in any of my biology courses. Sounds like Theoretical Physics to me. The study of life (biology) is much more focused on what could be called “recent” history. The study of biology does considers both living and non-living data. Including the fossil record, which you seem to dismiss. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are hardly representative of the fossil record or Physical Antropology. Using a circus man’s showmanship to discredit the fields of biology and anthropology is akin to comparing a snake oil salesman to modern pharmacology. The existence of hucksters does not discredit everyone else.
    The large number of hominid fossils present today suggest the ape family was more diverse, and included an ancestor to humans. The full story is still far from known. And yes, Lucy was an ape…as are we.
    BTW, science does not present a Final Answer. The empirical method leads to a Best Answer, based on current knowledge. All theory is subject to revision or replacement. Evolution is merely the best explanation for the observable facts. Until a better understanding comes along, it works to explain our living world.
    Newton’s physics are great. You can build bridges, complicated machinery, aim guns at distant targets using his theories. You cannot invent, or design a cell phone, let alone an MRI with it though. A newer understanding of the physical world was needed, and Quantum Theory is what helped that happen. Perhaps one day, Evolution will be superseded by another understanding of how nature works. For now, it is a pretty useful way to study biology.
    Presenting the Bible as science is a mistake. It is a collection of Sacred writings. One would not read the Tao Te Ching, the Analects of Confucius, The Bhagavad-Gita, the Rig-Veda to understand Chemistry, Physics or Biology. I fail to understand why Christian and Jewish Sacred texts should be considered as authoritative sources for the study of Biology or Astronomy either. I think it not only is a mis-application, but also belittles their value. Insisting on a heliocentric universe, or a seven day creation, misses the message of the text. The moral message is minimized, overlooked and even ridiculed as a result.

  36. kjc
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    taco tom,
    be still my heart.

  37. EOS
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for your answer Taco Tom. Here’s a few observations.

    Abiogenesis and Origin of Life theories are included as part of most Introductory Biology courses today and are certainly a significant part of the study of evolution.

    There isn’t a single intact hominid fossil in existence today. Most hominid drawings are artists renditions based on fossil evidence as specious as a small part of a single jawbone. I didn’t mention the fossil record because it is an extremely weak argument for evolution, and I didn’t see the need to refute it. Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that when he proposed his theory of punctuated equilibrium to account for the absence of intermediate fossils. Fossil evidence of the Cambrian explosion, where significant numbers of complex multicellular organisms appear in the fossil record simultaneously, is consistent with creation, and not evolutionary theory.

    Evolution is the best explanation for the observable facts only after excluding the possibility of a supernatural creator.

    I did not present the Bible as science, but as the truth. It does not insist on a heliocentric universe – that was an incorrect interpretation made by the Catholic hierarchy. Believing the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God in no way minimizes its moral message.

  38. dragon
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 11:11 pm | Permalink


    Stephen Jay Gould:
    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion.

  39. Leighton
    Posted September 29, 2010 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    The lengths people will go to refute facts that offend their untestable beliefs are astounding.

    Is this the reason or the cause of the USA’s dismal scientific education record?

  40. Oliva
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    In Ethiopia, Lucy is called “Dinknesh,” for “wonderful.” Such a pleasing detail.

  41. EOS
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    “The lengths people will go to refute facts that offend their untestable beliefs are astounding.”

    I couldn’t agree with you more. If the U.S. had adequate science education for the masses, there is no way evolutionists would be able to get away with claiming their philosophical theories are scientific fact. Fifty years ago, evolution was rightly classified as “Natural History” because it was apparent the theory wasn’t formed as a result of reproducible scientific experiments.

  42. Oliva
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Speaking of education, if Americans would remember France’s recent near-slip into abhorrence, 2002, not-so-veiled bigots and know-nothing reps like Palin, DeMint, Angle et al. would have been dismissed the moment they uttered their first offensive remark.

    Here from an old TIME piece:

    Le Pen is a racist, equal-opportunity bigot, as happy to offend Jews as Arabs. Why did the citizens of the country that likes to think of itself as the most civilized nation on earth give him more support than ever?

    The answer, I think, is that France is a fractured society. For many of its elite — the people who work for Vivendi and Airbus, have Harvard M.B.A.s and speak perfect English — globalization and a free-market economy offer glittering opportunities. But for others — and this is true elsewhere in Europe — the modern world is a threat. “Europe,” says Bernard Guetta, a columnist at L’Express, “is frightened of the new century.” Some French see national identity challenged by immigration and the rise of Islam; they witness governmental powers ineluctably shifting from Paris to the European Union. They fear that an American-style, unfettered free-market economy has nibbled away at social cohesion. And so they have thrown their support to Le Pen, a man who promises to turn back the clock, to rebuild a world where to live in France means that you speak, eat and buy French.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/elliott/article/0,9565,234046,00.html#ixzz111SWFUdL

  43. Andy C
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Holy fucking shit! This thread is still going?!?!?! Doesn’t the acknowledgment of a god(s) alone shows any lack of reason. Give it up! Walk away people!

  44. leightonsatan
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    “Fifty years ago, evolution was rightly classified as “Natural History” because it was apparent the theory wasn’t formed as a result of reproducible scientific experiments.”

    Phew, it’s a good thing science and theory haven’t advanced since the 50’s. Otherwise, we’d have to completely retest the theory of evolution and ideas in cosmology whenever new techniques, tools, or data come around. That would be too much work. It’s much easier to turn to the Lord for all the answers to scientific questions. Start with His answer and work backwards: time tested, with the facts of the Bible!

    I must get back to not mutating and working on my three speed 2009, Studebaker Nixonic with the three on the tree.

  45. EOS
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    No Andy,

    Faith is very reasonable. Faith and reason are compatible and not mutually exclusive.

  46. leighton
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    “Fifty years ago, evolution was rightly classified as “Natural History” because it was apparent the theory wasn’t formed as a result of reproducible scientific experiments.”
    Phew, it’s a good thing science and theory haven’t advanced since the 50’s. Otherwise, we’d have to completely retest the theory of evolution and ideas in cosmology whenever new techniques, tools, or data come around. That would be too much work. It’s much easier to turn to the Lord for all the answers to scientific questions. Start with His answer and work backwards: time tested, with the facts of the Bible!
    I must get back to not mutating and working on my three speed 2009, Studebaker Nixonic with the three on the tree.

  47. Robert
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    EOS: “Faith and reason are compatible and not mutually exclusive.”

    Do you feel the same might be said for evolution and creation?

  48. ypsijav
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    It pains me to say this, but EOS is right about faith and reason being compatible, and it’s not very constructive to typecast all theism as “lack of reason.” Treating today’s scientific interpretations as the absolute truth is just as problematic as literalist interpretations of the Bible, Qur’an or US Constitution.

    Faith trumping reason is what is dangerous, EOS how can you say you value reason while claiming that the Bible is infallible? Don’t portions of the Bible advocate capital punishment for things like cooking on the sabbath and adultery? And factual contradictions between passages? How does reason fit in to this literalist interpretation?

  49. leighton
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    I know faith and reason can coexist in a person but not a scientific argument, because a Jesuit Priest with doctorates in Biology and Theology taught me that evolution, by far, was the most logical human origin theory.

  50. Peter Larson
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    I was taught evolution by several priests who had no problem separating spirituality from science. They also taught me to not be a knucklehead.

  51. Dirtgrain
    Posted September 30, 2010 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Belief in God or gods is a hunch (I know I’ve posted this before). How do you argue with a hunch? If somebody wants to operate on hunches, then he or she has at some foundational level parted with logic. It’s the people operating on hunches who then claim they are operating on logic who irritate me. You parted with logic; just admit it and be comfortable with it.

  52. Posted September 30, 2010 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    For anyone genuinely interested in the Bible, I recommend two fine on-line resources, earlyjewishwritings.com and earlychristianwritings.com. I was going to say more, but I’ll leave it at that, since I don’t feel like rehashing the old skirmishes about Biblical literalism. Cheers!

  53. EOS
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 12:27 am | Permalink


    Evolution states that all life evolved from common single-celled organisms through completely naturalistic mechanisms without the intervention of a supernatural creator. As such, it is incompatible with the idea that the creation of all life was accomplished by a omnipotent God.

    However, it is a scientific fact that organisms change over time and populations can adapt to specific environments and natural selection works to retain characteristics that offer survival and reproductive advantages. When evolution is limited to these ideas, it is completely compatible with the beliefs of creationists.

  54. Knox
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    Thank you for your comments, Doug. It was nice to see you here again.

  55. Posted October 1, 2010 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Knox! One other note: the Pew Forum made headlines recently with a survey that showed that Americans know surprisingly little about religion, including their own (more on that at their site, pewforum.org).

  56. Edward
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    If I’m not mistaken, they found that Atheists knew more about religion than a vast majority of people practicing said religions.

  57. Kim
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    The FREEP says he’s been banned from UM’s campus:

    Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has been banned from the University of Michigan campus, and the student leader he has been attacking via a blog has filed a personal protection order against him.

    The U-M administration issued a statement Thursday supporting Chris Armstrong, the president of the Michigan Student Assembly and target of Shirvell’s blog, saying U-M “does not tolerate bigotry of any type.”

    Shirvell was issued the trespass warning Sept. 14, said Diane Brown, spokeswoman for the U-M Police.

    Shirvell is appealing the ban.

    Shirvell has gained national scrutiny because of the blog, called Chris Armstrong Watch, in which he attacks Armstrong, the first openly gay president of the MSA. He accuses Armstrong of promoting a radical homosexual agenda.

    Armstrong fired back in the personal protection order filed two weeks ago. The order, posted on Annarbor.com Thursday, says that since last spring’s student election, Shirvell has attacked him verbally at campus events and via phone calls to the D.C. office where Armstrong did a summer internship and has demonstrated and taken pictures outside Armstrong’s home.

    Many have called on Attorney General Mike Cox to fire Shirvell. In mid-September Cox issued a statement saying that while all state employees have a right to free speech outside working hours, “Mr. Shirvell’s immaturity and lack of judgment outside the office are clear.”

    Shirvell’s blog was no longer public Thursday — open to invited readers only.

  58. Kim
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Everything comes down to pizza and gay sex, doesn’t it?

  59. EOS
    Posted October 1, 2010 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I was 15/15. Pew responded that I was better than 99% of all Americans. There’s an accurate and unbiased opinion!

  60. Posted October 2, 2010 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Edward — Pew found that atheists/agnostics scored higher than any other group. There seems to be a correlation between knowledge of religion and disbelief in it.

  61. Andy C
    Posted October 4, 2010 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    I have faith that when I drop a rock it’s not going to bounce back and hit me in the face. I have faith that Mark is not going to vote for any tea baggers. I’m confused why faith has to contradict reason.

  62. EOS
    Posted October 4, 2010 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    It’s not enough that you have faith, but in whom you have faith. It is not the size of our faith that saves us, but the greatness of the object of our faith.

  63. Robert
    Posted October 4, 2010 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    I take my faith with me where ever I go. My faith guides me. My faith is my rock. At least, I think. Wait, what are we talking about? I often confuse my faith with my imaginary friend from childhood.

  64. Chaely
    Posted October 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m not saying this proves anything, but this monkey is DEFINITELY smoking a pipe.


    That’s all the faith I need.

  65. Joseph J PhD
    Posted January 28, 2017 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Just imagine that you are separating out of your parental home (remember you are not moving out but just seperating)… The first thing you probably would do while seperating is to find a new lock and key for your portion of that house…?

    That is what humans did exactly when they seperated out of the Chimpanzees, they got a new Lock & a Key and started stuffing their portion with new Valuables that never existed in the parental house…

    Remember now there is a seperated lock & key for we humans, so our new found Valuables (traits) could never be shared with by the parental house (ie, our parental species of  Chimps)…

    This is the reason why primitive Monkeys exist along side we developed Humans…!

    Experimental: The secure key & the lock that made all the difference is believed to be the IZUMO1 & JUNO protein pair, found on the surface of Sperm & Ovum respectively…

    More info:
    Just take a look at the protein (IZUMO1) on the surface of the sperm… It identifies itself to its counterpart in the Surface of Ovum (JUNO) telling that it belongs to the same species…. This protein pair is the first point of contact when a sperm enters a ovum… and it is species specific… A kind of Key and Lock security to prevent cross species fertilization…

    I did check the aa seqs of this pair among all the primates and they Do differ… Even Humans vs Chimps…. yet Human vs Neandertal match perfectly…. Surprisingly aa seq align of Donkeys match with Horses (no wonder there are Hybrids like Mule/Hinny)…

    Its my belief that changing the lock and key (aa seq of IZUMO1 & JUNO) did the trick of Speciating Humans away from Chimps and so happened among the different primates…

    Following speciation all the new traits that humans developed were never shared with monkeys (thanks to the security offered by IZUMO1 & JUNO)… So monkeys still remain as Monkeys…!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Sleestack