Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Christine O'donell Ponders Why Aren't Monkeys Still Evolving


Neon Genesis

Recommended Posts

We could ask O'Donnell the same question. If the god of the bible is real, why isn't he still bringing people back from the dead today? http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/24/odonnell-evolution-maher/

For the second week in a row, HBO’s Real Time host Bill Maher revealed a previously-unaired clip of Christine O’Donnell on Politically Incorrect. Recall, last week Maher showed a clip of O’Donnell professing to dabble into witchcraft, and pledged to show a new clip of O’Donnell every week until O’Donnell agrees to appear once again on his show.

 

So tonight, Maher played a clip from O’Donnell’s appearance on Politically Incorrect on Oct. 15, 1998, in which she professed her view that “evolution is a myth”:

 

O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

 

MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!

 

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

 

Watch it:

 

Previously, New York Magazine had dug up a 1996 appearance by O’Donnell on CNN, during which the Delaware GOP Senate nominee insisted “hard evidence” proves evolution is “merely a theory” and God’s creation of the world occurred in “six 24-hour periods.”

 

After airing tonight’s clip, Maher remarked with astonishment that this is “someone that could be in the Senate.” He added, “See this is the point I want to make — is the stuff from the witch from last week was silly. Who cares what she did in high school, if she dabbled in witchcraft. But this is someone who could be in the Senate, who thinks that mice have human brains and doesn’t understand ‘oh my God, that monkeys don’t evolve in the time that it would take to watch them.’”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    11

  • MagickMonkey

    9

  • Neon Genesis

    8

  • dB-Paradox

    4

The thing that really bothers me is that there will be thousands of people in Delaware who won't care that she thinks this way. They will vote for her anyway (or maybe even because she thinks like this.)

 

The founding fathers never intended for everyone to get the vote. They envisioned a country where intelligent, educated voters studied the issues and selected the best among them to govern. They might have been on to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Donnell is the evidence that politicians are devolving to stupid monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Donnell is the evidence that politicians are devolving to stupid monkeys.

 

hey, now, watch the derrogatory monkey comments!!!!:cussing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Donnell is the evidence that politicians are devolving to stupid monkeys.

 

hey, now, watch the derrogatory monkey comments!!!!:cussing:

Sorry! :HaHa:

 

But I did explicitly say stupid monkeys, which means that I wasn't talking about the intelligent monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Donnell is the evidence that politicians are devolving to stupid monkeys.

 

hey, now, watch the derrogatory monkey comments!!!!:cussing:

Sorry! :HaHa:

 

But I did explicitly say stupid monkeys, which means that I wasn't talking about the intelligent monkeys.

 

Well in that case, all is forgiven. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, as soon as you take secularism out of school, we would have an entire nation of students saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

The sad thing is, as soon as you take secularism out of school, we would have an entire nation of students saying the same thing.

If we do that, we'll follow the ottoman empire's path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to suspect she's a sacrificial lamb. If we're all paying attention to her, we'll ignore the other kooky Tea Party candidates who are just about as nuts and are plenty dangerous.

 

She's going to lose no matter what. We should turn our focus to the others that have a shot at winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

Evolution doesn't work towards a goal or a plan. Evolution works through different processes, one is mutation, one is survival of a genetic pool because of the success with offspring. Apes and monkeys are successful in reproducing and staying alive as they are, there are no environmental challenges to force them into become human. And it's not like if there's intelligent life on other planets, they must all have evolved to humans. The human species is just one out of presumable plenty forms of how intelligent life forms could be. And to be successful, intelligence is only one benefit. Put a naked man in a tree, without food or fire, and let's see how long he survives amongst the apes. Or put him 500 feet under under, and see if he's better than the whales. Life forms survive, and if there's no need to evolve, then there's not natural selection towards a mankind species.

 

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

 

I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough. :grin:

 

Put it this way, if we look at different car models. We have designers that change models and stuff, but in reality, the consumers are the ones that drive the selection of what car models sell and what do not. We still have sports cars even though SUVs can fit a lot more cargo. Why? Shouldn't all cars look exactly the same and have exactly the same features and cost the same? How come diversity results in... just that, diversity? The same apply to nature. Diversity of the genetic material means that there are diversity and many species will stay the way they are with small changes over longer times.

 

We have common ancestors to sheep, elk, rabbits, fish, horses and horse radish alike. We are relate to plants, like oaks, sunflowers, and asparagus. We're even related to slugs, frogs, and bacteria. All life is related.

 

So why do we still have bacteria? Why does not all bacteria evolve to humans, this instant, and without reasons?

 

Honestly, if it did, and if apes evolved to humans over night, it would be a catastrophe to Evolution. It would actually prove Evolution WRONG, and not right. Evolution is the process of change over time, and there's nothing in Evolution that states "all biological life will eventually evolve to only one kind of species, the human species, because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Donnell is the evidence that politicians are devolving to stupid monkeys.

 

hey, now, watch the derrogatory monkey comments!!!!:cussing:

Sorry! :HaHa:

 

But I did explicitly say stupid monkeys, which means that I wasn't talking about the intelligent monkeys.

 

Nice save!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ourboros! I understood somewhat more.

 

"...because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

 

And from now on when I masturbate, I'm going to chant this line over and over as I get closer to ejaculation! :lmao:

 

Sorry, if that was inappropriate it can be removed! I'm just in one of those moods....not THAT mood, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Honestly, if it did, and if apes evolved to humans over night, it would be a catastrophe to Evolution. It would actually prove Evolution WRONG, and not right. Evolution is the process of change over time, and there's nothing in Evolution that states "all biological life will eventually evolve to only one kind of species, the human species, because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

It's like asking why are there still British people if the U.S. came from the UK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of clips are surfacing about her from ~10+ years ago. I wonder if there are more recent things with her saying the same sort of stuff? I also wonder if she will say she was young and dumb on some of the things she has said. Had you asked many of the folks on this forum what they believed ~10+ years ago they might very well be in line with those old statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

 

Keep in mind that out of all the apes, only one species evolved into humans. And even that species branched out a bit. And there have been several transitional forms found in the fossil record. There have also been multiple human species, homo neanderthalensis, homo sapiens, and homo floresiensis (I'm sure I misspelled the fuck out of these) and possibly others, existing simultaneously in the past. Because our species competed with the other species for resources and our species was ultimately more adaptable, our species survived while the others died out. Even today, our competition with other apes (yes, humans are apes) are driving them into extinction. Our dominance is causing a reduction in the diversity of ape species. Evolution is not linear and while evolution creates diversity, competition for resources often reduces diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

 

 

Windows 7 is awesome (let's suppose). It's the best Windows operating system ever. So why are people still using Windows XP? Why does my company use a Windows 2000 virtual server? Hell, why are some people still using DOS?

 

Because in some situations those "obsolete" forms are still useful, and have found niches to survive. We still have monkeys around because at some point in history we diverged from them. They found one niche, we found another. Ours just ended up being bigger.

 

To stretch my analogy a little further, to talk about evolutionary dead ends, I'm pretty sure no one is using Windows 3.1 anymore. It was absorbed into the Windows 95 and up family. Kind of like how there are no Neandertals around because we (homo sapiens) absorbed them into our family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

 

 

Windows 7 is awesome (let's suppose). It's the best Windows operating system ever. So why are people still using Windows XP? Why does my company use a Windows 2000 virtual server? Hell, why are some people still using DOS?

 

Because in some situations those "obsolete" forms are still useful, and have found niches to survive. We still have monkeys around because at some point in history we diverged from them. They found one niche, we found another. Ours just ended up being bigger.

 

To stretch my analogy a little further, to talk about evolutionary dead ends, I'm pretty sure no one is using Windows 3.1 anymore. It was absorbed into the Windows 95 and up family. Kind of like how there are no Neandertals around because we (homo sapiens) absorbed them into our family tree.

Good analogy. I like computers. Robert Wright uses analogies like these when talking about different religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, and slightly related, I have a question. First off, let me say that I don't give a flying fuck how we got here. We're here, and that's what's important. But in a recent conversation with my mom, she used similar logic to "disprove" evolution. Can someone here enlighten me?

 

She said, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, but no tranitional forms of ape-man. I had no answer, because I don't know a thing about evolution...plus, like I said, I don't care. But I suppose I am curious. So, why apes, and no ape-men?

 

***EDIT***

 

I think I may have found my answer via Google, but if anyone still wants to explain in simple terms (or not so simple terms) I'm still game.

 

We did not evolve from the apes that are alive today. Both us and the apes alive today share a common ancestor. They are just as evolved from that ancestor as we are. We are "cousin" species. To ask why they aren't turning into us is just as silly as asking why your cousins aren't turning into you. Why would they, they are just as valid as you are.

 

As far as transitional forms go, every speciesl is a transition between what came before and what has/will come after

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Honestly, if it did, and if apes evolved to humans over night, it would be a catastrophe to Evolution. It would actually prove Evolution WRONG, and not right. Evolution is the process of change over time, and there's nothing in Evolution that states "all biological life will eventually evolve to only one kind of species, the human species, because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

It's like asking why are there still British people if the U.S. came from the UK.

I like that. That's a good analogy.

 

I was thinking of another too. A lot of time they use the term "Tree of Life" to explain how all different species are related to each other. We are one small branch on that tree, and the apes are branches very close to us. They, and us, are all connected to the same, and a bit larger, branch, which in turn is connected to a larger branch. So the question is, why isn't the tree just one single huge branch, like a giant think straw standing straight up? That's pretty much what the "fact deniers" or "anti-science" crowd is asking. They demand the tree look like a big spike, not a tree with branches, but how stupid is that? If scientists use the illustration of a tree, then why is arguing that the tree must look like a big spike mean that the tree illustration is wrong? In other words, the whole "monkeys aren't evolving to humans" is a huge straw man argument based on ignorance about what Evolution actually teaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're a free country, then why do we still have politicians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, if it did, and if apes evolved to humans over night, it would be a catastrophe to Evolution. It would actually prove Evolution WRONG, and not right. Evolution is the process of change over time, and there's nothing in Evolution that states "all biological life will eventually evolve to only one kind of species, the human species, because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

So is the evolution in Pokemon completely wrong then? I think that's how Christians imagine evolution is supposed to be like. If you get enough experience from battling, you're supposed to magically evolve into another creature in five seconds. But even if that did happen, how many Christians would believe it and how many would still deny it happened? We all know good and well that even if Christians did witness evolution taking place, that they would find some reason to deny it happened.

 

A lot of clips are surfacing about her from ~10+ years ago. I wonder if there are more recent things with her saying the same sort of stuff? I also wonder if she will say she was young and dumb on some of the things she has said. Had you asked many of the folks on this forum what they believed ~10+ years ago they might very well be in line with those old statements.
Defending right-wing Christians again, are we Vix? You know, for someone who supposedly thinks their religion is evil, you seem to love defending these people no matter what. So if all Christians are evil for worshiping an evil god, yet here you are defending them, what does that say about you? Will you ever say anything bad about the Tea Party at least once in your life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, if it did, and if apes evolved to humans over night, it would be a catastrophe to Evolution. It would actually prove Evolution WRONG, and not right. Evolution is the process of change over time, and there's nothing in Evolution that states "all biological life will eventually evolve to only one kind of species, the human species, because we're so cool, fun, and smart."

So is the evolution in Pokemon completely wrong then? I think that's how Christians imagine evolution is supposed to be like. If you get enough experience from battling, you're supposed to magically evolve into another creature in five seconds. But even if that did happen, how many Christians would believe it and how many would still deny it happened? We all know good and well that even if Christians did witness evolution taking place, that they would find some reason to deny it happened.

 

A lot of clips are surfacing about her from ~10+ years ago. I wonder if there are more recent things with her saying the same sort of stuff? I also wonder if she will say she was young and dumb on some of the things she has said. Had you asked many of the folks on this forum what they believed ~10+ years ago they might very well be in line with those old statements.
Defending right-wing Christians again, are we Vix? You know, for someone who supposedly thinks their religion is evil, you seem to love defending these people no matter what. So if all Christians are evil for worshiping an evil god, yet here you are defending them, what does that say about you? Will you ever say anything bad about the Tea Party at least once in your life?

Again you are acting the idiot. I asked for more recent quotes and if she had ever denounced her former statements. How is that supporting her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and he has several pages devoted to an O'Donnell interview he did. She exhibits the same level of stupidity with him. The old adage "start brain before engaging mouth" applies here.

 

\Of course the answer to her query is - they are! I imagine they will look quite different in a million years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.