- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Aug 15
One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?" "Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."
source: http://www.jokes4us.com/religiousjokes/atheistjokes.html
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by JS357"An atheist, a vegan and a feminist walked into a bar. I only know because they told everyone within two minutes."
One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?" "Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."
source: http://www.jokes4us.com/religiousjokes/atheistjokes.html
Source unknown.
Originally posted by vivifyIn my own experience atheists are far less likely than theists to advertize their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Of course there are exceptions.
"An atheist, a vegan and a feminist walked into a bar. I only know because they told everyone within two minutes."
Source unknown.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeBy that definition we're also fishes. Since all traits that makes fish living possible (gills, scales, fins, etc.) are buried in our junk DNA as unexpressed pseudo genes, we wouldn't call ourselves fish anymore. We would say we are an evolved (as in different, not higher form of) species. We have distant ancestors who could be classified as fishes. Similarly, we are not members of a tree-living, tail-endowed monkey species, but several ancestor species removed from such a species. We are in fact members of the hominid family of species, and as you rightly point out, no monkey ever gave birth to a human.
Actually if you use a phylogenetic definition of monkey, we ARE monkeys...
Knowing all this, Carson's comeback comes across as an ironical and amusing case in point for the accusation: he is indeed a moron.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyWhen and where did this conversation take place?
This is the best comeback to an Atheist that I have seen in decades.
When an atheist called him a "moron" for believing
in God, Dr. Ben Carson responded with one brilliant line that
put the atheist in his place.
"I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a
monkey," he told the individual, "and you've convinced me
you're right."
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by vivifyHaha.
"An atheist, a vegan and a feminist walked into a bar. I only know because they told everyone within two minutes."
Source unknown.
Same is true for many people that don't drink alcohol.
So you don't drink alcohol because you have no self control. Now what, you want a medal?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by C HessFish is not a phylogenetic category. Monkey's are.
By that definition we're also fishes. Since all traits that makes fish living possible (gills, scales, fins, etc.) are buried in our junk DNA as unexpressed pseudo genes, we wouldn't call ourselves fish anymore. We would say we are an evolved (as in different, not higher form of) species. We have distant ancestors who could be classified as fishes. Similarly, ...[text shortened]... comes across as an ironical and amusing case in point for the accusation: he is indeed a moron.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by Great King RatWhy do you think that a person would be tee-total because they LACK self control???
Haha.
Same is true for many people that don't drink alcohol.
So you don't drink alcohol because you have no self control. Now what, you want a medal?
Also people who don't drink tend to be reluctant to admit this due to the huge peer pressure to drink.
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNeither are the official biological terms.
Fish is not a phylogenetic category. Monkey's are.
And fish according to Wikipedia is a paraphyletic group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
Monkeys normally include two groups: old world monkeys and new world monkeys. The old world monkeys specifically excludes apes largely for traditional reasons.
The ape category is less clear cut as categorizing man as a 'great ape' has precedence, but even so, tradition excludes humans.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll issues dealt with in the video I linked.
Neither are the official biological terms.
And fish according to Wikipedia is a paraphyletic group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
Monkeys normally include two groups: old world monkeys and new world monkeys. The old world monkeys specifically excludes apes largely for traditional reasons.
The ape category is less clear cut as categorizing man as a 'great ape' has precedence, but even so, tradition excludes humans.
Monkeys normally include two groups: old world monkeys and new world monkeys
Yes, and the common ancestor for both, which was our ancestor, was also a monkey.
Therefore, we must also be monkeys.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeFish is not a phylogenetic category.
Fish is not a phylogenetic category. Monkey's are.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
I see what you mean by phylogenetic category now. It's called a monophyletic group. Fish is a paraphyletic group. Our distant common ancestor (with modern fishes) would be classified as fish.
Monkey's are.
The current definition of monkey (which I got wrong, by the way - it's all about the nose apparently), excludes hominids* (apes) because of our shoulders (also news to me), so "monkey", like "fish", is a paraphyletic group.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
While AronRa presents a good argument for why he thinks hominids should be included in the definition of monkey, thus making "monkey" a monophyletic group, he completely ignores why scientists have classified hominids as different from monkeys.
In any case, to say that we come from monkeys is only true if by "we" you mean "hominids" and by "monkeys" you mean "old world monkeys". But I take it that by "we" you're talking about the modern human species (homo sapiens sapiens), and we are several hominid species removed from old world monkeys.
Not that any of this really matters I suppose. I'd be perfectly happy to refer to myself as a monkey. It's just that... I'm not. I'm more monkey than fish, certainly, but I'm neither monkey nor fish; I'm an homonid, like my chimpanzee brothers. 😏
* Sorry, that's hominoidea, which includes hominids. I had no idea our own clades had become so confusing.
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI've met a few people who've stated that they don't drink alcohol (anymore) because if they start drinking they won't stop. This was after they very proudly proclaimed not to drink.
Why do you think that a person would be tee-total because they LACK self control???
Also people who don't drink tend to be reluctant to admit this due to the huge peer pressure to drink.
Not sure about your social life, but for me any perceived "peer pressure" to drink stopped pretty much when I became a grown-up - around 20 years old.
If you perceive peer pressure to drink as an adult, then perhaps you should worry a little less about what others think of you.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by Great King RatFor me, it's beer pressure. 😳
I've met a few people who've stated that they don't drink alcohol (anymore) because if they start drinking they won't stop. This was after they very proudly proclaimed not to drink.
Not sure about your social life, but for me any perceived "peer pressure" to drink stopped pretty much when I became a grown-up - around 20 years old.
If you perceiv ...[text shortened]... o drink as an adult, then perhaps you should worry a little less about what others think of you.