Evolution is a myth!!!! Why, Charles Darwin Himself …. BlaHH!!

Dabbled in which craft? Oh, witchcraft! Mice have human brains? Maybe this human has a mouse brain! Ugh.

Comments

  1. #1 Deen
    September 26, 2010

    Don’t discourage her. As long as she think that science can give human brains to mice, she’ll think there’s hope that they might someday do the same for her.

  2. #3 Victor
    September 26, 2010

    What do you expect from someone that get’s their science information from Chick Tracts?

  3. #4 gwen
    September 26, 2010

    I wish….he hadn’t interrupted her. WE all know what she was about to say…but in the long run, will it really matter to her fan base??

  4. #5 GBlivins
    September 26, 2010

    I think she’s living proof that monkeys ARE still evolving into humans. And, on the bright side, she only has a couple million more years to go.

  5. #6 Ooop the monkey
    September 26, 2010

    GBlivins, I beg your pardon?

  6. #7 Joshua Zelinsky
    September 27, 2010

    I’d feel better about this clip if Maher didn’t end up showing at the end that he doesn’t understand evolution at all. Ugh. This of course this doesn’t change the fact that Christine O’Donnell is probably some amazing combination of ignorance and stupidity. The notion of this person being in the US Senate is profoundly disturbing.

  7. #8 Greg Laden
    September 27, 2010

    I’d feel better about this clip if Maher didn’t end up showing at the end that he doesn’t understand evolution at all.

    Yes I totally cringed when he addressed the question “why are there still monkeys” with the answer “eventually they will all evolve into humans, it just takes a lot more time than those morons who don’t get evolution think.” I paraphrase.

  8. #9 Romeo Vitelli
    September 27, 2010

    “Why Aren’t Monkeys Still Evolving Into Humans? ”

    Same reason God isn’t still creating animals presumably.

  9. #10 Jim Thomerson
    September 27, 2010

    Human niche is filled, as are the nearby other ape niches. So Old World monkeys, whose ancestors didn’t get with the program when they could have, are stuck. On the other hand, New World monkeys didn’t have to deal with apes or humans for millions of years, until modern humans arrived. Why didn’t New World monkeys diversify similar to what Old World monkeys did? (There is a photo of a possible native ape, taken in Venezuela.)

  10. #11 Cat
    September 27, 2010

    Just in case someone doesn’t watch the video…

    Monkeys never evolved into humans. =)

    Monkeys (or more particularly, chimpanzees) and humans broke off evolutionary quite a long time ago. Nothing that exists TODAY could have evolved into something ELSE that exists today. Because, well, the prior ancestor wouldn’t be there.

    If A evolves to B, A is no longer present. B is.

    Um… duh?

  11. #12 Greg Laden
    September 27, 2010

    Well, lots of times A gives rise to B but B still exists pretty much as it was at the time it gave rise to B. Especially if it was not that long ago. For instance, if you think dogs are a different species from wolves, wolves gave rise to dogs and wolves and dogs are both still there.

  12. #13 hoary puccoon
    September 28, 2010

    Jim Thomerson @10– “New World monkeys didn’t have to deal with apes or humans for millions of years, until modern humans arrived. Why didn’t New World monkeys diversify similar to what Old World monkeys did?”

    Didn’t new world monkeys diversify? There are a lot of new world monkey species. And why should they have diversified into apes? A rain forest canopy is a great place to have a specialized niche– lots of fruit and not much competition or predation.

    This is just a guess, but the pressure in the African-Asian supercontinent to evolve from a rain forest niche to a more terrestrial existence (and so eventually to apes and humans) seems to be related to periodic droughts, where the rain forest just isn’t there. Unless the American rain forests underwent similar droughts, I can’t see why there would be any selection pressure for radical change in primates.

  13. #14 hoary puccoon
    September 29, 2010

    Piltdown Tea Partier man– If you and O’Donnell are examples of average Americans, I know why I’m afraid of “average Americans” getting elected– and it has nothing to do with Marxism, either.

  14. #15 Stephanie Z
    September 29, 2010

    hoary puccoon, pilty here is just the local sock puppetting loon in one of his many guises. The only way for him to be average is to actually by counted under all his identities, which is, I think, what he keeps trying for here.

  15. #16 Doug
    September 29, 2010

    I can never understand people like PTPman, who seem to think it’s a good thing to have someone ‘average’ or ‘normal’ in charge. There’s nothing wrong with average, but don’t you want the people who are leading and making decisions to be exceptional? Personally, I want our leaders to be the brightest and most able people we have. What’s more, I want them to ACT smart. The only thing that makes me cringe more than watching reasonably smart people like GW Bush or ROnald Reagan doing their ‘amiable average everyman’ schtick in order to appeal to the great unwashed, is watching authentic dunces like Sarah Palin and this O’Donnell women exhibiting the same behavior and knowing it’s not an act.

  16. #17 Tea Partier Piltdown man
    October 3, 2010

    Doug, you dillweed dingleberry. Ronald Reagan was one of the best leaders this country ever had. Behind George Washington, I count him as the second best president of the United States. Among the worst was Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Hussein Obama. Calvin Coolidge was good. Abraham Lincoln done ok. We have had marxist commies trying to take over and “fundamentally change” this nation for over a hundred years now. I just don’t see why we cannot ban communism and declare socialists/comminists a threat to national security and have them arrested for treason.

    Our founding fathers were average people, but they we well educated and well mannered people. They were also devoutly religious – most of them. Something marxists can never understand until they meet God face to face and realize how they were wrong.

    It is time we start throwing out the trial lawyers, union leader thugs, smart ass ACLU nuts, and all other member of the government that play booty buddy to these fringe groups on the left and elect normal people again.

  17. #18 MacTurk
    October 5, 2010

    Tea Partier Piltdown man wrote “I just don’t see why we cannot ban communism and declare socialists/comminists(sic) a threat to national security and have them arrested for treason”.

    Emmmm, because you would no longer be living in the USA?

    I mean, why should you ever mind such minor issues as;

    a) Freedom of Speech

    b) Freedom of Thought.

    ???

  18. #19 Harry Polms
    October 5, 2010

    O’Donnell got it all wrong. Monkeys are still evolving into humans, but as we all know it takes a long time to get to be a civilized human being.

    http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-05-22/1242962428288.jpg

  19. #20 Tea Partier Piltdown man
    October 5, 2010

    Communism/socialism itself is a threat to freedom of speech.

    And Mr. Polms there seems to think the same thoughts as I on evolution

    http://thedevilsdoor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/evolution.jpg

    Oh, and Macturk, thank you for actually not being a lazy bum and actually spelling out my screen name rather than abbreviating it like so many children on here do. Some people are too lazy to spell out works.

  20. #21 Jessica
    November 2, 2010

    PTPMan

    … and some people are too lazy to use spellcheck.

  21. #22 Ben
    September 6, 2011

    What I don’t understand in the whole theory of evolution is why no other animals are evolving emotions, understand, wisdom, complex thinking, love, hate, fear, compassion, faith, abstract thoughts, why are no other animals forming the complex emotions and intelligence of us? Are monkeys the only thing capable of forming such qualities? How come no other animals can form this complexity and depth? How come not a single case has been made that animals are getting more complex? And why are not the chimps evolving like us since our ancestors are so closely related? And if by chance they happen to form a supreme genetic being that can form wide range of emotions and ideas, then what would the probability be if such a occurrence happening to one species without another?

  22. #23 Drivebyposter
    September 6, 2011

    Ben,
    Where did you get ANY of those ideas from? Many other animals have these traits. I mean…elephants have complex emotions… they mourn other elephants when they die. They have the capacity to recognize the skeletons of dead elephants and often mourn when they discover bones. This is just a brief example of some of their abilities.

    If it was shown that other animals have all of those traits, would you be convinced of evolution? Or is this just one of those “oh yeah? explain this? You can? How about this? oh. This?” Type situations. (Not to be rude, but we get those very often and as you might imagine, it is fairly frustrating to go through that dance).

  23. #24 AK
    September 6, 2011

    What I don’t understand in the whole theory of evolution is why no other animals are evolving emotions, understand, wisdom, complex thinking, love, hate, fear, compassion, faith, abstract thoughts, why are no other animals forming the complex emotions and intelligence of us? Are monkeys the only thing capable of forming such qualities? How come no other animals can form this complexity and depth? How come not a single case has been made that animals are getting more complex?

    The great apes, including Pongo [Orangutans] (and Homo), possess a type of neuron called a “spindle or bipolar cell” (technically called von Economo neurons, named after their discoverer) in the frontal cortex, which appears to be unique to this clade. They are also widely thought to uniquely possess “cognitive empathy (the ability to take others’ perspectives)” [Watts 2010], although one source suggests Maccaca might have this feature. [Flack and de Waal 2004]

    Spindle cells show signs of having many more connections than the typical neuron in the brain, and the regions they inhabit are connected with positive and negative reactions to body conditions, food, and social situations, including empathy in humans. [Allman et al. 2010]

    Cognitive empathy is not the same thing as “triadic awareness”, which is “knowledge about the social relationships between others in one’s social group”. [Watts 2010] The latter appears to be present in several OWM clades, as well as perhaps Cebus, a NWM. [Perry and Manson 2008] Distinguishing between these two features, if they actually are different, will require much more research. However, a very tentative hypothesis might be made (and often is) that the spindle cells in the brains of great apes (including Homo) are associated with cognitive empathy, but not triadic awareness, which is much more common.

    Thus, even monkeys may well lack the features necessary for what humans do. The OWM’s split from the Apes (probably) early in the Miocene (or perhaps late Oligocene), and the great apes split from the Hylobatids (Gibbons etc.) some time after. Gibbons appear to lack both spindle cells and cognitive empathy.

    As for the difference between humans and other great apes, there are many opinions, but certainly the human abilities for language are central to whichever explanation(s) is/are correct.

    Ref’s

    Allman, J.M., Tetreault, N.A., Hakeem, A.Y., Manaye, K.F., Semendeferi, K., Erwin, J.M., Park, S., Goubert, V., Hof, P.R. (2010) The von Economo neurons in frontoinsular and anterior cingulate cortex in great apes and humans Brain Struct Funct (2010) 214:495–517 DOI 10.1007/s00429-010-0254-0

    Flack, J.C., de Waal, F.B.M. (2004) Dominance style, social power, and conflict management. In: Thierry B, Singh M, Kaumanns W (eds) Macaque societies: a model for the study of social organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 157-181

    Perry, S., Manson, J.H., (2008) Manipulative monkeys: the capuchins of Lomas Barbudal. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Watts, D.P. (2010) Dominance, Power, and Politics in Nonhuman and Human Primates In: Kappeler, P.M., Silk, J.B. (2010) Mind the Gap Tracing the Origins of Human Universals Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York ISBN: 978 3 642 02724 6 e ISBN: 978 3 642 02725 3 DOI 10.1007/978 3 642 02725 3

  24. #25 Greg Laden
    September 6, 2011

    Ben, consider the Aardvark.

    OK, have you been thinking of the Aardvark for a few seconds? Good.

    Why have other animals not evolved into Aardvarks!!!!11!!!???

  25. #26 Nathan Jonfield
    September 6, 2011

    According to the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, all living things, whether they are plants, animals and etc., have a common ancestor. There are a few queries to be raised regarding the so-called, common ancestor:

    a) As we know all living things, whether they are plants or animals or etc., need to have a couple, i.e. male and female, in order to produce the next living things. A single ancestor, such as either a male ancestor or female, would not have reproduction. How could there be only a single common ancestor in the beginning since it would have needed male ancestor as well as female of similar types in order to have reproduction? It is irrational to assume that different kinds of ancestors could perform reproduction. It is the same as a cow could not find a life-partner to mix with a rooster to perform reproduction. Certainly! If there would be common ancestor for evolution, there must be male and female ancestors with the same kind in order to achieve reproduction. To mention that all living things would have a common ancestor, is rather illogical. This is due to there must be male and female ancestors and they must be of the same kind to interact for reproduction. Not only that, they have to meet with each other instead of one was in one part of the earth and another was in another. Thus, the concept to have one common ancestor for reproduction does not seem correctly and this proves that evolution’s theory might not be true in reality.

    b) If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters. As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolution’s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.

  26. #27 Greg Laden
    September 6, 2011

    As we know all living things, whether they are plants or animals or etc., need to have a couple, i.e. male and female, in order to produce the next living things. A single ancestor, such as either a male ancestor or female, would not have reproduction. How could there be only a single common ancestor

    The vast majority of living things do not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is fairly recent in evolutionary time and may even have evolved multiple times.

    If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters.

    Well, distant cousins, really. But beyond that, don’t forget about the fungi (mushrooms and stuff). They are much more closely related to animals than they are to plants. If plants are our distant cousin mushrooms are our brothers and sisters!

    As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolution’s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.

    That is not even close to the weirdest thing in evolution!

  27. #28 John McKay
    September 6, 2011

    I’m sorry Greg, but the weird argument trumps all. Clearly, if something is weird, it is impossible. That’s obvious to average Americans. I suppose you’re one of those pointy-headed elites who actually believe there is a Weird Al Yankovic.

  28. #29 Mike Haubrich
    September 6, 2011

    Nathan. Consider the lowly coral. Wikipedia section on coral sexual and asexual reproduction.

    They reproduce both sexually and asexually. Heck, even when they reproduce sexually, they don’t pair up. They broadcast both the male and female gametes. Check out the illustration! Coral have been doing this for hundreds of millions of years and seem to thrive on it.

    Biology is cool because it isn’t as cut and dried as you have been led to believe. I am sure you are having fun dreaming up ways that evolution is “impossible,” but wouldn’t you rather learn how it really works?

  29. #30 Greg Laden
    September 6, 2011

    If you want to totally blow your mind investigate the sex life of paramecia.

  30. #31 The Big Blue Frog
    September 6, 2011

    As the Evolutionary Christianity guy says, “Forget monkeys, we’re related to spinach!”

  31. #32 Collin
    September 7, 2011

    18: “I just don’t see why we cannot ban communism”

    That’s what Chiang Kai Shek tried. That allowed Mao Tse Tung’s lobby to portray themselves as an oppressed minority and banish Chiang’s party to a tiny island.

    23: Perhaps because other species have other definitions of wisdom. The bottle-nosed dolphin and the octopus may well be as smart as people, and it could easily be said they use their intelligence much better.