110 Responses

  1. dacournean at |

    Very interesting!

    Reply
  2. Amanda at |

    Very interesting, especially about humans. I always wondered why we get goose bumps. I didn’t know about the Jacobson’s organ or the plantaris muscle, intriguing.

    Reply
  3. Erin at |

    The Peppered Moth should have definitely been on this list.

    It was originally light coloured. Then because of the Industrial Revolution, it turned dark. Now it is turning back to its original light colour.

    Reply
    1. bob at |

      The peppered moth was a hoax. they took dead moths and painted them then glued them to trees and took pictures. This was a huge scandal and the people who did it confessed. The fact that this lie is still taught as proof of evolution shows that there is no proof of evolution and they have to use lies to push their evolution religion on everyone. Just so you know the pictures of the babies of different animals that look alike are also fakes. Still taught in schools though.

      Reply
      1. Malekit at |

        even through the autor didn’t include that, meaning he did his research before posting to avoid lame replys like urs

        and yes, “evolution” is a “religion” 9_6
        let me clap at u reaaaaaally slowly…….. in case u haven’t noted, i”m being sarcastic, hope ur brain evolves soon

        Reply
      2. 4realsies at |

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

        No, the moths really do vary by color and predators really are able to pick off the ones they can see better, that people demonstrated this fact by nailing a dead one to a tree so they could take a photograph of it is hardly a scandal.

        If you don’t know whether something is true or not, don’t go running around spouting your opinion as fact.

        Reply
  4. mrodjr at |

    These prove nothing about evolving from a common ancestor; maybe a common designer. And the peppered moth has been proven false.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Wojcik at |

      Evolution is an observable process at every stage, all around the globe, from modern life to the deepest fossil remains. This article only presents a couple minor "obvious" traits of adaptation and never said anything about "proof," just "signs." Please study objective, legitimate sources before calling into question established facts :)

      Reply
      1. LOL at |

        There is no scientific proof for evolution, NADA……. This is plain and simple adaptation, nothing more nothing less. The proof that everything on earth (plants, insects, birds, monkeys, zebras, elephants, blah, blah, blah, blah) came from a single cell organism is BOGUS. Keep an open mind when you read evolutionist writings in scientific journals, textbooks, lecturers, etc. you will find ZERO scientific evidence for EVOLUTION. You either believe that there is a Creator or NOT; if NOT then you will believe in evolution no matter how stupid, idiotic, non-scientific the evidence is put in front of you. That is the truth people…. Accept it. If you believe in a Creator then you will see evidence of design in every single aspect of Nature, in the Universe even in your DNA. Just keep an open mind and go search, make it your mission to find REAL scientific evidence for Darwinian-Evolution; do beware of the mumbo-jumbo rhetoric that has led so many astray from real science. Really, this article is a JOKE!

        Reply
        1. 4realsies at |

          We can see it in a microscope, Evolution is a fact.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

          Reply
          1. slayer at |

            What i fail to understand is if evolution is a means of bettering oneself through physical changes and man evolved from the apes than why are there still apes around? But I guess a better question would be if evolution is for the better than why did man lose his fur during the evolution process. I mean the time when man started to really “walk up right” he lived during the iceage. It was freezing during that time and you’re telling me the body didnt think it needed that fur to keep warm. Apes today still have fur and they haven’t died from it and it keeps them warm. And last but not least, if evolution is for the better why would a perfectly made single cell organism, who can reproduce without the use of a mate, change, through millions of years, into man that does need a mate. If an asteroid hit earh and killed everything but one man and one single cell organism the organism would continue to proper and mankind would cease to exist.

            Reply
            1. 4realsies at |

              if we descended from europeans, why are there still europeans?

              “best” isnt an absolute, its still very dependent on the environment (being a fat polar bear vs being a fat tree monkey). being hairy isnt so bad, they have it so their kids have it, even though it doesnt do them any good, it doesnt get in their way either. or maybe like a plumage thing you see in birds? I dunno that much about that aspect of monkies.

              I think we have it pretty good as multi celled organisms, we eat all the other multicelled organisms we want, and the single celled organisms too. needing to find a mate from within a community is pretty keen, leads to ethics and morals.

            2. Ian at |

              First, MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES (as we know today). Sorry, I must capitalize that in order to attract others’ attention. We evolved from a common ancestor, a parent species. They are not the Apes we know today. We did not evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas; that last picture is outdated.

              Evolution does not demand complete superiority. It is random mutation in favor of adaptability. It is not the strongest nor quickest that survive; it is the most adaptable that does.

              To answer your question on asexual vs sexual reproduction:
              Biodiversity is better yielded by sexual reproduction, thus making us more adaptable as a species. The more adaptable a species is, the stronger it is overall.

              Also, the question on why we lost our excessive hair:
              Excellent question, but we are not entirely sure why. Our ancestors were intelligent enough to make coats out of the hunted, but I don’t believe there is solid evidence of why we lost our hair.

        2. Karl at |

          If DNA proof is not valid and is not true then why is it admissible proof in a court of law? The amount of proof required in a court of law is less than that required by science.
          So if a member of your family was killed would you ask for DNA evidence to be thrown out.
          The evidence for a crime with DNA is not that much different than that of evolution.
          The signs that there is design is not proof. Belief… Look it up in a dictionary.. ” accept as true or real.” I, and a court require more than accepting something, it requires testable proof not hearsay, conjecture or ” Look it`s in my book that was written 2000 years ago”.
          My belief is you are a christian, and a wild guess would be from the USA. Your reasoning IS floored and logic abstract
          If you read and test, I did. I did not take the science for granted I tested a lot of it to.
          It`s easy to measure you way to a star with just a stick and BASIC maths. A 12 year old can do it.
          You do not believe in something then look for proof. find the proof then look at what you deduce.
          There is less physical evidence for a creator. DNA is visible. God is not.
          One last thing, don`t work in law enforcement. Some poor sod will end up in prison because you thought he was guilty then went about proving it.

          Reply
        3. FEAR at |

          you are the true idiot, dog breeding is evolution.

          evolution definition: change/change of a lifeform

          that’s it, any change is evolution, which way is different, but you have only the proof the bible, written by humans (known liars some). however it might not have been written by humans, i believe in god, i am just saying there is no reason god and evolution can’t be together. God may have less proof but as a simple thought, if the big bang is how this universe started, then if it came from nothing but energy, is god not an energy’s director? and since space is infinite, until it hits another space-like structure or something completely different that goes on from there, then there should be multiple universes, and if something from there made our big bang, and so on, what made the absolute first? maybe god is real, maybe not, but evolution is real, and maybe god is an alien race advanced to us, and they made the bible for us in our language later. The bible is metaphors, those who take them literally do not understand the bible. adam and eve were about origin but not the literal way many think. Also it says god created our planet in 7 days. not 7 days of our time though? if it is another alien race or the all-being power, either way, a day on their time can be a billion years to us. so evolution we see with our own eyes, but god we do not, we may see what “the other” made whether our thought of god is true, or it is something else. Maybe god does not exist, maybe god is a player and we are a video game that is advanced into making sentient npcs and we don’t know. WHO CARES ABOUT THAT PART

          Reply
    2. jesus at |

      by who, creationists?

      Reply
  5. cgibbs at |

    Please distinguish between adaptation and evolution.

    Reply
    1. Steve at |

      Almost none. Time plus adaptation equals evolution.

      Reply
  6. Fritz at |

    Most of these aren't evolution at all – they are adaptation and mutation. I was hoping for a better list of things that have evolved since we've started to properly document everything – in the last 200 years especially. Oh well…

    Reply
    1. roady at |

      and species adapting their DNA over the course of several generations as a result of environmental factors isn’t evolution?
      because that is pretty much the definition of evolution.


      wait, have you actually read this article? most of these are clear cut examples of evolution.
      some of these, like the bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics and the lizard getting more stubby legs, happened in the last 200 years.

      Reply
  7. vince087 at |

    are the monkeys today will evolve into people after years?

    Reply
    1. Kelly at |

      dude im sayin!! like why doesnt that happen if it happened with us?! ive been asking myself that forever!

      Reply
    2. 4realsies at |
      Reply
    3. Pip at |

      Today’s monkeys are a different species from humans, so no. Do you mean will they become intelligent, develop music and language, eventually wearing clothes and surfing the internet? No again, unless they are stressed in such a way that natural selection makes intelligence and language a useful survival trait.

      Typically there is no need for a modern monkey to be smarter than any other average monkey, so there is no pressure for natural selection to make them smarter.

      Higher-level intelligence is not necessarily an improvement. WE think it is, because we value it but what use is it to a chimp out in open grassland? Any large predator could kill it, so fear of open spaces and the ability to climb trees would be more useful.

      Reply
  8. Erica at |

    mrodjr Not it doesn't prove a common designer.

    Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection. You can't see evolution over 200 years, during that time only minor changes occur.

    Its a shame that the majority of users of this site can't grasp how evolution works. Its also a shame that those people also seem to be the most religious here. Evolution is about the origin of the species not what started it all.

    A shame on you all

    Reply
    1. guest at |

      evolution isn’t about the origin of species at all.
      it is about how species can adapt to changing environments (in long enough timescales)
      evolution is thus a logical conclusion from genetics and natural/human selection.

      breeding for example is something that is only possible because our theory of evolution is almost completely true. and therefore, because evolution is real.

      Reply
    2. CRAIG HILL at |

      200 years to you is 200 million years to a frutifly or the VAST MAJORITY of creatures, plant, bacterial and animal. Your time-need to witness evolution is foolishly human-centric, imposing a constricting time grid on the rest of reality. Humans invented the concept of time, a yardstick of change and the seeming lack of change. See it as concept and you can see beyond it.

      Reply
  9. madkins007 at |

    I am surprised that human milk tolerance was not included, nor was a rather famous experiment using E. coli over millions of generations and tracking the changes it went through.

    As for the people posting in support of creationism vs. evolution- why does it have to be one or the other? According to Genesis, God created 'kind to beget kind'. Evolution says that 'kind WILL beget kind- it will just be a tiny bit better at survival'. The Bible does not speak of species, does not claim that the Earth is changeless, etc. Human authors are teaching this garbage- not the Bible.

    Reply
    1. shinim3gami at |

      I think you are mistaking adaptation for evolution. How could you track E. Coli over millions of years? Where you or the scientists there? How do you know that the changes were evolutionary? Not adaptational?

      You might also read up on the variability of dating methods. A geologist did a study by sending rocks from Mt. St. Helen's crater to labs for dating – the results came back with a 400000% error margin. The lab dated a 20 year old rock to be 1.2 million years old in some cases.

      Just because some evidence and discoveries in the scientific community isn't well publicized, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

      Evolution does not say "kind will beget kind" – do you look like a zooplankton? Or share similar reproductive traits? You can't create information and matter out of nothing, thereby, you can't get more genetic information for less complex organisms.

      Reply
      1. vlad at |

        He was referring to the Richard Lenski experiment. E.Coli were tracked over a bunch of generations and developed the ability to process Citrate for nutrients. A trait that isn't found in naturally occurring "wild" E.Coli nor was it introduced by experimenters. Look it up. It's fairly recent.

        "You can’t create information and matter out of nothing, thereby, you can’t get more genetic information for less complex organisms."

        This is a misinterpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You can't create something out of nothing that is true, but that is in a closed system. Living organisms are open systems. They constantly exchange energy with their environment. They also have a constant source of energy (the sun) so there's constantly energy added to the system that allows it to change. It's a common creationist misconception that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to life. Again just to clarify, there is something being created from something. Life is open, life gets energy, life can produce new matter, it's incredibly clear.

        Reply
        1. vlad at |

          Pardon me, it's a misinterpretation of both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. In that decreasing complexity only occurs due to entropy if the system is closed and there's no new source of energy creating order.

          Reply
          1. Karl at |

            The sun!!!!!

            Reply
      2. 4realsies at |

        1) generations. bacteria breed and die very quickly, minutes/hours/days depending on the type. if you remember sarah palin mocking spending on "fruit flies in france", you should know that cancer research is done on fruit flies and other short lived organisms precisely because they go through generations so quickly; we cant wait 10 years for a cat to get cancer, people are dying today.

        2) If you stick a peanut butter sandwich into a vcr, dont tell me it doesnt "work". there are several dating methods, if a guy deliberately misrepresents something he will get bogus results. if you mistake honest humility for weakness and base your decision on who "sounds" the most confident, you will always be taken for a ride by the salesmen.

        3) who says you need to create matter out of nothing? are you trying to say that mutations dont occur? clearly they do. are you trying to say that no mutations are beneficial? most have no effect and of those that do have an effect its context is very important: a fat polar bear is in great shape, but a fat squirrel is in big trouble. webbed toes arnt very impressive, but a webbed torso can let a squirrel glide.

        Reply
      3. Jonathan Wojcik at |

        Actually, the same genetic material in the simplest organisms produces the most "complex" with simple rearrangement, there is no "more" or "less" genetic information and evolution isn't really in "stages," it's just in variations. Also, YOU should read up on dating methods. The errors you're quoting regard only carbon dating, which scientists have always known is inaccurate. That is why carbon dating is only used to get a rough, cheap estimate of man-made objects; it's an archeological test, not biological. Many other, consistent methods are used on fossils and strata. You sound like you've eaten up every nonsense anti-scientific argument without even digging a little deeper into the objective truth.

        Reply
  10. Jess at |

    I am not a relative of a monkey !!

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      are too

      Turns out we DID come from monkeys!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8&pl

      Reply
      1. zac at |

        Thanks for that one 4realsies!

        Reply
    2. CRAIG HILL at |

      Everything is connected, Bonzo, er Jesus.

      Reply
  11. a reader at |

    In reference to some comments above: Humans did not evolve through natural selection from monkeys or apes.

    Apes and monkeys etc. and humans evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago, so no… modern monkeys will someday not evolve into humans.

    And yes, all other species on this planet are distantly related to humans and to ever other species in some degree or another. It is a genetic fact, whether you believe it or not. It is a physical and natural reality.

    Reply
  12. NotoriousBigBrain at |

    Bravo Toptenz, Bravo !

    Reply
  13. Selenius at |

    Natural selection is a destructive process. It eliminates species that are not viable. It can not create new species or make genetic changes. Therefore it can not be causing evolution. Equally, random genetic changes can not create evolution because randomness is also a destructive process as proven, many times over. Evolution is caused by a creative process, a force, or intelligence, development of consciousness and a meticulous knowledge of the creation. Some with a religeous viewpoint will call this force G-d, i prefer a non-religeous explanation and call it extra-terrestials. Call it whatever you like, but a creation without a creator doesn't exist.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      Mutations do happen. When two populations of the same thing are separated, the populations mutations accumulate independently, eventually there are so many mutations you wouldnt even call them the same kind. once its to the point that they cant even mate with eachother anymore, you call them a new species.

      This is important. One thing that happens randomly is gene duplication; where a new set of dna has a copy of a gene that already existed. DNA can handle these duplicates in some cases and the spare will remain latent, later though, there may be another mutation. One is now something brand new and the other keeps on doing what it has been doing all along. dont take my word for it, read up.

      Reply
    2. Jonathan Wojcik at |

      Everything you just said is the exact opposite of the truth. Neither natural selection nor mutation are destructive. Most mutations are harmless and just as likely to cause a benefit as a hindrance. "Creation without a creator" is a nonsense statement; just because OUR inventions needed to be designed, you believe the universe itself needed a conscious designer? Why is existence evidence for intelligence? I'm not saying there's no God or Extratterestrials or whatever you choose to believe, but I am saying the arguments you're using don't mean anything.

      Reply
  14. FCS at |

    Yes, someone said it… adaptation and evolution. There's the key.

    This is list is funny, very funny.

    Reply
  15. Dr. Shades at |

    If a creation without a creator doesn't exist, then who created God?

    Reply
    1. TopTenz Master at |

      That question continues to blow my mind, so I prefer to retain my sanity and not think about it. All things will be revealed one day, I believe.

      Reply
      1. Wheeburger at |

        Indeed it will. But I honestly believe that this list is inflammatory. I believe it was made make creationists angry.

        Reply
        1. TopTenz Master at |

          I am a Christian, Christ-follower and born-again, but you must admit that evolution is real and why wouldn’t God allow creatures to evolve to make survival easier. He made incredible bodies for all of his creatures and it would be foolish to think He would give all those bodies the ability to adapt. I asked one of my writers to write this to show that Evolution and Creationism can both exist. I stand by the author and his choices. I don’t want to make anyone angry. My hope was to bring the two sides closer together. Naive? Yes, but what else can you do but try?

          Reply
    2. CRAIG HILL at |

      Gods are created by humans trying to explain nature anthropomorphically via the political concept of a celestial dictatorial Ruler running everything. A perfect example of bad politics mixing with, and creating, a religion, in this era, monotheism, the ultimate strongman at the top of the pyramid of power. “God”, which is not a name but a job title, is indicative of the power-mongering of our time, concentrated in the few at the top. Democracy is essentially a deconstruction of power—when and where it’s allowed in this culture!—that invests power not in the anointed but the individual. The Jew known by the Greek misinformation “Jesus” actually tried and failed to explain the Buddhist realzation of the divinity of the individual everything, not just human, by teaching the kingdom of heaven is within—not “out there”, somewhere else. He tried to point out, and failed, that it was written in Isaiah “ye [everyone/all] are gods”. Yet he was declared a god, in the custom of the time when political leaders, caesars, were declared living gods, despite his statement “I am A son of God”, meaning “of the nature of the divine”, which the King James bible inadvertantly revealed by italicizing “THE” in “I am THE son of god” by noting the change “as an interpolation by the translator”.

      Christianity, as opposed to the church of Jesus in Jeusalem, run by his brother James, was from the start a complete hoax perpetrated by Paul/Saul of Tarses to replace Zeus with JeZEUS, the ONLY son of divinity; Constantine 2 1/2 centuries later adopted Christianity as a religion of success in war, and Paul/Saul’s structure of omnipotent power invested in the single anointed ruler. Constantine designed to cement in granite and marble the political god at the top of the pyramid of power—himself—with the divinely-approved power of life and death, giving allowance to the continuation since of kings and presidents and other dictators versus the divine power of the individual, who needs no ruler, celestial and otherwise.

      God is the name
      you give to the self
      you think
      is outside you.
      ~ john darc

      Reply
  16. Becky H at |

    None of this will ever ever be proven no matter what research is done as there will always be theories disproving theories etc. And why can’t people accept it’s possible that all these changes were allowed to happen by God as part of his plans! I think all you Evolutionists have the tiniest of smallest doubts in the backs of your minds somewhere telling you that it is the smallest amount possible you have been put on this earth by God. So even if you don’t admit this out loud you should prey privately that the Truth be revealed through Jesus, at worst you have just talked to yourself and noone will know and at best you could live forever!!

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      Um guy, you’re posing on a list of ten things proven. But yeah, sure, go ahead and give your imaginary friend credit for everything. I dont see how that is useful, insightful or productive though.

      Reply
      1. Becky H at |

        Have you ever studied/considered anything other than evolution? Are you aware evolution is not a proven fact just a theory? The missing link, which is missing for a reason as there isn’t one! Have a look into this, Irreducible Complexity involving bacterial flagellum, which Darwin admits himself that if something like this was discovered his theory, your belief, would be blown out of the water! Why do so many people have have so much faith in such an archaic theory with so many big gaps. A mixture of fear and ignorance maybe?

        Reply
        1. AE at |

          Faith in archaic theories stemming from fear and ignorance? You perfectly described religion. That said, you obviously have done no research on evolution yourself. Firstly, Darwin’s theory is no longer accepted by the scientific community as increased knowledge has improved the theory of evolution. Scientists have no problem admitting they were wrong or slightly off, because it allows them to come closer to being right. Secondly, you need to learn what the word “theory” means when applied to science. It doesn’t mean “idea” or “something that sounds good”, it means a factually supported opinion that has yet to be proven completely. There’s a reason it is accepted by virtually the entire scientific community. And finally, you bring up the classic line “Where’s the missing link?”. As much as you silly religious folks would like to believe that the world was created last Wednesday, that simply isn’t the case. Not all evidence will survive millions of years, but that’s no reason to make up a god just because its easier than doing actual scientific study.

          Reply
        2. 4realsies at |

          Didnt I respond to this already? Briefly:
          A scientific theory is as comprehensive as you can get, it accounts for all the evidence we have: Things fall, thats a fact, the theory of gravity explains how things fall. Things evolve, thats a fact, the theory of evolution explains how things evolve. Its just that simple.

          The missing link was found a century ago, then there were hundreds of missing links found in between the missing links. just put the word into google man.

          every example of something complex being irreducible has been shown to be reducible, especially the bacterial flagellum.

          Reply
        3. Karl at |

          Please look up the meaning of the word theory. Here it is used with reference to science. Please learn English before you do science.

          Reply
      2. just a researcher at |

        i think its funny how all yall are just responding out of anger at another person’s personal opinion. shouldnt we all at least be “evolved enough” or “Christ like enough” to respect each other despite our differences?

        Reply
    2. Eyeless Dog Pawless Dog Loveless Dog at |

      And when do the Horsemen appear? That’s my favorite part

      Reply
    3. CRAIG HILL at |

      Laugh Out Loud.

      Reply
  17. learnthingsweb at |

    What about the Pod Mrcaru lizards? I would say they are very compelling evidence for Evolution.

    Reply
  18. Wheeburger at |

    This list is a lie.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      fascinating assertion, care to back your claim up with anything?

      Reply
    2. TopTenz Master at |

      Nothing on the list is a lie. These are all researched facts.

      Reply
    3. Reed at |

      These are proven facts, dude.

      Reply
  19. deadmeatsphinx at |

    this is just a sham.. those things does not prove anything… they mat adapt but adaptation is not evolution + similarity is not evolution either

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      funny, here Ive been thinking evolution was the process where adaption is driven by mutations affecting the organisms chance to survive, where the ones most fit are able to pass on their genes. I suspect you arnt comfortable with the idea that you came from a monkey (as opposed to dirt?)

      Ken Miller on Human Evolution
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

      Now understand, nothing changes, you’ve always been a monkey like the cowardly lion always had courage.

      Reply
  20. bilal at |

    evolution is a theory based on observation…………but there is a question that how does genome increases?and this is answred by hypothesis ,great

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      Gladly, please enjoy- How Evolution Adds New Information
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

      but in case you cant watch it, you want to read about gene duplication and frame shifts.

      Reply
  21. steve at |

    Thank you for such a provocative post.

    I’ve been searching the web for a few days trying to get a handle on evolution…to see what both sides have to say. I’m a Christian, trying to see if evolution can convince me to reconsider. Here is what I’ve found.

    1. Neither side can make an airtight case.
    2. Both sides are like desperate cornered animals, unwilling to give an inch…unwilling to listen. I’ve found this to be typical of most people. Once they choose a side, theyy will not listen, but will shout down the other side. I have no respect for people like this.
    3. Both sides are typically rude, arrogant, unfair, angry and mean spirited, though typically the evolutionists are the worse.
    4. Both sides assert that people who don’t think like they do are incompetent, less than intelligent, idiots. Again the evolutionists take the cake as the worse offenders, but a few creationists employ the burn-in-hell card, which is a real nice touch in trying to win converts. BTW how many guys have you led to God with that one?
    5. The evolutionists won’t touch the “how life begins” question. They punt it to a group called “abiogenetists.” Isn’t that a pretty key question here? The abiogenetecists don’t seem to have a reasonable answer either.
    6. It’s easier to shoot down a theory than build one, so the creationists win on a number of fronts: How the universe began; How life began; the staggering unliklihood of creating a cell, much less a living one; the fossil record (ths is a big one. where are the fossils of the fish with the legs?); mutations being a positive thing (why do they give us lead-lined aprons to wear when we get x-rays at the dentist? to prevent mutations). Evolutionists think of “love” and “honor” as accidental hormones? Actually it’s not even close in my eyes.
    7. However, if I had to remove God from the equation, I think it’s the best guess out there.
    8. If I had to defend my theory of life ( the Bible), I think a lot of you guys can shoot giant holes in it. Not that it’s wrong, but I don’t have the horsepower to adequately defend it.
    9. I have total peace with God and joy in life. If that’s shallow and ignorant, then color me shallow and ignorant.
    10. Thanks for taking time to read these rambling thoughts. I’m just looking for the truth.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      A fine post :D

      Its a fact that evolution happens, the “punt” to abiogenesis occurs because it really is a different thing: for example the theory of gravity can tell you how gravity works all day, but once you ask it how gravity started, it cocks its head to the side as if it was a dog you pretended to throw a frisby for but instead whipped it real quick then hid it behind your back :p

      There is a pretty good idea of how abiogenesis works though, please enjoy these videos for a brief overview:

      How Abiogenesis Works
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

      The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis – Dr. Jack Szostak
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

      One big thing, evolution isnt accidental. Mutations happen by accident, that the fittest survive is not.

      Reply
  22. arkhan at |

    First of all, I’m a Christian and I come from a creationist family. But, as a matter of fact, neither me nor my parents are creationists anymore.

    How come? Education. I don’t know about USA, but where I live (Europe), the theory of evolution is taught at school. And no, it’s not like “if you don’t believe it then you’re a moron and will get bad marks” but rather like “here’s a ton of information, let’s dig through it, then discuss it, believe what you think is right afterwards”.

    So I was very sceptical when the subject was introduced at first, and I was not really keen on listening to what I regarded as “pseudo-scietific crap”, but since I had to know the stuff if I wanted to pass my exams, I paid attention (yes, I had to know the facts, but I did not HAVE TO believe in them).

    And you know what, when you start to get into the subject, you cannot deny it makes a lot of sense. And that without denying religion or the existence of God. As a being of faith and logic, I could not deny the logic behind evolution. Would be like denying the sun is bright or water is wet.

    I won’t go into more detail (not enough time, and all the relevant facts, arguments, examples and explanations have already been posted by other commenters), I just want to say, if you argue about something, make sure you educate yourself first. You cannot form a valid opinion if you don’t know the facts. And this is what pains me the most:

    I find it most disconcerting how creationists on this site deny the validity of the evolutinary theory without having even the slightest hint what they are talking about. Again and again things like “it’s not evolution, it’s adaption” or “it’s not a fact, it’s just a theory” come up, showing a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. Still, this would’nt be a problem at all if other commenters had’nt already explained the scientific meaning of “theory” or the content of the theory of evolution (and the role of adaption within) over and over again.

    Please, friends, before you say that something is wrong (or a lie), look up the facts, get an understanding, and then form an opinion of your own, and THEN post it.

    Reply
    1. Reed at |

      Well spoken Arkham.

      Reply
  23. Samantha Bushman at |

    These are not evidence of MACRO evolution, which is taught in our schools. These are evidence of MICRO evolution. What’s the difference? MACRO means evolution from once species into another. MICRO means evolution WITHIN a species, such as Darwin’s Finches and the Blue Moon Butterfly.

    In conclusion, MICRO evolution exists. However, MACRO evolution has never been fully scientifically proven.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      You dont stop being what you’re descended from. Dogs dont turn into cats, dogs and cats are both still what their common ancestor is, and a dog will never be a cat.

      Reply
    2. Matthew at |

      have fun reading all of this:
      that is ridiculous
      micro means small
      macroevolution is a term to refer to large-scale evolutionary patterns and processes that occur over long periods of time; no offense but i dont think you know what youre talking about
      micro has nothing to due with evolution
      and you’re talking about macroevolution as if it were one process. Macroevolution has six differnet ways of evolution
      1)extinction-die off of a species (dinosaurs)
      2)adaptive radiation-multiple species evolved to form a single species (this is what youre thinking of, and it is in fact… real. elephants and manitees (however that is spelled)
      3)convergent evolution-unrelated organisms evolve and come to resemble one another (sharks, dolphins, and penguins. fish, mammal, and birds)
      4)coevolution-2 organisms (not necassarily the same species) evolve to the others changes (flowers and bees)
      5)Punctuated equilibrium-pattern of long stable periods interrupted by brief periods of more rapid change (horses evolutionary track)
      lastly
      6)developmental genes and body parts-changes in an organisms environment can affect which its genes are ecpressed (temperature can determine sex of an alligator)

      Reply
  24. Brustvergrösserung at |

    Even if not directly proven, this list among other considerably obvious facts, it can be said that Evolution is indeed real! Just the fact that we the idea came up in the minds of Charles Darwin is a good proof that either there’s a “Superior One” that’s made us directly to be us and on the other hand, there’s Evolution.

    There’s so much interpretation that this will just boil down to each his own.

    Reply
  25. Joe at |

    Please i have question. If millions of years ago monkeys evolved into human, does it mean that in millions of years to come humans will evolve into something else?

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      actually, we have seen some pretty nifty improvements over the last few thousand years like lactose tolerance and disease resistance, though its not like we our descendants are going to stop being human- in the same way we havnt stopped belonging to the great ape family

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

      Reply
  26. Matthew at |

    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

    Reply
  27. rr15 at |

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

    Reply
    1. MLK at |

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

      Reply
  28. Ryan at |

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

    Reply
  29. mila at |

    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.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

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

      Reply
  30. MLK at |

    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^

    Reply
  31. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      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).

      Reply
      1. Braedan Shigley at |

        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.

        Reply
        1. 4realsies at |

          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.

          Reply
  32. Well at |

    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

    Reply
    1. MLK at |

      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

      Reply
    2. 4realsies at |

      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.

      Reply
      1. Seekeroftruth at |

        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

        Reply
  33. Thatoneguyuhate at |

    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.

    Reply
    1. ohplease at |

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

      Reply
  34. lisaandtheword at |

    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.

    Reply
  35. bob at |

    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.

    Reply
    1. 4realsies at |

      > 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.

      Reply
      1. Malekit at |

        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

        Reply
  36. Billy at |

    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.

    Reply
  37. 4realsies at |

    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

    Reply
  38. ComeOnNow at |

    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.

    Reply
  39. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply
  40. Braedan Shigley at |

    Two years; sorry.

    Reply
  41. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply
  42. ComeOnNowBraedan at |

    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.

    Reply
  43. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply
  44. 4realsies at |

    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

    Reply
  45. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply
  46. 4realsies at |

    “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?

    Reply
  47. Braedan Shigley at |

    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.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Current day month ye@r *