Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[whattajoke]

monkeys, for the most part, live unclothed in trees in jungles along the lower latitudes.

Humans, for the most part, live clothed in fabricated structures in concentrations away from the lower latitudes in places called cities.

Monkeys do quite well in their particular niches. Humans do quite well in theirs.

niche, from Webster's Online:
2 a : a place, employment, status, or activity for which a person or thing is best fitted b : a habitat supplying the factors necessary for the existence of an organism or species

Furthermore, from Creationist resource "Answers in Genesis," they urge their fellow creationists to cease with the argument in your tagline thusly:

from here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’

[Right Wing Professor]

I DO NOT think you are gay

Not that there's anything wrong with that. /Seinfeld

[conservababeJen]

funny, I don't see where I claimed you were "concerned".

[Right Wing Professor]

Fish? She'd better be a pregnant female!

Hey, we said no nooky.

I'm playing population genetics on an excel spreadsheet here. Give me a break.

[CobaltBlue]

Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust is from the Book of Common Prayer, and is based on Genesis 3:19.

[whattajoke]

RE: the "breath of life."

I don't know what Genesis references with the term "breath of life." However, the phrase which you mistakenly omitted was, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground," which, as all good bible literalists must understand to me, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground."

I'm unclear as to any other interpretation.

[js1138]

Eeeewwwwwww!

[VadeRetro]

On this forum, we have to count pregnant fish as 200 fish, anyway.

[conservababeJen]

Your post is appreciated. I'll spend time reading about this.

[js1138]

Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust is from the Book of Common Prayer, and is based on Genesis 3:19.

I grew up with and was confirmed with the Book of Common Prayer, but due to a judicious choice of parents, friends and relatives, never heard that service. I miss it. Some things are sacred, even to skeptical humbugs like me, and beautiful language is one of them.

[bondserv]

Try Matthew 19.

[js1138]

Miss the Book, not the service. So much for my command of language.

[Junior]

The whole chapter? Matthew 19:21 is rather interesting:

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. "

[L,TOWM]

those of us who accept a naturalistic approach to truth finding are never going to agree to accept miracles as an explanation for everyday phenomena.

Against my better judgement, I can't let that go w/o comment.

Given the real crux of this never ending argument, the origin and beginning of our physical universe, I must take exception with your statement. The formation of the universe is not an "everyday phenomena". Whether your perspective is (as mine) that of an all powerful being creating reality as an act of His will, or your perspective is that all matter was compressed to an infintisimille point and went KABOOM, or that all matter was extruded from a dimension that is theorectically postulated into our four, it does'nt affect having a proper reverence for the event.

It was not an everyday phenomena, but a unique and glorious event. One might even say, miraculous (no matter what the causation).

[conservababeJen]

My point was that "Man" is more than flesh.

[whattajoke]

I don't think anyone here will disagree that the formation of the universe was indeed, a singular event. And a very difficult one to explain.

To be clear, biological does not attempt to explain the origin of life on our planet, let alone the origins of the universe.

I can quite comfortably state that I have no idea how the universe came about. I don't need that answer right now, nor do I need to look to supernatural forces for an answer. I'm secure in the knowledge that thus far most natural phenomena have been adequately explained by science. There is no reason for me to believe that the origins of the universe will not be explained some day. The statement, "God did it" is not good enough for me. It's a personal thing. That phrase simply leads to a million more questions which all circle back to the original given answer: "God did it."

This is, of course, not christian bashing just as it is not Aztec, aborigine, or Shinto bashing.

[whattajoke]

oops, fast typing bad...

paragraph 2 should read: To be clear, biological EVOLUTION does not attempt to explain the origin of life on our planet, let alone the origins of the universe.

[balrog666]

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground."

Eeeewwwwwww!

[AndrewC]

It's a whole 'nother line on my spreadsheet. Want me to do it?

Only if you want to. I know what the essential point is. The argument is really whether the advantage is an advantage. In day to day things it really is not, since it would most certainly drive all jawed creatures to infinitely long jaws.

[whattajoke]

In day to day things it really is not, since it would most certainly drive all jawed creatures to infinitely long jaws.

Which brings up a good point. At what point does (say, sexual) selection become so pronounced that it is actually deleterious? This evolutionary battle is being eternally played out in species all the time. Male peacock displays ride that fine edge. Bullfrog throat puffing. Moose racks. Heck, one could write a tongue in cheek argument that h. sapiens females ride that line with all the augmentation, dieting, and eyebrow plucking that is in vogue now!

(not that I'm complaining)