Does the theory of evolution apply to the Bush family or did they just get stuck having monkey brains?
828222
Take your bashing elsewhere.
754465
Sure. \nLike Southpark said, evolution answers the question how, and religion answers the question why.
530595
One huge misconception about evolution is that the sequence is fixed. The apes *are* evolving. They are changing in response to their environment. But that environment is different than the one our ancestors had 3-6 million years ago. So they won't change in the same way our ancestors did.
1091627
yes!\nWe share 95% of our DNA with monkeys. We have watched the evolution of animals as they have become more adapted to their changing environments. Humans have been able to teach monkeys to communicate too. It seems obvious to me that god created a universe that is ever changing and growing, not stagnant. Why is it so hard to believe that god may have started evolution? Maybe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman but not created from the dust of the earth? Just a thought
538219
Didn't they evolve from monkeys?  Oh wait, that was us.
46320
According to the theory of evolution, which is strongly supported scientifically, we are not decended from apes, monkeys or chimpanzees.  We do, however, share a common ancestor with them.  Humans evolved from that common ancestor to become what we are today, and the others evolved to become what they are today.  However, there are other viewpoints on this matter, which, though not scientifically supported, are in wide belief in many cultures.  These ideas are based on religious belief systems. These belief systems contend that humans have NOT evolved, and were created just as we are today by a diety or dieties.  Whether this is true or not, is a source of much debate.
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
621489
when his opponents are apes.\n\nActually, maybe even then the apes would win.\n\nNOTE!  I fully support Bush, the only thing is just that I acknowledge (and make fun of, apparently) the fact that he's not exactly the most intelligent president we've ever had.
82779
The Bush Family Tree can be traced all the way back to Ramses in Egypt. Unfortunately, Bush comes from a very long list of tyrants and kings and he is no different. He is related to Kerry, Churchill and the Queen of England. Ah - incestual families competing for power - the illusion of democracy!
816653
George W Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is the govenor of Florida.  The Bush family has Jeb under their thumb.  There are multiple problems here: curruption, racism, greed, dirty politics, Republicans - whatever you want to call it.  These aren't "Accidents", these are planned out courses of action.
998618
LOL!! NO, they're all liberal drunks.  There are, however, plenty left in the Bush family!
464577
A group of scientist placed five monkeys in a cage, in the centre of the cage they put stairs and, on it a cluster of bananas.\nWhen a monkey went up the stairs to grab the bananas, the scientists launched cold water in the ones that were in the soil. After certain time, when a monkey went up the stairs he would be beaten by the other monkeys.\nAfter sometime, no monkey tried to went up the stairs, despite the temptation for the bananas.\nThen the scientists substituted one of the 5 monkeys.\nThe first thing he did was go up the stairs, but he was quickly removed by the others that immediately start to beat him.\nAfter some beatings, he quit trying to go up the stairs.\nA second one was replaced and the same story occurred, having the first substitute participated, with enthusiasm, in the beating of the novice.\nOne third was substituted and the same fact happened.\nOne fourth and then the Last of the veterans was substituted.\nSo the scientists were now with a group of 5 monkeys that without ever having taken a cold bath, continued to beat the one that tried to go to the bananas.\nIf it was possible to ask to the monkeys why they beaten the one that tried to get up the stairs, the answer would probably be: "I don't know. Things were always like this around here..."\nSo sometimes we should ask ourselves why we do some things without thinking!\n\n" It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice!"\n(Albert Einstein)
1069841
Chrales Darwins theory of evolution from apes is wrong! If we EVOLVED from apes, why are apes still here?? Chrales Darwin evolved from Adam and Eve the same as all mankind\n\nDr Pratt
1120410
Liberals are the ones that worship chimps. After all, liberals consider them to be ancestors under the theory of evolution.\n\nSo you think George Bush is a chimp? I am quite sure he has accomplished much more than you ever will you jackass!
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
713110
Thank you, Mr. Fallacy.\n\nWhy do you put both "monkey" and "theory" in quotes?  Do you not believe in monkeys?\nHow did you get to decide where the burden of proof lies?  Who gave you the authority to erase fact, by stating the contrary?\n\nNow, to answer you question, first, I'm taking monkeys out of quotes.  I don't hide facts.  Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor.  The similarities come from both that common ancestor and convergent evolution -- the tendency for similar structures to develop in similar environments.  The differences came from divergent evolution.  Your whole question is based on the premise that I didn't inherit my cousin's eye color.  Behe can fling empty rhetoric well.  You can't.