The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (4 page)

I’ll take it easy on the scientists regarding the platypus, because obviously it’s a tough one, but I’m sure there are several hundred scientists right now earning their tenure in a pointless search for the Evolutionary significance of this ridiculous creature. I’ll close on the platypus by
stating an alternative theory that I’ve come up with: the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the platypus because, unlike scientists, He has a sense of humor. It’s an unlikely sign from God—and until someone can prove me wrong, that’s my theory.

I will next turn to more ordinary and boring examples of Natural Selection, which I will then proceed to slice to ribbons. Let us look at the fascinating case of bacteria. It is well known that antibiotics are used to cure various illnesses caused by bacteria, and it is equally well known that most bacteria (for example, staphylococci)
²
eventually develop immunity to these antibiotics. Looking a little closer at the case of staphylococci, we find that, in 1929, Sir Alexander Fleming
³
first observed the bacterium staphylococci to experience inhibition on an agar plate contaminated by a penicillium
⁴
mold. Sir Alexander Fleming, or “F-Man” as the queen liked to call him, isolated the penicillium to make penicillin, which then went on to be known as a wonder drug for many diseases, mainly VD. But gradually penicillin in its natural form became useless. Scientists will tell you that the bacterium—which replicates faster than a chinchilla in a Cialis factory—eventually developed a strain of itself that was resistant to naturally formed penicillin, and that the process of Natural Selection caused this resistant strain to propagate in nature. This is an outright lie, which I will decimate momentarily.

If we look at bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics, insects that grow resistant to DDT, or even HIV that grows resistant to antiviral drugs, we see a fascinating correlation between “Natural Selection” and “resistance.” But what are we really seeing here? I submit that they’re not changing their genetic makeup, they’re changing their
minds
. In short, they’re getting smarter. If I go to your house and you feed me a shit sandwich two days in a row, I’m having lunch at McDonald’s on the third day. It’s that simple. Don’t let the scientists, with their big phallic bacterial names, tell you anything different. They’re not as smart as they pretend to be, no matter how much they try to demean so-called lower life forms.

One other example of Natural Selection should just about put this puppy to bed. Scientists have pointed to “artificial selection” to show that humans, by providing their own specific set of selective forces, can mimic the forces of nature. We see this over and over again in the actions of “breeders,” who purportedly have wrought immense changes in plants and animals. We can look to the various breeds of dogs as an example, where claims are made that all dog species originated from one common source: the ancestral wolf. From this ferocious beast we are expected to believe that a diverse assortment of species was created by man himself—such four-legged brutes as the Chihuahua, the dachshund, the poodle, and the bulldog—all of which have been with us since time immemorial. This breeding “myth” appears to be a form of propaganda, possibly put forth by anti–Intelligent Design campaigners, although I’ll save any conversation about Intelligent Design for a later chapter. How can we believe such claims about “man’s best friend” when it is obvious to the common observer that every breed has been put on this planet
to serve a purpose
. I, for one, would point to the FSM as the creator of dogs, although there is valid evidence that God (if he is ever proven to exist) might have had a hand in their creation. After all, aren’t German shepherds meant to provide us with protection, maybe even from their own “forefathers,” the wolf?
⁵
Weren’t poodles and Chihuahuas put on this earth to make us feel better about ourselves? There can be little doubt that an intelligent creator put all the species on earth to serve man. And Evolution wasn’t even properly invented until the late 1800s. Is that enough time to get a Labrador retriever from a dire wolf? I think not.

If you don’t buy this argument, consider this one last example, which in this case regards plant species. If we look at domestic cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts, are we to claim, even if they did originate from a common ancient wild cabbage, that selection, be it natural, artificial, whatever, could not have done better over the last few thousand years? The answer is written in the squinched-up face of every child with a brussels sprout in his or her mouth. Yet another strike against Evolution.

Any discussion of Evolution will eventually lead us to ourselves. Humans have been around for as long as we can remember, and yet the Evolutionists will tell you that we weren’t. They will tell you that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years ago, and that we “diverged” from that common ancestor and eventually invented the space shuttle while chimpanzees were only able to invent “the stick.” To support this thesis, scientists tell us that we share 95 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, and yet we share 99.9 percent of our DNA with Pirates.
⁶
I ask you, who is the more likely common ancestor? And are the Pirates not the Chosen People of the FSM? Why do we spend so much time talking about something that didn’t happen, while the FSM is dangling His Noodly Appendage right in front of our faces?

But I shall persevere just a little further, and I shall examine the human body—specifically, I will examine organs that have been deemed “vestigial,” or useless, as a result of losing their function over millennia of Evolution.

A more credible theory
.

Fallacy:
Emerging in adulthood, these teeth are thought to have served as extra grinding surfaces for early man, who, before the advent of proper dental care, would most likely have lost many of his teeth by his mid-twenties.
⁷

Fact:
It is common knowledge that our Pirate ancestors ate a diet much rougher and more manly than our diets today. Also, they tended to carry their knives set deep in the back of their mouths.
⁸
It is logical, then, that they’d need extra teeth.

Male Nipples

Fallacy:
Scientists believe that all humans had breasts—or “dugs”— back in the Stone Age.

Fact:
Male nipples were used by Pirates as portable weather stations. With their nipples they were able to determine the direction of the trade winds and, depending on stiffness, how cold it was outside.

“Looks like we’re gonna get a nor’easter.”

Fallacy:
Evolutionary propaganda would have you believe that goose bumps are an atavistic, now useless response to distress—be it emotional or weather-related—that was once meant to raise the hair on our early forefathers, causing them to appear larger and scarier.

Fact:
Goose bumps are a cleverly disguised feature that allowed for increased buoyancy once a Pirate hit cold water. By simply appearing, they raised the surface area, thus increasing buoyancy. This made Pirates float better—something that was very useful to our ancestors, as they were sometimes without boats. Naturally, goose bumps seem to be a vestigial reflex, but it’s really society that has changed.

Fallacy:
This is a remnant of an internal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors.

Fact:
The appendix was a clever internal pouch utilized for hiding a Pirate’s gold. It is also the inspiration for the saying “cough it up,” which Pirates would demand of defeated Pirates once they’d boarded their ships.

Coilbone

Fallacy:
Evolutionists claim that the tailbone, or coccyx, which has no documented use, is an unusual remnant of a larger bone growth that might once have formed an ancestral tail, homologous to the functional tails of other primates.

Fact:
Humans with tails … are scientists high? Couldn’t the coccyx have served other purposes? I have carefully researched this issue, and have compared the coccyx to other unusual bone growths in animals—and the literature has led me to a single, overriding conclusion. Lots of animals have horns on their heads, and these aren’t thought to be the remnants of larger bone growth, probably because, unlike the coccyx, horns serve a purpose today. But what if the original purpose of the coccyx has simply been rendered useless by today’s culture? If you examine the coccyx closely you will see that this bony growth is very similar, when you think about it, to a
horn
, which is the structure used by many animals for fighting. I submit, then, that the coccyx is not a vestige of an ancestral tail but rather an effective, albeit strangely placed, defense and fighting mechanism.

I imagine that two opponents, fighting over women or choice cave real estate, would have run backward at each other—their asses outstretched, much the way elk fight with their horns. I have termed this ass-fighting. This makes sense, if you think about it, as it would leave their hands free to carry whatever they needed—most likely food or rocks.

As further evidence that the coccyx is a fighting feature, and that some knowledge of its use has survived culturally through the years, consider how quickly someone will run away from you if you run at them backward, ass first. I suggest that those who doubt this hypothesis put it to the test, and attempt to ram their ass into everyone they see for the next few days.
⁹
I feel confident that most, if not all, of these targets will at the very least be afraid. I see no other explanation for why this would occur, other than that we know, subconsciously, that the coccyx is a weapon, not a vestigial tail.

Fallacy:
The human genome provides evidence that we humans were not created ex nihilo,
¹⁰
but instead had to evolve systematically, just like all the other animals. As evidence, scientists point to lots of nonfunctional DNA, including many inactive “pseudo genes” that were functional in some of our ancestors but aren’t today. One example that is often cited is the case of vitamin C synthesis. While all primates, including humans, carry the gene responsible for synthesizing vitamin C, that gene is inactive in all members of the primate family but one: man. Scientists point to this as evidence of our shared lineage, although I can’t figure out why.

Fact:
Pirates, our ancestors, lived in the tropics and ate a lot of fruit.

Finally, I will address “sexual selection,” which I promised some time earlier. The basic concept behind sexual selection is that one gender of the species, usually the female, actively chooses members of the opposite sex to copulate with,
¹¹
based on certain criteria, thus placing a selective pressure on the species as a whole. Sexual selection explains the bright foliage of male birds, the impressive ritualistic duels among male rams, deer, elk, and other ungulates,
¹²
and the high percentage of Hummers being driven by short, ugly men. In short, sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, while Natural Selection is
non–gender specific
. In the interest of modernity, I move that Congress pass a bill outlawing this backward and sexist practice.