Charles Darwin
Image:
Editor's Note: This story, originally published in the July 2000 issue of Scientific American, is being made available due to the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species
Clearly, our conception of the world and our place in it is, at the beginning of the 21st century, drastically different from the zeitgeist at the beginning of the 19th century. But no consensus exists as to the source of this revolutionary change. Karl Marx is often mentioned; Sigmund Freud has been in and out of favor; Albert Einstein’s biographer Abraham Pais made the exuberant claim that Einstein’s theories “have profoundly changed the way modern men and women think about the phenomena of inanimate nature.” No sooner had Pais said this, though, than he recognized the exaggeration. “It would actually be better to say ‘modern scientists’ than ‘modern men and women,’” he wrote, because one needs schooling in the physicist’s style of thought and mathematical techniques to appreciate Einstein’s contributions in their fullness. Indeed, this limitation is true for all the extraordinary theories of modern physics, which have had little impact on the way the average person apprehends the world.
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add Comment"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact"...How I wish this were true. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who are not only educated, but are even EDUCATORS who just don't get evolution and don't accept it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Non-constancy of species" is not Darwin's at all. The much maligned Lamarck already wrote about it long before Darwin. Darwin's great innovation was how evolution occurs Lamarck having not gotten this one right. No need to add to Darwin's successes since his are above anything anyone before him or since have achieved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA much better supplement to accompany "On The Origin" than what is circulating around certain campuses in North America this week.
Alas, there are plenty of "educated" people who do not accept evolution. I personally know a geologist - a geologist!! - who believes in the literal Biblical account of Creation. When I trot out some fact demonstrating the extreme age of the earth (eg, fossils on top of Mt Everest) his response is "The Noachian flood". OK, where did the water go? "Back into the earth. This is why you get geysers." What must he have thought during university lectures? How can you deal with this sort of thing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith reference to Skpetical555's comment above, I've often wondered if Sarah Palin experiences cognitive dissonance when she considers that the oil extracted from her state's reserves was found by geologists probing 150 million year old rock strata, while at the same time she accepts the the Bible's 6000-year-ago creation timeline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr maybe cognitive processes and Palin should not be linked at all.
Whilst I agree with article, I must however disagree with the following statement -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact."
Unfortunately this is not true, and I suspect the author has confused education with intelligence.
There are millions of examples of so-called educated individuals where the impact of childhood indoctrination and tribalism overcomes logic, and the individuals concerned subscribe to irrational belief structures. This includes the "fundamentalist" followers of religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism where slavishly acceptance of religious indoctrination provides a complete block for the application of logic.
As a consequence these "educated" people can believe in the "great flood", the parting of the Red Sea, the "virgin birth" and man being created in the image of God, all without blushing.
Wilful ignorance and denial can overcome any process involving the application of logic as a consequence of education. It is as a consequence of this process that "Creationism" and " Intelligent Design" is still accepted as an alternative to the to the massive amount of evidence supporting the concept of evolution.
The assertion that, "No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.", is utterly naïve, and symbolic of the vast number of unsustainable “generalizations” on which Darwinism is founded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can prove me wrong by sharing with us all one testable, repeatable and verifiable piece of “empirical” evidence that forces us to accept the evolutionary continuum as a fact - allowing no other conclusion, including God. Give us all one piece of conclusive empirical based evidence that compels everyone to adopt evolution, irrespective of their scientific or religious beliefs.
By conclusive evidence I don’t mean “subjectively” based generalizations founded on evolutionary presuppositions, inferences, conjecture, explanations, and sheer speculation. And spare us the supposed examples of evolution being observed today, when in fact all we ever see is virus in, virus out; bacteria in, bacteria out; fruit fly in, fruit fly out; finch in, finch out. Which does nothing to conclusively establishes the evolutionary continuum.
Off you go!
The assertion that, "No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.", is utterly naïve, and symbolic of the vast number of unsustainable “generalizations” on which Darwinism is founded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can prove me wrong by sharing with us all one testable, repeatable and verifiable piece of “empirical” evidence that forces us to accept the evolutionary continuum as a fact - allowing no other conclusion, including God. Give us all one piece of conclusive empirical based evidence that compels everyone to adopt evolution, irrespective of their scientific or religious beliefs.
By conclusive evidence I don’t mean “subjectively” based generalizations founded on evolutionary presuppositions, inferences, conjecture, explanations, and sheer speculation. And spare us the supposed examples of evolution being observed today, when in fact all we ever see is virus in, virus out; bacteria in, bacteria out; fruit fly in, fruit fly out; finch in, finch out. Which does nothing to conclusively establishes the evolutionary continuum.
Off you go!
According to Ernst Mayr, “an entire group can be the target of selection”. And that “the survival and prosperity of a social group depends to a large extent on the harmonious cooperation of the members of the group, and this behavior must be based on altruism.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, this would call for a broader perspective that a localized natural selection mechanism would not possess. Where would this individual operating mindless mechanism get the broad perspective and necessary insight to ‘’harmoniously cooperate” with any broader group, when natural selection is nothing more than a selection mechanism operating at an individual level to competitively survive. Where would such a mindless mechanism get the broader perspective to “know” that group survival would be to its individual advantage, particularly when the individual life form, of necessity has to compete at an individual level to survive in competition with others.
The reality is that the blind mindless natural selection mechanism has absolutely no idea of where anything is evolving to, or even why, let alone possess the essential broad perspective to harmoniously cooperate. All of which means that Mayr’s notion of altruism has its feet planted firmly in mid air, along with his other evolutionary generalizations.
I can't wait for Darwin's theory to be overturned since it is incorrect and no one sincerely believes it anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople confuse Darwin's theory of evolution with the fact that animals evolve which is obvious. He theorizes they evolve through random genetic mutations and then natural selection. Someday soon we'll replace the random part with some greater understanding. It should be obvious soon that genetically we are changing through some environmental feedback mechanism that is not random.
As far as believing this theory, the fact that it is politically or religiously impossible to apply this theory to humans means no one sincerely believes it. How many people believe it is politically possible to admit there are human sub species as Darwin asserted? You can't pick and choose what is politically and religiously convenient to believe in real science.
This leads me to ponder, if we are genetically changing will there come a time that this genetic changes will have a positive (or negative) effects in the physical characteristics of the human specie?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone needs examples of how human obduracy can withstand evidence and argument that would seem overwhelming, the atavistic world view depicted in these last comments are excellent. Cultural evolution is a very slow process and the backside of the wave of history is broad and actuallyharbors much that is medieval.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Reader,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Thought that over time I am not evolving into some
thing, is after all a perception of What?
The Mind, the Body, the Function, or as it is and as I think
as nothing to do with my Mental State at all.
The fact is that the Universe is all.
Just a few points that occur to me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChapter 1 of Genesis puts everything else BEFORE man; Chapter 2 puts everything else AFTER man - so some people must manage to believe in these 2 TOTALLY contradictory accounts LITERALLY(?). Or explain one of them away? - no way for a FUNDAMENTALIST to treat the bible, but less of a problem to the Christian mainstream that holds that in line with theological thought since Augustine at least, the bible and the natural law are both expressions of God's truth (so rather blasphemous to deny/misrepresent one of the manifestations of His achievements?)
The article mentions unfalsifiability. But both Darwin and later writers, including everyone's friend - at least this side of the pond - Richard Dawkins, have quite clearly listed a number of findings which they say would disprove evolution. An example is finding a break in the development of overall complexity of body design, with 'complicated' designs being discovered at earlier times in time than 'simpler' designs - such as, I guess, multicellular creatures before unicellular ones. Also unpredictability - several experiments are described in Dawkins' latest book which show clearly predictable (in terms of Darwinian 'expectations') changes in response to environmental pressures.
If successful selection is based on altruistic behavior, then behaviors affect the selection process in such a way as to give the organism some of the responsibility for its own evolution. Nature supposedly making the selections without the help of the organism would begin to look a bit silly, wouldn't it. Lamarck thought the selection process was within rather than without the organism but he didn't know how that worked. Darwin knew it had a lot to do with other and outside factors. Turns out both seem to have been more right than wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLife does to a great extent engineer by its own behavior its own evolution.
I wonder if the year 2000 will be remembered as the zenith of rational thought in man. Since this article was first published we have seen huge increases in the number of people that do not accept evolution as evidenced by this conversation so far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious fundamentalism has been trust into the lives of the rational by both foreign and domestic forces. We can only hope a new wave of enlightenment can sweep the world so we can move beyond the petty squabbling caused by religious and nationalistic philosophies so prevalent in the world. Once we have done that science will be a much more powerful tool for the benefit of mankind.
Bacteria evolve, continuously adapting in order to survive. It's a fact. It's responsible for saving millions of lives. You can infer nothing about the existence of God from this fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDamon T does not understand that natural selection is non-random, and that this non-randomness is precisely the feedback mechanism he's asking for. What else is necessary?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutations can have random consequences on the survivability of an organism, with no predisposition to improving the traits, and natural selection will still be able to push the population in the direction of greater survivability, though of course there can still be an element of surprise. This is confirmed by the success of genetic algorithms in optimizing the design of a wide variety of machines. These improvements are all testable and repeatable.
Humans are obviously another evolved species. If you think otherwise, please provide an alternative explaination to, let's say, the fact that men have nipples.
John Heininger, above, doesn't understand that it is minor differences between dogs and flies and bacteria and viruses seen in our time that account for life's diversity when multiplied over millions of years. It is simple a process of accumulation. That the organisms are different, even slightly, is sufficient if there is enough time. Undeniably, there has been.
Chance fails to explain life. Design also fails. Think of how complicated your brain is ... and then think how complicated a brain would have to be to be capable of designing your brain. It's a non-explaination, making the problem bigger.
Life takes advantage of chance by its strategic response to the law of probability. Life designs itself by adapting form to that function. The brain HAS in the end designed itself by the smallest of incremental adaptions over the eons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoyniles, that is correct ... I should have been clear, by saying that 'chance fails' I meant the construction of a complicated thing like a lifeform in a single step, like a lucky hand at cards, fails as an explaination. Obviously we need the chance of the necessary mutations coming along in the first place, but these are many smaller steps smeared out over time. I wanted to stress that natural selection was a non-random process to put to death the ignorant idea of evolution being random.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin's 'matural selection' and royniles's 'strategic response' might be begging for misinterpretation by those who just can't kick anthropocentrism, and keep thinking of a 'bigger' human called God doing the choosing or making the strategy. 'Survival of the fittest' seems better, since it's all about organisms surviving by being fittest for their environment. There's no other player.
Royniles, that is correct ... I should have been clear, by saying that 'chance fails' I meant the construction of a complicated thing like a lifeform in a single step, like a lucky hand at cards, fails as an explaination. Obviously we need the chance of the necessary mutations coming along in the first place, but these are many smaller steps smeared out over time. I wanted to stress that natural selection was a non-random process to put to death the ignorant idea of evolution being random.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin's 'matural selection' and royniles's 'strategic response' might be begging for misinterpretation by those who just can't kick anthropocentrism, and keep thinking of a 'bigger' human called God doing the choosing or making the strategy. 'Survival of the fittest' seems better, since it's all about organisms surviving by being fittest for their environment. There's no other player.
I think Darwinism is too complex a topic for it to be summarily accepted or rejected... I must say, however, that I fail to see why the idea of evolution should stand in some people's minds as something that somehow spells out the notion of there being no God... To me there is no contradiction between evolution and a God of Love permeating the Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't that at least have to be the God of tough love?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that's a tough one, but then it always has been. At least evolution provides (for me) a more rational explanation for 'natural' suffering, such as disease (assuming that's what you meant) even if it doesn't give the 'why'. As for other forms of suffering, surely at least some of them are down to us!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that's going OTT I think. I think a main thrust of the article is that Darwin provided a rationality to the development of life (and in my view, God has to be rational!). Where it is naturally before our time is arguing that it is somehow 'unscientific' in the sense of the hard sciences, whereas it has revolutionised biological approaches to medicine for instance, as well as our understanding of our place in the world.
And let's face it, what SINGLE proof, what SINGLE advance, what SINGLE material help to mankind, has EVER come from the creationist/ID fraternity?
Darwins theory of evolution through natural selection has indeed enhanced our understanding of the natural world, and is a fantastic way for us to study the natural world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear that evolutionary theory is still hotly debated. The most interesting debate in my opinion is the debate about randomness. Whether is evolution is fully random, partially random, or not random at all i.e. - guided by environmental factors (supernatural!?). This philosophy of fate vs. chance (coincidence or chance?) could go on forever. Therefore I don't believe the theory of evolution will ever be fully accepted.
Also for the sake of science it cannot be stated as fact because there will never be direct empirical evidence (first hand knowlege of one organism(s) as distinct species and then observation of its direct desendant(s) as another distint species unable to reproduce with the original species) and therefore the % probability that it is not correct will remain.
The creationist fraternity's role in life can be seen as that of a joker who, not unlike a toddler, likes saying "NO"! -to the amusement of his adult audience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlaming Mr.Darwin for "EVILUTION" is a little like blaming Mr.Newton for having "invented" Gravity, Humpty Dumpty's Great Fall and all that..."Curse him!"
Incidentally, I heard that this gent's end has just been censored out of a new edition , lest children get too shocked about the real world.
The evidence in the fossil and natural record for an evolutionary history reaching back hundreds of millions of years can hardly be denied and no doubt natural adaptations play a selective role to some extent. But to take that single isolated fact and claim it as a universal theory of how the evolutionary process works is extrapolation far beyond the limits of reason. It is something like saying because a person can jump a few feet they can jump to Jupiter. Gradual random mutation and natural selection has gained favour because there is no alternative paradigm that allows impartial scientific investigation in a pragmatic way. We need a new paradigm. Cause and effect operative in an assumed continuum of space and time dates back to Aristotles efficient cause. It has helped us accumulate a huge body of empirical evidence but it is exhausting its usefulness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the evidence that mutations are ALWAYS random? There is obvious evidence that the evolutionary process exhibits hierarchical order, that is somehow ignored. Can hierarchical order be created by random accident? If so, how does it do this? For example there are homeobox genes that control or regulate batteries of subordinate genes in a mutually consistent developmental pattern even across species. Moreover they work in conjunction with parallel transcription requirements that must also have happened as rare accidental mutations in a gradual way, even though they work to produce major divergences in development patterns on an all or none basis. This is clearly not consistent with Darwins hypothesis.
There are many examples of hierarchical order up through the plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates to humans that subsume hierarchical levels within each level. This evidence clearly suggests that there is an underlying hierarchical order to the evolutionary process that also allows for random order, not vice versa. There is more on this at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
I dare to disagree. Intelligence only allows to form an opinion. But only the educated person can form an independent opinions. By saying educated I mean knowledgeable, not schooled or trained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny person with any level of intelligence can be easily indoctrinated if lacking knowledge needed to separate facts from myths. An educated and independent mind is much more resistant to indoctrination. The real tragedy of North American societies results from the poor education. Hence, those societies can be easily manipulated into believing in anything or into denying anything.
Notion of altruism in evolution is much earlier than Mayr and his essay. Ignorance is a beautiful state of mind. One can form any opinion without having any doubts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharles Darwin published his work well before Gregor Mendel's ideas about heredity let alone genes were known. That's part of what makes his ideas so insightful --he relied on observations to derive a mechanism, not the other way 'round.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe you are confusing occurrence with persistence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutations are not random. They might seem random, and for the sake of simplifying the idea to get the main point across they can be assumed so. DNA will suffer mutation in a statistically predictable way --the rate of mutations differs between purines and pyrimadines, it also differs among 1st 2nd and 3rd positions of codons, and between changes that result in a different amino acid produced versus a so-called silent mutation.
Even so, mutation is not evolution. Mutation is the mistake upon which natural selection can act....and then we can get to evolution.
Hierarchy is absolutely consistent with Darwin's concept and the paradigm under which we work today and is certainly not ignored --it is in fact basic to the study of lineages through time.
So, mutation, random or otherwise, happens. What happens next is natural selection --by its very definition non-random. If the mutation has imparted a baby-producing advantage then that mutation gets put forward through time. If not, it dies when the individual dies.
Any baby-producing advantage will tend to expand through a population more extensively with each generation, so long as it continues to be advantageous. This is natural selection, a population based phenomenon as opposed to mutation which affects individual organisms. It is the natural selection part that is called evolution --mutation is just the raw material.
In this fashion it seems quite natural that hierarchies of form and function can be created -advantageous mutation after advantageous mutation retained --if they are really useful like the homeobox genes you brought up, they can be used over and over again to fulfill the same function in other organisms...until a mutation or set of mutations does the job better. That seems unlikely though given that they do their job so well and are so integrated into the housekeeping of life that the chance for a set of mutations to become established in their place is vanishingly small. Improvements to that basic system however are quite likely and examples are abundant in every organism that is custom adapted to its environment...ie all of them.
I noted that Mayr did not return to the subject of incremental evolution, which he attributed to Darwin near the beginning of his article. Could it be that he did not want to call attention to the embarassing evidence for punctuated equilibrium?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisATEGATE" has been termed the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Scientists are resigning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
It is a stark reminder that even PEER-REVIEWED scientific research can be driven by hidden agenda's that twist the data to support their theory.
Climategate may well be the worst scientific scandal of our generation, but...
DARWINISM IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE MILLENIUM .
People like John Heininger aren't interested in facts. Changes to the species level have been observed in the present day. When, eventually, genus-level changes are observed, he'll demand family, order, class or phylum. At that level, of course, we already have plenty of fossil intermediates, but Christians/Moslems dismiss them out of hand in a manner that indicates they are too dulled by religion to appreciate the wonder of fossil intermediates such as Tiktaalik roseae. Heininger is so uninterested in facts that on Dec. 25 he won't worry a bit about the radical contradictions between the Matthew & Luke nativity stories. The earlier Mark has nothing on the nativity, indicating that nothing historical was known about this obscure wandering rabbi's origins before his year in the semi-spotlight. The nativity stories are likely entirely fictional, so it's appropriate they're celebrated on the pagan solar holiday of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. Enjoy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople like John Heininger aren't interested in facts. Changes to the species level have been observed in the present day. When, eventually, genus-level changes are observed, he'll demand family, order, class or phylum. At that level, of course, we already have plenty of fossil intermediates, but Christians/Moslems dismiss them out of hand in a manner that indicates they are too dulled by religion to appreciate the wonder of fossil intermediates such as Tiktaalik roseae. Heininger is so uninterested in facts that on Dec. 25 he won't worry a bit about the radical contradictions between the Matthew & Luke nativity stories. The earlier Mark has nothing on the nativity, indicating that nothing historical was known about this obscure wandering rabbi's origins before his year in the semi-spotlight. The nativity stories are likely entirely fictional, so it's appropriate they're celebrated on the pagan solar holiday of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. Enjoy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat he means is, only the unintelligent disbelieves evolution. This is the elitist attitude that I hear over and over from the "scientific" community. Someone is uneducated or unintelligent if they don't believe in the doctrine of evolution. As a matter of fact, you don't have to be all that smart and have finished the ninth grade to come to the conclusion that the theory is just plain silly: Why would you believe that a dog, an ant, and a banana all came from the same parents when you can plainly see that dogs produce dogs, ants produce ants, and so on? Don't blame some intelligent people for disbelieving a philosophy pushed as a "fact" (even when "smart" people push it) when they can't produce even one valid evidence for the theory. (Yes – I have seen ALL of what they have to say).
I for one am reasonably intelligent and have an education. I have looked at the evidence AFTER having the doctrine of evolution taught to me behind a desk, and have come to the conclusion the "evidence" is too shabby to believe.
But yet there are some that will discount me as being stupid and uneducated because I don't believe in evolution. If you are one of them, I believe you have a very wrong attitude.
Read Genesis 1 and 2 again, and if you can, with an unbiased mind. Genesis 2 is an extension on what happened on the sixth day. God created the animals again exclusively for Adam to name them. Please READ. I'm sure you have that ability or you wouldn't be writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI greet all of you, and I respect all of your comments, as well as your opinions.
I have read alot about evolution, which seems to be developing everyday.
But I sometimes ask myself: What is the basis of evolution??
Ofcourse, we all know the fact that whan a cell proliferates or divides, and subsequently produces a different number of chromosomes is mutated, and will eventually die.
But, have looked at Darwin's theory of evolution, which is the transform of champanzees ( a 48 chromosome organism) to human ( a 46 human organism)?
And if this was true, where is the missing link between apes and humans??
Why are apes still there, and not all of them evoluted to humans?
Why dont we suggest in the first place the humans evoluted to champanzees???
One onswer will eventually jumb to all of our brains, which is:
( ORGANISMS FROM DIFFERENT SETS OF CHROMOSOMES CAN NEVER EVOLUTE TO EACH OTHER)
This is my hypothesis.
If you have any comments, please elaborate and I respect and welcome all of your opinions
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Wayel
Physics studies historical events too. Others understood and wrote about natural selection on traits. Let's not give Darwin credit for everything, c'mon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like this comment and agree with the first two parapgraphs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin was not innovative about how evolution occurs. People had been writing (and been read by Darwin) about natural selection based on successful traits and fitness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas Darwin the "Newton" of lif science? Was Darwin’s greatest contribution unique? Not all writers and thinkers before Darwin explained the living world using recourses to supernaturalism, essentialism, typology, or cosmic teleology! Darwin was not the first to escape from that at all; he has just been popularized since his death from T. Huxley all the way to Mayr and Watson. Read the literature from back then, plenty of people perceived the selection of the fittest in the natural world as a means by which any given trait could be passed down gnerationally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure if you meant me! But if you did, my point was that G2 is a direct CONTRADICTION of G1 - Man LAST v Man FIRST. Hardly an extension, surely!! One is literal, or the other? WHICH ONE??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case I still think the grandeur (Damn - spellcheck's no good!) of God's creation is SO much more displayed in evolution itself than in the contortions of the creationists/ID minds. PLEASE READ PROPERLY some of the mainstream texts.
I still believe that God, the author of my faith, create the universe and everything in it in seven days. Does that make me uneducated or stupid or does that make me wise enough to relize we humans don't have the final say in the world. You can believe what you would like but just know that a life lived with out God in your heart is a wasted life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen i accepted him into my life everything changed. When he comes in you are able to let go of all the spiritual baggage that you had bound to you. You live a life filled with hope instead of a life filled with dread. You look foward to an eternal life in heaven and you no longer fear death.
When you live a life believeing that you came form a monkey or evolved from a single cell in a swamp what do you have to look foward to. You start to live like an animal, only looking to satisfy your basic urges and trying to reproduce and eventually you die and everything is over. To me that sounds like a terrible life filled with nothing but disappointment because no matter what you try on this earth nothing can fill that hole that you have. A hole that was formed when Eve bit into the fruit and caused the seperation between God and humans. The only thing that can make you whole is a relationship with the great creater.
I think I know the greatest obstruction to evolution, and that is not that people aren't being taught it, but they are being taught it wrongly. How many people here, have actually read the Origin of Species, and not some faulty excerpt meant to muddle it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember folks, reading an interpretation of an interpretation, of an interpretation, is the surest way to non-understanding. You ask us to read your Holy texts. We simply ask you to read the Origin of Species in the same humility. Did Darwin gets some things wrong? Yes. But you don't even know half the time the very theory that you are attacking.
So, you seem to be saying that as we haven't observed one species becoming another, this means evolution is incorrect, and therefore religion is correct. There's all sorts of things wrong with that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, proving evolution wrong (as if) would say nothing about the accuracy of your religion.
Secondly, the idea that a process that takes millions of years can only be accepted if we can watch it happen is obviously flawed. Imagine a camera recording an image of a balloon being inflated, now slow that footage down by a factor of a million or so. It would seem counter-intuitive to claim that the ballon is expanding at all, let alone that it will eventually burst. Now imagine a religion, which for one reason or another claims that the Holy Balloon is immortal, immovable and eternal. Now any evidence a scientists supplies to show the balloon is expanding would be dismissed, and the suggestion that the balloon may eventually explode would be met with anger and vitriol.
Having said that, we can see the divergence of animals within a species, we can see the divergence of closely related species, we can speed up and observe basic evolution in things such as domestic plants/animals, bacteria, flies, etc.
I very much doubt we can do much to save the current crop of creationists from their ignorance, however we can do what we can to counter the misunderstandings, misinformation, and (in some cases) outright lies of the creationists. Eventually creationionism will pass into folklore, joining trolls living under bridges, fairies at the end of the garden and rainbows as a promise to send no more floods, as ridiculous myths.
"You can believe what you would like but just know that a life lived with out God in your heart is a wasted life. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProve it.
" When he comes in you are able to let go of all the spiritual baggage that you had bound to you"
I would suggest that it is the religiously inclined that have spiritual baggage, atheists don't tend to concern themselves with the spirits.
"You live a life filled with hope instead of a life filled with dread"
I, nor any of the atheists with whom i'm aquainted, live with any more or less hope/dread than the average theist. Yet more unsupported religious claims that hold no truth.
"You look foward to an eternal life in heaven and you no longer fear death"
Actually, i believe there have recently been some studies which show the group with the greatest fear of death are the "moderately religious". Search for Paul Wink/Julia Scott of Wellesley college, Mass.
"When you live a life believeing that you came form a monkey or evolved from a single cell in a swamp what do you have to look foward to. "
This section proves beyond all doubt that you have no understanding of what evolution actually is, or what Darwin claimed. The logical conclusion being that you have derived you knowledge and therefore your contempt, of evolution from your religious overlords. I suggest asking a scientist about science, rather than a preacher, you will have more accurate information upon which to base your choices.
"You start to live like an animal, only looking to satisfy your basic urges and trying to reproduce and eventually you die and everything is over."
Umm, have you ever met any atheists? Conversely, i have met a great deal of christians, and their lives weren't markedly different (certainly no more righteous) from atheists. This section suggests to me that you believe that atheists are amoral. I would say the exact opposite. Atheists must consider themselves in the greater picture of society and decide for themselves what is right and wrong, whereas theists are simply told what they must(not) do, under threat of eternal damnation. Morals derived without the threats offered by religion are certainly of a supierior quality.
"To me that sounds like a terrible life filled with nothing but disappointment because no matter what you try on this earth nothing can fill that hole that you have"
I will admit i have a hole, but i really think it's not the hole to which you refer.
You have to trust what preachers tell you, evolution offers a wide and convincing selection of evidence, and with respect, you have chosen poorly.
Darwins Dangerous Idea, but there is a going back!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwins evolution by natural selection is not valid unless it can answer the fundamental question on which the theory depends, which is: How did inanimate matter become bestowed with life in the first instance, before the process of evolution could begin anywhere in the universe, let alone on Earth? To say that it must have happened is not good enough, and its not scientific. Its difficult to understand how such a question can be answered in the context of an objective universe. We take too many things for granted, calling them axioms without giving the matter in question any serious thought at all because it seems so obvious.
If, however, we consider the universe to be a consequence of unconscious belief as opposed to objective fact, precise answers can be found and some of these show that Darwins evolution by natural selection is not what its made out to be, and cannot Really be the means by which humanity got to be, however logical and proven it seems to be. Nor is the account given in the book of Genesis, because that also assumes the objective nature of the universe.
As we study this new way of thinking, we come to realise that the reality of the universe has been created or, more precisely, engendered into being by humanity itself, including the series of past events and artefacts that seem to prove the evolution of life forms on this planet according to Darwin. Working backwards from the here and now, we could even say that they were fabricated. Its mind bending to realise that, in addition to the conscious interaction between all the minds of humanity, with which we are all too familiar, there is an unconscious interaction that produces a subliminal perceptual consensus in the form of a universal belief . This is an instance of what is perceived by each of us to be the world, in the greater sense the universe, in which we are living.
In order to be able to think in this new way, the current scientific understanding of the universe needs to be upgraded to contain the concept of Reality in addition to reality. The reality that is the universe in its current state is a conflicting logical structure because it has been engendered into the universal belief by minds that are, within themselves, conflicting logical structures.
To continue please click on www.universalbelief.com
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, but there is a going back!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin’s evolution by natural selection is not valid unless it can answer the fundamental question on which the theory depends, which is: How did inanimate matter become bestowed with life in the first instance, before the process of evolution could begin anywhere in the universe, let alone on Earth? To say that it must have happened is not good enough, and it’s not scientific. It’s difficult to understand how such a question can be answered in the context of an objective universe. We take too many things for granted, calling them axioms without giving the matter in question any serious thought at all because it seems so obvious.
If, however, we consider the universe to be a consequence of “unconscious belief” as opposed to objective fact, precise answers can be found and some of these show that Darwin’s evolution by natural selection is not what it’s made out to be, and cannot Really be the means by which humanity got to be, however logical and proven it seems to be. Nor is the account given in the book of Genesis, because that also assumes the objective nature of the universe.
As we study this new way of thinking, we come to realise that the reality of the universe has been “created” or, more precisely, “engendered” into being by humanity itself, including the series of past events and artefacts that seem to prove the evolution of life forms on this planet according to Darwin. Working backwards from the here and now, we could even say that they were fabricated. It’s mind bending to realise that, in addition to the conscious interaction between all the minds of humanity, with which we are all too familiar, there is an unconscious interaction that produces a subliminal perceptual consensus in the form of a “universal belief”. This is an instance of what is perceived by each of us to be the world, in the greater sense the universe, in which we are living.
In order to be able to think in this new way, the current scientific understanding of the universe needs to be upgraded to contain the concept of Reality in addition to reality. The reality that is the universe in its current state is a conflicting “logical” structure because it has been engendered into the universal belief by minds that are, within themselves, conflicting “logical” structures.
To continue please click on www.universalbelief.com
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. There is a going back!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin’s evolution by natural selection is not valid unless it can answer the fundamental question on which the theory depends, which is: How did inanimate matter become bestowed with life in the first instance, before the process of evolution could begin anywhere in the universe, let alone on Earth? To say that it must have happened is not good enough, and it’s not scientific. It’s difficult to understand how such a question can be answered in the context of an objective universe. We take too many things for granted, calling them axioms without giving the matter in question any serious thought at all because it seems so obvious.
If, however, we consider the universe to be a consequence of “unconscious belief” as opposed to objective fact, precise answers can be found and some of these show that Darwin’s evolution by natural selection is not what it’s made out to be, and cannot Really be the means by which humanity got to be, however logical and proven it seems to be. Nor is the account given in the book of Genesis, because that also assumes the objective nature of the universe.
As we study this new way of thinking, we come to realise that the reality of the universe has been “created” or, more precisely, “engendered” into being by humanity itself, including the series of past events and artefacts that seem to prove the evolution of life forms on this planet according to Darwin. Working backwards from the here and now, we could even say that they were fabricated. It’s mind bending to realise that, in addition to the conscious interaction between all the minds of humanity, with which we are all too familiar, there is an unconscious interaction that produces a subliminal perceptual consensus in the form of a “universal belief”. This is an instance of what is perceived by each of us to be the world, in the greater sense the universe, in which we are living.
In order to be able to think in this new way, the current scientific understanding of the universe needs to be upgraded to contain the concept of Reality in addition to reality. The reality that is the universe in its current state is a conflicting “logical” structure because it has been engendered into the universal belief by minds that are, within themselves, conflicting “logical” structures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin’s Dangerous Idea. There is a going back!
Darwin’s evolution by natural selection is not valid unless it can answer the fundamental question on which the theory depends, which is: How did inanimate matter become bestowed with life in the first instance, before the process of evolution could begin anywhere in the universe, let alone on Earth? To say that it must have happened is not good enough, and it’s not scientific. It’s difficult to understand how such a question can be answered in the context of an objective universe. We take too many things for granted, calling them axioms without giving the matter in question any serious thought at all because it seems so obvious.
If, however, we consider the universe to be a consequence of “unconscious belief” as opposed to objective fact, precise answers can be found and some of these show that Darwin’s evolution by natural selection is not what it’s made out to be, and cannot Really be the means by which humanity got to be, however logical and proven it seems to be. Nor is the account given in the book of Genesis, because that also assumes the objective nature of the universe.
As we study this new way of thinking, we come to realise that the reality of the universe has been “created” or, more precisely, “engendered” into being by humanity itself, including the series of past events and artefacts that seem to prove the evolution of life forms on this planet according to Darwin. Working backwards from the here and now, we could even say that they were fabricated. It’s mind bending to realise that, in addition to the conscious interaction between all the minds of humanity, with which we are all too familiar, there is an unconscious interaction that produces a subliminal perceptual consensus in the form of a “universal belief”. This is an instance of what is perceived by each of us to be the world, in the greater sense the universe, in which we are living.
In order to be able to think in this new way, the current scientific understanding of the universe needs to be upgraded to contain the concept of Reality in addition to reality. The reality that is the universe in its current state is a conflicting “logical” structure because it has been engendered into the universal belief by minds that are, within themselves, conflicting “logical” structures.
To continue please click on the link below:
http://universalbelief.com/darwinintroduction.htm
Evolution Skeptic wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Yes I have seen ALL of what they have to say).
My reply:
Considering that "they" have an awful lot to say, and haven't said it all yet, your statement can't be literally true, so what you really mean is you just don't want to hear any more. Which is your choice. In making that choice, keep in mind that ignoring reality is a stupid thing to do. Instead of using your free will to reject sense and reason, use your mind to consider a persuasive case for your point of view.
Wayel, it looks like English is not your native language, so don't be unhappy if we misunderstand each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayel wrote:
Ofcourse, we all know the fact that whan a cell proliferates or divides, and subsequently produces a different number of chromosomes is mutated, and will eventually die.
My reply:
All cells eventually die, but not because they have a different number of chromosomes. Do you mean mutations? Yes, many kinds of mutations make cells die, and some kinds of mutations have no effect at all. A few kinds of mutations work better than the original.
Wayel wrote:
But, have looked at Darwin's theory of evolution, which is the transform of champanzees ( a 48 chromosome organism) to human ( a 46 human organism)?
My reply:
First, Darwin's theory of evolution deals with much more than humans and chimpanzees. Second, Darwin's theory doesn't say humans evolved from chimpanzees. It says all modern apes evolved from a common ancestor which lived long ago. An analogy: you say humans are the children of chimpanzees, and Darwin's theory says humans and chimpanzees are cousins. Third, science doesn't know what differences are caused by the different number of chromosomes. Science does know there was no loss of genetic information from it, because at some time in the past two genes joined together end-to-end.
Wayel wrote:
And if this was true, where is the missing link between apes and humans??
My reply:
Why do you think there should be a missing link? Even if there was, how would you know it if you found it?
Wayel wrote:
Why are apes still there, and not all of them evoluted to humans?
My reply:
Why not? Humans are not improved chimanzees. Darwin's theory says that humans evolved to better fit in a different environment. The environment that chimpanzees fit in still exists.
Wayel wrote:
Why dont we suggest in the first place the humans evoluted to champanzees???
My reply:
This has the same answer as my second reply. Chimpanzees did not evolve into humans, so there is no reason to suggest humans should evolve into chimpanzees.
Wayel wrote:
One onswer will eventually jumb to all of our brains, which is:
( ORGANISMS FROM DIFFERENT SETS OF CHROMOSOMES CAN NEVER EVOLUTE TO EACH OTHER)
This is my hypothesis.
My reply:
I hope you will apply your interest in this subject to learn more about it.
Wayel wrote:
If you have any comments, please elaborate and I respect and welcome all of your opinions
Thanks for reading.
My reply:
I hope my comments help you.
First, a correction of an error in my previous post. When I wrote "two genes joined together end-to-end", I meant chromosomes instead of genes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, it appears that at least part of Wayel's confusion stems directly or indirectly from websites like this one:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392
Casey Luskin appears to be following the creationist/ID tradition of raising a strawman by deliberately mischaracterizing (ie lying about) a scientist's argument, proving the mischaracterized argument false, and then claiming yet another victory against the conspiracy of godless materialist evilutionists.
Fortunately, there are really good websites that help to counter such dishonesty, like this one:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/luskins_ludicrous_genetics/
Unfortunately, it's not enough to play dueling websites. There are already numerous websites which mindlessly ape Mr. Luskin's stupid lie. This is likely part of a larger effort by Discotut to discredit Dr. Miller's Dover trial testimony specifically and the trial's verdict generally, to encourage renewed efforts for their Wedge Strategy and to put creationism/ID in schools.
"On the Origin of Species" was published 150 years ago. In it, Darwin wrote how it seems absurd that the eye could have been formed by natural selection. This was his rhetorical prelude to showing in convincing fashion how the eye did in fact evolve in small steps. Nevertheless, and despite continuous efforts to correct them, there are still numerous websites which insist that Darwin said the eye couldn't have evolved. I can only hope the Luskin wannabes 15o years hence aren't still misquoting Dr. Miller.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature magazine just reported on January 7, 2010 that the Darwin fish-animal transitional call Tiktaalik, that is fossil icon for these folks, is much younger than some newly found tetrapod foot prints. In other words a fully developed land animal with fully formed digits was walking the land leaving foot prints 18 million years before the Tiktaalik.
When Tiktaalik was found it was looked at as such a great confirmation of the fish to land animal transition. A lot of hoopla turned into another truckload of baloney shoveled out for public consumption.
Yet another failed prediction by Darwinists. Shouldn't a good theory make accurate predictions? Happy New Year!
Identify which prediction specifically has failed, and who predicted it. Cite your sources. Then explain without weasel words how anything you wrote about is evidence of that failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil the ID community digs up something as noteworthy as Tiktaalik from Cambrian strata or somesuch, you would do everybody a favor by keeping your childish posts to yourself.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo weasel words are necessary because it is evolutionists that have to try to support a failing theory.
The article in Nature is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463040a.html
Go to the Tiktaalik website here to learn about it's discovery:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html
Notice their "predictions", and how the Nature article, "lob a grenade into that picture.
By the way, how do the peer reviewed articles about Global Warming and the strong armed methods of the scientific community against those that rejected the theory stand now? It appears that "peer review" and "scientific consensus" has taken a big plunge in credibility due to the "climategate" scandal. A bigger scandal is Darwinism. The storm is coming.
I knew you wouldn't answer my questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMove along folks. Just another creationist comic playing with himself. Nothing new here.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour Darwinist intellectual capital having been exhausted you are left with empty rhetoric. Like global warming fanatics staring into a blizzard as deer in headlights, Darwinists are empty of sound scientific reason. It's the scientific scandal of the millennium.