I wonder if they really mean that
National Geographic: Was Darwin Wrong?
(17 votes, average: 4.12 out of 5)
Loading ...
Add to favorites Tags: Humor, Politics, Religion
Leave a comment ?
24 Responses to National Geographic: Was Darwin Wrong?
Leave a Comment
Tags!
Related Posts
March 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm
When I see the word “NO” in font that big, then I have to assume that they mean it.
March 28, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hmm, they could of gone solid black or red for extra sincerity…
It still amazes me that this topic is still subject to debate. Gravity doesn’t have this problem.
March 28, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Corvo, gravity is sin holding your awful soul down and preventing it from going to heaven.
Everything has sin.
/bullshit.
March 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Wow, I can’t believe that they would actually show something like that in a respectable magazine like National Geographic.
Darwin WAS wrong.
Even the scientific community agrees that the whole idea of “species evolving over long periods of time” isn’t necessarily true . . .
. . . evolution can occur in relatively short periods of time as well!
March 29, 2007 at 7:31 am
“evolution can occur in relatively short periods of time as well”
Yeah, in bacteria
March 29, 2007 at 7:33 am
WTF.
I’ve never posted a comment here before, but SpeeduvDark, evolution is supported by so much evidence, that we’ve long since past the point where you now need to produce proof to refute it.
March 29, 2007 at 9:01 am
“evolution is supported by so much evidence, that we’ve long since past the point where you now need to produce proof to refute it.”
That is not science but blind faith. I’m sure the proponents spontaneous generation felt the evidence of it was irrefutable as well. Only a fool would say any “theory”, or even some so called “facts” are wholly irrefutable. Take this as you list.
March 29, 2007 at 9:41 am
Maybe I’m wrong here but I kinda thought SpeeduvDark was making a joke. I could be wrong, I guess.
March 29, 2007 at 9:46 am
Chris,
He was being witty in making the point that Darwin was wrong not in the basis of his theory but in the specifics. The theory of evolution in it’s self has evolved since Darwin’s time.
March 29, 2007 at 10:16 am
Whoops. I need to read more carefully. Apologies, SpeeduvDark.
I’m sick and tired of Creationist jumping on evolution. Most of the enlightened world accepts it. Only those with a decidedly religious bent reject it and purely because of what it says in some dusty book written by people with levels of education that would embarass a child nowadays.
March 29, 2007 at 11:49 am
Perhaps it would make more sense to post the entire article where they show a few different points of view.
I personally believe in scientific method, and therefore evolution, however when in a discussion, neither side benefits when you take statements out of context or make up facts.
March 29, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Ha, I hear ya on that education thing. I know of a guy who did his undergrad at Yale and got an MBA at Harvard who reads that dusty book. Oh yeah he was a pilot too.
March 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm
They dont post another view because the people who support the other view are dumbasses, and thats not overgeneralization. The poeple who continue to close their ears to evolution are idiots.
March 29, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Bah creationism…Thats for jews. And for christans, and all the other religions that believe in that.
March 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm
When I read comments about evolution being a disproved theory because of a lack of irrefutable evidence I wonder if maybe monkeys actually evolved from us.
I mean yes, we can’t sit down and draw an exact time line and prove it for you but after a while, say 500 thousand pieces of correlative evidence, you kind of have to put down the bible and say “hey maybe I’ve been wasting my time with this god shit?”.
March 29, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Sorry if anyone missinterpreted my comment, but I actually agree with the idea that evolution has been effectively proven.
“evolution can occur in relatively short periods of time as wellâ€Â
“Yeah, in bacteria”
Actually, there have been studies which show that something that rapid changes in an environment (let’s say a drought for example) can cause even multicellular organisms to change over mere decades. Mind you, not really to the extent of fish adapting to land, but more like a bird species average beak size becoming significantly larger.
March 29, 2007 at 7:23 pm
The original article in full if anyone is interested:
magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
March 30, 2007 at 10:06 am
I have been doing some reading as to proof of evolution. The majority of my findings are: life on earth is similar, that you can get a little dog from a big dog, and so forth. Really, one could explain these things by evolution or creation. So, I was wondering, could anyone could point me to some information that improves the so called “mathematical impossibility” of evolution, with minimal citations of the two afore mentioned criteria .
March 30, 2007 at 10:46 am
Tee hee hee creationists.
March 30, 2007 at 11:51 am
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
evolution in something larger than a bacterium
March 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Evil Don, go to TalkOrigins.
March 30, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Ty, Robster. It looks like the information and refrences on that site should keep me busy for a while.
March 30, 2007 at 5:22 pm
i remember when i was like 11 i evolved i got hair alover the place and i got more interested in things that are round on girls
May 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Damn it, how can people be sooo stupid, of course evolution is true, it’s in all the history books, there’s the French evolution, the Russian evolution, the Industrial evolution and the Matrix evolution to name a few!
There was supposed to be an Americian evolution as well but that clearly didn’t happen.