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?

[jennyp]

I think "Spork" predates Sniglets. I was introduced to the Spork (a combination spoon and fork -- my father called them "abominations") in first grade back in '71, and IIRC, sniglets didn't come into being until "Real People" in the late 70s.

Ahhh... the humble spork! I first remember them from Kentucky Fried Chicken (before it became an acronym). But apparently they were invented earlier.

[Aracelis]

I must strongly disagree with your statement about natural selection, the dead do not reproduce so their genetic information is lost - and not just the trait that brought destruction, but other traits that might have been beneficial.

But most living organisms display a very strong instinct to reproduce. If they live long enough to do so, their genetic traits are not lost. If they do not reproduce, for whatever reason (sickness, poor hunting skills, bad eyesight, alternative lifestyles - please no flames, etc.), then the traits of that individual are "selected" for removal from the gene pool. "Success" in this regard is the ability to pass on genetic traits, and thus continue the species. It's a harsh litmus test, but generally an effective one.

Further, since even the traits that caused destruction might have been useful if circumstances had been different (and circumstances always change) this is also a loss to the species.

You're quite right. Mother Nature has no use for a polar bear that cannot tolerate sub-zero temperatures, thus the organism dies and fails to pass on this genetic trait. Natural Selection is not a predictor of future events...all it does is ensure that the organisms living within a particular eco-niche are well suited to that environment.

Yes, that is pretty much what it means. However, let's consider this - is malarial infection prevalent everywhere on earth? Clearly not. So outside of malarial areas, this mutation is bad since it may result in death to progeny if two people carrying it have children. We see that problem now with blacks in the US where it is of no benefit at all. So if this trait were spread throughout the whole human species, it would be seriously detrimental to humanity. That's what I meant.

Quite true, and I believe this is an example of natural selection in action - genetic traits that aid in the survival of an organism in a particular eco-niche are passed on because the individual lives long enough to reproduce.

Thank you very much for this pleasant exchange of ideas. I have enjoyed our discussion more than most in the recent past. I will be away for a few days on extremely urgent family business, but look forward to our future discussions. I hope you have a wonderful few days.

[Nataku X]

Okay, so kitties named Stinky might be exceptions. :-) Thank goodness you changed her name. :-) Anyway, Spork's quite a cutie!


Shadowfax & Jabez--Shadowfax was named by a LOTR loving friend since there aren't many good female Bible names for cats. Tiglah was one of the rare exceptions, but her story was a nasty one. (And the screen is blacked out only because the glow caused the filters on PhotoShop to mess up. Really. ;-) </proud cat mommy>

[Nataku X]

Thanks! That's a great visual aid. :o)

[longshadow]

substitute placemarker

[balrog666]

Shadowfax was named by a LOTR loving friend

I assumed it was the jazz band (that was named for the LOTR)!

[PatrickHenry]

Compliant P L A C E M A R K E R

[gore3000]

In fact, one of my orbit classes at NASA did exactly that. We used the Earth as a frame of reference instead of the sun when we described the celestial sphere. (It described the Sun orbiting the Earth in that reference frame.)

That would be a good exercise to see what people know, but I doubt that the Geocentric side won the discussion. You might have gotten away with it in the time of Corpernicus or Galileo, but not today for several reasons. One is that a Geocentric theory requires epicicles, and we know they do not occur. Another is that we are now able to observe the motions of the planets from a different frame of reference than Earth and that gives certain proof of the Heliocentric theory.

[gore3000]

Oh, of course not. I defined my terms very carefully.

Okay, then as far as you are concerned that the Earth goes round the sun is proven. Definitions and semantics are not interesting to me.

[gore3000]

This is NOT skepticism.

Of course it is. Denying that anything can be proven is even more than the definition of skeptic requires:

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk) n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

BTW - you cannot say that evolution is a proven fact and also say that nothing can be proven.

[gore3000]

Isn't this exactly the same way in which dna analysis 'proves' the truth of evolution?

Dna analysis disproves the theory of evolution. The reason is that different tests give different evolutionary 'trees'. More importantly though the disproof of Haeckel's 'ontology follows philogeny' shows that DNA falsifies the theory of evolution.

As to Dozhansky, the man is no scientist. He spent decades trying to prove that you could create a new species in the lab and when it came time to give the final proof - seeing if the flies would produce viable progeny, he refused to do it (as many other evolutionists have done). Shows to me two things:
1. he knows evolution is false.
2, he is an ideologue not a scientist seeking the truth.

[gore3000]

There are always periods in science when paradigms are accepted without the seal of formal proof.

My point is not that everything some claim is science is not science. Indeed my challenging of evolution sort of shows that. My point is that science has indeed proven some things with certainty. My two examples which cannot be denied - the Heliocentric theory and the genetic theory have abundant proof behind them.

[gore3000]

Perhaps an example would be helpful.

I did. Why are you denying what was in front of your very eyes when you responded to it?

It would look pretty foolish to deny that the Earth goes round the sun or that a parent's genes are the source of the child's. Another question that could be asked is how could science possibly have reaped such benefits to our lives if it was false?
2,358 posted on 08/10/2003 4:21 PM PDT by gore3000

[gore3000]

I must strongly disagree with your statement about natural selection, the dead do not reproduce so their genetic information is lost - and not just the trait that brought destruction, but other traits that might have been beneficial. -me-

But most living organisms display a very strong instinct to reproduce.

Which in no way adresses my point above. An answer is not a refutation.

You're quite right. Mother Nature has no use for a polar bear that cannot tolerate sub-zero temperatures

But one that can tolerate warmer weather would be tolerated when the ice recedes as it does quite often. Which is one of the problems with natural selection. Indeed it is the specialization required by the small genomes of species near extinction which makes scientists afraid for their continued viability.

Yes, that is pretty much what it means. However, let's consider this - is malarial infection prevalent everywhere on earth? Clearly not. So outside of malarial areas, this mutation is bad since it may result in death to progeny if two people carrying it have children. We see that problem now with blacks in the US where it is of no benefit at all. So if this trait were spread throughout the whole human species, it would be seriously detrimental to humanity. That's what I meant.-me-

Quite true, and I believe this is an example of natural selection in action -

My point is that natural selection is not an agent of creation but of destruction. Evolution requires a replacement for the Creator, and natural selection cannot be it.

It has been a pleasant discussion and hope you can get back to it whenever.

[Condorman]

It would look pretty foolish to deny that the Earth goes round the sun or that a parent's genes are the source of the child's.

Would it? Have you tested every child to prove that each of the parents contributed exactly one half of the genetic makeup for the child in that particular case? Why not? And yet aren't you demanding the same standard of proof for the theory of evolution? I reference, for one, your demands on instances of speciation.

And what of the earth? Aren't you just taking the word of some so-called scientists that the earth goes around the sun? The question is, why? What evidence have you been offered that has convinced you that the earth does in fact go around the sun? Have you been shown proof? Have you even been shown any evidence? Or are you just taking the word of some more so-called scientists about it?

You may claim that I'm just playing semantic games, and not without some justification, I might add, but no more or less than you.

[NewLand]

***PING***

[RadioAstronomer]

I think you missed what I was trying to describe. I can use anything as my frame of reference and calculate the motions of all the other bodies to that frame. I certainly am not suggesting the Earth is not "falling" around the sun, however, in certain reference frames the Earth is fixed intead of the sun.

[Virginia-American]

...We used the Earth as a frame of reference ...

I once attended a fascinating lecture at the Smithsonian about how the Zeiss planetarium works. Totaly geocentric, and very accurate. Clockwork, only (!) about 200 gears, some are (a bit) elliptical.

Griffith Abservatory

[RadioAstronomer]

Way cool! I love the old scientific instruments. :-)

[Virginia-American]

There's a book (out of print) "From the Aratus Sphere to the Zeiss Planetarium" (#21 in the list) that gives a *very thorough* description of how it works.