It's controlled by the government, that's what.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Holy Shit... you cannot be fucking serious?

Edit: Oh man, I think I just pooped a little from surprise.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Feb 1 2010 05:21am

On a biological since - Humans are de-evolving. We are loosing some of are most biologically important traits because we rely so much on tools.

(Just wait and see how dumb the next upcoming generation (born in 2000+) will be from growing up with so much television/computers.

There is no such think as devolution. It's statistically impossible and a fallacy.

I don't think it's "statistically impossible", I think it's just impossible by definition.

This post was edited by infinitesimal on Feb 1 2010 02:57pm

Could a group of humans have the correct sequence of mutations to turn back into the missing link? Probably. Is it likely? Probably not.

are you just trolling or what?

now i will try to attack you by your own logic:

the single best selling book in the world means nothing if it is all wrong either. Content in the Bible is controlled by the ancient roman government, by modern day catholic/christians so they also can be all wrong. I think you and i can agree on one thing: there are alot of paedophile priest (lol). unfortunately you do not realize that you've been also affected by the lies of those paedophile priest. you believe in creationism because that was what you were taught ever since you first began kindergarten years ago. try thinking outside the box. I believe my argument has the same amount of evidence as your argument, which in your words is "plenty".

edit: oh by the way, if you want to use your single best selling book in the world to backup for your beliefs, the most printed book is the ikea catalogue, now what?

This post was edited by hk_nobody on Feb 1 2010 05:10pm

Evolution is just the change that occurs as a result of processes that select for beneficial traits. Regression is still evolution because in some twisted way these shitty traits are being selected for. So "devolution" is still evolution. I don't even think "devolution" is even a meaningful word. Am I wrong?

@what you said: i guess since mutations are random, it's possible to regain some genes shared by ancestors, but has it ever occurred where such a large % of the genome changed in one generation?

This post was edited by infinitesimal on Feb 1 2010 06:34pm

The term devolution refers to a modern day organism reverting to an ancestral form. While it is still evolution, its just silliness. Even if we changed the enviroment to be exactly like it was in dinosaur times, chickens wouldn't turn into T-rexes over the years. This actually leads into the argument over what a higher-order versus lower order organism is. Are we more complex than what preceded us? Who knows. Evolution is a one way street forwards in time.

Yea devolution was a made up term by the creationists who were attempting to strawman darwin. "WHY DONT PEOPLE TURN INTO MONKEYS?" and stuff.



No

Actually normally you have some great points and theories to share..
This one seems quite wrong tho.

The fact that we become more depending on technology isnt really a sign of de-evolving..
Science and technology are just mere tools.