Evolution, Sex, and Mammary Teets
Posted: January 16th, 2005, 12:11 pm
First, small organisms were having sex with each other. They didn't give a rat's ass who was on top. This led to earthworms. Worms have both sexes. Which is a shame and a waste, because nobody wants to have sex with a worm.
The next process on the evolutionary scale is that worms became snakes, then the snakes grew legs and got really big and were called dinosaurs. Rumor has it that Satan took the body of a snake to tempt Adam and Eve, so God made the snake's legs disappear. The snake was like, “I was bleedin’ framed ! You think I wanted that narcissistic cocksucker spirit-humping my spine?” But it was no good; he was convicted. Which is why he has to slither in the dirt all of his days.
So how did "cold-blooded" reptiles grow hair and mammary-teets? For that we have to look at the platypus:
"A semi aquatic egg-laying mammal of Australia and Tasmania having a broad flat tale, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck's bill."
Hell of a thing. Sounds like a vision William S. Burroughs might have conjured up when describing the “coke horrors.” And speaking of weird and horrible things from Australia, I haven’t heard from Jason “feral” Evans in a while.
But, see, where philosophers have taken a wrong turn is, they say, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" when they really should say, "the platypus or the egg." Of course, by starting with a faulty premise, they threw everything else out of joint, until at last you just have this God-awful menagerie. It's taken people who live in tents and wear pith helmets to sort it all out, sticking moths and butterflies to a corkboard with labels.
And so it goes. But I've strayed slightly from the original question. It seems to me that if evolutionists were accurate, you wouldn't be able to dig a post hole without cracking into some missing link skeleton, in some mid-transformation from what it was to what it was becoming.
I actually prefer the theory that Julia Child created everything and then got side-tracked and left the stove on. We are just now smelling something acrid and alarming.
The next process on the evolutionary scale is that worms became snakes, then the snakes grew legs and got really big and were called dinosaurs. Rumor has it that Satan took the body of a snake to tempt Adam and Eve, so God made the snake's legs disappear. The snake was like, “I was bleedin’ framed ! You think I wanted that narcissistic cocksucker spirit-humping my spine?” But it was no good; he was convicted. Which is why he has to slither in the dirt all of his days.
So how did "cold-blooded" reptiles grow hair and mammary-teets? For that we have to look at the platypus:
"A semi aquatic egg-laying mammal of Australia and Tasmania having a broad flat tale, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck's bill."
Hell of a thing. Sounds like a vision William S. Burroughs might have conjured up when describing the “coke horrors.” And speaking of weird and horrible things from Australia, I haven’t heard from Jason “feral” Evans in a while.
But, see, where philosophers have taken a wrong turn is, they say, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" when they really should say, "the platypus or the egg." Of course, by starting with a faulty premise, they threw everything else out of joint, until at last you just have this God-awful menagerie. It's taken people who live in tents and wear pith helmets to sort it all out, sticking moths and butterflies to a corkboard with labels.
And so it goes. But I've strayed slightly from the original question. It seems to me that if evolutionists were accurate, you wouldn't be able to dig a post hole without cracking into some missing link skeleton, in some mid-transformation from what it was to what it was becoming.
I actually prefer the theory that Julia Child created everything and then got side-tracked and left the stove on. We are just now smelling something acrid and alarming.