My Improved Theory of Evolution

[poxpower]

Animals evolve not to survive, but to be LESS UGLY.

Think about it.
All the more recent things are pretty: flowers and grass are some of the newest plants, birds came from ugly dinosaurs, butterflies came from god knows what, furry little kittens descended from the first mammals.

Find any animal and its ancestors will be uglier. The only exception to this are animals that are too small for humans to notice, like fleas and those who live out of sight. Ever notice how all the ugly fishes live at the very bottom of the ocean, shun by the pretty coral-reef fishies? And now moles are ugly as hell, with their blind little eyes. And bats only come out at night, because they know they're ugly.

And it explain evolution way better too! Animals pick mates according to how pretty they are, like we do. Having an extra feather won't really help any stupid-ass lizard escape from the maws of a hungry predator, but it can definately help it find a sex partner. Think of that extra feather as bigger tits or another inch of cock. Evolution wins again!

What do you think? We should teach this in schools, I think its a nice addition to the classic base model.

[fli]

They already teach this with natural selection...

Look at the male and female peacock.
One rather modest, and the other is an attention whore.

[poxpower]

At 2/21/06 07:59 PM, fli wrote: They already teach this with natural selection...

Look at the male and female peacock.
One rather modest, and the other is an attention whore.

Yeah but did they tell you that dinosaurs died because they couldn't win a beauty pageant against a fuzzy wuzzy bunny wabbit?

No. They lied to you.

[fahrenheit]

That is not true.
Look at the cow, or the ugly humans, or the manatee.

Explain the manatee, I defy you to explain why the manatee exists under your rules.

>:(

[102387412]

At 2/21/06 07:24 PM, -poxpower- wrote:
What do you think? We should teach this in schools, I think its a nice addition to the classic base model.

Write a paper about your theory (include some evidence) and send it to some major scientific journal. Nature seems to be the gold standard.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

It depends on whether or not looking prettier would help keep the species competitive.

[Buckdich]

A female Elephant Seals will only WILLINGLY mate with the largest male on the beach, and he is usually the ugliest.

Squids do not mate according to looks but according to whoever can have sex with the most squids of the opposite sex or according to whichever squid can inject the most semen into the female.

Only the silverback (the oldest and largest male) Gorrilla can mate with females, not the prettiest.

The list can continue, but that is besides the point. The point is, looking "pretty" is not the only way to be able to have a sexual partner since many animals usually choose praticality and utility in a mate rather than one who is the most colorful.

However, being "pretty" is a sign in numerous species of good health, so in that regard your theory could technically work.

*I realize that your just making a joke, but I just figured I throw this in to add a bit of debate into it ;) *

[The-Last-Cynic]

At 2/21/06 08:06 PM, Velocitom wrote: That is not true.
Look at the cow, or the ugly humans, or the manatee.

Explain the manatee, I defy you to explain why the manatee exists under your rules.

>:(

Manatees were mistaken for mermaids, so other manatees probably thought they looked sexy because they always looked at eachother through blurry water.

[TheThing]

its already proven. this guy was studying bat behavoir, and he found bats with bigger balls and smaller brains (cuase its never works out to be the best of both) found more mates than bats with bigger brains and smaller balls. and for all you losers out there, when i say balls, i mean testicles.

[poxpower]

At 2/21/06 08:06 PM, Velocitom wrote:

Explain the manatee, I defy you to explain why the manatee exists under your rules.

Did you ever see the Manatosaurus?
It was a deep-sea dwelling mamallosaur. Really fucking ugly. Like. FUCKING UGLY. My rule doesn't exclude ugly creatures, it excludes creatures getting uglier over time ( or else I'd be the only person left on earth and probably the universe).

At 2/21/06 08:09 PM, Buckdich wrote: A female Elephant Seals will only WILLINGLY mate with the largest male on the beach, and he is usually the ugliest.

Elephants all look the same. But I bet their balls get bigger with age, like a fine wine. The... the wine's balls. Get bigger. Or something. Raisins. I dunno.

Squids do not mate according to looks but according to whoever can have sex with the most squids of the opposite sex or according to whichever squid can inject the most semen into the female.

Are you a squid?
No.
You can't tell me what squids look for in a partner. Did you ever notice how the ugly squids are the ones we never see? They live at the bottom. I bet they're really ugly, and no surface squid would squirt semen anywhere near them.

Only the silverback (the oldest and largest male) Gorrilla can mate with females, not the prettiest.

A grey streak can be awesome, like for instance Shawn Connery, or Rogue from the x-men. I would totaly bang Shawn Connery.

The list can continue, but that is besides the point. The point is, looking "pretty" is not the only way to be able to have a sexual partner since many animals usually choose praticality and utility in a mate rather than one who is the most colorful.

I need more XXX-amples man.
Huge dicks and colorful feathers are about the most useful things are dumbass animal can have anyways.

*I realize that your just making a joke, but I just figured I throw this in to add a bit of debate into it ;) *

Stop lying.
The overall gene pool is prettier now than it was before, thus proving my theory.

[BeFell]

What about the whooly mamoth, they were much prettier than modern elephants with wrinkly skin and male patern baldness.

[Soccer-Beast-101]

Are u all fucking dumb asses or are u all just really fucking retarded cause i mean look at that newb that thought this up he is a fucking crazy(even if he is hot) he is probally just looking at himself through blurry water!!!!

JK JK LOL do not take offence plz cause it was just a jook for fun kk

[Politics]

At 2/21/06 07:24 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Animals evolve not to survive, but to be LESS UGLY.

But what if they survive better by being less ugly?

Yeah, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[seventy-one]

Isn't ugliness open to interpretation though? One might think that the T-Rex is a magnificantly beautiful creature but its extinct.

[poxpower]

At 2/21/06 08:37 PM, BeFell wrote: What about the whooly mamoth, they were much prettier than modern elephants with wrinkly skin and male patern baldness.

Ah yes, but they were HUNTED to exctinction, they were not rotated out of the life cycle. Unlike the other pachyderms. Man did you see some of those prehistoric mirror-breakers? Frickin giant grey lugnuts full of horns and spikes everywhere, look like a damned Orcish Zepellin or something.

At 2/21/06 08:48 PM, seventy-one wrote: Isn't ugliness open to interpretation though?

That's what ugly people say to themselves, or what beautiful people say to ugly kids. ANd I don't see any kids around here.

One might think that the T-Rex is a magnificantly beautiful creature but its extinct.

Are you crazy? Did you see it in Jurassic park? Its all grey and boring and evil with yellow teeth, unlike one of its descendants, the Mandarin duck.

Here's a proof that I am always right:

[fli]

At 2/21/06 08:03 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 2/21/06 07:59 PM, fli wrote: They already teach this with natural selection...

Look at the male and female peacock.
One rather modest, and the other is an attention whore.

Yeah but did they tell you that dinosaurs died because they couldn't win a beauty pageant against a fuzzy wuzzy bunny wabbit?

No. They lied to you.

First off--
There are several theories as to why the dinos went extinct en masse, and I don't think it was because they weren't cuddly...

Second,
Sharks and alligators, who come from the dinos' age, survived. And they're not particularly fanciable to many people.

Of course the selection of beauty part of natural selection, but that's not the only factor.

And most important,
What maybe pretty to us may not be pretty to other creatures. I think snakes are hideous creatures, yet people believe their skin is beautiful. (I can't even stand looking at snake hyde.)

After all,
beauty is to the eye of the beholder.

[stafffighter]

At 2/21/06 09:23 PM, fli wrote:

After all,
beauty is to the eye of the beholder.

Which is why this could be better an example of intellegent design. Snakes and sharks may be disgusting to us but what if they're beautiful to the aliens that designed life on this planet? To them diffrent animals could be like having a fetish for asians or fat women

[DancingTurkeyGod]

I like how this joke theory kinda makes sense (in terms of natural selection).

At 2/21/06 07:24 PM, -poxpower- wrote: birds came from ugly dinosaurs

Well, technically, you can't assess a dinosaur's beauty if you've never actually seen one alive in real life...

Ever notice how all the ugly fishes live at the very bottom of the ocean, shun by the pretty coral-reef fishies?

They have less color because there's no light down there, thus no need for camouflage or need to attract females with bright colors (because they can't see colors!).

And bats only come out at night, because they know they're ugly.

I kinda think they're cute. Just wouldn't want one stuck in my hair again...

What do you think? We should teach this in schools, I think its a nice addition to the classic base model.

Yeah, but if applied to humans, wouldn't that cause more humans to worry about their image? Like it's not bad enough as it is...

At 2/21/06 09:29 PM, stafffighter wrote: To them diffrent animals could be like having a fetish for asians or fat women

There are no words to describe how wrong that analogy was....*shivers*

[Altarus]

This isn't new at all. For instance, a lot of evolutionists think that humans became less hairy (body hair) because women thought less hair looked more attractive. But, like someone else said, the peacock is really the best example.

[ThunderboltLegion]

I realize that this is mostly a joke thread but it's the only one going on about evolution, so here;

Scientists who are convinced that the world and everything in it… just evolved, think that it started with bugs which grew fins and became fish which became us and they like to cite Charles Darwin as though he were god. But today, more than five hundred scientists of note, each with a doctoral degree, have signed a statement challenging Darwin’s theory. The Discovery Institute for Science and Culture is challenging the evolution series in public broadcasting. The evolution series... persists in insisting that our planet and our people were created by intelligent design… and claiming that the newest evidence, which was not available to Darwin, discoveries in physics and biochemistry and related disciplines, all of them tend to confirm an intelligent creator god.
Paul Harvey. Tuesday, 2/21/06

Soure is here, I couldn't find a transcript so I just tried to type out what I heard. For an audio clip, click on the link and when the page opens up, click on the "noon" button next to "tuesday." You will find this perticular report at exactly seven minutes and thirteen seconds.

Just thought this might be relavent :)

[Vile-Pudding]

Everythings so beautiful. Aaah... wait. A human.

Dangit oh well theory ruined ta-ta.

[stafffighter]

At 2/21/06 09:46 PM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote:

At 2/21/06 09:29 PM, stafffighter wrote: To them diffrent animals could be like having a fetish for asians or fat women

There are no words to describe how wrong that analogy was....*shivers*

Is it that hard to imagine a life system so diverse that said diffrences are as inconsequential as those I've listed above? Or would you rather I used the term fat chicks?

[poxpower]

At 2/21/06 09:23 PM, fli wrote:

and I don't think it was because they weren't cuddly...

Wow what a compelling argument. I don't think the earth is round. Wow.

Second,
Sharks and alligators, who come from the dinos' age, survived. And they're not particularly fanciable to many people.

But where to sharks live? In the sea, where you can't see them. The uglier they are, the deeper they live. DId you ever see one of those deep-sea sharks with 7 guills and mouths that came straight from Gremlins? And alligators live in murky waters and in tall grass, you don't see the flying through the air!
In fact, the ugly birds are the ones who don't fly, so we can't see them.

(I can't even stand looking at snake hyde.)

that's because you're a damn pussy, nothing to do with snakes.

At 2/21/06 09:46 PM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: I like how this joke theory kinda makes sense (in terms of natural selection).

kinda? its the best ever.

Well, technically, you can't assess a dinosaur's beauty if you've never actually seen one alive in real life...

Someone needs to watch more Disney movies. Just because I never went to a dinosaur zoo doesn't mean I never saw one in a movie or a book. Use your head!!!

They have less color because there's no light down there, thus no need for camouflage or need to attract females with bright colors (because they can't see colors!).

No, man, they are UGLY. They have spikes and fangs coming out of every orifice in their body. They're probably poisonous and Mormons too.

I kinda think they're cute. Just wouldn't want one stuck in my hair again...

Yeah that's what happens when you live in a cave, you damn ignorer of my modern views.

Yeah, but if applied to humans, wouldn't that cause more humans to worry about their image?

If everyone was pretty, I wouldn't have to carry a mirror around all the time to avoid direct eye contact with other people.

At 2/21/06 10:35 PM, Wyrlum wrote: This isn't new at all. For instance, a lot of evolutionists think that humans became less hairy (body hair) because women thought less hair looked more attractive. But, like someone else said, the peacock is really the best example.

If you look closely, you'll notice that black and asian people are less hairy than white people, yet they are the more ancient races! Hair is making a comeback bay-bee.

At 2/21/06 11:35 PM, ThebanLegion wrote:
more than five hundred scientists of note, each with a doctoral degree, have signed a statement challenging Darwin’s theory.

500 out of a couple millions is nothing. If my high school signed a petition saying all high school students refuse to eat cafeteria food, we'd have no authority to speak for anyone else.
Besides, why do they need to be 500? If they had such a compelling argument, a single person could prove everyone else wrong with it, he would't need the help of his buddies.

Just thought this might be relavent :)

You're a doofus. You're probably ugly too.

[Gunter45]

As the end result of billions of years of evolution, I would say that pox is right. It would have to take eons of creatures struggling to become more beautiful to create me.

[punisher19848]

At 2/21/06 07:24 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Animals evolve not to survive, but to be LESS UGLY.

And what is the standard of "uglyness?"

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, many people find the sight wild flowers to be pretty, while the sight of a pack of preditory animals devouring a corpse is considered ugly. I find the reverse to be true: I'd rather watch preditors devour prey than watch flowers grow.

[SEXY-FETUS]

I was opening this expecting a good laugh for a different reason, but none the less you gave it to me.

[mayeram]

At 2/21/06 08:31 PM, -poxpower- wrote: I would totaly bang Shawn Connery.

eww eww! EWW!!!

OMG you are a guy and you are talking about banging Shawn Connery!?!? EWW!!!

Must....distract self....from..image
*pours gasoline on self and lights up*

[AnkhX100]

At 2/21/06 07:24 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Animals evolve not to survive, but to be LESS UGLY.

Then why the hell is this alive?

[poxpower]

At 2/22/06 11:22 AM, punisher19848 wrote: I'd rather watch preditors devour prey than watch flowers grow.

No shit, watching a flower grow is BORING.
its not "ugly".
Go read a dictonnary or something.

At 2/22/06 11:45 AM, mayeram wrote:

*pours gasoline on self and lights up*

Now that you typed it on the internet, you have to do it.

At 2/22/06 11:55 AM, AnkhX100 wrote:

Then why the hell is this alive?

1. its supposed to have fuzzy white hair like Zoobomafoo.
2. its a creature of the night, which explains its creepy eyes. You're not supposed to see it.
3. Humans obviously saved it as its resting on a cloth. Blame greenpeace and those PETA fags
4. Its ancestors, the hairless horned ratbat apes, were WAY uglier.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/22/06 09:21 AM, -poxpower- wrote: In fact, the ugly birds are the ones who don't fly, so we can't see them.

Then how do you explain Vultures? They fly and they are damned ugly creatures.