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 agree that your list is not Christian-bashing

I was rather confident that the evolution side would take that position. My concern was elsewhere ...

Oh, about the "conservababeJen" lavender placemarkers, I didn't pay much attention to them. Yeah, they were maybe a wee bit tasteless, but that's nothing. Suggesting that I'm gay is like suggesting the earth is flat. A non-starter.

[BMCDA]

Uh... well, then how's about clay?

[Junior]

God made man from dirt?

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)

 

[whattajoke]

"God made man from dirt?"

I think it depends on which verse of Genesis one chooses to attribute the "literal" tag and which one chooses to say is "symbolic." Such is the difficulty of the literalists. BMDCA and myself prefer Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Whereas you, I'm sure, much prefer an earlier passage where man was created first, then beasts...or something. Oh, this Genesis account gets as confusing as molecular genetics!

[Right Wing Professor]

Clearly having a very short jaw is a disadvantage. And over some range of jaw length, you can make a graph correlating the amount of food you're able to eat, and the length of your jaw. And in a competitive environment, where food is short, you can make a graph correlating our reproductive success with the amount of food you eat. Do you have a problem with either of these two correlations?

So if C is a function of B, and B is a function of A, then C is a function of A.

[conservababeJen]

I have said it at least 3 times now, I DO NOT think you are gay. My intent never was to "suggest" it.

Do you know what your insistence that I made such a claim looks like ???????

Guess

[js1138]

Whatever became of the phrase, "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust," featured in every Hollywood funeral since day one?

[ThinkPlease]

Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm not willing to say that having a miniscule shift in the placement of a jaw bone gives it ANY reproductive advantage over its rivals. How could it? A female couldn't see the change and be more attracted sexually. It's not a big enough change that it drastically alters the shape of the jaw such that the fish can now eat some other type of food that it's rivals can't. It has no outward effect on the animal whatsoever until 1000 years later when there is a slight alteration in the shape of the jaw. Same with the ear. Same with teeth. Do you see what I'm saying? You make the assumption that the miniscule change confers an advantage, but I want to know how and why. I don't dispute your math. If the advantage is there, then yes the evolution will take place. I need to know where the advantage comes from.

To me, It doesn't have to bring about an advantage. All a particular trait has to do is to allow the host organisms to survive and procreate. What advantage do humans with blonde hair have over humans with brown hair? There isn't one. I would consider variation to be a feature of evolution, the incremental steps between species. Evolutionary pressure isn't the only reasons species change. Random chance is another reason, as our creationist brethren remind us.

[conservababeJen]

How's this....

I think Patrick Henry is a heterosexual placemarker. (I would make it pink/lavender if i had the energy).

[VadeRetro]

Gee! If only we'd agreed to ALS's terms, the healing we'd have had!

[conservababeJen]

breath of life

Was that breath dirt too?

[Right Wing Professor]

The first point is that the attribute should likely have no effect on the first appearance. That is, the thing that has the mutation either acquired it on forming or acquired it from a parent who did not have the longer jaw.

Right. I started with a population of 1000. We could start with 1.

Second, I see no reason for 990,000 individuals to lose viability because of just a few members. The total population should stay constant, but the percentages should change over time.

You can do that. The math just gets a bit more complicated. I decreased A by a fixed ratio, and increased B by a fixed ratio, but you could keep (offspring of A)/(offspring of B) and (offspring of A) + offspring of B) simultaneously fixed (two variables, two constraints). The total population will then remain the same, but the ratio of A to B will change.

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

[Right Wing Professor]

I think Patrick Henry is a heterosexual placemarker

I dunno if you should be calling him a placemarker at all. Sounds like a bit of a put-down.

[conservababeJen]

What terms? Maybe you need to re-read what he wrote.

[conservababeJen]

grrrrr :)

[VadeRetro]

We could start with 1.

Fish? She'd better be a pregnant female!

[PatrickHenry]

I think Patrick Henry is a heterosexual placemarker.

I have never once (to my current recollection) voiced any concern over your posts, because I don't care about them.

[js1138]

If I remember the gospel according to Indiana Jones correctly, the Breath of Life involved a large rotating saw blade. At least that's the Hollywood version.

[conservababeJen]

#1,000?...... for Aric.

[conservababeJen]

well frig