Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Matthew

    correction for number 7

    the human influence on natural selection is called “artificial selection”
    natural selection happens… you guessed it naturally, in the wild
    artificial selection is the human influence on evolving (or bringing out traits) of an organism (look at the dog)
    we’ve made dogs evolve to do different things such as guard, dig, etc.

    sorry for any typos

  • rr15

    the last guy on the human evolutionary chart looks like chuck norris!!!!!!!!!!! lol

    • MLK

      Nope, u r wrong >:-(
      Chuck is our future after we evolve more =D

  • Ryan

    Nice List! I wonder if God evolves because the Catholic Church certainly hasn’t.

  • mila

    In case of Darwin’s Tubercle to compare monkey’s pointed ear with the human’s Darwin’s Tubercle is absolutely bad taste. If your knowledge in this topic is limited why bother? To compare the intelligence of humans with Darwin’s Tubercle to that of monkey will not change the fact that those people are more intelligent than others. It is OK not to belong to this group, nothing will happen to you.

    • 4realsies

      I dont understand what you’re saying, but the shape of someones ear has nothing to do with their intelligence.

  • MLK

    after reding the comments (not by the article) i felt inspired to write this:

    Since i was on elementary school, i learned about religion and about 5th year then stated teaching us about evolution. Our religion teacher teached us that Earth and all its life was created in 6 days (God rested on the 7th), and our science teacher told us that evolution took many, but many millenias to take form the life we know now adn surrounds us. At first i was confused but then my mother, a catholic christian as myself, told me something really important that make EVERYTHING make sense: “God doesn’t percieve the time as we do”. I thank God for giving me such a wise mother ^w^

    If don’t believe me then remember this: Adam, according to the Bible, had lived more than 900 years. Can this really be true? the bible says so, but remember kids: which kind of calendar did they use on that time? was the one we use today (Gregorian)? the answer is simple, a rotund NO

    Thats why i hate so much the [Atheist-Evolutionist] and the [Christians Fundamentalist-Creationist] rant about their point-view of things. First, i think [Atheist-Evolutionist] are good persons but regreattably, the mayority of their numbers are filled with dumbasses-ignorant people that use Evolution as a moral-shield for their Atheism, they decided to not believe in God because they thought it was cool/anti-system/etc. Completly different from REAL-Atheist that choosed to put their faith on science than religion, since they think that believing on a non-scientific-proven god(s) its a waste of their valued time and they should focus more on their lives.
    Meanwhile [Christians Fundamentalist-Creationist]… i simply don’t know what to think about them… first of all Christians Fundamentalist take the Bible too literally, reaching the extremes. Please, remember that the bible is a compilation of stories, stories that tell us how we SHOULD live our lives, not MUST (It’s not a rule book). And since they didn’t have any kind of fact-proof shield to protect their believings, they created Creationism. Yes, i’m awared or the redundancy xD which is a bulload of crappy try-outs to tackle Evolution, since in their little minds they think it attacks their beliefs. But really, its very funny how they try to do it, goes from a little chuckle to a… how would you call it? a huge ROTFLOL!? <<<no, really ^o^ check some youtube videos for a good laugh

    I'm from South America-Peru-Tacna, i'm 28 years old, and i hope my point gets taken seriously (yes, even with the emoticon thingies), and i don't want any evolution/creation RANDOM crap-rant about it ^_^

    Thanks m(_ _)m

    PS: i believe in evolution, but i think the spark of life had to come from somewhere, and i beilive it was God who did that spark, then everything unfolded just as he had planned.
    PS2: sorry for any bad/misspelling, my native language is spanish but i just hope my english is good enough for all of you ^w^

    • Theresa Johnson

      I always tried to make compromises in order to fit what I was taught in science class with what I was taught about the Bible. The problem is that they don’t fit together! This top 10 list is pathetic because many of these “proofs” have been debunked. The process used to explain these “facts” is not evolution, but adaptation. Darwin’s finches are not evolutionary creatures, they are just various types of finches, similar to the different breeds of dogs, cats, etc, that simply use a different combination of genetic information that is already present. Do you say that a family of brown haired people having a single child with a different hair color is proof of evolution? No, of course not!

      There are many, many questions that arise when trying to fit evolution into creation that cannot be answered, or do not make sense. The theory of longer periods of time for each day does not fit into the creation account. If each day were really a million years (because God is outside of time and space) how does that fit the fact that half of the earth was in darkness for 1/2 million years, and the other half in constant light for 1/2 million years? It does not work because life on the cold, dark side would die within only a few years!

      If you try to answer the question of Adam living to 900 years, as being a product of a different calendar, then you throw out the time frame set by Genesis of a 24 hour day (evening and morning), the 7 day week, and the mention of God giving us the stars and seasons to keep track of time and events! If you try to take Adams age and put it into a scale that would be equivalent to our modern ages, then you could say that every 10 years was really a year. By that calculation, Adam would have been 90 years old when he died. This would make him 13 when he had children, but what about all of the things that happened before he had children? He named every animal on the earth on the day he was created. Did he do this as a newborn baby, only minutes old?

      You then have the problem of fitting that age theory into the other people mentioned in the Bible about how old they were when they had kids. That 10:1 time scale would mean that some people had children when they were only 6 or 7 years old! It doesn’t fit. Every time you try to put a compromise into Genesis, you also have to apply it to the rest of the Bible. If each day were a million years or a thousand years, or if each decade were really only a year, that would seriously put a kink into the other stories of the Bible. How long was Jonah in the belly of the whale? How long was Jesus Dead before rising again, and how long did he stay before ascending again? How long did the flood last?

      To try and change the book of Genesis in order to fit in man’s understanding of the world is to undermine everything that is based on the book of Genesis. It creates a ripple effect through the rest of the Bible, and makes believing some of the most essential truths subject to question. It is my belief that allowing yourself to question the Word of God, means to weaken the foundations of your belief and understanding.

      I find it intriguing that scientists reject the possibility of a worldwide flood, but the very same evidence they use to reject creation can actually fully support the idea of creation and a global flood as recorded in Genesis! I find it interesting that recent and observable events, like the eruption of Mount St. Helen’s, shows a direct result of a catastrophic event creating land features similar to the Grand Canyon in a matter of days! If such an event can wipe out life, destroy plants, create a strata layer of rich peat and fossil layers, and form a canyon 40 times smaller that the Grand Canyon in only a few days, what would happen if the event was global and lasted just over a year?

      Another question not answered refers to the LACK of fossil evidence that says man has been around for nearly 4 million years. How fast has our world population increased since the beginning of recorded history? Even before the Industrial Revolution, we were increasing our numbers rapidly. We have reached numbers in the billions (even after accounting for high death tolls from nature and human activity) in only 6,000 years! What does that mean for people who believe we have been here for MILLIONS of years? Where are the TRILLIONS of skeletal remains in the fossil record from humans or humanoid creatures occupying the earth for 4 million years before recorded history? THERE IS NONE!

  • Braedan Shigley

    I love the *purposeful* omission of any explanation for: a) how life could have arisen in the first place, and how this mindless natural mechanism could have arisen and diversified, (while completely beating the statistical improbability of the random generation of amino acid; assuming its possible in the first place) whilst also driving this evolutionary process. Until I have substantial evidence supporting the magical popping into existence of such a process, I reject the a priori presupposition of such a claim, but also the “infallible” framework through which it’s taught.

    • 4realsies

      How rocks fall and the origin of rocks are two different subjects, so too are the origins of life (abiogenesis) and how life changes(evolution).

      • Braedan Shigley

        That implies you have an explanation for abiogenesis (in order for the analogy to be a good one). I’m all ears. Also, as clearly stated in my first comment, explain the driving mechanism for such a process. Also, its apparent contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is clearly ignored. And don’t give me the classic example of: entropy can decrease if net entropy increases, because in order for “pockets of entropy decrease” to exist, it obviously requires (this seems to be a recurring theme) a driving mechanism.

        • 4realsies

          weird, I had a nice video link there but it didnt make it though, but thats ok since I already posted it here anyway, do a ctrl f for How Abiogenesis Works

          now if you want to talk about thermodynamics, the earth isnt a closed system, the suns decay is the missing piece of the equation.

  • Well

    I believed in evolution until I started to think about how unlogical the Whole idea is..

    We can today divide all living species into groups like amphibians, animals and insects.. How come that there is not a single “hybrid”? Like an insect on its way to become an animal? A species would be “uncategorizable” for millions of years when on the stage between insects and animal. Yet we dont know of a single one…

    The anathomy of humans and pigs is extremely alike! We should really have high fived the pigs while saying “well evolutionized pigs. You guys are keeping up well, arent you?”:P The same With all the other animals since we are pretty much alike all over…

    All humans are extremely alike physically and intellectually even though we “evolutionized” 6000 miles apart from each other for the past 1 000 000 years, depending on when the continents draft apart to a point were we couldnt swim from continent to continent…a

    • MLK

      a typical Fundamentalist?
      Ok, here goes: first think in the ocean, but there are no fishies, no plants, only cells. Now, this cells needs to eat something right? well, thats how primitive plants, in this case seaweed, start to evolve. They absorb minerals on the floor & the water, & also absorb the sunrays to process food, in some cases they produce oxygen. Now other cells see that as too much work but they need to eat too, so they decide to eat these “vegetal” cells to consume the food they produce, and now we got “animal” cells, but this need to re-process the food to be of any use. Then some of these “animal” cells think that they should eat other “animal” cells to they can skip the entire re-process, and now we have Hervivorous & Carnivorous.

      About your question of pigs, we got the primal-animal, from these we got pigs & primate, from primates we got apes & primal-humans.

      Font: http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology/human-vs-pig-chimpanzee-dna-328332.html
      …educate yourself

    • 4realsies

      take each of the assertions that you just made and feed them into google to see if they’re true.

      Why wouldn’t the common ancestor have died out? survival of the fittest isnt saying what we determine to be most fit ought to survive, its just acknowledging that what survives is most fit.

      Why wouldnt pigs have been evolving this whole time?

      The ice age only ended like 10,000 years ago, the rising waters from melting glaciers isolated some populations briefly, but people are still people. lactose tolerance is something thats only evolved in the last few thousand years for example.

      • Seekeroftruth

        The Europeans released pigs when they went to America so they could eat pork it didn’t take em long to turn into wild bore.. apparently

  • Thatoneguyuhate

    Einstein believed in God, true, but he did not believe in a personal God, google that. In his own worlds he viewed the Cosmos to be perfect. Meaning as everything came into shape in the universe to be so exact to allow the earth to inhabit life. He viewed the space as a design and saw it fit. Any astronomer would agree that if the orbit of earth was to change a little bit, our life system would fall apart. -there are only two things infinite, the universe and mans stupidity- we are in a blue fish bowl looking into the stars and trying to establish sense so we can grasp intelligence. Knowledge is neverending, due to our belief or dissatisfaction. In the end we as a whole don’t deserve life due to humanitys treachery and arrogance.

    • ohplease

      just ridiculous. and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking we don’t deserve life.

  • lisaandtheword

    My small & useless 3rd eyelid sure does a good job of stopping debris from going behind my eyeball, I’m glad I have it! When I get a speck of something in my eye I can use my finger & it catches it right there usually.

  • bob

    Sorry but evolution has already been proven false by real science and real scientists. There are hundreds are real scientific facts that prove it false. 2nd law of thermodynamics for example. Google scientific proof evolution is a lie and you’ll see. Here’s one for you. Only men can create men. the male sperm is what gives the egg the y. xx is a female xy is a male. Without a man you cannot make a man. All eggs are female until the male sperm adds the y. So how did evolution happen? You can’t have a human without a woman but you can’t make a man without a man. You would need both a man and a woman to continue the species. So are we to believe that both men and women evolved at the same time? I call bs.

    • 4realsies

      > 2nd law of thermodynamics for example.

      No it doesn’t. The earth isn’t a closed system, the decay of the sun fuels our biological processes.

      > So are we to believe that both men and women evolved at the same time?

      Yep, evolution effects populations, its the exact same thing as dog breeding, but on a longer scale. Evolution doesn’t try to explain the origin of life, you can figure out the weather without having to know the origin of weather.

      • Malekit

        i’m no expert but…
        here is something for ur “male/female couldn’t evolve at same time”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

        and plz, don’t mix ur “real science and real scientists” with fake religious propaganda like that biased “Museum of Creationist” crap

  • Billy

    Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.

    • doug

      The chances that you would write exactly what you did is 26 times 26 times 26 times all the letters. But amazingly you did, God must have been involved. Time taken from 1 cell to 2 took a billion years and almost as long from 2 to 4 cells. God wasn’t involved unless you define time as God.

  • 4realsies

    Evolution isn’t trying to get us to anything in particular though, we didn’t come to our 26 letter alphabet by aiming for it either. Its incredibly improbable that we would come to this current configuration, but its guaranteed that we would come to some configuration.

    We can look through a microscope and see it in action, we can compare genomes and see where mutations and viruses have left their mark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

  • Comrades, please educate yourselves. Evolution has been proven as a fact. Not one religion on earth can claim the same. Not one. Those of you who moronically believe in what you cannot possibly prove, stand in the way of those of us trying to move our species further. All while thriving in a global civilization built by the scientific process, not god. Totally discrediting those more educated than you might ever be. Every time you top off your gas tank in your hemi dodge 4×4 on your way to go mudding for the lord, pay a little more notice to that if not for evolution and the great expanse of time that has elapsed, you would NOT have petroleum to fuel your vehicle. The only way for petroleum to even exist is for living things to die, millions of years pass by, while their forms change into the petroleum products you use every day in ignorance. This is a fact that every oil and gas company on the planet understands. Its time for the rest of you to catch up and quit holding the rest of us back.

    • CBomb

      Well yee-haw. Apparently because I believe in God and follow a faith, I am a dopey redneck.

      Atypically, when someone needs to fuel their arguments with insults and rhetoric, it’s because they don’t really know what they’re talking about, so they use these flaws in logic to attempt and make anyone who reads their post feel like a moron if they disagree in anyway.

      I believe in God. I believe in Evolution. I believe that neither is mutually exclusive by those who keep an open mind and accept that we don’t know everything about everything.

      FYI: Not all religious folk go “mudding for the lord” as your asanine statement attests. Good day.

  • Braedan Shigley

    Wow… I haven’t been on this site in four years. I’ve read and reread all of my comments, and while my views have pretty much flipped to the polar opposite, I still take issue with this comment.

    Yes; the scientific method has indeed advanced our species light years beyond a society lacking one. You seem to confuse the creationist stance (in case it wasn’t clear from above, I’m not one) in assuming that they don’t similarly embrace it. Only a very small division of biology and a very small division of physics is at odds with creationist doctrine; the rest both parties can equally utilize in the advancement of our society. I would look to the invention of the MRI for proof of this fact.

    Speaking of fact, I think you may be getting a little overzealous in distinguishing fact from fiction. Everybody knows that every religion can’t give a single god-damn shred of evidence to support their claims of origin. However, what we “know” from a secular perspective still relies on the ex post facto deduction of evidence we have found millions/billions of years afterwards. Philosophically speaking (or rather, according to the theory of knowledge), you couldn’t prove anything to be completely true, even if the truth was standing right next to you. This is because of many underlying assumptions that we make; for example: you and I both exist and we both perceive the world in a similar way. This cannot be proven, and if the most fundamental and ancient observation of our species cannot be proven (i.e. that we exist), it also cannot be proven that anything we observe millions of years afterwards is true.

    That especially long paragraph can be summarized and applied this way: while scientists do their best to piece the evidence together ex post facto, it can’t necessarily be purported as the truth EVEN IF we observed all of it happening. The same thing applies to the Christian zombies that munch on the holy remains of their savior every Sunday.

    Every epistemological belief is created equal. The difference is that the scientists (and us, by extension) use evidence as opposed to a book they can’t even be sure hasn’t been translated into oblivion.

  • Braedan Shigley

    Two years; sorry.

  • Braedan Shigley

    No one claimed that it does.

    What the evidently biased “statistician” won’t tell you is that, according to organic chemistry, certain organizations of organic molecules are more likely than others.

    For example, structural isomers of carbon based organic molecules respond differently to bonding or dissolution than others. Structural isomers of a larger surface area are incredibly easier to dissolve than isomers of a smaller surface area, as explained by the kinetic molecular theory, and therefore the process of chemical natural selection (I think I just coined a new term!) determines which compounds are stable and which aren’t.

    As an extension of this, many creationists in their “intellectual” haughtiness ask scientists to explain how a cell membrane could have spontaneously combusted into existence. The answer is simple. Electromagnetism (the force everyone can agree exists) is a fundamental property of atoms and of the universe. Once stable compounds were created (i.e. phospholipids), electromagnetism literally forced (pun absolutely intended) the cell membrane into its shape. The hydrophilic heads (polar as a result of atomic structure) face outwards and the nonpolar hydrophobic tails face inwards.

    This is a small example of how natural processes drive cell creation. Did this process happen on the first try? Hell no. It took millions and billions of years. And it’s far from impossible.

  • ComeOnNowBraedan

    Braedan. Dude. What the hell are you talking about? I mean I understand what you are trying to say, but I dont. After subtracting your fancy word vomit from the core of your over cooked thesis here, I am left confused to what side you are on. What the heck are you talking about? Are you on a side? Or do you work for some weird internet troll truth squad? What ever the case sir, I take issue with you attempting to out-troll me. So let the truth be known. Let there be some ex post facto light on your subject comrade.

    I am not confused on the creationist stance at all. Seems you are however if you think there is only some small group of the sciences that are at objection to creationist world views. Or vice versa. Like most creationists are not trying to shut down scientific progress at every turn. And that both sides can happily hold hands into the sunset just because the dude that invented the MRI was religious. You cant be serious. Like dude, have you even heard of the creationist museum in Kentucky? Have you seen these people protesting ad nauseam outside the courthouses to oppose same sex marriage?

    Now we turn to your real gem of your unnecessary argument. Like what is true dude? Is being real like even really real? I got stoned just by reading that paragraph. I do get down of some philosophical “do we really exist” stuff, but using this in your argument when (A) allegedly we are on the same team and (B) people are trying to teach creationism to children, is just a waste of our time. Whether we exist in a million different dimensions or not, if a religious nut blew off a nuclear weapon on some part of the earth in the name of jiihad or jesus, both our lives would change forever. Just because we can have a conversation about how we may or may not perceive that in a similar way, people would die horrible deaths. And that is all I need to know for this to be a REAL and important topic. 

    “Every epistemological belief is created equal.” – This last one totally blew my mind. I totally appreciate skepticism. Its wonderful trait to have. But it can be overdone. Are you saying that evolution/science is purely a belief along with creationism? Feel free to correct me if i am wrong in understanding you. If both are simply beliefs you are totally discounting the best game in town for understanding what we perceive in our surroundings and how to thrive in it. Same reason why if you catch a nasty virus you don’t go to the church to be healed.

    Lets wrap up here. You seem like a super intelligent fella, and I have no hate for smart people. However I feel an ache in my head when being argued to by a smart person with bad ideas. More than that, I honestly can’t tell where you place yourself in this war of ideas we are having worldwide. This topic not only effects us but future generations. And with such important stakes at hand, it only seems like you are trying to look like the smartest guy in the room as opposed to offering any real substance other than being so neutral that it hurts my brain.

    What do we know really? Well I don’t know that. What do we know that we don’t know? possibly more than we could ever fathom… but you haven’t taken us any further to finding that out either. Pick a team homie. because whether you think anything is real or not, your thoughts and “beliefs” will affect everyone around you.

  • Braedan Shigley

    First of all, I laughed when I saw your revised name. And then the smile immediately faded from my face when you, instead of first invoking logic or reason, proceeded to call my thesis over-cooked or my word choice “vomit”. Although, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you should consider my word choice desultory; in fact, however, my word choice contributes precise meaning to my sentence.

    No, I am not really on a side. I reside somewhere in the middle between the crazy-ass creationists and the bigoted scientists that proclaim infinite wisdom in the beliefs that (ironically) are weakened by the scientific criteria they define. HOWEVER, I lean far closer to the secular side than the creationist one.

    I’m well aware of the protests and the pseudo-scientific museums they adhere to. Not at your fault, perhaps I was a bit vague in my first response. What I meant to say is that creationists and secular scientists can both agree on the structure of an atom, or on the applications of differential calculus. It is only in evolutionary biology and in physics that secular theories of origin are posited, in order to explain the phenomena specific to that field (which contradict creationist ones). But you’re absolutely correct in saying that creationists themselves pit themselves against the scientific community in all disciplines.

    My opening invocation of philosophy was to define the boundaries of evidence in asserting the truth. Of course I believe that we all exist and that we all perceive the world in a similar way. As does everyone. But you can’t prove it, despite the observational evidence we’ve acquired. If you want a more tangible example of this, I would look to mathematicians asserting that you can never transport yourself from point A from point B, (despite experimental proof), but rather you asymptotically approach point B. Such is the conflict between observational evidence and actual *mathematical* proof. The same applies to scientific models put together after the fact using evidence we’ve found (and I believe in those). I’m not arguing against the secular community, rather, I’m pointing out that at the most basic of levels, secularism and creationism are equal in validity. NOTE: it is only secularism that bases their entire doctrine on evidence. And that’s why I lean to their side.

    Honestly, of all the things you said above, the one that made me think the most was your plea to the posterity. I respect that. I have that same interest. I sincerely hope that you haven’t misunderstood me so far as to attribute me with a neutral party or with (even worse) one that would vote/act against policies advancing our species.

    In summary, I am on your side (and on the side of the betterment of humanity), but I recognize the logical bases from which both sides are built. As a result, I always take any secular theory of origin with a grain of salt. And I never accept a creationist one.

  • 4realsies

    Instead of thinking of it in terms of absolute right wrong, consider looking at it in terms of becoming less wrong:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

  • Braedan Shigley

    That’s an intriguing video.

    Firstly, one can still think of truth in absolute terms (not that your video refutes that).

    Secondly, (and inviting a whole new fun conversation), the relativity to which this writer claims that correctness abides by similarly applies to the degree to which we can conjure evidence.

    Notice, not observational evidence, but evidence. Just to clarify, this entire response is ONLY referring to theories of origin, and not what has happened since then.

    Throughout the entire video, the writer posits relativism of correctness under one assumption: that we can measure the curvature of the Earth or that we can measure the changes in life over billions of years. This is truly an elegant counterpoint to my original suppositions, in that it can be justified quantitatively. Good job.

    However, what about in topics for which we’ll never conjure truly measurable evidence? I’ll provide an example from each end of the spectrum:

    1) Unfortunately, one cannot logically apply the scientific laws gathered within this universe to that which is without it. Therefore, how could you say it is any more or less likely that a God exists outside the universe or that it doesn’t? You can’t, of course.

    2) The mechanism of physics responsible for creating the matter which we observe today inevitably came from a universe outside our own, regardless of a cyclic or a noncyclic model of origin. Therefore, the argument that creationists apply to such a feat (Law of C of M) doesn’t apply, because the possibility of it being true or false is equal.

    In summary, in dealing with that which is observable (directly or otherwise), relativism seems to be a more effective system (as long as it’s based quantitatively). For theories of origin, however, absolutism is unfortunately the only system to employ.

  • 4realsies

    “Firstly, one can still think of truth in absolute terms”

    Sure, there are plenty of things that we can demonstrate to be untrue, but for any statement that we currently hold true, we can still discover new caveats to add to it.

    “what about in topics for which we’ll never conjure truly measurable evidence?”

    We couldn’t have imagined that radio waves existed until we discovered them, perhaps there is still something to discover that will shed light on the subject of origin. Until we make that discovery, the only honest answer we can give is that we don’t know. Sure, there are hypothesis that we are a flatland to some higher dimensional plane of existence, but if we expand our definition of “the universe” to include these extra dimensions, it does nothing to explain where that universe itself came from.

    Its possible that the big bang was more of a big bounce, where black holes just explode when they become too massive, and everything a black hole kicks out comes back eventually. Along similar lines, as we detect further and further into space, we may find something anomalous, that doesn’t fit with the rest of the big bang, which could indicate that we are in a vast ocean of big bangs, in a kind of foam structure- the expansion of two big bangs meet, gravitate to one another, condense into black holes and eventually become massive enough to go big bang all over again. Fascinating stuff, but none of that resolves origin either.

    Then again, do we really need there to have been an origin? Its possible that everything has simply always existed.

    “how could you say it is any more or less likely that a God exists outside the universe or that it doesn’t? You can’t, of course.”

    What type of god, specifically?

  • Braedan Shigley

    Absolutely we can add caveats.

    The example of radio waves differs in that the only barrier we experienced during that time was the ability to measure them. We’re discussing the inability altogether to measure that which is outside the universe (its origin was implicitly outside/separate from the visible universe). It’s possible (but unlikely) that, in the future, we will discover means of solving this problem, but for now, it’s most reasonable to admit that an answer is unavailable. And given our current scientific perspective, that likely won’t change.

    Sure, I suppose we don’t need an origin *theoretically*. But until we have evidence that reaches past a simple invocation of naturalistic observation (Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy), supposing that is akin to supposing we’re all bits in a cosmic supercomputer.

    I use “God” very ambiguously. Certainly not a god that interacts with our universe, but a god merely capable of creating it.

  • Charles Campbell

    I choose creationism over evolution. You can prove the predictions of the scriptures when applied to historical fact with an absolute certainty. Alexander the great was prophecised in the book of Daniel. He read the predictions of Daniel in 332 BC and knew he would be victorious against the Persians. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews stated this. According to the scriptures everthing organic is composed of the soil so of couse the DNA is going to be similar in various lifeforms. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that we did not just happen . This does not help the debate much just an old guy sounding off! If you want to believe in evolution then be my guest!

    • Grant Smith

      If I was personally going to create a planet of mammals, i’d at least have the intelligence to lower the body temperature of human males and have their testicles be on the inside rather than hairly dangling out…

  • Chris

    A lot of one sided info in this article. Always evaluate both sides of the argument before making a decision. Take number 6 for example. This is natural selection and not evolution – the two are often confused. The butterflies didn’t evolve some new genetic information to combat the parasite. Instead some of the males had a mutated gene more resistant and thus became the ones able to reproduce. No new genetic information was created. See the UC Berkely Article – http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/07/12_butterfly.shtml Check out http://www.vettingevolution.com

  • Kevin

    What I’m really wondering is, if evolution is a theory of a mechanism by which life arrived at its current state, and if its a ubiquitous, naturalistic, unguided, random process that occurs everywhere, has this same mechanism ever been isolated and accelerated under controlled conditions to clearly demonstrate its ability to produce major change and complex structures? Because if it is such a common simple mechanism, then it would have to be the simplest thing to accelerate its effects under controlled conditions. What has been achieved for example with micro-organisms with incredible rates of reproduction that can have mutation rates accelerated by controlled radiation? Is the only “evidence” of evolution actually the fact that existing organisms share similarities and can vary within certain observed limits as the above examples show? Because surely this is the phenomena that evolution is trying to explain the origin of, and you can’t use the end result as the proof of the process can you? If that were the case, evolution would be on the same logical basis as creation to my thinking, i.e. that the characteristics of the current living creatures justify the support of a theory of origins, and you don’t need to understand or be able to demonstrate the process. Isn’t this circular reasoning common in both camps? The organisms show these features, and this is our explanation of how those features arose, and we don’t have to demonstrate our process is real, because the features of the organisms make the validity of our theory self evident.