I really wish there was something similar on local television here. Or that I could at least get this show where I am in Ontario.

I also will upvote any othese becuase I am in awe with the amount of patience the hosts of this program can muster with most of their callers.

You can actually watch this show online at http://www.atheist-experience.com/

I agree with Raigen, this guy is GOD of patience. I would've bitten this caller's head off and skull fuck him in under 2 minutes

Ahahaha, how dense can one be =)

You'd imagine the callers would, in their minds atleast, go over their arguments and what they want to say before calling in and be completely dumbstruck when the television show hosts ask them to elaborate.

That's why the hosts come off as more learned I think. They've simply looked at the arguments used by the callers and researched their validity. Again, they manage to keep the discussion civilized, even in the face of a condescending caller.

People AND Monkeys! It's so simple!

Wow thats a lot of densely concentrated ignorance. Once again, this shows why teaching evolution, and I mean really teaching it, not simply mentioning it, is desperately needed in the school system.

The really sad thing is that it doesnt really take that long to learn it, perhaps a couple of hours. All you really need to do, is to show them "Growing up in the universe" and you simply cant walk away wondering how monkeys and humans can co-exist.

I still think they dodged the issue at the end there, and they didn't help their case by shutting him off. Granted I'm not a scientist, so I don't know that there are monkeys - some people say there are monkeys, other people say there aren't, so I'm willing to keep an open mind on that. I think that's the least we can do, keep an open mind. But if (and this is for the sake of argument) there are monkeys, and obviously there are people, then you can't just go around that fact - you have to build a worldview that's strong enough to accept or explain these unpleasant contradictions. Otherwise you're just as bad as the fundamentalists, and what's worse, if science can prove monkeys then the entire evolutionary theory falls apart, together with their worldview. They pretty much dropped the ball here, IMO.

.... the hosts are acting VERY unprofessional..
heck. Let that guy make his point and THEN ridicule him... hard.
That wouldn't have taken 10 minutes.....

The girl that co-hosting the show sucks. She injects too much emotion into the conversation.

I always have belief that emotions unlike what more people think are bad thing. I think is one of those things that are legacy from our evolutionary path. In other words less inteligent animals are more emotional, ex: Dogs. Insects could be said are 100% emotional so much so that they become more like machines, "Hide in Dark when in Light" type of thing.

The more calm and focus in actual solving problems the more progress is made. So politics for instance mostly indulges our animal instincts while science seem to focus on the more rational part of us.

What do you guys think?

i think the woman would look quite good with some makeup.
isn't it obvious?

The caller has already made up his mind on what he believes and is not calling to debate points with the other side in an attempt to gain greater truth. He's simply trying to proove, in a way he feels sure of, his superior understanding of the world around him sans evidence.

This is the fundamental difference between Athiests and Theists. Atheists require proof to back the best possible theory, for which their views can change if better information comes along. Theists accept truth from faith, and anecdotal evidence, and for this reason are less likely to change their view even in the presence of overwhelming evidence.

In my opinion, in this particular instance, it's a debate of reason versus ignorance.

The caller didn't get around to stating his point until the very end, but I think I followed his (flawed) logic and he seemed to be saying this:
<caller's view>
Evolution must be false since its proponents say humans evolved from apes(1.) yet apes are still around now. Since evolution started in some specific geographic location(2.), and creationism says Adam and Eve were created in some specific geographic location, then evolution and creationism are in agreement on the idea that life originated in a specific geographic location. Since they are in agreement on that fact then that fact must be true(3.), and since as per the first sentence evolution is false that leaves creationism as having to be true(4.) as it is the remaining alternative agreeing with said fact. Further, since evolution agrees with creationism on that fact which must true, then evolution is in fact creationism(5.) that has been modified and had god taken out all because some people just don't like god(6.).
</caller's view>

There are many problems with that train of thought:

1. Humans did not evolve from apes; humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor which was some third thing. People say humans evolved from apes in casual conversation because "ape" can be broadly defined to mean anything with an opposable thumb other than a human. Don't put too much stock in how words seem to be used in casual conversation; to have a serious discussion on a topic the first thing you do is define the words you're going to use.

2. Evolution did not start in a specific geographic location. The caller is confusion evolution(change in life, which would occur where ever life is) with abiogenesis(the origin of life, from chemical reactions). Abiogenesis also did not necessarily start in a specific geographic location. The necessary chemicals would have covered the entire planet, as those chemicals formed from the same large cloud of material the planet itself formed from. (Search the sift for "The Origin of Life made easy".)

3. Just because two views that otherwise are in opposition happen to be in agreement on a particular idea does not make that idea true. It's trivial to think up arguments which demonstrate this. This is a flaw in the caller's logic as opposed to the misunderstanding of facts in points 1 and 2.

4. Even if evolution were false, that would not automatically mean creationism must be true. Just because you've ruled as false all but one of a set of explanations does not mean the remaining one must be true; they could have all been false. This is another logical fallacy, and again it's trivial to think up examples that contradict the caller's idea. The caller also makes another misunderstanding of fact here by claiming creationism and evolution/abiogenesis are the only explanations for life.

5. Just because two views agree on a particular subtopic doesn't mean the two views are the same. It seems that what the caller is trying to do here is say that proponents of evolution aren't merely saying things that are false but they are saying things they know are false and thus they are liars. It's an emotionally motivated attack against the evolution proponents' characters and motivations; he's trying to claim evolution proponents secretly believe in god but support evolution because they dislike god. Involving someone's character or motivations in an assessment of the veracity of their argument is another logical fallacy.

6. There are large numbers of people who claim to believe both in god and evolution. Various Popes have even made the claim or at least come close.

They really don't let the guy explain himself very well. Even if they know what he's going to say, and he's started a statement with a falsehood, they should give him a little time to hang himself.

I'm only half convinced. I do believe there are monkeys. But as far as people go, most are just sorry excuses for people.

This show is strange.

Its like watching a grown man run in an oversize hamster wheel. Where does he think he's going? Is it just the feeling of running that he enjoys?

I disagree, he just doesn't have anything to explain. The TV hosts correct him every time he makes a false statement, which in turn crumbles his ideas on the subject because his ideas were built on these false statements. They do let him talk and make coherent points, but at the same time they are stopping him from continuing to build his case on these false premises, and by doing so walk the caller through what he really should have learned in science class in school.
Sure, they could sit back and let him talk about random chance, the fossil record and the like, but I can imagine them having had that exact conversation a hundred times over and by this point they know exactly what to say and where to direct the caller.

"Humans did not evolve from apes; humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor which was some third thing."

Actually people did evolve from apes, just not the apes as we know them today. Meaning we did not come from chimpanzees, gorilla or orangutan. People are still considered apes, as are all members of the Hominoidea family. The ancestors of the homo genus (animals that are considered human) developed from apes (are/were apes). Somewhere way back there, there was some proto-ape from which all apes evolved. Human like things came much much later.

Other than that I agree and understand what you were trying to say, I just felt the need to inform on what I thought might be a misunderstanding.

No no NO! Don't you people get IT! GAWD!

Listen to the man! Send all the scientists home! We've cracked it!

We will build a huge golden statue of Bill on top of his giant golden sarcophagus.

And on his tomb shall be written "Here lies Bill 1992-2010 scientist, Nobel Prize winner and intellectual 'There's people and There's Monkeys'"

Such an ignorant dumb fuck. The horror is that most people think the way this guy does. They see no difference between the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. because anything that goes "against god" is all part of the same crackpot theory to them.

>> ^budzos:
Such an ignorant dumb fuck. The horror is that most people think the way this guy does. They see no difference between the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. because anything that goes "against god" is all part of the same crackpot theory to them.


Ignorant dumb fuck? Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories, then i would have to say hes not ignorant. Dumb? meh. He couldn't formulate a sentence to save his life. Fuck? yeah hes a fuck for giving creationists a bad name.

There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God and plenty to disprove and support evolution, life seeding, or other methods.

The biggest one that comes into my head is, if evolution were true, than large series of small mutations would have had to take place over millions of years. Well, in recorded history, there have been very few if any, mutations that led to a positive change in the biological make up of an organism. However, there have been more than enough mutations to argue against evolution. Heres a video that shows such mutations. Granted some of these may have been caused my chemicals and shit, affecting the fetal development, but things like this also occur in nature.
Now humans have evidently peaked in what we are capable of "evolving" to despite what Heroes and X-Men have to say. Because after thousands and thousands of years of recorded history, there seem to be no further evolutions, besides from rare genetic abnormalities, which are good for nothing more than conversation starters.

So if evolution is real, in the sense that man is "the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel," then why did we stop evolving? Evolutionists say that evolution took place over millions of years. But man has only been around for a fraction of that. That means that the "missing link" isn'/t that far behind us, and was more than likely around for a long time as well. Another hole to the evolution theory is the "missing link" itself. Its not like there were only one or two of these man-apes. There had to be thousands of them in order to generate a populace capable of surviving the thousands of years it took to evolve into humans. So why is it we cant find them? What the hell is this about?

I could go on forever. You wont catch me berating others for their beliefs, even thought they might differ from mine. So to call some one an "Ignorant dumb fuck" for not agreeing with you, doesn't exactly help your argument.

i share this planet with retarded people with such hubris? He's just babbling and babbling about this and that.

Wait, huh, there's monkey's? Dammit, and here I thought they were just hairy guys running around playing with themselves all day. My entire life is crumbling around me . . . .

I can't count the number of times this argument has been used on me. My question back to them is, well, why CAN'T there be both? Cause you know, if things evolved in a linear fashion, why stop there? Why are there anything other than humans then? It just amazes me that some people are so blind that they can't actually see that their argument AGAINST evolution is actually a well rationalized argument FOR evolution. Oh well. I hear in Florida we're finally allowed to teach the "theory" of evolution . . . .

There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God and plenty to disprove and support evolution, life seeding, or other methods.
The biggest one that comes into my head is, if evolution were true, than large series of small mutations would have had to take place over millions of years. Well, in recorded history, there have been very few if any, mutations that led to a positive change in the biological make up of an organism. However, there have been more than enough mutations to argue against evolution. Heres a video that shows such mutations. Granted some of these may have been caused my chemicals and shit, affecting the fetal development, but things like this also occur in nature.
Now humans have evidently peaked in what we are capable of "evolving" to despite what Heroes and X-Men have to say. Because after thousands and thousands of years of recorded history, there seem to be no further evolutions, besides from rare genetic abnormalities, which are good for nothing more than conversation starters.
So if evolution is real, in the sense that man is "the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel," then why did we stop evolving? Evolutionists say that evolution took place over millions of years. But man has only been around for a fraction of that. That means that the "missing link" isn'/t that far behind us, and was more than likely around for a long time as well. Another hole to the evolution theory is the "missing link" itself. Its not like there were only one or two of these man-apes. There had to be thousands of them in order to generate a populace capable of surviving the thousands of years it took to evolve into humans. So why is it we cant find them? What the hell is this about?
I could go on forever. You wont catch me berating others for their beliefs, even thought they might differ from mine. So to call some one an "Ignorant dumb fuck" for not agreeing with you, doesn't exactly help your argument.


Oh maaaan, I wish I wasn't under the pump at work... I'm sorry but your arguments are very very flawed and for the most part non existant. Plus I love that you start with "There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God " but don't give any (because there is absolutely zero).

And really... you would do well to look at the site that he mentions in the video, and really understand evolution, because it would seem you don't really.

edit: Let me just add that your major issue seems to be that you think that we should have evolved by now... well, aside from the fact that we are (we're getting taller etc. etc.), the timescales you think of as far as human evolution are all wrong. Have a look at this and the timescale on there... humans and monkeys 'split' apart evolution wise 5 million years ago... we've been evolving for a far longer time than you seem to think.

There are further evolutions in the human race. Here's one: laypersons article introducing research into a genetic mutation in humans
I know about this because I have a form of it. Yes, a mutation. I got it from my father and passed it on to two of my children. So far, the only advantage it seems to give is a slightly higher intelligence among those of us with the non-lethal form of it. I'm not makign this up; research has shown that those of us with dominant form of Spondylocostal Dysotosis have slightly higher intelligence.

Welcome to the new world.

/\ interesting note, smibbo.

Reminds me of the genetic trait for sickle-shaped red blood cells; millions die from malaria every year, but a simple alteration of the shape of blood cells confers some resistance, making what would generally be a "bad" genetic mutation (less efficient hemoglobin) actually a slight advantage in particular environments (areas with malaria, like the lowlands of central Africa).
(google searched my facts... check!: http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html )

Selective pressure is always there, even in human society. Look around! I have friends with slightly different skin color, eye color, hair texture, facial features, hand shapes, head shape, etc., from my own. Recorded history is almost nothing in the scale of time scientific theories often attempt to describe.

>> ^arsenault185:
Ignorant dumb fuck? Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories, then i would have to say hes not ignorant. Dumb? meh. He couldn't formulate a sentence to save his life. Fuck? yeah hes a fuck for giving creationists a bad name.
There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God and plenty to disprove and support evolution, life seeding, or other methods.
The biggest one that comes into my head is, if evolution were true, than large series of small mutations would have had to take place over millions of years. Well, in recorded history, there have been very few if any, mutations that led to a positive change in the biological make up of an organism. However, there have been more than enough mutations to argue against evolution. Heres a video that shows such mutations. Granted some of these may have been caused my chemicals and shit, affecting the fetal development, but things like this also occur in nature.
Now humans have evidently peaked in what we are capable of "evolving" to despite what Heroes and X-Men have to say. Because after thousands and thousands of years of recorded history, there seem to be no further evolutions, besides from rare genetic abnormalities, which are good for nothing more than conversation starters.
So if evolution is real, in the sense that man is "the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel," then why did we stop evolving? Evolutionists say that evolution took place over millions of years. But man has only been around for a fraction of that. That means that the "missing link" isn'/t that far behind us, and was more than likely around for a long time as well. Another hole to the evolution theory is the "missing link" itself. Its not like there were only one or two of these man-apes. There had to be thousands of them in order to generate a populace capable of surviving the thousands of years it took to evolve into humans. So why is it we cant find them? What the hell is this about?
I could go on forever. You wont catch me berating others for their beliefs, even thought they might differ from mine. So to call some one an "Ignorant dumb fuck" for not agreeing with you, doesn't exactly help your argument.


One of the points they were trying to make to the guy in the video, which the caller completely seemed oblivious to, was that simply disproving evolution does not mean creationism is true. Creationism needs its own evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny before it can be considered true. It's not a coin with only two possibilities.

I'm assuming your first argument is that evolution can't be true because we've been unable to record it happening over time. Recorded history is an extremely small amount of time, and detailed accounts of human and animal biology have been fairly rare except since the last 100-200 years. That's really not even enough time to adequately observe small changes. You'd have to know exactly where and when to look at every point in time along history, and there would have to had have been someone there to record the exact change at each point. And what might you end up with? The brown nosed rock lizard is 1 cm longer on average than it was 4000 years ago.

Also most of the "mutations" in your video appear to be conjoined, aka two or more animals joined together because they failed to separate somewhere in the incubation process.

Also you seem to be under the impression evolution occurs at a constant rate, and at a constant rate among all species. I don't think any evolutionist worth their weight in salt thinks that. Some animals change much faster than other (like bacteria) others change much slower. Though crocodiles have changed very, very little over the millions of years they've been around. And just because people don't have laser eyes doesn't mean we have stopped evolving and reached our peak. There are tons of minor genetic differences floating around in the human species right now. Some people are taller than others, some are smarter, some have darker melanin others more readily store fat. Given the right condition one of these traits could be comes essential to survival.

This brings me to another point, just because a new condition develops doesn't mean it immediately becomes the new standard for whatever species. The a trait which later becomes and adaptive one, can exist in a species over millions of years, it is only when it becomes more advantageous does that trait become the new standard for the species. For example, if for some reason being tall became and advantageous trait, to the point where short people were much less successful at reproducing, people would become taller, and after a million or so years of this you'd almost never see a short person. My point is tall people already exist in great numbers in our population, there just isn't anything to make being tall enough of an advantage (or short enough of a disadvantage) to where the human species would collectively become tall.

And I see in the time it's taken me to write this, a few other people have responded. Hopefully quick response time for internet discussions doesn't become a mark for survival, or I'm in trouble :-(

Bamdrew -- exactly!
Evolution is not just based on mutation, but on selection pressures such as sexual selection for example. The idea is whatever trait is beneficial to reproduction is what gets passed on to future generations. Whether it's longer hair, bluer eyes, prettier feathers, a louder voice, more intelligence, more daring, less daring...and the pressure can change if the environment is suddenly different.

There are monkeys and there are people, and there are monkey-people. Monkey people look like people but are hairy like monkeys. They are a secret project that Darwin did in order to combat God.

Darwin secretly thought God was getting a little too big for his boots. All that pre-defined destiny and not letting people REALLY make choices, who the hell does he think he is? So anyway, Darwin was all like "WTF mate?" and God said "lol sux2bu".

Darwin wasn't happy about that, so he went into his secret lab where he made lies and hybrid creatures, and he grafted a laser beam onto a girl and boy monkey's shoulder. He then forced them to mate (using 2 modified sex swings and 2 interconnecting springs), and the resulting offspring had lasers on their shoulder thus showing more proof for his theory of evolution whilst at the same time starting a powerful army of monkey-people, who will one day start their assault on heaven and destroy God in order to make peanuts more flavourable.

If you want to know the current whereabouts and status of the growing monkey-people army, then please let me know.

This TV show is quite frankly awesome.

I wish local access TV round here discussed philosophy.

I found so much wrong with both sides of this video.

Firstly, the caller needs to go back to school and take a critical thinking class. He can't argue his points effectively because he keeps relying on flaws in logic to support his case. Some of those demonstrated: Begging the Question, Burden of Proof, False Dilemma, Hasty Generalizations...I could go on and on.

On the flipside, I understand the host was trying to prevent him from building his case on logical fallacies, but you don't do it by interrupting the caller every two seconds. He is being just as intolerant to the caller as the caller is being to him. And that doesn't get you anywhere. You're not going to get someone who listens to you that way. You'll get someone who becomes more and more adamant, because he can't get his point across to begin with. And I will assume (yes, I'm being fallacious with this statement), that the reason these Athiests have a show to begin with is to try to educate the public in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point unless they're doing it to support their own egos.

Let the caller present his case (as flawed as it is), and then provide evidence why each point is flawed and how it did not answer the original statement; where is the proof?

And for the record, I'm a naturalistic Panthiest.

Many seem to reject evolution on the notion of lack of a missing human "link" but fail to see that it is a moot point. Just as it would be if we were discussing any other type of non-humanoid animal and it's possibly missing transition(it being in transition itself). The process of evolution does not discriminate in who suffers it's effects; it is all-inclusive. What makes us so special?

Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories

It was the hosts who pointed this out. True, he may have alluded to them but didn't seem to know the difference, having morphed them all into one.

O holy crap already. Regardless of beliefs, this guy is as dumb as a monkey.

In terms of human evolution there is a great discrepancy between what scientists mean when they say "missing link" and what most uninformed people mean when they say missing link.

The common conception seems to be that a "missing link" means the form which is needed to prove a connection between two species. For scientists while a missing link can indeed help prove the connection between two species, but it often just further evidence. Meaning they already assume there is a connection between two species from other evidence they have but a new 'missing link' only further strengthens that assumption.

In human evolution there are many many missing links that have been found. If you compare the bones of early homo erectus to modern homo sapien the difference are pretty outstanding, but if you compare the bones of late homo erectus to those of very early homo sapien those differences become much less distinguishable. In fact many anthropologists seem to have a hard time deciding whether, based on morphology, to classify the bones from that particular point in time as homo sapien or homo erectus. So in that sense there is a very clear connection between our species and another human species.

On another note I think something that often causes people to misunderstand how evolution works is that we homo sapiens are the only human species currently on the planet. I often think this leads people to think evolution occurs in a progressive chain, where once a new species forms the parent species dies off. This is an incorrect assumption (at least if you look at what we know about evolution). A parent species can still exist even after there's been an off shoot, there can even be multiple off shoots. We Homo sapien have shared the planet with other species of human before, Neanderthal, homo erectus (the assumed parent species) and homo floresienses which some people believe died out only 13k years ago. There really is a wealth of information out there on the subject, all people need to do is look. And not just wikipedia, as much as I love it, it is not the definitive source of all information.

The bible states that The Flood killed everyone. Even mountains were underwater for 10 months. Noah landed on Mt. Ararat neat the Turkey/Iran border. If whites, blacks, and Asians are all descended from a single jew, why are there still Jews?

10 months? I could have sworn it was 40 days and 40 nights.....

EDIT ok looks like 150 days of drifting.

I also vote for listening to the dufus ramble out his whole turd of a concept.

Just another passing thought: Even if there had been enough passage of time for us to detect evolutionary trends in modern humans, it will likely take a different form now that we are modifying our environment rather than adapting to it. The abundance of choice is also making sexual selection less useful. Any idiot can have a kid, and society will make sure it grows up enough to have more idiot spawn.

Anyway, I think I might start watching their website.

Ignorant dumb fuck? Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories, then i would have to say hes not ignorant.

He didn't name any theories except the big bang theory, which the hosts pointed out he was unable to distinguish from abiogenesis and evolution.

10 months? I could have sworn it was 40 days and 40 nights.....
No, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. It took a little while for all that shit to dry up.

Down vote for boring me.

>> ^spoco2:
edit: Let me just add that your major issue seems to be that you think that we should have evolved by now... well, aside from the fact that we are (we're getting taller etc. etc.), the timescales you think of as far as human evolution are all wrong. Have a look at this and the timescale on there... humans and monkeys 'split' apart evolution wise 5 million years ago... we've been evolving for a far longer time than you seem to think.

Not once did I ever say that we have only been "evolving" for a short amount of time. I have plenty of these charts that show this theorized time-line. But there are also large hole with that as well. As several of you have pointed out (Bamdrew, Crosswords and <a rel="nofollow" href=">/a>. Gargoyle. and spoco^) One of the generally more accepted (and In my eyes the only) way to explain evolution, is by darwinism, or "survival of the fittest" But heres where the major hole appears to be. Hominids supposedly stemmed from primates, though genetically speaking, we share more genetic markers with pigs than we do with primates. But, well run with the primate theory. Everything is linear. Since we do have strikingly familiar resemblance to primate skeletal structures, it is a safe bet the humans did evolve from primates. (playing devils advocate now)Primates feet will be a good starting point. their 5th digit has gone completely sideways, compared to ours.

All 5 digits on our feet point in the same direction off the same line. Primates have an opposable 5th digit. so to bounce this back of off the survival of the fittest idea, humans essentially de-evolved in regards to this matter. Primates can make use of this like a thumb, basically giving them 2 more hands instead of feet. I wish I had that. You ever try to pick up a beer with your toes? I can do it, but its tough. Now, if I had monkey feet, than this wouldn't be a problem. I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands. Yet somehow, small mutations such as straighter feet took place, and selective breeding led to our feet the way they are. Something like this does not support a Darwin theory at all. But as far as the linear piece goes, why is it only straight toed hominids managed to spawn from primates? As far as primates go, their feet are used for climbing shit right? wouldn't it be better to have 3 toes one way, and 2 the other? So why didn't they evolve that way? What about a straight-toed monkey was better than the opposable digit monkey? Yet, the "straight-toed monkey" is what survives today.

(Please keep in mind I am not trying to throw things out there and treat them like they are an end all point and nothing you can say will invalidate what I have said. I welcome your thoughts on what I have to say, so long as they are at least quasi-intelligent.)

Again to play devils advocate, the douche in the video is part right. "You have people and monkeys" Again, the theory of evolution. Every predecessor to the Homo Sapien has gone extinct. Presumably, because the next, more advanced version had what it took to surive. We are now at Human, V7.1. So if we all evolved from monkeys, then there must have been a reason for the selective breeding. That is to say, what made all the more upright, straight-toed versions of monkeys more desirable? or was it that the small mutations had some how proved beneficial, that led to more of them being around to breed and further the process. If this is the case, why are there monkeys? Why is there anything that stemmed from something else? If the changes weren't essential to the surviving of a species, they would not have spread through it. So if we run with the survival of the fittest theory, then monkeys were not the fittest, and therefore, should have died off. (ok devils advocate over)

@smibbo and bamdrew. Rare medical conditions: First off, I'm glad you came out on the better end of the deal on that one. I am unfamiliar with the condition you have, though you, (and the sikle cell patients) are the minority of what others with that condition. So to say that these mutations are happening, than its working at a backwards rate. If these conditions are killing people they aren't a step forward. Sickle cell anemia, and a stronger resistance to malaria. Well until they can separate the mega bad from the tiny good, its not where it needs to be yet. I can't argue against these though, because in the long run, if malaria is taken care of, this trait will mean nothing, and sickle cell sufferers will go back to having nothing good about an unfortunate disease. Shit. I need sleep. I actually got way off on researching this stuff and started really looking into it. I thought it might change some of my thoughts. Nope.

Listen arsenault185> We didnt just evolve along with apes and primates. We ARE apes and primates.

Chimpanzees and Gorillas share ancestors, they are two different apes. Humans and Chimps share ancestors, we are two different kinds of ape. We have a very good understanding of this, and the "missing link" myth is a leftover from Darwins days, since then, we have not only found hundreds of "missing links" between ourselves and our ancestors, but we have done something much better: we have discovered, and even mapped, our DNA. Genetics doesnt just prove beyond any doubt that we are related to other apes, it shows exactly HOW we are related to them, we know that chimpanzees are our closest living non-human relative, and our common ancestor lived 6 million years ago, our shared ancestor with gorillas lived 7 million years ago, then Orangutangs at 14 Million years ago...

We separated from..
Gibbons 18 million years ago
old world monkeys>25 million years ago
new world monkeys, 40 million years ago
Tarsiers, 58 million years ago
Lemurs 63 million years ago

Lemurs are our most distant primate relative, but it doesnt stop there..

180 million years ago we share ancestors with every living mammal, 680 million years ago, we separated from jellyfish.., and finally 3.5 billion years ago, our common ancestor with ALL LIVING THINGS lived. we know this because every living animal, insect, fish and plant share the same traces of DNA. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

I think on the foot issue, the reason we're different from monkeys is that while their ancestors stayed in the jungles where there was an advantage to use both hands and feet to be better at staying up in the trees, our ancestors went out on the savannah where we evolved differently. As I understand it, it's not so much a conscious decision to leave the jungle and go evolve someplace else, nor is it a process of selective breeding. Instead, the growing population led to a lack of food, which in turn led to our ancestors having to look for it on the ground and on the savannah. We started to stand and walk more upright and became more adapt at running faster instead of having our legs work as extra arms.
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but when I was a kid they showed http://imdb.com/title/tt0284735/ on television which explained how these changes came about and why. It's interesting viewing, even though it might have aged badly and be more childish than memory tells me.

If this is the case, why are there monkeys?

The same reason there is still both trees and grass. Plant genes making a living in 2 different ways...

Same reason there are still McDonalds' and gourmet restaurants, 2 different markets..

That something proved beneficial for the apes that took to the savanna, doesnt mean the thing proved beneficial for the ones who stayed up in the trees.. you get "islands" of life, or as Dawkins calls them "Workshops of evolution"

No one ever talks about the Darwin, Wedgewood, and Galton inbreeding project-OR
the Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer connection to social eugenics, that some of the more delusional and power-hungry members of the planet's population have embraced to justify their world views and agendas....

Don't you all just love how giddy atheists become, not unlike the more zealous practitioners of other, fundamentalist faiths??

Show me the members of atheist groups like this anywhere, and I'll show you some fundamentally, miserable motherfuckers...
The comments on this thread reek of the same emotional arrogance which any fundie exhibits. Wrapping your head around tomes of data is not unlike doing the same with chapter and verse, didactically picking it apart, and referencing it ad-nauseum, for the sake of schoolyard one-upmanship or one's own justification for confusion and doubt.

(I thought we'd grabbed all atheists by the hair and dangled them over a precipice already..)

" I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands."

Egads. Really? There were advantages to walking upright, which our feet are better able to do for long distances. I have trouble believing you couldn't have thought of that for yourself if you had tried. Out of curiosity, are you a creationist of the "young earth" variety?

[Edit: Looks like Kreegath beat me to this point upthread. Blast!]


[Further edit: Nevermind. This bit wasn't worth possibly starting a fight.]

I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands. Yet somehow, small mutations such as straighter feet took place, and selective breeding led to our feet the way they are.

Well I wrote an extensive paper on "the selective pressures leading to bipedalism in the genus Homo", and trust me, there area lot of reasons why our hands and feet are more differentiated than other primates.

For the bulk of its evolution, humanity has been a fairly nomadic, hunter-gatherer race. Mainly, you can't walk upright very well or have a smoothly operating human knee if you also have an opposable big toe. Morphology facilitating bipedal locomotion conferred a number of survival and sexual selection advantages to a primitive human. Mainly:

1. Bipedal locomotion is more energy efficient than any other locomotor pattern... humans have better endurance for long voyages by foot than any other species, including horses, large cats, etc..
2. Walking upright exposes less skin surface area to UV rays
3. Walking upright allows the focussed use of the hands to carry things, protect young, gather food, etc..
4. Walking upright allows a greater field of vision and viewing distance, which is better for hunting as well as defending the tribe.

And so on...

FYI, almost 60% of the people in America do NOT believe in evolution. That's right. 60% of Americans do not believe in scientific fact. Now, this is polling data so I am sure a portion of those people are not answering 100% honestly, but it is a very scary statistic.

Evolution is science. Proven fact. Go to a museum or library and educate yourself before calling a show like this with a patient, intelligent and rational host like this guy as make yourself sound like a total ass.

" Evolution is science. Proven fact. Go to a museum or library and educate yourself before calling a show like this

Newsflash there Hive13-Study a quick primer in Kinesics, throw in a dash of social anthropology, and understand-the folks on this little circle-jerk of a cable access show, are Grade-A assholes, the brand of which, should they not be beating the bushes trying to find some gullible Christian takers for their call-in masturbatory romp, would be just as suited to argue the differences between toy and standard poodles as it relates to cloud formation.
If I met them in person, it would probably take me about 10 minutes, before i was shoving it right up THEIR self-righteous asses as well......

Oh choggie, these guys on this show are total dickwad assholes I agree, but they are intelligent, patient and rational ones. I am not saying I agree with what they said, rather that the caller was about as mentally prepared as a flea when he decided to call that show as it only aids to make them look superior in every way.

A snobby show like that could only exist in the south, especially Texas. Put that show on either coast and they would have had their heads torn off.

Also, you don't need to understand the fundamentals of Kinesics to understand badly that guy wanted to spout some random anecdotes from Dawkins that he learned at community college.

>> ^Tofumar:
" I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands."
Egads. Really? There were advantages to walking upright, which our feet are better able to do for long distances. I have trouble believing you couldn't have thought of that for yourself if you had tried. Out of curiosity, are you a creationist of the "young earth" variety?

My faith leads me to be a creationist, but I do not outright deny evolution in some forms. I can't deny the fact, that homo sapiens aren't the only version of humans. The proof is there. But there are just so many other questions that cannot to my satisfaction, be answered. Its the same way all of you evolutionists can't buy into creationism. Do I think less of any of you? No. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was never starting to fight. Like I have said, I welcome any and all opinions.

As to the feet thing. If humans were always a hunter, as Buzdos has kindly pointed out, then they would have been fine staying ape-like. Ever seen a Silver back move? Yeah. Fast.That and powerful. Really powerful. And its not like humans ever had a need to travel hundreds of miles in one trip. "They evolved over millions of years", so I'm sure they would have taken small journeys, thus negating a reason to evolve a flat foot.

@Buzdos
" 2. Walking upright exposes less skin surface area to UV rays
3. Walking upright allows the focussed use of the hands to carry things, protect young, gather food, etc..
4. Walking upright allows a greater field of vision and viewing distance, which is better for hunting as well as defending the tribe."

2. Less surface area? I'm not about to do any 3-d modeling to disprove that, but is seems standing upright opens more of your skin up to UV radiation. Besides, back in the days of an atmosphere and o-zone, this wasn't an issue.
3.Focused hands to do other things? Why didn;t we evolve a couple extra arms then?
4. Field of vision and viewing distance... the ability to climb trees seems to offer that and a better vantage than standing alone...

And so on...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Upvote for panspermia reference - but this caller seems like a shill.

The proof is there. But there are just so many other questions that cannot to my satisfaction, be answered.

Well, what kind of questions? Have you actually tried reading about it?, like a book about evolution? Very often, creationist hang on to this one "irrefutable" claim about something that "couldnt possibly have evolved", such as (in historical order) The eye, the brain, the flagellum, etc, but they very rarely actually look at what explanations and possible explanations we DO have, scientists have very convincing explanations for these things, and the creationists usually base their conclusions on misquotations or outdated science, or both. Like this infamous quote by Darwin himself:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree

This quote in its original context is followed by Darwins explanation of how the eye actually CAN evolve by natural selection...

Today we have a much better understanding of how eyes evolve, and we know that various forms of it did evolve atleast 40 times, independently, in nature. So even if the quote by Darwin was an honest quote, it would be completely irrelevant to the fact that eyes have evolved and are evolving.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I completely agree, even if I may seem a bit confrontational at times

2. Less surface area? I'm not about to do any 3-d modeling to disprove that, but is seems standing upright opens more of your skin up to UV radiation. Besides, back in the days of an atmosphere and o-zone, this wasn't an issue.
3.Focused hands to do other things? Why didn;t we evolve a couple extra arms then?
4. Field of vision and viewing distance... the ability to climb trees seems to offer that and a better vantage than standing alone...


I was going to tell you to just continue being ignorant and leave the thinking to grown-ups, but...

2. Yes, less surface area exposed to UV radiation. Picture a light bulb on the ceiling. Stand up underneath it. Then get down on all fours or hunched over underneath it... which position do you think exposes more surface area? And UV radiation has always been harmful in large quantities, it's just worse now with the hole in the ozone layer.

3. Why should we evolve extra arms when we can just evolve specialized feet for walking and specialized hands for manipulating things? Extra arms pose a whole lot of complexity issues, add body mass, require more brain power be allocated to motor control, and so on..

4. You just don't understand evolution... an organism that has a large field of vision and long viewing distance will tend to survive and pass its genes on more frequently than an organism that has to take the time and effort to climb a tree in order to get a better view... assuming there are any trees around to climb.

Evolution is not directed by any force or towards any design. It's just a product of whether the physical or behavioral manifestation of a gene mutation confers any surival or reproductive advantadge.

^arsenault

(2)I had never heard of the up-right stance exposing people to less UV-radiation (as Buzdos mentioned), but I do know UV-radiation plays a big role in one common difference between people, melanin aka skin color. The closer you get to the equator (or areas where the ozone layer is naturally weaker) the darker the native inhabitant's skin becomes. UV-radiation has always been around, a thicker atmosphere will block more of it, but not all of it.

(3)Usually changes evolve out of the existing form. Though different ape and human morphology are very similar. Slight changes in the structure of the pelvis, legs, feet and arms are more likely to happen over time than say sprouting two more pair of arms. Between people there are very slight differences in the morphology of these structures. Not enough to make any readily noticeable difference, but they're there. The only instances I'm aware of where people have had extra limbs involves unborn children failing to separate during fetal development.

(4)It was the lack of trees that made being upright and advantageous trait (as far as seeing is concerned). During the earliest stages of human evolution the jungles and forests started receding and gave rise to open grasslands/savanna. Some apes continued to live in what was left of the forests and jungles, being upright wasn't adaptive there so uprightness never evolved in them. For those in the savanna environment where trees were few and far between being able to constantly be upright did prove beneficial.

On the issue of hunting:
Gorillas can move quickly and they are powerful, but this form of behavior is for defensive purposes and not adaptive to hunting. Most prey animals are also very quick, and have the stamina to maintain that quickness longer than a gorrila.

Humans are not exceptionally quick, but they do have the stamina. In modern hunter gatherer societies a common strategy for hunting is to cash an animal into exhaustion. Wolves actually often use a similar strategy. In open grassland the animal can use a quick burst of speed to get away, but the people can still see it and chase after it. Now with most of us our hearts will blow out like the sides of old tires if we run more than 2 miles distance, but we live an extremely sedentary life compared to hunter gather groups. So its easy to look at yourself and say 'there's no way I could run a gazelle into exhaustion', and you'd be right, but if your way of life required you run for long distances, instead of sitting behind a computer, for your survival I can guarantee your body would be in much better shape.

I believe the current theory of why we initially evolved uprightness doesn't include hunting. The ability to see better in a grassland environment and the ability to carry things and move reasonably well at the same were the early motivators. The possibility to hunt, successfully, became more important later on. I'd liken it to ape hands, great for swinging about in the trees but also pretty good for picking up and manipulating things.

On another note I'd like to say I hope nobody takes the things I've said as ridicule, I've been trying to respond to points of contention/criticism by explaining things as I understand them. And if I seem long winded its not because I'm trying to prove how superior/right I am, it is simply because I enjoy talking about the subject.

Hey Buzdos. Way to start slinging insults into this. Up until that gem, this was a quasi-intelligent conversation, hence the down vote. If you said something like that to anyone else, the net result would have been the same: the loss of respect for your opinion.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to all of what you said, but I’ll point out one thing. The extra arms bit. More brain power and body mass? Well the over all mass would be there, but I fail to see how it would be a problem. As far as the complexity issues and it requiring more brain power, well that’s just absurd. Octopi do not seem to have any issue with their "extra arms" all 4 extra. And they are absurdly stupid. On top of that, we don't even use a fraction of our available brain power. So, with that in mind, I for one, would LOVE extra arms.

I for one am an atheist, so I Love these vids as well. They certainly seem to spurn a lot of conversation!

But arsenault185, you seem to be of the steadfast opinion that evolution states that if ANYTHING comes along that is better, then it WILL become the dominant form for that given being. Not so... there have been many cases where some animal/human had a change which was for the better, and did make them improved compared to those around them, but that alone doesn't mean it'll become dominant. If it alone doesn't make for a good enough change then they can be killed off just like any other one of their tribe/group/herd.

It's only when some change happens and it is also passed on to enough children and those children keep passing alone said trait (ie. it has to be the sort that can be passed along), that it will start to become dominant.

And again, just because beings in one particular area starts developing in some way because that suits their climate/habitat/conditions better, it doesn't mean that all of those beings across the globe have to at one time... that's how we have different species and types of all sort of animals. African vs Indian Elephants, White vs Black Rhinos... black people vs white people vs small and hardy vs tall and lanky.

The same initial population of an animal spread all over the world and given enough time apart, will become a collection of different each animals better suited to their individual areas.

It's really not a case of... "Right... Monkeys came first, then People, so all monkeys must now be dead because we're better."

And it's not a case of "Everything about us is better than everything in those beings before us"... some things just became less important during some part of our evolution and just weren't needed. Elephants used to be Mammoths, used to have hair... because they lived in an ice age. Now they don't because they live in hotter areas... but that's not to say if you put an elephant in the cold it wouldn't do better if it had hair, but that's not where elephants live, so they no longer have it.

If Mammoths weren't hunted/killed off then they may still be around along with Elephants... two species related but not the same.

You seem to have interest in evolution, but haven't really given the time to look into it properly, I suggest you do, there are many great books out there that go into wonderful detail but in a very entertaining way...

I would also like see the discussion refraining from personal insults. We all can, and should, do without them.

On the topic of octopi and their arms, there's plenty of reasons for an octopus having more of them.
When under attack, some octopuses can detach their own limbs, in a similar manner to the way skinks and other lizards detach their tails. The crawling arm serves as a distraction to would-be predators; this ability is also used in mating. There also seems to be a use for their arms in reproduction and travel, but if you ask a marine biologist I'm sure they can give you more indepth answers seeing as the above info is lifted right out of Wikipedia.
Also, hasn't it been said that the statement that humans only use a fraction of their brain is erroneous? I'm very likely to be mistaken here, but I'm guessing what that statement really means is that we use all of the areas of our brains, only we don't necessarily use them all at the same time or to their full capability. I have a hard time buying that we'd have a large part of our brains completely inactive. The fact that even the scientific community seems to know very little about the brain should be an indication that it's a moot point of discussion, since we'd most likely end up making assumptions and reasoning based on flawed premises and not resolve anything.

@ Kreegath- I'm going to add this, only because no matter who you are, its interesting, and it does tie into this conversation. A couple years ago they were doing studies on the brain and brain activity. (Don't quote me on this stuff, it has been a while, and I just got off an 18 hour shift, so I'm not up to researching it at the moment) The study also looked at parts of the brain that were considered to be unused. Subjects were asked to do a wide variety of things, to see which would light that part of the brain up. Turns out, that the particular part of the brain in question, was ONLY lit up when the subjects were praying. Nothing else could get that part of the brain to kick on, except for prayer. Does this prove the existence of a God? No. It is int interesting nonetheless. As far as the Octopus goes, I have never heard of the detachment piece. As far as I knew, they are very fast swimmers in short spurt, and along with the ink sac to distract and blind their predators, a quick burst of energy and octo-man is gone. I think an ability such as the one you mention is probably restricted to the smaller species.

@ Spoco - You are right in the fact that it is a very interesting subject. I never like to enter into a discussion without having first checked what I;m about to say out. It does happen at times, but I'm human so bite me Well, I did a fair amount of reading as to some subject. My second comment in took me several hours to write, as I was distracted by things I found that proved alot of what I had thought to be wrong. But I don't think I am steadfast on the better takes over mentality. I was merely using to show that where there is no explanation for our ancestors to be gone, the same logic could apply elsewhere.

At any rate, My fundamental disbelief of evolution stems from the fact that I am a creationist, and despite what scientist may extrapolate, until I see hard, irrefutable evidence, I think you will have a better chance of convincing me that Hillary Clinton is the right choice this year. Just not going to happen.

Thank you omnistega for sifting this, as it has been a great discussion and I fear with it about to expire from the top 15, that it will soon die out. I only wish there was some way for me to *quality your ass for starting it.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.

Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.


- Robert Anson Heinlein

Hey Buzdos. Way to start slinging insults into this. Up until that gem, this was a quasi-intelligent conversation, hence the down vote. If you said something like that to anyone else, the net result would have been the same: the loss of respect for your opinion.

Evolution is a fact, not my opinion. Has the discussion really been that intelligent? It seems like it's mostly been people stating facts and then you wave your hands around in denial. I really want to be more insulting than I have been, trust me.

Just to add to what spoco2 said:

The "why not add a pair of extra arms?" question may seem a bit naive, but its actually a very good question, the basic 4 limbs, one head structure is something that we mammals all have from fish, the recently discovered Tiktaalik rosea fossil is a wonderful answer to this question, scientists knew already that mammals, as well as all other land animals came out of the sea, and they knew this had to be somewhere around 380 million years ago, the problem is finding fossils at that particular layer, its a needle in a haystack... but because they have mapped out different areas based on how old the exposed layer of rock is, Neil Shubin and his team was able to pin-point an area that would have fossils of that age, it turned out to be the remote canadian arctic, and it can only be searched in the summer, so Shubin and his guys spent six years up there, walking around, banging on rocks in the hopes of finding something.

Eventually, they found Tiktaalik up there, and if there ever was a "transitional" animal, it would have to be Tiktaalik, its like a fish that does push-ups, and its got the first neck in history!

You can read all about this in Niel Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" which is a fantastic read.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474

Heres the little guy they found, the Tiktaalik:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/04/06/tiktaalik_roseae.jpg

At any rate, My fundamental disbelief of evolution stems from the fact that I am a creationist, and despite what scientist may extrapolate, until I see hard, irrefutable evidence, I think you will have a better chance of convincing me that Hillary Clinton is the right choice this year. Just not going to happen.

Hang on... so you're a creationist, with not a single thread of proof that what you believe in is true. And yet with the MOUNTAIN of evidence, scientific, irrefutable evidence FOR evolution, you aren't going to believe in that.

Sorry, that just boggles the mind. Boggles it.

You're saying that something which was stated in one book, with NOTHING to back up said claims is your evidence for creationism. Yet something which has countless scientifically proven tests and findings to back it up is unbelievable.

Sorry, but just saying you're a Creationist doesn't hold any water at all. Being of one belief and backing that up with logical reasons does hold water with me, even if I don't agree with them. Saying you don't believe in something just through you not yet understanding it is the usual religious way.

It's easier for a lot of people to believe in simplistic tales of creation as told in the bible, rather than spending a little bit of time to see how the scientific fact of evolution works.

Once you spend that little bit of time the entire world makes more sense, and other things flow from that base understanding.

Scientific understanding makes life simpler, not more complicated.... and in no way does it detract from the wonder, it actually enhances it as you can be astonished at how these amazingly complex things happen via simple base processes...

*sattire tag

Here's proof of God. God controls the way you evolve. Debunk it with facts. Thats the thing about believing in an omnipotent being, they can do anything they want. Once can neither prove God exists, or does not exist. After all the bible is pretty vague as to how God made man. So there. He created evolution. Us ignorant bible heads can make up whatever we want to justify God, and theres pretty much nothing you can use to deny his existence. But to sit here and do that would be retarded I think. Fact is, there is no undeniable evidence proving evolution, and there is no undeniable evidence proving that God does not exist. So were pretty much at a stalemate.

*sattire tag
I have no idea what to make of this, as I cant really see any satire in your post.. So instead I'll try to take it seriously.

Here's proof of God. God controls the way you evolve. Debunk it with facts.

It takes a while to debunk "guided evolution" because it requires a bit of a deeper understanding of how evolution actually works. Evolution is a massively slow and really, really messy process, and it is slow and messy because its unguided, but basically it also works not despite, but because it is unguided. I recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" to understand the basic principle more indepth.

Thats the thing about believing in an omnipotent being, they can do anything they want.

I completely agree, and thats the problem, if skepticism isnt at the core of your beliefs, and instead is actively suppressed, all the rules get broken and anything goes. I cant, in good faith(excuse the pun) argue like that with anything I DO believe in.

Once can neither prove God exists, or does not exist. After all the bible is pretty vague as to how God made man. So there. He created evolution. Us ignorant bible heads can make up whatever we want to justify God, and theres pretty much nothing you can use to deny his existence.

Not even good arguments? ...guess not..

But to sit here and do that would be retarded I think. Fact is, there is no undeniable evidence proving evolution,

For all practical purposes, you are about as wrong as they get there. in some technical sense, you are right.. ie: "There is no undeniable evidence proving that the earth is a sphere." Again, if you are in denial, anything can and will be denied.

and there is no undeniable evidence proving that God does not exist.
...Because You cant prove a negative!!!!!.. "Jesus Christ and Santa Claus is the same guy" Now get out your undeniable evidence proving that statement wrong, I cant believe how many times you have to say this to a believer.. will it ever sink in? Probably not..

So were pretty much at a stalemate.

No, it is not a "stalemate" when one side has all the arguments, and the opposition has NONE. In Chess terms, you are the five-year old thats given his King invincibilty and Last Resort supermoves, because it was "Totally unfair that you didnt get to kill a single piece, while ALL your pieces were killed off one by one." Your last post describes perfectly the moment when that five-year-old takes out all your sixteen pieces in one turn using the King, and declares himself the winner. Bravo!

^hence the *satire tag. I was joking.

we don't even use a fraction of our available brain power. So, with that in mind, I for one, would LOVE extra arms.


This is actually just a myth "We only use 10% , or 2% or whatever" its simply not true, we use 100% of our brain. the computing power required for you to lift your arms and touch your head would cripple a quad-core pentium. This is ofcourse on top of everything else the brain does. There is no evidence for the 10% myth.

Evolution doesnt have foresight, so if it was to add a pair of extra arms, you would need the selection pressure to cope with a gradual process, ie: a 1% "arm" just below your armpit.. useless.. The arms we already have, developed along with us as creatures, they started out as small balancing fins that helped fish swim with more precision, as "we" came out of the water, the fins got more leg-like and so on until they got more arm-like when we were primates. So, to grow arms, youd need atleast a few thousand generations of basically useless arms getting gradually better.. natural selection will not allow that. The arms have to serve some purpose with every creature, if not its just baggage, and everyone without the baggage has an advantage