How is that all Jews have been circumcising themselves and their children for over 5,000 years---and if we go by the “Bugs Bunny Evolution Chart” printed in all of the college textbooks, it would be well over 40,000 years---and yet none of them can ever “acquire” the “inherited characteristic?” Wouldn’t you think that ONE offspring would get the “message” in 40,000 years? They don’t. They are ALL born uncircumsized.
61 comments
Yeah - and if they were circumcising their DNA you might have a point you fuckwit.
Damn, so what the hell is that 'no child left behind' noise? You might want to hurry it along a little there Jesus Saves, the grade three kids are tapping their feet.
So now that wasscally wabbit is an evil evowutionist?
Be wary, wary, qwiet, I'm huntin' Dawinists!
Lamarks theory of evolution was proven wrong over a century and a half ago, by a guy named Darwin. Didn't you get the memo?
For the love of Jabootu, the "Jewish foreskin" riddle was used ages ago to support the Darwin model of evolution. Now this assclown's using it against it?
Misusing the evidence is a classic creationist trick, though. The founders of the catastrophism argument used dinosaurs the same way.
Let's see, Darwin's evolutionary theory put the final nail in the coffin of Lamarckianism 150 years ago, and now this guy is trying to criticise Lamarckianism as current evolutionary theory? I'd say he needs to read up on the subject -- in a book somewhat less than a century old -- and acquire the characteristic of knowing what the heck he is talking about.
Oh, and oddly enough, I don't recall seeing a single evolutionary chart in college that had anything to do with Bugs Bunny. Too bad -- that would have been really cool. (My guess is that it starts at the left with the Tasmanian Devil and ends at the right with Bugs Bunny; Marvin the Martian would be on a different track altogether, of course.)
~David D.G.
August Weismann also cut the tails off 21 generations of mice and got the same results back around 1890 - the next generation still had tails. Weismann, however, actually came to a useful conclusion: that only changes to germ cells (sperm and eggs) can be inherited - not changes to somatic cells (e.g., foreskins). Jesus Saves has concluded that a woman made out of a guy's rib got tricked by a talking snake into eating an apple, and got all of mankind cursed for it, until this other guy removed the curse as a reward to mankind for torturing him to death.
Papabear said:
Hmm, Pensacola, huh? I wonder if this intellectual giant is from Pensacola Christian College.
Gack! Pensacola Christian College is so **FUNDY** that it makes BYU and Bob Jones University (a/k/a "BJ" U) look like bastions of liberality.
Jesus might save, but he sure as hell can't teach evolution or genetics through revelation...
Satan, on the other hand... image
image
What part of removal of the scrotum in an OPERATION that is done for ritual reasons don't you understand?, should I explain to you that it's a cultural trait?. Following your idiotic logic, how is it possible to get operated from apendicitis, or getting married, or fasting during passover?
Because, you idiot, circumcision is not an inherited characteristic. Inherited characteristics are those that alter the genome of an organism in its germ-line cells. Quite simple to those of us who stayed awake in biology class :)
All right, let's try this again.
Evolution selects for or against traits based, NOT on individual cases, but on whether something benefits or hinders a population (a group) within their living space. Now, there's no real evidence that foreskins are truly a bad thing to have - and no, smell and possibility of infection don't count. Good hygiene and precautions such as condoms take care of those factors, and the former is pretty common in nature, no matter the form it takes (although standards for "good" may differ).
Even in areas where water is so scarce it's like striking gold when you find it, there simply wasn't, and isn't, enough environmental pressure to cause boys to be born without foreskins. It's an afterthought.
Got all that? Good, so based on all of that, do you HONESTLY think nature would care to do away with foreskins?
"Wouldn’t you think that ONE offspring would get the “message” in 40,000 years? They don’t. They are ALL born uncircumsized."
And if men were meant to be sans foreskin, why were we born with them in the first place?
With such a simple question that even a child would come up with, does the fragile edifice that is 'Intelligent Design'* - and therefore Creationism - come crashing down.
*- I'm sure the legal team for the plaintiffs had that in mind in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, but I guess they didn't have to. The opposition's most credible witness, Michael Behe, did a perfectly good job in destroying the defendant's own case.
A thought: What do Mohels do with all those foreskins? They sell them. Snack food company KP deep fry them, and package them as Hula Hoops. The rest are made into kosher covers for iPads. But users have to be careful: stroke anything other than the iPad's screen, and the cover turns into a suitcase.
X3 >:D
How is that all christians have been indoctrinating themselves and their children for 2,000 years---and yet none of them can ever “acquire” the “inherited characteristic?” Wouldn’t you think that ONE offspring would get the “message” in 2,000 years? They don’t. They are ALL born atheist.
“How is that all Jews have been circumcising themselves and their children for over 5,000 years”
Well, HALF of all Jews, anyway.
“---and if we go by the “Bugs Bunny Evolution Chart” printed in all of the college textbooks, it would be well over 40,000 years-”
Is this like Dog Years? 5K in history is 40K in biology? Humans have been around for tens of thousans, but the Jewish Culture has not.
Are you easily confused?
“--and yet none of them can ever “acquire” the “inherited characteristic?””
Because it’s not an inherited characteristic. It’s an acquired trait. More of an after-market add-on (or subtract-off, whatever).
Same way kids are not born with tattoos, or amputations, or scars.
"Wouldn’t you think that ONE offspring would get the “message” in 40,000 years?”
No. This is like putting a whimsical bumper sticker on your car and expecting the dealer to sell next year’s model with the same sticker.
"They don’t. They are ALL born uncircumsized.”
Which is pretty much what evolution would predict. Now, if they were born already agreeing to the Covenant with God, THAT would be impressive. Especially if the foreskin was there, but no longer connected. That would be a better sign of God’s interest than how it currently works.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.