DNA Proves Evolution

In many ways our DNA defines us. Consider identical twins, which are the result of an embryo splitting in early life. They are actually a single individual that divided into two parts during the early stages of embryonic development. They don’t call them identical for nothing. Studies show that in addition to looking the same they are also extremely similar in almost all other measurable respects, including intelligence. And, of course, the reason that they are so alike is that they have identical DNA.

But what makes most people so different from each other? We are only beginning to understand how our DNA differences distinguish us. The Human Genome Project, finished about a decade ago, was a huge first step. It defined the sequence of the A, T, G and C building blocks of our three billion bases of DNA. Like the Moon Project, it was an amazing accomplishment for mankind.

In a sense it was like our DNA defined itself, through us. Our DNA, which encodes us, was actually able to determine its own sequence, using people as a tool for the process. A very smart molecule indeed.

One of the most incredible discoveries to come from the Human Genome Project was the remarkably small number of genes we have. It turns out that we only have about 25,000 genes!! This seems a pitifully puny number.

Think of it. We all start a single cell, a fertilized egg, a very small speck of protoplasm barely visible to the naked eye. And this one cell somehow turns itself into a complete person. And people are incredibly complicated. They can weigh one or two hundred pounds or more. They have arms and legs and complex organs like the liver, heart and kidney. And they have a brain, which has about 100 billion neurons with over 100 trillion specific interneuronal connections. Wow!! All of this from just a single cell equipped with a genetic program of only 25,000 genes in its nucleus. Truly amazing.

And then we sequenced the DNAs of several people, and compared them. It turns out that our sequences are about 99.9% identical, from one person to the next. Our individual differences are defined by the 0.1% sequence variation, the several million bases that fluctuate among the three billion total. As we sequence the DNAs of more and more people we will begin to define the complex equations that relate these sequence differences to specific traits.

And when we sequenced the DNAs of other animals we made more interesting discoveries. It turns out that all mammals-including lions, cows, pigs and elephants- also have three billion total bases of DNA, and about 25,000 genes. Indeed, we all have pretty much the same set of genes. To paraphrase Mario Capecchi, a Nobel laureate, who I once published a paper in Nature with, mouse and man are 99% genetically identical. What he meant by this is that for every gene a person has there is about a 99% chance that the mouse will have a corresponding very similar gene. All mammals have the same genes, but those genes will differ in exact base sequence from each other. His point was that the mouse is an excellent genetic model system for scientific study, because it so closely recapitulates man.

But another key conclusion is obvious. All mammals are very closely related.

Of course the chimpanzee is the extreme example of this, with DNA sequence that is about 99% identical to that of man http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Chimp-human-DNA-comparison-finds-vast-1181942.php. The chimp doesn’t just have the same set of genes as man, indeed about one third of chimp genes encode proteins that are exactly the same as their human counterparts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project. This sort of result is exactly what evolution predicts, and creationist/anti-evolutionists have to struggle very hard to explain it http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038.

But instead of looking at close relatives, let’s look at very distant relatives, like the fruit fly. Shockingly there is some fascinating evidence that we are even genetically related to these little bugs.

Geneticists discovered some crazy mutant fruit flies about a century ago. One mutation, for example, gave a fly that had legs growing out of the head where the antennae were supposed to be. Imagine that! During development the cells that were supposed to make antennae instead made legs that now protruded from the head! Another interesting mutation gave a fly with no eyes.

As technology advanced it became possible for us to manipulate the genes of the fly. We could alter the gene involved in leg/antennae development and re-create a fly with legs coming out of the head. But even more remarkable, we learned how to introduce human genes into the fly. And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly gene, and put it in the fly, we got the same result, a fly with legs on the head! The human gene seemed to be functionally equivalent when placed in the context of the fly. A truly surprising and amazing discovery!

We could also take the fly gene found to be critically important for making eyes and cause it to be mis-expressed during development. It was found that if this gene was activated on the legs, for example, one could make a fly with extra eyes on its legs! Indeed it was possible to make a fly with lots of eyes, on the legs, on the antennae, and at other places on the body. But, once again, the most remarkable result came when we took the human gene most closely related to the fly eye gene and placed it in the fly. Just like for the fly eye gene, we found that if we turned on the human gene at various locations during development we could make a fly that had fly eyes all over its body. Once again, the fly and human eye genes appeared to be functionally equivalent.

These results show a remarkable, and quite unexpected, conservation of developmental genetic programs stretching across enormous evolutionary distances. Many human genes seem to work quite well, thank you, when functionally tested in fruit flies, where they initiate genetic cascades that drive the formation of discrete fly body parts. That is, in many cases fly and human genes are functionally interchangeable.

These experiments demonstrate evolutionary relatedness not only between chimps and people, but also between insects and people.

And this is one way that DNA proves evolution.

About the Author: Steve Potter, PhD, is a Professor of Pediatrics, in the Division of Developmental Biology, at Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati. He has authored Designer Genes: A New Era in the Evolution of Man, published by Random House 2010 http://www.amazon.com/Designer-Genes-New-Era-Evolution/dp/140006905X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310842010&sr=1-1. In addition he has written over one hundred science papers, and co-authored the third edition of the medical school textbook, Larsen’s Human Embryology.

137 thoughts on “DNA Proves Evolution

    • In evolutionary time (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years) all species are changing. Our lives are so short that we cannot see it directly. It took a very smart detective, like Darwin, to figure it out. But if we understand the principles of genetics, if we look at the DNA sequences of related species, if we examine the fossil record of species that existed before us, then it becomes almost obvious. Life forms are not static.

    • Karen the answer is a big NO!
      There is no evidence that one kind of species can transform into another. The fossil record despite claims to the contrary is blank in support of evolution. All you ever get is variation WITHIN a species. Each species reproduces according to its KIND. Just as the book of Genesis says.
      Interestingly the human genome project cannot refute the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.
      The fact that chimps have a DNA sequence 99% in common with humans isn’t evidence of evolution but that humans and chimps have the one same designer, God.

      • Karen,

        Yes this is possible. Kaz is trying to distort facts, there are thousands of transitional fossils on record. People like Kaz try to support their point of view, that there is only changes within a species, by saying that transitional fossils only show small changes so that means it is the same species. The small changes part is true, but the way they present it is deceiving, each change may not be huge, but if you line up enough changes you eventually end up with a different species. That is the part that people like Kaz are quick to gloss over or lie about, they either try to insinuate that there is no proof through mocking to sound confident, twisting the facts(i.e. fossils DO support evolution), claiming evolution is like religion and we are just holding onto evolution by “faith”(they hope you will reject it as a competing faith before you realize it is pure science), exaggerating evolution’s claims with statements like “You never find fossils that are half bird, half dinosaur, where is your proof of macro evolution?”(which is silly, and something evolution never claims to happen), or just claiming that “The Bible says so, so there!”(God gave humans the fastest brains on the planet, and strong natural curiosity, why would that be if you are expected not to fully use it). There are more, but those are the most common.

        Yes, the changes happen gradually over a very long time. But there is no faith involved in evolution, the evidence is so overwhelming that even many Christian scientists are calling for the church to accept it. Here is a NPR News article about genetics and genesis. And before anybody screams conspiracy, the co-author of the study they are talking about is Richard Durbin, and the first person she questions on the interview is Dennis Venema a biology professor, are both Christians.

        Mp3 of the Interview
        The Transcript
        The Study that sparked the news article
        National Geographic is taking part of the study further.

        If you are truly curious as to what science has to say about it all, here is a link to an index of videos that explain why science doesn’t support creationism, but does evolution. Also covers topics which are commonly brought up in relation to creationism, but pick and choose what you are curious about, and don’t worry it is not dry stuffy professors, the information is presented for people without a phd. 🙂

        This will take you to the evolution section, but just scroll to the top for the categories. 🙂

        Hope this is helpful. Never stop learning.

        -Joshua

        • Joshua,

          Thanks for your comments and the resources. As an evangelical Christian who is venturing into the frightening, confusing world of questioning creationism, your comments and resources are much appreciated!!

          Tiffani

        • Time is a convenient argument for evolutionists, because once a mutation occurs it needs to be past on to its offspring and then further mutations to its offspring. But what Steve Potter failed to mention is when those mutated fruit flies produced offspring the flies rejected the mutation and reverted back to normal flies showing only that variation not evolution is possible. And as for those who put faith in the fossil record and say that evolution is proven through this has not really studied it because there is no transitional fossils between species that is why evolutionists came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium saying that cross sectional species had sudden jumps in evolution.

          • Sorry, but there are hundreds of transitional fossils.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

            Additionally, please explain retroviruses that are marked in both the chimps and us in the exact base pair out of billions of them.

            Those fruit flies may have reverted to their original state depending on how the subsequent mating occurred. Your point is absolutely baseless.

      • Naz why don’t you go study biology and then come back and stead of talking nonsense as if it was factual.

        Go to your conner and talk to your invisible and utterly USELESS god.

      • Naz, go get a real education and stop lying to people.

        Yeah, a designer who creates humans in his image makes chimps 99% equal to those humans. Maybe god is a chimp.

        LMAO

        • My thoughts about the subject is that all living creatures are made up of millions a “building blocks”. If one complete set of blocks created an ape, having all the needed mechanisms at its disposal to exist , why assemble a whole new set of blocks to make a human when one can use 99% of the ape and ad some additional blocks to give it intelligence – making it different from the ape, not being ruled by instinct but through thought? That does not mean that an ape became a human, just that the two “share” some specific building blocks.

          • Because if god knows the future, and he would know the confusion amongst human caused by this similarity, then why would he not make them of a different type of blocks?

            It’s not like it would cost him anything. All he had to do is say let there be a “different” DNA and boom. No confusion.

          • The problem with that hypothesis, is that we share retroviruses that have been marked in our genes in the exact same place from billions of possible base pairs.

            It’s just impossible that a marker be made in the same exact place by the exact same virus all by coincidence.

            The chimps acquired that virus and that marker remains there to this day in both the chimp and us in the same place.

      • Agreed, one thing that most evolutionists are missing, is that they believe to be proof of evolution, or macroevolution, is really just changes within the organisms genetic code, not a complete change of the genetic code.

        • Karen, how do you explain the fossil record matching genetics? How do you explain retroviruses being in the exact same place in the chimp as it is in humans, out of billions of possibilities, they are marked in the same place?

          How do you explain speciation, which we can observe?

    • Let me point out how the author himself shows that no matter how much you try to alter its DNA a fly remains a fly.

      “Geneticists discovered some crazy mutant fruit flies about a century ago. One mutation, for example, gave a fly that had legs growing out of the head where the antennae were supposed to be. Imagine that! During development the cells that were supposed to make antennae instead made legs that now protruded from the head! Another interesting mutation gave a fly with no eyes.

      As technology advanced it became possible for us to manipulate the genes of the fly. We could alter the gene involved in leg/antennae development and re-create a fly with legs coming out of the head. But even more remarkable, we learned how to introduce human genes into the fly. And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly gene, and put it in the fly, we got the same result, a fly with legs on the head! The human gene seemed to be functionally equivalent when placed in the context of the fly. A truly surprising and amazing discovery!”

      And then the author says “These experiments demonstrate evolutionary relatedness not only between chimps and people, but also between insects and people.”

      Based on this reasoning we can go a step further and say that since we share 50% of our DNA with a banana, like evolutionist Steve Jones pointed out, bananas and humans are related.

      This would sound ridiculous even to them, so they take comfort in their unproved (and unprovable) billions of years as if time somehow explains the complexity we see all around us. What they are really doing is pushing the problem away in a realm where it can’t be observed and repeated, therefore not scientifically provable.

      Evolution is a theory of the past, just like creation, they just want to make you believe it’s science when it’s actually a system of beliefs (that life can be explained through natural means alone, so they rule out a possible explanation from the very beggining: God).

      • So your explanation is God? Where did your God come from? Hum that must have been one incredible process.

        Simply because you don’t have the brain power to understand evolution, it doesn’t mean that it’s not real.

        and even if “Natural Selection” is wrong, evolution is an observable fact, just like gravity. Our theory of gravity could be wrong, but gravity would still be an observable fact.

        • Dorian, you say – “Simply because you don’t have the brain power to understand evolution, it doesn’t mean that it’s not real.” – I say to you that “Simply because you dont have the eyes to see and understand a Powerful, almighty ‘Intelligent Designer’ that we will one day ALL call LORD, it doesnt mean that HE is not real” He is real, its written in the DNA/Protein of each human being. The mathematical odds of all “this” being a chance and finding ONE functional protein from one single cell is 1/10^164. Thats a pretty large number AND thats only ONE protein. To put that in perspective there are only 10^80 particles in the Universe. Only 10^16 seconds since the so called “big bang” happened and Only 10^139 events since the beginning of the universe. Its improbable and illogical to say life was by chance. Which means there has to be a Designer. You may not believe it, and thats fine. One day you will and my prayer is that you do.
          Evolution is NOT an observable fact: Adaptation IS. There is NOT a single account of visible “Evolution” on this planet. There are theories, ideas, but no facts. Please understand what you are saying without making blanket statements. I appreciate your passion but I fear you have been lead by the masses. Many dont want to believe in God because then they would be accountable for someone. People would rather believe they were an animal then there would be no accountability. Darwin, Hawkins, Dawkins etc. are proof of that.
          You say prove that God exists? Prove He doesnt. The evidence points to a creator. From the Cosmos to the Cell.
          One last thing… Its the “Law of Gravity” not theory. A theory has not been proven. Like the “Theory of Evolution”

          • I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I love it when we try to discuss hot topics reasonably, and you provide some powerful arguments. To re-phrase your thinking, life is too complicated to have happened by chance. Let me agree that the incredible complexity of life is indeed puzzling. Even an extremely simple organism, a single cell, is still remarkably complicated. It has a critically important membrane, that partially separates it from the outside (but not completely, because food needs to get in). It has amazingly intricate protein synthesis machines, the ribosomes, made of both RNA and protein. It also has a genetic repository in its DNA. It would certainly seem quite impossible that even a single cell could happen by chance.

            The truth is that scientists cannot at present tell us how that first living cell came to be. It is one of the great remaining gaps in our understanding.

            Nevertheless, although science does not have the answers on this one, there are problems with the creative design explanation. God must be an incredibly complex being. Think of all the things that God is capable of, including creating the heavens and all of life on earth. It would seem reasonable to suppose that God is much more complicated than a single cell. So creative design explains the complexity of life by proposing that something even more complex created it. in some cases this line of reasoning works pretty well. If you were an alien visiting earth and came across a watch on the ground, then you might correctly conclude that something more complex, in this case humans, made it.

            But, if God made life, and Humans, then what made God? It must have been even more difficult to make a God than to make life on earth. You’ve replaced one problem, where life came from, with an even bigger problem, where God came from. If life is too complicated to have just happened by chance then surely God is too complicated to have just happened by chance. So something even more complicated must have made God, a SuperGod. And then what made the SuperGod?

            This reminds us of the debate millennia ago about what held the earth up. What is the earth resting on? The accepted answer was a giant turtle. And then some thoughtful person asked, but what is the turtle resting on? and the answer was, another turtle. And turtles all the way down. At the time we really had no understand of how these things worked, so we concocted a turtle explanation that today seems pretty silly. My guess is that in another millennia or two the God explanation will seem just as silly.

            Science has made incredible advances over the past few hundred years. We can break apart atoms and define their tiniest components. We’ve sent people to the moon, and sequenced the human genome. But, for every one thing that we do understand there are at least a dozen that we don’t. We still have a lot of work to do. And just because we don’t understand something does not mean that we need a supernatural explanation.

            If you showed a working television to a person from two thousand years ago they might conclude that it is an incredible miracle of God. If you were to ask someone of today where life came from, they might conclude that it is an incredible miracle of God.

            I personally think that someday we will have a more satisfying answer.

          • Bahahahahahahaha

            The difference is that we have empirical evidence and you have the exact same evidence every culture has of their god, nothing.

            Evolution is a proven fact, and you simply throwing back at me my comment is like a little kid telling you that their video game is real life and you just don’t have the brain power to understand it.

            Grow the fuck up.

          • That is the typical response that I would have expected. The facts are staggering arent they? Show me the “empirical evidence ” your talking about. It doesnt exist. And you have proven that by the simpleton comment. Show me the “proven fact” of evolution you talk about. I would rather have faith that a God who created time, created earth, created me exists and there is a purpose, then to think that it happened by chance because scientist “come up” with theories that have yet to be proven. I am not throwing back your comments like a little kid, I am showing you your own circular reasoning that makes no real sense. You are rambling without proof or knowledge. My comments are not made to start an argument but to bring question into your way of thinking. God is the creator. One day you will see. If your so defiant, Pray to Him to reveal Himself. Truly, Cry out to GOD to reveal Himself. He is real, He will show you. Thanks for your response.

          • In response to your comment of Oct. 6, 2014, 6:17am:

            Sorry I’m just now seeing your article, and this particular response of yours. I too would like to thank you for your very courteous words, unlike so many New Atheists acting so disrespectfully, and hiding behind their anonymity.

            Part of your response: “But, if God made life, and Humans, then what made God? … You’ve replaced one problem, where life came from, with an even bigger problem, where God came from. … So something even more complicated must have made God, a SuperGod. And then what made the SuperGod?” One of the most prevalent arguments against a “God of the Gaps!” Shouldn’t there be a better answer? To me, a Christian, and a Technical person, the Bible has the best answer, and the rest of the world’s religious books don’t even come close to an answer.

            Just today, I listened to a Youtube video by Dr. Hugh Ross, AstroPhysicist, and he gave what I consider to be an excellent answer to this apparent conundrum. Please check out the video at time=31:30.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txxrvqui5xk

            Immediately following that question, is another very interesting question. I hope you will examine this explanation – it will be well worth your time.

          • 1. The video doesn’t work.
            2. He is probably talking about the cosmological constant, which can be explained by the multiverse.

            But again, no matter how compel the universe is, an even greater complex being is being used to explain it.

            Sorry, the bible doesn’t explain anything. It makes untestable and therefore unprovable claims. Any claim postulated without evidence, bmcan be dismissed without evidence.

            Words on a book are not evidence, no matter how much you want them to be.

          • When I click the link it works.
            He’s talking about if the Universe came from God, where did God come from, and this has nothing to do with Biology. If the Universe is so immense, then God the Creator is Infinite, All Powerful, and Everlasting, and He exists in different Dimensions, what I might call the Spiritual Realm!

            Try the link again.

            The Bible explains all we need to know while here on Earth; God gave us what we need. It doesn’t need to be proven (and can’t be) to carnal minds which can’t, or won’t, believe. You’re free to dismiss whatever you please, but it’s not about Science, but Faith in an Eternal Spiritual Life. We have a Spirit as one part of our being, but it can’t be tested. So while the Bible contains plenty of facts, including Scientific facts, it’s not meant to be a Textbook.
            Dawkins and Krauss are profoundly wrong when it comes to their belligerent attitude, and Dawkins has a very good reason to be extremely biased. He was abused as a child by a perverted Priest.

            Elsewhere you said,”The amount of evidence for evolution is beyond comprehension.” It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone can believe in Evolution – it’s house of cards. Using Math Probability, and basic education (no elite PhD required, nor Biology Degree), it’s easy to prove many times over that Evolution and Materialism are impossible.

            Finally, why would you presume that I have a dilemma? You said that Ross wouldn’t change his mind, but neither would I. Where is the evidence against God? It doesn’t exist, but God does. Also, the Atheist icon Carl Sagan said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!” If it’s good enough for Atheists, then it’s good enough for me!

          • 1. The universe was once infinitively small. Does that mean that God was that small at one point? What does the size of the universe, which is expanding due to dark matter, have to do with your God?

            2. What was God doing before he created the universe? There was no space, no time, no light, no people, no planets, etc.

            What was he doing and with whom? You are trying to convince me that the universe is to complex, and yet your answer is an even more complex on? How does that work?

            What dimensions? The dimensions exist because of time. There wa no time, therefore, no dimensions.

            Spiritual? How does that work? Where did the spirits live without dimensions, space or time? And if God was alone, then what was his spirit doing for eternity?

            3. The bible explains nothing. The bible makes claims, just like the Quran does. Do you know the difference between an explanation and a claim?

            It doesn’t need to be proven? LMAO!! The. How do I know? By faith? In what? Your God? Why not Allah? Krishna? Or any other God?

            Out carnal minds can’t understand the universe? Sorry, it can and we have. Our models of the universe and time work, that is how you have GPS. And I don’t want to believe, I want to KNOW.

            With faith, I can have faith in anything. It proves nothing and gives me absolutely no information or credibility on anything.

            Faith is useless. It’s a placebo. God did not give us what we need. We have to struggle with earths many natural disasters. Why are there asteroids? An asteroid can kill all of us in an instant, and so can a solar flare. Why create these things?

            Please provide evidence of a spirit. Until you do, your claim is dismissed.

            4. Dawkins is a biologist, 99% of biologists acknowledge the fact of evolution and so does the Catholic Church, which is the largest denomination of Christians. Are all biologist wrong? Is the Catholic Church wrong?

            Do you see your dilemma?

            5. Evolution is a fact. Every biologist has tried to disprove it for the last 170 years and you pretend to tell me that you know more than them?

            Do you see your dilemma? How about instead of making yet another claim, you actually explain why evolution is a house of cards?

            How about we concentrate on evolution? I will answer your questions and you will realize that you are wrong.

            6. The evidence against God is the same exact evidence against faries. I will prove your God doesn’t exist immediately after you prove that Krishna doesn’t exist.

            Do you see your dilemma?

            In some cases the absence of evidence can indeed not be evidence of a sense, but in your case, you have pinned yourself against the wall, by stating that your God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. By stating your attributes, you create an expectation that can be tested against.

            Everything your God is supposed to be, has been shown to go against what we see in the world. This can be tested very simply.

            1. If he is all knowing why did he create lucifer?
            2. If he is all powerful why doesn’t he kill lucifer?
            3. If he is omnipresent why do we have so many different gods and why are we trying to prove he exists?

            This simple questions cannot be answered by you without coming up with convoluted answers that require insane menta gymnastics and still produce no observable, testable and repeatable answers.

            Do you believe in hell? If so, what if Allah is the one true God? Are you ready to burn for eternity?

            If he is not the one true God, can you prove that he is not?

            These are more topics that we should discuss, we should pick evolution, since you think it’s easy to disprove.

            Go ahead, disprove it.

          • He is an astrophysicist, not an evolutionary biologist. He has no place in a biology debate. You wouldn’t ask a mechanic for open heart Surgury advice and you wouldn’t ask a surgeon for mechanical advice.

            Also he is one of very few who old this claim, and he is a religious apologetic, which means that he won’t change his mind even if evidence is shows that he is wrong.

            He is not going to solve your dilemma.

          • Dorian, you admit that Evolution, Big bang, Multiverse…etc. can ALL be dismissed. Thank you for finally coming to your senses. Well Done my man! YOU just stated: “Any claim postulated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” I state this because you continue to ramble, cut and paste youtube videos and articles that have no legitimacy and still have not showed a single ounce of evidence that any of these “Theories” are accurate. BTW Theories in word itself states that its NOT PROVEN. Well done.

          • /Dorian, you admit that Evolution, Big bang, Multiverse…etc. can ALL be dismissed. Thank you for finally coming to your senses. Well Done my man! YOU just stated: “Any claim postulated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”/

            The amount of evidence for evolution is beyond comprehension. You are to much of an uneducated ignoramus, to comprehend it. That’s why you are not a biologist, but an idiot.

            BERKELEY UNIVERSITY!
            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01 You know, that place you’ve only heard about.

            /I state this because you continue to ramble, cut and paste youtube videos and articles that have no legitimacy and still have not showed a single ounce of evidence that any of these “Theories” are accurate./

            I have posted articles from universities, you moron. If I posted youtube videos, it’s for the layman, who find it easier to understand. BUT everything that I posted can be backed up from the sources, which are UNIVERSITIES.

            Why don’t you actually go study biology and shut the fuck up?
            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

            /BTW Theories in word itself states that its NOT PROVEN. Well done./

            Straight from the dictionary, I guess you’ve never opened one of those? LMAO!

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

            Explain the correlation between the fossil record and genetics.
            Explain retroviruses.

            If you can’t explain it, then please just FUCK OFF!

          • Again…. you prove my point. Speculating that I am NOT a biologist is proving that you take what you think and consider it truth without evidence. You are not furthering you cause only hurting it. We thank you.

          • You lying piece of shit. Where did you graduate and how is it that you know nothing on the subject? Hum… I’m going to look you up and embarrass you in front of everyone.

          • Tell you where I graduated? Then what? Who taught me? What year? Come one Dorian Mattar. I guess the fact that your from California explains your hot temper and fact that when someone questions you, you immediately retaliate with trying to degrade them to make yourself more credible. Whats your background? Computer science degree?? From a college in the DR? Really? Quit trolling the site and trying to be someone your not. Stick to Real Estate. Does your boss know your doing this on company time? I know facts and I have stated facts of my own words, not cut and paste. Oh and I do believe your tone is threatening… “Hum… I’m going to look you up and embarrass you in front of everyone.” So… I would quit while your ahead. You never know who is watching.

          • /Tell you where I graduated? Then what? Who taught me? What year?/

            You have shown that you don’t have a clue on biology. PERIOD.

            /Come one Dorian Mattar. I guess the fact that your from California explains your hot temper and fact that when someone questions you, you immediately retaliate with trying to degrade them to make yourself more credible. Whats your background? Computer science degree?? From a college in the DR? Really?/

            What i studied has NOTHING to do with this because my stance is with the Scientific consensus of 99% of ALL BIOLOGIST ON THE PLANET. Do you understand that?

            /Quit trolling the site and trying to be someone your not./

            I’m not trolling, mr. troll. You are the one that is claiming something you are not, I never said I am a biologist, although I have studied biology and anthropology in college.

            /Stick to Real Estate. Does your boss know your doing this on company time?/

            Man you are one complete idiot! Realtors don’t have bosses! LMAO, what an IDIOT!!!

            /I know facts and I have stated facts of my own words, not cut and paste./

            What facts, come one, show me the facts? Show me how they are facts, because YOU say so? What about the 99% of all biologists on the planet? Why don’t you have a Nobel Prize in your name for completely destroying Evolution?

            Cut and Past? From UNIVERSITIES you moron!

            /Oh and I do believe your tone is threatening… “Hum… I’m going to look you up and embarrass you in front of everyone.” BAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!!!!!!

            The exposure police! Bajajajajajaja!!!!!

            Threatening? You mean like when you say I’m going to hell? Look in the mirror, IDIOT.

            /So… I would quit while your ahead. You never know who is watching./

            What are they going to do to me for exposing your lie in front of everyone?

            YOU ARE AND IDIOT AND DELUSIONAL AT THE SAME TIME.

        • Correction. It is not observable like Gravity. You can observe Newton’s apple falling. You cannot observe Evolution like this. You have to hypothesise.
          Let us not forget the horse fossils that Darwin laid out, believing, (yes believing, not proving) that it showed the progressive evolution of the horse. He didn’t realise that these variations of the horse were not showing a linear progress.

          http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html

      • Indeed Steven, humans are related to the banana, as well as the cabbage, the chipmunk, the monkey, the ape, and all other life on this planet. The only difference between these relationships is how far back the evolutionary timeline you must go to find a common ancestor. You may not consider yourself “related” to a stranger you meet on the street, but if you had access to both of your genealogies, and the time and inclination to do so, tracing both back would eventually lead to an intersection where you both share a common ancestor. Though this is possible, and some people have done such a thing, it is not commonly performed due to the fact that such a relationship is not useful in daily life. The same is true in science, while the relationship between a human and a banana are known, and the genetics have been compared, the fact remains that in all but the most specific applications such a comparison is not overly useful for either furthering our understanding of evolution or explaining it to others.

    • You should watch the movie called The Genesis Code, it’s an interesting movie about Genesis and evolution and how both could be true.
      -Emily

  1. I was quite surprised that a person with a Ph.D. would use the terminology, “DNA proves evolution”.
    “Science doesn’t prove anything. Proofs occur only in mathematics. Furthermore, mathematical proofs are not absolutely true, since one begins with assumptions called axioms and postulates. If they change, your “proofs” change. In science, nothing is ever absolute, and not all the evidence and possible explanations have been considered. Those who use the word “prove” in a scientific context usually are overstating something. HARDLY EVER WILL YOU HEAR AN EXPERIENCED SCIENTIST SAY THAT SOMETHING IN SCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVED. Better terms include indicates, suggests, and supports. In science, explanations (hypotheses and theories) are made increasingly plausible or implausible by evidence.” – Dr. Walt Brown (emphasis mine)

    Secondly:
    “Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.” . . . Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.” – Dr. Jason Lisle

    Thirdly:
    You stated, “These results show a remarkable, and quite unexpected, conservation of developmental genetic programs stretching across enormous evolutionary distances.” Why didn’t evolution theory prepare you to expect this?

  2. If life is a product of chance and it came about by accident, with no purpose involved. Why on earth do genes desperately try to replicate? Why do they care?

    I’ll answer the question, without this being part of evolutionary theory everything for evolutionists falls apart.

    The continuation of life which is clearly evident is the fulfillment of God’s purpose.

    • Gods purpose is to preemptively create people and animals that he knows he will drown?

      99% of all species are extinct, what kind of creature would create things to go extinct for no apparent reason?

      Animals eat each other to survive. Why would a being that can create anything, create a world where things eat each other?

      Since he is all powerful and can do anything, why couldn’t he have created a world where all fruits had all the needed nutrients, and grew just enough to support every form of life.

      Instead he builds this place where everything is in constant competition.

      Where is your reasoning?

    • The only reason you think it doesn’t is because you are either misinformed and/or uneducated, or simply a religious fanatic.

      I gather all three.

      • @Dorian Or we could take you, for instance, who makes ad hominem attacks about a subject matter you have little knowledge about.

        Science cannot disprove God, so as a so called lover of science, you should say nothing. If science deals with the material universe, it has no contribution to God who Christians claim is NOT material. End of story. Arguing that there is no God as a scientist, is out of your realm. This is the realm of philosophy which has very good logic and reason for admitting a “God”.

        Since you fail to understand that science “proves” nothing, your comment is quite illogical and must be the product of a faith based system. You might not believe in God, but you hold an irrational belief that the sequencing of dna can prove something, when in fact the majority of dna we just don’t know about. Like, we don’t know what it does. We know it functions, but we don’t know precisely what it does. The reality of it is you know very little yourself. You have a belief system, congratulations.

        Science changes constantly. My elementary textbooks 20 years ago are so obsolete it’s not even funny. In fact, concerning evolution, they were downright wrong… as in blatantly wrong. Science encourages us to think, and observe, it does not hold the complete truth.

        I find it ironic that a study that we know so little about, claims to know and “prove” so very much. At best, we know very little about evolution. So logically, at best, we should claim very little.

        • Ad hominem attacks about something I know nothing about?

          Seriously, do you actually believe that or did your god tell you to say that?

          Science doesn’t have to disprove your god, although it already has with a great percent of certainty.

          You are making the claim, NOW PROVE IT.

          We don’t go around making impossible claims without evidence to back it up!

          Do you understand that or do we need to explain it with cartoons for you?

          Good logic? Hum, you follow a doctrine that in one hand commits Genocide, while on the other hand you insist that your god is a merciful god. He forces us to love him or burn in hell, yet that makes sense to you! You have no logic, you are a contradiction at every corner.

          You speak as if YOU know what you are talking about with regards to DNA. Please tell me, are you a biologist? Where do you get this information that DNA doesn’t prove anything? From a preacher? From your creationist friends who pretend to know what they are talking about?

          Do you go to a preacher after you have a heart attack, or do you visit a cardiologist? My father is a doctor and I’m fully aware of biology and understand it. Why don’t you look up Gene #2 and see how you explain the fusion of that gene straight from the chimps exact gene amongst millions of genes?

          DNA is so precise, that we can use it to convict criminals based solely on DNA. Every biologist on this planet KNOWS that evolution is a FACT. It is YOU that is going against the evidence and pretending you know more than everyone else.

          Evolution is a FACT with over 99% certainty. When you actually understand that, maybe your realize how foolish you are.

          SCIENCE IS WRONG?

          Here you are going back to the bronze age with your ridiculous assertion that science changes! Well no shit, we adjust our number based on OBSERVATION. We don’t stay STUCK in the bronze age with a bronze age book and a bronze age way of thinking. If we find an error, it gets corrected! Unlike your religion that thinks it knows it all no matter how OBVIOUS it is that you are WRONG about EVERYTHING!

          This universe is 13.72 BILLION years old, not 10,000!

          Science has come a LONG way, from it’s humble beginnings with POOR equipment and capabilities, to today, where we have BILLION DOLLAR ATOM SMASHERS, satellites, and all kinds of computer equipped laboratories.

          You comparison of the old science to today shows how ignorant and biased you are.

          Science is not “wrong” because in science we state things in percentages, therefore we never state thing as 100% certain. Examples, are the Higgs bosom, which is known with a certainty of 98.5%. Gravity, electricity, the earth being round, and everything else including your own existence which you think of as facts, are all simply 99% fact.

          You are truly an ignorant person that THINKS he know what he is talking about, but you don’t.

          Now go get a real education before you spew more garbage into the world.

          • You’re calling Mike biased and ignorant because of his faith when you’ve clearly already made up your mind about what you believe. Doesn’t it also make you biased when you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of something that can’t be explained with logic? You may say that he has blind faith, but I say you all have closed minds.

            I agree there is no doubt that evolution exists but you have to admit that the lack of transitional fossils especially regarding human evolution raises a few doubts and misconceptions.

            Also there are still so many questions that even the leading evolutionary scientists still have regarding the theory.

            “Which facts about evolution had to be true, and which just happen to be true? Did the genetic code have to be digital in order for natural selection to work? Could any other class of molecules have substituted for proteins? How inevitable was the evolution of sex? Eyes?Intelligence?Consciousness? Was the origin of life itself a probable event, and therefore is life common in the universe?” – Richard Dawkins

            “Why do humans blush? … One wonders why we need such an obvious signal to communicate self-conscious feelings. Blushing interferes with the unscrupulous manipulation of others. Were early humans subjected to selection pressures to keep them honest? What was its survival value?” – Frans de Waal

            “How does selection leave its fingerprints on the genome? In particular, how does it work on the non-protein-coding parts, and what kinds of variation does it leave behind … This is necessary to understand how we differ from chimps and one another, and why we inherit diseases” – Steven Pinker

            “The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself … The gap between such a collection of molecules and even the most primitive cell remains enormous” – Chris Wills

            “ … Darwin did not know about self-organisation. Abundant work over the past four decades has begun to show that self-organisation plays a role along with natural selection in the order in biology. One example is that lipid spontaneously form liposomes…another is the spontaneous order in genetic regulatory networks, the understanding of which may lead to regenerative medicine and new cancer therapies” – Stuart Kauffman

            (Dawkins, R, Miller, K, de Waal, F, Fortey, R, Stringer, C, Eldredge, N, Pinker, S, Wills, C, Miller, G, Szathmdry, E, Cronin, H, Morgan, E, Kauffman, S, Conway Morris, S 2009, ‘Evolution’s final frontiers’, New Scientist, vol. 201, January 31, pp. 41–43.)

            You can’t sit there and just attack people from behind a screen when, although it’s highly probable, evolution is a theory not completely perfected.

          • Why would I try to explain something that can’t be explained with logic or observations? That is ILLOGICAL. If you want to be illogical, go ahead, but don’t try to push your dogma on others or pass it as something other than what it is.

            We have open minds, but our minds operated only on evidence. If you can’t prove it or reproduce it, then we can’t use it and therefore there is no use for it.

            There are no doubts or misconceptions when it comes to Evolution, ONLY ON THE THEORY, which is NOT the same.

            You need to separate the theory from the Fact.

            Every quote that you presented is giving you more questions and answered as to HOW evolution works.

            It is NOT asking if evolution is real or not.

            Theories EXPLAIN FACTS.

            Even if ALL the theories were found to be erroneous, the FACT of evolution would still be a FACT, we would simply have to find another explanation.

            This goes the same for every other fact there is. If the theory of gravity was wrong, would you go jumping out of a tall building? NO, because the fact is still a fact, wether the theory is right or wrong.

            Please don’t confuse a theory with a fact, which is what you are doing.

        • Mike Michelson

          So if Christians claim god is not material, that means it’s true?
          Unless you can establish that, I’m afraid you’re out of luck.
          Making assertions, doesn’t make them true or are you now willing to acknowledge the existence of Vishnu, Thor and the boogie man. All have adherents who assert they exist.

          • A Christian claim is not fact, any more than all of the claims, assumptions, and assertions of Evolutionists are facts. But unlike non-Christian religions, Christianity has a unique Holy Book unlike any other. The validity and claims of the Bible stand apart from all others. There’s a great difference between fact and myth. I learned about the Creation, and about Christ and Salvation, and I have Faith in it. It’s a lot different than myth and superstition. Others may believe, or disbelieve, whatever they choose, but as for me and my house, we will believe in the Lord and His Book!

          • Evolution IS a fact, and that remains a fact even if ignorant people like you make the assertion that it is not.

            Your little book IS like all other pathetically ignorant and primitive religious books. You are simple delusional. What a coincidence, that you have chosen the same religion your parents and your culture instilled in you.

            Get educated buddy.

  3. So your dad is a doctor that doesn’t mean anything, what qualifications do you have? You’re probably the only person who has actually stated that evolution is a fact. Even the leading evolutionary scientists do not describe it as a fact. Facts are used to support theories. Didn’t you finish tenth grade science? If the theory is flawed then either the facts are disputed or aren’t all there. Which is the case with the evolutionary theory, as I stated (I know the difference, I know exactly what I’m talking about).

    Stop taking this so personally, your retort to my comment was attacking my intelligence which I find offensive, because I did nothing to warrant that. The way you are attacking people’s opinions is totally unnecessary and you’re just trying to shove your views down their throats. The sad thing is that you’re not actually doing anything because you’re wrong, you are all closed minded (and when I say all I mean both evolutionists and creationists, I think you misunderstood me there).

    The point of my original comment was to suggest that if you knew anything about persuading people against their own opinions and beliefs it has to be done when they are receptive to changing them (when they’re ‘open’ to it). People who sit and comment their opinions on blogs are not going to listen to a word you say, me included.

  4. Hahahaha Evolution proven by DNA. You know it amazes me that you just accept evolution as Fact when what you have been taught as fact you have never investigated for yourself. Like intermediate species being in the fossil record. Fossil record are Dicey at best to start with. I like to use the following dilemmas when it comes to evolution:
    1. Ok so you talk about the 2 and 3 gene supposedly melted together from chimps…. So lets think about this for a minute… Here we have lets say 100 000 chimps on earth all having the same DNA sequence.. and for some reason a little chimp is born with this fusion as you put it… Nice… so he grows up being more human and then….. oops who does he mate with? Wait a minute! he needs a partner to ensure his species to survive…. so evolution being a miracle worker, made sure somewhere out there in the wild not very far from him, another chimp had Exactly the same mutation, so happen to be close to this chimp, met up and mated and there you go!! They had a little “man” chimp…. Now I wonder where he got another mate with the same “defective” DNA…. fairy tales people!
    2. Your million and millions of years remind me of a story I heard when I was very little… It goes like this.. In a land far far away…. long long ago, there lift a giant and a fairy princess…. Time does not change a banana into a fly, worm or bird for that matter. Your flies you talk about changed back to normal flies after a few generations left to populate without genetic manipulation… you conveniently left that part out!
    3. Lastly a little research project for you.. As evolution needs all this time to happen you must belief in the religion of evolution that earth was molten rock that cooled over millions of years. Explain to me the Polonium Halos found in Granite, that formed in less then 180 seconds in all granite found on earth! do some research before you “preach” your evolution theory as accepted as fact.

    just from a non believer, looking for the real truth!

    Cheers

    • I don’t even know where to begin. You rather believe that some god send himself to be butchered simply to allow himself to forgive, as if he was being FORCED to forgive, because he couldn’t forgive any other way. And this story is being told by a bunch of sheep herders over 2000 years ago and you don’t have a problem believing that. But we have the greatest biologist in the world, showing videos and experiments that are reproducible and you don’t believe them. hahahahahaha!

      Go to a lab and learn biology and REPRODUCE the experiments, instead of creating this ridiculous ideas out of pure ignorance.

      #1 You can see that with animals left in islands for a mere 25 years. As they travel the island, the available food supply requires them to adapt. Within 25 years, they have changed so much, that they can’t mate with the original specimens. And why can’t they mate? Because they have new mutations that have enabled them to adapt to their new surroundings. Those changes are carried over to the next generation and those that carry mutation IF advantageous, survives and the ones that did not carry the mutation perish.

      For #2. TIME changes EVERYTHING.

      For #3.
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

      You are NOT a biologist and yet you think you know more than biologists. You DON’T, you are fooling yourself and looking like a moron.

  5. Reasons why evolution is a Fairy tale:

    1. The multiplicity effect. For evolution teaches that every living thing has a common ancestor, consider this: Where did sex come about? How did a few molecules of inorganic materials become organic in its complex form, grouped itself with its complex functions and became life. a Miracle! Then in one generation it had to mutate to be able to multiply. when it did, it would be a single cell organism with one sex…. Somewhere some how another miracle would be required to have that same organism “mutate” to become male, and somewhere else another would have to have the exact same mutation, but be female and then they could match.. Miracle on miracle! this same amount of Luck brings us to the very origins of life….
    2. If life originated so regularly here on earth, why do we not find different types of organisms built with different structures that just from a miracle spontaneously originates in abundance? Why does life in todays favourable circumstances not just happen all the time…… New organisms have never been created in the most expensive laboratories all over the world.. it is not that simple!
    3. Fossils being used as proof. almost everyone knows about the coelencath that was discovered around the coast of South Africa in the 1936’s and is a species that was used to date other species as it was supposedly millions of years extinct and only found in certain strata…. bam!! there goes the dating method. Interestingly… Why is there no new fossils forming today? Try the following. Take a daed fish and put in in a cage and sink it in a river… leave it for a few days.. heck leave it for a few years….. do you expect to find a half formed fossil in a few years time? No? It will be rotted, swept away by currents and never to be seen again as a fossil… fossil forming is another Miracle! not explained by evolutionists…
    4. Decay of the earths magnetic field/ dust on the moon. Radiation from the sun deteriorates the rocks on the moon and it is believed to form a dust layer of not even a quarter of an inch a year….. So if the moon and earth is millions of years old, Why did Neil Armstrong not sink into a pool of dust during his landing? The rate at which the earth looses its magnetic field, if taken over millions ofyears should have been depleted LOOOOOONNNNgggg ago.. this is not the case… Why? the amount of evidence against evolutions Time constraints is tremendous, yet people believe in it like a religion!! Why?

    Because who want to admit that everything they were taught at school is wrong? That the same degree they Studied, got a job in as a Biologist or archaeologist earning them a Monthly Salary is Bollocks…. Hell I will protest as well because I just might be out of a job and out of good stead with my family, society etc!! So they hold onto this religion of evolution to make everything seem right, when the cold hard facts are staring them in the face!

    Take this post not as someone trying to convert you to any religion, because that is the fundamental problem with the so called creationists and evolutionists… always trying to proof the other party wrong…. rather just look for the truth in simple observable facts as mentioned. We humans will probably never understand or proof where an how it all began… but by clinging to a theory from a cult following Drug using delinquent like Darwin… will not get us closer to the truth.

    • Go study biology. Your examples are those of a child.

      Sex? Are you kidding me? Do bacteria have sex? NO

      You are being taught this stuff by a perverted moron.

      There is NO way for us to know if life continues to start here on earth because it happens in such a small scale and there is already so much life, that anything new has very little chance of either being witnessed or surviving.

      Again, you are NOT a biologist, archeologist or a physicist and your points are worthless because they have all been dealt with and you are just a conspiracy theorist without a clue.

      Go get a real education.

      • You are so missing the point!!! which Species has adapted on an island within 25 years and could not mate with the Original species? Really? Because you talk about the ones without the “advantageous” dying out or as you put it perish. Talk about reasoning in a circle. please enlighten me which species has changed into a new species that cannot mate anymore because of gene differences?
        Listen again: if you have two Chimps…. they have an offspring with the mutated chromosome fused between 2 and 3….. within that same generation, THAT baby will grow up and will either not be compatible with any of the other chimps because he has different number of chromosomes, or there would have to be ANOTHER baby chimp with EXACTLY the same Mutation, they will grow up, they will meet , mate and have babies with that mutation… but like I said it requires more miracles than what could be created by this so called god you accuse me of following, which brings me to the last point:

        I specifically said Non Believer, as to avoid you doing what every Evolutionist ever do… Attack the Religion part of creationists as your own theory is falling apart. Where did I say I believe in a god? I am the first to admit that we have no clue about our origins, neither from a god or evolution.. It is you that get mad and accuse me, just to justify the silly theory you studied for years…. like I said who wouldn’t!

        • So you actually believe that know more than biologists, based on simply your inability to either understand or look up the facts? You are WAY out of your league.

          Here is a QA that will “enlighten you”.

          1. So wouldn’t the first human (with 46) have significant trouble reproducing? Not necessarily. Research has been performed to investigate just this question and found that fertility is effected only minimally. Essentially, it turns out that some centromeres are ‘better’ at attracting the kinetochore machinery than others and thus outcompete the neighboring centromere for resources [a]. Thus, even in the case of a fusion, only one centromere will remain active.

          2. Could he or she reproduce with an ape mate? No. Nor would they likely be interested in doing so – any more than you are interested in mating with a gorilla. When a chromosomal fusion occurs in one individual human, they would look no different than any other human. All the same genes are still there, being expressed the same way. When the fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 occurred in the human lineage, nobody would have noticed any major difference in the individual in which it occurred. Also keep in mind that this fusion occured AFTER the divergence from the common ancestor with chimpanzees. If it didn’t chimpanzees would probably also have the fusion. Humans had already embarked on their own evolutionary trajectory.

          3. And if so, would the human count be transferred to the child? Give the answer above, this question is no longer relevant.

          4. How frequent are chromosome count reductions? I don’t know the answer to this right off hand but one paper I found suggests that it is rather often, “The Robertsonian (Rb) fusion, a chromosome rearrangement involving centric fusion of two acro-(telo)centric chromosomes to form a single metacentric, is one of the most frequent events in mammalian karyotype evolution.” [c]

          5. Is there any reasonable probability for finding a mate that randomly was born with 46 compatible chromosomes? That depends on the population size in which one was looking for a date. If it’s very large, the probability is small and vice versa. However, given the answer to question one, it doesn’t matter because there would be little trouble finding someone with whom to successfully reproduce.

          6. Or is the probability far greater that the first human wouldn’t reproduce at all or that his offspring would revert to 48 chromosomes? See answers to question 1 and 5.

          7. Cell reproduction [I assume you mean DNA repliction] begins at the centromere, right? No. In eukaryotes including mammals and humans, each chromosome has multiple origins of replication and they are not in the centromeres. DNA replication begins at many, many places on the chromosome. If you didn’t mean to say ‘DNA replication’ this question doesn’t make any sense.

          8, 9, 10, 11. So in reproducing the new, long human chromosome (what is it? chromosome 2?) with an ape mate, wouldn’t the child get only one or the other of the ape chromosomes (what? ape chromosome 13 or 14?)? Again, based on earlier answers, these aren’t valid questions. There is no major decrease in fertility due to a Robertsonian fusion. The offspring of a person with the fusion (one chromosome is fused, the other isn’t) and one without would have a 50% chance of inheriting the fusion. Assuming they did, they would have a 50% chance of passing it on. Eventually many in the population would have it and it could spread throughout the population and become the norm. As is apparently the case, this is what happened in the ancient human population. And yes, it’s chromosome 2.

          12. And if so, wouldn’t this child have a very severe, probably lethal, birth defect? No, see answers to 1.

          13. What causes infirtility in hybrids? This is a separate question but ok. Hybridization occurs when two populations that have become genetically distinct encounter one another and attempt to produce offspring. The key there is that they have become genetically distinct. They have adapted to different lifestyles and their genomes have changed accordingly. When those two populations produce offspring, the offspring will be trying to mix and match genes from two different pools that may or may not work together. Hence, in some cases, you’ll get infertility. In other cases you actually get offspring with greater fitness (hybrid vigor).

          14. Wouldn’t the first humans be infirfile? It wasn’t the chromosomal fusion that made us human. We were already on a separate evolutionary path from the rest of the apes when the fusion occured.

          You seem to be under the impression that a single human-appearing human was born into the middle of some ancient population of apes and that this person was human because he/she had a chromosomal fusion. This is simply not what evolutionary theory suggests. First, as I explained above, it isn’t the fact that we have one less pair of chromosomes than apes that makes us human. We just happen to have 23 pairs of chromosomes. We would still be human even if the fusion hadn’t happened because its the content of the chromosomes that is being selected for, not the number of chromosomes themselves. What the theory does suggest is that there was a common ancestral population of ape-like creatures that existed before there were humans and chimpanzees. That population likely became divided for some reason – migration, climatic change, geographical change, whatever. When those now separate populations adapted to their now distinct environments, they were subjected to different pressures that shaped their genomes in different ways. It appears that one population became adapted a lifestyle on the savannah and eventually developed into humans over many, many generations. The other population became adapted to a lifestyle in the forests and eventually developed into the two current species of chimpanzees. At some point in the history of the population that would go on to become us, somebody was born with a chromosomal fusion that had minimal impact on their ability to reproduce. They looked no different from anybody else. They reproduced and about half of their kids had the fusion as well. Those kids had kids and the fusion spread throughout the population as they did so. Eventually, the fusion became the norm for humans.

          I hope this helps. References are below.

          a. Sullivan BA, DJ Wolff, and S Schwartz (1994). Analysis of centromeric activity in Robertsonian translocations: implications for a functional acrocentric hierarchy. Chromosoma 103(7):459-67
          b. Ijdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5
          c. Slijepcevic, P (1998) Telomeres and mechanisms of Robertsonian fusion. Chromosoma 107:136-140

          http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes_p2.html

        • Here is one sample of speciation.
          http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/speciation.htm

          LMAO “Information is freely available”, yes, but unless you know what you are talking about, you will simply pick and choose what you like.

          How do you know what is real and what is garbage?

          I wouldn’t go against a trained boxer unless I was damn sure I could face him. You are equivalent of a nerdy computer guy going on the ring with Tyson because he simply thinks he knows how to box, but has never been trained.

          Wake up kid, you have nothing to stand on but some crazy and inaccurate ramblings of conspiracy theories and I don’t believe for a second that you don’t have an ulterior motive. I’m sure you are a religious fanatic with an agenda, disguised as someone with real questions.

          Humans will continue to advance while you are left behind wondering, “how they do that”.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10358801/Alien-DNA-could-be-recreated-on-earth.html

          Maybe you should try this…

          http://quizlet.com/15995443/unit-1-mastering-biology-flash-cards/

          • Again, everything you talk about in the above comment especially the link you provided is nothing more than Micro evolution… and that is something you evolutionist love slapping in the news as proof of evolution….

            Simply put, the peppered moth carried the information for different kinds of colour all along,… it did not magically appear due to the industrial revolution! This is the classic example of Micro evolution being passed off as Macro evolution.

            The biggest problem with you Dorian is that you seem to mix the principles of evolution to match your statements. Which theory do you follow? Evolution by Mutations, by Natural Selection? You are all over the place!

            Micro Evolution is not evolution!

            Tell me about those Darwin finches that were on an island so they decided to become lizards due to the vegetation being better or something to that effect….
            Stop being convicted in a theory never proven!!

          • No colin, it is you that don’t get it. Macro is simply micro over time. I don’t know what part of that you don’t understand.

            I’m not mixing them, they are intertwined by nature!

            Mutations over time that survive due to natural selection is KEY.

            I know you are NOT a biologist because your understanding of the subject is childish, so why don’t you go study it instead of repeating what your creationist friends keep feeding you.

            The fact that the examples were not enough, makes it clear that you are not capable to understand it or are not willing to accept it no matter what.

            Your shortsightedness prohibits you from looking at the big picture.

            Maybe that big picture is to much for your to handle.

            and I’ll repeat, Evolution is a fact EXPLAINED by the theory, even if we are wrong about the theory, evolution will still be a FACT.

      • Life happening on a small scale and we cannot see it… common get real!! You see the very essence of the article talks about life being built by the same DNA blocks, just variations making us different from flies… if life just happened, why is there not different building blocks and animals with complete different structures. I am talking about animals with complete “alien” Dna that functions completely different from all other organisms? If there have apst so much time, surely life would have “happened in so many different wasy apart from the one we know of today!

        You see the beauty of today is that you do not have to study and conform to a “special” three year degree to be knowing what you talk about. Information is as more freely available than ever before… You just need to open your eyes to see the many different possibilities out there!!

        • Simply because the type of cells that survived were the ones capable of surviving. Perhaps this planet can only sustain a very limited type of chemical composition which is capable of duplicating enough to reach RNA.

          Maybe there were other types of RNA or DNA, but they didn’t survive. There is no way of knowing, because DNA doesn’t fossilize.

          We know what happened once the basic building blocks started duplicating.

  6. To the Author:

    A couple of quick points. Your commentary is a bit confusing since you simultaneously claim that all the results you discuss is “exactly what evolution predicts”, but then frequently many very surprising discoveries. You can’t have it both ways, can you? Did the results of these studies demonstrate what evolution predicted or were they surprising?

    Secondly, I’m guessing that evolution never actually “predicted” anything along the lines of what you’re claiming ahead of the study. If I am correct (an admitted supposition), then your use of the term “predict” is very disingenuous at best.

    Finally, I can follow what you’re saying in general terms about inserting human dna code or genes into a fruit fly and experience similar results as you did with fruit fly or dna code. However, from there you make an ENORMOUS leap … at least for the lay person. Those of us without many, many years of study of dna can’t see that just because “x” is true, then your claim of “y” must also be necessarily true. You haven’t presented facts that would support this. I can’t say independently if you’re correct or not, but you haven’t proven it here.

    I think that’s frequently where anti-theists, anti-religionists, religious-evolutionists, global warming enthusiasts, etc, frequently go wrong. They frequently refer to “science” in support of their studies, but ignore the fact that science most frequently doesn’t really show what they’re claiming it shows. They convert their science into a religion of sorts, as another poster pointed out, exercising faith to make the jump from science to conjecture. Science only deals with the provable, the demonstrable, the re produce-able. You can map dna, you can show genetic similarities, etc, for certain. What you’re unable to do, so far as I’m aware, is prove the conclusions you’re drawing from those mappings and similarities.

    I appreciate your background and information, but think you have a ways to go in this specific article to prove your point to any lay person because there is a large missing body of evidence (in this article).

    • I apologize for my lack of clarity. Evolution does indeed make quite precise predictions that can be tested. For example, it predicts that two very similar species would share a common ancestor and therefore should also show strong commonalities in their DNA sequences. Chimps and humans are similar species and their DNA sequences are near identical. This is exactly the result that evolution predicts. But, in contrast consider a creationist model. Suppose that chimps and humans were made de novo by God. If they were made from scratch it would not be reasonable to expect them to have about 99% identical DNA sequences.

      One could say, well we look alike so God would have to give us similar genes. But even if God gave chimps and humans genes that encoded exactly the same proteins (obviously not the case), we still would not have the same DNA sequences, because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Different three base codons can be used to specify a particular amino acid building block of a protein. Sorry, this is a bit technical. But the point is that two different independent genes encoding identical proteins would not likely have very similar DNA sequences, because different combinations of bases can be used to give the same end result. Therefore our common DNA sequences prove our common ancestry.

      In the article I say that it is surprising that the evolutionary conservation of gene function extends all they way from flies to man. This is a very dramatic, and unexpected demonstration of evolution. Sure, obviously genes from humans wold be expected to work just fine in chimps, because we are so similar. But to find that human genes actually could functionally substitute for genes in flies??!! It is not at all obvious that humans and flies are closely enough related for this to work. Yet it does! We can take human genes that drive eye development and place them in flies, where they can result in extra eyes, on the wings, legs, or antennae! Wow, this was not expected and shows that developmental pathways are evolutionarily conserved across enormous phylogenetic distances. While chimps and humans shared a common ancestor from a few million yars ago, flies and humans shared a common ancestor that existed hundreds of millions of years ago. and yet the key programs remain the same.

  7. I am a Christian and I do not have any problem with evolution. I just believe that it was controlled by God. The way Genesis in the Bible explain creation follows the same sequences of events that scientist said evolution did it and that was before their was something like science. I believe that we became human when God gave us a soul, in other words created in his image. (When Adam and Eve ate the fruit in the garden of Eden) Whether God created a separate being called human or had him evolve from something else I will ask him when I see him. But I do know that science can prove with DNA that we are all decedents from one parent. The biblical “Adam and Eve”. As far as I know everything in the Bible can be scientifically proven true. Seen in the context of the understanding the people of the time had of their world.

    • Thx for the thoughtful comment. Your belief that God used evolution as a tool to create humans probably represents the most reasonable path for Christians.

      I find it shocking that 30-50% of Americans (depending on the poll) do not believe in evolution. The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. In a survey across 18 nations only Turkey had a smaller percentage of its population that believed in evolution.

    • The Eve recognized by science is a descendant of other primates, a common ancestor, which was a chimp. I’m not sure how you reconcile the biblical Eve with that.

      There is absolutely no evidence of acspiritual property in the mind.

      The genesis creation myth is completely out of order with the observable universe and doesn’t represent any part of our modern understanding of the evolutionary processes of both living species and the cosmos.

      Why would a god create animals that eat each other?

      Why would god design 99.9% of creatures to go extinct?

      Why would appear only in the middle of a desert to uneducated shepherds?

      Why leave a book full if inconsistencies, miss spellings, impossible stories, genocide, slavery and leave it to humans to assemble I and edit it?

      It’s your choice to stretch things to fit your attachment to scriptures, but you are incorrect in your choice.

  8. interesting read, thanks for publishing.

    I’m left with 1 major question…if all humans (and more so relatives or identical twins) share 99.9%+ of the same DNA, why are we so different? What is the current scientific theory around why I’m naturally quiet and my wife is naturally talkative, why i feel good making people laugh but my wife doesn’t? Is the theory this is part of the .1% of the DNA which is different or something else?

    finally, whether you believe in evolution or creationism or something else they all require faith. no one was there when it all started whether by a supreme being or a single cell. If you can’t prove where they came from, which no one can, it requires faith to believe either

    • Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and we don’t need to be at the scene if a crime to know who committed the crime.

      Science is based on observable evidence and those can be direct or indirect observations.

      • Not the best analogy. Forensic (direct / indirect observations) science can only form a conclusion based on evidence at the scene of the crime or related to the crime. Even then if critical pieces of the crime are missing (ie : victim, weapon, etc) and if there are no suspects then the crime cannot be solved. At best we can infer what is most probable but no final conclusion can be reached.

        They can even collect DNA samples at the scene but unless they have something to cross-reference it to or unless it is already in a database somewhere, there’s no way to tell who it actually is unless we collect a sample from the person it came from.

        • /Not the best analogy./

          Actually, it is.

          /Forensic (direct / indirect observations) science can only form a conclusion based on evidence at the scene of the crime or related to the crime. Even then if critical pieces of the crime are missing (ie : victim, weapon, etc) and if there are no suspects then the crime cannot be solved. At best we can infer what is most probable but no final conclusion can be reached./

          yeah, except that we don’t only have DNA, we have the bones, we have the time, and we have the order.

          /They can even collect DNA samples at the scene but unless they have something to cross-reference it to or unless it is already in a database somewhere, there’s no way to tell who it actually is unless we collect a sample from the person it came from.

          Again, we don’t only have DNA, we have so much evidence that no biologist has been able to win a nobel prize for disproving evolution, not after 170 years.

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

      • Dorian stated that the universe is 13.2 billion years old. Where does he get this from? This is a reference to the Big Bang. So what happened before the Big Bang, say, 10 billion years before this bang? Did this incredibly compact and super dense blob that blew up just sit there and wait to go bang? If no God created the universe then it has always existed…but it wouldn’t be plausible that it just sat there for an infinite amount of time before, and one day just exploded without reason. There would have to be something to delay the bang. How does evolution explain this blob of energy waiting around for an infinite amount of time, and then suddenly exploding? If there is a creator, then it makes sense, but if there is no creator, then evolutionary theorists should have some sort of theory to explain how the event infinitely waited to happen.

        • Evolution has NOTHING to do with neither the Big Bang, or what happened before. Evolution pertains to biology and there was NO biology prior to the Big Bang.

          Our current instruments can’t see past 500,000,000 years after the Big Bang, our new telescope will reach 200,000,000 years.

          Energy can’t be created nor destroyed and who is to say that prior to our Big Bang there weren’t others? Maybe an unfathomable amount of big bangs that have created infinite numbers of universes?

          There was a time we thought earth was the center of it all, then the sun was the center, then out Galaxy, then our universe… Do you see where that is going?

          Why does it make sense if there was a creator? That you say so? Sorry, NO, it doesn’t make sense because you still haven’t explained HOW the creator existed without space and time.

          • Dorian, you contradict yourself. First, you say that evolution pertains to biology and that there was no biology prior to the Big Bang. Then you say,”…who is to say that prior to our Big Bang there weren’t others?”
            So couldn’t evolution and biology exist in those prior Big Bangs, in a time before our Big Bang? How can you say that biology didn’t exist so definitively before our Big Bang? Please explain the contradiction.

          • It’s not a contradiction. OUR evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with whatever COULD be before the big bang? OUR theory of natural selection pertains to life on earth AFTER it had taken hold as simple chemical reactions and started duplicating into more complex chemical bonds that led to RNA and even a precursor to RNA and eventually DNA, because that is ALL that we have been able to observe and test.

            Before the big bang, there was NO life as we know it as part of our universe because our universe didn’t exist. There was no space, no time, no stars, no light, no planets, etc. So how can biology be happening?

            Now, IF there are other universes, then it is almost impossible that there isn’t life in SOME of them. But that is NOT what we are talking about and until we can prove there even actually are other universes, biology as we know it, is constrained to our universe, because it’s the only we have been able to test for so far.

    • Well, what makes people different is a combination of nature and nurture, genes and environment. Twins studies show that genes play a large role in defining us. Identical twins, obviously, look pretty close to identical, showing that genes define our appearance. And even when twins are separated at birth and raised apart they still show remarkable similarities in many respects, going beyond appearance.

      A scientist believes in the data, in the facts, and not in faith. As new information comes to light it will change our models, our theories, and our beliefs. There is so much data proving evolution that it is prettly close to an absolute certainty. The chances of it being overturned by new discoveries are next to nil. But there are still a million things that scientists have not yet figured out. The origin of life, the formation of that first cell, is one of them.

      Some people are quite satsfied with the statement that God created life, created us, created everything. Most scientists find this a pretty poor explanation.

      • Thanks eveloce – i’m not arguing against evolution or arguing period! Just to me that if science is about belief in data and facts than it must be faith to believe the beginning of it all came from something that is not observable and not repeatable, at least that I’m aware of. People tend to only associate faith with religion but that’s not true. Anything you believe which can’t be proven requires an element of faith and we all have to draw our conclusions by the evidence and experiences we encounter.
        I don’t judge anyone on their conclusion, everyone is entitled to put their faith into something.

        • How do you even start to believe that we require faith in science?

          We know what took place after the big bang, and we FULLY acknowledge that we can’t see past a certain point in time.

          How exactly does that make science into a faith based exercise?

  9. Dear readers,
    Please note that the below verse is from the Quran which was revealed to the Prophet Mohammad 1435 years ago. You can also find old copies of the Quran in Turkey museums that go back before modern science.

    Thanks,

    The Verse:
    “O mankind! Here is a parable set forth! Listen to it! Those whom, besides God, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! And if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition! (73)” Quran 22:73 – Surat al Hajj (The Pilgrimage)

    • What does that even mean? Complete nonsense.

      Islam is based on pagan rituals to the moon. Please educate yourself and enter the 21st century!

  10. Dorian stated that the universe is 13.2 billion years old. Where does he get this from? This is a reference to the Big Bang. So what happened before the Big Bang, say, 10 billion years before this bang? Did this incredibly compact and super dense blob that blew up just sit there and wait to go bang? If no God created the universe then it has always existed…but it wouldn’t be plausible that it just sat there for an infinite amount of time before, and one day just exploded without reason. There would have to be something to delay the bang. How does evolution explain this blob of energy waiting around for an infinite amount of time, and then suddenly exploding? If there is a creator, then it makes sense, but if there is no creator, then evolutionary theorists should have some sort of theory to explain how the event infinitely waited to happen.

    • 1. We don’t know what was before the big bang, because there was not light and therefore we can’t measure or detect anything (yet).
      2. It wasn’t a blob at all, it was an almost infinitely small spec of nothing that contained all the mass that has ever existed in the universe.

      From another answer I just provided:

      SPACE-
      The space that we are talking about before the Big Bang, is so small, that it can’t be quantified as space. It is smaller than a string within the string theory. In string theory, a single string, is proportionate, to a tree against the entire universe, against an atom. Do you understand the size that we are talking about? So no, there was no space.

      TIME-
      As for time, sorry but that’s not how it works. In quantum physics, particle appear and disappear faster than can be measured at any interval, and since massless particle travel at the speed of light, time doesn’t exist for them.

      For a photon, as an example, the universe hasn’t even began to exist. It’s in the universe, but for it, time doesn’t pass. For anything that travels at the speed of light, time doesn’t exist. This is why e=MC2, because time is a relation to space, which is expanding and therefore time passes. Because time is part of mass and space. No mass = No time.

      The NET energy of the universe is ZERO. Which means that since mass = energy and pure energy travels at the speed of light, there can be nothing at all, and everything ALL at the same TIME and at NO TIME at all.

      This is how we know that a universe CAN be created from nothing.

  11. A Question for those who better understand the current state of DNA research:

    If all life on Earth descended from the one instance of life then all DNA (plant, animal, insect, virus whatever ) must trace back to this instance of life. Is this correct? and I don’t mean has some “similar” pieces of DNA but is actually traceable/provable.

    If all life does not trace back then either the “happening” of life is not that special (happening twice or more on the one planet) or life arrived from somewhere else. Either way it would make life somewhere else in the universe more probable.

    I have read about the last universal ancestor (or the last universal common ancestor) but why the last, shouldn’t it be the first instance of life on the planet? I mean this life form should have had no competitors. Or did other forms of life come and go? If so the paragraph above is in play.

    • /A Question for those who better understand the current state of DNA research:

      If all life on Earth descended from the one instance of life then all DNA (plant, animal, insect, virus whatever ) must trace back to this instance of life. Is this correct?/

      Correct.

      /and I don’t mean has some “similar” pieces of DNA but is actually traceable/provable./

      Correct.

      https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/science-behind/genetics-overview/

      /If all life does not trace back then either the “happening” of life is not that special (happening twice or more on the one planet) or life arrived from somewhere else. Either way it would make life somewhere else in the universe more probable./

      We find life in the most demanding environments here on earth. Even in sulfuric acid. There are 1000 exoplanets for every grain of sand in our beaches. Even at 1% of those being inhabited, that is billions of other planets with life, just in our observable universe.

      /I have read about the last universal ancestor (or the last universal common ancestor) but why the last, shouldn’t it be the first instance of life on the planet? I mean this life form should have had no competitors. Or did other forms of life come and go? If so the paragraph above is in play./

      We have discovered three human ancestors, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and homo-sapiens.

      We share a common ancestor with an ape like creature over 2.5 million years ago. From that common ancestor, the chimp took off, and our branch, branched into at least 3 other creatures that include us. We have 5% of the DNA from the Neanderthal. Cro-Magnon died off.

  12. NO REPLY BUTTON AVAILABLE, MUST REPOST CONVERSATION
    JL said-
    Dorian, you contradict yourself. First, you say that evolution pertains to biology and that there was no biology prior to the Big Bang. Then you say,”…who is to say that prior to our Big Bang there weren’t others?”
    So couldn’t evolution and biology exist in those prior Big Bangs, in a time before our Big Bang? How can you say that biology didn’t exist so definitively before our Big Bang? Please explain the contradiction.

    ———————————————————————————
    Dorian said-
    It’s not a contradiction. OUR evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with whatever COULD be before the big bang? OUR theory of natural selection pertains to life on earth AFTER it had taken hold as simple chemical reactions and started duplicating into more complex chemical bonds that led to RNA and even a precursor to RNA and eventually DNA, because that is ALL that we have been able to observe and test.
    Before the big bang, there was NO life as we know it as part of our universe because our universe didn’t exist. There was no space, no time, no stars, no light, no planets, etc. So how can biology be happening?
    Now, IF there are other universes, then it is almost impossible that there isn’t life in SOME of them. But that is NOT what we are talking about and until we can prove there even actually are other universes, biology as we know it, is constrained to our universe, because it’s the only we have been able to test for so far.
    —————————————————————————————
    JL said-
    Sorry, but you are offering further contradictions. Why do you talk about “Our evolution” as if it is some sort of thing that only belongs to the Earth? If this is science and fact, it should belong everywhere in the universe. It would truly be universal and not just on our planet. Can you name another scientific theory that is limited to just taking place in a very small space such as 1 planet in the whole universe?

    You just said, “…our universe didn’t exist.There was no space, no time, no stars, no light, no planets, etc. So how can biology be happening?”
    How is that, considering in your prior post, you said that, “Energy can’t be created nor destroyed.”? If that is the case, then the universe always had to exist. Stars and planets are not required to have a universe, as our universe existed before the stars and planets had formed. The incredibly dense matter right before the Big Bang still occupied space, so space was not created then. Time would not be created by the Big Bang either, because it would be required to be created at that moment only, to be accurate statement.

    • EVOLUTION-
      As I have explained to you, we only have evidence for OUR evolution. Yes, there could be who knows what, who knows where, BUT we do not have ANY evidence for it or against it. Evolution by Natural Selection has been observed HERE on earth, NOT anywhere else, because we haven’t been anywhere else.

      The basic laws of physics apply to the entire universe, BUT natural selection is NOT a law, it’s a theory, an explanation, for an observation HERE on earth, as to how evolution takes place, again HERE on earth. It’s a phenomenon that could and could not be taking place in other planets. MAYBE there is some other force that is even greater than natural selection in those otherworld. Maybe it’s dictated by some chemicals? Who knows, until we are there, we can’t speculate.

      We however, HAVE tested for all the laws of physics around the observable universe and they ARE constant, and so are chemicals, so on that YES, I agree. But I will not speculate for things to which we have NO evidence.

      No evidence, NO speculation. When we do find other life forms in other worlds, then we can begin to test.

      SPACE-
      The space that we are talking about before the Big Bang, is so small, that it can’t be quantified as space. It is smaller than a string within the string theory. In string theory, a single string, is proportionate, to a tree against the entire universe, against an atom. Do you understand the size that we are talking about? So no, there was no space.

      TIME-
      As for time, sorry but that’s not how it works. In quantum physics, particle appear and disappear faster than can be measured at any interval, and since massless particle travel at the speed of light, time doesn’t exist for them.

      For a photon, as an example, the universe hasn’t even began to exist. It’s in the universe, but for it, time doesn’t pass. For anything that travels at the speed of light, time doesn’t exist. This is why e=MC2, because time is a relation to space, which is expanding and therefore time passes. Because time is part of mass and space. No mass = No time.

      The NET energy of the universe is ZERO. Which means that since mass = energy and pure energy travels at the speed of light, there can be nothing at all, and everything ALL at the same TIME and at NO TIME at all.

      This is how we know that a universe CAN be created from nothing.

      • Sorry Christians, but I must go with Dorian because God is too hard to believe. If he really created us, wh created him? This will go on and on, for there is no proof that he is actually there. Also, there is lots of evidence that evolution does exist, many in which Dorian has already said. Plus, no one knowns how the Bible was actually made. Who can say that God really told the author to write it? How do you not know it is just dome crazy person who wanted to get noticed?

      • have i missed something, the legs grew where the antennae meant to be by design , namely those who messed with its dna code. but if accidental, or deiberate damage is done to the code, am i right in thinking that it rewrites itself back to the factory settings therefore preserving the species?

        • /have i missed something, the legs grew where the antennae meant to be by design , namely those who messed with its dna code. but if accidental,/

          Birth defects are common.

          /or deiberate damage is done to the code, am i right in thinking that it rewrites itself back to the factory settings therefore preserving the species?/

          No, mutations happen all the time, they may be beneficial, or detrimental.

          Natural selection states, that those that are beneficial will be the winers, as they will have an advantage in finding a mate and therefore, passing on the good genes (beneficial).

  13. Seem to be getting a bit off topic.I see lizards gradually loosing legs and becoming snakes as a species change through evolution. I see places on this planet isolated from other parts producing totally unique forms of animals as evolution change. I see fish dragging themselves out of water for food and eventually the fins turning into legs and them running off as evolution. Oh and I can’t see why the main nerve from the brain to the mouth area of a giraffe should takes 20/30 ft detour back around its internal organs if it was designed LOL. Oh and Why would a god design a virus that’s sole purpose is to turn men woman’s and children’s body’s to a bag of leaking blood and kill them in the worst way imaginable. Oh I forgot that would be GODS WILL not an evolution of viruses

  14. I think we are evolving ,but we are definitely designed .Think of it 1 cell contains trillions of pieces of information .This is designed .God or whatever you it want to call it designed us like a mapped computer program .Switches “on” and “off”? What do you think that means?????Sounds familiar if you re into programming…….

    • Actually the human fertilized egg only has 23,000 genes, not “trillions of pieces of information”. It is indeed amazing that 23 thousand genes of information can encode a person.

      • I think he is refering to the four letter sequences that make up DNA, a type of assembly language.

    • So DNA couldn’t come about by a long process of small changes, but the designer who must be even more complex, can just pop out of nowhere fully formed and with all the knowledge of how to built DNA?

      Seriously

    • It may seem designed, but it is more like molded. Natural Selection explains how that happens.

      Think about a wall. That wall has an opening. You throw thousands of balls to hit that opening, and if one gets thru, you’ve solved the problem, just by the shear about of possibilities you created by thrown a 1000 balls.

      That is how NS works. It reproduces as much as it can, mutating in different ways (possibilities), from those small mutations, there maybe a mutation that is better suitable for the environment (the wall).

      That mutation lives long enough to reproduce. Look at the eye, it looks designed, but we have many species that have the eye at different stages of development. All the way back to a simple layer of semi-transparent goo.

      Things get refined with time, because every new mutation may carry a better design, and that design is the one that gets carried over, not the bad ones, because they fail.

      This is why it looks like it was designed, because only the good mold or design, survives.

  15. As for the Universe , this is the conclusion I ve made . Reports from NDEs say that things made sense after they died ,like all the impossible answers were logical. Is it possible that in a finite state it is impossible to understand the infinite and visevera ?Perhaps when we die we move into an infinite state.Perhaps this can be moved back and forth(reincarnation).The possibility of everlasting life exists.Einstein said neither matter can be made or destroyed,simply transferred .Using this logic as well as “when we approach the speed of light , time slows down .Again NDEs report seeing a light and moving very quickly.Just as it seems as though we are at a standstill on this planet we are infact moving at thousands of miles an hour(earth spinning).Could this not be true apon death?At the moment of death there is a physical loss of weight .Some call this the soul.Could this soul be pre programmed to leave this world travel at the speed of light , so time slows to zero? interesting things to ponder……..

      • If anything, studies in DNA would indicate clearly that there’s an intelligent mind behind it. It employs a language.
        There are mutations in DNA, to be sure. But they all have involved either loss or recombination of existing information. There have been zero instances of mutations observed in scientific research wherein new genetic information has been observed to arise by itself in nature.
        For any evolution to occur, new information would be necessary.

        • /If anything, studies in DNA would indicate clearly that there’s an intelligent mind behind it./

          No it does not. We can trace DNA to simpler RNA and then to even simpler amino acids and on and on.

          You are trying to solve a problem of complexity with MORE complexity. Do you understand?

          /It employs a language./

          Language is a metaphor, for what is actually a chemical reaction that can only occur one way, or it would fail. The surviving chemical reaction is the one you find.

          Just as you only find the surviving species on the planet, the other 99% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct.

          Same with DNA, RNA and so forth, all the other chemical reactions that failed, failed, and so you won’t see them. Only the winner survived and therefore you see it.

          /There are mutations in DNA, to be sure. But they all have involved either loss or recombination of existing information./

          and what’s your point? ANY change in ANYTHING, IS NEW information.

          If I use a bunch of spices to create a recipe and I use only 10 ingredients, how many different recipes can I create and would I have to create new documentation for each of them?

          Wouldn’t the knowledge of creating each and every recipe a new piece of information? yes it would be! New information is any information that is new. Pretty simple.

          When you file each recipe, you’d have to give it a description or a name, anything that would allow you to differentiate between them, they are DIFFERENT. Same ingredients, but DIFFERENT.

          That is NEW information in each different recipe.

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

          Read from actual science journals, you know, the people that actually KNOW biology! I am CERTAIN that you get your information from NONE credible sources.

          Would you go to a mechanic for a medical diagnosis? Why are you taking the advice of a religious nut case, over actual biologists?

          /There have been zero instances of mutations observed in scientific research wherein new genetic information has been observed to arise by itself in nature./

          Where do you get such rubbish?

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

          This sites are maintained by BIOLOGISTS, NOT preachers.

          /For any evolution to occur, new information would be necessary./

          and there IS.

  16. As a designer, I reuse design patterns all the time. The odds of a random process, which is what evolution requires using mutations, is essentially zero. So, it appears that the reuse of design patterns and materials is an evidence of intelligence and not a natural process.

    • “As a designer, I reuse design patterns all the time.”

      We are not talking about patters, we have traced DNA and independent archeology to a correlating pattern. The simple species with simple DNA are traced in the bed rock, the strata, to the lower layers, while complexity escalates, we find that correlates to the strata where more and more complex creatures are found.

      Explain that.

      /The odds of a random process, which is what evolution requires using mutations, is essentially zero./

      You are obviously oblivious to biology. Mutations is what produces change, without that change, we couldn’t adapt. Without adaptation, how do you explain white people and black people?

      /So, it appears that the reuse of design patterns and materials is an evidence of intelligence and not a natural process./

      Please explain how a retrovirus is in the exact same place in our DNA as it is in the Chimp. A virus that existed millions of years ago.

      You have now THREE things to explain.

      To an uneducated individual, many things appear to be what they are NOT. Go study evolutionary biology and anthropology and then come back with your childish conclusions.

      I’m waiting.

      • To Dorian: A Virus HAS DNA or RNA, it IS NOT a part of DNA or RNA! You really need to do better. No wonder you have so much backwards.

        • What difference does that make? If you are talking about retroviruses, the point is not about DNA, but about the markers that a virus leaves behind, which is in the same place in our genes, out of billions of possible locations, they are in the same place in both the chimp and us, and it’s the same retrovirus.

          You need to do better.

          • So we have genetic sequences which are present in animals; there’s is turned on, and ours is turned off. So what? You have an intricately designed and robust coded system, complete with rapid duplication and error correction, and you can’t see that an Infinite Intelligence designed it, and that any other means would be impossible.

            Again, your lack of understanding.

  17. When we do not understand, we always have created a god to explain why it is so. Gods have always been created from ignorance. Religion should only be used to help us live agreeably on our planet. Let research guide our understanding to a more truthful and pleasant existence,

  18. Utter rubbish, the chances of a single cell arising without intelligence is so far below none that it is not just improbable but impossible. What part of de novo creation makes anyone think that it would be dissimilar to a body type that is similar.? To pretend that evolution makes any predictions or that the mechanism for the transmutation of species is dishonest to say the least. Again the who created God argument is ignorance of philosophy and basic rules of logic. You do not answer the question with a question and creating an infinite regress is as logical as it gets.

    • Your case of special pleading along with the argument from ignorance are pathetic to say the least. You are the dishonest person here, who can’t answer the begging question.

      Stating that this can’t come from this based on some idiotic probability, which you can’t even calculate since you don’t know how many times cells reacted to each other for eons, demonstrate your inability to think without a bias. The fact is, you are the one who is flunked in philosophy and logic.

      Infinite regress? How the hell do you know? Matter can’t be created nor destroyed, what makes you think you know physics? You OBVIOUSLY don’t.

      You claim a SIMPLE cell can’t arise from chemicals, yet your supernatural COMPLEX, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent god, can pop out of nothing with magical powers? What are you, brain dead? Simpler things are EASIER to form that COMPLEX. Get a clue.

      Until you can explain scientifically and demonstrate HOW your COMPLEX god is possible, the only utter rubbish here is you, who certainly pretends to know more than all biologists and physicist on the planet.

      You got your phd in biology and physics from where? yeah, I thought so.

      Grow up, you ignorant idiot.

    • I heartily agree! And Mathematical Probability, apart from any understanding of Biology whatsoever, demonstrates that Intelligence and Order cannot arise from Mindless Unguided Processes and Disorder. An uneducated child can see that there is a God, but an Intelligent Idiot cannot!

      • Order comes from chaos all the time, just look at a damn snow flake! Look at a rainbow!

        Where is your evidence for a god? Is it a virus? Is it a mutation that leaves a child deformed? Is it a poisonous snake? An earthquake? Tsunami?

        You people are brain dead.

        • I think you must be a virus. You certainly don’t act intelligent, and mainly criticize and mock according to your mentors, Krass and Dorkins.

          Your Atheist talking points are old and failed, not to mention totally wrong. You claim to be certain of what you say, yet you deny the compelling certainty of Probability. You show no understanding of the subject, and just spout the talking points. Maybe you should stick with what you do know, and stop the posing.

          And your very old, and stupid, “no evidence for God” argument, is pathetic. God has no obligation to show an intelligent person like you, but one who insists on being an unbeliever, and an idiot, anything more than He’s already shown you. He’s given you evidence, and if you CHOOSE to reject it, then you condemn yourself.

          And if you knew anything about Physics you would know that snow and rainbows are formed by simple, but very specific ordered rules, determined by our Designer/Creator. Again you show no understanding. Stick with what you know.

  19. So only humans can be creationists by experimenting on fly’s activating certain DNA??? But we cannot be products of creationists??? I suppose you think we are the center of the universe too??? Funny how the only way you try to prove evolution is by doing an experiment that involves human manipulation but there is no “real” documented experiments on how an animal evolved naturally. Here is original species in certain conditions here is new species that branched away here are old fossils of the rest of the unfit species that didn’t make it. And here is the new species that evolved from the one that branched out. Sounds simple but why haven’t anyone done such an experiment??? Because you can’t under normal circumstances change from one species into another. Someone or something has to manipulate the change. Aliens, humans, god whateveryou want to call it. Don’t tell me you leave two different dogs outside for years and they’ll change??? No the one with the thicker fur may die or surrive but he is not going to change into a cat or a bird unless some intelligent design whether it be man or some other life form changes it. Environment just decides who lives or who stays and who doesn’t. It doesn’t dictate change in ones body’s DNA. So if I live in the arctic my who life my kids will no longer need jackets??? People adapt their habits in order to survive we don’t grow extra body to do so. If that was the case. Funny how you guys along with religious people think life can be explained in a little book or through a string of equations. Our minds are not built to understand. Its like trying to teach a dog to be human. You can get him to do certain things but at the end of the day he’s still a dog.

  20. So what is it that makes species so different from each other, at least the mammals you mentioned? If a rat and human have 99% same genes, why are they different in their appearances and behaviour? Can human genes produce human body parts when coupled with animal genes or vice versa? if all species had a common ancestor, what was it? Also only why do humans pursue education, spirituality and research?

    • First, the point was that Chimps and Humans have approximately 99% identical DNA sequences. Not Human and Rat. The Rat DNA sequence is quite different from Human, although it contains a very similar set of genes. Indeed all mammals have very similar sets of genes, with the approximate same number. For each human gene there is a corresponding mouse or rat gene, although it will have a different DNA sequence in the rodent.

      From the DNA perspective humans and chimps are about as closely related as horses and donkey. But from the perspective of the horse, the donkey probably looks extremely different. Same for us and Chimps.

      Why are we spiritual? Actually, I’m not. But apparently you are. I cannot answer the question. I have no idea why some of us believe in the supernatural. You tell me.

      I suppose our interest in research reflects our natural curiosity. We like to understand things. Perhaps when we can’t figure it out we come up with a supernatural explanation that offers a pseudo answer.

Comments are closed.