Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
November 24th marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. On November 19th, a guy named Ray Comfort, who does not accept evolution, will celebrate the fact that when copyrights expire and works enter the public domain you're free to do with them what you will. Thus Comfort will be distributing his own edition of Darwin’s masterwork, with a new introduction. This is roughly the equivalent of me fingerpainting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel so as to improve the work.
According to the folks at the National Center for Science Education, the NCSE, who monitor efforts to interfere with evolution education in public schools, Comfort in his intro repeats numerous familiar anti-evolution claims. For example, that there's a lack of transitional fossils and that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. These assertions have been disproved more often than the chant "Yankees suck".
The NCSE has set up a Web site with useful, truthful info. It's at www.dontdissdarwin.com. All one word, no apostrophe. Indeed, don't diss Darwin. It leads me to discomfort.
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of the audio in the podcast.]
(Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, is a member of the Scientific American Board of Advisers.)
See what we're tweeting about
84 Comments
Add CommentActually, despite the press releases, they're handing out the books on Tuesday the 17th.... Specifically to throw any counter-protests off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be fair, the more you understand Darwin's theory, the more convincing it is. For some the observable world is too unbearable. Reality is self generated and so little can be done to quash fanatical anti-evolutionism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the best way of arguing for evolution is to use modern examples e.g. cod fish getting smaller. Modern examples also require little imagination and so are easier to understand.
Thousands of years to evolve a single beneficial mutation, in a constantly changing environment where that mutational benefit may become void in a few centuries. Couple that with the incredible diversity of beneficial mutations necessary to become just one of the myriad of organism in the world today. A single organism that somehow is never in enough conflict with the same miraculous multiple beneficial mutations in other competing organisms in that same ever changing environment to prevent success across the board. Truly unbelievable. Probability is Darwin's greatest enemy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThousands of years to evolve a single beneficial mutation, in a constantly changing environment where that mutational benefit may become void in a few centuries. Couple that with the incredible diversity of beneficial mutations necessary to become just one of the myriad of organism in the world today. A single organism that somehow is never in enough conflict with the same miraculous multiple beneficial mutations in other competing organisms in that same ever changing environment to prevent success across the board. Truly unbelievable. Probability is Darwin's greatest enemy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutations are often forced by the environment itself, and can sometimes be fully manifested within just a handful of generations. There are plenty of modern examples of this phenomenon. My favorite is a certain European moth, which used to display a mottley brown pattern on its wings to blend into the bark of a certain forest tree to avoid predators. However, acid rain bled the trees of their pigmentation, turning them ashen grey. The moths began dying off in droves for some time, and then reemerged with the same grey pattern on their wings just a couple years later. Now every moth of that species is distinguished by grey wings, instead of brown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution isn't always about changing fins into arms, you know.
Yes I know, it is always convenient to point to a few adaptations within a single species over a few generations and say "look there is your example of how that same sort of thing can happen over a longer term" and "All that's needed is enough time". This line of reasoning, however, ignores the fact that mutations are more often negative than positive, and that an environment which includes predators who are also benefiting from positive mutations creates a further negative factor to the positive benefits for another creature. An environment in flux cannot provide the haven necessary to account for the ecosystem as it exists. Short term adaptations as in the moth example do not account for diverse speciation and we do not have evidence of continuous short term adaptation in a manner that is consistent with the diversity of life on our planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution isn't always about changing fins into arms, you know."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is a misleading perception. Adaptation is one thing, speciation is another. The attempts to meld the two by calling one micro-evolution and the other macro-evolution thus putting them under one umbrella, is deceptive. Darwin's Origin of species, is an attempt to create a theory that explains the diversity of species. Modern "darwinism" if you want to call it that, attempts to prove a theory of speciation by using visible adaptation as proof. Yet we do not have conclusive evidence of speciation. Calling adaptation, evolution does not make speciation a fact. How about if we encourage the study of adaptation within a species as a separate science. Let the concept of speciation live or die on its own merits.
"How about if we encourage the study of adaptation within a species as a separate science. Let the concept of speciation live or die on its own merits."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause adaptation is the root of the evolutionary process. There's a reason natural selection is called selection; that would be because it shows favor to those individuals within a species that are better equipped to compete in their environment.
"...it is always convenient to point to a few adaptations within a single species over a few generations and say 'look there is your example of how that same sort of thing can happen over a longer term' and 'All that's needed is enough time'."
I'm so sorry you can't watch the process happen in the space of your lifetime. Nobody ever claimed that evolution was a rapid event, and anyone that tries to tell you it is is probably constructing a strawman for just the sort of argument you're bringing to this discussion. Maybe you've forgotten that life has existed on this planet for over 600 million years, and humans have only been around for the last 100,000 or so? That's 0.00016% of the time that life has been around. And you're expecting to see totally new and distinctive species emerge before you die? Please!
"...ignores the fact that mutations are more often negative than positive, and that an environment which includes predators who are also benefiting from positive mutations creates a further negative factor to the positive benefits for another creature."
So what? You think evolution wants everyone to live together and sing songs or something? Nature is violent and cruel. So some species adapt faster and better than others and force them out. Negative mutations, by definition, will not propagate through the generations of a species, so your argument there is meaningless.
Why don't you go out and actually read some literature about evolution before trying to knock it down with second-hand opinions? And try to keep in mind that creationists have never held a reputation for objective thinking.
When I heard about this a while back, I decided to do something about it. Ray comfort wants to poison academia with his dogma, so we'll point out the poison in his holy scripture. That's when the Devil's Highlighter movement started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI figure, if he can publish the Origin of Species with his special intro, then it's perfectly reasonable to start a movement where we highlight the scriptures in the bible that point out its bigotry, hatred, immorality, obscenity and contradictions. I say we give him a taste of his own medicine and see how he likes it.
First of all, making the assumption that I am arguing from a creationist point of view, does not answer the questions raised. This is a typical response. When you can't answer the questions blame it on faulty creationist thinking. If someone questions evolutionary theory then they must be a non-bjective thinker. Nonsense! You can't test a theory without questioning it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly I have read works from Stephen J Gould among others and watched Donald Johanson's video on the discovery of Lucy. These were approached out of curiosity, not out of some need to defend a religious point of view as you seem to suppose. I have valid questions that come as a result of reading material from proponents of the theory. I find they only raise more questions than they answer. That is hardly second-hand opinion. They are my own questions based on clearly faulty lines of reasoning in the author's presentations. I remember Johanson fretting over a problem with Lucy. The pelvis looked too much like a monkey's pelvis. How did he resolve the issue? Why, there was a fracture in the pelvis. It must have been formally more human shaped and mineralization melded the fracture into a monkey like configuration, hence the confusion. Scandalous! Unscientific manufacturing of facts to support a hypothesis, and yet people accept it as legitimate science????
Gould uses examples of creatures developing complex sensory equipment as a result of some benefit gained in that creature's environment. He then postulates that that sensory mechanism repeatedly improves through random happenstance or other environmental pressures until that sensory mechanism has become developed to some modern day equivalent. Given enough time the cumulative benefits through survival of the fittest will explain everything. Yet for any of his examples to work, you would need to see multiple random events of a specific change happen at near the same time in several varying environments to see a change progress in a cumulative way. Say for example a pond where a new beneficial alteration occurs. What if that pond should dry up? Immediately that alteration is eliminated sometimes far too quickly to pass on any genetic material. If that were the only pond where such a beneficially random mutation occurred, it cannot be cumulative unless it also occurs elsewhere in an environment that didn't change. It is because "nature is violent and cruel" as you put it, that the probabilities of a favorable environment to produce cumulatively beneficial mutations are almost zero. It doesn't matter how many millions of years you add, the probabilities don't change.
This is only considering ONE mutation in ONE creature. Survival of the fittest is the worst possible theory in this scenario, because if the strongest survive and are constantly dominating their environment, they are continually reducing the possibility for diversity of the creatures they dominate. Logic dictates that if a predator became so efficient as to hunt it's prey to extinction, that predator would need to expand it's range and or diet thereby beginning the process of dominating a new creature, adding more environmental pressure to that creature. It is a system of diminishing gains. Again, this example only considers ONE predator, try adding a few more to the mix. Do the math. The odds against cumulative beneficial mutations to the point of diversity and specialization we see today, not to mention co-dependency of the ecosystem we share are so astronomical as to be impossible, no matter how many trillions of years you care to add to the number.
Then, in the course of this long slow process of impossibly favorable evolution...we suddenly shift into a Cambrian explosion of rapid mutation seemingly ignorant of any processes that have gone before or arrived since. There seems to be so much harmony amongst this bunch that survival of the fittest is completely thrown out the window or at least put on hold for a period of time.
It is not at all unreasonable for someone studying the literature to question the validity of the theories as they stand. If you push any expert in the field they themselves will acknowledge the gaps. I remember a discussion I had with a professor of Paleontology in California many years ago. I asked honest questions that he could not answer. He became angry with me because he couldn't answer the questions. Are you angry with me for the same reason? should someone not ask questions in order to learn? If answers are not available shouldn't one keep looking?
Many prefer to hold onto the possibility that the theory will eventually fill in the gaps rather than look for other theories. Considering how many years have passed with little progress since Darwin wrote his book, I find that incredibly unscientific.
Well, no. Let's just stick with the logic issues that you posit, shall we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, your point about Lucy's pelvis is neither here nor there as to the theory of evolution itself. If anything it supports the notion that it is difficult to tease out some of the details from the evidentiary record we have. There is simply no way--other than a leap--to infer a ground to disbelieve the theory overall as a consequence of this particular issue.
Second, you are making an interesting mistake in assuming that a particular modification happens on a unique basis. We already know that certain traits are linked via gene structures with certain other genes. Your use of the pond example attempts to gin up doubt about a theory by pretending that the example is the theory. No doubt you can continue to do so, as it will persuade anyone who doesn't stop to think for more than thirty seconds, but I would suggest you not try that in thoughtful company.
Third, you have committed the logical fallacy of asserting that because some details of the precise route evolution has taken on this planet are not known, therefore the theory has something wrong with it. We do not have a complete theory of gravity either, yet I don't see too many people arguing that therefore the theory is somehow fatally flawed.
Finally, a word to the intelligent: if you want to use rhetoric, use rhetoric to score points. But don't claim to use logic when you want to make a logically faulty argument.
Ah, Mr. Devinci I do believe that last year's flu vaccine will do just fine for you. And since evolution doesn't occur no N1Hi either. And please don't make the tired case that microevolution occurs, but that's different from macrofaunal evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you are incapable of accepting that just because something is called a theory, doesn't mean that it is not a fact. You sir cannot see atoms, yet I doubt that you feel the same way about them.
Finally, I borrow your own words " The odds against cumulative beneficial mutations to the point of diversity and specialization we see today, not to mention co-dependency of the ecosystem we share are so astronomical as to be impossible, no matter how many trillions of years you care to add to the number. "
Do you realize that there are approximately 100 million bacteria in one drop of your spittle? If you are able, extrapolate that to the planet and evolution becomes much more tenable, does it not?
I find your rambling specious at best.
Devinci (kind of a slur to be posting using that name given your bias. You allude to zero probabilities and co-dependencies to discredit evolution. Lets see the numbers where is your data to back up these assertions. I see nothing scientific in your arguments. There are a lot of studies and data available on the AIDS virus. Why not start with those to examine some of your assertions about mutations and fitness and co dependencies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would appear that mutation alone isn't the only factor at work here.When you consider that most scienitist think that 90% of DNA to be junk,because they can't understand what its purpose is.There are a huge number of questions left unanswered.Could it be that life its self experiments?Trying to come up with a better way to do things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you realize that there are approximately 100 million bacteria in one drop of your spittle? If you are able, extrapolate that to the planet and evolution becomes much more tenable, does it not?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot unless you are suggesting that there were millions of bacteria present at the beginning. If the theory holds true then we must extrapolate from the beginning taking into account the astronomical odds against that foundational medium surviving in a practical form and then evolving into may practical forms in competition with itself and the environment. It is very easy for you to extrapolate from an abundant beginning. Not so easy from some prebiotic soup.
"Perhaps you are incapable of accepting that just because something is called a theory, doesn't mean that it is not a fact"
Pardon me? Theory is fact now? I think you had better refer to your dictionary.
LOL! This is very amusing and typical. I raise questions and ask for answers from those defending a position. I did not take a position myself, only questioned the proposition. I am asking you or others to offer a reasonable explanation as to how randomly occurring mutations in a hostile environment can produce such a plethora of life, starting from nothing. Instead of answers to the dilemmas, I am told that I must produce numbers and facts to disprove evolution. I am not the one defending a theory sir. I am the one asking questions (a VERY devinci-like thing to do) if you are attempting to defend the theory of evolution, then you hold the burden of proof not I.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrowing numbers of antievolutionists are proof that evolution exists. Now that living conditions on Earth allow for and even favor the large scale survival and reproduction among the, um, mentally weak, they and their slack jawed offspring are accumulating by the millions. And not just accumulating, some of them can even write aided by a spell-checking word processor. Yes, the future looks pretty bleak for Homo Sapiens unless we have some real hard times ahead to put the mentally capable back into the majority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am just asking, what if questions,not trying to defend any given theory,but here is another question.What if life started out as a self replicating mineral that ended up in one of a mutitude of bubbles in the seas, and the tides there of, 4 billions years ago?I hear the tides back then were huge.Imangine the foam from that surf?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF YOU BELIEVE GODS EXIST, YOU WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease don't dig a hole for yourself. We don't have a clue about the real nature of gravity, we have multiple competing theories trying to explain the phenomenon of gravity. We have quantified "effects" of gravity but what leads to gravity is unknown.Same goes for Darwinian interpretation of evolution, it causes far more questions than it answers. They have tried hundreds of thousands of generations of dragonfly to "evolve" into something other than dragonfly by changing the environment stimuli, yet dragonfly refuses to "evolve" and stubbornly remains dragonfly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdmit the truth devinci you are just a creationist. You need only read some of Richard Dawkins books to know that the math to support natural selection does work out. It is unfortunate that the creationist butchers of science lurk and pollute this fine online magazine with silly nonsense meant to prey on other weak minded individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvoiceofreason, your words should be carved on stone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the theory of evolution is not just a theory. It is a fact just read some books (I'm not referring to the bible or other religious or creationist drivel).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Dawkins explains this very well in "The Greatest Show On Earth".
devinci you are a ghost worshipper not a scientist; your shameless disregard for the truth about life, nature and science is an obvious tell.
I am curious. Just how did we evolve the necessity of speech? And, what happened to the species that had very unfortunate accidents? Maybe it wasn't the fittest that survived only the luckiest. 'Course, we are now evolving into a one sex society. Is that out of necessity or fittest or what? Will the males become females or visa-versa?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHooray for you Divinci. I love your logic and thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne uninformed individual can ask more questions than dozen of vise men can answer. Let's look at evolution from other perspective. Any scientist will acknowledge that evolution theory is not 100% perfect, but it is far most best theory we have to explain life on earth. Any other scientific theory compared to evolution is practically non-existent. Why is that? Because evolution has been proving itself in countless cases, triumpfing over other theories. So as a whole there's no doubt that evolution is the best theory we have concerning life on earth. We don't know everything about life, so there are holes in our understanding and therefore in the theory of evolution, but despite all of those holes, it's the best net to catch all the fish in ocean of life. And the more we catch and learn, the smaller those holes get, causing us to catch even smaller prey. I challenge everybody to show that there is better net than evolution. Until that happens evolution is the way to tell how life works on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree"- Charles Darwin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvoiceof reason and gmays3d: If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be acepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. Test the theory by observations and by experiements and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Has that happened? Laboratory experiments have failed to do so and predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. It is honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact? On the other hand, there is ample evidence to suppoirt the conclusion that the spontaneious generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. Anybody ever hear of Louis Pasteur? Are we here because of spontaneous generation? Does that sound like objective science? Are we to believe that what cannot be proved to take place today had taken place in the primeval past? Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. You need a lot of faith to believe that theory (fact, as you say.) Oh, I am so mentally weak. And I can spell, too. Hey, just what is the purpose of life, anyway? And people who believe in God are not credulous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do not know the exact pathway life has taken to emerge from inanimate chemical reactions. But to prove that it can not happen is also very hard to do. On the other hand knowing that life does exist currently meas that is has started somehow and evolution is still the best net to catch this prey too. We may not currently have enough fine pitched net to catch the real evidence, but we keep trying and we will get there if such a target does exist. And I think it will be found. Of course until that happens, we have just to say that we have no evidence to back that up, to show the path with reasonable accuracy. But on the other hand there are no better theories to rely either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI repeat myself and ask you to present some theory that is better than evolution. Evolution has no single evidence to back it up, but there are thousands and millions of cases where it is the best theory to explain how life has worked and works today to change the properties of different living entities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJokunen- can you name one of these "thousands and millions of cases" where it is the best theory? What properties of different entities are being changed that you know of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor anyone who makes the claim that "Evolution is just a THEORY" and therfore is not fact, well, they can just go jump off a bridge. After all, gravity is just a THEORY!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod's creative acts 'evolved' over time just as any designer will change his creation to suit logic, change and fancy. The fossil record is full of prototypes that God created along with his first & only direct creation: the Son of God; Prov. 8. They had a good time creating the physical reality we see after they were done with the spiritual dimension in which they exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there was a species of bird that evolved a different beak from one generation to the next depending on the food that was avalible.I believe it lived on an island that Darwin visited?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the questions I have about evolution is how you determine when a species has evolved? How do we know when simple variation has occurred and when actual evolution has occurred? For example, dogs exhibit a very wide range of traits since breeding has begun in the last few hundred years. Previous to that selective breeding most of those traits were not expressed. Today, we can track DNA changes and see that these are the same species, but for fossils we cannot do this. So, how can we know - in the face of great stasis for most fossils, when a new species has actually occurred or when the changes we are seeing are already inherent in the DNA code but simply not expressed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin's advance was not in variation but in the generation of new species. Some experiments on bacteria have been running for decades now with billions of generations. They are still bacteria. So the point about H1N1 is lost on me. Yes, viruses change, but they do not become something other than viruses. Only by using the broadest form of the word evolution (change over time) can you accommodate both the small adaptations and the differences between species. But you still lack any clear present evidence, of which there should be visible evidence - of change into a different species. Why visible evidence? Because, as I pointed out, generations of bacterium can be grown locally and we can specifically trace the changes.
I have also wondered about the mechanism for Darwinian selection - under water. Water is a wonderful radiation shield, as most of our Nuclear lite water reactors can testify. What is the mechanism for genetic mutation underwater? How can the random code changes occur in an environment with so little radiation. This is even more curious because the variation of life underwater is at least as great, I understand, greater, than the variation of life out of water.
I love watching people make the typical demand for evidence from the proponents of established theories before running to hide in the corner. This is a classic defense used by loud-mouthed deniers that have absolutely no presentable arguments to back up their stance. It is often used by those who know that logic would fail to carry out the discussion and are thus spending their energy by seeding doubts instead. It is a dead giveaway that they have nothing to contribute to an intellectual discussion as it very clearly demonstrates their complete ignorance of the scientific process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, addressing today's forum, devinci (by the way, it is indeed an insult to the man that you have taken his name) and GoodScienceForYou (a nice bit of misdirection there), go sit in the corner. Don't come out until you've wised up enough to at least study the topic before you start bashing it.
I believe in the Theory of Evolution as it do make sense when you think over the whole series.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the evidence, here is how I look upon it: Just like the case of Zodiac, or any other cases that have been in abeyance, they have not been solved because of the lack of sufficient evidence. But the fact that we have not found strong evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any. We even sometimes fail to get enough evidence for the case which right happened yesterday, how much more exact evidence you expect to see for the case of Evolution, the "main offence" of which had been committed long long ago?
Lots of people require the entity of the "fossil" which could support the Theory before they are willing to accept it, but hey, not any of the deaths would bring out a corresponding fossil. And not every fossil that exists in the world have we discovered. Yet Darwin's theory can explain a large part of the history of the revolution, that is the point. Thus before anyone could proclaim a better and more explicit one rather than simply list the doubtful points against the existing theory, I would always believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Above all, Darwin devoted his life to build the theory, how could the "thousands of tough kilometers" be denied such easily by those weak points which can be happily come up with in some idle afternoon by someone fancying studying on "negative theories" yet does nothing more than that?
You have got to be kidding galaxy_man, you have done nothing productive here but accuse and name call. You have not responded to questions with a reasonable answer but choose to enter the fray claiming scientific superiority void of scientific skepticism. In an intellectual scientific community, theories are postulated for critique, and those who offer them are expected to defend them and suggest experiments that others can repeat to verify. Once verified it can become fact. That has not yet happened. Your failure to respond with a reasoned answer only shows you to be a zealot of the religion of evolution with no desire for scientific discourse. Asking questions is not "seeding doubts" it is part of the process of discovery. If you are accusing people of "seeding doubts", that is proof positive that evolution has become your religion and that dogma has shrouded your vision. Clear your eyes and give your head a shake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to point out as well that it would be helpful to discussions like these if people would stop touting thousands of proven facts of evolution that are mostly anecdotal evidence. A recent example was the allusion that evolution has been proven because a random mutation occurred in a bacterial culture that has gone through thousands of generations over the course of 40 years. This proves that a random mutation can occur, but that is nothing new or of note. I would have liked to hear a lot more. Were multiple dishes of cultures grown in the same environment over time and were mutations seen in all examples or only one? Were samples exposed to a variety of environments? Has the bacteria survived exposure to ultraviolet light, heat, cold, etc? did mutation come about as a result of exposure to some element or other bacterial agent or exclusively as a random mutation. Were the genetic transfers recoded from generation to generation to help determine the point and cause of the mutation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt someone will jump in here upset because I am being hypercritical, using ridiculous expectations to try and discredit science. These particular samples were never set up as an experiment that would record the type of data I am asking for. They were serving another purpose entirely.
Well that is my point exactly. Examples like the above are often used as "one more proof" that evolution is happening. Non-scientific zealots are gathering up so-called evidence that would never qualify as rigorous scientific experiments for proof of the theory of evolution.
Some seem to believe that if they gather enough of these little nuggets (to fit the mould of what they want to believe), that the wealth of anecdotes will mean the conclusion is established, ergo fact.
Well sorry, mounds of anecdotes do not = fact, so please stop using it as such. If you want to call this science then use scientific method and stop trying to manufacture evidence to fit the theory. That only works for people unwilling to ask tough questions and/or propose alternative theories. These are NOT scientists, regardless of their loud protestations. These are people looking for justification of a belief system.
My hats off to those in the study of evolution who have contributed new ideas and especially to those who have contributed theories that were rejected by status quo evolutionist zealots. At least they were rejected because they were willing to ask questions, like they thought was expected of a scientific endeavor.
Biological evolution of species is real. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry has been proved by the convergence of the sciences, most particularly modern microbiology. But by "evolution" in its full-blown sense, Darwin meant a process whereby new species originate as a result of natural selection + random mutations. After 150 years, the Wallace-Darwin theory of natural selection remains unsubstantiated and, moreover, is refuted by modern microbiology. The scientific question remains-how does speciation occur? By what mechanisms? How did Homo sapiens evolve out of Homo heidelbergensis? These are all scientific questions and deserve scientific research and investigation, not reliance on pat 19th century conjecture that fails to explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor an outstanding example of Ray Comfort's scholarship, watch this video: http://bit.ly/41Zfzv
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"First of all, making the assumption that I am arguing from a creationist point of view, does not answer the questions raised. This is a typical response. When you can't answer the questions blame it on faulty creationist thinking. If someone questions evolutionary theory then they must be a non-bjective thinker. Nonsense! You can't test a theory without questioning it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot only did he accuse you of that viewpoint, but he answered your arguments. Your 4 or so paragraphs of defensiveness has dodged all those responses. Scientists question theories all the time. The fact that evolution has withstood all of those tests and continues to accumulate supportive evidence is a testament to its validity.
"Many prefer to hold onto the possibility that the theory will eventually fill in the gaps rather than look for other theories. Considering how many years have passed with little progress since Darwin wrote his book, I find that incredibly unscientific. "
There has been SO much progress, are you kidding me? Most areas of modern technology rely on evolution-related findings in some way. Just look up 'evolution' and 'breakthrough' or 'ancestor' on this very same website or the BBC or something and you will probably find lots of information.
"First of all, making the assumption that I am arguing from a creationist point of view, does not answer the questions raised. This is a typical response. When you can't answer the questions blame it on faulty creationist thinking. If someone questions evolutionary theory then they must be a non-bjective thinker. Nonsense! You can't test a theory without questioning it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot only did he accuse you of that viewpoint, but he answered your arguments. Your 4 or so paragraphs of defensiveness has dodged all those responses. Scientists question theories all the time. The fact that evolution has withstood all of those tests and continues to accumulate supportive evidence is a testament to its validity.
"Many prefer to hold onto the possibility that the theory will eventually fill in the gaps rather than look for other theories. Considering how many years have passed with little progress since Darwin wrote his book, I find that incredibly unscientific. "
There has been SO much progress, are you kidding me? Most areas of modern technology rely on evolution-related findings in some way. Just look up 'evolution' and 'breakthrough' or 'ancestor' on this very same website or the BBC or something and you will probably find lots of information.
One good example that supports the theory of evolution is the progress in embryo while it grows and finally makes up the child of certain species. For example human embryo has an appearance of tadpole in one stage of development. Then that tail disappears and we are left with only a small tailbone. Unless of course something in that development goes wrong, in which case the baby can be born with a tail. One can look at different species and notice how similar are their development stages in womb or in egg or whatever is their growing environment. Do you have some other theory that can explain all these similarities in the conception and birth of wast number of species?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one can not present better theory to replace gravitation, then the gravitation is the best theory to use to describe how mass affects the whereabouts of particles.
Same goes to evolution. Go and construct something that explains the reality we live in better than evolution and then come back to argue what it does better than evolution. When we can compare these two against each other, we can then decide which is better. But don't expect evolution to disappear as the best theory of ling in this planet until someone can show their theory that performs better. How hard is that to understand?
Of course there may be bits and pieces of evolution that may need redefinition or some adjustment, but overall the main course of evolution will stand. And it will remain called the theory until we can explain every aspect of life with it, which will never happen. But again all competing theories I know of have failed to compete with it. There might be ones that I don't know of, but currently no-one has presented me any. Just asked questions that they believe can debunk evolution. It's not those questions that can do that. Only better competing theory can do that.
@Divinci, actually the biggest enemy of Darwinism is ignorance. People such as yourself with an agenda and an extremely limited understanding of evolution trying to convince the world that their misinterpretation, limited imagination and complete lack of intellectual process is somehow an accurate reflection of the theory itself are the only reason we keep talking about this. It is ridiculous to claim that "probability" is the enemy of evolution but that the notion of a magic man who created the universe in six days and then created people so they could spend their lives telling him how great he is under pain of eternal torture makes complete sense. The scaring thing is; people like you get to vote. Of course we've seen how well that turned out...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn thinking over the foregoing, here are some things to consider: Was it undirected chance that placed the earth at just the right distance from the sun, its source of energy in the form of light and heat? Was it mere chance that caused the earth to move around the sun at just the right speed, to rotate on its axis every 24 hours, and to have just the correct angle of tilt? Was it chance that provided the earth with a protective, life-sustaining atmosphere having just the right mixture of gases? Was it chance that gave the earth the water and soil needed to grow food? Was it chance that provided so many delicious and colorful fruits, vegetables and other foods? Was it chance that caused so much beauty to exist in the sky, the mountains, the streams and lakes, the flowers, plants and trees, and in so many other delightful living things?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.
Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.” And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.” Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.” And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”
The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’” Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishe truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”
Here's a totally different take on this story: Why is SciAm making snide comments? Science uses facts and logic to explore the world and formulate explanations. Disagreement is part of the process. The "unarmed man" and "finger painting" comments may get a laugh, but is it befitting of a publication of SciAm's stature to use sarcasm rather than facts and logic to express it's disagreement with Mr. Comfort? I expected SciAm to be above that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is fake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world is flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
Bleeding people cures disease.
There's no such thing as bacteria, or we'd be able to see them.
Agent Orange is so harmless you can drink it and bathe in it.
It's OK to put Red Dye #5 in food.
Cocaine is not addictive.
Tobacco is not addictive.
Radium is a harmless laboratory curiosity.
We don't need to make jet fuel explosion-proof.
DDT makes the world a better place.
You must be a good reader to become a U.S. President.
Human activity has no effect on the weather.
Stomach ulcers aren't caused by bacteria.
According to doctors, smoking is good for you.
Asbestos is a safe building material.
The Third Reich will last for a thousand years.
Germany and Japan are our mortal enemies (as well as Spain, France, Native Americans, the British, Mexico, North Viet Nam . . .).
If we all had guns, no one would get shot.
There's no relationship between abortions and crime rates.
The health insurance industry wouldn't dare keep 30% of my premium payments for themselves. (Google 'medical loss ratio')
The automobile will never replace the horse.
There's a need in the world for about 7 computers.
No one will ever need more than 640 Kilobytes of RAM.
Ethel Rosenberg was a spy.
Invest your money with Bernie Madoff and you'll be rich.
Richard Nixon is not a crook.
We learn as we grow. Don't criticize those who get left behind; feel sorry for them. They're stuck and can't move forward.
Wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true, no matter how badly you want it to be true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@taylor6072 & Creationists in general. You know what makes us angry about comments like yours? It's not because you have a different view. Science is all about exploring different views. It's not because you have honest questions about the science. Forums like these are great places to ask questions and hear many different perspectives. The reason we get so annoyed is because, none of you have ever taken the time to read one authoritative source on the subject. Comments like, "Was it undirected chance that placed the earth at just the right distance from the sun" are ignorant in so many ways on so many levels, you might as well have written that you have no clue what you're talking about but you've made up your mind anyway. Not only have you not read any books about evolution, you haven't read any books about science, the scientific method, logic, critical thought, etc. Most of you haven't even read the bible going by some of the idiotic statements that have been posted. Now, all this information is readily available. I think you can even find popup versions if you ain't so good with fancy book learnin. So, obviously, if you haven't done your homework, the only reason you are here is to preach. But this isn’t a church. Churches are places where people go to be spoon fed ideology and give unquestioning obedience in return. We fought wars to prevent that from happening but it seems some people just like it that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, you don't understand evolution. You don't understand science. You don't understand logic. You don't understand the bible. What's more, you post the same old idiotic statements over and over. These are all things that have been dealt with in other posts, articles, documentaries, websites, books, etc. You have nothing new to offer. Please, please explain to me why you think that the stuff you write here has any meaning. Do you think we are all saying, "man, for a guy who knows nothing he's sure got us figured out..." We think you are ignorant, obtuse and deceitful. How do you think that reflects on your cause and your cadre? So if are feeling beset upon and unwelcome, it just because we’ve heard it all before and we are really bored of it.
@tbmartin, there's disagreement and then there is just being stupid. How do you use facts and logic on people who don't believe in either? These people don't deserve patient hand holding. They deserve impatience. They've had just as long as anyone to prove their hypothesis. So far they haven't even come up with a valid hypothesis let alone a theory. Their deliberate ignorance is doing harm and it's time that we stopped tiptoeing around their fragile world view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin wrote his theories some 150 years ago and a cosiderable amount of thought has gone into validation of those ideas. It is ten to twenty times as long since the creationist literature was penned althought the ideas were probably much older, being stated rather than proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are on a learning curve where some new ideas become the vogue for a period until a better theory takes their place. The better we are educated, then the easier it is to understand new theories. It is not to suppose that the men of ancient times were ignorant, indeed, they understood much more abou their environment. They needed that knowledge to survive.
Most people now cannot accept the concept of a male and female in a place of paradise at the start of our history but every culture has its own explanation for our origin. If we are to consider all to be wrong except the Christian/Judean ideals then we would be ignoring the fact that we humans have learned anything of our origins in the last two millenia. We now have the oporttunity to consider for ourselves whether we are to be told by people of much learning and little science, of our origins, well meaning as I am sure they are. Altrnatively,to listen to men, who are not always correct in their own particular interpretation of the evidence but have the advantage of some four hundred years or so of formal education in subjects that are not related to religious myth (and every religion has them, some of which are common to each other,) and where a thinking person will not be burned at the stake for an original thought.
For those who are interested, I will be publishing a copy of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Issac Newton with a special introduction by myself. The introduction will include the history of gravity, a timeline of Newtons life, Adolf Hitler's undeniable connection with the theory, Newton's heretical beliefs, his thoughts on the Apocalypse, work on alchemy and Newtons thoughts on the existence of god. It also lists the theory's many hoaxes, exposes the unscientific belief that nothing pulls on everything, it points to the incredible structure of the solar system and the absence of any transitional solar systems in the fossil record. It then presents a balanced view of Aristotelian elemental attraction with information from scientists who actually believe that heavy bodies are caused to move downward toward the center of the universe and air and fire move upward toward the inner surface of the sphere of the Moon. Such as Einstein, Darwin, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday and Kepler.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am doing this because I want people to hear both sides of the debate. Students need to know that newtons gravity theory is not a proven fact but only a theory. There are holes in the theory that only Aristotelian elemental attraction can explain.
so, you read sci-am, but you don't understand how science works? i mean he predicted what we can now confirm using DNA and the fossil record. it's not a theory anymore, it's considered FACT. but i mean if you have an alternate idea that shoots this one down, lets hear it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOH! but it has to be TESTABLE. see, that's why evolution is the standard... cause we can show it's not BS. if you throw out darwin, you have to throw out everything built on his theory (ie: biology, genetics) that means no more DNA convicted criminals, no more paternity tests, no more screening for cancer markers, downs, cerebral palsy etc, etc.
your argument is basically "darwin is wrong because statistics says so!" but the very idea of statistics is a construct of the evolved primate brain. so is the internet, and the alphabet language and grammar structure you're using to type your poorly thought out argument.
really. pick up a book that doesn't use the word "smote" and read it.
First of all, the Bible says at Isaiah 40:22 that there is one dwelling above the circle of the earth. If anyone, including the religious leaders would have read their Bible, then they would have known that the earth was round. Every house is constructed by someone (Hebrews 3:4) In the creation account God put limits on the reproduction powers of all by saying that they could reproduce according to their kinds. Which one of the scientists have been able to create anything different or cross breed something that will reproduce another like itself? (mule?) Which one of the scientists that are so intelligent have been able to create life? Out of nothing let alone a bowl of organic soup? The chance that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. If you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones--no white ones at all! And each would have to be in a specific preassigned place in the scoop. How much stirring and scooping in this hypothetical bean pile would you have to do to get the right combination? And by the way, DNA was mentioned in the Bible at Psalms 139: 14- 16, so Darwin cannot be given credit for that finding. By the way, King David wrote that Psalm prox 460 BCE; Isaiah wrote his message prox 732 BCE; and Paul wrote his message around 61 of our common era. God was also very explicit to the nation of Israel about being clean and they were the only people to have strict sanitation laws. (Bacteria) Revelation also mentions that God will put an end to those that are ruining his earth, so don't put all of us in the category of the earth being flat and agent orange is ok. That is the scientists and the governments that hid those facts from you. And Psalms also tells us not to put our trust in earthling man, so no I didn't put my money with Maddoff. And I don't involve myself with the politics either, cause Baby, look at them now! The whole world is out of kilter. 1 Cor. 1:26 -28 also says that God chose the foolish things of the world so that he might put the wise men to shame. Have you read your Bible today? Yep, I can look up stuff on the internet, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey! I found this on the internet:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSir Isaac's Solar System
Sir Isaac Newton's work represents some of the greatest contributions to science ever made by an individual. Most notably, Newton derived the Law of Universal Gravitation, invented the branch of mathematics called Calculus, and performed experiments investigating the nature of light and color. He also was scholar of the Bible and devoted much time to its study.
Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
A scientist friend of Newton's came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship.
"Oh My! What an exquisite thing this is!" Newton's friend exclaimed. "Who made it?"
Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Oh? Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"
Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has."
"You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?
adapted from Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: The Truth: God or evolution?, by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
PS: Every day something keeps us from floating off the face of the earth. And that is a fact. Call it what you want.
"Which one of the scientists have been able to create anything different or cross breed something that will reproduce another like itself? (mule?) " Tomatos with fish genes inside to improve their cold weather properties and yes, some mules and hinnys are capable of reproduction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple of things have notcome up in this discussion that I think should come up, namely, that Darwin's theory breaks down the whole idea of speciation, by positing life as a continuum of variation. This means that there is no difference between what we hve been calling here "micro-evolution and macro-evolution", only a difference in degree of variation. There might be something to be said for some reproductive Rubicon to be crossed from species to species, but this is variable, as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrought up earlier in the discussion is that 40 years and thousands of generations of bacteria have not produced a new species. This argument ignores the role of environmental change in fostering successful variation. 40 years worth of bacteria in the same petrie dish would not foster meaningful variation because the environment would be static and offer no advantage to mutative variants.
There are a couple of things that need to be brought up in this discussion that I haven’t seen yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there has been a lot of talk of speciation vs. variation. Darwin’s theory broke down the barrier between the two by positing life as a continuum of variation, i.e. that the difference between variation and speciation is a matter of degree, not of kind. This is similar to the wall Einstein break down between matter and energy in his special theory of relativity. There may be something to be said for some reproductive Rubicon to be crossed between species, but even that is variable.
Another issue discussed was the contention that 40 years and thousands of generations of bacteria strains have not produced a new species. This ignores the fundamental role played by environmental change in evolution. In the petrie dish, the environment for the bacteria remains static, and therefore does not advantage genetic mutations. This is why the only way to study evolution is with the entire world as the petrie dish.
So theories are facts now? I haven't seen a single book that talks about how newton's gravity is a "fact". Because it is really just an unproven theory by a man who thought that also thought he could magically turn rocks into gold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton's theory has many things it can't explain, things like birds not falling to the earth and watching balloons float about.
I am sick of people who accept these old ideas inspite of all kinds of new evidence and refuse to let anyone question them. No one can use Newton's theory to say how an airplane flys or why the moon doesn't fall on the earth.
@four-thirteen, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and we are not even talking about something difficult. Do you really think that birds and balloons defy the law of gravity?! Do you really think the moon and airplanes defy classical mechanics? Absolutely unbelievable! Read a book! What the heck are you scientifically illiterate people doing here? If you hate science so much fine, hang out in your cult and wait for the rapture. Leave us to deal with reality. There should be a sign here that says, "You must have more than three functioning brain cells before you can post here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, "So Theories are facts now", Yes. That is what a theory is. It is a proven fact. You are confusing the popular use of the word Theory which more closely corresponds with the scientific word Hypothesis. But of course since you know nothing about science, it is no surprise you didn't know that.
It's possible that four-thirteen was employing satire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks Steve, I was in such a rush to put knee to groin that I wasn't watching whose groin I was kneeing. I guess I am proof of the old adage of what happens when one assumes...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@four-thirteen, My apologies. Sadly, you were totally believable; that is exactly the type of thing one tends to find here. I guess that was the point. If you want to create an "Intelligent Falling" museum in Kentucky, I’ll contribute.
It appears to me that the theory of evolution is now perceived to be fact by many, many people,and not a THEORY.If I'm not mistaken, a theory is by definition NOT a proven fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoodScienceForYou - your last paragraph shows you're in search of the infamous Crockaduck, good luck in that endeavour. Now if you're truly interested in evidence for evolution, as mentioned before, read "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern evolution theory is based on hundreds of thousands of observations by specialised scientists especially geneticists. Creationism is based on the writings and teachings of just a relatively few individuals who imagined that they had supernatural powers and a divine right to impose these on others, without offering any hint of proof of what they were purporting. Which will stand the test of proof in a law court?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Cowpoke, it is a little more complicated than that. A theory can be said to be a proven model of a system. A theory itself is not a fact but is supported by and explains the facts. The difference between a fact and a theory is like the difference between evidence and a verdict in a court of law with a hypothesis being the charges. Unlike the common use of the word theory which is more like a scientific hypothesis and this is the cause of a lot of the confusion. So in keeping with the legal theme, the charge of evolution has been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be substantiated by the evidence. There is no other hypothesis that fits the facts better (not even close) and there are no facts that contradict the hypothesis. A jury of peers, i.e. the scientific community, has therefore entered a verdict, or formal finding of fact in support of the charges. The religious community has tried to use any number of tactics to have the verdict overturned but they offer no real evidence. They make many claims but none bare any scrutiny. Now the legal system is not a perfect parallel with science as it is possible for a courtroom jury to enter a verdict that is contrary to the evidence… but that is another issue. Also, the trial for evolution, or any other theory for that matter, never truly stops as science tries to refine it. Yet, despite it being one of the most challenged theories in science, every study seems to only provided more support for it; even discoveries from vastly different areas of science such as genetics, cosmology, geography and chemistry. It is no surprise then that the only ones who don't "believe" it are those that have never studied it, have never done their own research and who's personal world views are directly undermined by the findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, none of you celebrate the holidays, I theorize. Or do you celebrate Darwin's day? Just curious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, do any of you celebrate some kind of holiday?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin's day? Just curious. I know the scientists wouldn't
be hypocritical.
Shouldn't the proponents of evolution be spending their meaningless lives doing something more selfishly productive than being a keyboard warrior on an internet forum? I mean, you have nothing to look forward to after this life is over, so why are you wasting your time promoting your religion of atheism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatthew1028: We are not here to discuss religion. This topic is about evolution. But it might surprise you that many scientists are religious people. That does not mean that they mix it with their science, since when you are studying ants, it's unrelated whether you like books or not. It does not matter whether one is religious or not to be a scientist to study evolution. Religion is irrelevant to evolution study because one can not prove religion to be false or true. But if you ask me, there's a good theory why people have all kinds of believes. Just look into past SciAm columns written by Michael Shermer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey were giving away copies of Comfort's Origin on my campus this morning (University of Calgary) and I walked by and refused a copy and said "Sorry I have the original - the correct version".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJokunen- the article speaks about Ray Comfort, who is a Christian evangelist. Therefore, discussion of "religion" is merited, and other posts on this very forum have made "religious" statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm fully aware that many scientists would define themselves as "religious". (For clarification, that term is over-used, and attempts to place all people of a faith in the same boat). If they are Christian scientists, however, evolution would not be their choice of study unless it was to disprove it.
My point is, if one's chosen religion is atheism, as I'm assuming many on this site are (i.e. recommendations for Richard Dawkins, etc) then why "waste" what small amount of time is available in a meaningless life by chance by bashing those who do not believe in evolution?
coolmoss- Interesting that you would start with the personal attacks that I was speaking of. Let me see if I can clarify what I was meaning, since you were obviously offended by what was written. Offensiveness was not my intent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI KNOW that the lives of EVERY man, woman, and child have significance. It is my humble opinion, that those who wish to say publicly that there is no God, are often coming to forums like these and continuously looking for arguments because deep down they KNOW that God does exist, and they are waiting for the person that can help them see that. Again, it's my opinion, and I'm stating it as such.
Now I would never claim to be anything other than what I am (and that has never been an uber-intelligent anything), but I am no dim-wit. My concern is for the lost, and I always appreciate the opportunity for civil discussion, that I was attempting to say this forum has lacked at times.
My comment was in no way meant to be taken literally, and I apologize if it came across that way.
@taylor6072, the christian holidays are based on pagan celebrations which are based on seasonal events. That was part of the church's, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach to the pagans, or should I say, "if you can't beat 'em, burn 'em, torture or kill 'em..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@matthew1028. Hey Dr. Freud; if I was looking for someone to confirm my deep down belief in the lord I wouldn't come here. The god botherers who frequent this place don't have enough credibility to convince me to believe in a sunny day.
By the way if you believe you are off to eternity and some great reward why waste your time in this life at all? Why don't you do a good dead, give your life for a noble cause and move on to eternal bliss? Since life is just a talent show setup by god for god to judge who is worthy of his special favours, mostly sycophants and mindless automatons, why don't you just get it over with? Tell god how great he is and then stand up to the devil in whatever form your cult leader tells you he's taking that day, and fight to the death!
"We must first submit to God, then fight the devil in God's strength" (James 4:7)
And if you are lucky enough to cash in, the lord will be there to reward you with that great kick-back in the sky. No more taxes, no more sitcom reruns, no more people thinking for themselves instead of servin’ the lord. Leave life for us atheists. As trivial as it may seem, it's all we got.
Robert- I'll address a few of your comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- "the christian holidays are based on pagan celebrations which are based on seasonal events. That was part of the church's, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach to the pagans, or should I say, "if you can't beat 'em, burn 'em, torture or kill 'em..."
Not true. I'd be glad to go into this with you if you so desire, but wherever you are getting this information (Zeitgeist? Same sources?) it is false.
As for the torture/burn/kill- the actions of people claiming to be Christian don't make them Christian. There are numerous factions that call themselves Christian, yet are not followers of Jesus. I can stand in a garage all day, but that doesn't make me a car. Hitler, the Columbine killers, etc took Darwin's findings to an extreme, and believed that Darwinism showed that survival of the fittest was something to be preserved by violence. That doesn't mean that Darwinism itself is inherently evil, and I would be a fool to group those evil people with other atheists like yourself, when I would bet that you are a very decent person.
2.- "By the way if you believe you are off to eternity and some great reward why waste your time in this life at all?"
Answer- If you knew someone was about to be hit by a bus, and all you had to do was tell that person not to walk out into the street, wouldn't you do it? I understand that if someone dies without accepting Jesus, he/she goes to hell for eternity. That's what I'm trying to save others from, and I would be a hypocrite to call myself a Christian and not be concerned about that. We are here to serve the Lord, and commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. In short, I'm here to share the gospel with people like yourself who are lost.
"As trivial as it may seem, it's all we got."-
Sadly, that was the most honest thing you said, and that's exactly why I reach out to you. I do so with an honest hope that it can make you think about what would happen if you are wrong about God, regardless of the fact that you chose to attack me personally. Have a good night, and thank you for the conversation.
Evolution is communist ideology not a science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is communist ideology not a science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysical similarities alone do not make a species transitional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are numerous physical similarities between species today. Doesn't mean one evolved from the other.
I've posed the following challenge to evolutionists and have yet to receive a response:
Using pictures and names, please post the entire lineage of creatures that led up to human beings on the evolutionary chart starting with the first sea creatures and ending with human beings. Please include all transitional forms as well.
Speculation is not science.
Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.
You've heard of a frog becoming a prince?
The evolutionist believes with enough time, this is possible.
The evolutionists are bigger scammers than Bernie Madoff.
Physical similarities alone do not make a species transitional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are numerous physical similarities between species today. Doesn't mean one evolved from the other.
I've posed the following challenge to evolutionists and have yet to receive a response:
With pictures and names, please post the entire lineage of creatures that led to human beings on the evolutionary chart starting with the first sea creatures and ending with human beings. Please include all transitional forms as well.
Speculation is not science.
Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.
You've heard of a frog becoming a prince?
The evolutionist believes with enough time, this is possible.
The evolutionists are bigger scammers than Bernie Madoff.
@robert schmidt: You don't understand the difference between micro and macro gravity. Macro gravity is a fairy tale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people use words like "scientific illiterate" and say I don't know anything about science and ask if I really believe the examples I provided disprove the scientifically accepted theory of gravity.
If you want to believe in gravity pulling a dropped ball to the earth you need to show every transitional step in the process, not just a snapshot of it leaving your hand, one in the middle and one of it hitting the earth. You must show evidence of all the in between steps.
My logic is as sound as any creationist.
You "scientists" refuse to let us ask questions because you dogmatically