Top Ten Reasons Not To Believe In Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution … (Page 2)

MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: There are a couple 'sticking issues' for me with evolution, though many aspects of the present day could have arisen from an effective 'physical inertia', but with respect to life and consciousness I think there's more to the picture that could be worth considering:

If conscious interactions have an element of free will then there is not a specific singular evolutionary timeline for consciousness and if we look at conventional theories of evolution there's similarly a loss in detail as to specific events that occurred in the past.

For example, if someone hypothetically went back and moved a pebble a thousand years ago, could we determine by the state of events observed "Now" whether or not such a pebble had been moved?

In quantum mechanics (and it appears even for various logical reasons) there an "uncertainty" to events and along the ideas of parallel worlds, it might not be that there's just one singular physical past timeline that, from its inception, caused everything to exist 'as is' presently. Maybe there's no way to precisely prove one way or another whether or not that's true.

Consider this - how many possible past timelines could have existed that resulted in something that would appear indistinguishable right now? I think there are practically an infinite number of possible (and presently indistinguishable) pasts, just as the future could unfold as many possibilities.

Anyway, I enjoy working with evolutionary concepts and would agree that the tools are potentially quite useful and allow for many explanations of events to be constructed ... but are they entirely "true" in terms of being some rigid determination of how events unfold (or have unfolded) over time? I'm rather skeptical of that. Also there are differences between what we might call objective/physical time and time that's consciously/subjectively experienced ... the only version of time it appears I have readily available is the subjective/conscious version and that's not necessarily a 1 to 1 correlation with physical clocks.

Another thing to consider is that the general view of adaptation to an environment would appear to negate the long term benefits of most any present day efforts at improving conditions. For example, if we were to attempt to save the life of some endangered species, well without some form of natural selection at work, its own inherent genetic potential would not be altered and without natural selection, mutations would simply degrade the viability of that species as soon as that assistance was removed (for example, consider how well most house pets would survive if people were no longer around) and this same general concept would appear to apply to most anything in which we're trying to improve life in some long term manner ... the fundamental "problem" (if you consider it to be a problem) is that some unknown evolutionary ideal would be 'running the show' in the long run and most any attempt to bias natural selection would be simply delaying the inevitable ... or at least that would appear to be the natural conclusion reached by what I interpret to be conventional views of physics and evolution.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts to consider.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Wow. That's quite a lot of unrelated verbal padding wrapped around the few words that actually have any real relation to the concept of Evolution, and whether it's valid or not.

It sounds pretty smart, but doesn't really say all that much.

(shrugs)
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Hmmm ... and did your comment say much?

(I'm just playing around. Don't worry about it)

Yes, I tend to ramble a lot on some subjects and don't expect people to follow a lot of it, though I've seen times when some ideas 'clicked' for people. A lot of what is taken from a comment arises from where ones own 'mindset' is and that can vary ...

I remember reading some things at one point and getting one impression but later on with a different perspective, the same words can have an entirely different meaning (and that's actually been fun to discover).

In any case, have fun.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Maybe a better example of how differences can exist between "objective"/physical units of time versus conscious/creative time would be in writing a program.

For example, a graphic artist can write a program for a computer to generate some artwork. The programmer isn't directly experiencing the purely deterministic units of time that the program executes on the computer but instead is interacting with various conscious concepts and interfacing via a keyboard and monitor ... it doesn't matter how fast the clock of the computer is, it sits there waiting until some keystroke is entered. In a similar sense, the wavefunction in quantum mechanics is (at least in theory) effectively responding instantly to the state of everything in the universe instantly.

Now consider that we're just experiencing the present moment, but in terms of some predetermined purely deterministic system of computations (for example, if we assumed the idea was true that if we could know the state of everything at any moment in time, then this would potentially allow every other moment in time to also be determined) - then there's really no reason for any delay at all. The universe in a perfectly predetermined system should be able to have time pass infinitely fast ... what would cause the universe to instead be continually waiting "Now" for things to happen?

Consider this as well, if consciousness was truly non-influencial and things were predetermined, then there could be an infinite number of other places and times in which such consciousness could exist and also be entirely non-influencial, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Experiences are consistently centered around a 'local' frame of reference and not somewhere 'else'.

So what could possible 'attach' consciousness to a specific place and time if all times and places have always been entirely predetermined and in that sense shouldn't ever change, unless there was instead a continual bi-directional interaction - you act, the universe reacts etc. and I don't think there's a completely rational way of describing that as some completely predetermined program. There's a creative aspect involved and I believe we can actually see it present in how conscious memories exist ... but I'll skip the details unless someone's interested (I tend to ramble enough as it is ).

Anyway, that's just my interpretation of how "Here and Now" works - it's a bidirectional interaction with an environment and is effectively creative (can someone point to the past? No, yet it still exists as an intangible memory ... there, that's an example of something that is creative).
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Its hard to tell if these are real comments, or continuing sarcasm....

>>>Because the bible dosen't say anything about us coming from monkeys

Nor does the bible not say anything about Atoms- does that mean Atoms aren't real either?

>>>God would look like a monkey.

Prove that he doesn't.

*******-*******--

>>>the main reason NOT to believe in Evolution ,if we came from monkeys that somehow evolved into humans ,'Why are their still monkeys?'

Well, first off, we didn't come from Monkeys. No one is making that claim. We came from the same ancestor as apes- and again, no one is claiming that man came from apes- just that we have a common ancestor.

As for why are there(not their) still monkeys? Dunno. Science doesn't answer the why, only the how. Why are there still Crocodiles?

*******-*******---

>>>Darwin married his cousin.....bad info from an incesstual inbreeder

And? Darwins personal choices doesn't change the objective proof backing up evolution. Darwin could've gone mad and went on a killing spree, and it wouldn't have changed the validity of evolution
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: SORRY the theory is too full of holes to be believable to me ,just my personal opinion
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: please, explain to us the "holes".
13 years ago Report
0
super_sugar_fun_time
super_sugar_fun_time: yes tell us about the holes, why do you think that it is wrong?
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: @MrSteveA67

Quantum mechanics still isn't understood sufficiently to properly explain the actions of living macroscopic systems, let alone the interactions between them.

You can't reduce biology to any school of subatomic physics and expect to make judgements regarding the development of species.

Schrodinger pointed that out almost 70 years ago. The fact that guys in Copenhagen didn't get the joke just shows that physicists tend not to get out much.

Biologists, on the other hand, know that, "Subject animals, in carefully controlled laboratory conditions, do as they damn well please."

Evolution by natural selection isn't just logical, it is the only thing that fits the evidence. There are no holes in evolution, just a lack of understanding.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: all are primate bones they find , I could say that since the PIG and us share almost all the same DNA markers ,we evolved from PIGS ,but that wouldn't be any truer than the Darwin theory ,They are cloning human body parts in PIGS ,transplanting swine heart valves and what not into humans [Atlanteans did this before their demise ,so did the Lemurians] The only reason he came up with such a theory is because the the primate is the only mammal that remotely would look part human as they walk upright and all , My belief is a little different than that of someone looking for the Human-Animal connection ,there has been proof that modern day man walked with the dinos ,there were primates then ,show me PROOF that his THEORY is more than just a THEORY .

FYI: Believe me or not ,Animals don't turns into Humans ,Humans don't turn into Animals ,For those who believe in Re-birth ,Re-incarnation ,People don't come back as animals and animals don't come back as people .You have had the same human face in every lifetime no matter if you were man or woman . Everyone has lived on Earth in an earthly body more than one lifetime ,each lifetime a learning experience ,a chance for the human spirit to advance spiritually ,All once upon a time ,knew their Maker and loved Him very much ,Most have turned their backs on He Who Created them ,in favor of ritual 'Babylonian' man made religions which do nothing to honor your Creator ,nor His Earthly Anointed Son and true Savior of Humanity ,'Yahoshua'

Embrace your heavenly Father as you once did in days of Olde ,He will give you all the answers you seek 'this fine Sabbath day'
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: Nothing like a good intellectual faceplant to round of the day.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: what ??????????????????????????????????????????
13 years ago Report
0
Koko_Krunch
Koko_Krunch: a sphincter says what?
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>I could say that since the PIG and us share almost all the same DNA markers ,we evolved from PIGS

Lets go through this;

1. Theres been no links found between man and pigs. In other words, we haven't found a pig that shares human traits, or a human that shares pig traits. We have, however, found skeletons of human-like apes, and ape-like humans. Dozens of different species, in fact, over millions of years. But no connection between pigs and man.

2.Humans and Chimps are 99% identical, genetically. Humans and Pigs are 82% identical, genetically. And Chimps and Pigs are 83% Identical, genentically. So while, yes, pigs are simular, with all 3 of them being mammals, its not that shocking. But which is MORE simular? By far, its the ape.

>>>They are cloning human body parts in PIGS ,transplanting swine heart valves and what not into humans

And thats more of a social and ethical choice than anything else. Pigs are livestock- people wouldn't be as outraged if we killed a pig or experimented on a pig- but a chimp people can empathise with. Its not socially and argubly ethically justifable to use chimps for parts, while pigs, its MORE justifable.

Nothing to do with evolution- everything to do with morals and social norms.

>>>[Atlanteans did this before their demise ,so did the Lemurians]

I'm.....I'm sorry, are you referencing mythical civilizations??

>>>The only reason he came up with such a theory is because the the primate is the only mammal that remotely would look part human as they walk upright and all

I doubt thats the only reason, but I, and I'm quite certain you are in the same boat, have not read anything Darwin had to say on the subject. I've read more modern, accurate writings on the matter, by other authors. But i'm pretty certain the fact that we have simular anatomy played just as important a role as "we look alike"

>>>there has been proof that modern day man walked with the dinos

Such as?

>>>show me PROOF that his THEORY is more than just a THEORY .

As 60's mentioned earlier, when we discuss theory, we mean SCIENTIFIC THEORY. And under the context of a scientific theory, yes, evolution has been proved correct;

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory"

So your issues with evolution 'only' being a theory is actually a misunderstanding and misuse of the word "theory".

But lets step back- lets say that no, its not basically proven, and is still just a theory. So? Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of how the world works- and if you can present a theory that holds equal scientific merit, then that would be accepted as fact as quickly as evolution was by the scientific community.

You're aruging that, because we do not know everything- that because evoltuion is only a theory- that we should reject it? Huh? Since when do we have to know everything before we can accurately make a stance or opinion on something?

Evolution explains the complexity of life far greater than any other theory- and thats all there really is to it. You insistance that theres not enough evidence doesn't change squat, because theres more evidence for it than the alteratives you suggest.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: This Dinosaurs-Human thing is both funny and interesting- if evolution doesn't exist, then that would mean Elephants and Dinosaurs lived side by side Billions of years ago- so why can't we find Elephant bones as old as Dinosaur bones? Or, more importantly, why did the Dinosaurs die out, but the Elephants did not? They're not a real adaptive species, and what killed the dinosaurs certainly would have affected them too.....
13 years ago Report
0
Koko_Krunch
Koko_Krunch: God put them thar dinosaur bones there.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Nope! Spirit said we lived along side them!

I just don't get this "animals aren't changing, they have been this way since the beginning" belief

Another issue is the changes to our world- I mean, the early micro-organisms actually changed the structure of our planet, and plantlife to this day creates our atmosphere. So how did squirrels survive a planet that didnt have enough oxygen for them to survive?

Our planet has heated up and cooled down and heated up over and over again-for example, we know that there was an major ice age 2.4 billion years ago- but if dinosaurs were here since the beginning, that means they survived it, only to be killed off by not the next ice age, or the next, or the next, but survived up to the 5th ice age, which finally killed them off. All of them. Meaning every single dinosaur species survived 4 ice ages, but not the fifth. Huh?

The only way this can make any sense is if science itself is a massive fraud and conspiracy- which, given that theres scientists from every creed, country, race and belief, is quite unlikely and boarding on paranoia.
13 years ago Report
0
Anhedonia
Anhedonia: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/50-reasons-i-reject-evolution
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Haha thats wonderful, and deserves a post;

1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.

2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a f~%&#z& book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.

3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be bullshit.

4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.

5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM MOTHAH-FUCKAHS!!!

6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the process of speciation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a f~*w$wy Tootsie Pop.

7.) Because the fossil record doesn’t comprise the remains of every single living thing that ever existed on this 4.5 billion year old planet, even though fossilization is a rare process that only occurs under very specific circumstances.

8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*

9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.

10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.

11.) Because I think the word “theory” actually means: “random stabs in the dark” when it really means: "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies other similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-m@#~^$#^w~&y&-theory, etc.

12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.

13.) Because I am under the severely mistaken impression that evolution implies someone in my very recent ancestry was a chimp.

14.) Because everything appears designed to my mind which was expertly tuned by nature to perceive design, probably as a survival mechanism.

15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.

16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male h@*xwz’s shiny naked ass) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.

17.) Because I’m 100% correct about everything 100% of the time and there is 0% chance that some snooty Oxford educated scientist with numerous honorary doctorates could possibly know something that I don’t.

18.) Because I don’t know that fossils are found in sedimentary strata corresponding to their age as one would expect if evolution were true.

19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: “for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits, I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: 20.) Because my mom dropped me on my head when I was a baby.

21.) Multiple times.

22.) On purpose.

23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no f#@~$*~ sense at all.

24.) Because Jesus totally rode around on a f*x~%z# t-rex. He’s just that badassed. And also, did you know that t-rexes were vegetarians? Ken Ham says so and I believe it.

25.) Because I don’t realize that saying “microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn’t” is as stupid as saying “I can pick my nose for one second but I cannot pick it for 10 seconds.”

26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.

27.) …and then took a big wet dump on my face.

28.) Because I think that knowing how nature works magically obliterates all of its beauty.

29.) Because I didn’t know that evolution has been tested and observed in laboratories.

30.) Because when confronted with that, I refuse to believe it. It’s obviously a scientific conspiracy aimed at turning everyone on the planet into atheists... even though evolution says nothing about god's nature nor whether he, she, it, or they exist.

31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.

32.) Because the planet and all the life on it was designed for humans… kinda like how the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY was designed specifically for the dust-bunnies that may accumulate on the floors.

33.) Because I don’t realize that if we actually found croco-ducks in the fossil record, it would falsify evolution.

34.) Because plenty of respectable people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don’t accept evolution, and that somehow validates my opinion.

35.) Because my mother didn’t know not to drink while she was pregnant. She also didn’t know not to repeatedly throw herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to undo the accident of screwing someone who voted for Bush both times.

36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

37.) Because I have never seen a duck evolve into a cat over night, despite the fact that such a thing would be contrary to all known scientific disciplines.

38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.

39.) Because evolution means that I absolutely MUST reject everything else I know, abandon all my beliefs, and start aping around my house like a fz@#*w% monkey. OOOh-ooohh-ooohohh -OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: 40.) Because I haven’t put my cave on the market and moved into the 21st century yet. I’m waiting for the cave market to rebound from the recent financial meltdown.

41.) Because I don’t know what an atavism is and if you told me, I still wouldn't believe it. Too weird.

42.) Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.

43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.

44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).

45.) Because I see no significant similarities between humans and apes. *scratches my ass-c~$%* then smells my fingers*

46.) Because I think I’m too special to have been crafted by any natural process and the entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created with me especially in mind.

47.) Because I unquestioningly swallow the ignorant anti-science bullshit spewed directly from the fraudulent stupid asses of people like Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, and Kent Hovind.

48.) Because I’m a freethinker and freethinking really means ignoring anything that contradicts what I already believe.

49.) Because I don’t know what confirmation bias is.

50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: @Geoff

Thank you for the thoughts in your reply. I'd like to point out some areas that appear to be overlooked in some of the ideas though.

How do we know subatomic particles exist? Subatomic particles are theoretical objects. What is it that observers and derives the existence of such objects? It's all the various people/scientists making those observations and applying mental processes to constructing the theories etc.

What's more fundamental to science, empirical derivatives or the logic behind the construction of those empirical measurements?

Notice that subatomic particles are actually not specifically "small" in all respects (consider the recognition of the Uncertainty Principle ... a reduction in influence in one aspects leads to an increased influence in another aspect). When I look at the ever increasing size of the equipment, analytical tools and information databases it takes to "see" a subatomic particles, it leaves me skeptical that we're actually looking in a specifically "small" direction.

Consider number theory, there are many mathematical objects in which forms of chaotic and evolutionary structures can appear to arise in diverse ways on large scales.

I've got some images I generated from some quite different assumptions regarding 'how it all works' and they're similar in concept to how various frequencies can appear to resonance synchronously. If I take a pair of spectrums of wavelengths and spread them across a 2-D surface (similar to taking two "rainbows", one for an x-axis and one for a y-axis) and look at the some of the general qualities of how these frequencies can appear to be synchronized over time, I've got images that look like natural landscapes, including one where it's practically like looking at an ocean with waves and clouds and sunlight streaming through them and reflecting off the water.

If such ideas are applicable to physics (and they should be, as the general concepts were derived from considering most any form of deterministic/rule-based change over time ... I think you can basically map any set of evolutionary rules within a finite system and find the equivalent of a fundamental frequency over which repetitions occur as well as subsets of that change which recur with frequencies that are harmonics of ths), then this would agree with the more 'holographic' ideas (and this seems rather predetermined - what view does the body have of the universe other than a surface of interaction? The eyes don't truly see in 3 dimensions otherwise we should be able to witness the interior of 3-D objects)

Anyway, quantum mechanics does have it right in that science needs to include "the observer" (or oneself) as well and the world "out there" and "in here" are not things that exist independent and unrelated to each other. The scientific method requires that observations be made and science needs to retain that wholistic view of things.

What might be believed to be some universe "out there" that exists independent of various qualities of experience to perceive it is just something intangible and conceptual ... the real world that can be seen, touched, known etc. is one that includes life and conscious experiences etc. and what the universe might "truly" be outside that is simply speculation ... For example, is there truly proof that humanity wasn't transplanted from somewhere else? I can't personally see how any form of truly tangible evidence could show this one way or another.

I appreciate a lot of the theories out there and enjoy working with the concepts but it's very hard to state that any of these is some form of truly singular "truth" ... what really did exist millions of years ago? It seems like it's really just lots of speculation and I don't think there's just one path through "spacetime". Maybe not everything here came the same way (which would be similar to the parallel worlds ideas).

Sorry if I drifted a bit there, but there's a lot to consider.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: WOW! you got any cheese and sauce with that 'copy-pasta'?

I never said animals weren't changing ,I said we didn't evolve from animals ,your Uncle may have been a monkey ,but I know for sure that mine is not . As far as Modern man living with the dinos ,They found a 'fosilized' Dino footprint with a 'fosilized' modern man footprint right inside of it .

A rock with a carving of what looked to be a tribal chieftan in full dress ,smoking a pipe ,while riding a Trycerotops dino was found in the same area .I believe it was Peru but I'm sure someone will refute what I say so have fun ,go for it ,believe whatever you wish.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: liptoncampbell said:This Dinosaurs-Human thing is both funny and interesting- if evolution doesn't exist, then that would mean Elephants and Dinosaurs lived side by side Billions of years ago- so why can't we find Elephant bones as old as Dinosaur bones? Or, more importantly, why did the Dinosaurs die out, but the Elephants did not? They're not a real adaptive species, and what killed the dinosaurs certainly would have affected

ever heard of a Woolie Mammoth ? obviously not ,better look again at your extensive research files . Who says the dinos died out? some think the lizards are the dinos that have adapted, or as you say Evolved
13 years ago Report
0
Anhedonia
Anhedonia: "If we came from monkeys that somehow evolved into humans, why are their still monkeys?"

I honestly don't understand why people can't just open up a textbook.
13 years ago Report
0