Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Not all of them, just the crazy ones.
Now I didn't say 'evidence', did I? I said *unique evidence*. Do you know the difference?
As for 'vestigal' organs, do you think that 'loss of function' is evidence *for* evolution? That's decline. Much more consistent w/ creation than evolution.
Any way to convince someone like you (who believes that loss of function = evolution) that 'evolution' isn't true?
Doesn't look like it.
You aren't bright enough to realize that your own examples are inconsistent w/ your beliefs.
Your no attorney, and yes you are defending those ignorant people because you damn well know the ignorant racists that would drive everyone out of the Republican party except white christians are the ones I was talking about from my first post. I was quite clear in each and every post and you in your zest to defend such human filth are their willing collaborator.
I know and have known many hundreds of Christians. Maybe a few thousand. Not one has ever rejected modern medicine.
Maybe you know some that do.
You, sir, are correct. If I were I would probably be driving a much nicer car.
and yes you are defending those ignorant people because you damn well know the ignorant racists that would drive everyone out of the Republican party except white christians are the ones I was talking about from my first post. I was quite clear in each and every post and you in your zest to defend such human filth are their willing collaborator.
You, sir, are deranged.
*If* human eyes have 'devolved', how does an evo think that it is evidence that these *higher forms* of eyes 'evolved'?
Decline (that supposedly doesn't exist) is now considered evidence *supporting* evolution.
That's one confused set of believers.
LOL! Great cartoon.
Your set of assumptions and generalizations is truly breathtaking, in addition to being unnecesarily rude and exclusionary. I will assume that you're having a bad day and don't really believe what you are writing.
If you were at all familiar with Christian history, we have some shameful antecedents but the Bible is, and Bible-believing Christians are generally, on the side of treating every individual as worthy of respect and the love of God - Buddhists, atheists, Hindus, street people or whatever. These groups are excluded neither from conservatism, the opportunity to be served by those Christians, nor acceptance of Christ (the one and only Savior whose sacrifice provides the only way for us to approach a holy God.)
What tends to crank folks off is the Bible's claim to be absolute moral truth (which is either true or not - can't be both and can't be true for some and not others).
I would also venture that those who take the Bible seriously are more likely to be assisting in needy and diverse communities, donating to various relief efforts, and caring about folks like you.
The party that wants to see themselves as an enlightened advocate for minorities, the poor and downtrodden, etc. wants everyone else to give to their chosen causes. Its members, particularly its leaders rarely do so on an individual basis, and though many of their theories are destructive, they continue to "preach" them - every child a wanted child - welfare without accountability - value and restriction free sexual mores.
The contrast to the liberal viewpoint occurs in primarily the conservative/Republican arena. A good portion of the conservative base is made up of Christian conservatives, who take the Good Samaritan story to heart; believe that resources should be stewarded - financial, environmental; the proper role of government should be limited; individual responsibility and person to person assistance and accountability emphasized, rather than institutional, government largesse; individuals/businesses are entitled to benefit from their efforts; that people who are physically/mentally capable must work for a living; and wrongdoers should be punished.
I'm surprised you have a problem with that.
Blessings,
It may be a politically conservative site, but it is not a religious site. It is also an open forum and until that changes, I see zero wrong with the cartoon. I suspect you do because it makes the point wonderfully.
Cartoons are for those who can barely think at grade-school levels.
Glad you thought it was wonderful.
I think the problem Windsong had with the cartoon was not so much its content but the fact that it is the product of an extreme, leftwing, conservative-hating cartoonist.
How do you figure "loss of function" is "more consistent" with creationism? Evolution means change. Snakes obviously had legs at one point and through evolution, lost them. How do you explain why some snakes have vestigal legs without resorting to "God made them that way". And if he did - why????
And I'm glad to learn you think humor is only for the inferior among us. Most revealing.
Not this human. Tis our brains and consciousness that sit atop a pinnacle, not our physical capabilities. I thought pretty much every adult knew our eyes aren't the best - neither is our sense of smell or hearing.
The truth is - you're wrong. There HAS been definitive proof of observed evolution. A new fruit fly species (not just a different breed of fruit fly - but an entire new species)was evolved in the laboratory in 1971. Check out the research yourself - then close your eyes and tell yourself that it is all an illusion.
T. Dobzhansky, & O. Pavlovsky, "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophilia", Nature 23, P. 289-292 (1971)
Stop by the crevo threads and meet them sometime.
Gee - I'll have to remember that the next time I laugh at some of the cartoons posted by Pooky. I guess I better not look at them any more since my enjoyment of them must prove that I can barely think at a grade-school level.
Yep, they always "out" themselves, don't they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.