10 things I'd tell Darwin

Guest post by Nick Lane, author of Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution

When Matt Ridley read Nick Lane’s new book he said “If Charles Darwin sprang from his grave, I would give him this fine book to bring him up to speed.” We asked Nick to write a quick 10-point primer for the father of evolution about our current understanding of the science of life.

"Darwin knew everything and nothing about evolution. Everything, because nobody grasped the priciples of natural selection better than he. Nothing, because almost all of today’s proofs of his theory are written in the languages of genes and molecules that he knew nothing about.

Darwin would be amazed and delighted by the scope and details of our current understanding of life. In Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution I take life’s most celebrated ‘inventions’, each one of which transfigured our planet, and trace what we know of how they came to be"

Here’s what Nick would tell Darwin:

1.    The Origin of Life
Darwin famously speculated about life beginning in some warm pond, but recent research has framed a far grander setting – the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. One type of vent bubbles hydrogen gas into the oceans, giving rise to a myriad of honeycomb cells with delicate mineral walls. These natural cells replicate spontaneously under the pressure of the vents. What’s more, they concentrate organic molecules, including DNA, up to amazingly high levels, and generate energy across a membrane just as living cells do today. There’s lots to learn, but as a setting for the origin of life, it brooks no equal.

2.    DNA
In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson walked into The Eagle in Cambridge and declared they knew the secret of life – the structure of DNA. It immediately provided the mechanism of heredity so sorely missed by Darwin. But Watson and Crick didn’t know how DNA coded for proteins. The story of the code within the DNA code is one of the best (and least known) scientific detective stories of the 20th century – and it also points to life’s origins in deep sea vents. Most unexpectedly, the detailed mechanism by which DNA is replicated implies that life actually emerged from the vents twice from a common ancestor that lived inside.

3.    Photosynthesis
Without photosynthesis, life wouldn’t be up to much. It provides us not only with all the food we need to live, but also with the oxygen needed to burn it up to provide our energy. And yet true photosynthesis arose only once in the whole history of evolution – in bacteria that were later captured by algae and plants and put to work. The trick depends on an enzyme that splits water to extract hydrogen, releasing oxygen as waste. The core of the water-splitting enzyme is similar to a mineral in its structure. Knowing how it works at the atomic level could help to solve the energy and climate crises of our planet.

4.    The Complex Cell
Complex life, like photosynthesis, arose only once on earth. The differences between plants, animals, fungi and algae suggest that plants arose from one type of bacteria and animals from another, but that’s not what happened. Compared to bacteria, our cells are virtually identical to those of a daffodil: we are in fact closely related. Complex cells arose in an unprecedented merger between bacteria. That vital step was not anticipated by Darwin, who saw organisms as diverging rather than converging. Yet without that improbable chimera, natural selection may never have got beyond bacteria, and none of us would be here.

5.    Sex
Sex is absurd. Not only does it cost a small fortune to find a partner, but it transmits horrible venereal diseases and parasitic genes, and randomises all successful combinations of genes. Worse, sex requires males, viewed by implacable feminists and evolutionists alike as a waste of space. So why we all have sex anyway was viewed as the queen of evolutionary problems in the 20th century. An old explanation for the benefits of sexual recombination has risen in a new guise, and helps explain not only why we have so much sex, but also why it got going in the first place in simple cells.

6.    Movement
Muscle is the invention that sets us animals apart. Yet the two molecules that make muscles work, the chain-like proteins actin and myosin, are found in all organisms, even those without any muscle. Nothing would have given Darwin more pleasure than the finding that the same molecules that power muscular contraction evolved from simpler forms that propel amoebae around, support plant cells, and help bacteria to divide. Or that they they work by forming a dynamic scaffold in cells in the same way that a variant form of haemoglobin does when it distorts red blood cells in sickle-cell anaemia. Selection fashioned such spontaneous quirks into the might of muscle.

7.    Sight
Darwin himself pondered the evolution of ‘organs of extreme perfection’ such as the eye, and it’s been an icon ever since. What use is half an eye, say detractors, yet the eyeless rift shrimp reabsorbs its fully formed larval eyes and replaces them with a naked retina – literally half an eye – as it moves down to the black-smoker vents. We now know how eyes evolved in more detail than any other organ. Surprisingly, it looks as if the critical light-sensitive protein at the centre of it all, rhodopsin, evolved from an ancestor in algae where it is used to calibrate light levels in photosynthesis. Some bacteria even use rhodopsin for a type of photosynthesis.

8.    Hot Blood
Hot blooded animals keep their thermostat jammed on hard at 37°C, regardless of need. Many small mammals need to eat as much in a day as a lizard eats in a month, and a serious penalty is smaller populations. One big benefit is stamina, yet dinosaurs like Velociraptor apparently combined stamina with a low resting metabolism. But hot blood may also solve an interesting problem with diets rich in carbon and low in nitrogen, such as leaves. Vegetarians get enough nitrogen from leaves only if they eat a lot and get rid of the excess carbon. We hot bloods just burn it off, and that enables herbivores to survive on a much lower quality diet.

9.    Consciousness
There’s no doubt that consciousness evolved, and that many animals are aware of themselves and their surroundings, perhaps right down to bees. But still there are deep uncertainties about what consciousness actually is. We simply don’t know yet how neurons firing in the brain can generate a feeling of anything. This is what philosophers call the hard problem, and it may be solved by studying the behaviour of animals like bees that apparantly gain neural rewards for finding nectar. I’d tell Darwin that consciousness is the last great challenge for understanding natural selection.

10.    Death
But death is no challenge. Without death, natural selection would count for nothing, and life could never have evolved the majesty of consciousness at all. Yet death benefits individuals, or rather their genes, in some way. Mitochondria, the power-houses inside our cells, hold the key. They generate reactive free radicals that ultimately undermine our health. The problem is that in the short term, free radicals optimise respiration, making us as strong and energetic as we can be when young. Antioxidants disrupt that. So sadly the penalty for vigour in youth is decreptitude in old age. But there’s hope. Birds leak fewer free radicals and live longer than mammals, without losing their vigour. And that means the anti-ageing pill is not a myth.

Comments

[derrick]

In his time nobody asked him "Why do we still have monkeys and apes"
All rubbish. I still believe in Adam & Eve.

[AL]

What would Darwin think when his theory of evolution has been used by such people as Stalin, Hitler etc.
And ultimately who is to say they were wrong? Strongest survive. There is no right or wrong in a world formed by chance with no reason.

[oneopinionatedmother]

interesting piece. It's odd that Darwin was seen as even vaguely controversial then as people had been selectively breeding dogs, sheep and other animals for centuries. Not that much of a cognitive leap to see this selection being operated by the none-too-merciful hand of Mother Nature.
Still odder that people fail to be convinced now. Ah well, only bad science fears a good question.

Shame Derrick didn't ask one! EAsy answer though - we still have apes etc due to divergent evolution - same/similar species take different evolutionary paths, or split, like the finches with different beaks depending on their food.

[Nick B]

I agree. Adam and Eve is a far more plausible explanation - if you have the intellectual capabilities of a five year old.

[Sean Philip]

Derrick - Your comment displays a profound lack of understanding of the process of evoloution. I sincerely hope it was meant in jest.

[Curious One]

Derrick, so do I, but it annoys me when people use the apes are around today argument because the theory goes that apes and people have evolved from one common ancestor and branched off individually in their own ways. I'm sure someone must have asked Darwin that question.

No, there are other things that puzzle me, but I dislike sharing my questions with the whole world wide web.

Alot of people's minds are blown at the complexity of life on earth and wonder at how it could have evolved (of course, I think the aim of this book is to explain that) and the simple fact that my hands work so effortlessly as I type this fills me with wonder at how all the muscles and bones work harmoniously. I know people will belittle me for saying this, but some of us can't accept that the complexity, even if it took millions of years, could come around accidentally, or rather developed blindly.

There is still so much we have to learn, I refuse to take evolutionary theory as fact. Mostly because I feel something else will replace it as we grow in our understanding of the world. We look back on previous generations and wonder what they were thinking, why did the paint their faces with lead etc when it was bad for them, and I think that future generations will look at us at the beginning of the 21st Century and wonder at how little we actually knew. It would be nice if we knew everything, but unfortunately we can only speculate. It's a frustrating and exciting time to live in, because we know more now than we ever have, but there is still so much more to learn.

[Nik]

"Why do we still have monkeys and apes"

For the same reason we have Americans yet still have the British....

[Cal]

Derrick clearly missed out on the evolution of rational thought.

[Nik]

"What would Darwin think when his theory of evolution has been used by such people as Stalin, Hitler etc."

BONG - Godwin's law = You lose

Stalin was a Lamarckian (thus allowed Lysenko to rule the scientific roost) and Hitler appeared to be a firm believer in God (Gott Mit Uns anyone?).

That said, the use/abuse of a scientific idea doesn't detract from how correct it is. Not that variable allelic density changing over time has anything to do with Nazi/Stalin.

Again, score one for knowing stuff...

[Martin]

Al - evolution is a scientific theory. It does not dictate moral behaviour.

"What would Karl Benz/Enrico Fermi think when his automobile/nuclear fission has been used by such people as drunk drivers/the US at Hiroshima+Nagasaki etc.

And ultimately who is to say they were wrong? The internal combustion engine works/nuclear fission happens."

Sound dumb? Thought so.

I find the people who seem to live in a world "with no reason" are antievolutionists as seen here.

[Eugenio del Rey]

Behind a successful and brilliant design, there is always intelligence, not chaos.

Where is the ancestor of dragonfly?
It was a mutation?

Science is brilliant, because life is brilliant.

[Charles Stephenson]

I believe in the evolutionary routh to the world we see today. I agree we dont have all the answers but year on year we accumilate more evidence to support natural selection. For those that believe in a god, like Darwin himself, should find comfort in the fact that maybe a god did plant the seed that eventually erupted into the big bang and lead directly to my fingers tapping this comment. Of course that would mean that your god would have little if any interest in your day to day health....but thats life.

[Andrew brown]

Life is far too complex to be explained by evolution. An individual human cell is like a city in minature with a transport infrastructure, energy production, borders, storage facilities, etc and we are supposed to believe that this somehow came about as the result of blind, chance processes. And the cell is just one part of far more complex structures. Sorry, but I don't have that enough faith to accept such a belief system.

[Gordon Willis]

I think Darwin would be even more gratified if the ten were reduced by one:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

[Gordon Willis]

Derrick wrote:
In his time nobody asked him "Why do we still have monkeys and apes"

I don't understand, Derrick. Why shouldn't we still have monkeys and apes?

[muhammed shafiq]

any preist,rabbi and mullah in any country of the world,before being allowed to sermon must hold a university degree in biological sciences and physics.when these religious fanatics are educated to such high levels,the world will benefit a lot,in the form of peace.

[Gordon Willis]

Curious One wrote: but some of us can't accept that the complexity, even if it took millions of years, could come around accidentally, or rather developed blindly.

You may be right in imagining that a new theory could replace Darwin's. But it must be a rational one. Many people give "God" as the best alternative explanation, but it is no explanation, because it only begs the question of the existence of God. Replace mystification at the complexity of human hands with puzzlement at the notion of the complexity of a being that can create everything else: where does THAT come from?

[David Jacobs]

Andrew; "Sorry, but I don't have that enough faith to accept such a belief system"

It takes no faith to see that evolution is the most logical explanation of our existing complexity. All arose step by step, in simple stages; from the first, probably RNA-based life clinging to clays; the development of a protective membrane and the first cell; the incorporation of bacteria within a cell as mitochondria or chloroplast; the rise of multicellular life; and onwards, slowly changing, to the diversity we see now.

Even eyes have arisen 30-40 times as there are different models. Ours, for example, are deeply flawed by placing the blood vessels on the surface of the retina - surely the 'wrong way round'; any 'Designer' would do better than that.

You believe we were designed; well, I ask, who designed the designer?

Ultimately which is more unbelievable - that life developed in small steps (Evolution), or that a being far more complex than us suddenly popped into existance of its own accord (so-called 'Intelligent Design').

Sorry, but I don't have enough faith to accept such your belief system

[AL]

"Stalin was a Lamarckian (thus allowed Lysenko to rule the scientific roost) and Hitler appeared to be a firm believer in God (Gott Mit Uns anyone?)"

Bong- wrong

Stalin and Hitler were evil fanatics,
And if evolution is right then this conversation means nothing, because there is no meaning.You talk yourself into a corner

[Hans Madison]

There was, as I recall, two theories from Darwin. The theory of natural selection and the theory of sexual selection. The last one was used to explain the feathers on a peacock. Only if you are attrative enough, will your have a chance of getting any offspring. Now... what bothers me is explaining how this mechanism survives natural selection and why it even exists. Not that I'm that ugly, but please enlighten me.

[Chris]

"There is no doubt that consciousness evolved." Really?
"There are still deep uncertainties about what consciousness actually is." Really?
What many scientists seem to believe is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity while philosophers would perhaps see the brain as a gross form of consciousness. It is all a lovely great mystery however you look at it.

[andrew]

Presumably monkeys still exist because there are no old testament flame breathing leviathans left to hunt them?

[Collin Brendemuehl]

#1 We know that the primordial soup theory of proteins combining and producing RNA/DNA cannot work for both mathematical and chemical reasons (Yockey).
#2 We know that when "The Link" on History Channel made its appeal to *Darwinain Gradualism* that it suddenly and plainly stepped outside the consensus regarding the evolutionary model. A good number of evolutionists are highly critical of that presentation -- not just us evangelicals and others who accept *some form* of special creation.
#3 We also know that the evolutionary model is *not monolithic*. There are some serious variations and conflicts between, for example, the positions Gould & Prothero, things which are not easily written off.

Enjoy,
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

[Collin Brendemuehl]

And ... Hitler held a deep hatred for Christianity. He only used it for enhancing his power. So while those who criticize Christianity because some jumped on the Hitler bandwagon, it is important to remember that the Liberal theologians jumped on that wagon long before.
Hitler was Hegelian with a touch of Nietzsche. He was not Chrisian.

[Nik]

"Stalin and Hitler were evil fanatics,
And if evolution is right then this conversation means nothing, because there is no meaning.You talk yourself into a corner."

You can be more than one thing at once you know... I suspect this is lost on you but Stalin promoted a scientific model that was based on the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics (though Lysenko). Which is sort of at odds with the natural selection Darwin talked of, and definately at odds with modern genetics.

I think by the second bit you're referring to the idea that Evolution is nihilistic, which is of course a misunderstanding as it is a theory based on observed facts rather than some sort of existential code (I won't deny that it brings the confusing idea of some beardy deity that may dispell this nihilism crashing down in flames though).

"And ... Hitler held a deep hatred for Christianity."

Ok how about this: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

"Lord"? Odd word to choose for someone burning with hate for christians....

[Roger Ball]

The same distortions of evolutionary theory which were used by the Nazis, consciously or unconsciously, are returning in our time. Assisted suicide is one example. On the surface, we are presented with seemingly sound moral argument. The practice is another matter. In countries where assisted suicide is legal, there have been cases of doctors recommending assisted suicide to cover up for their mistakes.

[James]

Has anyone got any thoughts on irreducable complexity? The idea that a machine has to have all the right parts, all the right size, in the right place, to work at all. Read 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J. Behe.

I've yet to meet a secular evolutionist who can really explain how things started on a biochemical level. They always start with something, and build on that.

Even so, can faith in science give us purpose? Meaning? Relationship?
I very much believe that evolution is the most plausible mechanism we have for life at the moment, but it's just a tool Jesus may well have used when He created everything.

[paul j. weighell]

Human evolution? I wouldn’t Adam ‘n Eve it if I were you Derrick.

[atomic]

The story of Adam and Eve is TRUE! The earth is only about 7000 years old.

[dann wright]

in reply to charles stephenson
i don,t understand how you come to the conclusion that if god planted the seed that created the big bang that it follows that he has no interest in your personal life as an addament atheiest till i was 19 till someone said call on the name of jesus and he will answer since that day i have gotten to personaly know god via the sacrifice that jesus made 4 us so untill everyone on earth and with a sincire heart tries to seek god (and they will find him) what the point of all this arguing to me all questions come back to one, does god exiest or not

[jakc]

Why Christians bother trying to scientifically disprove the theory of evolution is beyond me. Even if evolution was shown to be completely logically and scientifically incoherent, it shouldn't effect how believable it is to Christians. They obviously don't use those standards to determine whether something should be consider a likely or even possible series of events, or they wouldn't be Christians. If anything, if it were shown to be completely illogical, contrary to evidence etc. it would improve it's standing in the Christian community. No discernible evidence? That's because it requires faith. It wouldn't be faith if there was A SCRAP OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT.

I believe in Santa claus.

[Abrach]

That Darwin was able to perceive the truth of our existence from a 19th century perspective is utterly amazing.
Not as amazing however as the fact that so many numpties living in the 21st century still cannot grasp that simple truth...We were not created. We evolved.
Perhaps it all comes down to intellectual courage.

[Luke]

Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

[Antony Gibbs]

Good to see that Collin points out all the things that science can't prove (yet), but has not provided a shred of proof for AI or God, except for a very old book.

In 2000 years time uneducated idiots will be worshipping L Ron Hubbard based on his book. Oh wait, Americans are doing it already.

[Omg]

Just remember one day one day !! We will all ask the almighty for help

[Ray]

I find it odd that a religious person would say that they do not have "faith" in a logical scientific theory, one which they find hard to understand.

Many relgions are described as a "faith" because their followers have "faith" in a being whose very existance cannot be proven, and has not a shred of tangible evidence.

For the record, i have respect those people that are focused enough to have that faith - but please do not try and use logic to argue spiritual beliefs over science. It is an arguement laced with irony.

[Infinite Jones]

"And if evolution is right then this conversation means nothing, because there is no meaning.You talk yourself into a corner"

Funny how those of us who understand evolution use the strict scientific methodology of observation and prediction to test what we're proposing, and those who don't "believe" in it just try and trip the rest of us up over the semantics.

Unless you live in a cave and hunt your own food, I bet you're more than happy to accept the validity and results of the scientific method in other areas of your life. Using a computer to read articles online, for example.

If you have a theory about any alternate mechanism to evolution, do some science to test your theory, and come back to us with your results. Then maybe people will stop laughing at you.

[Drew]

Ah well, another bunch of "just so" stories posing as proof of evolution.

Pardon me for being ticked off, but "science" in terms of evolution comes up with a whole bunch of new "histories" every 5-10 years, and yet each and every time the proponents say it's all fact when it isn't (because the tale changes every time you blink).

Honestly, it's more useful to believe that cheerleaders created and control the universe than the shifting sands that science offers.

[Drew]

Ah, another bunch of "just so stories" trotted out as fact and scientific. Honestly, the "scientific truth" changes almost as often as the English weather.

It'd be more use to propose and support that evil cheerleaders created and rule the universe than trust the "facts" that masquerade as science.

[Benjamin Clough]

In response to Derrick's question, we don't "still" have monkeys and apes. Monkeys and (non-human) apes are our close cousins and are a legitimate result of evolution, the same as us, at this moment in time. They are our cousins, not our ancestors!

It seems to me that so many people who oppose evolution have a flawed understanding of it.

[Dave North]

Why are the "flat earthers", Derrick et al allowed to vote.

Seems to me that Evolution cannot be true if it allowed such a "stupid gene" to still exist.

[Aiya]

Interesting, though some explanations sound a bit cloudy (to me). On Death - helps to reconcile with the fact of aging.

On Derek and "Adam & Eve" - all-blinding catholic upbringing?

[eoin delaney]

Brilliant !!!! Thank you.

[I am not Ricky Gervais]

Derrick - would you like to do a podcast with Ricky Gervais?

[Theo Zhang]

We still have apes because there was one population that left the trees for ground living evolved two-legged walking and eventually superior intelligence and the ability to exploit new environments; the other one that stayed in the trees has continued to be succesful and stay in the trees and live as chimpanzees.

[Ian Kemmish]

He was a Victorian. Rather than ten things which merely refine his Big Idea, wouldn't he have been far more interested in the way it had been applied to the optimisation of complex non-linear models in engineering?

[Euphobia1]

I made a little video for Darwin's 200. It's called

Darwin v Adam & Eve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHlQgetztBw

It explains in words of one syllable what all the fuss is about.

It has been placed on The Best Educational Videos (Science )List and is getting "mega" views.

One comment was "Everybody should see this!" another "Epic Win!"

Darwin was a truly remarkable man!

[Leslie Hamilton]

Believe in Darwin . Gods only excuse to the mass mess world we live in is that he/she/it never existed in the 1st place. [Neitche]

[Robert Highfield]

Its interesting to read some of the contributions, as they show that so many years after Darwin, many people still don't get it! Recently I had a conversation with a well-educated person, who commented that the Dinosaurs were far more successful than humans, as they had been around for many more million years. Just in case anybody else thinks this, remember that every living thing on the Earth today is descended from the earliest life some 4 billion years ago. Since the dinosaurs have been gone for 65 million years, they have survived for 65 million years less than we humans have, except of course, we were'nt always humans, our ancestors evolved through many incarnations. Another way to look at it would be to realise that every living thing is our cousin, some close like Chimpanzees, and some distant, like daffodils. Some lines have evolved slower than others, such as the Cycads.
A more ethics based question is to consider our role and purpose. For example, we are the single most important factor in the great extinction now taking place. Should we be the cause of the failure to evolve further of so many of those cousins? Should we strive to be more neutral in our effect, or go even further, the logical conclusion to which would be humans preserving every living thing on Earth in its present state, and thus stifling evolution? (The idea of humans as custodians of the world, whilst touching, implies this outcome.)
Of course, the way we are going, we might not survive much longer, but that's another topic.
What is inevitable is that, unless God or ourselves create for us a 'higher purpose' our purpose will become our own satisfaction. I find that prospect appalling.

[Liam]

Hans Madison - Sexual selection works by males bearing traits that enable them to secure mates. This can be like antlers on a stag, which allow them to compete with other males. Females mate with the winner and by doing so endow their offspring with genes from the strongest male. Or it can be in the form of adornment, like the tail on a long tailed widow bird or peacock. Here, he ornament can be viewed in one of two ways. Either as an honest display of the bearers fitness and health (as they are costly to maintain). Or a female can choose based on an ornament, endowing her sons with the same trait therefore making them attractive to the next generation. It sounds circular, and it is! This can cause a runaway process which results in highly exaggerated traits i.e. peacocks tail.

Thats it in a nutshell, but theres a hell of a lot more to it of course. Many people have spent their entire lives trying to understand the processes invloved in sexual selection.

[Martin]

Leslie:

Interestingly enough, Nietzsche was also vehemently anti-Darwin.

Which certainly doesn't help those arguing that evolution => Nazism.

[John Dale]

Why is it that any piece which has anything to do with Darwin never gets more than half a dozen posts before some religious ignoramus derails it, and we end up with numerous posts from people disowning Hitler and Stalin.

Let me say this V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y. Even if Hitler, Stalin, and every nasty person who ever lived, didn't believe in your particular invisible friend, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not your fantasy world has any relationship with reality.

[Collin Brendemuehl]

Anton commits one of the fundamental errors -- pretending that you can provide empirical proof for an *inductive model*. That approach would get an F in any logic course.
Remember: Evolution is a *model*. It is not a simple theory but a collection of theories regarding different venues. The current synthetic view builds its model around genetics and fossils. Darwin is out of the picture.

[TrevorC]

I am not going to pretend I know everything. Regards to the Holy scriptures, in regards to creation. But I wonder if word for 'day' was lost in translation. As I read somewhere that the Hebrew word could be translated loosely as a 'expanse of time'. But what I would be interested in is if the order evolution or creation happening in the same order as we need green matter or plant life for good old air to breathe. As for my beliefs. I believe in God, but I am also beginning see that evolution may be plausible.The reason for this this is I have watched a few TV programs from the BBC. The Alice Roberts series about the journey of man and the that we could change our looks in a short period of time and skin colour, to name a few. The other begin the one about Ida. These programs are fascinating. As for my belief in God or Christianity , its about faith. But I guess some people feel insecure if they are attacked verbally because of having a point of view. Some science people could be a little less confrontation regards to Faiths.I have seen it happen where people are torn to shreds in forums. I could go on regarding other things. But it is my point of view. Thanks for reading this. :)

[Collin Brendemuehl]

Trevor,
There are a number of variants in defing "day" (yom in Hebrew) and it is an involved matter. The YEC crowd says it is only 24 hours, the TE crowd says it refers to "ages" and in between there are those who say it is a real time frame, but more in reference to events than chronology. See John Feinberg's "No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God" for a more thorough treatment.

[Jon Britton]

"Pardon me for being ticked off, but "science" in terms of evolution comes up with a whole bunch of new "histories" every 5-10 years, and yet each and every time the proponents say it's all fact when it isn't (because the tale changes every time you blink)."

Err, I take it you don't much of an interest in science? The good thing about the theory of evolution is that is a very general theory. As we gain more information, the theory gets tweaked, more gaps are closed, more knowledge is gained. This is why every time you blink, things change.

Just because our understanding of the order of things change, it doesn't mean that the mechanism is wrong.

Oh and to the person who asked about irreducible complexity - find an example then return. Of course, you would need an example that CAN NOT be explained by gradual evolution, not one that HAS NOT YET been explained.

Peace.

[Jon Britton]

And one more point on the Darwin/Nazi thing. Darwinian selection is BLIND, GRADUAL selection. Nazi 'selection' was neither blind, nor gradual, and bears no resemblance to ANYTHING Darwin said.

[Collin Brendemuehl]

Jon,
Gradualism is outmoded, even in evolutionary circles. Appealing to it does your position no good.
Also, we might do better to think of the Nazi movement as neo-Darwinian because they were eugenecists.

[Abrach]

To all believers, of whatever persuasion, ask yourselves this...
If Darwin was wrong and the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution is some kind of cosmic prank, do you really want to meet the God who created the host of parasites and insects and viruses that make life such a misery for so many?
What kind of creator are we talking about here?

[D Grierson]

Give me the continuing unravelling of 'how we came to be' by questioning constantly the few bits of information biology, physics, chemistry, maths, etc can weave together. It keeps the scientists going and is much better, for me, than the idea someone else's imaginary friend is responsible for life, the universe, etc.

[Frank Jenkins]

looks like another great book by this author - well done Dr Lane!

[Dave]

The complexity of the human hands and eyes would be as nothing compared with the necessary complexity of a omnipotent creator. So who/what created the fantastically complex creator?

[Ben]

How disheartening to read such a spine-tingling, fascinating article and then the comments of the fools who reject a theory they do not remotely understand on the basis of ancient myths.

[realityman]

Macro-evolution (molecules to man) is a belief system. where you see evolution, a system of chance, I see evidence of the Creator God. You may say that I am ignorant of the evolutionary process if you want (which is not true. In fact I probably know more about it than more who believe in the theory as I am a scientist with a Masters degree) Now, you can label me, insult me, and call me names, but that only shows your ignorance of my faith. I respect you for who you are as a person, and I only ask you to do the same in kind.

But I do ask you to think about this: If din bones found in Montana have red blood cells and soft tisse, how can it be that they are millions of years old? Scentist know this is an absolute impossibility. Plus how did Ida get buried so quickly such that her'lunch' was even preserved? Also how did the tropical rainforests found fossilized in coal deposits in Illinois and Kentucky not decay before they were fossilized? Last time I checked warm damp paces led to rapid decomposition (try using a compost bin - keep in warm and moist) but these leaves seem to have not decayed; ergo rapid burial over a large area ... why? think about it ... a Global flood would do wonders.

Then how about the 100' canyon carved out in one day back in when Mt St Helens blew her top in the early 80s ... hmmm rapid erosion that ought to have taken millions of years according to the geologic time scale.

Sorry to digress. But the point is this. Neither you nor I can prove the existence of God ... nor the process of macroevolution. Both are taken on faith ... a religion if you will. I know you will not like me saying it, but no one was around to record the very beginning ... unless oyou believe God's eyewitness account.

[Liam]

Hi Realityman, I'm not into insulting anyone - but you are wrong. You make the classic mistake of seeing this argument as being about god vs evolution. The existence or not of god has nothing to do with evolution. God cannot be proven or disproven. Evolution through natural selection (not chance!) is supported by a vast body of evidence. If you have a masters in a scientific discipline then you should know what constitutes good evidence.

To deal with your points, first off the fossilisation of soft tissues is not an "absolute impossibility" as you state. A mechanism of cross linking of molecular components followed by mineralisation has been proposed. If you are a scientist and interested you will know how to access the research published on this, rather than blindly accepting the propaganda published on Christian Young Earth websites. As for Ida and her lunch - can you really not imagine any method of quick burial? How about a mudslide? As for your tropical forests scenario, go read up about decomposition in anoxic environments. For example, in peat bogs its common to find woody debris that is intact yet ancient. Human bodies have been recovered after submergence for hundreds of years with their soft tissues (and lunches!) intact.

None of this is a challenge to God. It does however contradict a simplistic literalist interpretation of the bible.

Peace.

[Gene Thomas]

Al said, "Stalin and Hitler were evil fanatics, And if evolution is right then this conversation means nothing, because there is no meaning.You talk yourself into a corner."

Here is the corner: Who determines what and who are evil? by what standard is evil measured? How does one determine the line that separates evil from good.

Just for the sake of being fair, let us then turn it all around and begin by asking, who determines who and what are good?

Somehow, somewhere there must be an absolute, authoritative measure. Otherwise we are destined to search for an answer in a theory that proposes none.

When extending the theory of evolution to it logical conclusions it raises nothing but questions. Well OK, science is like that. But real science always is ready to abandon, or radically change its theories when they don't work out. Contrarily, evolutionists often get downright mean and personal about it. When they run into someone who believes differently than they do, rather that patiently defend their position they simply attack their opponents IQ, education, or worse.

If you don't believe that, then you may not have read all of the preceding comments.

(By the way, my IQ is 131. I am university educated and successfully retired from two different professions. And my position is that I am severely critical of the theory of evolution and believe that it is not an adequate explanation of our existence.)

[Brendan McLaughlin]

I've been studying macroevolution and molecular genetics now for about 3 years... There is no factual evidence for macroevolution. But evolution is a fact and a theory. Let me explain for those who don't understand (as I myself didn't) Microevolution is simply put, varitions in populations and species. However these slight "variations" are limited to the species and/or population. Macroevolution (the ability for a living organism to mutate randomly, adding genetic material to it's own and ultimately creating another function....is utterley implausable. There is no record (whether in fossils or lab test) no scientific observation of macroevolution occuring in 600 million years of fossil records we have. Never has a transitional fossil between species ever been found. Consider the rate per generation at which animals today breed. If macroevolution was even remotly possible, we should be finding 100's of millions of transitional fossils, not "searching for the missing link". And for those pro evolutionsists who think that all the professionals agree macroevolution is fact try googling dissent from darwinism and you'll find a signatory list of some of the worlds top geneticists, paleontologist, anthropologists who have pretty much concluded evolution as a fruad (as it was 50 years ago). Darwin himself conceded in "The Origin Of The Species" that if an abundance of transitional fossils were found, his theory would pretty much collapse... we have 600 million years of history (research "The Cambrian Explosion") and found nothing... There's one thing however which does frustrate me, and that's hardcore athiests who hide behind a theory they don't fully understand. Evolution cannot be simplified to just a "step by step process", the ability for genetic material to randomly mutate and create new fully functioning genetic coding thats beneficial to the organism is ludicrous, the actual lab abservations have concluded that macroevolution (random mutuation and natural selection) is NOT a viable theory. So don't rely on macroevolution unless you fully understand the mechanisms behind it, and once you do... I guarantee you'll wonder how you ever fell for it... www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.pssiinternational.com/

Start reading, stop believing

[Charles Runyon]

I admit I'm not that smart nor do I believe there is a God over looking and deciding our fate. If there was a God would it allow children to be born with Downs or any other issue? That being said when dogs are bred to form different dogs are they not still dogs? Is there DNA still not dog DNA? Thermo-nuclear physics would suggest that apes could only evolve from us and not us from them. When was the last time something greater came from something less? Things can only degenerate. Why are our brians so large yet we use a limited amount, maybe we were once far more intelligent? Just a thought.

[Charles Runyon]

Scientist all agreed we were headed for a global ice age in 1970, most scientist said life expectancy would drop to 42 years of age in U.S. by the year 2000. I guess my point is make sure we are not substituting one religion for another when discussing science. Is it any wonder that all organisms have similar components when we all come from the same source? However the DNA is clear there is a seperation between species. When was the last time a mule could reproduce? Why because when you breed different species you get mutants that can't reproduce, they are born sterile. I do not care if there is a god or not means absolutely nothing to me but make sure science is science and not a substitute religion.

[J Keith]

Evolutionists have more faith than believers in Adam&Eve ever will!

"Hope so's", "might have's" & "good chance's".

All conjecture in search of freedom from an ultimate authority that always hides behind the "you're just too stupid to understand (unlike me)" argument to dodge real questions.

Good luck to you all with your religion because that's exactly what it is.

[Agnostic]

IXOYC- Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma => Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior

DARUUIN- Deleo Auctor Res UtUniversum Infinitus Nosco
=> Destroy the Author of things with the purpose getting to know the infinite universe (no W in Latin so use "double u")

Not my original but I think it fits this discussion...

[Q]

Folks like realityman with his "master's degree" (in what?) display an appalling ignorance when directly parroting well-refuted creationist claims which is only surpassed by the arrogance in which he actually believes he has valid points. I know this is a tall order given you believe you already "know" the "truth" given you've read the comprehensive mythology of bronze-age Hebraic goat herders, but perhaps you could browse Talkorigins before making a fool of yourself again...
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)
But seeing as you likely won't attempt to actually educate yourself, then perhaps you could explain how Neil Shubin knew rather precisely where to find the Tiktaalik form? Or the concordance of endogenous retroviral pseudogenes with established phylogenies? Or why no oil/mineral companies are using "flood geology" in their explorations?

[What? people still listen to this?]

"team experimented by cooking up ribonucleotides from five small molecules thought to be present in the primordial soup".

Ummm... the theory of macroevolution states we all have a common ancestor. We started as a singularity, in other words, according to Darwin, one molecule by itself with the right conditions should not only be able to replicate, but be able to produce new genetic information through random mutation. No trial has ever shown this nor has it been observed in human history. Trials have taken place whereby several molecules where used and encouraged to exchange or grow in the presence of new genetic material... But then that isn't macroevolution at all... One would even say the trials that took place using rna/dna/bacterium or combinations of nucleotides would be artifically doctored by humans... "Created" one could almost say. Even though we assume the pre-historic enviroment contained certain elements, macroevolution states that we came from a singularity, a single celled organism. If you ask any Prof. in genetics he'll have to concede that that is simply not possible for a sigle celled organism to randomly mutate and create new genetic coding it doesn't have. Darwin though animals and humans alike had infinite potential to mutate... 150 years of bacteriology has shown that bacteria aren't capable of this awesome feat either... I guess the people with the facts don't want to admin that after all these years... They were wrong...

[Chris Wood]

Realityman, what kind of "scientist" are you that has a total lack of understanding of geological and biological processes? By your reasoning, police detectives cannot convict a someone for a crime to which there were no eyewitnesses, regardless of the existence of overwhelming evidence. We're going to have to let a lot of criminals out of jail then. We can send them over to your house to thank you.

[Louie]

Darwin won't be coming back from Death and Hell.

He found God as soon as he died.
"Mans science & wisdom" is foolishness to the wise creator God of all.
Here a list for the living..
10 Be Humble
9 Be Kind
8 Be Peaceful
7 Be Considerate
6 Be Honest
5 Be Ready
4 Be Slow to speak and quick to Hear
3 Be Compassionate
2 Be the one who Loves thy neighbor as thyself
1 Be the one who Loves God with all thine heart, mind and body.

[Denise]

Many great and totally logical (non-religious) arguments can be seen on the Science Against Evolution website: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/newsletters.htm

Check it out if you're not afraid of logic and truth. It doesn't argue for God, just shows how illogical macroevolution is.

My personal favorite thing about evolution arguments is how it has been "proven" as "fact" and yet every new discovery touts itself as being the cause of rewriting the entire theory. You know, when I was in school, facts were facts and didn't change. They may be added to, but they didn't change. Even though we don't use vacuum tubes anymore, all the facts about them and how they work are still true. Strange how facts have changed. Why are evolutionists so afraid to let its deficiencies be taught in school? You don't have to teach ID, but true science should be willing to show pros, cons and holes without fear.

[Dana]

Wow, all the crazy ideas about evolution here.

1. It's not about "the strong surviving." It's about organisms surviving when they don't have traits that kill them before reproductive age.

2. Thus, Hitler and all the other eugenicists were wrong.

3. We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, gorillas, or monkeys. Instead, we have a common ancestor with them. So they exist for the same reason that your cousins exist even though you're here.

4. Don't confuse your incorrect notions of what science teaches, with what science actually is. I agree that some scientists treat what they do as a religion, but that doesn't invalidate science itself. If your mother has brown hair and someone describes her as having blond hair, that doesn't mean your mother doesn't exist.

5. Species don't change through random mutation? Really? Guess there's no such thing as white people, then, and I don't have to worry about antibiotic resistance in bacterial infections either. Whew, what a relief.

Seriously? I thought UK schools were better than American ones. Why are you people arguing the same old tripe our creationists do?

It should be pointed out that Pope John Paul II stated there is no reason God couldn't have created the world's living things through evolution. And evolution doesn't say how life began, only how it became what it is today. We can only speculate what got it started and there is no fossil evidence. But to believe in intelligent design you must first postulate that there is an extraterrestrial intelligence which could have done the designing. There is NO way to find evidence for this outside religious people's fevered imaginations. Until we find a way to secure that evidence, creationism and ID remain in the realm of religion, not science.

But we can prove that species change. And we don't need to invent an imaginary friend to do it.

[Dana]

One more thing: I honestly don't get what's so hard to figure out about human beings being primates. Can you not see the structural similarities between us and chimps? Binocular vision, opposable thumbs, social groups, etc.? The old system of classifying living things was based on structural similarity and now that we can do DNA testing we find that the old natural philosophers were correct about genetic relationships more often than not. Why? Because similar structures often arise out of similar DNA. We've found the same thing in primates: we share at least 99 percent of our DNA with chimps. Unless you're willing to disown your offspring because DNA doesn't prove anything, perhaps you anti-evolutionists should reconsider.

It's only a hardship to consider oneself related to other primates if one considers primates to be dirty or disgusting or evil animals, anyway. I don't. Do you?

[nedschnittt]

Wow, so much anti-Christian hate from the "tolerant" lefties.

Micro Evolution has been observed (like bird beaks).

Macro Evolution hasn't, and takes a lot more faith.

[Justin]

I'm with Louie and Denise. Both good comments

[Paul Becke]

"Behind a successful and brilliant design, there is always intelligence, not chaos.

Where is the ancestor of dragonfly?
It was a mutation?

Science is brilliant, because life is brilliant."

Andrew Brown, apparently, they believe in Serendipitous Design. Never mind that the very word, "design", implies both intelligence and purpose.

The immature level of atheist's thinking never ceases to amaze me. Many seem unable to even grasp that evolution is a process, not its own prime mover.

The oogly-oogly bird its own creator and prime mover? Well, maybe. But not evolution.

[Wait a sec]

If it were possible for a cell to arise by chance, Evolution could explain the origin of life. However, it is impossible for a cell to have come into being without the proteins that give it structure, meaning and purpose. But proteins can only be produced in a living cell. No proteins, no cell; no cell, no proteins. QED.

[scot brandon]

Darwin also probably would want to know the missing link is still missing along with the entire chain. Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups. A frog becoming a prince after billions of years!!

Nothing becoming everything is a scientific impossibity...Darwanism is a religon that takes faith to believe.

[Mark]

11. Figure of hatred

Dear Mr Darwin. I wish it were all good news, but unfortunately 150 after you published OTOOS, during which time more varied supporting evidence than you could have imagined has been discovered, you are still a figure of hate for many of the ill educated superstitious bigots in the world.

It goes without saying that none of them can actually argue against natural selection,as most of them don't even understand the concept (in fact I wouldn't trust many of them to be able to convincingly argue which was their left foot and which their right), but of course that never stops them from displaying their delusional fantasies whenever your name appears in a news item, indeed it seems that a fair number of them get off on making themselves appear as ignorant as possible - I think the idea is that they can then claim persecution when people point out the ridiculous nature of their puerile rantings, and as we all know by now, the one "scientific" principle they do accept is that the amount of imagined persecution one suffers is directly proportional to the number of Jesus points earned.

[Simon]

The eleventh thing to which I'd introduce Charles Darwin is... Richard Hawkins.

I'd love to hear the professor of atheism berate the founder of evolution for his religious beliefs.

[TheTruth]

" but it's just a tool Jesus may well have used when He created everything."

Posted by: James | 27 May

LOL...First,Even by ur own beliefs Jesus was not the creator his "father" was so please if u beleive in fiction please at least read the whole story first. and Second If you want to know the Facts, What we perceive as Aliens And UFO's are Actually our Creators Evolution is true but they have Altered it since they have Arrived here Thousands of years Ago; infusing their genes to make us and in turn Strengthen theirs. We are aliens as traces of Humans does not go past 12 thousand years (maybe our Earthling Ancestors but not Humans). Reason: After traveling through Space for a millenium They lost Structural Strength in their bodies and needed Gravity and simple Evolution to Strengthen them again and just like in the bible and all the other nations (religions)they informed they are coming to "harvest us". day, December 21st 2012. History and science will point to this fact(Ufos are on most Cave and cliff drawings,Mayan,Incan,Aztec,Chinese,Indian, and Egyptian Artifacts) then Described as "Gods"(Who Wouldnt) , you just have to have more intellect than a moth to understand it. And P.S. LOOK UP AT NIGHT! there are things We can See that are unexplainable everyday now as they are readying to Reap the Sowed Human Seed.

[God's Son]

Bottom line...something never comes from nothing. The world had to begin with something. Where did that something come from? If you don't believe in intelligent design then tell me how everything we see came from nothing. Tell me when this has EVER been observed. Science is observable and testable. Quit calling a theory science. Add all the millions and billions of years on it and it still wont matter. The only reason millions and billions works so well for you evolutionists is because people can't think in those kinds of numbers. So, for the dumb, it somehow sounds plausible. Our government gets away with it to with it's reckless abandon spending.

[TheTruth]

and how do I know All this?, Cause I too Am a
Governor
Of
Design

[linda]

Why are human babies helpless for such a long time? Monkeys and apes aren't. What evolutionary benefit did that provide humanity? It is a distinct disadvantage to survival. Evolution is part of the great delusion the world comes under.

[Martin]

Louie - I notice your list doesn't include "believe in 6-day creation" on it. What's up with that?

The way some of these antiintellectualist Christians go on, you'd think it was some kind of prerequisite to salvation...

[Martin]

Louie - I notice your list doesn't include "believe in 6-day creation" on it. What's up with that?

The way some of these antiintellectualist Christians go on, you'd think it was some kind of prerequisite to salvation...

[California David]

I have no problem with monkeys of various types still being here--although it is interesting that they haven't evolved out of existence since we humans are here--but nevertheless what bothers me is that they don't even look part human--say one half human or 3 quarters human-----at least some of them should look almost like us since they've been around so much longer than we have---and some of us humans--at least a small percentage should be evolving onto the next level of evolution--looking a bit different than most of us...but I don't see that either...strange indeed.

[David Sutherland]

Christians fight evolutionary scienctific thought because Evolutionists are stupid enough to lead them in the mantra that 'Evolutionary Thought is all about disproving God.'

Read the threads here and you'll see clear examples of people fighting the idea of a creative God and yet the article was about Darwin.

Give me an strong Evolutionist who can reconcile the Christian God well with the "story of evolution" and you may say some of the furor go away and science can go back to progressing.

[In memory of Dr. Ralph D. Winter
1924 - 2009 -- Read:
http://uscwm.org/rwi/2%20The%20Unfinished%20Epic%201.pdf ]

[Kallistos]

The Truth wrote:
"LOL...First,Even by ur own beliefs Jesus was not the creator his "father" was so please if u beleive in fiction please at least read the whole story first."

Just to set the record straight. You are incorrect.

The Orthodox Christian teaching is indeed that all things were made, by for and through Jesus the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, NOT the Father.

[Kallistos]

It is interesting to note that the Holy Scriptures indicate a synergy betwixt God and the Earth which He had created...

He told the Earth to bring forth seeds and trees and plants etc...and the Earth did what He said....

And God said, "Let the Earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The Earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

He told the Waters to bring forth living creatures....and the Water did....

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." And God saw that it was good.

[ryan]

rather than question how today's life came to be from yesterday's life, I ask a deeper question. How does it go from atoms, molecule, chemical reactions to life and, ultimately, consciousness? Where does that spark/jump come from? Don't get me wrong, I find the idea that there is a conscious sentient being that judges us based on our actions to be laughable at best. But the whole spark of life thing makes me wonder if there isn't a bit more to our existence than the mere physical...

[john smith]

To figure the sex part of our evolution. Well, we know it is perhaps the strongest of all biological imparitives and Although we have not figured the complexity of it completely the "God created sex for mans/womans pleasure" is a pretty good theory. Even for those opf you who have no God but Darwin it's pretty good.

[Pete]

At base, Charles Darwin was a deeply observant biologist who kept really good notes. Oh, and he also had a pretty fantastic mind.

So it irks me no end to see all this b*llshit about Nazis, Nietsche and evangelicals mentioned over-and-over in response to discussion of Chuck D's profound contributions. Over and out.

[Trevor Lee]

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

[Kevin]

What is truely astounding to me is the volume of people on both side of "The Darwin Issue" who espouse their opinion and yet have NEVER actually read any of his published works.
Lets see, I am not going to taste that food because I 'know' that it tastes bad or I demand you boycott of that movie that I have never watched.