The five most common misunderstandings about evolution

February 17, 2016 by Paula Kover, University Of Bath, The Conversation
Do I resemble your great-great-grandfather by any chance? Credit: DaniRevi/pixabay

Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory – asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't today's monkeys evolved"?

Similarly, a head teacher from a in the UK recently stated that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. This is despite the fact that children in the UK start learning about evolution in Year 6 (ten to 11-year-olds), and have further lessons throughout . While the of evolution is well accepted in the UK compared with the rest of the world, a survey in 2005 indicated that more than 20% of the country's population was not sure about it, or did not accept it.

In contrast, there are not many people questioning the theory of relativity, or studies on the acceptance of the theory of relativity; possibly reflecting an acceptance that this is a matter for physicists to settle. Many studies have tried to determine why evolution is questioned so often by the general public, despite complete acceptance by scientists. Although no clear answer has been found, I suspect the common misconceptions described below have something to do with it.

1. It's just a theory

Yes, scientists call it the "theory of evolution", but this is in recognition of its well accepted scientific standing. The term "theory" is being used in the same way that gravitational theory explains why, when an apple falls from your hand, it goes towards the ground. There is no uncertainty that the apple will fall to the ground, in the same way that there is no uncertainty that bugs resistant to antibiotics will continue to evolve if we do not curb our general use of antibiotics.

Although people use "theory" in everyday conversation to mean a not necessarily proven hypothesis, this is not the case in scientific terms. A scientific theory typically means a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the that sits above laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

2. Humans are descended from monkeys

No, your great-great-great-ancestor was not a monkey. Evolution theory indicates that we have common ancestors with and apes – among the existing species, they are our closest relatives. Humans and chimpanzees share more than 90% of their genetic sequence. But this common ancestor, which roamed the earth approximately 7m years ago was neither a monkey nor a , but an ape-like creature that recent research suggests had traits that favoured the use of tools.

3. Natural selection is purposeful

There are many organisms that are not perfectly adapted to their environment. For example, sharks don't have a gas bladder to control their buoyancy (which bony fish typically use). Does this refute the theory of evolution? No, not at all. Natural selection can only randomly favour the best of what is available, it does not purposefully turn all living organisms into one super creature.

It would be really convenient if humans could photosynthesise; hunger could be immediately cured by standing in the sun (and the much-sought miracle diet would have been found: stay inside). But alas, the genetic ability to photosynthesise has not appeared in animals. Still, selection of the best option possible has led to an amazing diversity of forms remarkably well adapted to their environments, even if not perfect.

4. Evolution can't explain complex organs

A common argument in favour of creationism is the evolution of the eye. A half developed eye would serve no function, so how can natural selection slowly create a functional eye in a step-wise manner? Darwin himself suggested that the eye could have had its origins in organs with different functions. Organs that allow detection of light could then have been favoured by natural selection, even if it did not provide full vision. These ideas have been proven correct many years later by researchers studying primitive light-sensing organs in animals. In molluscs like snails and segmented worms, light-sense cells spread across the body surface can tell the difference between light and dark.

5. Religion is incompatible with evolution

It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Contrary to what many people think, there is also little conflict between evolution and most common religions. Pope Francis recently reiterated that a belief in isn't incompatible with the Catholic faith. Going further, the reverend Malcom Brown from the Church of England stated that ", as a way of understanding physical evolutionary processes over thousands of years, makes sense." He added: "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" and vice-versa. I fully agree.

Explore further: Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?

Related Stories

Why evolution may be smarter than we thought

January 29, 2016

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution offers an explanation for why biological organisms seem so well designed to live on our planet. This process is typically described as "unintelligent" – based on random variations with ...

In evolution, 'house of cards' model wins

May 14, 2015

Using sophisticated modeling of genomic data from diverse species, Yale researchers have answered a longstanding question about which competing model of evolution works best.

What blind beetles can teach us about evolution

February 5, 2015

Evolution is often perceived as being a "directional" or "adaptive" process. We often think of species evolving to become stronger or faster, or to have sharper teeth, for example. And we tend to see this as being inherently ...

Recommended for you

Study details ringed structure of ORC in DNA replication

February 21, 2017

An international collaboration of life scientists, including experts at Van Andel Research Institute, has described in exquisite detail the critical first steps of DNA replication, which allows cells to divide and most advanced ...

Unlocking crop diversity by manipulating plant sex

February 21, 2017

Researchers have discovered a key gene that influences genetic recombination during sexual reproduction in wild plant populations. Adding extra copies of this gene resulted in a massive boost to recombination and diversity ...

112 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AKron
4.4 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2016
Religion is incompatible with evolution. The Bible says humans came from Adam and Eve, and that is wrong. The bible says God made the wild animals according to their kinds and that is wrong. The "inerrant word of God" is wrong. That makes evolution incompatible with the Christian religion.
ogg_ogg
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
Over "thousands" of years? Is that 6,000 years since God formed Heaven&Earth? Using ignorant comments by the director of public affairs of a major Christian sect is pretty lame. Natural selection is only loosely connected with evolution. Natural selection follows directly from the fact that genes transfer (reproduce) information. The information which is least likely to imbue a survival benefit (or most likely to decrease reproductive success) will not be reproduced (as often, hence will fade away). Evolution requires this individual process to have significant effects on the population (over hundreds and thousands of generations). You can imagine a world where natural selection works but the population doesn't change (ie natural selection is overwhelmed by "noise"). The Bible isn't a religion, Akron. Finally it's just not true that scientists usually use "theory" to mean something different than "hypothesis". Although in this specific case it is meant that way. The Conversation = junk
ogg_ogg
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2016
Oh, a couple other things: I think it is astounding that so many pundits talk about "the theory of evolution" and yet never define it, probably because they can't. I have never seen a precise definition of "the theory of Evolution", have you? I'll bet you can't point to a textbook that clearly (and correctly) defines it. (Of course, I've seen the 2nd Law defined many times, but I don't think I've ever seen it fully defined...) And as to the claim that it in't "purposeful". Well, not quite. It is purposeful when looking back, since past evolution must explain the present, it must direct all past history to the present facts. Going forward, no purpose can be (meaningfully) predicted or objectively observed.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2016
Among other things, the article begins with the claim that "evolution" was "a huge success describing the natural world". To say that God placed animals on the planet when He wished then removed them would be just as adequate an explanation. Remember, speciation, the act of a creature producing a creature of another species, therefore essentially unable to mate with its own parents or even siblings, has never been observed. The most that has been observed is "genetic radiation", which is groups of creatures, isolated form each other, in environments aggressively favoring one type and disfavoring another, will tend to have those in the population who already had genes predisposed to fit the environment proliferate and eventually become the only types seen there. But the idea of incremental changes, which most forms of "evolution" employ, is combated by the fact that an incremental change will never be enough of an advantage to favor the creature.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2016
A number of other points can be raised.
Note that the article declares that evolution shouldn't be expected to provide any and every possible advantage to survival. Yet, in the section saying "evolution" isn't just a "theory", it insists that, "there is no uncertainty that bugs resistant to antibiotics will continue to evolve if we do not curb our general use of antibiotics". So it's not reasonable to expect that "evolution" would provide a shark with a swim bladder, but it is guaranteed that it will endow bacteria with resistance to antibiotics.
Also, the "argument" about "evolution" leading to the development of complex, "irreducible", organs is specious at best. In fact, it's not an argument. It's just the assertion that certain organisms have light sensitive cells. But there is a long way between just individual light sensitive cells working independently and a combination of cells called an eye! And no intermediate "fossils".
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
In face, the real objection between "evolution" and religion is the arising of the soul. It is not accepted that anything lower than man necessarily has a soul. The question then arises, is it only certain chemicals that make the soul inhabit a body? But neither "science" nor religion has identified that as the issue! They fixate only on "evolution". They could have identified the presence of soul as the issue, but, face it, religion and "science" are working this racket together! And Catholicism has not accepted "evolution", only genetic radiation. But that is not speciation. And, remember, in naming his book, "The Origin of Species", even Darwin said speciation is the essence of "evolution". And the Pope accepting something is not so definite. John Paul II excommunicated bishops for denying the "Holocaust". But the only cause for excommunication is breaking Christ's law, and He never ordered people to believe in the "Holocaust"!
Dark_Solar
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
Okay...well, yes, it is a problem that many scientists incorrectly use the word 'theory' when they should be using 'hypothesis'. Is science incompatible with religion? Maybe...maybe not. Assuming that the Bible is the "ineffable Word of God" and also not incompatible with science, it then must be relegated to the position of 'attempted scientific explanation of the universe and life to ignoramii' which was subsequently misheard/colored by the hearer and thus altered in the retelling/recording. Is there truth in the Bible? Well..."do unto others as you would have done unto you" seems like a pretty good candidate for the TRUTH category. However, truth is a subjective beast; what is truth for one person can easily not be truth for another. FACT, on the other hand, is not subjective. Fact is, by its very nature, concrete, testable, proveable. Which is the primary distinction between 'hypothesis' and 'theory' -and a scientist worth his/her salt should not make this mistake.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2016
The various creation myths still popular today are generally incompatible with modern science. While most people are familiar with Christian creationism, there are Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Neo-pagan versions as well. Not only evolutionary biology, but geology, chemistry and physics are contrary to the notion of the supernatural.

When a religious professional, or a believing scientist says religion and science are compatible, they are affirming that religious texts are open to reinterpretation and that there is enough ambiguity that the mentally agile can somehow meld the two. This has been argued by Christians such as Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin.
littler9870
3.6 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
i think appeasing religious people is the wrong way to go. clearly believing in evolution and having "faith" in a god are two completely different ways of seeing the world
Zzzzzzzz
2.6 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
i think appeasing religious people is the wrong way to go. clearly believing in evolution and having "faith" in a god are two completely different ways of seeing the world

However I know religious believers who do this. All they need to do is alter their delusion to make evolution their god's modus operadi. Turns the bible stories into another type of parable. With delusion, anything is possible
Dark_Solar
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
And yes, the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, just that: theory. Just about every major scientific breakthrough ever made is still classified as being theory. This is not because the scientific breakthough is a falsehood or incorrect, it is because the original hypothesis was rigorously tested and the factual data collected supported the hypothesis. Evolution? Yup, we have a lot of very linear collections of skeletal remains which show a clean progression of minor physical changes over vast expanses of time. And realistically, the truth of Evolution Theory is that its actually still a hypothesis but concensus scientific view is that there's enough evidence to reasonably conclude it should be upgraded from mere hypothesis to full-on Theory status. That said, science is still looking for data because the only way to have certainty is to keep gathering evidence until there's none left to be had. Technically speaking, Evolution Theory is likely the longest running research project ever.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
The various creation myths still popular today are generally incompatible with modern science. While most people are familiar with Christian creationism, there are Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Neo-pagan versions as well. Not only evolutionary biology, but geology, chemistry and physics are contrary to the notion of the supernatural.

When a religious professional, or a believing scientist says religion and science are compatible, they are affirming that religious texts are open to reinterpretation and that there is enough ambiguity that the mentally agile can somehow meld the two. This has been argued by Christians such as Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin.


Reminds me of a quote from someone (Hitchens maybe): "Its not the 76% of professional scientists who don't believe in a god that surprises me - it's the 24% who do". Or something similar.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
Oh, a couple other things: I think it is astounding that so many pundits talk about "the theory of evolution" and yet never define it, probably because they can't. I have never seen a precise definition of "the theory of Evolution", have you?


Of course; "Genetic variation across a species acted on by natural selection that leads to reproductive isolation of subpopulations."

This has been expressed mathematically; first in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (1908), second in the population statistical models of R.A. Fisher, Julian Huxley, and others (1920-1940).

Over Darwin's career, he introduced not only the obvious "survival" argument (1859) but "sexual selection" (1871) that we call "behavioral selection," and his "mutualism"(1862) we call "co-evolution" today. The latter was deeply influenced by Alfred R. Wallace, and is the basis for all ecology studies.
Dark_Solar
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
Is Evolution purposeful? Ehhhh...jury's still out on that question; epigenetic studies are gathering data which indicates that there are direct, single-generation changes in how genes are expressed in off-spring relative to environmental stresses placed on the parents. Sooo...maybe it is to a limited extent. Generally speaking though, evolution is mostly random as all get out...sort of; genetic changes that afford neither advantage nor detriment tend to simply stay dormant while changes that afford an advantage tend to allow the domination of a given environment which allows a greater population base which, in turn, increases both the spread of the advantageous genes and therefor the likelihood that further advantageous mutations will occur while detrimental genetic changes tend to weed themselves out of a population in evolutionary dead-ends. Buuuut there's also the co-evolutionary paths of predators/prey, food plants/grazers where each adapts to the other at roughly the same speed.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
Remember, speciation, the act of a creature producing a creature of another species, therefore essentially unable to mate with its own parents or even siblings, has never been observed.


It would very hard to "remember" something that is totally false. We have published scientific studies of the emergence of new species from earlier parent species. I have collected dozens of the more interesting ones and posted them to "Stones and Bones: Emergence of New Species." Some were published over a century ago.

Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
julianpenrod, But there is a long way between just individual light sensitive cells working independently and a combination of cells called an eye! And no intermediate "fossils".


Actually the evolution of eyes is rather well known. What I find particularly interesting is that there are living examples of nearly every hypothetical type of eye from the Platyhelminthes, Cnidaria, Mollusca, Insecta, Annelida, Cordata, and so on to us. The origin is of course the light activated rhodopsin chemistry found even in bacteria.

For a good single text source, see;

Ivan R Schwab
2011 "Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved" Oxford University Press

julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
In fact, no new species were ever observed to derive from different ones. Because, among other things, that would require having a creature that could not mate with their own parents or siblings, yet grew inside their parents. They produce collections of resin molds that they claim are "fossils" and say they are similar, and that that "proves" one animal "evolved" into the other. And, no, there is no sequence of development from simple, single light reacting cells to complex, involved eye structures. If there were, the article would have mentioned them. Why would something develop a lens if it only needed to sense changes in light? Why would something connect special optical nerves if they could sense changes in light already? And, in what way are geology, chemistry, physics "contrary to the notion of the supernatural?
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2016
То claim that the theory of evolution is successful, when its supporters are unable to explain the origin of life on Earth and the principles according to which can be increased with time the information (order) in one physical system based on random events, without ideas, will and actions of intelligent being with solid technological capabilities is mildly inadequate.
Evolutionists nothing ever been able to explain in details, but the details are very important in the science. They themselves do not know how the imaginary evolutionary process works and none of them is able explain it. Neither could explain how can emerge rrom the imaginary primordial soup the simplest living cell with DNA containing more than a million base pairs. Because this cell can not be more simple to perform the basic functions of a living organism. Nor know that what animates all flesh is the breath of life from God. Body taken from the dust plus breath of life from God make living organism.
Dark_Solar
2.4 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
Hehehe...let us all remember, though, that most of the people who deny or attempt to refute Evolution Theory either do not care about evidence or simply can't be bothered to find out what has been discovered. And they're always so certain that there's no way they could be mistaken. To them I say: If the nature of God is Truth, and whatsoever issueth from God is Truth, then those things which God hath wrought (actual, factual carbon-dateable fossils) are Truth. And to call them Lies which have been issued by God Whom is Truth to test our faith is both idiocy and slothful -especially when one considers the depth of the Universe's complexity. If God exists and is responsible for the Universe, it is reasonable to conclude that God is 1. the ultimate engineer and 2. just doesn't do "simple".

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" --Matthew 7:4
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2016
How random unconscious events can create positive changes in living otrganisms which are compatible with the complex existing information? If we do random changes in a machine with complex structure and functionality, haw long it will continue to work?
It is not difficult to understand that to be passible evolution especially fictional billions of years, the random events should have more positive than negative effect on the living organizms over time. But in scientific world is not known even one random positive change in the living organisms. In contrast, negative efects from random changes (mutations) are well known and abundant.
Dark_Solar
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
O, and for viko-mx --sorry, dude, you're wong. The simplest single celled organism is called mycoplasma genitalium and it has a measly 525 base pairs.

See...this cleanly illustrates the problem with people who can't be bothered to find out what's been discovered; they invariably just pull numbers out of their back ends in a weak ploy to justify willful ignorance rather than gain knowledge.
Dark_Solar
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
To viko-mx:

My mistake... 525 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2016
Your information is slightly at odds with reality. I explain this phenomenon with your wishful thinking.
Here are the facts:
Mycoplasma genitalium is not autonomous living organism but parasite which live in other more complex living organims and use part of their functionality. The genome of M. genitalium consists of 525 genes in one circular DNA of 580,070 base pairs.

Clearly it would first have to appeared autonomous organisms according to the mitology of evolution.

Dark_Solar
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
Your information is slightly at odds with reality. I explain this phenomenon with your wishful thinking.
Here are the facts:
Mycoplasma genitalium is not autonomous living organism but parasite which live in other more complex living organims and use their functionality. The genome of M. genitalium consists of 525 genes in one circular DNA of 580,070 base pairs.

Clearly it would first have to appeared autonomous organisms according to the mitology of evolution.



That's exactly the point!! It's a single-celled parasite capable of evading the immune response of the host organism, it attacks and eats the host organism and produces offspring. This makes it both alive and predatory. Further, it is capable of leaving the host under the right conditions and existing autonomously until it arrives at a new host.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2016
This organism is unsustainable in the external environment and can not exist outside the host for more than a few minutes. This organism lack functionality which autonomous unicellular organisms have to be able to survive in the external environment.
Dark_Solar
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2016
This organism is unsustainable in the external environment and can not exist outside the host for more than a few minutes. This organism lack functionality which autonomous unicellular organisms have to be able to survive in the external environment.


Wrong again, dude; a bacterium that cannot exist outside of living host cannot be cultured in a petri dish.
Dark_Solar
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2016
This organism is unsustainable in the external environment and can not exist outside the host for more than a few minutes. This organism lack functionality which autonomous unicellular organisms have to be able to survive in the external environment.


Wrong again, dude; a bacterium that cannot exist outside of living host cannot be cultured in a petri dish.
Dark_Solar
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2016
This organism is unsustainable in the external environment and can not exist outside the host for more than a few minutes. This organism lack functionality which autonomous unicellular organisms have to be able to survive in the external environment.


Wrong again, dude; a bacterium that cannot exist outside of living host cannot be cultured in a petri dish.
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
julianpenrod, In fact, no new species were ever observed to derive from different ones. Because, among other things, that would require having a creature that could not mate with their own parents or siblings, yet grew inside their parents.


Wrong again. I gave you a source.

The oldest example I have listed is the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905). O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

One I find fascinating is that the increasing genetic isolation of the two races of R. pomonella resulted in the reproductive isolation of the parasitic wasp Diachasma alloeum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) which feeds on the rapidly evolving fly. (See "Sequential Sympatric Speciation Across Trophic Levels" Andrew A. Forbes et al, Science 6 February 2009 323: 776-779).
Dark_Solar
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2016
Go, Dr_GS_Hurd!!!!! Wooooo!!!! Laying out the smack-down!!!! :D
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2016
To viko-mx:

My mistake... 525 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs.


Like you, I reject the notion that Nanoarchaeum equitans is functionally "smaller" than Mycoplasma genitalium since it is an obligate parasite. It does illustrate a mechanism for gene reduction that is a key part of endosymbiosis which gave us mitochondria, and chloroplasts.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2016
"... the theory of evolution ... supporters are unable to explain the origin of life on Earth


I'll quote Charles Darwin from a letter to American botanist Joseph Hooker (29 Mar 1863), "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

The evolutionary biology is about biology. It is not about the origin of life. For a good single cover book reviewing where we are on understanding the origin of life on Earth, see;

Deamer, David W.
2011 "First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began" University of California Press
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2016
julianpenrod, And, no, there is no sequence of development from simple, single light reacting cells to complex, involved eye structures.


Yes there are. In fact eyes evolved several times. I gave you the proper reference. Here is it again.

Ivan R Schwab
2011 "Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved" Oxford University Press

We cannot post jpegs, or I would show you photos.
Drjsa_oba
3 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2016
If I was in the group with Shane Warne I would have called him an idiot. Harsh but true. Everything alive today is equally evolved. This is so obvious that at first, his argument leaves one dumbfounded for a few minutes before saying "idiot". Viko and others above been told this numerous times and therefore they are not idiots but liars instead.

"irreducible complexity" what a stupid statement. There is so much wrong with it that most people would have a hard time working out where to start.

"string Theory" was coined by Americans and so is wrongly named from the start.
aajax
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
Not so sure than No. 5 is a misconception. It would seem to at least to conflict with No. 3. If evolution has no purpose, then it (and we) serves no religious purpose. So are we supposed to think Go just set up a random process that just happened to produce mankind and then decided what the heck, let me give them religion so they won't be mere animals? That's a weirder story than Genesis.
aajax
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
"It is purposeful when looking back, since past evolution must explain the present, it must direct all past history to the present facts."

I can explain the process that led to a landslide. It doesn't mean the landslide had a purpose.
aajax
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
"Remember, speciation, the act of a creature producing a creature of another species, therefore essentially unable to mate with its own parents or even siblings, has never been observed."

No, it hasn't been observed, but the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming, unless one insists on a supernatural explanation for species, which also hasn't been observed.
Drjsa_oba
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
aajax

"Remember, speciation, the act of a creature producing a creature of another species, therefore essentially unable to mate with its own parents or even siblings, has never been observed."

No, it hasn't been observed, but the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming, unless one insists on a supernatural explanation for species, which also hasn't been observed.


What a load of rubbish - AND I think you know it.

Every creature alive today is equally evolved we all have common ancestors. You and I are both related to a snake for example.

We are both related to frogs and frogs are also related to snakes.

This is speciation.

Yes we are also related to chimpanzees and monkeys as are birds and dogs - through common ancestors.

We cannot mate with and produce offspring with these creatures therefore we are different species.

Just as you have close relatives and distant relatives and very distant relatives. All the animals are your relatives.
Drjsa_oba
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
All the different races of peoples on this planet can interbreed therefore they are the same species. They may not be your close cousins but they are closer than any other species on the planet.

Speciation is difficult in that there are lots of cases where a species is not quite split off and may look quite different and have different dietary needs and yet still be the same species - Just. These would be transitional forms.

Nowhere does a parent and child belong to a different species. Hybrids will display some portion of both parents in the case of cross breeding transitional forms.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2016
"Wrong again, dude; a bacterium that cannot exist outside of living host cannot be cultured in a petri dish."
That depend on controled conditions in laboratory.

Will you stand behind the claim that mycoplasma genitalium can survive and reproduce in external environment?
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
@Dr_GS_Hurd

After you believe in the theory of evolution, it could be difficult for you to explain me the working principle of the evolutionary process. Can you do it with your oun words here without giving me waste time links?
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
FACT, on the other hand, is not subjective. Fact is, by its very nature, concrete, testable, proveable. Which is the primary distinction between 'hypothesis' and 'theory' -and a scientist worth his/her salt should not make this mistake.

So I dare any of the pro-evolutionists to substantiate their evolutionary FACTs by providing us with concrete, testable, observable and verifiable evidence that firstly life can arise from dead materials alone and then secondly that a single cellular organism can transform over time [via generations] into multi-cellular and eventually into the current complex lifeforms we observe today. Fossils and sheer speculation is not going to do it. Observations of small changes aren't either.
Oh, and please spare us the refrain that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. It's a dead cert requirement for those who do not have a god that created life. So get real and face the music - no abiogenesis, no life and hence no evolution.
FredJose
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
Every creature alive today is equally evolved we all have common ancestors. You and I are both related to a snake for example.
We are both related to frogs and frogs are also related to snakes.
......
Yes we are also related to chimpanzees and monkeys as are birds and dogs - through common ancestors.

How do you KNOW that you have an ancestor in common with snakes or monkeys? You DON'T!!! This is sheer speculation on the part of those who draw up cladograms and then put in ghost ancestors. These have not been observed or verified. You just can't get them!!!!
You assertions are pure fact-free.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
A typical irrelevant accommodationist piece, who doesn't see its own conflict between pointing out that creationism is erroneous and the erroneous idea that religion and science isn't in conflict. One doesn't know anything, the other knows it stuff.

Evolution is an entirely natural process, with no room for magic agents. The reference to the catholic sect current leader misses that its sect leaders already 1960 claimed that its magic agents hade 'created' a single human breeder pair. Eugenio Pacelli said in his text "Human generis" that they *must* believe that humans have a magic "soul" and that all humans derive from a mythological single breeder pair. [ https://en.wikipe...Pius_XII ]

The sect magic was of course shown erroneous by those empirical claims.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
[ctd]

The 2011 Neanderthal sequencing showed that the human bottleneck was > 10 k effective individuals. And the 2012 LHC results showed a standard Higgs which is enough to complete the standard model of everyday physics to know that the body/brain is entirely electrochemical in function, nothing magical can know the state of synapses by a margin of at least ~ 1,000. (Today the factor is more likely 10,000, since synapses looks to be of different sizes that add function.)

Here is Angier on some scientists take on religion:

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
[ctd]

"No, most scientists are not interested in taking on any of the mighty cornerstones of Christianity. They complain about irrational thinking, they despise creationist "science," they roll their eyes over America's infatuation with astrology, telekinesis, spoon bending, reincarnation, and UFOs, but toward the bulk of the magic acts that have won the imprimatur of inclusion in the Bible, they are tolerant, respectful, big of tent. Indeed, many are quick to point out that the Catholic Church has endorsed the theory of evolution and that it sees no conflict between a belief in God and the divinity of Jesus and the notion of evolution by natural selection. If the pope is buying it, the reason for most Americans' resistance to evolution must have less to do with religion than with a lousy advertising campaign.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
[ctd]

So, on the issue of mainstream monotheistic religions and the irrationality behind many of religion's core tenets, scientists often set aside their skewers, their snark, and their impatient demand for proof, and instead don the calming cardigan of a a kiddie-show host on public television."

[ http://edge.org/c...-problem ]

Science is not only for kids.

Science has now showed from experiments that the catholic magic pantheon doesn't exist, and that accommodationism is as erroneous.* How is that for a fact!

* If not 70 years of attempts in US has shown its futility already...
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
@viko: If the science is a "waste of time" for you, you shouldn't start to spout inanities about it. If people don't know you, they can think you are serious...

@FJ: There are no 'pro-evolutionists' but most people the world over accept science. It doesn't have to be substantiated as such, especially since evolution is the best tested science we have, only referred to: https://en.wikipe...volution .

For the specifics: Emergence of life is not a process that can test evolution, the latter is about changes in populations. (Read the article!) If you are actually interested in emergence of life and why we know life emerged out of Hadean geology, I posted a comment on the Conversation.

We observe our ancestry the same way as in other cases, fossils and genes. Your assertion that the science is fact-free is of course fact-free (erroneous), see the link or better: attend a school class on biology 101.
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2016
@Dr_GS_Hurd

After you believe in the theory of evolution, it could be difficult for you to explain me the working principle of the evolutionary process. Can you do it with your oun words here without giving me waste time links?


Apparently you prefer ignorance. I taught for nearly 40 years. I see no reason to waste my time with such a poor, lazy student.

There are excellent on-line resources. One of the best is the UC Berkeley "Understanding Evolution."
http://evolution....home.php
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2016
So I dare any of the pro-evolutionists to substantiate their evolutionary FACTs by providing us with concrete, testable, observable and verifiable evidence that firstly life can arise from dead materials alone and then secondly that a single cellular organism can transform over time [via generations] into multi-cellular and eventually into the current complex lifeforms we observe today.


OHHHH

I double dare you to show us a magical creation of anything. And to be consistent, you much show us dead people being resurrected.

lol
FredJose
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
And to be consistent, you much show us dead people being resurrected.

Well, well, well. You certainly didn't think this one through, did you? The real, observable and repeatable everyday events are that once someone or something dies, they/it NEVER comes back to life again, all by itself.
So we have approximately 6000 years of documented concrete evidence that that which is DEAD never comes to life all by itself.

Yet, here we have evolutionists and humanists make the materialistic claim that somehow, somewhere in the distant, mythological past, life miraculously sprang up from DEAD materials all by itself.

Just who are you going to believe in this respect? The real, hard, observable and repeatable evidence in daily life or the just-so stories made up by those who do not want to believe in a creator?
Use your own common sense.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
Hehehe...let us all remember, though, that most of the people who deny or attempt to refute Evolution Theory either do not care about evidence or simply can't be bothered to find out what has been discovered.

Dar_Sloar, there's plenty of "evidence". One can however, interpret the evidence in one's own favour or against the opposition, depending on one's world view.
Take for example the fact that red-blood cells and other organic soft tissue is discovered in "million year old fossils" on an almost regular basis these days. The evolutionists prefer to believe - without any substance - that such tissue can be preserved for millions of years, in total contradiction of real-life tests that shows it can only last for a max 100k years under the most favourable conditions because of thermal and other degradation. So instead of questioning the millions of years they re-interpret the evidence to suit themselves. Never mind the science or TRUTH. Only their BELIEF matters.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
Evolution is an entirely natural process, with no room for magic agents

Larsson, you must believe in fairies then. How else are you going to explain the miraculous amounts of information required to select and gather the right building materials, the knowledge required to transform the materials into the requisite shapes for the requisite functions that the newly formed members need to perform. THen, just where does the programming come from that actually makes that new member perform in an integrated way with the existing members?

You truly have to believe that the humble IBM PC of 1982 with 640K RAM, green character screen, keyboard and no mouse was able to somehow figure out how to network, how to create fibre cable, how to interface and how to design better RAM and high res screens plus the sw to drive it - all by accident. That is the kind of miracles you are requiring from your beloved evolution. Please - common sense is needed.
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
So we have approximately 6000 years of documented concrete evidence that that which is DEAD never comes to life all by itself.


"Common sense" is so very rare.

The ultimate conclusion that life was natural really began with

Wöhler, F.
1828 "ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA"
Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig

He showed that a supposedly "live" molecule could be produced by purely physical mechanisms. Over a century later, Stanley Miller's famous experiment proved that amino acids readily formed under natural conditions;

Miller, Stanley L.,
1953 "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" Science vol. 117:528-529

More recent advances are reviewed by;

Deamer, David W.
2011 "First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began" University of California Press

The short version is that there are no known barriers to the natural origin of life.
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
Take for example the fact that red-blood cells and other organic soft tissue is discovered in "million year old fossils" on an almost regular basis these days.


Poor Mary Schweitzer. She is a Christian, and is daily lied about by creationists.

In fact, the dinosaur "soft tissues" are rarely found, even in fossils that eventually have some microscopically preserved traces. Then there is the fact that these "soft tissues" need weeks of chemical treatment to be reconstituted. Then, the fact is that the reconstituted "soft tissues" are massively cross-linked polypeptides. They are more like plastic than any living tissue.

But facts do not matter to creationists. Otherwise there would be no creationists.

I recommend an old article of mine,
Dino-blood and the Young Earth
http://www.talkor...ood.html

10 years old, and nothing much new to add.
freeiam
not rated yet Feb 18, 2016
I could be mistaken Paula Kover, but this could easily be written by a religious creationists.

Some serious mistakes on your part:
- religion and evolution have nothing in common (except if you look at the evolution of religion, which is a part of why 'religion is an explained phenomenon'.)
- evolution is tightly coupled to the origin of life, it's for one the way we can get to it.
- could go on, I don't know what 'university' you stay at but maybe your in the first year ...
Drjsa_oba
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2016
Sorry Viko and FredJose I have been out.

Your claims and strident like comments about "show me the evidence for evolution" are not recognised because every bit of evidence you are shown does not seem to register in your brains.

If you believe in God and souls then that means you believe in ghosts and demons and angels etc.

By the way the old pantheons seem to me to be little different from the "one god" plus all these other lesser gods that you have.

You Christians are still worshiping the lesser gods just like in the old religions that had many gods. People are praying to saints and angels just like in the old days they worshiped gods of this and that.
Drjsa_oba
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2016
What really gets me is that God created these angels that have all these magical powers then later on he creates man that has no magical powers and has to pray to god to make miracles etc.

And some how this weak puny magic-less creature is more favoured by God than the angels that have magic powers and live forever. Just does not make logical sense.

And you worry that evolution seems hard yet is going on all the time around you. Open your eyes.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
The genesis story (actually the two of them) partly agree with evolution. Such agreement is hard to find in any other religion, (but don't ask me to really back this up) except of course related earlier religions from the Middle East. From this I conclude that the genesis story is evolution version 0.1.
Is there an incompatibility between religion and evolution? Not if the religious person sticks to the facts and adjusts his religious beliefs accordingly.
Drjsa_oba
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2016
Misconception - evolution has a purpose or direction.

Evolution is change over time. Take the English language for example - it evolves over time.

Sometimes words are added or removed and sometimes words change meaning or spelling. This is evolution at work. The language still functions and everybody locally still understands each other enough to get by. The language evolves differently in different locations and if they stayed isolated long enough they would have enough differences that it could be a different language.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016

You Christians are still worshiping the lesser gods just like in the old religions that had many gods. People are praying to saints and angels just like in the old days they worshiped gods of this and that.

I am an atheist but I think this holds for catholics, not for protestants. On the other hand the trinity narrative, to which most protestants also subscribe, is pure polytheism. Another form of polytheism is the belief in Satan and in evil spirits common to protestants and islam believers (there may be forms of islam that I don't know enough about so I plead ignorance). Thus the Abrahamistic religions are polytheism in origin and in modern practice, or rather they aim but fail to be monotheistic.
Only science is true to the concept that there is only one origin, nature. In that sense science originates from the same concepts that some of the ancients wrote down in their bible, koran, clay tablets and hieroglyphs.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2016
cont.
The old testament and the Mesopotamic clay tablets are authentic sources revealing the thoughts of our far ancestors. These texts to me hold the same status as the ancient Greek sources, such as Homer and Hesiodus. They picture among others the intellectual origins of modern science. So are so called religious texts incompatible with science? No but those who fail to see them for what they really are who are incompatible with science.
Drjsa_oba
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2016
The old god of the underworld evolves into Satan. So even the gods have to put up with evolution.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
Religion is incompatible with evolution. The Bible says humans came from Adam and Eve, and that is wrong. The bible says God made the wild animals according to their kinds and that is wrong. The "inerrant word of God" is wrong. That makes evolution incompatible with the Christian religion.


Quite simply: The man who first wrote down the (Babylonian, by the way) creation story was a bronze aged man who had no knowledge of reality. So he wrote a fanciful tale to keep the people's interest.
muggins
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
I'd say the most common misunderstanding is that evolution through natural selection is random, it is not random but a selection process of the most fit species. The only part that is random is the mutations that occur; organisms with mutations that result in negative changes are less likely to breed or multiply and thus the genes are less likely to be selected for future generations and vice versa.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
I am an atheist ....Only science is true to the concept that there is only one origin, nature. .
Here we have a clear contradiction in terms. Firstly if you´re an atheist then there is no God or gods. Hence there is of necessity the need for life to have arrived spontaneously from DEAD materials all by itself. That is what it means when there is no God or gods. In essence the part of the idea of a god is that he/she/it is the provider of life as we know it.
Secondly, as I have already shown above, we have had about 6000 years of the confirmed, repeated, fully observable FACT that once something dies it does NOT come back to life again all by itself. If you have ANY contradiction for these observations then please bring it to us so we can examine it fully.
What this means is that the atheist has to believe in some kind of miracle that happened in pre-historic time that is undocumented unobserved and unconfirmed. In short, the atheist has to have faith, i.e. has a religion.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
@orba
Your claims and strident like comments about "show me the evidence for evolution" are not recognised because every bit of evidence you are shown does not seem to register in your brains.

Your interpretation of the evidence is what I do not agree with. You start off treating the evidence with the believe that Darwinian evolution is true and interpret it accordingly. So please explain away the evidence that clearly shows that life cannot arise from DEAD materials all by itself. We have about 6000 years of actual, true, recorded, verified, repeated evidence that once something dies it stays DEAD. Hence we can make the firm scientific conclusion that nothing can spontaneously burst into life from DEAD materials all by itself whatsoever. Please provide the evidence that shows otherwise, then we can begin to talk about Darwinian evolution. Unless and until you can show abiogenesis is true, your evolution is DEAD in the ground with nowhere to start.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
@hurd
Over a century later, Stanley Miller's famous experiment proved that amino acids readily formed under natural conditions;
Miller´s experiment shows no such thing. Miller had to insert a TRAP into his apparatus to prevent the desired products from being mixed with the original material, otherwise the desired products would have been destroyed again.
there are no known barriers to the natural origin of life.

Perhaps you´d like to speak to current PHDs frantically looking for a solution to the chirality problem, the phosphorus sugar base issue, the protein folding problems, the cell membrane port issues, the need to have a decoder for the DNA code when it itself lives in the DNA, the need for ATP synthase as energy supply, the miraculous transport mechanisms inside the cell itself and lastly, the mechanism to start it all off in the correct order, magnitude and direction.
You also have to discard the 6000 years of observed FACTs: Once dead, always DEAD.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2016
"Once dead, always DEAD."
----------------------------------

Exactly!

No Heaven or Hell. No"afterlife", unless you can prove it.
animah
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
6000 years of (...) evidence that once something dies it stays DEAD

That is demonstrably false. The border between dead and alive has blurred considerably as our understanding of micro-organisms improves and we realise the huge ecosystem that thrives exactly in that gray area. See for example:

http://www.scient...ve-2004/

Even macro-organisms can very much challenge the definition of dead e.g.:

http://www.eartht...haw-live

"tardigrade can survive in a dehydrated state for up to five years"
https://en.wikipe...rdigrade

Mind you this "once dead always dead" meme is irrelevant to the replication that kick-started evolution. It's not like amino-acids are supposed to resurrect like Jesus LOL.
animah
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
One more thing:
miraculous transport mechanisms

The words "miraculous" and "mechanism" are mutually exclusive by definition.

And this beauty - revived after 120,000 years:
https://www.newsc...nWBZA_8s
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Secondly, as I have already shown above,


Actually, you have "shown" nothing. You make unsupported assertions and imagine your personal opinion is "proof." Your ego exceeds your ability.

the atheist has to believe in some kind of miracle that happened in pre-historic time that is undocumented unobserved and unconfirmed. In short, the atheist has to have faith, i.e. has a religion.


Also unsupported assertion coupled with ignorance.

While "prehistoric" does mean without a written account- literally undocumented- science is not limited to documents. Today we solve crimes without a written confession. In fact we have learned to doubt voluntary confessions without physical corroboration.

Secondly, the origin of life on Earth is not essential to the truth of evolutionary biology.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Thirdly, the physical facts of the origin of life on Earth are at least identified temporally. We know that life's physical evidence appeared at least 3.8 billion years ago;

Manfred Schidlowski, Peter W. U. Appel, Rudolf Eichmann and Christian E. Junge
1979 "Carbon isotope geochemistry of the 3.7 × 10^9-yr-old Isua sediments, West Greenland: implications for the Archaean carbon and oxygen cycles" Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43, 189-199

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2004 "U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244

CARO, GUILLAUME, BERNARD BOURDON, JEAN-LOUIS BIRCK & STEPHEN MOORBATH
2003 "146Sm–142Nd evidence from Isua metamorphosed sediments for early differentiation of the Earth's mantle" Nature 423, 428 - 432

Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Miller´s experiment shows no such thing (easy production of amino acids, gh).


Miller used water as a collection material that represented the primitive oceans. However, similar results were obtained even from frozen suspensions;

Miyakawa S, Cleaves HJ, Miller SL.
2002 "The cold origin of life: B. Implications based on pyrimidines and purines produced from frozen ammonium cyanide solutions" Orig Life Evol Biosph 32(3):209-18

GM MUÑOZ CARO, UJ MEIERHENRICH, WA SCHUTTE, B BARBIER, A ARCONES SEGOVIA, H ROSENBAUER, WHP THIEMANN, A BRACK & JM GREENBERG
2002 "Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues" Nature 416, 403 - 406

Attwater, J., Wochner, A., & Holliger, P.
2013 "In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity" Nature chemistry, 5(12), 1011-1018.
Dr_GS_Hurd
3 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
@hurd

there are no known barriers to the natural origin of life.


Perhaps you´d like to speak to current PHDs frantically looking for a solution to the chirality problem, the phosphorus sugar base issue, the protein folding problems, the cell membrane port issues, the need to have a decoder for the DNA code when it itself lives in the DNA, the need for ATP synthase as energy supply, the miraculous transport mechanisms inside the cell itself and lastly, the mechanism to start it all off in the correct order, magnitude and direction.
You also have to discard the 6000 years of observed FACTs: Once dead, always DEAD.


You have not made a single true statement.

The overly restrictive 1000 character limit means I'll need to make several posts.

I think you made 7 false statements, +/- 2.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016

Quite simply:

This phrase is always followed by some completely wrong statement.
The man who first wrote down the (Babylonian, by the way) creation story was a bronze aged man who had no knowledge of reality.

That is the dumbest description of bronze age people I have ever heard. They were technologists, scientists and artists of their own time.
So he wrote a fanciful tale to keep the people's interest.

You have no understanding of ancient texts whatsoever.
Dr_GS_Hurd
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
The 1000 character limit makes giving actual citations to real publications nearly impossible.

I have deleted the phys dot org website.

Adios.
FredJose
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
Goodbye Hurd, I pity you because you´ve bought into the lie of dead materials coming to life all by itself and unfortunately for you, you cannot use plain common sense to see that real life experience, with approximately 6000 years of verification trumps the religious fairy tale of abiogenesis every time.
FredJose
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
Secondly, the origin of life on Earth is not essential to the truth of evolutionary biology.

People seem to always get hung up on this myth.

Fact of the matter is simple, because the requirements for abiogenesis are virtually the same as for Darwinian evolution, namely that information which is abstract and logical in character has to appear out of nowhere from a purely random materialistic origin.
To put it mathematically : Darwinian evolution is true if and only if abiogenesis is true.

If you do not have life, you cannot have biological evolution. So you HAVE to solve the first problem before you can begin to tackle the second. The reason is simple: if you do not know how, when, in what shape or form and where life first arrived on the earth, you are left with rank speculation as to how it progressed from there since you just don;´t know. Period.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
@aminah
"tardigrade can survive in a dehydrated state for up to five years"
https://en.wikipe...rdigrade

So you´ve discovered that it´ś still alive. Well, when it finally dies and you are fully certain it´s dead, then please call us when it suddenly pops back into life again.
You do realize, I hope, that when something dies that all of the correct constituents for life are present right there in that dead organism so the dead organism has a great head start over the dead materials that still has to be assembled into some kind of living thing in the right order, shape, chemical type etc. In the meantime, once the organism is dead, it stays dead. Which means that your ¨first¨ spontaneous life does not even stand a snowball´s chance in hell of getting life off the ground.
Please people use your common sense and discard this idea of abiogenesis. It doesn´t work according to the purest and truest scientific principles we know. It just doesn´t.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
Secondly, the origin of life on Earth is not essential to the truth of evolutionary biology.

Mmmmhhh, on second thoughts, this statement actually makes a lot of sense and is in fact TRUE!!!!
The ¨truth¨ of evolutionary biology is established by those who assert that it´s true. So once they´ve determined that it is true, no one can say anything to the contrary since it has now been established as fact. Anyone who dares to question the veracity of the evolutionary biology is a nutcase and fit only for the loony bin.
I fully understand now.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
@aminah,
Mind you this "once dead always dead" meme is irrelevant to the replication that kick-started evolution.

Just how DID the self-replication start? Can you provide demonstrable evidence that firstly there was and can be such a spontaneous self-replication and that secondly that what follows on from there is what leads to life? No matter how you dice it or slice it, you basically end up with the same conclusion : LIfe arises or has to have arisen from dead materials all by itself with no outside help whatsoever.

Yet, we have seen that there is fully documented, repeated, verified concrete evidence that NOTHING rises from the dead materials all by itself. You just cannot get around that fact, no matter what you say, think or do. It just is that way. I hope it will finally begin to sink in. The observations trumps the sheer speculation. Period.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
The 1000 character limit makes giving actual citations to real publications nearly impossible.

I have deleted the phys dot org website.

Adios.

You should stay. 1000 characters should be enough.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
@FJ
I pity you because

Besides stupid you are arrogant as well.
Just how DID the self-replication start? Can you provide

It is not because no one knows how that it didn't.
This circumstance can also not be used to support a much more profound ignorance, namely your delusion.
Zzzzzzzz
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
Delusions are fragile things... they do not hold up under the light of day, and must be VIGOROUSLY defended...... this defense often takes the form of validation. The different delusionals that have posted here have validated one another's delusions today. No logic or facts that the non-delusional have provided have been involved in the process - logic or facts do not feed the need to validate and defend, and are therefore irrelevant.
animah
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
LIfe arises or has to have arisen from dead materials

You don't even understand the meaning of dead.

For something to be dead, it must have died - been alive prior. Therefore "dead" cannot be the precursor state of life.

A stone is not "dead". The problem is not "from dead to alive" but 1. from inorganic to organic and 2. from organic to living.

1. is easy: Complex organic materials form naturally in abundance in space. They're not "dead". They're not alive either though. But we know they become astonishingly complex.

2. is hard: Yes, there is a lot research, experimentation and hypotheses. But your POV is one stone age book and a lot of hypotheses.

So don't pretend you know how life started. Faith is not knowledge.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
You don't even understand the meaning of dead......But your POV is one stone age book and a lot of hypotheses......So don't pretend you know how life started. Faith is not knowledge.

Are you even aware that these words are more applicable to you than to me? You have FAITH that life sprang up from dead materials all by itself, contrary to about 6000 years of concrete, confirmed, repeatable, visible evidence that once something dies it does not come back to life again all by itself. All you bring to the party is rank speculation by some educated individuals who chose to ignore the blinding evidence at hand.

It doesn´t matter how you split up your hypothesis, it remains completely in-viable. If stone isnt dead then it must be alive. You cannot have both, either one or the other applies. Itś mutually exclusive by the very definition of biological life. You might want to renew your acquaintance with that.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@Phys,
Besides stupid you are arrogant as well.
Thanks for simply confirming once again that when evolutionists run out of logical arguments to defend their slippery slope they resort to insults and downright mudslinging instead.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@gkam
"Once dead, always DEAD."
----------------------------------
Exactly!
No Heaven or Hell. No"afterlife", unless you can prove it.

Well, the logic surely follows: If life cannot spring up from DEAD materials all by itself, then the LOGICAL conclusion MUST be that someone created it.
Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle have conslusively shown via mathematical analysis that the probability of life arising from DEAD materials all by itself is so small as to be impossible. Hence Wickramasinghe is a firm believer in panspermia - he realizes and trusts what the mathematical analysis delivers - so he knows life has to have arrived from OUTSIDE of earth itself in some way.
In other words, there must be some GOD or gods who created life and who is himself eternal for obvious reasons. So if that GOD could create life in the first instance, then it follows that the GOD is able to recreate it at any time he pleases.
Hence, I trust the eyewitness accounts of the bible.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@DsjaOrba

And you worry that evolution seems hard yet is going on all the time around you. Open your eyes.

Are you sure that Darwinian evolution is indeed happening today? Please point out those pertinent examples whereby one kind of creature gets transformed into another via step by step processes.
Take for instance the story of dinosaurs turning into birds - just how did the knowledge/information to create feathers and wing bones get created within the existing structures inside the dinosaur. Those wings comprise completely different materials, shapes and functions for which information is required. Information to obtain the right materials, tools to grow the shapes and programming to incorporate the new shapes and functionality into the existing ones. It is the same as imagining an 1982 IBM PC somehow acquiring a mouse, graphical interface and Ethernet communications all by itself with no outside intelligence and materials involved. This is what your evolution needs.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@The Author:
It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Contrary to what many people think, there is also little conflict between evolution and most common religions

It is important to point out that Darwin entitled his magnum opus ¨The ORIGIN of species¨ yet never provided the ultimate origin of the first life. So unless and until someone can clarify that most important part, Darwinian evolution is dead in the ground. If you cannot explain how life arose on earth you can only speculate as to whether or not it actually proceeded according to the Darwinian paradigm because you are not in possession of the documented knowledge of what shape, size and capability the first life had on it´s arrival.
Right now the only evidence we have is that life is in a state it mostly was except that some speciation occurs within families. Even the ¨Cambrian explosion¨ testifies to that.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
contrary to about 6000 years of concrete, confirmed, repeatable, visible evidence that once something dies it does not come back to life again all by itself.

Only by the help of Professor Frankenstein can this be achieved.
The proof is here:
https://www.youtu...2MnVxe-c
Of course that is not what animah is trying to tell you.
This sabotage of an argument is called a strawman.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@TheAuthor
...litlle conflict between evolution and most common religions...

The Judaeo - Christian religion begs to differ. One needs to view things from a complete picture:
The theory of evolution of everything includes how the universe arose and developed (¨evolved¨) into what we see all by itself. Cosmologists like to use the word ¨Evolution¨ in their titles to signify exactly that.
The bible says clearly that earth was created first along with the heavens. The sun is only created on day 4, along with the stars and galaxies. This is a downright contradiction of the general theory of evolution. The earth is NOT a product of the sun, nor is life as found in plants since they precede the existence of the sun. Furthermore, the earth was born out of water, not bombarded by comets etc. to supply it, in contrast to the requirements from the general theory of evolution of everything.
So, let´s bury the myth that the Christian religion is compatible with evolution.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@TheAuthor
...litlle conflict between evolution and most common religions...

The Christian view is that everything was created in 6 days as delineated in Genesis 1. Evolution says things took billions of years to develop. Those Christians who cling to evolution have a hard time to explain where in the bible it states that God used billions of years to accomplish his creation. In fact Exodus 20:8-11 clearly totally obliterates any such notion because the same days of work that apply to man is precisely the same that God used. The context is clear.
So, let´s bury the myth that the Christian religion is compatible with evolution. It definitely is not and the only way it can be compatible with evolution is if t is one and the same thing, which it clearly is not.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
It is important to point out that Darwin entitled his magnum opus ¨The ORIGIN of species¨ yet never provided the ultimate origin of the first life. '

He would have called it "The Origin of Life" instead.
So unless and until someone can clarify that most important part, Darwinian evolution is dead in the ground.

And there is a non-sequitur.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
The Judaeo - Christian religion begs to differ.

You confuse yourself with the pope and Jesus at the same time.
Remember, you are a nobody.
FredJose
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2016
Remember, you are a nobody.

Thanks for the confirmation once again.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2016

The Christian view is that everything was created in 6 days as delineated in Genesis 1.

You are speaking only for the radicalised christian extremists.
The catholic schools I know teach evolution.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
@Phys1

He would have called it "The Origin of Life" instead.

Thanks for the obvious meaningless restatement. What was the origin of the first species of life?
Or do you not classify that first life as a species by itself?
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016

You are speaking only for the radicalised christian extremists

That then simply includes all those who believed the Torah and other scriptures as well as those early Christians up to the time when some mislguided souls started touting the evolutionary paradigm.
By the way, Jesus plainly believed and propagated scripture and hence he himself is a radical. In fact he is so radical that he claims that no one can come to God except through him. Jesus is a radical who clearly knows that evolution is a myth.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
@Phys1

He would have called it "The Origin of Life" instead.

Thanks for the obvious meaningless restatement. What was the origin of the first species of life?
Or do you not classify that first life as a species by itself?

Whatever the origin of life is does not affect the proven fact that it evolves.
Hence your argument is a non-sequitur.
If you want to prove something, stay away from logical fallacies.
If you want to keep fooling yourself, by all means, non-sequiturs do the job.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
The catholic schools I know teach evolution.

I believe you. They can teach it all they want and in fact it is probably a good thing so that their students can be informed about the mythical origins of life.
The only problem would be if their teachers also claimed that Darwinian evolution is true. In that case they would be contradicting their belief in a God who created everything since special creation and Darwinian evolution is simply at odds with each other and the latter is clearly FALSE. It simply doesn´t stand up to rigorous scientific examination and is simply swallowed hook line and sinker by those who are intimidated by the threat of excommunication
from the religion of evolution.
FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2016
Whatever the origin of life is does not affect the proven fact that it evolves.
Hence your argument is a non-sequitur.

If you don´t know with what shape, size and with what capacity life arrived here, how can you show that it ¨evolved¨????
If you don´t know the initial conditions, your system cannot be bound or completely described. Youĺl forever be missing out on some vital component. Period.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2016
@FJ
Everyone has a mouthfoamed uncle or a cousin who carries holy water and pronounces blessings.
Are you such a wannabe prophet as well? I pity your relatives.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2016

The only problem would be if their teachers also claimed that Darwinian evolution is true.

They teach it for what it is: a valid scientific theory confirmed by observation and experiment. I live in a catholic country and this is what the catholic schools teach. The whole country.
What I am try to get into your brains is that you are a radical. Mainstream has moved on since 2000 years.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
the proven fact that it evolves.

Please supply the proof of Darwinian evolution. Deliver concrete examples whereby one kind of creature turned into another kind. Please leave the speciation out of it and focus on the genus.
Don´t mention anti-biotic resistance since that is not Darwinian evolution but adaptation through loss of function that already existed. Did you know that antibiotic resistance actually was found to exist in specimens that had NEVER been exposed to antibiotics? Search phys.org it´s in here.

Evolutionists can only CLAIM it is true but cannot show that it is the case. The emperor has no clothes.
FredJose
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
confirmed by observation and experiment.

REally??please supply documented, verified evidence that Darwinian evolution has been observed.
Mainstream has moved on since 2000 years.

They have simply lost the plot and followed those who treat them as idiots if they dare to show dissent. The word of God is not swayed by numbers or new ideas. It remains the same, constant and trustworthy and does not depend on the whims of mankind.

I have to go. Have fun Phys.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
Whatever the origin of life is does not affect the proven fact that it evolves.
Hence your argument is a non-sequitur.

If you don´t know with what shape, size and with what capacity life arrived here, how can you show that it ¨evolved¨????

To be able to do that it is not required to know how life began.
I wonder why you keep saying that. Did someone brainwash you perhaps.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2016
REally??please supply documented, verified evidence that Darwinian evolution has been observed.

So you confess your total ignorance on the subject.
Now repent by going back to school or college.
Do not choose a madrassa this time.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
@FJ
Genesis states:
"And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so."
Here's my question. Do you actually believe that there are "waters ... above the expanse" ?
Where does the rain come from, FJ?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016

Please supply the proof of Darwinian evolution. Deliver concrete examples whereby one kind of creature turned into another kind.

Please supply proof of divine creation - first. Just ONE concrete example whereby one "creature" created all the rest.
Please leave the speciation out of it and focus on the genus.

Speciation is the PROCESS of evolution.
Evolutionists can only CLAIM it is true but cannot show that it is the case. The emperor has no clothes.

From an evidentiary standpoint, it sure is looking like it's true - and showing it with every new discovery.
YOUR "emperor" never had any.
Besides, naked is fun... especially naked truths...:-
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
REally??please supply documented, verified evidence that Darwinian evolution has been observed.

Your birth certificate.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.