Well technically we didn't evolve from monkeys, we both evolved from a common primate ancestor and took different evolution routes
Jk you right and wly
@TriangleTesticles, technically we're not monkeys we're apes.
@TriangleTesticles, No, don't you see you can't use science and logic to win an argument; it's just not fair. Especially on the internet.
@TriangleTesticles, most intelligent thing I've heard come from the bro globes of a shape.
*grabs popcorn waiting for debate on beliefs*
@Scarlet Link, *grabs monkey waiting on popcorn.*
@Mit, *monkey grabs my popcorn and gives it to you* " you bastard!"
@Scarlet Link, We can all agree we were created fron the Great Giant Spaghetti Monster, through him we will receive sweet macaroni with pasta worldwide and be complete
Who cares. Evolution or adaptation or creation all have their merits whatever floats your boat
@George Feeny, it really just depends if a person cares what's true or not. creation has no merit, no base in science or reality.
@George Feeny, it matters for determining science education curricula and having general understanding of medicine, bio and reality
@whirligig1at6, why? Why do you have to be a dick and slander a whole belief system? I won't even go into the fact of how blatantly misguided your statement was, but honestly man why the hell do you HAVE to be a dick about it?
@davers1990, hey man calm down. Creation does not have any scientific backing because there is no way at all to even test this idea. There's actually a razor in philosophy called at Newton's flaming laser sword that says if an idea can't be scientificly tested, its not even worth talking about.
@davers1990, why can't you accept what has already been made a fact backed up by actual information and data?
@davers1990, The only edgy portion of whirligig's statement was possibly "creation has no merit" -- in that I'll grant you that the book of Genesis has cultural and artistic value (though I'm sure they meant in the sense of explanation of reality). But seriously, why is this still up for debate? Even some ancient people understood that life changes over long periods of time -- the recent theory by Darwin just postulated that natural selection was the mechanism behind what was already known to happen, and for some reason that turns people off? ? I'd really recommend you read Greatest Show on Earth just to get where people are coming from - I'm reading it now and it does a nice job of easily walking though studies and reasoning involved in learning about the past through Ev Bio
@Lucipurr, the only problem they're is that the scientific body often comment on things which they can not test and state them to not exist. I'm all for evolution etc. Love science and scientific method. But to say science has all the answers and knows all is naive at best. The are things that exist and function which defy our understanding of science, and often scientists ignore them. As an engineer friend said to me once "science at times wants to be the water that defines the shape of the jug". The jug being the universe.
@TheMonkeyGod, by definition science does not have all the answers. That is not what I'm saying. I am simply saying that if we can't even attempt to test an idea there is no point of even discussing that idea.
@TheMonkeyGod, alright no no no. science does not state that anything does not exist, it seeks to identify and test and confirm what DOES exist. Nobody with a knowledge of science and the scientific method will claim that science has all the answers and knows all, but science IS the most reliable method we have to figure out what is and is not true about the universe we live in. Yes there are things that defy our CURRENT understanding of science, and scientists specifically seek these mysteries out to study and try to solve. What you dont get to do is say"we dont yet understand x, therefore it must be something we cannot ever understand and/or it must be supernatutal" we simply get to say "we don't yet know".
@whirligig1at6, yet science, when faced with the unanswerable tends to say either it is wrong, doesn't exist or it ignores it
@TheMonkeyGod, first you would have to prove that a claim you make is unanswerable. and again, science does not and cannot seek to demonstrate what does not exist, only what does. as for "[science] ignores it", you would have to specify what you mean because scientists seek out the mysteries to solve, that is their job, it is what they love and the only reason we need them.
@whirligig1at6, the first powered flight, and subsequent ones were denied to be done because the prevailing science of the time said it was not possible. Currently the same thing is being repeated worth the em impulse engine. It's been around for 16 years and no scientific research because it defies currently known physics. Check it out. It's something sadly which happens more often than it should.
@TheMonkeyGod, based on your repeated use of the phrase "science...said it was not possible", you seem to have a fundamental misunderstaning of what science does. like i said above, you cannot use the scientific method to prove impossibility. what science can do is tell you what is not likely to succeed based on prior knowledge and research. so your first example is a great illustration of my point. the prior knowledge and research led people to believe that the first powered flight didnt happen, because their tests and research didn't yeild positive results. yet despite the knowledge limitation, scientists were studying the components of flight, and when people were actually able to do a successful flight and there was a leap forward in the study of flight. As for the Star Trek impulse engine, scientists dont tend to put a lot of time into making contraptions from science fiction in the first place.
@whirligig1at6, except that the impulse engine has been around now for 16 years and is only being looked at now. As for powered flight, the Wright Bros were not scientists and it took them 10+ years to get a patent despite repeated examples of flight because no one would accept that the science was wrong. These are not isolated cases either. You should read about some science history.
@TheMonkeyGod, what we are doing is constantly advancing our understanding of physics so that we may build more complex machines, structures, engines...etc. Though a specific machine may not be getting studied currently (last impulse engine study i found after 5 seconds of google was 2012), that does not mean the physics behind it are not being studied.
@TheMonkeyGod, i'd like to learn more about this real life impulse engine, any articles you want to point me to?
I feel like it's similar to dogs and wolves but on a longer term scale. Pugs used to be wolves... both still exist. But I'm no scientist, so this just becomes an observation that could easily be wrong. #OkWithPossiblyBeingWrong
@Mr Literal, pugs came from what is called evolution by domestication. Dogs we have now came from domesticated dogs we had when we were cave people. We originally got the dogs due to some wolves have a smaller amount of some chemical in their brain that allows then to be less afraid of humans. So the dogs exchanged their freedom for a steady meal of scraps and we selected the dogs that worked well with us and later it came down to the dogs we thought looked pretty or cool. It could be called survival of the cutest now rather than the fittest.
*senses debate; u - turns to other pic*