Index | Comments and Contributions | previous:4.5 biochemistry
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
March 21
From: aj13#NoSpam.mindspring.com (Blind faith is overated, and very dangerous when
the terrain is rough. ) [That's what the header gives as name anyway - JV]
LADIES & GENTLEMAN !!!!
IT'S THE BATTLE OF THE MILLENIUM !!!!
CREATION VS. EVOLUTION!!!
This is going to be a caged, no holds barred match, to the death!!!!
In one corner we have EVOLUTION, who brings with it an assortment of
weapons, including : records, fossils, actual proof, and even a bit
of faith & belief.
In the other corner we have CREATION, who brings---wait a minute,
CREATION is pulling something from out of a sack, it's a....it's a....
It's a book ?!? CREATION has brought a book to use in battle. And yes
a bit of faith & belief.
It's unbelievable the way they are going at each other folks ! It's
a battle royal. Who will win this grudge match? Who will suffer from
their loss? We may never know. Let's watch & see, and pray ours is
the victorious one, which ever that may be.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: LEISTI#NoSpam.cc.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and
Stork Science, University of Helsinki)
(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of
Alberta)
Ovulation versus cretinism
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory
of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in
the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour
of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught
in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.
Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This
can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the
theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive
correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are
decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific
methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the
stork.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
And a footnote to the previous joke: From: stan kegel <kegel#NoSpam.fea.net>, Puns of the weak No human beings were around during the Ice Age because it was the pre-stork era. (Richard Lederer)
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: "THE BIG PIG" <edwardaharkceaze#NoSpam.hotmail.comNoJunk> Received from Poor Innocent Guy Bernard of Sennett, New York: November 12 December 27 Scientists and God One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a man-making contest." To which the Darwinian happily agreed. God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!"
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: mini-air 1996-07-04 Scientific Correctness Survey A recent survey by the U.S. National Science Foundation found that 52% of the respondents believe that the earliest human beings lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Once again it is time to vote on "scientifical correctness" and help the scientific community decide which side of various issues it should accept as "correct". Please check only one: 13% Dinosaurs and man walked together millions of years ago. 06% Dinosaurs and man walked together less than 10,000 years ago. 61% Dinosaurs and man walked together, but it was purely platonic. 14% Dinosaurs became extinct before the first humans existed. 06% Humans became extinct before the first dinosuars existed. But later on, mini-air reported: 1997-01-12 Scientific Correctness: Dino Survey Results Thank you to everyone who participated in the first of our SCIENTIFIC CORRECTNESS SURVEYS to establish the correct answers to heated scientific controversies. This first question is now settled. The lion and the lamb, the preacher and the politician, the spider and the fly -- all can now walk hand in hand (or other, analogous appendage), in harmonious agreement. Here are the results, of the vote: 33% Dinosaurs and man walked together less than 10,000 years ago. 30% Dinosaurs became extinct before the first humans existed. 23% Dinosaurs and man walked together millions of years ago. 09% Humans became extinct before the first dinosaurs existed. 02% Declined, or were unable, to express an opinion 02% Agreed with all of the choices listed above 01% Dinosaurs and man walked together, but it was purely platonic. Investigator Thomas B. Roos reports that he plans to use this survey in future exams at Dartmouth College. Investigator J. Mohler reports, "As documented in the comic strip "Alley Oop", while dinosaurs and humans coexisted during prehistoric times, they rarely if ever walked together. When they were going in the same direction, the human invariably choose to ride." Investigator John J. Lannutti concludes that, currently, "dinosaurs mostly fly while man mostly walks." Investigator Jim Culter concludes that dinosaur bones were placed in the fossil strata 10,000 years ago in order to confuse and mislead 20th century scientists, and that dinosaurs never actually existed. Investigator Frank Stephan raises a concern common to the German scientific community, in reporting, "This vote is placed in the belief, that alligators do not count as dinosaurs in spite of the fact that these two species are relatives. But in this case it was more a hating than loving relationship."
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: jokemaster#NoSpam.jokecenter.com (JokeMaster)
Dating Dinosaur Bones
Some tourists in the Chicago Museum of Natural History are marveling at
the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the guard, "Can you tell me how old
the dinosaur bones are?"
The guard replies, "They are 73 million, four years, and six months old."
"That's an awfully exact number," says the tourist. "How do you know
their age so precisely?"
The guard answers, "Well, the dinosaur bones were seventy three million
years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years
ago."
[JokeCenter.com - http://www.jokecenter.com]
(PS I added 70 million to the date to get some semblance of correctness
- JV)
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: TSlothrop <slothrop#NoSpam.the.zone> Back in the 40s or 50s a young dinosaur hunter excavated some fossilized tracks in Texas (I believe). His work was being funded in part by an eccentric philanthropist. A nearby small town had a pawn shop which displayed in it's window a block of stone with a human footprint purportedly recovered from the same locale as the dinosaur prints. The human print was an obvious carved fake but the paleontologist took a picture of it and used it as the frontispiece in a book he published because it was the kind of far-fetched item that would appeal to his benefactor. It seemed a harmless joke until creationists picked up on it and used it as an example of a respected scientist proving the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Don't remember where I read this but it may have been in one of Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Special Category: Why the chicken crossed the road according to scientists From: Stan Kegel <kegel#NoSpam.fea.net> Why did the chicken cross the road? Jacques Ives Cousteau: Zee cheecken, unaware of zee dangare beehind heem, crosses zee street. Weezout warning, zee Porsche strikes, and zee balance of zee nature ees maintained.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Special Category: Why the chicken crossed the road according to scientists From: Stan Kegel <kegel#NoSpam.fea.net> Why did the chicken cross the road? Rene Dubois: The chicken, by daring to cross, shapes himself through decisions that shape his environment..
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Special Category: Why the chicken crossed the road according to scientists Special Category: Charles Darwin Februari 12 April 19 December 27 Why did the chicken cross the road? Darwin: A1: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees. A2: The fittest chickens cross the road. From: Stan Kegel <kegel#NoSpam.fea.net> A3: Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are now genetically dispositioned to cross roads.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: (Bloody Viking)
OCCEAM'S RAZOR
Prigator (prigator#NoSpam.aol.com) wrote:
:If there is no fossil or other evidence of the aquatic ape, why do we
: need him?
:Isn't it time go get out Occam's razor?
That's it! A hominid a long time ago was named Occeam. He invented a flint
cutting tool and shaved his skin. Everyone else adopted Occeam's Razor and
started shaving. Becuse of that, the fat layer was needed to keep warm, now
that the fur coat was removed. Over time, people died of shaving cuts so a
selective advantage came from not having the fur to shave in the first place.
"Me furless. Occeam shave. Too hot outside." -- Occeam of 3,000,000 BC
How long ago were sharpened flint tools made? Given all the problems found
with AAT but Occeam's Ape Theory is so much simpler, if we apply Occeam's
Flint Axe, we see that the simpler is more likely when no evidence exists,
like the god debate.
And that's the Homo Erectus Occeamus theory.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Subject: (requesting critiques) From: "Aron-Ra" <ilcunl#NoSpam.hotmail.com> This is lifted from a serious articicle "A laymen's explanation of evolution" - Joachim Verhagen. This essay was originally posted on July 24th 2000 in response to a Biblical creationist who misunderstood evolutionary theory so badly that he used the following example in an attempt to refute it: "If you put automobile parts in a box and shake it up for a trillion years, you will not get an automobile". I have since heard other creationists define evolution as a collection of single cells that suddenly, intentionally, and purposefully amassed themselves directly into a human being while other separate cell groups independently evolved into reptiles, birds, fish, etc. Another creationist also described a single individual fish suddenly growing legs and walking within one lifetime. Another demanded that if evolution were true, why didn't horses sprout wings to escape predators?
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: Cal King <getulus#NoSpam.no bull.net> That reminds me of the cladist's weird world. They assume that the ancestral species becomes extinct in a speciation event and two daughter species are born, but they concede that one of these two daughter species is actually the ancestral species. They call this an "asymmetrical split." I will give a sociological example of the type of thinking cladists practice below: The world according to cladism: A cladist's wife is pregnant. One day she is experiencing labor pains. The cladist calls an ambulance. His wife and him arrive safely at the hospital. After a few hours of pacing back and forth in the waiting room, the doctor congratulates the cladist: "Congratulations, you have two new daughters." The cladist asks the doctor in excitement: "Doctor, does that mean that I have twin daughters?" The doctor answers, "No, there was no symmetrical split. Instead, there was an asymmetrical split. That means one of your daughters is 25 years older than the other one, but your wife seems to be missing."
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg#NoSpam.norrkoping.mail.telia.com>
Strange world of Cladism
I saw this in a paper somewhere as an example of how cladists think:
The US Air Force originally started as a single company in the Corps of
Engineers (fact). As it grew larger and more complex this caused problems
since a company only has four platoons each of four squads, so to
accommodate increasing complexity cladists had to introduce superplatoons,
subplatoons, infraplatoons, parvplatoons, supersquads etc.
Finally somebody thought this was getting ridiculous, so he proposed
removing the Air Force from the Army and making it a separate service.
However, all the cladists protested: No, no, You mustn't do that, it would
make the Army paraphyletic!
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: "Ted Smith" <tcsmith#NoSpam.calweb.com> Evolution is God's way of issuing upgrades. Evolutionism: The speciocity of speciation!
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Special Category: Why the chicken crossed the road according to scientists Q :Why did the chicken cross the road? Evolutionist: Pure chance. Evolutionist: Only the fittest chickens survive crossing the road. Creationist: God created the chicken on the other side of the road. There is no proof it ever was on this side.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
Special Category: Why the chicken crossed the road according to scientists Q: Why did the dinosaur cross the road? A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet.
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: "Vladimir Matveev" <matveev#NoSpam.mail.cytspb.rssi.ru> Man did not originate not from monkey, but from two monkeys...
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: "Vladimir Matveev" <matveev#NoSpam.mail.cytspb.rssi.ru> How does natural selection differ from sexual selection? In distinction to natural selection, sexual selection may be natural, unnatural, or perverted.
[Top of page] [Bottom of page] [Index] [Send comment]
November 30 From: Michael Weiss <columbus#NoSpam.pleides.osf.org> Letter from the Smithsonian: Paleonanthropology Division Smithsonian Institute 207 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20078 Dear Sir: Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid Skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin: 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. 3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses that you have submitted in your history with this Institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail let us say that: a. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on. b. Clams don't have teeth. It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted-down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and did not really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of the fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 3/8 inch Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe Curator, Antiquities
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: JONATHAN CASWELL <jonathanecaswell#NoSpam.yahoo.com>
from MSNBC (Live Science.com)---the ideas, anyway!
What happened, Neanderthal,
How did you lose it all
In your dating scene,
Were the better ones keen
On the human who could out-chase you all?
---J. Caswell
Neanderthal/Sapiens sex...
It's an issue that's sure to perplex,
Did the children survive
Progeny to derive
Diversity's modern context?
---J. Caswell
Our prominent eyebrow ridges
May point to anthropological bridges
Between Neanderthal
And Homo sapiens all...
The meeting of macros and midges!
---J.E. Caswell
Extinction of Neanderthal
May not be about sex at all...
If a dude gets no dates
Progeny have sealed fates,
Then survival of a species will fall.
---J. Caswell
A Neanderthal genome's been plotted
And some sim'larities have been spotted...
Though "human" by name
We're 99.5% the same,
So who might with whom be spotted?
---J.E. Caswell (same cat as J. Caswell)
biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
In the beginning was the word
WORD
WORE
GORE
GONE
GENE
and by mutations came the gene
(Michael A. Arbib)
New after last time posted (December 21, 2013) biology
[Top of page]
[Bottom of page]
[Index]
[Send comment]
From: Pierre Abbat <phma#NoSpam.bezitopo.org> Two paleontologists went into a bar. Marsh was the designated driver, and Cope was the designated drinker.
next:4.7 mice and rats | Index | Comments and Contributions
Member of the Science Humor Net Ring
[
Previous 5 Sites
|
Previous
|
Next
|
Next 5 Sites
]
[
Random Site
|
List Sites
]