Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

Insomnia the other night led me to be listening to BBC radio five at about four in the morning, and they interviewed this woman. Wow, she's scary. I've seldom heard anyone so aggressive in their speech. The interviewer seemed to be torn between laughing at her and giving her a mouthful, she certainly wasn't taken seriously though, which was a relief.
 
My understanding is that there are some fossil fish that are more 'evolved' than modern fish. The question was why did these fish die out when they were so well developed? Evolution says that earlier animals will be less adapted than later ones so these fossils appear to contradict evolution. The answer came about when the mass extinction theories came along. Most life on earth was wiped out and had to re-evolve again, only the next time around, the fish didn't turn out as well as before.

I do think it is possible to pick and choose fossils that make evolution appear to work backwards, and therefore create the illusion of a contradiction. I honestly don't know what Ann Coulter is talking about though, and I also don't know if any creationists know enough to construct an arguement like this. Personally, I think Ann Coulter can just make statements without anything to back herself up and her readers will believe her.
 
She kind of scares me. She spouts gibberish but it comes across believable because she is a fairly decent orator. So was Adolph Hitler.


(Do I win this thread or something??:D)

:D :D

If only she had spouted this gibberish on The Tonight Show, I think that really would got George Carlin going.
 
The answer came about when the mass extinction theories came along. Most life on earth was wiped out and had to re-evolve again, only the next time around, the fish didn't turn out as well as before.
It's the generalists that come through a mass extinction, not the highly evolved extremists lording it over some specific niche in a particular environment. Important innovations will survive across a mass extinction barrier. General fishiness has definitely survived, there's a lot of it in both of us.

Any mass extinction in the media world will surely take out Ann Coulter.
 
You just implied that Ann Coulter is highly evolved, I beg to differ.
 
Evolution says that earlier animals will be less adapted than later ones so these fossils appear to contradict evolution.
Where does it say this?
Couldn't a well adapted species lack one trait that newer geologic conditions demanded? Those which were 'less evolved', which had this trait and survived, would appear 'less evolved' , and appear later in the fossil record.
I think this is a misconception addressed in "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins.

Edited to add: The misconception is that evolution has some kind of linear goal. It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
OK, so maybe I posted a misconception. Certainly the apparently less evolved creatures like bacteria do very well at surviving mass extinctions. Also, cave fish appear to be less evolved because they lack eyes and pigmentation, but they are actually 'more' evolved because they are better adapted to their environment. In any case, the anti-evolution crowd often use arguements based on false or merely outdated assumptions about evolution (strawmen), so Ann Coulter could be referring to one of these sorts of arguements.

I have to admit that I haven't read enough from Ann Coulter to know what she's getting at. I'm also ashamed to admit that I have no plans to read anything from her since the more I know about her, the more saddened I become about the future of our country. I'm afraid that her kind is going to wind up deciding what my grandchildren will be taught in public school.
 
I just stumbled on this thread while on my way to post my own regarding... my aunt's opinion regarding Ann Coulter.

Earlier this week, I visited my ailing grandmother in a neighboring state. During that time, I stayed with my aunt and uncle.

My aunt has always been a Xian nutjob, born on a farm just south of where I live now and raised by evangelical parents. My uncle, a doctor and a well-read and educated man, only recently converted to that way of (non)thinking after their grand-daughter recovered from cancer.

Of course, the little girl had chemo and surgery etc., but her recovery was still a "miracle" to them. But I don't think it was the recovery that swayed him. I think that happened during the time when her death seemed nearly certain, when he gave himself over to the Xian believers and prayer-peddlers who flocked to them. At some point, he surrendered himself.

Now -- I'm still astounded by this -- he's a Bible literalist and a young-earth creationist!

The power of love works to both good and ill, I suppose.

Anyway, my aunt asked if I'd read Coulter's new book. I said I'd read excerpts and seen her interviewed... for the first time, btw. She seemed really flaky in the interview, and I said so.

Oh, but she's not a flake, they insisted. She's very sharp.

Now, I'm familiar w/ the outright falsehoods she peddles, so I had to disagree.

But they were solidly behind her. Even my uncle, who has money, education, and social standing, and who -- until recently -- read very widely. Now, sadly, the books piled on his desk, shelves, and tables are all Xian fundamentalist hooey.

They take her at face value. And so do lots of folks where I live.

Let's not underestimate her potential for harm, just because she's obviously a lying nutball.
 
OK, so maybe I posted a misconception. Certainly the apparently less evolved creatures like bacteria do very well at surviving mass extinctions. Also, cave fish appear to be less evolved because they lack eyes and pigmentation, but they are actually 'more' evolved because they are better adapted to their environment.
All critters alive today are equally evolved. We've all been at it the same amount of time. The notion of a ladder of progress was overthrown by Darwin, who proved to be correct.
 
...

My aunt has always been a Xian nutjob, born on a farm just south of where I live now and raised by evangelical parents. My uncle, a doctor and a well-read and educated man, only recently converted to that way of (non)thinking after their grand-daughter recovered from cancer.

That's truely sad. I guess I was lucky to have non-religious parents
 
Boy, am I sure glad I don't know who this Ann Coulter is. She sounds, um, not smart.
 
Ann Coulter could be the next step on the evolutionary scale. She seems like quite the mutation. The next extinction won't need an asteroid...enough Ann clones can dampen any desire to procreate.

glenn:rolleyes:
 
You just implied that Ann Coulter is highly evolved, I beg to differ.
I was thinking of her more as peculiarly adapted to a specific media environment.

I'm with Piggy that all surviving species are equally evolved. All surviving gene-lines are equally successful - they've made it this far.
 
Actually, Something Awful's site made a good point. They suggested that Ann Coulter is the equivalent of an internet troll. She just spews controversy for the sake of upsetting liberals, because then they get angry and everyone can laugh at them. As for the people who actually BELIEVE her, they're probably so hardcore in their own conservative Christian beliefs that they'll believe anyone that validates what they're thinking.
 
Ann Coulter's book Godless has now reached number 1 on the NY Times best seller list.
 

Back
Top Bottom