1) because one monkey looked at the other and said "I don't want to be human, do you?" And the other one said "Nope". Then they had sex and made more monkeys.

2) Once dirt, always dirt.

3) Does Campbell's still make that variety?

Humans didn't come from monkeys, they both came from a common ape-like ancestor. Read about evolution from somewhere other than dumbass Christian apologetics sites.

If vanilla is the best icecream flavor, why do we have coca-cola?

Because in the begining God said, "Let there be monkeys." And so there were monkeys. And then God said, "Let there be bananas." And so there were bananas. And then God's wife yelled out of the window, "Who the hell are you talking to out there?"

Because if there was no dirt the vacuum cleaner would make no sense.

You mean there's still some primordial soup left? Good. I'm starved.

Matt, Silentseba, and Mr. Rage,

I'm not trying to tell you HOW to post. I'm asking for you to approach every new poster in a manner that will further discourse.

Personally, I don't give a shit what excuses can be mustered in defense of your posts. Bitching about trolls and then possibly creating new ones by POUNCING on new posters isn't getting us anywhere in my opinion.

Shouldn't we encourage new people to think for themselves instead of just stay silent about their beliefs or WORSE, bitch about our lack of belief?

Matt, give 'em a link. You have thousands. I know you do. Don't just denigrate their sources without giving them something they can't answer. I've known some of your posts to shut creationist crap off because they didn't have an answer.

MrRage, Let the mods worry about trolls and sock puppets. PM us if you have an hypothesis about a user. Don't do it in the open forums ANYMORE.

Silentseba, you just posted about wanting an ignore function because people were posting stuff that wasn't worth reading. What the fuck were we supposed to draw from your 'ice cream' response? Equating a false analogy to a false dichotomy is also poor logic.

I'm not saying 'roll over and play bitch' to new people. Let them make the first BAD MOVE, whether they're atheist or theist.

At one point, none uf us understood evolution like we do now. That's my point.

I have posts as evidence that you are capable of providing information concerning a vast number of subjects especially with regard to the dangers/craziness of theism,

Faith based weight-loss

Flemming on freethought radio

You stay so up-to-date with ffrf things and news. Let alone that you begin thought provoking topics on a pretty regular basis.

I'm just asking you to do that with new members that don't have your ability to be in the know.

To the topic:

One model of Hominid evolution

Decent page on natural selection

Wow... wow... wow. So, does this mean I can ask ANY questions on these boards and they will be considered to be honest questions? This thread belongs in trollville. You could also move it to Kill em with kindness, so I am forced to be nice to the guy who made the question.

Serious threads deserve serious answers... jokes like these need to be placed where they belong.

If you seriously think I should give this guy a serious answer, then I will stop myself from posting the next time something like this comes up. But then again, how do I know if they are being serious or not? There is no way to tell when the person has only 1 post on the forums. The least you could do as a new user to the forums is give a brief introduction and explain why you are asking these questions.

You are right darth_josh, everyone should be given a chance to be taken seriously. I will avoid doing this the next time. I am sorry :/

But, I would also like to clarify on the ignore function. I do believe 1 person has the power to make you hate a forum. This person could be considered by others to post useful information, but to me it is like having a firealarm going off next to your ear. I don't know if you can really ignore a fire alarm every time you go into a msg board. In these cases... is it ok to advocate a ban for this person? I don't know, but that is the job of the mods... so I don't plan to take their place. So the answer to this problem will be to individually have the power to block/ignore the person's posts. I know not everybody likes my posts, and probably someone out there hates the way I post, and the way I suggest improvements to the site... I can't avoid that. So I wouldn't mind being ignored if that is going to make his experience in the forums more enjoyable.

King Nothing's quotes in gray

Anyways, to answer the questions to the OP (I doubt he still reads the forums, but I will go ahead and answer anyways)

Hi folks.I'm from atlanta georgia.
sorry but I got 3 questions.
Welcome to the forums! 

if Scintists ,Evolutionists and Atheists came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys?

Evolution does not mean that a complete species will transform into a new one. If apes turned into humans in africa, how is that going to affect the humans that live in america? However, the humans could travel around the world and start living in different places thanks for our ability to adapt. So now the ancestor might be presented with a condition that humans are already adaptable to, and he might extinct. But, this might not happen... so the ancestor could continue to live as well.

If creationists believe that man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?

I will leave that to a creationist. There is no way I am going to defend a creationist sandpoint when I believe the whole idea is ridiculous. Although, in a way you do come from "dirt" and turn into "dirt". Circle of life, anyone? 

if the monkey evolved from primordial soup ,,,why is there still some primordial soup? left?

 Look at answer #1. But there is still "primordial soup" because a I understand it... the simple an organism is, the easier it is for it to adapt. This might not be completely true, but I think generally it is. At least it explains why dinasaurs became extinct when presented with extreme conditions, but not all life dissapeared.

 I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that we should get rid of all animals because they are dumb? Or am I just putting words in your mouth? Monkeys might look dumb to you, but if humans didn't exist they would be pretty intelligent compared to the rest of us. Also, in a way... we still behave like monkeys, somewhat look like them and we also share some diseasess.(they even freaking use tools!) So, dont space yourself so far away from the monkeys

Because meteors are not alive... they don't evolve in the same sense living organisms evolve.

King Nothing lives: ( X, X, X, O, O ) 

Maybe I responded inappropriately too. But I sincerely thought King Nothing's questions were meant to be funny. So I responded that way too.

Sorry about that. 

King,

Think of molecules forming randomly from a soup of atoms. This is pretty easy to conceive. Now for a billion years molecules form and fall apart. It is also conceivable that during that billion years one of those molecules starts a chain reaction that results in copies of itself. In another billion years a few more of these replicating molecules randomly appear. So now you have several different molecules competing for resources. The resources are simply energy and the atoms necessary to replicate. The process of replication is never 100% perfect so sometimes a broken replicant is formed and it stops duplicating itself. But the unbroken ones keep on replicating. But sometimes a mistake results in a molecule that replicates more efficiently. Maybe it consumes less energy or uses a more likely combination of atoms. The key here is not complexity, but effeciency. As long as energy is being added to the system (from the sun) there is energy to be consumed by these processes. The molecules that "compete" most effeciently for energy and atoms eventuually supplant the molecules that are less effecient. Continue long enough and you get molecules that on first glance are more complex, but because they replicate more effeciently they are actually more likely to endure.

Efficiency is the key on a macro level as well. If two tribes of proto humans are competing for the same resources, the one most effecient at acquiring that resource is likely to dominate. So if one tribe has a faster runner, this tribe may be able to hunt better. The faster runner will bring more food into the tribe and that tribe will be healthier and pass on its genes. Likewise for a tribe that communicates better.

Think efficiency and not complexity. Then it makes a lot more sense.

That isn't 100 % true. Natural selection eliminated the simpler things. The things that got more complex or were better suited to their environment survived. etc.through the ages.

That's the primary reason monkeys still exist. Nothing has eliminated them.

More wood grows. New humans are born. And even new illnesses come around. The flu virus mutates into new forms and people get vaccinated every year. People that are more resistant to the flu virus itself don't have to have those shots to develop an immunity to it.

No. That's backwards from evolutionary theory. Mutations happen and then if that mutation makes it better for the organism to survive than others then it continues.

Nope. Environment(including other organisms) determines survivability of an organism. Not accidental that the organism survives. It was just better suited.

Exactly. Bad mutations die. In order for the billions of life forms to die all at one and not be able to procreate then it would be catastrophic.

However, in many places in the geologic record we see millions of new creatures pop up and then we see them no more. This is evidence of natural selection at work.

If you have billions of mutations and millions are eliminated then we still have billions of mutations.

I understand your incredulity. However, I'm sure that if you click on those links that outline evolution and natural selection specifically then you'll get the answers to your question.

It isn't that 'nature' dictated lessons in running and jumping. The organisms that figured out how to run and jump survived while the ones that didn't died.

Not that far. If you work backwards on observation instead of forward from a beginning then you'll get a better grasp on the facts.

One mutation coupled with breeding more of the mutation over a few generations produces neanderthals that can warn each other to look out behind them when the tiger approaches. Or even better a whole bunch of neanderthals talking is going to scare away predators whereas non-talking neanderthals grunting might sound more like food to a predator.

Yeah. See. Nature doesn't 'KNOW' anything.

Natural selection eliminates those 'bugs' of which you speak.

It isn't as evidencable in everyday life now because we humans are manipulating natural selection by keeping species alive in zoos or protected wildlife refuges.

We have become nature's overseer. lol.