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?

[PatrickHenry]

I appreciate the work you've put into this draft, A-Girl. I haven't studied it in detail, but one thing I noticed immediately is that it needs to be expanded to address a problem that's been wrongly associated with me -- Christian bashing ("CB"). It should be clearly spelled out that no one will be accused of CB merely because of:

1. opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis (or other scripture passages);
2. opposition to "creation science" or to "intelligent design theory";
3. advocacy of the theory evolution;
4. posting any evolution-oriented thread;
5. advocacy of (or merely explaining) the scientific method;
6. or any similar activities.

[ALS]

And how would you classify junior's outburst?

[PatrickHenry]

Please see post 508 where I've already corrected the matter of how I got pinged to the bible thread. I'm willing to drop the whole matter. It's ancient history.

[ALS]

Your response to #1176 will be weighed in the light of..
Aric2000:
"Intolerance of another because of their religious beliefs is NOT only unconstitutional, and tells me that they could give a rip about it, it is also racist, which is something that they claim to abhor, but to dislike or hate someone because of their religious beliefs, is JUST as racist as hating someone because of the color of their skin."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/943130/posts?page=1590#1590


Cobaltblue, you have accused others of saying you aren't christian because you are catholic, how do you rationalize junior's behavior in light of your complaints?

---

ALL:
This goes to the heart of the problem and the agreement. This christian bashing. It appears as though a new strategy is in play by the evos. Torpedo the agreement as soon as possible to offload the heat of not signing on to it.

[gore3000]

Selection does change the distribution of the genomes of a species (or genus or any other classification.)

Selection does not create any new genetic information, it destroys it. You do not create information by killing the individuals carrying it. Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic will not make it stay afloat either.

[gore3000]

And the theory of evolution is normally given to Darwin, but the actual theory of evolution comes from a great number of scientists, Mendel's work being part of that.

Nonsense. Mendel showed quite well how unscientific the Theory of Evolution was, he showed that Darwin did not know beans and that his theory of 'melding' of traits was absolute nonsense. It took evolutionists decades to recover from it through plenty of wishful thinking and rhetoric. But in the end and with what we have learned since the discovery of DNA, the genetics problem totally disproves evolution.

[conservababeJen]

I know you were playing at the lake.. That is why I said "for Aric".
'Twas a friendly gesture...

But in good evo form you mis-read my intent!!!

[NewLand]

"I'm willing to drop the whole matter. It's ancient history."

The only thing that should be dropped and ancient history here is you.

I read your post #508. Your 'confession' is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's 'confession' where he 'admits' his disgusting behavior, but then continues to blame others and sticks harder than ever to his conspiracy theory.

Just like you. No difference. Incredibly similar.

I want you to tell me straight to my internet face once again that I personally contrived a thread, a reason, a trap, etc...or, as you say, "So the "evo trap" disguised as a bible thread worked as intended."

Do you have the courage to say that again now? Now that I had a chance to defend myself? After being blatantly accused of being an insincere, calculating, intentional disruptor?

You didn't even have the courage to copy me on your thread to Alamo-Girl, or the reply. How cowardly.

And now, in perfect Clintonesque fashion, you want to 'mooooove on'

It's not ancient history. It is the true ongoing indicator of your lack of integrity. It's apparent to all why you want to move on.

Indeed, move on is what you should do. Elsewhere. You've been exposed.

[conservababeJen]

BTW... I found your joke in very poor taste. It also appears as though your motivation for sending it to ALS was simply as bait...which is in no way helpful.

You state this...

Fundamentalist spree, NOT christian, the joke that you posted has EVERYTHING to do with Catholicism, not fundamentalism.

....which, in effect, calls Fundamentalists (as well as Catholics) "NOT christian". This statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Fundamentalists (by definition) are the epitome of Christianity. Catholics are also believers of Jesus CHRIST...hence the term CHRISTianity.

And as far as Junior's remarks that Fundamentalists are a small group of Christians, I beg to differ... particularly amongst FReepers. I dare him to say such a thing on a news thread (that would be read by more FReepers). It's my firm belief he would surprised.

< /civilrant >

[conservababeJen]

Please see 1,189. I should have pinged you too.

[NewLand]

I do not think this suggestion should be given serious consideration, considering the source and known intent. For example:

6. or any similar activities. is another way of saying "whatever I say is OK".

[NewLand]

I just noticed something very interesting. Your reply to me on this post #1183 was in reply to your own post #1181...not in reply to my response to you in post #1135.

Why is that? Maybe because you didn't want people to go back and read the truth?

Interesting...

[L,TOWM]

Ahhh, yes. I am so sorry I omitted that particular, um, joy.

A careless oversight on my part, since that has been the source of some prior flames I have received, and was also done a little on this thread, with the "wafer" discussion. Although, a lot of that discussion looked to be a "type 3" baiting ploy...

[CobaltBlue]

A stable population remains stable unless a change occurs.

Given that mutations happen, the change need not be a change in the environment. Any change in an individual that renders that individual more fit for the niche will lead to increased offspring for that individual, ergo change in the population.

[CobaltBlue]

You keep alleging that other posters are "fifth columnists."

Kindly nominate someone you think is trustworthy and we can both PM him/her our phone numbers. I can hook him/her up with local Republican politicians whose campaigns I've worked on for years, and otherwise show how I've been active in Republican party politics.

Can you?

[betty boop]

Under no conditions will I let you try to dictate what I say about science. -- Doc.

I have no such desire, nor does anything in the draft agreement suggest such a desire. -- A-G

I am amazed, A-G, that Doc could have found anything in your proposal to justify his interpretation, that you are "dictating" what he can "say" about science. Presumably, anything that Doc would say about science would be truthful. So who could object to that? I'm certain not you, and also certain not me.

I'll sign on to your draft agreement without hesitation, A-G.

[AndrewC]

Given that mutations happen, the change need not be a change in the environment. Any change in an individual that renders that individual more fit for the niche will lead to increased offspring for that individual, ergo change in the population.

How is what you write any different than what I have been stating over these many posts? When you use the words "more fit" you use them in relation to a point of stability. That drives them closer to the stable point not farther away. Now the consequence of having a stable point means that it has to be described in some way. Without a limiting factor, for instance, a longer jaw benefit will drive everything towards ever larger jaws. If the "best" jaw length is 1 meter, then everything will be driven towards 1 meter from every direction.

[conservababeJen]

I'll sign on to your draft agreement without hesitation, A-G.

I officially sign on too.

[balrog666]

Makes you wonder why ants still look like ants ...

Well, they have lost some of their wasp characteristics, like permanent wings.

[CobaltBlue]

When you use the words "more fit" you use them in relation to a point of stability.

No, as I understand mutations there is never stability, per se. The target is always moving.

If the "best" jaw length is 1 meter, then everything will be driven towards 1 meter from every direction.

I have no idea what the above sentence means. What does "best jaw length" mean? What does "everything will be driven" mean?

In evolution, as in everything else, there are trade-offs.

Jaws need muscles to open them and close them. Jaw muscles need to be anchored to the skull. There needs to be a tongue proportionate to the jaw, and the tongue is also anchored to the skull. There are sinus cavities, and nerves and blood vessels and skin, and countless other bits and pieces. Teeth. Tooth sockets. A random mutation in the length of the jaw bone doesn't carry everything else along with it.

Lengthening the jaw will probably increase the ability to shred meat but decrease the ability to chew, by throwing the muscles out of whack, so the ability to utilize food sources will change.

Lengthening the jaw without lengthening the tongue will make it harder to swallow. Lengthening the jaw without lengthening the sinus cavities will make it harder to breathe.