Did You Know You’re Related to a Rat?

Evolutionists get more desperate every day. They spend billions of dollars to send space probes to distant places in the universe to find signs of life so they can once and for all declare that God does not exist. If they can show that Earth is not the only place where life could have evolved, then it proves that there is no god.

So while one group of atheists is trying to find life out there so they can say that humans are not unique down here, scientists down here are working overtime to prove that God is not needed to create unique human life by claiming that homo sapiens are related to vegetables and small rats.

Am I exaggerating? We got here, say the evolutionists, because of millions of years of bloody struggle. Michael Dowd, author of the book Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, writes the following in his article “Thank God for the New Atheists”:

“Let the story of evolution be told in ways that engender familial love and gratitude, that we are related to everything — not just monkeys, but jellyfish and zucchini, too.”

If we’re related to zucchini, and it’s OK to eat zucchini, then, given evolutionary assumptions, is it OK to eat your neighbor? “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.”[1] Is the step up in violence that we are seeing today a result of people believing the evolutionary propaganda they’ve being taught all their lives?

The latest in evolutionary science wants us to believe that our distant relatives are “elephants, bats, dogs, cats, and whales” and a rat:

“[S]cientists have zeroed in on a tiny, rat-sized animal that they believe to be the common ancestor of many of today’s modern mammals — including us. This furry little critter lived 66 million years ago, scurrying under the feet of big ’ol dinosaurs and subsisting primarily on a diet of insects.

“For a long time, scientists have been hunting for ‘a common genealogical link’ between man and beast, and the Protungulatum donna is it, according to The New York Times. . . . In any case, say hi to your great, great, great, great, great... grand-something. Careful. She bites. (Via the New York Times).”

If she bit to survive and move up the evolutionary ladder back then, then why can’t we bite (or do worse) to survive today? Survival of the fittest is the mainstay of the evolutionary worldview. If it was OK for our distant ancestors to do what was necessary to make the great evolutionary leap forward, then why can’t we?

Dehumanizing people leads to unspeakable crimes. It’s been going on for a long time, but now we have science on our side in defense of the premise.

  • “During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals.”
  • “When the Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans, they didn’t mean it metaphorically, says Smith. ‘They didn’t mean they were like subhumans. They meant they were literally subhuman.’”
  • Mohamed Morsi, the new president of Egypt, has described Jews as “descendants of apes and pigs.”

Dehumanization is an old tactic, but it's only become truly scientific since Darwin. This is an old tactic. It was going on long before Darwin. Aristotle believed that some people were by nature slave material. But it’s different today. Children are being taught that they are animals related to animals. It’s all so scientific. In the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898) made this correlation between evolution and morality:

“If mine is a pig’s destiny, why may I not hold this ‘pig philosophy’? Again, if I am but an animal refined by evolution, I am entitled to live an animal life. Why not? The leaders in this and the sensualistic philosophy may themselves be restrained by their habits of mental culture, social discretion and personal refinement (for which they are indebted to reflex Christian influences); but the herd of common mortals are not cultured and refined, and in them the doctrine will bear its deadly fruit.”[2]

So the next time you hear of some guy killing his fellow-man indiscriminately, he may believe he's ridding the world of rats.


Notes:
  1. George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, rev. ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, [1949] 1967), 344–345. []
  2. Robert L. Dabney, “The Influences of False Philosophies upon Character and Conduct,” in Discourses (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Pub., 1979), 4:574. []

Comments

comments

  • Screeminmeeme

    Solid reasoning pointing out the utter bankruptcy of atheism and its dependence on evolution to explain life and its meaning.

    110 years ago, the prescient Robert Dabney was right about the evolution of evolutionary thought. We have arrived at its ugly conclusion.

    • Lars Ulric

      Why do christians ALWAYS deny popular science ! It's like you guys NEVER learn from history -- The church used to BURN PEOPLE AT THE STAKE for being heretics (simply for pushing controversial ideas --like the fact that earth is ROUND - You people haven't evolved or learned from your past mistakes in the slightest.

      • Screeminmeeme

        Lars Ulric.......

        You don't know much about Christianity and its history, do you? At least it doesnt appear so by your remarks.

        The Roman Catholic Church is a religious system which pursued, tortured and burned at the stake those genuine Christians who defied their false teaching and defended the uncorrupted biblical manuscripts . It is NOT the church Universal, the Body of Christ...something I don't expect you to understand.. The RCC speaks only for itself and not for all Christians.

        If you do some searching, you'll find that all the major sciences were initiated by Christians who were curious about their world and were following the injunctions in Scripture to examine things and find out how they work.

        You statements are neither unique or original and is the usual accusation against Christians in an effort to paint them as stupid and ignorant of the world around them. .

        The Bible says you're the one with that problem.

        • RedMeatState

          great post. Smack him again just one more time, please?

        • cyborgasm

          Yeah dudes, from al-jabr to Einstein's relativity - Christians did it all! They're just more enlightened.

        • cyborgasm

          oh sorry, I meant *algebra* typo

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      Only if you're a democrat have you evolved from a rat.

      • Lars Ulric

        Well according to the Bible and Christian's popular opinion, you come from DIRT. How is that any better, lol....

        you people are loony but like a train wreck, can't help but watching!

    • JamesMaxwell

      The theory of evolution via natural selection isn't intended to explain the meaning of life; It's intended to explain the diversity of species on our planet, which it does wonderfully.

    • smiley2012

      What are people according to atheists who believe in evolution? ”A hairless ape” - Schoenberg; ”A mere insect, an ant…” - Church; ”An accidental twig” - Gould; ”A rope stretched over an abyss” - Nietzsche; ”A fungus on the surface of one of the minor planets” - Du Maurier; ”A jest, a dream, a show, bubble, air…” - Thornbury; and ”I see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a grain of sand” - Oliver Wendell Holmes.
      When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable. Nothing is sacred. There is no objective standard of right and wrong, no God, no eternal Day of Judgement. No hope of eternal justice. Life becomes cheap.
      As the existentialist writ...er Jean-Paul Sartre explained: ”Without God all activities are equivalent…thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations.”
      At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century.

  • /.murphy

    People who attempt to ridicule evolution really entertain me.

    Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something that we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Gravity is a fact, and our theory of gravity is our best explanation for it.

    The fact of gravity is that things fall. Our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. But here's the important note: the current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things still fall. Similarly, scientists recognize that Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory of evolution is still incomplete, but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But still, the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    And, yes, there are even competing ideas among scientists who study evolution. But throwing out the entire idea of evolution because of this would be akin to altogether dismissing tires because there are competing tread designs. Most people would agree that that is just silly.

    But go ahead and believe whatever you want... you're quite free to do so. And people who attempt to deny that evolution exists are an important source of entertainment for the rest of us. ;)

    • DWinch

      I agree with you, you evolved from an ape!

      • RoryT

        Man could not have evolved from apes because apes have penis bones and
        humans have a hydraulic system. Therefore, apes don't need Viagra making apes
        more reliable for reproduction (ie. "fittest to survive"). To bad they censor
        so much science out of public schools/ indoctrination centers. Here is another
        issue blocked from student inquiry. What living organism was the first to
        require a male and female to reproduce. How many millions of years did the
        female exist before the male evolved. How did the two locate each other on this
        huge planet to mate? Plus, there has never been an experiment that produces a
        living organism that can eat, breath and reproduce. Darwinian macro evolution is
        nothing more than a hypothesis striving to reach theory status. I believe the
        sciences would be farther advanced today if the concept of evolution had never
        been invented. The search for the "god particle" and life on other planets are a
        waste of time, talent and money. Finally, selective breeding is not an example
        of evolution because there are limits. No mater how small, big or fat you breed
        a dog you will never get one with a wing or gill. I rest my case. Peace.

      • /.murphy

        ...and I see you're from the monotremes!

    • merriel

      You might have evolved from some kind of animal but my oldest ancestor was a man that God created from the dust and from a woman who God created from that man's rib. Read the Book of Genesis and learn from it.

      • /.murphy

        As I said, you're free to believe whatever you wish. Isn't America great?

      • smiley2012

        Militant atheists not only admit, but insist on the fact that evolution is blind. It has no prevision or purpose. Brains weren’t made to think. Yet they still act as if their brains were made to think.
        Likewise, they admit that what we value has no intrinsic value. Evolution has programmed us to project value on certain things. But that’s an illusion.
        Atheism contends that the marvelously ordered Universe, designated as Cosmos by the Greeks because of its intricate design, is merely the result of an ancient explosion. Does a contractor pile lumber, brick, wire, pipe,on a building site, blast it with dynamite, and expect a fine mansion to result? Is that the way militant atheists build their houses? To so argue is to reveal a truly clueless mind.

        • merriel

          Even Darwin said that his teachings were theories. That, to me, means that he never proved his theories.

        • /.murphy

          You would do well to study up on the meaning of "theory" as used and understood by scientists. It's not the same as non-scientists understand it.

    • DrSique

      Jeez, Murph, it sounds almost like you didn't bother to read the article and had preconceived notions about what you would write about it. I saw nothing suggesting that "evolution doesn't exist". What I did read were questions about whether human beings were more than merely the survival of the fittest mutation. It is, without exception, evolutionists who ridicule those who believe in God and not the reverse. Evolution would do nothing to spark mankinds desire to travel to the moon or to set up a foundation to ease human suffering. Evolution does nothing to explain human emotion, in fact it does the opposite. Compassion would have stood directly in the way of survival of the fittest. So, while I couldn't care less about being the source of your entertainment, it is you who are ignorant and blinded by ideology. Most people of faith falter and consider that they may be wrong and, once dead, cease to exist completely. I have never heard one atheist ponder that, perhaps, God does exist and that one day they may have to stand before Him. Therefore, one might suggest that atheism is not a faith but a bottomless pit of faithlessness.

      • blaineiac

        It takes practically infinite "faith" to believe the works of Phidias (Parthenon), and the music of Mozart, all came from "swamp slime".

    • RoryT

      I believe gravity can be measured, but, scientists can not make or eliminate it, other than magnets. How it works is a complete mystery to scientists. Also,
      man could not have evolved from apes because apes have penis bones and
      humans have a hydraulic system. Therefore, apes don't need Viagra making apes
      more reliable for reproduction (ie. "fittest to survive"). To bad they censor
      so much science out of public schools/ indoctrination centers. Here is another
      issue blocked from student inquiry. What living organism was the first to
      require a male and female to reproduce. How many millions of years did the
      female exist before the male evolved. How did the two locate each other on this
      huge planet to mate? Plus, there has never been an experiment that produces a
      living organism that can eat, breath and reproduce. Darwinian macro evolution is
      nothing more than a hypothesis striving to reach theory status. I believe the
      sciences would be farther advanced today if the concept of evolution had never
      been invented. The search for the "god particle" and life on other planets are a
      waste of time, talent and money. Finally, selective breeding is not an example
      of evolution because there are limits. No mater how small, big or fat you breed
      a dog you will never get one with a wing or gill. I rest my case. Peace.

      • /.murphy

        LOL! You have no case, so there is nothing to rest... except, perhaps, your tired fingers.

        • RoryT

          I'm glad I entertained you. I think it is great when people can discuss
          religion and politics and have some laughs. But, I noticed you have no rebuttal
          to the facts I expose nor answers to my questions. What gives? Here's another one. Scientists have never observed any mutations that benefited an organism survivability. I know it's mind boggling but, true. Even the poor fruit fly that scientist love to genetically alter has never been improved. Cheers.

        • /.murphy

          Spider monkeys. That's what shoots your whole argument.

          Scientists have never observed any mutations that benefitted an organism's survivability? That is false, and one doesn't need to look much further than the field of cancer research. Just look at the flurry of activity in the Journal of the American Medical Association surrounding the relationship between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and ovarian cancer survivability. (2011-2012)

          If you'd like a simpler, older example, look at the numerous observations of adaptive mutation in E. coli. Adaptive responses to changes in thermal environment have been clearly observed over 4000 generations in the bacteria.

          Never say "never."

        • RedMeatState

          why don't you write a term paper and try to go impress one of your freakin' professors, time waster!!! It won't make you feel quite as important and you won't be able to posture your psuedo-intellectual arguments, but it would be slightly more productive than anonymous posting on a news board.

        • Carl jr

          Vilify intelligence and academics. Anyone who went to "college" or who is a "professor" is nothing but a heretic blasphemer. It's foolish to study anything but the Bible, a waste of time to read any other book.
          A closed mind is more open to God.

        • /.murphy

          "Hominem unius libri timeo." -St. Thomas Aquinas

        • /.murphy

          Don't you have anything intelligent to say? So you resort to trying to insult me? LOL!

        • RoryT

          Murphy,

          We are discussing evolution today, not adaptation which has strick limits. I believe you just gave evidence supporting my point of view. BRCA1 and BRCA2 both sound like BRCAs to me (I admit I do not know what a BRCA is). In your second point regarding E. coli after 4,000 generations it is still E. coli.
          Neither case herein involves mutating into a mushroom, Strep A bacteria or some other virus. You are substituting adaptation in place of evolution. This is so common in education today. Darwin started this argument with the finch beaks. But, they still remain finches and there is no evidence they will ever become whales, monkeys or bananas. I believe the score is tied 1 to 1. Am I being fair?

        • /.murphy

          Fair? No... You're just being wrong.

      • cyborgasm

        Hehehe this was my favorite part: "I believe gravity can be measured, but, scientists can not make or eliminate it, other than magnets." Thanks RoryT, you're a dear! Don't forget, next time you're contemplating your own nether-regions hydraulic system, always measure your member during the equinox so the straight magnetic alignment between Earth and Moon make it stand up straighter and longer. Lololol - or, you know, you could try reading a book about actual science rather than mash together your own fun-size facts.

        • RoryT

          Hello Cyborgasm:

          You're very good, but, remember I'm in charge of humor. Buy the way, is there some reason you didn't answer any of the objections I listed above regarding Darwin's "Macro" evolution theory? Try answering which life form was the first to split from asexual reproduction and require genders? That may take the rest of your life and you'll then understand why science has so many fun facts for us intelligent design students. We love science that is logical. Cheers!

    • RedMeatState

      you are arguing for arguments sake. Evolution is a hypothesis that's been laundered into a "Theory" by conjecture, rigid dogmatic controls, and academic thuggery. There is no honest assessment whatsoever of the "facts" that lead to evolution as being true!
      If that were the case, then there would be transitional evidence in the fossil record. There is none, zip , nada!

      Assumptions supported by assumptions enforced with academic intimidation and thuggery. All made possible by a material universe with no purpose and no conscience that somehow manages to organize itself into higher forms all on its own, never mind ascending from 'chaos'.

      As far as "atheism" goes; there is absolutely no such thing! "Atheism" denotes neutrality, but we've noted that atheists are anything but neutral, they are very active as anti-theists. Especially when they want to form a church and sing hymns to Nothingness. Beyond the Absurd.

      So if you want to see the intractable results of enforcing "atheism" and "reason" then look no further than France, circa 1794 where tens of thousands were massacred because they would not swear an oath to the new Atheist Constitution and the proto-marxists/atheists determined to make it happen and establish their own power.

      • /.murphy

        You clearly know little or nothing about the concept of evolution, as well as the meaning of the word "theory" as used by scientists (it's considerably different from the way non-scientists understand it).

        There is also an abundance of transitional evidence that supports our observation of how new traits in a species have emerged as variations in an ancestral population. If you still doubt this, research the transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus. This is a good example because the fossil record that you say doesn't exist is--to the contrary--exceptionally well represented for early horses.

        "Assumptions supported by assumptions..." No. Again you show complete ignorance of the concept of evolution. Once you have gained an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also come to understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, you'll see that there's nothing implausible about evolution.

        On a more positive note, I think you're very close to a correct understanding of atheism. Atheism is a faith, not a science. It's not a science because it's not falsifiable. The proposition that there is no deity is a declaration of the atheists' faith and is simply not testable. No atheist can prove to me that there is no God.

        • JamesMaxwell

          An atheist doesn't have to prove anything to you. Being an atheist is simply a lack of belief. Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair color.

        • /.murphy

          You couldn't be more wrong about that, insofar as all atheists take it on faith that there is no God. Not one of them has managed to prove the absence of God, so they are left having to believe there isn't one. That's what "faith" is all about: it's a system of beliefs. Some people think their beliefs are wrong; some think they are right. But the point is that they are still beliefs.

        • JamesMaxwell

          They do not take it on faith, they take it on lack of evidence. It is that they lack faith that makes them atheists.

          At the point that you say the lack of a belief is also a belief, the word should just be "opinion."

        • /.murphy

          Ahh... you're confusing atheists with agnostics--a common enough mistake. Agnostics (from the Greek ἀ [without] + γνῶσις [knowledge]) claim there is no evidence for (or against) a deity. Atheists vehemently deny the existence of God. I wouldn't label agnosticism a "faith," but atheism fits the rubric.

        • JamesMaxwell

          No, murphy, I'm not confusing atheists with agnostics.

          Gnosticism and Theism are mutually exclusive. One is related to a claim of knowledge. The other is related to belief or the lack thereof, or if you insist, an opinion.

          I am agnostic atheist. I don't claim to have knowledge regarding gods existence one way or the other. Having no knowledge one way or the other, and not seeing any sensible reason to believe, I do not believe.

          I know agnostic theists. They openly profess that what they have is faith, not knowledge.

          I know people who claim to be gnostic theists. They claim to know that god is real. I don't believe them, I believe they're agnostic theists as well.

          I've certainly run into gnostic atheists. They're sound more idiotic than gnostic theists to me.

          The only way your appraisal of atheism is correct is when it's prefaced with the word strong. A strong atheist is considered one who insists that there is no god, going beyond simply saying that they don't believe that there is a god.

          I am an atheist, not a strong atheist, which is what you describe when you say atheist.

          If you disagree, that's fine. But trust me, many atheists view it like I do. We are not making a claim that there is no god, we simply do not believe in the one you do, along with all the other gods people have believed in. So stick with your definition if you'd like, but keep in mind many atheists are using a different definition.

        • /.murphy

          I think you and your friends are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief. Without getting too epistemological, I would say that just because you've never seen any evidence that a three-eyed toad exists, that doesn't mean it does not exist. Likewise, there may be people who choose to believe it exists, despite the lack of evidence (i.e., justification for belief). It may seem sensible for them to do so. So they do. But it wouldn't be correct to say they know of the existence of the three-eyed toad. They simply believe it exists; that is, they except the proposition of its existence as true without sufficient evidence for doing so. They have faith in its existence, in other words.

          I suspect we're going to continue to disagree...

  • patriotusa2

    So now we've been reduced to rats after years of evolutionary garbage about our ancesters being apes!! These atheists will do anything to wipe out belief in God.

    • Lars Ulric

      Why can't evolution be a part of Gods plan to you religious fundamentalist nutcases??? You think EVERYTHING is a slam on your religion. You people make yourself out to be such victims/martyrs .

      • patriotusa2

        Anyone who knows anything about the organizations of atheists and their intention to wipe out religion which has been evident for years - doesn't make one a victim or martyr. Insofar as us all being "nutcases" well that depends on your maturity, attitude and ability to accept opinions that are different from yours.

        • Derringer

          You say NUTTY things all the time. Conservative fundies are labeled NUTCASES for a reason and it's NOT simply because it's a different opinion.

        • patriotusa2

          Since I just now started commenting on this site, it's hilarious that I now say nutty things all the time. In any case you are entitled to your opinions and delusions.

        • Derringer

          Yet you just said another nutty thing. There are over 4000 comments tied to your "patriotusa2" discuss account. Godfather uses the same DISCUS comment system that all the other sites you post on use. It's easy to see your posting history by just clicking on your name. You FAIL at logic.

        • patriotusa2

          Wow! Now that's really a stretch! I guess someone with your intellect had to come up with something! You fail at intellect as Disqus is only a format for dozens of websites. Anyone with any common sense knows that you can check on profiles and activities on Disqus but in the short time you responded to me you couldn't have possibly read them all. Judging from your comments you're nothing but a professional agitator who responds to anyone and everyone whose opinion is different from yours.

        • James Mahler

          patriotusa2, professional agitator? Don't give the idiot any fancy and important sounding titles, bro. You know how these morons are. He may run off with it and we will have another rat infestation to deal with, lmaooo.

        • fedup

          You guys who always post with these stupid lol, imaooo got a lot of guts criticising anyone else especially one with something intelligent to say.

        • RoryT

          Derringer:
          How nutty am I? I think man could not have evolved from apes because apes have penis bones and
          humans have a hydraulic system. Therefore, apes don't need Viagra making apes
          more reliable when reproducing (ie. "fittest to survive"). To bad they censor
          this science out of public schools/ indoctrination centers. Here is another
          issue blocked from student inquiry. What living organism was the first to
          require a male and female to reproduce. How many millions of years did the
          female exist before the male evolved. How did the two locate each other on this
          huge planet to mate? Plus, there has never been an experiment that produces a
          living organism that can eat, breath and reproduce. Darwinian macro evolution is
          nothing more than a hypothesis striving to reach theory status. I believe the
          sciences would be farther advanced today if the concept of evolution had never
          been invented. The search for the "god particle" and life on other planets are a
          waste of time, talent and money. Finally, selective breeding is not an example
          of evolution because there are limits. No mater how small, big or fat you breed
          a dog you will never get one with a wing or gill. I rest my case. Peace.

        • RedMeatState

          yeah, it's because that's all the deranged left has going for it is name calling and attempts at ridicule.

        • Derringer

          yep. Good ole freedom of speech at work. Get used to it., You minority of fools, otherwise known as conservatives in America, better be prepared to get ridiculed for the rest of your miserable lives.

        • RedMeatState

          don't hold your breath!! AND you don't have as much "freedom" as you think you do;
          noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com/

          keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/5-usc-552aa13/

      • RoryT

        Here's a short version of why.

        Man could not have evolved from apes because apes have penis bones and
        humans have a hydraulic system. Therefore, apes don't need Viagra which makes apes more reliable for reproduction (ie. "fittest to survive"). To bad they censor
        so much science out of public schools/ indoctrination centers. Here is another
        issue blocked from student inquiry. What living organism was the first to
        require a male and female to reproduce. How many millions of years did the
        female exist before the male evolved. How did the two locate each other on this
        huge planet to mate? Plus, there has never been an experiment that produces a
        living organism that can eat, breath and reproduce. Darwinian macro evolution is
        nothing more than a hypothesis striving to reach theory status. I believe the
        sciences would be farther advanced today if the concept of evolution had never
        been invented. The search for the "god particle" and life on other planets are a
        waste of time, talent and money. Finally, selective breeding is not an example
        of evolution because there are limits. No mater how small, big or fat you breed
        a dog you will never get one with a wing or gill. I rest my case. Peace.

        • Lars Ulric

          You've posted this insane non-sense half a dozen times on the SAME THREAD. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's pseudoscience non-sense. Get an education!

        • RoryT

          Thanks Einstein. Why don't you educate me. Just answer the questions. The monkey bone is only an observation and not a question (just google it). Peace.

        • /.murphy

          (Spider monkeys have no baculum, either...) But don't tell anyone. Sshhhh!

        • RoryT

          Great find murphy. I'll give you credit for your research. But, observe that spider monkey are from South America which is hardly considered the cradle of civilization. Plus, we still can not say which came first. Thus, are you prepared to say all primates evolved into spider monkeys from which humans evolved? Next can you please explain the scientific explanation for the origin of the sexes and, plus, why no scientist has created a living organism to this date. With our atom splitting and cloning technology we should be able to out smart a puddle of mud. Keep up the good work.

        • /.murphy

          Humans did not evolve from spider monkeys, but spider monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor, along with all other primates. The lack of a baculum was obviously a mutation that occurred in an ancestral population somewhere. Incidentally, in all primates, the baculum is greatly reduced in size, compared to other mammals.

        • Progressive Republican

          Have you ever noticed that those who are disinclined to believing in evolution seem not to be part of that process?

        • RoryT

          That's because creationists prefer to live in the real world. That's also why we enjoy life even when we're sober. Just know, evolution is only a theory until the day a scientist discovers an experiment that creates a living organism that eats and multiplies. Until then evolution remains a hypothesis or theory by definition. There are still thousands of questions without answers regading evolution. Again, above I ask the question "Which was the first organism that required a male and female to reproduce?" Stop calling me names and try academic debate for once. Cheers.

        • Progressive Republican

          "That's because creationists prefer to live in the real world." AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This despite an incalculable amount of evidence to the contrary. Pff.

          There's a VAST difference between how the general public uses the word "theory" and how scientists use that word. Learn it.

          "Stop calling me names and try academic debate for once." When did I EVER say, "Hey Rory! You're a (insert insult of your choice here)!" Be accurate. Good luck with that.

        • /.murphy

          Now that you've posted your "version" so many times on the same thread... you should probably know that spider monkeys don't have a baculum, either, and likewise rely on fluid hydraulics... So your explanation is both stupid and wrong.

        • Carl jr

          Man did not evolve from apes. They may have had a common ancestor millions of generations ago. It is impossible to tell from the fossilized remains of these potential ancestors what type of penis they had.

          All multi-celled organisms require a male and female to reproduce. Why do you think there was a time with only females?

          The search for the "god particle" or deep space exploration have nothing to do with evolution or with disproving any philosophy. It is about finding the smallest substance and most distant places.

          Of course there are limits to breeding. You cannot mate with a pumpkin (Though some have tried). I am no biologist, but it goes Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Plants are a different Kindom from humans, rats are in a different order, apes are a different species.

        • Laurence Almand

          Chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA to humans. Look at the way apes behave and the way so-called "humans" behave and you have your answer. Creation is just nonsense - a myth on par with the old Roman myths and such nonsense.

        • RoryT

          Sorry Laurence for not being intimidated. But, 99% is a correlation not a proof. For example 100% of people breath and 100% die. But, does anyone think breathing kills?. Or all automobiles have wheels. Did all cars evolve from a Mercedes 100 years ago? The solar system is perfect for carbon life forms therefore, there is going to be a lot of similarity in all life forms. Second, humans often act as though the Bible had a positive influence. Remember the Titanic? The women and children were saved. Love and honor is from God's example and counter contemorary evolutionary theory. The Bible teaches
          about sacrifice for others. Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" would have meant men survived the Titanic. God values Love. Peace

      • RedMeatState

        because it doesn't work, that's why. And everything is a slam on our religion, you just did it yourself.

        • Lars Ulric

          Well get used to it...You don't live in Afghanistan or another muslim country where they BAN ridicule of their religion. We have freedom of speech here in the U.S. -- Slamming your idiotic religion is a past time and there is not a GOD DAMNED thing you can do about it, short of killing me.

        • RedMeatState

          your attitude betrays your falseness!!! Not impressed and you're free to pursue any idiotic pursuits you desire. Thanks for sharing.

        • quipster

          Thanks for spelling God with capital letters mighty big of you !

    • Laurence Almand

      If you know anything about biology, you know that rats and humans are both mammals, descended from the original small, ratlike mammals that roamed during the time of the dinosaurs. Creation is just a myth, formulated by ignorant, primitive people who had no scientific knowledge.

      • patriotusa2

        To you it's a myth, not to many others! Insofar as all your "ignorant, primitive people who had no scientific knowledge" is concerned - I guess you've never heard about the pyramids, the sphinx, and countless other wonders of the world that not only depended on scientific knowledge but also mathematical knowledge as well as civil engineering.

  • ICOYAR

    A major fallacy is that despite ALL of the requirements for even microbial life to exist for 90 days, with the chances of those exceeding Planck Volumes in the entire Universe, "scientists" believe that alien life is abundant in the universe without concrete evidence. They just want us to think about "numbers", than all the factors involved for lift to exist.

    • RedMeatState

      that's because they misinterpret Einsteins' axiom that "imagination is more important than knowledge".

  • RoryT

    Man could not have evolved from apes because apes have penis bones and
    humans have a hydraulic system. Therefore, apes don't need Viagra making apes
    more reliable for reproduction (ie. "fittest to survive"). To bad they censor
    so much science out of public schools/ indoctrination centers. Here is another
    issue blocked from student inquiry. What living organism was the first to
    require a male and female to reproduce. How many millions of years did the
    female exist before the male evolved. How did the two locate each other on this
    huge planet to mate? Plus, there has never been an experiment that produces a
    living organism that can eat, breath and reproduce. Darwinian macro evolution is
    nothing more than a hypothesis striving to reach theory status. I believe the
    sciences would be farther advanced today if the concept of evolution had never
    been invented. The search for the "god particle" and life on other planets are a
    waste of time, talent and money. Finally, selective breeding is not an example
    of evolution because there are limits. No mater how small, big or fat you breed
    a dog you will never get one with a wing or gill. I rest my case. Peace.

  • djbltrnmd

    I have been using the term 'Demonicrat' when discussing the opposition to our Constitutional Republic

    • RedMeatState

      check this out and spread the news:
      noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com/

      keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/5-usc-552aa13/

    • Progressive Republican

      If that were true, you'd be saying "Rethuglicons" or "Teandertals".

  • Friscolady

    In case no body has noticed John Dunmar has changed his name again.

    He has gone from John Dunmar to Lars Ulric, and his latest incarnation is Derringer.

    Though I imagine everyone can tell who he is by his upstanding (sarcasm) mode of posting.

    • Lars Ulric

      Friscolady's kids died .... Instant karma baby! LESS CONSERVATIVES IN THE WORLD! Woo hoo!!!!!!!

    • Lars Ulric

      Did you ever get the feeling that you are hated and despised?...I can keep this up.....

      • Friscolady

        and I care because?

        • Derringer

          because you sure do mention my name a lot.

        • Derringer

          oops...I gave my new troll handle away ......

        • Friscolady

          I was just pointing out the troll. As we all do.

        • Derringer

          I apologize in any case... I was wrong to say what I did --sorta cringed after the fact... Not even idiot conservatives deserve that type of thing.

        • Friscolady

          Apology accepted.

        • Lars Ulric

          I'll take a break from trolling out of respect. Even a troll should have limits on nastiness. I've had that type of thing directed at me in the past and I guess became desensitized to it.

        • Progressive Republican

          There should always be limits on nastiness. However, you do no one a favor if you limit exposing readers on sites like this to the truth.

        • Lars Ulric

          Point well taken.

        • Lars Ulric

          Our biggest and most curable ill as a society is the fact that the ugly politics in DC and in the Media especially (on both sides admittedly) have filtered down into everyday society to the point where we feel totally slighted by the other side and so many people are willing to trade barbs without thought or acceptance of the hurt we might be causing --- someone admitted on this blog that some words actually do hurt -- Not that that shouldn't be obvious but most people like to pretend it doesn't any more. We have so many things happening in society that hurts ALL of us (All these shootings, etc) has an emotional effect on society as a whole -- at some point we're just all going to have to call a CEASE FIRE and take the time to heal and process. Politicians in DC need to grow up as well as media personalities. They are all setting a terrible example and instilling terrible character flaws into people who naturally mimic what they see.

          anyway, sorry again for being a pest , I'd like to hang my trolling hat ......

  • http://www.facebook.com/lee.riffee Lee Riffee

    The reason that this sort of stuff is being postulated is mostly because of DNA analysis, which does indeed say that we humans share some 95% of our DNA with mice. However, and this is the important part - just because two entities share common building blocks means only that they are made from much the same thing. For instance, a golf club and a backhoe have parts that are made out of steel (which is the element iron with various additives), but they are only "related" to each other in that they share some of the same fundamental materials. We are made of much the same substances as are rodents, which is logical because everything on this earth is made from various combinations of the same set of elements.
    I really don't care that I share 98% of my DNA with a chimp because I know that God made humans, chimps and everything else out of the same stuff. And also that we (humans) are His prized creation and that sets us apart from apes, rats, cats, etc. Really, all one needs to realize is that humans are God's creation and it doesn't matter that He created animals, plants and everything else in the universe. IMO there's no sense in splitting hairs about the age of things or genetic relationships unless you are into those sciences. I also don't see any problem with the idea that God may direct the changes in species over time. Birds may indeed have come from dinosaurs that ran on the ground on two legs, but really, who cares when it comes down to the important things in life.
    And as far as science and religion being in a perpetual clash, that isn't always the case. I know/knew two physicists who were/are devout Christians. One of them even worked for NASA. The other was an Anglican minister who had a job in that science before and while he was a part-time minister.

    As far as humans being different from other apes, there are some major differences that even science cannot explain. One major one is that we are somewhat adapted to water. We are the only primate that has stores of body fat, body hair that grows downward towards our feet, nostrils that point downward and not outward, oily skin, and other features that allow us to swim and dive. We can also develop the ability to hold our breath for minutes, something that no ape or monkey can do. And no ape or monkey can swim and dive the way we do; in fact pretty much all of them will just sink to the bottom and drown if the water is over their heads, especially the great apes. That also shows that we are special to God, regardless of what He made us out of.

    • smiley2012

      While the Theory evolution is dependent upon natural selection and adaptation, natural selection and adaptation do not equate evolution. For Darwinian evolution to occur, data has to be added to DNA through mutations. If data isn’t added to DNA, then it’s impossible to go from molecules to man. The fact is, data being added to DNA has never been observed and cannot be proven to have occurred through the fossil record. Even prominent evolutionists admit the fossil record proves nothing.

      Now some might say that evolution can be observed today with bacteria “evolution in a petri dish”, and refer to “super bugs” like MRSA as evidence. The fact is, through mutations, which damages parts of the DNA structure of this bacteria (actually reducing the amount of data in the DNA), MRSA has become resistant to antibiotics. Not only that, but once the mutations occur and deleting information from the DNA strand, that data can never be recovered by the “offspring”. It’s lost forever. Obviously, this doesn’t prove evolution.

      It is through natural selection (survival of the fittest) and mutations that we get various kinds of certain species, but the fact remains, you’ll always have animals of the same kind through this process. You won’t get a bird from a reptile or a whale from a bear.

      Scientists like to disregard logic for their own biased reasons.

      • JamesMaxwell

        The fact is, your appraisal of evolution is incorrect and incomplete. A trip to a local university to speak to a professor of biology could avail you of the knowledge and guidance you need to better understand the processes involved.

        There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" other than time scale. Mutate for long enough and you end up with different kinds which can be considered separate species, especially when you lose the ability to interbreed between two diverging genotypes/phenotypes.

        • smiley2012

          If the Darwinian theory is the best you atheists can come up with as something to grasp onto, then it's no wonder you're so readily misled in your faithlessness. One wonders if some of it is not truly disbelief, but actual diabolical influence.
          You seem to be under the delusion that you made a point. As to delusions and hallucinations much of Darwin's Origin of the Species should be at the top of the unscientific list, but their is no reason to burn it. Biochemistry, genetics and the Law of Biogenesis long since indicated that Darwinian macro-evolution beyond the species level (genera, families etc.) and involving changes in morphological types as incompatible with the scientific method.

  • sovereigntyofone

    If I am related to a rat then Obama is related to an ape/monkey...

    • JamesMaxwell

      You are and he is. We're related to each other as well (including Obama).

      • sovereigntyofone

        Oh God forbid that Obama is a distant cousin... lol

  • quipster

    A piss ant is still a piss ant a bird is still a bird, atheist is still a atheist so on and so forth nothing will ever change ! Only atheist and liberals have rat blood in their genes.

  • Carl jr

    If we discovered life on another planet, it would not disprove God. Maybe God is in charge of a million planets like ours. Maybe they have their own God, and multiple gods control sections of the universe. They may get together every few eons and compare notes.

    If we discovered that we were not alone, why would that change your opinion on a Creator? Earth may just be one of many planets he has seeded.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ken.kirkham.7 Ken Kirkham

    I knew politicians were related to rats but humans...nah

  • Davy2010

    So,the theory that we all came out of Africa is also wrong .The rat came out from Asia on board ships & caused the black plague. The nasty Asian ancestors !

  • bigkoala

    DNA does not lie. We humans share about 98% of our DNA with apes, less with all mammals including rats, less with reptiles and amphibians, less with fish, less with insects, and even less with plants. This is what evolution would predict. But...yes...we do share SOME with zucchini, which shows that we ARE indeed related, if you go back far enough.
    All life on earth is related, it all needs oxygen to survive, all needs to feed on something, all needs to excrete waste, all has sensation of some sort, all grows and repairs itself, etc. Is this so difficult to understand?

    • Laurence Almand

      Realistic Evolution is logical and not difficult to understand. However, people who have been brainwashed by religious nonsense find it virtually impossible to think logically, or cast off their superstitions. "Give me a child until he is seven....."

  • bigkoala

    I don't suppose it really matters, but the picture of the "rat" above is not a rat, but a shrew, which is a primitive ancestor of a rat. Shrews are marsupials, with pouches for their young (like possums and kangaroos). Rats have placentas, like most other mammals, including humans.

  • [email protected]

    Wow! This just made me feel like less of a human and it's just one more thing that would take away from the fact that we are the only species who can think for ourselves, defend ourselves. Humans are the only ones who know they are in danger in the catagories this article is trying to put us in and it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal or any religious topics. I don't want to be brought down to the can't think for myself, I'm an animal only to be controlled to be conditioned by whatever kind of thing this article says I'm related to. It makes us sound lame. We need to think about it don't we?

  • Laurence Almand

    Evolution is the only logical way that humans developed - the evidence is all around us in fossils and other mineral deposits. If you don't believe that humans evolved from rats or pages, take a look at Detroit, Michigan.

    • Laurence Almand

      (Yes, pages should be spelled "apes" - Im a sloppy typist. Mea culpa.)