... Didn't think that sounded that queer in my head. Ah well. This isn't the sort of stuff I usually post, but seeing as it's a blog about anything I feel remotely inclined to mention or post about, I thought I'd paste here a definition of 'Evolution' I found while absent-mindedly floating around Urban Dictionary, just for the fun of seeing such a mixture of intellectuals and total oblivious idiots mixed in one site.
This entry, from 'Newms34', basically says everything there is to be said about both Evolution in itself (minus the technical mumbo-jumbo that refuses to penetrate my abnormally-thick skull no matter how hard I try), and patently and absolutely destroys 90% of the 'arguments' against Evolution used by Creationists and similar retards who don't want teh eevil scientistz to spread around their 'fairy tale for adults'. ('Fairy tale' ... coming from folks who believe in a being that cannot be seen, heard, felt, touched or measured in any imaginable way, and whose only 'proof of existence' comes from the pages of a thousands-year-old book that's been edited and translated so frequently it could've meant something entirely other than what we know back then ... that's rich.) It's a little long, but that is no deterrent in this case.
From UrbanDictionary.com, 'Evolution', entry #5 as of this date [I took the liberty of correcting the 2-3 little mistakes the post editor's Spell-Checker found)]:
Evolution, the combination of such processes as Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and others, is the subsequent collection of scientific processes that eventually change one organism into another. It is important to discount a few widely held myths here that Creationists often erroneously use to discount Evolution, bringing up half-baked ideas about how one or more "facts" disprove evolution, without bothering to actually know what they're talking about. However, a little care and attempt at education can easily clear up these mistakes: 1.) Evolution does NOT necessarily dictate that animals (or plants, or fungi, or whatever you fancy) must evolve into something more complex. If all animals over the size of cockroaches were wiped out tomorrow, that would be a form of evolution: the Cockroaches and smaller animals would be the surviving species, and "Survival of the Fittest" (a common saying used in evolution) would hold true.2.) Evolution does NOT, I repeat NOT suggest that humans "magically appeared from crawling fish". Evolution takes time. HUGE amounts of time. We're talking about half a billion years here (~500,000,000)for the total evolution from the first protochordates into the modern Homo Sapiens. Not a couple days. Not even a couple centuries. This time span is so long that it's often hard to comprehend. The changes were gradual, as some random "mistakes" in our DNA made some animals better able to adapt, and others not as able to adapt. It is NOT like throwing sand in the air and having it come down as a sand castle. It is, however, like sprinkling little tiny bits of sand here and there - sometimes a grain at a time - and eventually building up to a sandcastle. And sometimes having bits of the sandcastle knocked down.
3.) Species that died out, such as Homo Neanderthalis (Neaderthal Man) are not counterexamples. In fact, it shows that two different species, with two different natural "sets of equipment", have different ways (and thus chances) of surviving or outlasting each other. We and Neanderthals DID stem from the same common ancestor. However, whereas Neanderthals had stocky, tough, but not to bright build, we went the lean and brainy root. That was fine for a little while, but soon we outcompeted them, and they died out.
4.) In regards to the comment above that some species were found in the wrong area: The earth moves. Ever see a volcano? An earthquake? Rocks don't always just sit there.
5.) Any educated biologist will not respond by saying "oh, you're right, evolution didn't happen."
Bill: But monkeys and fish look real different, so evolution must be wrong! Fish change into monkeys suddenly? LOL!
Jill: That's not really what Evolution says...
That's ... beautiful! *sobs in awe*
I can't ascertain that he's correct in all the details, such as in his second point '2.)', but he's definitely got the basics dead-on. :P
Posts
SsssssssssssssssooOOOOOOO? As if most people don't know, or agree with that. >_>
Uh, newsflash: according to SIXTY PERCENT of Americans ... no, they don't. (Referring here to a 2001 poll that concluded that only 34% (from memory) of Americans believed in Evolution over Creationism – about 20% were 'undetermined'.) Of course to people who have a modicum of education and intelligence like you and me this seems like the most obvious thing on the planet, but trust me, it's not nearly as commonly-accepted as one might think at first.
Just to give you an idea, look up some info on a certain Ray Comfort, or even visit his incredibly stupid blog. (Try not to have a heart attack from either laughing too hard or plain outrage at such unbelievable arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.) Trust me when I say, he truly is, honestly, a 'spokesperson' for 60% of Americans, according to his fanbase.
And that's SCARY. @_@
As one of the 34%, I've struggled to understand why so many of my fellow Americans have a problem with evolution. Part of it may be pure semantics and the way the debate is framed as a matter of "belief", which implies both choice and a "leap of faith" which isn't necessary with empirically proven facts.
The truth is I don't "believe" in evolution. I don't "believe" in gravity either. I'm not denying the existence of gravity, of course--that would be ridiculous. So would denying the process of evolution, given the amount of evidence.
Of course there's also the problem of the U.S. educational system. When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, I had science teachers who either skipped over evolution or openly criticized it.
Heh ... It's as the wonderful Dr. Richard Dawkins puts it (I think, just paraphrasing from memory here):
'Anyone who's looked at all the evidence we have for Evolution, or even a large part of it, and still doesn't 'believe' in it, is frankly either ignorant, stupid, religious ... or insane.'
... Very vaguely like that. Brutal, but absolutely right.