Archive Gallery: In Defense of Evolutionary Theory

Thank you for calling it a theory. Facts are observable and reproducible. While I do not feel the thoery pans out, I respect those that embrace it, so long as they embrace it as a theory. When one begins calling a theory fact, they are becoming religious.

Gravity is a theory, too, buddy. Theres also a law of gravitation, but there is also a theory.

Genetic change by selective breeding is not a "theory", it is a fact. Do you own a dog? Guess what, the dogs we have as pets today were not found in the wild. They were created by selectively breeding dogs with certain traits.

Well guess what, when this selective breeding happens via natural causes instead of human intention, you've got evolution.

@tbu720: As to gravity, the theory was a proposition, the law was born of observation and reproducible evidence.

What you cite as evolution is not, in fact, evolution, but mere adaptation within a single taxonomy (something that has been observed and reproduced). What has never been observed or reproduced are the jumps between biological taxonomies that are proposed by the theory. Until such time as that can be observed and reproduced, it is a theory.

If you want to call it science, call it what it is; a theory. Otherwise, call it religion.

@tw13

You do not even understand what the word theory means in a scientific context, yet you feel you know enough to dismiss the foundation on which all of modern biology, and many derivative fields stand upon.

Every scientific model is a theory. From the theory of relativity to the quantum mechanics theories to the atomic theory. Theories are confirmed through experiments and observations, but they forever remain theories.

Laws on the other hand are simple statements of facts. They are used in different theories. But even laws sometimes change, with proper evidence.

Theory of evolution has been confirmed countless times in countless ways. Some details are in dispute, but those are generally beyond the scope of the general public's knowledge.

So despite how strongly you want it to fail, it will not.

@Siromar: Well stated. I understand that we can never take for granted that there may still be further unknowns that will at least refine our understanding of even those things observed and reproduced.

I'm afriad I will continue to respectfully disagree to the claim, though, that "evolution has been confirmed countless times in countless ways". All we have is historical evidence based on the fossil record (which does very little to support the theory), and some minor adaptations that we have been able to observe in our current time, none of which support the radical transformations required by evolution to move from "nothing" to what we have now.

It is a long, long way from being "confirmed". It is theory, and a long shot at that.

I know we are all wasting our breath with this argument, but it's fun anyway :) Thanks for the debate.

@tw13

It does not have to be a waste of breath. The opposition to evolution comes strictly from religious people. Nobody with a serious scientific background can deny evolution without ulterior motives.

The evidence does not only come from the extensive fossil records that show thousands upon thousands of transitional species that can be easily tracked through a logical and convincing timeline, which in turn is easily collaborated and confirmed by separate sciences such as geology and dating techniques.

It also comes from DNA analysis that show the differences between the species, and track down when those changes occurred, and the expressed changes they triggered. Embryonic biology that clearly supports common descent. Molecular biochemistry which shows the mechanism for adaptation. Epigenetics that study the environmental influences on genetic mutation. And many many other fields. In fact, much of the modern scientific view is closely related to evolutionary mechanisms. That includes linguistics, anthropology, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

Listing the indisputable evidence for evolution would span many volumes. The other side of the argument is purely religious, with no scientific value whatsoever.

Gravity is a theory too. Doubt theory? Please, jump off a very high bridge :) Don't worry. It's "only a theory." You'll be just fine. Aferall... Trolls float!

@Siromar: I would like to dispute that opposition comes only from religious people, but then you are probably right; if one does not believe that evolution explains our origins, they are forced to come to a different conclusion. However, you make an assumption that is simply not true, that one cannot be both religious and scientific. But, I'm straying from the argument at hand.

As for the fossil record, I know that many a diagram lines up the fossil record in an attempt to be convincing, but the truly radical transformations never have the "transitional" species, they just jump. Why? Because there never was a "transition".

Regarding the mutations you describe, I know that adaptations occur, but they are either adapations within the same species, and those we can document at a DNA level. Doing DNA comparisons between species and pointing to variations as transitions is simply doing the same thing you do with thhe fossil record; supposing there was a transitionary move that causes the differences, when in fact they are simply different.

I have to bow out, but thanks for the conversation. For those that are U.S. citizens... have a happy Memorial day weekend.

Im sorry. Siromar Im gonna point at the obvious transition species and say NO! until they disappear.

The terms 'transitional' and 'intermediate' are for the most part used as synonyms; however, a distinction between the two can be made:

"Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant number of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional organism is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative.
"Intermediate" can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative.

IM GONNA IGNORE ALL THE FACTS AROUND ME UNTIL THEY GO AWAY!

-tw13

Just because it is the CURRENT theory doesn't mean it is the CORRECT theory- science has proved and embraced that almost always. The same thing goes for this evolution debate- its just as much a theory as gravity.

Evolution is more than just a theory, it's a general law. Everything evolves according to the processes of evolutionary biology. For example: http://opentothefuture.com/lose-momentum-lose-the-thread/

The more I read about evolution the more convinced I have become that it can't be right. So many people I talk with about this subject have no clue about it. They have just been reading so many articles "proving the theory" that it must be true... the same people never get that a couple of weeks later it seems it wasn't so proven after all.

To Siromar: "Embryonic biology that clearly supports common descent." Don't you know that this "proof" by Haeckel was unproven about 130 years ago. The really tragic thing is that a lot of textbooks in biology has been teaching this up until recently. Berkely didn't kick that lie out of the textbook until 2004 I think.

I guess if you tell a lie enough people will believe it.

It's hillarious to se smart people look at a petrified tree that is found standing through layers of sediments that adds up to 100 of millions of years and not understand that their precious theory can't be right.

The lack of alternative answers seems to blind people from the simple truth that evolution is bogus!

It is funny and a little sad when people catagorically deny evolution. They might as well be claiming that the world is flat because their deity commanded it. The basis of the conflict is that science starts out examining all the possibilities then uses the scientific process to see what the evidence leads to; but religion starts with a decree by a deity then looks for evidence to support it. There is ample proof for evolution but those that already have their mind made up will not comprehend it.

First look at the popsci article "scientist vows to reverse engineer dinosaur from chicken. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, as a group, are defined by only a few characteristics: a hole in their hip socket, some limb bone flanges, and other minor anatomical features. Chickens already have those traits. A chicken, like all birds, is already a dinosaur. Second proof of evolution: bird's DNA still contain traits of their dinosaur ancestors. Birds still have the DNA for teeth, scaly skin, etc but evolution has simply turned those traits off. Now we can reverse the process of evolution and turn those traits back on.

Third prof of evolution: the island of Madagascar. Madagascar has been isolated for thousands of years and the species that evolved there, only evolved there, and are found no where else in the world. For example, there is a lemur species that evolved to live in the reeds around one lake. That lake is the only place on the planet that they exist.

I doubt any religious people who have already decided to disregard science will be persuaded by this information. But there are many young people who were raised in religion and are beginning to ask questions who can benefit from this information. 

@SlackLineAddict

I must be one of them young religious folks you're talking about. But then again you sound religious to me as well.

Your first paragraph applies to both sides of this debate. I look at folks like your self and I think you're blinded and you think the same of me. But contrary to what you may think, I'm not afraid to look at your evidence, I don't close my eyes, if I did I wouldn't be at places like this and other scientific news sites.

Unfortunately, very often I see claims like your second paragraph, about the chickens. If you have to have a team of scientists trying to revive a dinosaur from a chicken, how could evolution do it by chance? Do we not have a habitat for them now?

Forgive me for being very skeptical of them actually succeeding until I see/or hear some proof.

@vvk

I respect people such as yourself that are interested in examining all the posibilities. I was raised in a creationist household where many scientific relavations were ignored because the bible lists a few hundred names that prove the earth is 6,000 years old, etc. After a few of my engineering classes I started learning about the laws of physics. I came to the conclusion that if one of the laws of physics is broken, then they are all worthless. Therefore, we either live in a world of gravity, science, inertia, etc or we live in a world controlled by god where miracles such as the world's rotation stopped to give god's army more sunlight.

I do not argue that science will ever prove or disprove the existence of god. Just that scientific evidence shows a universe governed by physics where natural selection promotes the evolution of creatures with traits that help them survive while species that cannot adapt go extinct.

Slacklineaddict I think we are two of the same kind but has landed on different sides. It's obvious from what you are writing that you categorically dismiss anything else but the evolution theory. That you then label people who hold the opposing view indirectly as ignorant of science is in itself pretty ignorant.

Many that share my view and me included are very interested in science, that's why I read everything that I can about for instance evolution. When we talk evolution it's of course interesting to be specific of what kind of evolution one means. There are 6 different kinds of evolution, and the only one of them that are scientific is the 6th type called micro evolution. That one I fully agree with. The other 5 types are as much religion as anything else. There are no more proof of these five in scientific terms than there is of for instance an intelligent designer.

I agree with you that you have scientific basis and observations that can hint of evolution if you first are willing to swallow a few camels and believe in miracles: Life started with chemicals and energy something that has yet to be scientifically proven is even remotely possible. That you choose to BELIEVE it is fine by me, but don't call it more scientific that my approach because it's just not. The mathematical chance for it to happen is at best slim to none. - but we are here right so it must be true....

That other people examine "the facts" and wants to Believe something else than you is by scientific terms no different than your belief system.

Your "3 proofs" are not proofs at all. The Lemur you're talking about is still a lemur, it's ancestor although probably different still was a lemur so that doesn't prove anything else than micro evolution. Most types of dog you see didn't exist 200 years ago, yet their ancestor was surprisingly enough..... wait for it.... a dog.

Your two first proofs are even easier to refute scientifically. Some monkeys share 90 some % dna with humans, why not let the scientist evolve a monkey to become human that must be much easier than making a bird become a dinosaur. Fossiles doesn't proove any evolution, because you can't even scientifically prove that the heap of bones even had any offspring to evolve further from. That animals share many traits and DNA is just as much proof of the same designer than it is proof of MACRO evolution. You are free to BELIEVE that they evolved, but it is no proof.

I'm myself open that the scientific community one day will find answers we don't have today about these issues, but so far they havn't proven anything regarding evolution. As long as that's the case I have other beliefs regarding these questions.

Just on a side not...If birds evolved from dinosaurs it must have taken millions and millions of years. (Everytime you as a reader reads millions and millions og years, be prepared for fairytale land. "once upon a time..." and so on).
If the dinosaurs died out from a comet landing i Mexico their death was pretty sudden, well at least within a few years. When it was only small mamals left according to this ledgend after this event. How could possibly birds suddenly come from dinosaurs that was already extict?

micro-evolution is a proven fact. it is the small genetic changes that benefit the survival of an organism. its seen constantly in micro biology when a strain of bacteria becomes resistant to a certain chemical. this is accepted, tested, and proven fact. macroevolution is disputed but its simply the combined results of countless rounds of microevolution. as a christian i see evolution as a tool god uses to create and refine life. science does not hold all the answers nor does any religion. the truth is a balance between the two.

Beefymclovin I'm sorry to say that your argument is flawed. When a strain of bacteria becomes resistent to for example antibiotics, what has happened? Well they have found out that bacteria has lost some of it's properties so that the "antibiotics" can no longer fasten itself to the bacteria and kill it. (this is very layman terms I know...)
The point is that what has happened is contrary to evolution. The complexity of that bacterias DNA is less than that of the original, and the end result bacteria is "less dangerous" than the original. For us humans that rely on antibiotics it's more dangerous, but in itself it's a "less evolved bacteria".
The whole point in evolution is that we evolved from a single cell to todays most complex humans and animals.
The problem when looking at DNA is that what is actually observable is that there's never any complexity added. It's more fair to say it's rather a sense of decay. For instance close relatives can't have children since they will have a much higher chance of inheriting the flaws in their parents DNA.
The first people must have been inbreeding and in theory one could argue that there was less flaws in their DNA since their children survived. This of course goes against all evolution theories and can't be true....or can it....I don't know.

It's clear from the comments here and a million similar articles that those who doubt evolution are those who do not understand it.

tw13, vvk, Jlianes etc think that they've found flaws in the evidence, but I'm afraid they're only finding flaws in their own caricatures of the evidence.

Case in point: 'The point is that what has happened is contrary to evolution. The complexity of that bacterias DNA is less than that of the original, and the end result bacteria is "less dangerous" than the original. For us humans that rely on antibiotics it's more dangerous, but in itself it's a "less evolved bacteria".'

Sorry Jlianes, but the bacterial DNA is no less complex than it was before. There is no cosmic spreadsheet charting the "dangerousness" or the "evolvedness" of organisms as if these could be reduced to a simple score. Everything you have written here betrays a deep deep failure to understand, at the most basic level, what evolution is.

And yet I have great sympathy with Jlianes and friends: I agree with you that evolution is utterly devastating to your beliefs. It destroys one of the primary claims for 'evidence' of a divine being (that if things look designed, there must be a designer), and it will fundamentally reorient your view of the universe so that we human beings are no longer the sacred heart of it. If you ever do dare to really examine the evidence, overwhelming as it is, there is a very real possibility that it will fatally undermine your faith. It certainly did mine. I urge you not to be scared of that prospect though. Despite what your shepherds keep telling you, life without them is still filled with awe, passion, morality, comfort and fulfilment.

Reading through these comments is giving me flashbacks of summer reruns...its the same ole drivel no matter which forum, article, or blog that you go to...the same crap evolutionists sayin religious people can't and don't understand the theory, and religious people sayin evolution is wrong. Ya'll just need to agree to disagree. I'm always seeing arguments end in petty sarcasm dripping with disdain and loathing for the person being written to, and its pathetic. Of the two sides, however, I will have to say religious folks have been the more tolerant, better behaved, kinder, nicer, and more accepting folks between the two, in general. Which tells me they care and they pay attention...I think they're fully capable of understanding evolution. But why is it that evolutionists think they have it all figured out, the Bible and evolution and they're the only ones that do. Tards, ya'll are tards.

To ledsyrus: I've been a believer in evolution up until quite recently, but as stated before the more you gather actual knowledge of the theory the more I have started to doubt it. I'll agree with you thou that evolution is not very compatible with the teachings of the Bible.
That evolutionists tend to look down upon people that believe different than they do is no news. Normally their only good argument is that "you don't understand the evidence...."
I guess we who don't believe in the religion evolution is not as evolved as they are...

Thanks to JimP who actually believe that IQ has (through natural selection:) been spread out quite evenly...

Ledsyrus: "Despite what your shepherds keep telling you, life without them is still filled with awe, passion, morality, comfort and fulfilment"

Evolution has been the most morally devastating religion so far. Both Carl Marx and Adolf Hitler is giving Darwin's book as their single greatest inspiration for two of the worst philosopies in history. When man is reduced to an animal his life isn't much worth. Today much of the horrors in though that evolution brought with it is of course politically incorrect. The fact still remains, who decides what is right or wrong. Every person for himself? The tyranny of the majority or what?

Thank you Jlianes, finally someone who dosen't bash evolution, but just points out the flaws. I would greatly recommend Kent Hovind's video series that explains the flaws in evolution. I also highly recommend the book "Darwin's Black Box", which points how evolution cannot explain anything on the cellular level. I am studying to become a microbiologist one day, so I already know a lot about cells and their functions.

I ask you evolutionist believers, please explain to me how cilia and flagella arose in prokaryotic cells. Please explain to be how a "bubbling broth of complex chemicals" turns into a living cell. The flagellum's motor is one of the most complex motors in the world and is irreducibly complex. Please explain to me how these organelles arose from non-living matter.

@scienceguy2

And if someone explains those things to you? You'll just go look for other "flaws". It is no coincidence that ALL doubters of evolution are religious. Every single one. You cannot truly doubt evolution unless you really really want to believe in your god. I'm sorry I even wasted my time.

Breathtaking how people like JimP can lament the 'disdain and loathing' of 'evolutionists', while in the same breath calling them 'tards'. Breathtaking.

As for Jlaines' claims about Darwin, Marx and Hitler, and 'scienceguy2's claims about irreducible complexity, these claims have been debunked so many times that there's a whole website, complete with actual quotes and genuine references so that you can fact-check them yourselves, already set up:

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I dare you both to prove Siromar wrong by reading through it carefully.

"First look at the popsci article "scientist vows to reverse engineer dinosaur from chicken. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, as a group, are defined by only a few characteristics: a hole in their hip socket, some limb bone flanges, and other minor anatomical features. Chickens already have those traits. A chicken, like all birds, is already a dinosaur."

How is this a proof of evolution? All you've mentioned is a coincidence of human-instated classification. I can just as well say a block of concrete has the same characteristics as the capitol building. It proves nothing.

"Second proof of evolution: bird's DNA still contain traits of their dinosaur ancestors. Birds still have the DNA for teeth, scaly skin, etc but evolution has simply turned those traits off. Now we can reverse the process of evolution and turn those traits back on."

The only science here is that you can find supposed "dinosaur" DNA present in a bird's genome. If you turn these traits on, the only thing you prove is that birds have the DNA of dinosaurs; this is not the same as proving that dinosaurs developed NEW genetic information and deactivated their old information to become birds.

You can call this "evidence" that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but it is not proof because someone like me can look at it and call it evidence of a designer who used the same segments of DNA in both animals to allow for greater genetic diversity; diversity which has, over the course of eons, become lost due to natural selection.

"Third prof of evolution: the island of Madagascar. Madagascar has been isolated for thousands of years and the species that evolved there, only evolved there, and are found no where else in the world. For example, there is a lemur species that evolved to live in the reeds around one lake. That lake is the only place on the planet that they exist."

As has been stated already, no matter how different of a lemur it is and how much isolation it has, this Madagascar lemur is still a lemur; no new information has been added to the genome, and in fact diversity has only been lost and genetic information has been deactivated.

This works against your point because the less genetic diversity that is present in a population, the slower the population will change - as far as you're concerned, evolution slows or completely stops. Madagascar actually shows that geographic isolation stagnates and restricts populations and genetic diversity, rather than increasing it.

The problem with assuming that the process of natural selection can somehow create new genetic information is in the name - natural selection SELECTS from an existing population with existing traits; in animal populations, these traits being selected from are already present, merely turned on or off.

Now, I know that you're going to say that mutations add new genetic information, but this is not quite the case. Because DNA is so incredibly complex, genetic mutations only scramble information in small ways, and mechanisms are in place to prevent, rewrite, and correct mutations, the most likely ways a mutation is to affect an animal would be by disabling one trait, activating a trait that would otherwise be turned off, or slightly changing the biochemistry in a way that better suits the animal's environment.

There are more ways mutations can affect the population, of course - the animal's behavior may be changed in a way that prevents it ever getting a mate; it may become sterile; it may simply die at birth; it may lose limbs or gain useless extras that hinder it; or it may even scramble the mechanisms that help prevent genetic mutations. In the last case, it would cause future offspring to be incredibly mutated, but the most likely occurrence is that the offspring would merely fail to survive.

With those maintenance mechanisms in place, mutations are limited to very small amounts that might be able to slip past inspection. Small mutations are, obviously, very limited in scope and effect - an extra codon here, a duplicate there, a few deleted pairs elsewhere, but not much can happen in one spot because mechanisms will catch and remove the error.

Just because I don't believe in evolution does not mean I dismiss good science. If something is empirically falsifiable, producing true experimental proof of it is possible, and should be recognized. However, the experimental proofs which allow us to KNOW how natural processes work should also allow us to recognize just how unlikely it is that these processes produced all life on the planet. I factor what is KNOWN (experimentally verified) far higher than I consider what is SPECULATED.

KNOWN: Life only comes from life.
SPECULATED: Life could have, long ago and far away, arisen by itself from nonlife.
KNOWN: The processes of natural selection and mutation.
SPECULATED: Natural selection with mutation can produce new genetic information, and even entirely new genera, families, or classes of life.

I can take what is truly KNOWN and speculate entirely different things. The science is the same; the speculation and worldview bias is different. Yes, I am biased, but the reality is that ALL humans are biased. I try not to let my bias get in the way of real science, but I recognize the limits of science, and that it only applies so long as you can truly test and verify a given idea. This is a big part of why I dismiss much of evolutionary theory.

New to posting here, long time subscriber, so I'll start with this:

scienceguy2 wrote:

"I ask you evolutionist believers, please explain to me how cilia and flagella arose in prokaryotic cells."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

There's a number of videos and articles about debunking old claims like irriducable complexity. Basically, parts of a structure like the flaguellum are not useless if missing other parts, they just server another funciton. In other cases, like eyes, steps leading to modern human eyes just go as "some funcrion is better than no function."

I like Kent Hovind. He's good comic relief.:P

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo&feature=channel_video_title

I recomend Pothholer54's videos for anyone who likes sciencey videos and deadpan humor. :) Of course, this is just a starting point to jump into further study.

"Evolution has been the most morally devastating religion so far. Both Carl Marx and Adolf Hitler is giving Darwin's book as their single greatest inspiration for two of the worst philosopies in history."

If you read a little more about history you would know that Marx and Nietzsche philosophies were COMPLETELY misconstrued by Lennon and Hilter to fit their OWN sick view of the world. Those two influential leaders then spread said misconstrued philosophies and it became popular belief (becuase the general public never actually bothered to read the original texts for themselves)Then people took HITLERS and LENNONS interpretations of great philosophers as the philosophers own teachings!

for example every one loves to "quote" Nietzsche and say oh he was a terrible atheist and always said "god is dead."
Actually what he meant is that the churches power was dramatically lessening at the time and fewer and fewer people believed in god.

So please do use INCORRECT history lessons to prove your argument. AND Darwin was also a huge influence of: Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, Churchhill, and a little known scientist named Mendel. They all list Darwin as a major influence in their lives.

I have REALLY enjoyed reading these well articulated comments. No one here is taking any crazy fanatical view points. While I do think one side is correct and one is wrong (which I am keeping to myself), both sides of the argument have been conducted in a manner that makes it possible to actually read the comments with out wanting to vomit due to disbelief or starting yelling back (you know like "of course electrons are round becuase god made them"...those sort of completely baseless comments really REALLY make my head spin. for all we know the god "made" electrons NOT round on purpose.

This is one of my favorite quotes and you can take it however you want. Personally I think its quite funny.

"The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me feel sick!” Charles Darwin.

He could never explain through his theories such traits as "pretty animals" just for sake of breeding. It didn't make any sense to him and confounded him terribly.
either way. I think its a funny quote.

AND I first read it here at popsci.

you can read the artilce to get more (or less) fuel for your arguments!

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-04/fyi-whats-point-sex

I was raised with religion and spent my fair share of time looking for and challenging the more ridiculous arguements of psuedoreligious evolutionists. With maturity I became more troubled by the ridiculous and mind-numbing religious fairy stories which fly in the face of scientific enlightenment.

many years went by till I finally asked "What if we all believed the same thing . . . and we were all wrong?"

We cannot be sure about details, but in the absence of any answers within the limits of our cognitive processes other than unexplained Evolutionary process or Divine process, you just have to choose your side and spout your rhetoric.

Whatever you believe is reality for you anyway, so unless you are open to the possibilty that either answer may be wrong, you will be condemned to the counter-productive task of recruiting others to your beliefs.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am pretty sure that only the scientific community is looking for new information, rather than scraping over culturally tainted "Holy" books new ways to explain their value to the world. The concept of evolution has itself evolved as new science and technology is discovered.

If thousands of years ago, the writers of the scriptures had been able to conceive of a deity using natural processes to create life, rather than being trapped in their superstitious paradigm. If they could have conceived of such a thing, how much easier would it be for modern religious folk to accept evolution as a viable explanation than to cling pitifully to mythology.

"Onihikage", you seem to be one of the best ones to have a good understanding of evolution. You seem to understand that our DNA will not allow us to just one day be walking down the street on all fours (monkey) and in a split second jump to a whole new and different species (human, no matter our geo location) and still retain your original species (monkey). A monkey is a monkey and because of the safety features in our DNA, can never become a human. There are several species in the monkey family just as there several species in the human family and sever species in the K9 family. Humans, and all living things on this planet, is continually evolving, but evolving withing our own species. I believe that our DNA will only allow us to evolve so far, because there is a beginning and an end to everything, and when humans get to the end, we will still be human and we will not jump back to a monkey or a K9 and start all over. Even if we, humans, evolve to pure energy, we will still be human and nothing more.

So, to say that humans evolved from a monkey, or that humans are a leaf on the same limb as a monkey is so unbelievable that a three-year-old would have trouble believing it. The leaves that is on the monkey limb are other monkeys and not human and versa versa.

Listen guys, NONE of your replies answered any of my questions. You simply said that "all of that was debunked years ago", which explains nothing. Unless you can tell me on a microbiological scale how it works, I cannot believe it. I suggest you read a 1,200 page biology textbook like I did, and see the complexity of the flagella and cillia. Mind you I read a regular biology book, not a creationist one. You saying "flagella had other functions" tells me nothing unless you can prove to me how the amino acids arranged themselves into various proteins and motors by evolution. Even if flagella did have other functions, that doesn't explain how the proteins were made or how a "DNA mutation" magically creates fully working proteins with thousands of amino acids. You should look at how cell transcription and translation work, and tell me how evolution can create new proteins. DNA mutations cannot add new information, they can only modify existing information. And don't go on to me about how bacteria can transfer plasmids, that is only possible in a biotechnology laboratory. Because I know that you evolutionists aren't going to add any meaningful information or scientific facts to this argument, I am going to leave this discussion because apparently I am too dumb to understand any of your evolutionist arguments so you won't give them to me at all.

P.S Thank you Onihikage, for your scientifically accurate observations and facts, I feel the exact same way.

I never said you were stupid or anything or that I would withhold answers from you. If the video I posted was not adequate explanation, you could have simply asked for more info and I'd be happy to oblige. Storming out of a conversation due to a percieved insult means that you won't give us the chance to share more info. :/

Anywho, to get an idea of how chemisty can drive changes and make new structures, not just flagella in particular, I hope this video on abiogenesis will help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

I think trasitional species came up as well, that concept is mentioned in this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=channel_video_title

I think someone also mentioned that evolution cannot add new information to a genome, so this video covers that assertion:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

As I said above, these videos make good jumping off points for further study into biology, chemistry, geology and other fields. You don't have to take my word for it or the word of the people in these videos; you can do the research and look up scientists' findings yourself. :)
The maker of the second video made a neat statement at the end of another of his videos: "This isn't a guessing game, it's a detective trail."

Happy Detecting =)

Thank you AeroJett, that video about gene duplication was useful ! I had forgotten my high school lessons, it seems ^^'
Also, quick question : don't virus work by injecting their DNA into an existing cell ? Now, let's imagine a virus with no substantial effect on the cell it injects its DNA into. And let's imagine said cell is a cell that will become a sexual cell (don't quite know the proper term in english), or an embryo in its first stages... Would that be possible ?

Someone made his point a long way up that you can be religious and be a scientist; well, in order to be a proper scientist you have to accept experimental proof (or find other proof contradicting the first), accept your view of the world has been proven wrong - for the time being at the very least. It means if your religion says evolution is bullshit and you are a proper scientist, you can't say with absolute certainty you will die fighting evolution - unless you intend to take your own life before someone comes with proof.

Back on topic. Evolution. Let's not forget that there is no notion of being more evolved or less evolved. There is no absolute scale of "evolveness", meaning there is no top of evolution : there is only fitness towards the environment.
I also read some people telling that putting animals on the same level as humans was awful. I think what happens is this : people have classified things into how much value should be given to them - usually with inanimate things at the bottom, humans on top and animals in between. Now they are told humans are animals like the others, and most see only one logical solution : put the humans one level down and give them as much care as animals have currently.
I'm no crazy green treehugger, but there is also the possibility of raising animals one level, up to the humans'
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCjyWp3rEk)

Two more things : a very large part of our DNA doesn't do ANYTHING. It's mute. For DNA to be interpreted, it has to be within a start codon (ATG) and a stop codon (TAG, TAA or TGA). Everything out of these "brackets" doesn't matter. A mute fragment of DNA can spend millions of years unnoticed, accumulating mutations and then one day a start codon forms before it, POSSIBLY making whole new traits come into play. Or the protein formed through this information might not be stable, or it might not have any effect on the macro scale.

And finally, DNA doesn't really contain information. As I said above, it does not consist exclusively of useful parts. It contains information the same way the arrangements of rocks in your courtyard contain information. If anything, DNA is rambling nonsense while other mechanisms (mRNA) are making sense of it and building proteins. DNA doesn't know anything, human DNA is not perfect in any sense, and is not more "advanced" than a fly's DNA.

Now, there are other people commenting here who are more experts in this field than I am, but I felt re-stating the basis might be good. Experts in a field sometimes forget the people they're taking to don't always have the basics - or have the wrong ones.

I am an American ex-partiot. I would like to make an observation that no one had made before in this discussion. The only people to question evolution are from judeo-christian societies. All across the entire world they teach evolution just like every single other scientifically accepted principle. Doesn’t ANYONE (I know some of you do) find it curious that the ONLY people who question it are Christians? I didn’t know arrogance of scientific enlightenment was a quality taught in church. I never learned that in all my years of Sunday school. Scientists from every color, country, and breed of people have won noble science awards, so we know capable scientist live in every corner of the world. Again I ask: why is it that only Christians question evolution? If you are a Jewish person or a Buddhist then please speak up. I am honestly curious about this.
Look! I don’t know if evolution is correct or not. I am not qualified to make anything more than a personal judgment based on the little bit I have been taught. There are some GREAT arguments for and against evolution in this message board, but the people who are against have offered ZERO explanation of what the alternative is. I am going to take a leap here and say god? Sorry. That isn’t an answer. It just isn’t! It doesn’t work for ANYONE other culture on the planet, why is yours right and 5.5 billion other people are wrong? Science has been used to explain every single fascist of existence in this universe. There is a rhyme and reason to everything. We are stilling uncovering much of it, and maybe evolution is dead wrong… but GOD is not a valid alternative.

I am more than willing to question a widely accepted scientific principle is wrong. It happens all the time. I think its very exciting.

I would just like to point out one fact about the "genetic similarities" mentioned here and other places. These so called similarities are growing smaller and smaller as genetic studies progress. Again, this is an example of scientists going into a study with a preformed idea and make the data fit.

There is not a 90% genetic similarity between man and apes. This myth started because scientists only mapped the DNA that correlated. The rest was regarded as "junk DNA" and thought to have no use or to be left over, deactivated strands from an evolutionary past.

However, a more complete DNA mapping process was started recently that has yet to be finished as far as I know. All of the "junk"? It is vital to the replication of the DNA itself and governs internal mechanisms. Additionally, as the study unfolds, more dissimilarities are being documented.

Just a little thought for the people out there...

I don't find any bad in Science as well as in religion at all.Here I go:True religion teaches us not to be afraid of loosing something, may it be loved one or one’s life itself. This way it offers us peace. True religion teaches us to be full of sympathy and compassionate towards others. This way it offers us love. True religion gives us a notion of supreme personality the Godhead. This way it offers us highest spiritual platform after death.While on other hand science teaches us how to make use of natural laws by observing the nature and trapping them in a box, say, there by creating new technologies.I can't deny science 'cos we are having science in every day life.Here is summary: Religion makes us spiritually rich while science makes us materially rich. Religion is a spot, from where there is no need of going further, while science is still a path. In this regard religion is static while science is dynamic. Religion is self sustained, while science is the way toward sustainability.
Every science has its drawbacks be it physics, chemistry, astrology, therefore people (scientist) are always engaged in updating the science.
I believe in various branches in biology but I don't believe in evolution.i have some question to ask.What is the latest animal found in the trend of evolution? Is there any species to come after human being? Still not observed. Evolution occurs so as to adopt the environemt, In last few decades the environment around has highly electronized and computerized, can we hope in furure to be robot? Not ofcourse untill we implant some chip inside us. There are several other reasons like missing link of transisional stages etc which i believe the thery of evolution can't explain even after more than a centuries the theories were postulated.
How do i explain the similar behaviour in animal is like this: All the 94 elements found naturally on Earth was simultaneously occured in from the time the earth existed. Hydrogen has not become helium but there are some similarity in properties.In similar way all of the animals are already on earth since the earth existed.Better to build a table for living also right?

I wonder how religion would treat the Neandethal Man? Looks human, can interact with us and is no more like us than a lion is to a puma.

Not black skin yellow skin white skin differences but a different animal. What of their place in the "god created us for his pleasure" scenario?

Really, if you wash away the emotional BS and pseudo-science that carries the opposition to the only credible explanation for our journey to this point . . . you are left with frightened superstitious nonsense, the fruit of this amazing cranial housed organ we call a brain.

Religion is self-sustained?

It's like listening to blind men describe an elephant.

I'm not going to mince my words any more. This is pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Listening to you Creationists misuse the word 'information' over and over again is like hearing New Age Mystics bang on about 'energy'. It's just... woeful.

To think that the once-great USA should've been reduced to this. It's like watching the Taliban return Afghanistan to the Stone Age.

I'm not American myself but I've always respected your country. Now I just walk away, shaking my head sadly.

Ledsyrus, you should not. Saying they are pathetic and walking away will only result in them being angry with you, thus devaluating your point of view and conforting them in their thoughts.
Besides, they might be right. Perhaps the whole world was just created 15 seconds ago, the past is an illusion and the universe makes no sense.

The role of religion to me is giving you a moral scaffolding which you use as a basis for your own moral system. As soon as religion start talking of absolute truths, it's better not to listen to it.

About hwo the world came to be the way it is, christianity states things, they are not subject of discussion. But they can be false truths : the Earth is not flat, it's not the center of the universe.
A self-sustained man is a man who would need no food or water to live. Religion is not a self-sustained man : it's a starving man who won't eat because he's utterly convinced he has all he needs. It does not provide exclusively valid answers, it's just happy with the answers it provides, whether they're good or bad.

Ananta, I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand your point well. We haven't observed the emergence of an entirely new specy from another during the last hundred years, of course, since it is a process that takes millions of years to happen. At our scale, that process is the appearance of slight modifications of DNA over time, which we observe everyday. Sadly, some people deny it is evolution, for whatever reason I can't understand.
When asked for proof, since we can't see the future, we have to look at the past. We have extremely sparse data from times old enough to be considered for the study of evolution, just a few dots that give us some animals that used to live hundreds of millions if years ago. When you connect the dots, the theory of evolution is perfectly valid.
Some keep asking for the "missing link". There never was one; or I should say there was almost an infinity. Let's say that to be convinced, you want the discovery of the missing link between an animal 90 million years ago and one 30 million years ago. After a while, you have it, an animal between these two, 60 million years ago. Tada ! Except there will still be people to say there is a missing link between the 60 million year old animal and the 30 million year old one. This behavior is useless.

Also, you say helium does not come from the fusion of hydrogen. I don't understand why you doubt it. We see it happen everyday.

Finally I didn't understand your allusion to a table. Are you worshipping Ikea ?

Dae: in my country these people are a tiny minority, and they are routinely mocked. Rightly so, I now believe. In America you've taken them seriously. You've treated them like grown-ups. You've tried reasoning with them. How's that worked out for you?

I honestly don't care if cretins like this are angry with me. I pity you though. Good luck.

Hey, I'm not American ;)
My point wasn't that they'd be angry with you, but that being angry with you would only make them less inclined to consider whatever you're saying and more inclined to trash it out without thinking about it. A sort of "you are rude, so you must be wrong, so I'm right".

They already think that Dae. JimP thinks we're 'tards'. Jlaines compared us to Hitler. All we'd said about them was that they didn't understand what they were talking about. And that's demonstrably true!

It doesn't matter how charming you are to these people. They cannot be reasoned with. And it's not because they were born idiots. They've just be lied to so many times and in so many ways that they don't know which way is up. It's heartbreaking really.

If I may point out... Absolutely nothing in the Bible itself is scientifically inaccurate. Yes, there are the miracles of the New Testament and the first chapters that describe creation. These cannot be proved or disproved because no one can actually observe what the book describes. I say book because I am not arguing for a religion, but for a historical document many believe in on a spiritual level.

The flat earth and and geocentric theories are NEVER described in the Bible. These are teachings of a twisted catholic religion with ulterior motives. If you examine the text itself, there are no inaccuracies.

Also, to the guys saying that religious people are basically brainwashed beyond the point of recovery, I have an observation. Every child that has been to public school has been taught the THEORY of evolution as fact since their earliest classes in science. Each one of them has been told over and over again how the universe began and how all of the science points in the same direction-evolution. The same goes for the majority of universities and later schools. I would argue that you are just as set in your ways and oblivious to your surroundings as the religious people are.

Before you go personally attacking me, let me tell you how I was raised. I was brought up in an open home and a private school with no stated objective. I was taught all of the theories of origin side by side, with all applicable evidence examined but no conclusion drawn by the teacher. Extensive logic and debate classes were required, and I was taught to ALWAYS ask questions and be open to the possibility of being wrong. I continue to ask questions of all sides to an issue, and I consider anyone who dogmatically follows any view not only ignorant but a fool.

Please be kind to the other side of the debate... Even if they turn out to be wrong, you may learn something or help change a persons life for the better. If you are wrong or must concede a point, be graceful. Being stubborn never helped anyone, and being contrary prevents learning.

Let me put this up to prevent the arguments I know are coming...

When there is a miracle described in the Bible, what's described is how a supernatural power BROKE the laws of physics. That is the point of the story. All of the observations of man and descriptions of nature and physical forces are accurate.

First of all I would like to clear to my friends that i am not religious fanatic otherwise i wouldn't peep through Popsci so often.Though i practise religion i don't believe there must be some kind of miracles.I don't take miracles as vising cards for religion. I believe religion base on observation as science.
@chello. Religion is self sustained i mean in the sense that i get peace in my mind in practising certain religious observances, for this I don't need to inquire, why and how like stuff. As i already said religion should lead us to peace.
@ledsyrus. You will find here very interesting stuff in the world. Try enjoying whatever the world offers you. I believe in science I enjoy it. I believe in religion, i get peace in it.
Regarding the evolution,I can't believe it 'cos there is not sufficient proof.Here I believe same way as in conservation of energy. Can someone track the origin of energy? Not ofcourse. I believe the same way, we had no origin, we were here from time infinite and we will be here in far future as well.

To POPSCI

You obviously feel very proud defending the "theory of evolution", this theory of "the origins of life". You must feel quite intelligent. A lot of time and resources have been committed to proving this theory to be true/accurate. for what reasons, i'm not sure. A lot of heated discussions have ensued. Yet, none of these intellectual wantabees have ever taken an interest in determining the origins of death. the universe continues to expand, new planets and galaxies are being formed, etc., etc., etc., yet life for plants, animals and humans on earth ends. We die. WHY?

I would love to hear/read your (POPSCI) defense of your theory of the "origins of death". Please.

But here's the really cool thing - and the argument that might better serve those who still believe that a man created the universe: the belief in religion itself has been a "selected" trait - which has survived all competing theories for the origin of humans. The religious theory survived for several thousand years. It provided a comforting explanation for why we are here and where we go when we die. The various religions of the world like to claim they are unique and that all other religions are "false" - but - they're all pretty much the same . . . that some "higher being" (very often in the image of a man), created the universe and put us in it on this particular planet.

But in 1859, Charles Darwin came up with a very radical thought - that maybe we all had it backwards. That maybe we were only here to discuss religion, or any other theory, because we survived to do so.

Now another one of the "traits" that has suited humans well (so far) is that we don't embrace change all that quickly. Especially major change - like a completely different explanation for how we got here. We're not especially quick to embrace a possible explanation that negates the need for a very major social force in our world - organized religion, churches, temples, and the people that get the power to control those organizations - priests, ministers, etc. We also like the idea that we never really die (the promise of all the world's religions) and that our friends and relatives have never died (unless they were "bad" and did not obey the commands of the people that control religion.)

This would all be fine except for one thing. Some day, our planet will be visited by people from another planet (or more likely - their robots) - who will likely be much more technologically-advanced than us - because they had been more willing to embrace the painful truth of Darwin's idea - that we don't live forever - and we're not as special as we thought we were. And those more technologically-advanced people will probably do to us as we did to the American Indians - with our more technologically-advanced capabilities - and exterminate us.

So - I do feel we should continue to have social gatherings (similar to the Sunday church, mass, etc.) - but should also embrace, as rapidly as possible, Darwin's radical idea. Because if we are to survive for the next 2,000 years - we will need to have a strong grasp of reality.

Religion filled an important role for thousands of years - but now it is time to move forward and embrace the new, but painfully true, idea of evolution. Our children's lives will very likely depend on it.

Alright, let me apologise. I got frustrated yesterday and I said some intemperate things that don't sit well with me, and which I regret. I should be better than that. Not for the sake of winning the argument (I still don't think temperate language really helps win arguments - only evidence and logic can do that in the long run), but just for the sake of being a better me.

Let me try and make up for it by taking the time to answer a few of the points and questions raised. I'll use a separate post for each response, so it's not quite so hard on readers' eyes.

atoz writes: "A lot of time and resources have been committed to proving this theory to be true/accurate. for what reasons, i'm not sure"

Science is all about trying to prove ideas to be true or false, because true ideas are useful ideas. For example: if you know the world is round, you can navigate all the way around it. If you know what causes disease, you can prevent disease (and evolution does cause disease, in a way).

Scientific proof is not like mathematical proof. It's not absolute, irrefutable and 100% watertight. It's more like courtroom proof. It's complicated, it comes at you from numerous angles, but if you've got it right then all the pieces lock into place and you end up with something approaching absolute certainty.

The case for Evolution is, in fact, as close to 100% certain as it is possible for science to get. It really is. (See www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for starters) All the pieces lock together perfectly. What is more, none of the arguments *against* evolution really stand up to scrutiny, and finally - there is simply no scientific alternative. Sure you can argue that your god created everything to look just like evolution has taken place. I can't argue with that. But I do think it's pretty rubbish and unsatisfying as explanations go.

scienceguy2 writes:

"DNA mutations cannot add new information, they can only modify existing information. And don't go on to me about how bacteria can transfer plasmids, that is only possible in a biotechnology laboratory"

I do think it's confusing to use a term like 'information', because it can mean a bunch of different things in a biological context: for example the quantity of DNA, or else the number of genes (and/or other functional patterns) within the DNA. But by pretty much any definition, new information can be added to DNA with ease. The whole point of DNA is that it gets copied so that cells can divide. So by one definition the amount of information gets doubled every time that happens!

It is not at all uncommon for DNA replication to make mistakes and miss a bit out, or repeat a bit. (DNA repair mechanisms are also prone to error). There is no physical law prohibiting this any more than the laws of physics prevent a sloppy monk from making similar mistakes when copying a manuscript.

You mentioned plasmids and how they only get transferred 'in a biotechnology laboratory'. That's quite wrong I'm afraid. Plasmids weren't invented, they were discovered and exploited. They're a lot like viruses in some ways. They're completely natural. Look up F-plasmids for example.

Good luck with your microbiology degree. It'll involve reading a lot more text books, but it'll be an eye-opening experience for you I'm sure.

atoz writes: "none of these intellectual wantabees have ever taken an interest in determining the origins of death. the universe continues to expand, new planets and galaxies are being formed, etc., etc., etc., yet life for plants, animals and humans on earth ends. We die. WHY?"

In general, things die because they wear out, they malfunction, they break beyond repair.

The only reason that life as a whole hasn't died out is because it keeps backing itself up (and nothing has yet come along that can destroy all the back-ups at once). By copying its core information (in the shape of DNA), over and over again, it stays ahead of the game. Through billions of years of trial and error it has picked up a few tricks to delay the inevitable, and by now there are a whole bunch of different techniques for gathering the raw materials, for copying the DNA as quickly and accurately as possible, and for dispersing the DNA as widely as possible to avoid catastrophe.

In amongst those techniques are the 'multicellular strategies': cells that work together as a kind of society that brings all kinds of advantages. In fact many cells even commit suicide for the good of the multicellular whole (when they should do this but they're too broken to be able to pull it off, well that's what we call cancer).

Now multicellular bodies are amazing things, but if they've done the job of copying and dispersing the DNA then there's not really much pressure to keep the bodies going and going. As humans I'm happy to say that we've found all sorts of uses for the non-copier-dispersers in our number, so I would expect evolution to now have more reason to make our bodies last that little bit longer.

If you delve into your family history a little bit, and build up a nice big family tree, you may start to get a different perspective on death. I've found the whole notion of being 'an individual' has started to fade away, and I now feel more like one leaf on the tree. I'll die, sure, but the tree goes on, hopefully. Plus, when your body dies, some of your thoughts live on... in diaries, letters, comment posts, lessons passed on to children, and so on.

"Yet, none of these intellectual wantabees have ever taken an interest in determining the origins of death. the universe continues to expand, new planets and galaxies are being formed, etc., etc., etc., yet life for plants, animals and humans on earth ends. We die. WHY?"

Sir, you are an idiot. Stars and planets "die" too. Stars supernova or turn into black holes. Stars run out of energy. Planets that surround these stars are destroyed. Other planets get hit with enormous asteroids. "Life" and "death" can be seen literally everywhere in the universe.

psycophysics writes: "Absolutely nothing in the Bible itself is scientifically inaccurate. Yes, there are the miracles of the New Testament and the first chapters that describe creation. These cannot be proved or disproved...
When there is a miracle described in the Bible, what's described is how a supernatural power BROKE the laws of physics. That is the point of the story. All of the observations of man and descriptions of nature and physical forces are accurate."

I see a lot of inaccuracies - from 'day' being made before the sun, to implausibly proportioned Arks, to roving stars that move and stop over mangers, but you can dismiss them all as miracles. I'm not so sure how you would field the many internal contradictions (for instance, the two conflicting creation accounts, or in the New Testament Joseph having two different fathers). You could call them miracles too, I suppose, or else say that it is 'spiritually true' rather than literally true, but then you'd be conceding that it isn't literally true. This you will not do, even though you also write: "I was taught to ALWAYS ask questions and be open to the possibility of being wrong. I continue to ask questions of all sides to an issue, and I consider anyone who dogmatically follows any view not only ignorant but a fool.... If you are wrong or must concede a point, be graceful. Being stubborn never helped anyone, and being contrary prevents learning."

Well OK.

Theory of death? Really? Wow... Trolls just get hungrier and hungrier these days

@atoz

I challenge you to explain what the heck the 'theory of death' is... You ridiculous poisonous twit mind of a fool, you deserve all the ridicule you get and someday if it hasn't already started history will regret you and your ideas. In fact the absurdity of your question forces me to question the limits of human intelligence, forces me to rethink the very idea that we are in any way capable of ascertaining knowledge because YOU, you pathetic wad of disturbingly ignorant meat have shown we as a collective species are far from our goal of understanding the universe.

I'm disappointed that I'm of the same species as you and your peers

@ psycophisics

Here's something for you to show your 'graceful conceding' nature, since you bold the word 'theory' and use it out of context ("Such as Evolution is just a THEORY") I presume you have no formal education on the term 'theory' as it is used in a scientific sense such as that applied to Evolution.

Theory (Scientific): A collection of all ascertained information on a subject procured through observation and empiricism

Perhaps I should bold a few words for you, OBSERVATION and EMPIRICISM

I do agree however with your philosophy of being a graceful debater, one of which I am NOT being right now (However that can change) PopSci is not the best forum for certain things such as extended lengthy responses to silly claims for much of what is posted is either from ignorant fools or the unfortunately ignorant who really just DO want to learn. Psyco, I hope I've at least given you a few resources to show that your assumed knowledge is incomplete and perhaps a rewrite of your standpoint is in order

Ananta writes: "I believe in various branches in biology but I don't believe in evolution."

It was Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Christian incidentally, who famously said 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. It is absolutely true, but there is no quick way to convince you of it, because you would have to study a lot of biology first, and find alternate explanations for everything from fossils to vestigiality to molecular phylogeny.

You also write: "i have some question to ask.What is the latest animal found in the trend of evolution?"

But there is no trend in evolution, you see. It isn't a straight line and it doesn't have a single end or direction. Evolution can make species simpler rather than more complex. It can make them smaller as well as bigger. Whatever happens to work best in a given environment. And very few environments stay the same for too long.

You add: "There are several other reasons like missing link of transisional stages etc which i believe the thery of evolution can't explain even after more than a centuries the theories were postulated."

I must refer you to this brilliant Futurama clip:
www.myvidster.com/video/316851/Futurama_Evolution_Debate_

eregorn8 writes: "Just because it is the CURRENT theory doesn't mean it is the CORRECT theory- science has proved and embraced that almost always."

I'm afraid evolution is the ONLY theory in this case. Nobody has come up with an alternative, other than "God made everything look like evolution happens", and that introduces a whole bunch of new unanswerable questions without answering the existing ones any better than evolution does.

Last one from me for now. I think I've atoned.

Jlaines writes: "To Siromar: "Embryonic biology that clearly supports common descent." Don't you know that this "proof" by Haeckel was unproven about 130 years ago. The really tragic thing is that a lot of textbooks in biology has been teaching this up until recently. Berkely didn't kick that lie out of the textbook until 2004 I think."

It is true that Haeckel appears to have unwisely (and unnecessarily) exaggerated his data, and that it is inaccurate to say, in a strong literal sense, that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". But there are also elements of truth to it. Embryological development *does* reveal a lot about common descent. Siromar is quite right.

Look up "Recapitulation theory" on Wikipedia for a nuanced examination of this complex issue.

I have a question for anyone who doubts evolution.

Do you doubt other scientific theories also? Quantum physics? Do you doubt the germ theory of disease?

Why do you have do pick on evolution? Just because it confuses you? How about this: all objects have wave-particle duality. Yes, you have a wavelength! Sound confusing? Welp, better tell de Broglie that one of his most significant contributions to the field of science is wrong because a non-scientist thinks that using layman's logic can help you figure out things about the world.

@tbu720
You are my hero

@ledsyrus Yes, I count them as miracles or stories. I specifically said in my argument that aside from stated miracles the observations put forth were legitimate.

As for internal contradictions... Have you ever picked up the book discussed and read the first two chapters? The creation is in the same order in both chapters. Yes, the items are listed in a different order, but past/present verbs are used that give the same timeline. I will not take up the space here for a full note-by-note commentary, but I would be glad to do so for anyone interested.

Also on the creation note, the word "day" is not literal. It is a translation of the Hebrew word "yowm" (phonetic),which means simply a space of time. It is used in other places as a period of hours or years, and is not defined in this text. "Day" was just the most practical and poetic interpretation.

Joseph is never listed as having two fathers. The first account is in the book of Matthew- "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." Pretty straight forward but keep in mind that this is speaking of what they thought was a virgin birth. Jesus is attributed to Mary, not Joseph.
The book of Luke makes the same point in a different way- "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli." Luke lists Joseph as the supposed father of Jesus, and Heli as the actual grandfather. His reason? Heli is Mary's father, and so the true blood grandfather. Again, this is from their perspective of a virgin birth.

As to the ark... Look up the dimensions. As listed in Genesis, it had measurements of L 300cubits x W 50c x H 30c, which in feet translates to 516.25 x 86 x 51.6 with three decks. Assuming a roughly rectangular, rounded off shape, that comes to a total volume of almost 1.4 million feet and an estimated (on wood construction) tonnage of 14,000. That is enough to comfortably carry 125,000 sheep sized animals in cages. Coincidentally, there are under 18,000 land animals documented so far(X2 = 36,000 total for the ark) and the average size of these is less than that of a sheep. So yes, as far as we know, all the animals would fit on the ark.

I have been through a lot of arguments with many highly educated people from both sides of this debate, and I can give facts and flaws for both sides. Honestly, I don't have a problem with micro-evolution in itself. It has never been observed or proven, but I think that given enough time two branches of a species could become different enough to be considered different species. Maybe. However, each of us is choosing to place his faith in a theory about the true beginning.

Let me put it this way... Let's assume that matter has always existed (a belief). Do we also assume/believe that life has always been present? Or did it spring up somewhere along the way... If so, by what mechanism did it begin? At what point can we say for sure "Here is where separate chemicals that existed together became a cohesive, reproducing life form." No method has ever been shown by which life, a hopelessly long and complicated chain of amino acids which if any piece is missing or out of order will not function and unravels, can arise out of individual chemicals.

I choose to believe that it began in the hand of a designer who is too unlike us for our current level of science to understand.

Please don't come back to this post with the "proof" provided by the Miller-Urey experiment and the ones that have followed... That whole project is riddled with so many problems and leaps in logic I don't feel the need to type them all out here.

@tbu720 Basic Logic 101

It is a fallacy to bring an unrelated argument into the debate.

It is a fallacy to attack personally without addressing the issue being debated.

It is a fallacy to assume that a certain group entirely makes up the opposing view.

Oops, I missed one point. The definition of the word theory.

Miriam-Webster- "5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

It is not a derogatory remark when I say THEORY of evolution, I am simply pointing out the difference in what I say and what most (but not all) people mean when they say "evolution." Most consider the theory a proven fact or a law when it is no such thing.

A law is...

Miriam-Webster- "a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions"

I don't believe this describes evolution. All theories of origin are up for debate.

@psycophysics So the Bible is completely scientifically accurate - except for all the parts that aren't. Well OK then we're in agreement.

you write: "The creation is in the same order in both chapters. Yes, the items are listed in a different order, but past/present verbs are used that give the same timeline."

So Gen 1 (KJB) says, with very clear divisions marked by phrases like "And the evening and the morning were the third day"...

1) light/dark/day/night
2) firmament/heaven
3) land/sea/grass/trees
4) stars/sun/moon
5) fish/birds/whales
6) land animals/beasts/cattle/man/woman

While Gen 2 (KJB) says 'And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.'

Yes I would be very interested in your full note-by-note commentary on how this not a contradiction.

You also write: "Luke lists Joseph as the supposed father of Jesus, and Heli as the actual grandfather"

But it doesn't say 'the son of Joseph and the grandson of Heli'. It says (KJB) 'And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi...' and so on.

Now you can even look at the original Greek of various versions, side-by-side with different Latin and English translations, at www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C003.htm, and even without understanding Greek you can see for yourself that the Greek word which links the various names together (which looks like "TOU") is the exact same word linking Joseph and Heli together.

You write: "As to the ark... Look up the dimensions. As listed in Genesis, it had measurements of L 300cubits x W 50c x H 30c, which in feet translates to 516.25 x 86 x 51.6 with three decks. Assuming a roughly rectangular, rounded off shape, that comes to a total volume of almost 1.4 million feet and an estimated (on wood construction) tonnage of 14,000. That is enough to comfortably carry 125,000 sheep sized animals in cages. Coincidentally, there are under 18,000 land animals documented so far(X2 = 36,000 total for the ark) and the average size of these is less than that of a sheep. So yes, as far as we know, all the animals would fit on the ark."

I notice that the Titanic was almost double the length and nearly four times the height, giving - by your simple method of calculation - roughly ten times the volume. It carried a crew of 860 + 2500 passengers. Its sister ship the Olympic could carry no more than about 10,000 troops per trip during WW1. So I do have to question the realism of your rather crude calculations.

Still... turning to the number of land animals: I'm not sure where you got 18000 from, but by carefully redefining the vague term 'type' I daresay you could get it down to a lot less - maybe even 300 or so (there's only 153 taxonomic families of mammals). But then you have to concede that this small number of species, has turned into the current HUGE number of different *species* in the space of only 4000 or so years. Is that what you want to argue?

Personally I'm just curious how the Kangeroos managed to hop half-way around the Earth to get on board, not to mention how or why they hopped half-way back around the world again after the waters receded. Miracle?

psycophysics writes: "Let me put it this way... Let's assume that matter has always existed (a belief). Do we also assume/believe that life has always been present? Or did it spring up somewhere along the way..."

You might want to look up 'baryogenesis'? Physicists seem to believe that matter has not always existed. I gather that they have a lot of good reasons for believing this, but I'm no physicist, so I bow to the geniuses who spend their lives studying this stuff.

You continue: "If so, by what mechanism did it begin? At what point can we say for sure "Here is where separate chemicals that existed together became a cohesive, reproducing life form." No method has ever been shown by which life, a hopelessly long and complicated chain of amino acids which if any piece is missing or out of order will not function and unravels, can arise out of individual chemicals."

I must point out that you can attack theories of abiogenesis all you like without it even touching on the issue of whether humans and apes are related.

I also have to point out that life is not "a hopelessly long and complicated chain of amino acids". What you are talking about is a protein.

Life is not actually particularly easy to define. Are viruses alive? Are plasmids? Probably not. We usually prefer to define life in terms of cells that reproduce, but of course there are many cells which don't (so are red blood cells not alive, then?).

If we are talking about cells, well they are coalitions of proteins and also lipids (fats), nucleic acids (like DNA), and carbohydrates (like starch and cellulose). None of these ingredients are alive by themselves, but when they're working together we're happy to call it life.

And it's not like all cells are self-sufficient (far from it, in multicellular bodies), so it's quite easy to imagine early proto-cells being very 'leaky' organisations, with contents coming and going quite freely, more like modern cities than the 'space-age habitats' they later evolve into.

At any rate, we define the word life. The word life doesn't define us. When we study it, we recognise that at a certain scale it becomes a fuzzy line. So when we think back in time, it's not difficult to suppose that there is a similarly fuzzy line dividing the the first things we would call life from the last things we wouldn't like to call life.

You go on: "which if any piece is missing or out of order will not function and unravels".

I don't at this point know if you are referring to proteins or cells, but in either case it's inaccurate. You can alter proteins and cells substantially without stopping either from working. If you couldn't then I accept that would be strong evidence for design. But you can.

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask a Creationist, so perhaps psycophysics or someone else would oblige me with an answer?

Gen 11 (the famous Tower of Babel story) begins by saying 'the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech' and then God got a bit bothered about that and instantly created all the different languages we have now, right?

Am I right in saying then that Creationists also deny that modern languages 'evolved' from ancient ones? Do you claim that there are 'missing links' in the written record which clearly prove that Latin couldn't possibly have given rise to modern Italian? Is it somehow obvious that English and German are too different to be related? Or German and Polish? Or Polish and Slavic? Or Slavic and Sanskrit?

I'm genuinely curious how Creationists field this one. Are the linguists all in on a conspiracy just like the biologists are?

@psychophysics

Want to talk about laws? How about the LAW of natural selection. Natural selection is a fact.

The THEORY of evolution referrs to the proposed scientific explanation for how different animals come about after millions of years of natural selection.

There can NEVER be a law that would explain how we came about, it would always be a theory, because it would always be an explanation. Even if we scientifically determined that a god or gods poofed us into existence, we would never be able to call this a law no matter how certain we were about it.

Saying we can consider all possible explanations just because something is a theory is ridiculous. Do you think we can debate the fact that human waste has germs in it and that these germs can cause disease? Because what I just described is a THEORY called the germ THEORY of disease. Theories are no less factual than laws are.

actually natural selection is the part that is still a theory, it is a fact that species have changed overtime, the mechanism that causes this is thought to be natural selection, this is main stream science, the rest is just bullsh#t or religious dogma, now would everyone just STFU!

Since this is such an inefficient means of communication, I will leave the extensive arguing for another day. This is far to complex of an issue to discuss in a comment format. Ledsyrus, if you have a lot of questions or want to discuss things feel free to leave an IM contact or I will give a generic email to set up a conversation. In this format, answers only create more questions for both sides.

I repeat, I am not a creationist in the christian sense. I believe in an intelligent designer, and I have arrived at this conclusion through years of research. I choose to defend the Bible not as a religious book, but as a document of history with a remarkably long presence albeit through many translations...

I will simply touch two bases here...

The ark did not have to meet todays standards. Cages could have been stacked wall to wall with aisles, large animals on bottom and small on top. There is no need for comfort when you are escaping a flood. This means no individual cabins, no interior comforts. There was no propulsion system, so no weight of engines and such. As to my animal number, It does not include any bacteria,parasites, most insects, protozoans, marine life, amphibians capable of living in water, etc. The only animals in need of an ark are the ones who can't swim or live in/on another animal. Yes, there are millions of species, but relatively few of them require an ark. At most, 25,000 species (50,000 animals) would need shelter. As to your Titanic reference, any cruise ship is mostly wasted space, and the Olympic was also carrying thousands of tons of war supplies. The gross tonnage of the these ships was over 45,000, or 3.2 times as much as the ark's estimate.

As to the account in Genesis 11, I do not deny the evolution of language and neither has any creationist I have ever met. From what I understand, God simply separated humans into several groups so that man could not come together as a race. It could have been ten groups, could have been forty or more. No one knows. After the separation, each of these languages would have continued to evolve separately and form dialects.

I did promise a commentary, so I must provide... Before i do that much typing I would recommend that you use the NIV version when comparing Bible verses. It is a little smoother reading than KJV and compares well to the original texts. I do end up using KJV a lot because of its wide acceptance, but in this passage I was using NIV. Always remember that if you are going to pull exact, literal ideas from the Bible to either read the original word-by-word translation of the earliest available manuscript or get a version of the English Bible that is in todays vernacular. It's hard to exactly place the verb structure of a centuries old translation when our language has evolved so much. Please look at the NIV or NKJ version and since you have access to the originals check my ordering story. If you still have questions ask.

Back to the fathers of Joseph...

Matthew- Reading this backwards to trace up the lineage, but going son to father from Jesus-Joseph-Jacob-Matthan-Eleazar-Eliud-Akim-Zadok-Azor-Eliakim-Abuid etc. all the way back to Abraham. This is Jacob's line.

Luke- son to father Jesus- {Joseph} -Heli-Matthat-Levi-Jannai-Joseph-Mattathias-Amos-Nahum-Esli-Naggai-Maath etc. all the way back to Adam with no mention of Abraham. This is Mary's line.

These are two completely separate lineages, end of story. The only way to get a conflict is to pull those two individual verses out of context.

Dang it this thing really needs an edit comment button.... they both do trace back through Abraham, it's King David where the lines separate. 2am is way to late to be trying to read lineages with crossed eyes lol.

Matthew- Obed-Jesse-David-Solomon-Rehoboam...... down to Joseph

Luke- Obed-Jesse-David-Nathan-Mattatha........ down to Mary

Now for sleep before I make another mistake.

@psycophysics
Yes I think you probably should provide an answer here, otherwise it looks like you can't answer and won't concede. I'll wait.

My point about the Ark is that you're being completely unrealistic and unscientific. A boat isn't shaped like a cuboid, and it needs internal structural elements. You can't just stuff a bunch of animals in cages stacked on top of each other for 150 days. You need space to reach them, feed them and muck them out. You need room for all the food: Genesis 6:21 [NIV; I'll use any version you like] "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them". How much grass do you have to have on board for starters? Does your calculation even TRY to take these factors into account? Of course not. And let's not ignore the fact that the proportions of the Ark aren't even the most unrealistic part of the story.

What happened to all the freshwater animals (or conversely, if you argue that the waters of the deluge WERE freshwater, what happened to all the salt water animals?). What happened to the huge number of animals (and plants) that can only survive in shallow water? And seriously what's up with the Kangeroos, and other far flung animals? How did they all get to the Ark? If you're going to argue that they were evenly spread all over the Earth, then were deserts and ice also spread evenly all over the Earth?

And let's stick with the Kangeroos a bit longer... OK maybe after the deluge they made their way back to Australia and that's the only place they are now found, and maybe it's complete bad luck that there are NO ancient remains of Kangeroos to be found anywhere else on Earth. But then the same extraordinary coincidence must have occurred with Koalas, and Possums, and Wombats, and so on. And that after the flood all these pouch-brooding marsupials all just happened to wander off to the same country together, while none of the placental mammals went that way? Come on!

This isn't scientifically sound in the slightest. But why BOTHER to explain it in scientific realistic terms when you can just wave your hands and explain it ALL away as miracles? Or just do what most other Christians do and say it's all metaphor and then you can easily explain ANY problems away.

Whatever you call yourself, you believe in Creation, the literal truth of the Bible, and you deny evolution. I'd call that a Creationist. But hey I don't much like being called an Evolutionist (though it's better than Darwinist, as if we worship Darwin or something). And it's funny but I actually quite admire that you at least TRY to find evidence your beliefs. But it's totally made-up evidence, bound together by highly dubious arguments, and that frustrates the hell out of real scientists (who after all don't necessarily subscribe to the viewpoint that we should all be nice, and certainly don't believe that arguing is unhealthy).

By-the-way...

You write: "Luke- son to father Jesus- {Joseph} -Heli-Matthat-Levi-Jannai-Joseph-Mattathias-Amos-Nahum-Esli-Naggai-Maath etc. all the way back to Adam with no mention of Abraham. This is Mary's line.
These are two completely separate lineages, end of story. The only way to get a conflict is to pull those two individual verses out of context."

I haven't taken them out of context at all. I've even provided a link (here it is again: www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C003.htm) to numerous translations side-by-side, even including Greek versions. It simply doesn't say what you're saying it says, and you haven't addressed that at all. Like I said.. I'll wait.

"actually natural selection is the part that is still a theory, it is a fact that species have changed overtime, the mechanism that causes this is thought to be natural selection, this is main stream science, the rest is just bullsh#t or religious dogma, now would everyone just STFU!"

STILL a theory? What on Earth are you talking about?

Natural selection is a law, because it describes what happens. Evolution is a theory because it explains a process. Evolution can never "become" something other than a theory. Theories do not turn into laws, and laws are not better or worse than theories. They describe different things.

And neither a law or a theory is any more or less factual than the other. You can have a law that is under scrutiny, and a theory that is iron-clad.

For example, Newton's second LAW of motion, in its original form, was proven to be inaccurate. F=ma is not true, it is more correct to say F=dp/dt. F=ma was a law and was correctly called a law because of what we knew at the time. The laws we have today still might be incorrect, but they are laws because of what they describe.

For crying out loud every time, flame war.

Where is the incompatibility between religion and evolution?

So where in the bible does it say that God, creator of all things, wished them to be static forever? Wouldn't it make sense for a universe created based on the greatest of gifts - free will, would also have a mechanism to bring the effects of those decisions not just on the decider, but their offspring. To grow and to hopefully become better than we were by our own choice? I think thats Gods desire, for us to be better, by choice, that's the only way it matters. A guide and a hand, but not force.

The only reason people argue so much is the atheistic side wants to use it as a refutation of all religion, so it backs the religious into a corner of categorical denial.

Its not religion OR evolution, its both. And they exist quite comfortably if you understand both.

Is somebody tying people down and forcing them to read these discussions or something?

Honestly the number of self-styled 'moderates' who have taken the trouble to log-in to shout "YOU MUST NOT ARGUE! ARGUING IS NOT ALLOWED! EVERYBODY'S RIGHT! NO FEELINGS MUST BE HURT! SO SHUT UP!"...

If you don't see an incompatibility, well that's great for you because you'll look a lot less ignorant at parties. But as you can see from this thread, a lot of people do. But more to the point, A LOT of Americans think evolution is a flawed theory (it isn't), or is just flat out wrong (it isn't).

The only reason this many people think that is because every Sunday they can get together to share misinformation and nobody is there to correct them. The only place that this misinformation CAN be corrected is right here on the internet. Having initially flamed out of frustration I have since taken a lot of time to actually discuss the arguments and correct the errors. But nobody is forcing you to read it.

@tbu720
It really shouldn't matter what it's called. What matters is what it IS. It could be called 'the Belief of Evolution' for all I care but the label wouldn't change the amount of evidence there is.

(That link again: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

I appreciate that semantics matter in as much as words can be used to skew perceptions, but should we really get hung up on this issue?

@tbu720..."Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." That is a quote from Laurence Moran, from the website Talk Origins...you should know "What on Earth are you talking about?" before you post a comment.

I can't believe someone recommended Kent Hovind. You do know he suggested that the Earth was coated in ice about a kilometer thick 6,000 years ago and that a comet was responsible for the polar ice caps?! According to him, clouds can block X-RAYS. His rediculous ideas shouldn't be taken seriously, whether you support evolution or not.