Oy... yet another fundy who don't know what evolution is all about...
Look, dumbass, even if it was 100% unaltered for 360 million years, which I highly doubt, that merely means it didn't undergo any changes to successfully occupy its niche, okay?
Find a junior high book on evolution and read the fucking thing, will ya?
10/28/2006 2:46:25 AM
\"[Response to a report that a prisoner was found who was not tortured]
Not tortured? Back to the books for the Liberals. Since that prisoner wasn't tortured, that means the ones in Abu Ghraib weren't, either. That's what I get out of this.\"
10/28/2006 3:37:48 AM
Yeah, I stole it. Sorry!
10/28/2006 3:42:37 AM
That's what I get out of this.
And that would be \"nothing\"...
What Ed said!
10/28/2006 3:57:14 AM
If evolution worked the way this clown thinks it should, there would have been nothing but bacteria, which all evolved into nothing but plants, which all evolved into nothing but dinosaurs, which all evolved into nothing but mammals, which all evolved into nothing but humans -- no other life on the planet at any give time, because it's all advancing to become US.
But evolution does not work that way, and nobody who understands it ever claimed that it did -- in part because we have many millions of different kinds of life forms even now, most of them doing very well at whatever it is they do, so any changes that do crop up in such creatures tend to be selected against.
I'm guessing that this poster would be selected against passing a science course.
10/28/2006 5:26:06 AM
Last I checked Humans don't live in water and don't survive off the same food as Lampreys do. Their needing or not needing to evolve is totally different from pre-Humans who would have been subjected to constant environmental changes that effect their way of life and food supply.
Also, I hate to break it to you but there are different Lamprey species which suggests that some broke off from the main group and did in fact need to evolve over time. It would be like if a type of ape survived to this day that spawned both us and other apes. All it means is that their habitat remained relatively stable and thus allowed them to stay somewhat (not exactly though) the same while parts of their population left the habitat to populate other areas which were vastly different from where they came from. Evolution doesn't say change HAS to happen in a fixed amount of time, it just says that it does given different experiences that a species comes into contact with. 360 million years for a Lamprey is apparently a walk in the park, but what did their ancestors look like 500 million years ago or 750 million years ago? If you go back far enough you won't find them at all and instead find a vastly different species which they evolved from.
10/28/2006 6:53:30 AM
Oh no, only climatic change, adaptation to environment........and the fact that lampreys and humans are as different as pears and apples.
10/28/2006 9:15:27 AM
Or... it's environment did not change as much as ours did, thereby creating no need to evolve much.
10/28/2006 1:17:07 PM
Yeah, because lampreys and humans are sooooo similar. Fucktard. At least educate yourself before you make like a fool in public.
10/28/2006 4:42:55 PM
Yes, because humans live underwater and suck the blood of passing animals.
10/28/2006 6:04:14 PM
OH GOD! THE STUPID! IT BURNS!!
10/29/2006 1:31:58 AM
\"Very similar\" and \"identical\" are not the same, you twit. More importantly, the rate at which evolution progresses is not constant from species to species - it's greatly dependent on selection pressure.
10/29/2006 6:30:03 PM
Stupid OVERLOAD! Head Exploding in three...two...one...*
10/30/2006 12:03:05 PM
\"Since a lamprey didn't need to evolve this means that humans didn't either. That's what I get out of this.\"
Thats because you're a stupid fundie who doesn't understand science.
10/30/2006 1:30:12 PM
Because we're so similar to lampreys.
10/31/2006 3:00:13 AM
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!
12/20/2006 9:26:31 PM
2/2/2007 3:12:59 PM