Quote# 20700

Love that evolutionary drivel. If evolution wants everything to live so badly, why no unlimited life spans? Twist that one, Darwinheads.

shandooga, Damn Interesting 51 Comments [2/15/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Mike

Uh, no, dipshit. That's not how we think or how it works.

2/15/2007 5:59:42 PM

Øyvind

Twisting theories? We'll leave that to you Creationists.

2/16/2007 5:30:25 PM

Sykotik489

Evolution doesn't \"want\" anything, as it is not a living entity.

That's a start to what is wrong with this bullshit.

2/16/2007 5:30:33 PM

BoxerShorts

I don't get it.

2/16/2007 5:34:04 PM

Patches

Because unlimited lifespans would eventually lead to mass overcrowding without enough resources to go around, so everything would just die off, anyway.

Note that the longest-lived lifeforms on earth are also the ones that reproduce with the least frequency. If you're popping out babies continuously, then your evolutionary duty has been fulfilled, and from an evolutionary perspective, you're just taking up space.

I'm sure some fundie somewhere will interpret this as evolutionists saying we should euthanize the elderly. This is merely an explanation as to why longer lifespans are not selected by evolution.

2/16/2007 5:36:09 PM

Doctor Whom

Don't ask us. Ask the God of the Bible why, if He is so omnibenevolent, He goes on genocidal rampages every so often. By the way, evolution really, really hates being anthropomorphized.

2/16/2007 5:47:57 PM

SilverStar

Well, there's always cancer cells. Those have a fairly unlimited lifespan, naturally.

And gee, those are caused by a mutation of the cell. It's not an externally beneficial mutation, but to the cell it could be seen as such.

One cell's evolution is another cell's malignant growth.

2/16/2007 5:57:21 PM

Madame Scarlet

Uh... because evolution is not a conscious entity. We're not the ones doing the twisting here.

2/16/2007 6:06:25 PM

Mister Spak

Love that creationist drivel. If you can reproduce more by living a shorter life and making bigger litters thats what you will evolve to do(your species, not you personally). Twist on that one, hollowheads.

2/16/2007 6:22:25 PM

Øyvind

When we've started to colonize the galaxy and can easily spread at a whim to other worlds and just as easily \"terraform\" them, I'm all for eternal life. Until then, though, there's the problem of overcrowding.

2/16/2007 6:31:40 PM

Strife767

See, unlike religion, science is not what we want, but what is. I've never seen anyone following a religion they didn't like--and that's no coincidence.

Why no unlimited life spans in the ToE? Because there are no unlimited life spans in nature. End of story.

2/16/2007 6:39:58 PM

Star Cluster

How do you ever get thru to someone this intentionally ignorant?

2/16/2007 6:40:25 PM

alexia

Why no unlimited life spans? Maybe because, even if evolution was an actual being capable of thoughts and desires, unlimited lifespans would directly oppose natural selection, which is rather important for evolution.

2/16/2007 6:44:53 PM

Mister Spak

Star Cluster: You can't. Attempts to \"get through\" only motivate efforts to keep you out.

2/16/2007 6:55:32 PM

Star Cluster

Mr. Spak: Yeah, I know. It was mostly a rhetorical question, demonstrating the dispair one feels when dealing with such colossal stupidity.

2/16/2007 7:02:34 PM

Gargoyle

How childish... meh....

2/16/2007 7:06:00 PM

JohnRaptor

Evolution doesn't \"want\" any more than gravity, momentum or chemistry do.

2/16/2007 7:55:45 PM



Evolution doesn´t want anything. It´s nature the one in charge of controlling what´s necesary or not for our survival.

2/16/2007 8:04:06 PM

CousinTed



It's amazing how many Dinosaur Comics pertain to the topic at hand

2/16/2007 8:09:16 PM

Zipperback

You mean like trees?

2/16/2007 8:28:39 PM

FYI

Actually the question of why organisms age has been studied by evolutionary biologists. The answer doesn't have to do with overcrowding. That would take group selection which isn't very effective. The theory is that reproducing at an earlier age is generally a better strategy because indviduals will tend to die as they age through bad luck, predation ect. So the longer an organism waits to breed the lower the chances are that it will live long enough to breed. as a consequence organisms that breed relatively early outreproduce late breeders. This can vary across populations depending on the rate of predation and disease for example, low predation tends to be associted with longer absolute lifespans
So why do things then age? Mutations that decrease the bodies ability to maintain itself (e.g. killing cancerous cells) but do not have an effect until later in life will be invisible to selection since the organism has already passed along it genes before the detrimental mutations effects are felt and in a similar fashion mutations that increase reproductive success early in life but have a negative effect on health later in life will also become fixed in a population and cause aging.

2/16/2007 8:31:05 PM

llDayo

You got us there, shitdigga!

2/16/2007 8:44:47 PM

Napoleon the Clown

To make you ask why.

2/16/2007 8:50:39 PM

David D.G.

Strife767: Excellent insight, beautifully stated!

CousinTed: Now THAT is how the Second Law of Thermodynamics properly applies to the Theory of Evolution!


~David D.G.

2/16/2007 9:07:00 PM

[i]McCulloch[/i]

These fundies seem to wonder why scientists have not thought about the simple problems with evolution that convince them that it is wrong. If they would just research the issues a little bit, they would find out that these things have been thought about and answered.

Species that don't die, don't need to reproduce. Species that don't reproduce, don't mutate. Species that don't mutate, do not evolve.

That wasn't so hard was it?

2/16/2007 9:14:51 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page