Best evidence so far that humans are still evolving, scientists say
Humans are still evolving, scientists say, but don't expect any winged mutants like this one from "X-Men: The Last Stand."
October 3rd, 2011
03:00 PM ET

Best evidence so far that humans are still evolving, scientists say

Ordinary people evolve to have extraordinary capabilities on TV shows like “Heroes” and movies like the "X-Men" franchise. In real life, people don’t have genetic mutations that give rise to wings or telepathy, but scientists say human evolution is still happening. A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science offers some of the best evidence so far.

Researchers at the University of Quebec at Montreal examined a very detailed database of church records for residents of Ile aux Coudres, a tiny island northeast of Quebec City, Quebec, between 1799 and 1940.

The data allowed scientists to track the ages at which female residents had their first-born children. Among those women, the average age of first reproduction dropped from 26 to 22. The study supports the idea that increasingly younger birth ages were influenced by genetic changes caused by natural selection. In other words, the propensity to have a child at a younger age is the result of inherited genetic traits, the study suggests. (Evolution means that organisms change over time based on inherited traits).

"The study is the first to demonstrate a genetic response to selection in a very important demographic trait in a human population in such recent times," said Yale University professor of evolutionary biology Stephen C. Stearns, who helped review the study.

The evolutionary change is likely due to falling mortality rates, says Stearns. Better hygiene, vaccines and medicine that allow more infants to survive, he says, are likely linked to ongoing evolution among the women on Ile aux Coudres who had children earlier with each successive generation.

But why does the study consider the mother's age at first birth a genetic trait rather than a cultural one?

Well, for one, the research offers genetic evidence that the trend of decreasing age of first birth was largely biological, says Stearns.

In general, there is a correlation between age at a woman's first menstrual cycle and age at first birth. That said, it's possible that the "inference" of the trend as a genetic trait was "contaminated" somewhat by "any element of culture - such as education, wealth or religion - that varied among families," he says.

The only way to draw a definitive conclusion, says Stearns, would be to measure culture as precisely as science measures genetics - which is impossible - or to study a large group of both identical and fraternal twins reared apart from birth - which is difficult.

As a result, Stearns says, "we must remain agnostic on a definitive conclusion."

The study "is probably one of the very best confirmations so far that human populations are still evolving," Stearns says. Until recently, it was assumed that humans hadn't changed in any significant way genetically since the ancient Greeks or earlier, he says.

"I think that science is now showing that it may be happening slowly - but we are still changing," says Stearns, who authored a similar study using detailed medical records beginning in 1948  from a group of people in Framingham, Massachusetts.

But a co-author of the new study, Emmanuel Milot, points out that just because "evolution is possible in rapid time, doesn't mean that it's occurring all the time."

"We're changing," Stearns says, "in ways that are being shaped by our culture."

It's not the first study to suggest this idea.

Tibetans in the Himalayas have evolved to better adapt to low oxygen at high altitudes over just a few hundred generations, according to research published last year.

Other studies revealed that adult humans in regions of Africa and Northern Europe developed the ability to tolerate lactose in their diets as recently as 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Scientists say the evolution was linked to the cultural reliance on milk as an agricultural product.

"What is different with our study," says Milot, "is we follow the change from one generation to another in the population. The lactose tolerance and Tibetan studies are processes that occur during a longer time that leave patterns in the genes of the population."

The Quebec study will help scientists close in on one of the biggest cutting-edge questions in the study of contemporary evolution: How important is specific genetic makeup when it comes to medical treatment? Physicians in the future may improve health care by learning more about how treatment outcomes are linked to the particular genetic maps of their patients.

Although science has overwhelmingly accepted Charles Darwin's 19th-century theory of genetic evolution by natural selection, the concept still has its doubters. In fact, when CNN Light Years opened up the floor to reader comments on the topic of evolution, there were more than 3,500 responses, with a broad mixture of opinions, and clearly some people have strong views about whether religious beliefs can mesh with evolution. But the scientific community treats evolution as an established fact.

By the way, just for fun, we had to ask: What about super powers? Any chance that ongoing evolution will be creating any winged superheroes any time soon?

Um, no, says Stearns.

"No mutations producing another pair of appendages have ever been observed - among humans or any four-legged creatures - in 350 million years. That's among millions of different species - not only our own. It's not going to happen."

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • Human ancestors • News • On Earth
soundoff (786 Responses)
  1. Ethan

    I do not believe in evolution for many reasons, here is one of the main ones: The scientific THEORY of evolution states that man evolved from a single celled organism and to this day is continuing to evolve to a state of perfection. The second scientific LAW of Thermodynamics states that the earth is wearing down and that all things wear down with age. This Law is not in question we see it every day it is why old tools rust, it is why old food molds and why people die. This law is in direct conflict with evolution but supports what the Bible states in Genesis 3 where God cursed the earth so that things would die with age. When a Scientific Law that has been shown consistent with generations of Data contradicts a scientific theory that changes like every day I find that theory to be far from correct!

    February 11, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
  2. Wallace Barbosa

    wbsouza88@yahoo.com

    Oh Lord, this is sad... Absolutely EVERY AND ANYTHING is evidence of evolution!!!!!!!!!
    But we can't make use of the argument God did it!!! Even despite that the later makes much more sense than the former 🙂

    Evolution is the only atheist "solution" against God.. That's why they will never get ride of it, regardless of facts such as biochemistry, DNA and consciousness appearing by itself being totally unlikely, and that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics atests against evolution...

    February 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
  3. Pascalh Corriey

    Enjoyed reading through this, very good stuff, thankyou . "It requires more courage to suffer than to die." by Napoleon Bonaparte.

    July 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  4. Google

    [...]Every when in a when we pick out blogs that we study. Listed below would be the most current web-sites that we pick out [...]

    March 13, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  5. Idiossebreern

    I was just looking for this info for some time. After 6 hours of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your web site. I wonder what's the Google's issue that doesn't rank this type of informative web sites closer to the top. Normally the top web sites are full of garbage.

    January 25, 2012 at 1:22 am |
  6. Mammie Rende

    Many thanks good towards the good data. Evidently nondiscriminatory wen upwards! We routinely perform not really icreasing upon those however think about a person do the animatedly buddy-buddy despoile as well as I'm indisputable many people suavity the actual much less anyhow.

    December 8, 2011 at 5:35 am |
  7. SocialBio

    Why is "culture" considered as though it were entirely separate from "genetics"? Natural selection gave us social behavior. It follows that it acts upon our social behavior as well as our individual behavior.

    If it is good for natural selection for couples to have children at younger ages then that would cause mutations to be beneficial not just in the woman effecting her sexual behavior but also in the men. A man could carry a gene making him more likely to desire to have a child earlier, leading him to persuade the woman. In fact since usually women tend to want children more than men do it's possible it could be a mutation leading to men being more docile towards women. It could even be a gene for reduced self-control which would seem to be a genetic drawback but if it had a roundabout effect of increasing reproduction it might get promoted. In that case it would likely relate to a number of other effects in people's daily lives that contribute to natural selection and possibly a few effects that hurt natural selection(but are outweighed by the ones that help).

    November 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  8. Max_B

    Dunno about growing a pair of wings, lol... but as for "telepathy', I'm much more open minded about it...

    I thought Sheldrake:(2000) "A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home: Videotaped Experiments and
    Observations" published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration", was interesting, it's certainly worthy of reading...

    http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/pdf/dog_video.pdf

    Richard Wiseman a noted UK skeptic, was given access to the same dog to conduct his own tests. Although the paper Wiseman subsequently published attempted to debunk Sheldrakes far larger body of experiments with this dog, Wiseman actually ended up reproducing Sheldrakes results, but still refuses to accept Sheldrakes interpretation.

    Susan Blackmore also raised specific doubts about Sheldrakes paper, forcing him to re-analyse his data to deal with her objections. The resulting re-analysis ended up strengthening, rather than weakening the evidence for Jaytee knowing when his owner was coming home.

    October 29, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  9. Mark Manly

    Is it just me or is Elizabeth Landau, one of the Writer/producers of this segment, insanely hot? You can see her pic at the end of this long list of comments. Yowsa!

    October 20, 2011 at 10:21 am |
  10. Jonathan Reality

    Ah, Evolution – the opium of the liberal masses. Science's pride and joy and yet so badly flawed. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

    October 20, 2011 at 10:13 am |
  11. Jasper Eliot

    Lately I've begun to ponder whether we're not evolving but actuallly DE-volving. Here's an example of what I mean: Man evolves to have increasingly good eyesight because it helps him to avoid getting eaten. Those with the worst eyesight didn't see the danger coming so they ultimately left the gene pool. Now, with our technology to cure bad vision–or other genetic defects–even the sickly and overweight can survive. Lower income groups and those of lower intelligence appear to procreate in greater numbers than intellectuals. Since dumb, fat and blind humans are populating the Earth in greater numbers, will this result in evolution taking a 180-degree turn?

    October 20, 2011 at 2:02 am |
  12. Paula Derry

    The incredible design and purpose shown in the living cell and in the structures that make up living organisms have never been adequately explained by evolution. DNA is a prime example of this. DNA is a digital code made up of only four amino acids. As a digital code it provides a blueprint so that all the various mechanisms and forms of life are replicated according to its instruction. The question arises then how could something like DNA to be created randomly? There is no such thing as a self-generating code – for a code is an agreed upon representation of what it's trying to communicate. That's why they're used in espionage; they don't mean anything taken at face value. It is only when someone or something who understands the code based on rules which were prearranged will the true message of the code be known.

    Similarly, the idea that several thousands of mutations that happened in the proper sequence are responsible for the flying birds or the eye of a man are, when examined objectively, pure fable. We never see this type of successive mutation in reality. Even the fossil record shows environmental systems such as the Cambrian explosion appearing abruptly and completely. Also, the odds for such a delicate balance of all variables required for life to exist is so infinitesimal (see our latest newsletter for more on this idea) that holding it happened by accident becomes absurd.

    So, if all these things are evident, some may ask, why do smart people like scientists keep saying evolution is true and scientifically proven? Well, when you get them to talk seriously about evolution, they say something different. Professor Richard Lewontin wrote in The New York Review "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." This honest admission shows that these scientists view their theories as dogma. They are taken on faith alone, and not on objective scrutiny.

    There is so much more to this topic that I cannot cover due to time and space limitations. I do hope, however, that everyone would think twice before shying away from the evolutionary debate or retreating to a "I take it solely by faith" response. There is good evidence that evolution fails, and so the question then becomes if evolution doesn't work, what other options are there for the existence of life? The evolutionists know the inescapable answer to this question: a Creator.

    October 20, 2011 at 1:55 am |
  13. Fedgie

    Yes, man can develop wings:
    start with athletically lightweight hairy armed;
    allow those that can leap the furthest to mate;
    select those who's hairiness helps them glide to mate;

    October 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
  14. Len

    Hmm, the only evolution I see here is the re-defining of science from a discipline of objective observation to "it's science cause I say it is". I hope that people can still recognize when a dog is sniffing its own... Here are a couple of things wrong with the study: 1) it failed to look at other possible causes for earlier menses- such as nutrition, general health, or maybe the possibility that earlier onset of sexual activity may trigger menses, and 2) evolution by its definition should never pause since its function conjures constant adaptation-the conclusion of this study is therefore a circular exercise with a leap-of-faith conclusion.

    October 14, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
  15. Chris, Austin

    I wonder how many of these comments CNN actually reads. It's clear from the tone in a couple of the late paragraphs that these folks are provoking you with this article. CNN is trolling, which is a type of hunting that involves slowly passing obvious bait – most often used in fishing shallow waters. (The fact that people who go trolling the web to upset others for their own amusement can be referred to by a word for a mythical creature that is ugly, obnoxious, and spawns in the damp filth under bridges is merely a happy linguistic accident.)

    October 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • Jonathan Reality

      DERP!

      October 20, 2011 at 10:15 am |
  16. Jeanne

    Why aren't they talking about the rather recent development that humans are showing up with more than two strands of DNA? More and more children are being born with three or more strands and scientists know this. Why the silence about this?

    October 13, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Are you talking about Chimeras? If they're not talking about it, it could just mean that there isn't very much known about it... and rather than flying off the handle with random speculation, they're trying to find more similar cases and do more research. Geneticists do think they know what causes this phenomena (fusion of two early fetuses or shared blood in the placenta) but you can imagine that the condition is only found when doing a DNA test on a person... not everyone gets it done once, let alone the two times minimum that it'd be required to find an actual Chimera in the first place. So no need to sound the alarm bells yet... the men in black aren't at your back door.

      October 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
  17. N3rd

    This isn't a case for evolution, it's a case for bad parenting. Human evolution needs to be marked as something more than young women who get pregnant and high school and college, that's just irresponsible.

    October 12, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • Johnakim Lucien

      very true.

      October 12, 2011 at 9:53 am |
  18. fimeilleur

    It seems to me that you equate Satan's power as equal to that of God's... he can preform miracles (talking snakes), create fossils to deceive us, and influence us by talking to us from the after life... does God have an equal?

    "Still in this world all these things is taking place" yes, and they happen all the time whether you believe in God, Vishny, Ra, Zeus, Odin or Ptah.
    "What solution do you have?" Natural phenomena as a result of a changing planet.
    "Since you and the rest that discredit the Bible give a reasoning account for that tragedy that takes place in the world." Like I said before, I don't discredit the Bible, it does that on it's own merit.
    "What happens after you die??" You decompose like all organic material on this planet. Your brain ceases to function and all electromagnetic functions stop.
    "For that matter if we are evolving then why are we dying?" It is part of the life cycle... reproduction, birth, growth, pairing with another, reproduce (if possible), die. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet, not the origins, nor the future. It only makes the prediction that in the future, life will be a lot more different than it is today.

    What's beautiful about it, is that it's completely independent of the person, animal or plant's religious convictions.

    October 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      sorry, this is in response to Johnakim Lucien.

      I'll repost for context.

      October 10, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  19. Johnakim Lucien

    The Bible can counter evolution. The Bible has explained why persons have evolved or rather why we are changed. The only exception is that the evolutionist will speak of primates, whilst creation speaks of Adam and Eve. Who is there to deny that Adam and Eve's skull could look different after all theirs were made perfect.
    We are handed down the same hands, feet etc due to the traits originally embedded in Adam. Further the reason why we change is because of sin. If it weren't for sin all the sickness of these world would not be. All the diseases that come in food would not be. We have broken a number of laws and this is why the world seems to be evolving. As for the matter of persons having children at a younger age. This is really and truly as a result of our diets and not necessary something handed down to them. Take for example chickens that are injected with hormones. They lay faster. When we eat such things they go into our blood stream. If you don't believe me try eating something that will get you sick. It is all about following laws of health and other laws. The Bible is its infallible nature states this.

    October 7, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Repeating the lie does not make it true... Infallibility of the Bible.... I have shown you multiple examples of how this is not true. Your "were you there to say differently" argument can easily be turned to "were you there to confirm it". So then it falls down to which makes more sense? 1 man and one woman give birth to two boys, one kills the other and runs away with his wife (where'd she come from?) to the village (again... WTF???)... God gets mad at the world and picks 1 family of 8 to repopulate after He kills off every living creature on earth with two of every animal (no mention of plant life) etc. etc. etc. This story has more holes than a pasta strainer. No, your Bible is no more accurate than the Koran, or the Vedas or the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

      October 8, 2011 at 11:09 am |
      • Johnakim

        This Book is still my guide and in it has something about my Savior, so I don't know about you but as for me, I will serve the Lord. What will it profit me if I didn't believe and died eternally. There is something better ahead.

        February 23, 2012 at 7:04 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Johnakim,

        Classic fingers in the ears to block out reason. Nice talking with you.

        March 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
  20. DEADWALKER

    wow god did theres provin facts and evolution is a study of theories all basted into one main topic you guys are complete idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    October 7, 2011 at 8:30 am |
    • DEADWALKER

      yes i see what you mean there it makes more sense now that you brought that to my attention and what your saying is absolutely true

      October 7, 2011 at 8:32 am |
    • Dan

      "wow god did"
      Which God? (Everyone knows I'm rooting for Spaghetti Monster!)

      "theres provin facts"
      Which facts? How were they proven?

      " and evolution is a study of theories all basted into one main topic"
      Evolution *is* a theory. It's not a study of theories.

      "you guys are complete idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
      That's the best you can come up with? That's your argument?

      October 7, 2011 at 10:29 am |
  21. Gregg

    What's interesting, is I don't see too many creationists trying to refute the fundamentals of modern astronomy when in their own book that the earth doesn't move, and that the stars are little lights attached to a firmament, basically the inside of a very large vault which makes up the sky. Much of the evidence of say, the heliocentric model of the solar system, and that the stars are far-away suns is not directly observable by the layperson, much like evolution.

    October 6, 2011 at 1:31 am |
    • Dan

      That's because one of the biblical challenges is determining how to interpret things. And I'm not saying this to be inflammatory or mean.
      You never hear Christians demanding the repeal of antibiotics in favor of killing birds as a treatment for leprosy. You'll be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't quickly turn to word games or rejecting a literal interpretation when you talk about Matthew and tossing a mountain into the sea via faith and prayer.
      Some things are literal, some figurative (according to Christians). The list of ones to be taken literally dwindle over the ages. Should they take Genesis literally? Much debate has followed! An ever-increasing number say no.

      October 6, 2011 at 9:18 am |
      • fimeilleur

        And that's what kills me...
        how can anyone claim the Bible is a book of infallible truths, and then say that Genesis is just made up to explain science to a lesser intellegent being...
        how can anyone claim the Bible is a book of infallible truths, and then say that Genesis is true, when it can be demonstrably shown to be false...

        Or better yet... the consistancy of God, and how he changed from a revengefull God to a loving God... (OT vs. NT)... why would a god need to change if he is perfect?

        October 6, 2011 at 9:35 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        The Holy Bible is a book of Infallible truths and has a solution to the world's problem.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:29 am |
      • Dr.K.

        To me, that's one of the frustrating denials on the part of fundamentalists – denying that interpretations of "literal truth" change through time in response to social and political pressures (umm..cultural evolution would be the appropriate term I think). If the same people who insist scripture is literal truth regarding biology and physics, or homosexuality for that matter, are not out there sacrificing a ram in their backyard every Saturday and smearing the blood on themselves and the doors of their homes then they cannot really claim to believe the literal truth of their book. Their choice of what to take literally and what not to is transitory and is chosen according to what agenda is being promoted.

        October 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Dr.K.

        To me, that's one of the frustrating denials on the part of fundamentalists – denying that interpretations of "literal truth" change through time in response to social and political pressures (umm..cultural evolution would be the appropriate term I think). If the same people who insist scripture is literal truth regarding biology and physics, or homosexuality for that matter, are not out there sacrificing a ram in their backyard every Saturday and smearing the blood on themselves and the doors of their homes then they cannot really claim to believe the literal truth of their book. Their choice of what to take literally and what not to is transitory and is chosen according to what agenda is being promoted.
        Dr K
        You are making some vain statments andf you don't understand the significance of the Bible. THE SACRIFICE here was pointing to the Savior that the lamb to be slain in the person of Jesus Christ. It is not a choice of what we choose to keep. It is a matter of understanding.

        October 7, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Infalible truths... there you go again... WHAT IS THE COLOR OF THE ROBE?

        October 7, 2011 at 11:35 am |
      • Dr.K.

        Johnakim, I understand the blood sacrifice symbolism in the New Testament, and yes of course it is a metaphor for animal sacrifice, but I don't recall that God ever said anything to the affect of, "so, never mind all that stuff I commanded before. We're good."

        So, I stand firm that if you insist on being literal you would have to start burning rams, stoning women, and killing disobedient children If I am mistaken and it is the case that God did say "never mind that earlier stuff," then there is no reason to insist upon Genesis creation and Deuteronomy homophobia in the first place.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Dr K,
        What needs to be understood here is a matter of laws. God never said that ok, you don't have to do that. In the typical example of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus uttered he that is without sin let them cast the first stone, showing his disapproval. This was all part of the law of Moses, God was not the one commanding it, this is why ultimately putting an end to it at the cross. He removed the ceremonial law which we had to sacrifice for the remission of sins. In essence we are not supposed to stone people or sacrifice, because the Bible says that the handwriting of ordinances that were against us were blotted out meaning done way with.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • Dan

        Dr. K, I refer you to Matthew 5:17. Jesus "fulfilled" the law, which basically means all the OT biblical law isn't stuff his followers have to do anymore. It doesn't mean it isn't the law, just that he "takes care of it" so to speak.

        Not trying to defend the stuff I disagree with; merely informing you.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        nice one Dan, but that is not the real explanation. Jesus fulfilled the law in terms of keeping it but certain laws are still in effect like the Ten Commandments.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Oh yes, the great 10 c's... why isn't rape among one of the things listed... or child abuse? or slavery? Are these not among the worst things you can do to a fellow human being? But don't lift a finger on the Sabbath... Which reminds me... why would an all powerful God need to rest?

        October 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur, this was an example for us to follow. God didn't need rest. He later said in Exodus that Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy. Six days the Lord made the.....and rested on the seventh day..........therefore he blest the sabbath day and hollowed it. So... he blessed the day us. And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. So it was made for us to enjoy communion with God.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
      • Dan

        I don't know why I'm writing this....

        "nice one Dan, but that is not the real explanation. Jesus fulfilled the law in terms of keeping it but certain laws are still in effect like the Ten Commandments."

        I did not imply that the 10 commandments weren't in effect according to your belief. That's a different set of "law" in the bible. The law of Moses was stuff he wrote down. That's what we're talking about. The 10 commandments were etched in stone by the finger of God. Different set of law. Furthermore, Jesus later reaffirms the commandments in Matthew.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Thanks Dan you are absolutely right. Sorry if I misinterpreted it. 🙂 You actually responded. Have a blessed weekend I have church tomorrow.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        ok, so God made man on the 6th day, didn't need the rest on the 7th day (was he being lazy?) and then orders man to keep the 7th day holly... 'cause he did so much in that first 24 hours... Phew... glad that's all cleared up.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
      • Dan

        fimeilleur,

        These things aren't in the 10 commandments because women and children weren't valued members of society at that time period. Especially not women.
        Many people do interpret "not stealing" as a prohibition of slavery, though, based both on the original Hebrew, and the idea of theft of life, theft of freedom.
        Naturally he didn't address your point though, as he always conveniently ignores whatever he doesn't have an answer for, and cherry picks what he does, while pretending to continue the "conversation."

        October 7, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Please tell me Dan what I quote and quote conveniently choose to ignore. I can answer any question by God grace you throw at me. So do not say that I ignore it because I can answer. Have a pleasant Sabbath.

        October 7, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I know, he's about to win an argument for me further down the thread... 🙂

        I find it funny how God's law adapts itself to societal norms... so who's law is it anyways?

        October 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Dan

        I'd really advise giving up the whole robe color argument from your general arsenal though. There are good responses for that out there, and the contradiction line frankly doesn't work against someone well-informed. Obviously you're not dealing with that here, but just saying.
        I'd instead go after something like Genesis 6 12-16. A 450 foot wooden boat (longest boat anyone has make with fairly modern techniques was nearly 100 feet less, and even then it requires pumps to keep the water out, and metals to hold things together which were unknown at the time of Noah) which has a foot and a half ventilation hole, containing two of every animal on earth is used to protect Noah and his crew from a violent flood created by God because he's angry the world was violent. Now THAT is funny. 🙂

        October 7, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I like the robe... it shows that some things in the Bible were made up or mistaken... I do like the flood story too... a worldwide flood 14 feet deep that covered all the mountains... either the current mountains weren't created yet or nobody bothered to write this amazing creation into the bible... or the 14 feet starts where Mt Everest ends and all that water magically disappeared down the intergalactic storm drain... I also like how Lot offered his virgin daughters to the rapping mob rather than have them rape the two angels who could have disappeared to save themselves... yet Lot was deemed worthy to be saved from the city of Sodom

        October 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        You guys are really upset or should I say not comfortable because I don't see and interpret things the way you do. Just because of that you accuse me and say I conveniently ignore this and that. You say I am not well informed. I understand the Bible because I have God on my side. You keep on subtlety hurling insults at me. This is suppose to be a systematic and thoughtful conversation. You gave me evidence where the Bible contradicts itself I gave you a legitimate response and you insult me. I ask you why the world is not evolving in the sense of apes or rather primates turning to human beings you counter it by saying we are apes for that matter. It really does not matter anymore what you think of me.
        I will stand by what I know and have experienced to be the truth. I have countered the argument of evolution. You now want to discredit my source of information. Who knows I could do the same.

        October 7, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        No, Johnakim it was I who was talking about literalism – you responded to my post. Never mind.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        ok then.sorry.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Johnakim Lucien,

        It always worries me when someone claims they have God on their side... please look up the phrase "Gott mit uns" and it's historical significance.

        You claim to have given legitimate responses to my claims of contradictions... I point out the mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusions you do...

        Why we don't see apes/monkeys turning into humans is the same reason your parents can't make another "you" five years down the road... the evolutionary process has already happened and the probability of it happening again (in this lineage) are slim to none. To specify, I don't mean that humans won't evolve, nor that apes / gorillas / chimpanzees / orang-utans / bonobos won't evolve in the future.

        We won't try to discredit your source of information as long as your source doesn't discredit itself... and the Bible... come on, a book about a perfect God who creates a world that he is not pleased with (Genesis 6:5-6), includes a talking snake, unicorns, incest, slavery, rape, genocide, murder, infanticide and many other horrific events... do you really want us to take it seriously?

        October 8, 2011 at 1:56 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        As for me and my house we will Serve the Lord.

        October 10, 2011 at 10:30 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        We won't try to discredit your source of information as long as your source doesn't discredit itself... and the Bible... come on, a book about a perfect God who creates a world that he is not pleased with (Genesis 6:5-6), includes a talking snake, unicorns, incest, slavery, rape, genocide, murder, infanticide and many other horrific events... do you really want us to take it seriously.
        fimeilleur, this is very opinionated the Bible does not discredit itself in no way. God knew that the world was going to fall yet still he went ahead because of his love toward mankind. You see you don't understand the controversy that we are in. It is a battle for the mind. A battle that has started a long time ago between good and evil. One that is continually raging. Satan is the one causing the rape, talking snake to deceive persons.
        Still in this world all these things is taking place. What solution do you have? Since you and the rest that discredit the Bible give a reasoning account for that tragedy that takes place in the world. Oh I think I know that passing of traits from one to the next or rather some weird development inside a person. You know what you are right. It is possible. What happens after you die?? Hmmm Am not sure if the evolutionist has explored this and maybe you can give me some enlightenment on that issue. Like seriously. What is your conviction on the state of the dead? For that matter if we are evolving then why are we dying?

        October 10, 2011 at 10:40 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Repost-
        It seems to me that you equate Satan's power as equal to that of God's... he can preform miracles (talking snakes), create fossils to deceive us, and influence us by talking to us from the after life... does God have an equal?

        "Still in this world all these things is taking place" yes, and they happen all the time whether you believe in God, Vishnu, Ra, Zeus, Odin or Ptah.
        "What solution do you have?" Natural phenomena as a result of a changing planet.
        "Since you and the rest that discredit the Bible give a reasoning account for that tragedy that takes place in the world." Like I said before, I don't discredit the Bible, it does that on it's own merit.
        "What happens after you die??" You decompose like all organic material on this planet. Your brain ceases to function and all electromagnetic functions stop.
        "For that matter if we are evolving then why are we dying?" It is part of the life cycle... reproduction, birth, growth, pairing with another, reproduce (if possible), die. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet, not the origins, nor the future. It only makes the prediction that in the future, life will be a lot more different than it is today.

        What's beautiful about it, is that it's completely independent of the person, animal or plant's religious convictions.

        October 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Good day
        It is not that satan has more power than God. Satan can do a lot and you may not believe me but I will not change my mind about that. He has power but his power is limited. The only thing Satan cannot do is give life. The Lord had endowed him. You need to understand the government of God. He could have destroyed Satan but how would you view God, he has given him all the time and if Satan wanted he could have repented like anybody else, and I believe God in his love would forgive him. The same way God all those that does not believe in him. In his mercy he gives us the breathe of life.
        In conclusion the Theory of Evolution is quite interesting. It however is incomplete and I would rather put my faith in God. He has everything completed for us. As for the Holy Bible it does not discredit itself. Persons go read it with the wrong frame of mind.
        We need to seek knowledge but if after the end of the this knowledge is not of great use to us, then it is just there for knowledge purposes. When you have a true knowledge of God then you have a gold mine. Well to all my debaters we have had a long and exhaustive conversation.
        Many accusations have plummeted the discussion and I have been attacked which I don't really care about. God bless you all and I hope that one day we all will realize the TRUTH of all this is taking place in the world. I just hope that when we finally do that it will not be to late and our opportunity to be redeemed from the pits of hell. God be with you all, this is your friend Johnakim Lucien of Saint Lucia saying so long until we speak again.

        October 11, 2011 at 8:54 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Johnakim Lucien,

        I submit to you that your God also has limited powers... he cannot forgive unconditionally... hasn't been able to do it with Adam & Eve, nor will he permit me eternaty in Heaven for the crime of not believing in the lack of evidence for his existance. Threats of torture and hell fire.... please.

        The Bible does discredit itself, and if I need to be in a "proper frame of mind" to understand it, God should have chosen better writers so as to eliminate all confusion.

        No, you have not been attacked, your views have been challenged and you failed to meet the challenge... the proof is in your attitude of sticking your fingers in your ears, repeating LALALALALALALA so that you can ignore the evidence in front of you. Tuck tail and run. Your choice.

        May God B less to you too. Enjoy your delusions.

        October 12, 2011 at 1:28 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        My brother, God is able to forgive and that's why he loved us so much he sent his son to die for our sins. Jesus came so you can be saved. This is love and this was the only way man had to be saved. Just like there are laws governing everything, God has laws governing heaven. As for the so called threat of hell fire. I'm sorry but I am not threatening you. You will seal your own fate and charter your own course and has nothing to do with me. I just mentioned hell fire because it is real and not to threaten anyone. I have a strong feeling that one day you'll have a better understanding of God. You will be on fire for him.
        I have not blocked my ears and yes my views were challenged and I successfully refuted your claims. It may not be as you want, but I have given you what I know.
        Well Keep on discrediting the Holy Bible all you want, say it discredits itself because you don't read it to find evidence of God. I challenge you to change your outlook. Read the Bible not once not twice. At least for a month, seeking to know God and asking him to show you the way. I in the mean time would have to expand my knowledge on the evolutionist theory. How about that?

        October 12, 2011 at 8:38 am |
      • fimeilleur

        UNCONDITIONALLY that is to say WITH OUT conditions.... I will be saved ON CONDITION that I accept his blood sacrifice... what don't you understand?

        October 12, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        You have it wrong, he love you unconditionally even if you reject him. Because of the Love he has for you he allows you too make choices. When that has been exercised and you inevitably choose Satan and he has to destroy sin by his presence then you solve the equation.

        October 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        You are right you are saved on condition that you accept but his love is still unconditional.

        October 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Ok, so let's say you are right... it's a long shot but... let's pretend...

        I die, and find out God is real... can I "choose" to not go to hell even if I reject him today? You'd think an all loving God would say "sure" welcome to my kingdom... or will he unconditionally send me to Hell? The ball is now back in his court... do I go to Heaven or Hell?

        October 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Well I am not in God's mind and nor will I be able to tell you where you will head. The Bible does say that in the time of ignorance he winks. Now tell me something, if you deliberately choose not to know him and not to listen like I'm telling you and you don't seek to know more about him. Then YOU have rejected and you chose hell. Now you meet a man that never knew God and no one ever explained to him. God will according to my knowledge will accept this guy and say welcome.
        So my Brother, you have enough time to find out if there is a real God. You just have to go with the right motive. If you going just to prove there isn't one most likely the devil will help you do that. However, go with an earnest desire to search for him and he will see you through. I promise you that.

        October 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Johnakim,

        A Mafia boss creates a situation in a community where he arranges for thugs to terrorize the local businesses. Once he has all the neighbors frightened, he introduces himself and offers his protection from these thugs... but only if you pay the price. If you refuse to pay, his thugs continue to terrorize you and force you out of business... If you accept, you are free to run your business as long as you continue to make the payments.

        This is EXTORTION.

        God created Hell, and sent his fallen angle Satan there.
        God created a situation on earth where he arranged for Satan to terrorize the local populace. Once he had all the people frightened, he introduced himself and offers his protection from this thug... but only if you pay the price. If you refuse to pay, his thug continues to terrorize you... If you accept, you are free to live your as long as you continue to kiss his a$$.

        I'll give you another example: I am holding a gun to your head and I tell you "if you don't pay me 25$, I will kill you". You make the "non-choice" to not pay me... because you don't have the money or you just don't want to give me the money and you don't think I'll actually kill you. Are you in fact committing suicide if I kill you? This is the type of choice religion is asking people to make. Do you get why we reject this?

        October 12, 2011 at 11:50 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        God could have chose not too create man, and you and I would not be alive today. Just because he saw that man was going to sin, does not mean he shouldn't have created him. For example you are going to have children and you if your child would make just one mistake in life, and you knowingly would love that child would you say I am not going to create us?

        God knew there was a way to redeem man. God has the world or rather the whole Universe. There are other beings on the other planet and Earth is the only fallen world. So is it God's fault man disobeyed? As I always say there are laws governing us. When we break for example the Laws of Health we suffer the consequences. However when we keep the law then it brings us peace and happiness.
        My brother, you need to experience God for yourself and you may not understand everything just like I don't.

        Now about hell, it was created according to the Bible for the Devil (Satan) and his angels.(Matthew 25:41
        Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
        Would you tolerate someone coming to your house to cause problems? When that person shows no signs of repentance, that is exactly how it is being played out. God is just in his dealings.

        God does not wish that any should perish but that everyone would come to repentance(.2 Peter 3:9
        The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.)

        What is he saying don't be part of Satan's rebllion that started in heaven, this is not his will.

        As for the gun man, it may seem that is what God wants to do. However, this is not it. There is a bigger event going on there that we don't know of.
        As I said, we all have the power of choice. God does not force his will, but there is only two sides in this world. Good and Bad. No in between, it is either you are part of the rebellion or be part of peace, love and tranquility. What would you rather being in this world where there is woe and misery or in a place where you at peace. Where you don;t have to worry of the next war to break out, or the way to pay the bills, or the next storm.
        It will be a stress free world. No hatred no crime no jealousy no nations fighting with nations. This is what God is offering to each and every one of us. Life!! The Living of everyone forever and ever.
        What could you possibly lose if you choose to serve God. What would be at risk you too. You won't live a life of slavery. What is there to loose if you believe in him?
        I'm not sure and when we die we know there is a God. We die and there isn't one. There is only one life and looking for all the faults in God, at the expense of your soul's salvation. You made an interesting point, but think about the risk involved.

        October 13, 2011 at 8:47 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Johnakim, you are talking about Pascal's Wager. This has been refuted to the point of nausea. What if the God of the Torah is the right one... you know, the jealous, vengeful God. Now you've just spent your whole life praising Jesus... surely, this vengeful God will punish you. Or suppose the Muslims are right, and you've spent your life not acknowledging Mohammed? Surely you will be punished. Or suppose the Hindu are right? and you've been praying to the wrong god all together? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or Zeus? Or Thor? Or.... and the list goes on and on and on. Keep in mind there is as much evidence for EACH of these gods that "prove" their existence.

        "God could have chosen..." I actually chuckled when I read this. First of all, I would NEVER punish my child longer than he merited the crime... and there is no crime that warrants "forever"... not even one. Nor would I have a second child "sacrificed" to myself to atone for the crime that my first child made so that future children don't have to be sacrificed. That isn't love, it's psychotic.

        These "laws of Health" you talk about... do they include Leviticus? Don't eat pork? Don't eat shellfish? etc. etc. etc. LOL.

        Why do you feel the need to quote scripture to me? I'm the one who pointed out that God created the concept of Hell... and if someone was doing the same in my house, and I banished him from my house, I would never send my child to go live with him... especially knowing that my child would be tortured there... that makes no sense.

        The non-choice "choice" really escapes you, doesn't it? And you really believe in the black or white, good or bad? So it's wrong to kill a man who is in the process of killing another, thereby saving the life of the victim?

        This brings me back to my point about will I go to Hell for the simple act of rejecting your version of God? I never killed a man, I never raped a woman, I never stole anything, I never "coveted" (a thought crime BTW, imagine that... thinking is wrong)... So do I go to Hell if I die right after I click "post"... If yes, God is a narcissist and really only wants to have his a$$ kissed. Is this worthy of your adulation? If no, then the belief in God is unnecessary. How's that for a dichotomy? Is your God a narcissist? Or is he irrelevant? I know you already stated you don't know what's God's will, yet you go on and on and on claiming to know God's will... really confusing... but really, think about it... if it were up to you... Do I go to Heaven? or Hell?

        October 13, 2011 at 10:10 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        What I meant is that I don't know what is in God's mind. I know what is the written word of that and based I go on.

        You are right, what if Zeus is the true god and I spent my life praising God. I am convinced and 100% sure that the God I am serving is the true God. What is even more interesting most of all the other religions believe in some sort of god acknowledging the point at which there is a supreme being.

        "“God could have chosen…” I actually chuckled when I read this. First of all, I would NEVER punish my child longer than he merited the crime… and there is no crime that warrants “forever”… not even one. Nor would I have a second child “sacrificed” to myself to atone for the crime that my first child made so that future children don’t have to be sacrificed. That isn’t love, it’s psychotic."You missed the point. That love is psychotic because you want to think that way. If some vehicle was heading straight at you and your wife for that matter flew herself attempting to save you. Wouldn't you consider that love. Think about it, if for the first time Satan had rebelled against God that God had just destroyed him right away, what would the universe say of him? Would they want a God that looks to punish us for every mistake we do. God is not like that. God is giving Satan enough time to do all he wants and then to show him all the pain and misery he has caused the world because of his rebellion.

        'These “laws of Health” you talk about… do they include Leviticus? Don’t eat pork? Don’t eat shellfish? etc. etc. etc. LOL.'
        Okay, then laugh all you want. There is something called intemperance and the need to be balanced. If you eat too much of one thing then you are hurting your body. You may have a deficiency later on. That's a health law. Temperance.

        Why do you feel the need to quote scripture to me? I’m the one who pointed out that God created the concept of Hell… and if someone was doing the same in my house, and I banished him from my house, I would never send my child to go live with him… especially knowing that my child would be tortured there… that makes no sense.
        You don't understand. You just don't get it..

        This brings me back to my point about will I go to Hell for the simple act of rejecting your version of God? I never killed a man, I never raped a woman, I never stole anything, I never “coveted” (a thought crime BTW, imagine that… thinking is wrong)… So do I go to Hell if I die right after I click “post”… If yes, God is a narcissist and really only wants to have his a$$ kissed. Is this worthy of your adulation? If no, then the belief in God is unnecessary. How’s that for a dichotomy? Is your God a narcissist? Or is he irrelevant? I know you already stated you don’t know what’s God’s will, yet you go on and on and on cl aiming to know God’s will… really confusing… but really, think about it… if it were up to you… Do I go to Heaven? or Hell?

        Again you have the wrong concept of God. Just because you don't accept my version of God doesn't mean you're going to die when you click post. It may take you a lifetime and I can't convince you. God through the power of the Holy Spirit will convince you at the given point. I am not too tell the times. I am here as a witness.

        Well my brother life is great so sing about it. God is love and will remain forever. Ensure that you continue seeking knowledge. One day you will believe. You still have an ear for the God of creation. The one that created the heaven and the Earth. God be with to. I'll sure enjoy my delusions.
        (Oh it is not when you kill you sin and rape. Sin is also when you choose not to do good when you know it is right)

        October 13, 2011 at 10:53 am |
      • fimeilleur

        "I am convinced and 100% sure that the God I am serving is the true God." Yet you acknowledged the possibility that you are wrong, that GREATLY diminishes the 100% conviction you claim... whereas I claim there is no credible evidence to believe ANY god(s) exist. THAT I am 100% certain. "What is even more interesting most of all the other religions believe in some sort of god acknowledging the point at which there is a supreme being." And yet none of them can offer any supporting evidence... they can't all be right, but they can ALL be wrong.

        "That love is psychotic because you want to think that way." No, that's not love.
        "If some vehicle was heading straight at you and your wife for that matter flew herself attempting to save you. Wouldn't you consider that love." yes, because she actually has something to lose... an eternal God who cannot be killed has nothing to lose in dying. It is an empty gesture.
        "Think about it, if for the first time Satan had rebelled against God that God had just destroyed him right away, what would the universe say of him? Would they want a God that looks to punish us for every mistake we do." You're saying that as if we'd have a choice to accept his behavior... and that he cares what we think of him... you give him many human characteristics...
        "God is not like that." Yes, he is... remember the original sin? According to christianity we are all born with it... kind of like an eternal curse... one that he can wipe out unconditionally but choses not too... he hasn't had enough a$$ kissing yet. "God is giving Satan enough time to do all he wants and then to show him all the pain and misery he has caused the world because of his rebellion." And let's us suffer for it... Nice... I did nothing to deserve this... but you call this love.

        "That's a health law. Temperance." No, it says nothing in the Bible about that... it says "don't eat pork, don't eat shellfish"

        "You don't understand. You just don't get it.." No, I understand perfectly well... the problem is you disagree with concrete evidence and choose to remain deluded.

        "Again you have the wrong concept of God. Just because you don't accept my version of God doesn't mean you're going to die when you click post." I wasn't asking if I'd die when I hit post, I was stating THAT I die WHEN I hit post... no more chances for me to "find God" it's go time... I don't care for your "witness". Heaven or Hell?

        "Sin is also when you choose not to do good when you know it is right" So you're now saying there is no dichotomy of Good and Bad... I'll refresh your memory... you wrote: "but there is only two sides in this world. Good and Bad. No in between, it is either you are part of the rebellion or be part of peace, love and tranquility." So killing someone to save the life of someone else could be the right thing to do... even if it goes against God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill"...

        I'm going to keep this simple...

        I commit no "sin" (including the newly discussed "choosing not to do good when it's the right thing to do") except reject God. Heaven or Hell? According to what YOU know to be written, base it on that... do YOU think I will go to Heaven or Hell?

        October 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        First of all I have no doubts I serve the true God. I am 100% sure of that. now don't try to say I doubt. I am just going along with the discussion.

        Now for the part if you going to hell. You have not accepted Jesus' sacrifice and you despise his word. You have not accepted Christ and with Christ there is life and if you choose not Christ then no life for you. You answer your own question. You have a brain. You knowingly rejected God. You may not have enough evidence and this is why I will never make a pronouncement but you have unequivocally said you don't believe in God..

        "ou’re saying that as if we’d have a choice to accept his behavior… and that he cares what we think of him… you give him many human characteristics…
        “God is not like that.” Yes, he is… remember the original sin? According to christianity we are all born with it… kind of like an eternal curse… one that he can wipe out unconditionally but choses not too… he hasn’t had enough a$$ kissing yet"
        Okay, now let me ask you a question, aren't some of our characteristics passed down to us by our parents or part of our lineage? Because of one man's sin, we are all born in it because we all came from the same parents from the beginning. You sound like you have a bad experience in your life or something. You seem to hate the fact that there is a supreme being whether you like it or not. You talk about kicking the behind of persons, if you didn't believe in God then you wouldn't think that. You have some sort of belief in him.
        Yes the Bible speaks of temperance. The fruits of the Spirit. Life is more than about clothing and stuff mental well being. Balanced approach.

        "except reject God. Heaven or Hell?"
        You cannot serve two masters. Either accept God for heaven or reject him for hell fire with Satan and his angels.

        October 13, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        my bro you had be laughing. You're not going to hell.
        God is not over with you. Seek and you will find. You must go with the right motives.
        My serving God is too please him. I want to work for the advancement of his kingdom and this is what am called to do.Give you the rest in a while.
        You're very smart and frank.
        You want evidence you'll get it all the evidence you need. Trust me.
        This controversy is not about hell fire and I gave it the wrong twist of things. This is about your happiness bro, rather your eternal happiness. So don't try to turn this on me. God knows my desire is to serve him.
        Jesus loves you in spite of and will reveal himself to you.

        October 13, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • the dead fimeilleur

        Like I said, I died when I hit post, there was no chance for me to "find God"... you say I'm not in Hell, therefore the belief in your God is irrelevant.

        Look, it's been a slice... I've had my fun debunking you... I'm going scuba diving for the weekend so I won't be online... this thread will be long done and forgotten.

        I do post often so look for me (if I resurrect myself in the digital world)... I'll be happy to keep you questioning your real beliefs.

        October 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Nice my boss does scuba diving in Saint Lucia. Maybe you can come here one day. Oh whilst you're scuba diving look at the wonderful creatures God created. He is marvelous. He bears long with us. In time of ignorance God winks.
        Keep questioning my beliefs, you sound of age which is nice I'm only 21. So basically you;ll have more knowledge of me. Oh remember the air you breathing is God's, the sea you going to dive in is God's, and the life you're living is God that worked a miracle in your mother's womb to create you.

        October 13, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Oh you're dead. Well my bro you go to your grave not hell. Judgement day will determine your fate.

        October 13, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I would love to go visit your Island... I'm sure I'll find you in the phone book if I go... make sure your boss has plenty of Nitrox.

        October 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Well Dan you won't find my name in a phone just ask the Airport Manger and tell him the internal audit clerk.

        October 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      (Don't know why I'm writing this either!)

      My point is that in both Johnakim and Dan's case (acknowledging that your perspectives are otherwise worlds apart), you are providing interpretations of the actual words. The fact that jesus is quoted as saying he didn't come to destroy the law of Moses but to fulfill it doesn't literally translate to the specifics of what parts of the Old Testament should be adhered to and what shouldn't be as port forth by either of you. Your explanations are interpretations, not literal readings. The interpretations are part of tradition, but are gradually modified to fit acceptable social standards. That is my whole point.

      To phrase this in the parlance of cultural evolution, I would suggest that doctrine evolves in response to selective pressures imposed by the sociocultural environment.

      October 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Dan's interpretation is wrong. The Bible does say that the HAND WRITING of ordinances was nailed to the cross. Meaning the Law of Moses. So stoning people was one of them. I am 100% sure of what I'm talking about here.

        October 7, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        You have demonstrated my point beautifully. You point out that the bible literally (literally means word for word as written) refers to the "hand writing of ordinances" and then you INTERPRET that to mean "the law of Moses." That line doesn't actually say "the law of Moses" or anything about the 10 commandments, etc. It is being interpreted by you and others in a way that plays up the laws that make sense and plays down the ones that are absurd, violent, or cruel by today's standards.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        you're wrong again I never said that everything is word for word

        October 7, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Tell me what do you understand by hand writing and finger writing? Am I wrong to note that the hand writing of ordinances is the Law of Moses. It could not be the Finger writing on the tablet of stone.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  22. Runteddy

    So, the fact that we iive in a highly sexualized society has nothing to do with the reason for younger women giving birth? I can't believe that people are really taking this article seriously!

    October 5, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
  23. comillu

    Evolution is a religion that requires as much faith as any other. It’s fascinating, indeed. I've liked it and followed it since childhood. I read any book, or article and see any film on it that I can. It is precisely because of looking so much at it that it began to make no sense. Too little evidence and too many questions unanswered. And some answers are contradictory. Take for example our own supposed evolution. Several years ago I was just reading an article on the problem of back pain, so common in people (and a problem I had at the time). A specialist doctor explained that, since we evolved recently (in evolutionary terms) from species that walked on four extremities, human back has not completed the adaptation. She even showed with models how some parts of our backs seem more suitable to walk in four than in two feet. Several months later, I saw a program (on TLC or something like that) on evolution; particularly on how human got to evolve our magnificent brains. The expert explained that it all began when some ancestor or ours began to walk more and more on two feet. This, he explained, left the hands free for uses that became more and more complex. Eventually, it was the dexterity of the hand that produced a brain to handle it. So, since waking straight we’ve the time to evolve the hand (defined by evolutionists as the more able of animal extremities) and develop the brain, the most complex organ there is, but we’ve had not the time to evolve a proper straight back? And there are hundreds of things like this. Evolution is supposed to take hundreds, even thousands of small changes to go from one species to the other. Yet, only a small amount of ancestors’ specimens exists for any modern species you choose. If you gather all the specimens on human ancestor species there are, all of them fit in a good sized SUV. Many of them no more than a 15 or 20% of skeleton, and none of them complete. And what amuses me more, our ancestors keep changing places in our family tree; in my time, I’ve won and lost Neanderthal as a relative a couple of times. Yet, the Theory is useful for science, philosophy and ideology. So, we will have it around for a couple of generations more, I think.

    October 5, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Sounds a lot like Kirk Crock-o-duck Camerons story about once being an "devout Atheist"... LOL.

      Ok, so two scientists disagree on the mechanism of evolution, so your reaction is to throw the baby out with the bath water...

      Next.

      October 5, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Okay, let's just not bother with the debate and instead just wait and see if the theory of evolution is discarded in the next generation or two. I think that is an excellent test.

      October 5, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Dan

      I'm honestly surprised you're having the concerns you are, given your claimed long-time study of evolution.
      For questions like the back issue, it's simple. Sometimes things are "good enough" for the environment an organism is in. Your lumbar function is pretty good overall. Yes, you might suffer back pain. Plenty have and will. But is occasional back pain going to create all that much selective pressure? I don't see why it would, not as long as it's not severe/debilitating, anyway.
      Vestigial tail, anyone? We lost our tail, but didn't. It's still there! Kinda. No reason for it to be any "more gone" than it already is. There's no selective pressure for or against it. So it's "good enough" for the environment we're in.
      Now, similarly, look at a whale. Their "flippers" are clearly "hands" when you take the soft tissue off. The whale hand-flipper reached a point a very long time ago where it was "good enough", and that's all the further it got.
      Back to us; on the other hand, a smarter, more dexterous human is going to get more of everything important in evolution – food, mates, survival. And that scales with improvement.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
  24. ATTA

    I'm an all out believer of evolution and it's obvious that humans are constantly evolving. But this study seems useless. Women are having children at a younger age because religion is going down the drain. Younger generations are experimenting with sex rather then waiting until marriage. Contraceptives weren't widely used nor legal even during the 20th century. Now that contraceptives are as accessible as candy, younger generations are going to experiment, which then can lead to pregnancy.

    October 5, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • comillu

      You prove my point. You "believe" in evolution; yet you can't swallow a "study" regarding things that you can analized for yourself. Was this a complex and incomprehensible biology review article, you would just bee saying "it's so true".

      October 5, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        "you can't swallow a "study" regarding things that you can analized for yourself." So you don't think that offering a commentary on the study is beneficial to the process? It's called peer review... and "a complex and incomprehensible biology review article"... incomprehensible to who? YOU? No, this only proves your lack of education in the sciences.

        October 6, 2011 at 10:16 am |
    • Dan

      Comillu, he doesn't prove your point. You're playing word games against someone who isn't up to par on scientific terminology. Try that against fimeilleur or myself, and you'll fail miserably. Acceptance of the idea that evolution is the best currently available framework to explain what we observe does not constitute a religion. A poorly designed study doesn't refute (or support) anything. And one individual's acceptance or misunderstanding of said study doesn't prove anything either. If that were the case (that you could), I get to start citing Fred Phelps as representative of your beliefs. You don't want that in an argument.

      October 6, 2011 at 10:34 am |
  25. Joe

    Dearest fimeilleur:

    Thanks for confirming that the inception of evolution, if any, is unknown.

    October 5, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      this doesn't mean by default that "God did it".... I just want to be clear...

      October 5, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur, you're beating a dead horse. Evolution is full of subjectivity so is Creation but you can agree that we aren't monkeys or apes for that matter.

        October 6, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
      • Dan

        1) Evolution is not "full of subjectivity". What do you base your assertion on?
        2) We are apes. It's inarguable. It's a tautology. We, taxonomically, are apes.

        (hehe, my statement itself was a tautology as well)

        October 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Evolution is full of subjectivity because it cannot tell us why we are not evolving in the sense of we turning from apes to humans. Why is the Universe so organized. God is real although it maybe a situation where persons have their opinion.
        Look at it God created man, he organized the whole Universe. Man breaks moral laws, health laws and other laws and they die. If man hadn't disobeyed God then we wouldn't be in this predicament today, where this theory of evolution will be created. The devil is the instigator of this. He wants us to think he doesn't exist like he is doing with all the evolutionist on here. I bet the scientists in all their knowledge can't explain why the earth in itself is not evolving in the sense where it gets large. Why don't they have the ability to stop Earthquakes and storms. In all their knowledge why can't they solve the world's problem. You see this evolution theory is just pure evil and from the pits of hell. Anything to discredit there is a God is useless. However, God still loves us all regardless of who we are. You may say in the old testament he was a God of anger. He was long suffering and you should not question the creator. He will give you a revelation when we all meet him. The Earth is reaching it's climax. Too bad the evolutionist doesn't have anything to look forward to after death. Who knows because of their ignorance God may forgive them. God is so long suffering and his wish is none should perish but come to repentance. One that glorious day we will meet our God and he will take us to live with him forever. No more evolutionist and no more evil.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
      • Dan

        "Evolution is full of subjectivity because it cannot tell us why we are not evolving in the sense of we turning from apes to humans." I count at least three things wrong with that statement
        1) Your assertion that evolution is wrong doesn't imply subjectivity (or objectivity). I can state that 2+2 = 6, and I'm objectively wrong. I'm not all of a sudden accusable of being "subjective" because I'm mathematically wrong about something.
        2) Your implication that evolution should be telling us something that isn't true. You say it should be telling us why we aren't evolving. What makes you think we aren't evolving?
        3) "we turning from apes into humans" – I just explained that humans are apes. It's simple taxonomy. It's like asking for an explanation of why fire ants aren't turning into fire ants from ants. It doesn't even make sense.

        Why is the Universe so organized? It isn't. It's a scattering of nonsense all over the place. It's like a pool table after you break. It's not "random", any more or less than the pool table is "random", as all sorts of physics comes into play in the interrelationships between the relevant bodies, but it's hardly organized. If there was a constellation in the sky that said "All Hail Yahweh" in Hebrew, I would be more interested.

        "God is real although it maybe a situation where persons have their opinion.
" – Yes, people have their opinions.

        "Look at it God created man, he organized the whole Universe" – I disagree. Ptah created man. Or was it the flying spaghetti monster?

        "Man breaks moral laws, health laws and other laws and they die." – What? Which laws did the birds break? Why do they die?

        "I bet the scientists in all their knowledge can't explain why the earth in itself is not evolving in the sense where it gets large." – I...I don't even know what to say. Evolution is a process involving reproduction. The earth doesn't make little earths. Nor is it pregnant. It's not getting bigger because matter isn't being added to it, gravity isn't changing, its density isn't changing, temperature isn't changing, speed isn't changing (yes, I know it's slowly slowing down which has a minor impact, but that doesn't seem to be what he's talking about), etc. If it were, it would be due to some sort of reason along these lines (the ones after pregnancy. Not that one).

        "Why don't they have the ability to stop Earthquakes and storms." Don't have the technology and understanding yet. Two thousand years ago you would have asked why we couldn't stop leprosy or fly like the birds. Check, and check.

        "In all their knowledge why can't they solve the world's problem." People like you stand in the way

        "You see this evolution theory is just pure evil and from the pits of hell. " That's an entirely baseless assertion

        "Anything to discredit there is a God is useless." To you, perhaps. But that's a subjective opinion, which you normally take issue with. So you're demonstrating a significant amount of logical contradiction here.

        "However, God still loves us all regardless of who we are." – Which one? I disagree. The flying spaghetti monster actually doesn't love you. No meatballs for you!

        "You may say in the old testament he was a God of anger. He was long suffering and you should not question the creator." An omnipotent, omniscient being was suffering? Says who?

        " He will give you a revelation when we all meet him." And the revelation shall be.....42! But he won't tell me the question, will he? 😦

        "The Earth is reaching it's climax. " No reason to believe that.

        "Too bad the evolutionist doesn't have anything to look forward to after death." Um... ok.

        "Who knows because of their ignorance God may forgive them. God is so long suffering and his wish is none should perish but come to repentance. One that glorious day we will meet our God and he will take us to live with him forever. No more evolutionist and no more evil." The main evils I see in the world today are ignorance, greed, and hatred. Fix those and things will be much better. Your focus on "evolutionists" as a source of all this evil really has no basis, and really bears no fruit. Suppose all the evolutionists go away. Now it's happy kumbaya candyland? Oh wait, prior to Darwin, it wasn't happy candyland. As a matter of fact, by almost any conceivable measure besides a sustainable environment, we're better off now than we were back then.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Forgive me if I made evolution seem evil. Anything to me that lessens our respect for God is bad. So Dan as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. I have experienced God for myself. One day he WILL and make sure you get it clear and that's my belief he will put an end to the evil in this world. Whether or not you or any other person want Jesus will return, this world will come to naught. We may appear better now but we have more stress, more diseases, less time and more things happening in the world at a rapid pace such as Earthquakes, Tsunami, Storms, Tornadoes. Now I conclude I can learn and listen about evolution but God is still rule of the Universe!!!

        October 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        And Dan you're wrong the Universe is organized. The Sun rises in the East and Sets in the West. You still have all the seasons. You are born, grow old and you must die. The Earth Spins and never collides with some other planet. Oh yes a big bang put that in place. How The Sun remains in one central location, the only thing that changes in this world is or evil hearts and disruptive attitude toward nature and our fellow men. We create better technology however, children become couch potatoes. We have nice offices but we still strain our backs. We have better health service but people are still depressed and commit suicide all the time. You want more. All this is because of sin.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        I...I don't even know what to say. Evolution is a process involving reproduction. The earth doesn't make little earths. Nor is it pregnant. It's not getting bigger because matter isn't being added to it, gravity isn't changing, its density isn't changing, temperature isn't changing, speed isn't changing (yes, I know it's slowly slowing down which has a minor impact, but that doesn't seem to be what he's talking about), etc. If it were, it would be due to some sort of reason along these lines (the ones after pregnancy. Not that one).

        Again Dan you are deceiving me. How can you say the Earth's temperature has not change. Then why is the ozone layer melting and why is the Ice Caps melting in the North Pole.

        October 6, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
      • Dan

        "Forgive me if I made evolution seem evil. " – You didn't. You stated it was, but you didn't make it "seem" evil at all.

        "Anything to me that lessens our respect for God is bad." – Why does evolution lesson respect for God? Evolution doesn't address the origins of the universe, merely the origins of the species. It doesn't even address the origins of life. That evolution lessens the respect for God is a false dichotomy.

        "So Dan as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. " Ok. By doing what?

        "I have experienced God for myself. One day he WILL and make sure you get it clear" Make sure I get what clear?

        " and that's my belief he will put an end to the evil in this world." Why don't we own up, take responsibility, and put an end to evil ourselves?

        "Whether or not you or any other person want Jesus will return, this world will come to naught." I don't have an opinion on whether Jesus should or will return. You seem to think that I'm "against" God or "against" Jesus. That's baseless.

        " We may appear better now but we have more stress, more diseases," Really? I disagree wholeheartedly. Science has cured innumerable diseases, and the population as a whole (*especially the western world) is far more healthy and well fed than it was 300 years ago.

        " less time and more things happening in the world at a rapid pace such as Earthquakes, Tsunami, Storms, Tornadoes." Earthquakes aren't happening with unusual frequency, nor are tsunamis, as they go hand in hand. There are signs that some weather systems are behaving differently, but that's attributable to an entirely separate theory called "global warming" and is a separate matter for debate.

        "Now I conclude I can learn and listen about evolution" Ask any question you want, and I or someone else on here will be glad to help.

        " but God is still rule of the Universe!!!" Spaghetti monster!!!!111!1!11

        October 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        So Dan Do you believe in a Supreme being? Evolution looks at the origin of species where did you come from or your ancestors for that matter?

        October 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • Dan

        "Again Dan you are deceiving me. How can you say the Earth's temperature has not change. Then why is the ozone layer melting and why is the Ice Caps melting in the North Pole."

        When I said the temperature wasn't changing, I stated that in the context of the earth "getting bigger". The amount of temperature change required for the earth to actually get significantly larger is ridiculous. Totally incompatible with life as we know it. I wasn't offering an opinion on the few degrees we're considering in terms of global warming.
        As an aside, the ozone layer isn't "melting" in the sense ice melts. Ozone molecules are being gobbled up via reaction with other chemicals, mostly man-made ones.

        October 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Dan it may not be enough for the Earth to evolve but sure something is going to happen when the temperature. On and we couldn't predict the Earthquake on the East coast. Neither the one on the west coast by alaska either.
        Again Dan, do you believe in a supreme being. Have you been to all the archeological places with all the findings? Were you the one dissecting the information? Do you have any evidence of an ape evolving and for some reason didn't make it to the finish and died? Did you find any skeletons of the so called ice age and stone age.? Were you there? Are these evidence something you know first hand or something you saw on television? Were you there Dan?

        October 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Dan

        "So Dan Do you believe in a Supreme being? " Supreme means greatest in power rank authority. By definition there is, logically, something in the universe which is the most powerful something in the universe. I'm playing word games though. I gather by your capitalization of the word "supreme" that you mean a god or goddess or pantheon of such deities. In that case no, I do not.

        "Evolution looks at the origin of species where did you come from or your ancestors for that matter?"

        I came from my parents. They came from their parents. Anauesumd. At some point in the family tree would be a common ancestor with chimps, etc. At points further back are various other vertebrates. Ad nauseum. Once you get back far enough evolution no longer offers an opinion. You get to different theories like abiogenesis. Once you go further back you get to questions about the formation of the solar system. There are theories for that. Once you go further back you get into questions about the universe itself. There are theories for that, such as the big bang. You're creating a false association between evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang.

        It's entirely plausible within the framework of evolution, for instance, for life to have originated as a single cell on another planet, traveled here via meteor, and then worked its way up from there.

        You really need to ask a lot more questions before jumping around like this. It would also be great if you more directly addressed my points in a more concise fashion. Having this conversation is like playing tennis with six balls.

        October 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Wow, Dan you have some patience... 😉

        @Johnakim Lucien,
        I would have answered you like this: you are right, we are not mokeys or apes as they are known to us today. We are however primates, like monkeys and apes, and that means we share a common ancestor. THAT is what evolution in telling us. No one believes a monkey is born on Tuesday and by Friday he is human, (although I've seen men turn into monkeys after a few drinks on a friday night...) This whole process of evolution, if we start from 65 million years ago, our first common ancestor, brought forth the eventual Lemur and Lorise with their ancestry diverging 45 million years ago. The earliest primate fossills date back 55 million years ago from that same original branch. At around the same time, another branch started to produce the current families of Tarsiers, Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys and (Humans and Apes) with this last group branching off 40 million years ago or so. Apes are categorized by Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Human... in succession with the first humans appearing around 40,000 years ago.

        No one ever claimed it's an overnight experience, and no one said one has to die out to bring forth the next one.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur,were you there? Did you ever see one evolve? Is it written in some scroll somewhere. You see scientist come up with certain things and just because they're wise we just gobble it down our throats. I challenge you to give me some first hand experience of all what you spoke about. Until then anything you see on TV, Read in a book or something that is in some cave somewhere that you didn't discover yourself is useless in my eyes. I have experienced God for myself.

        October 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Johnakim Lucien,

        So did Charles Manson and David Koresh... Ooooops!..

        As to "were you there?" rant, rant, huff puff... what part of "millions of years" escapes your comprehension? I turn the question on to you... Is the Bible true? How do you know? Were you there? what color robe was jesus given just before he was cruxified? What were his last words?

        October 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur, Answer the question don't rebut it to me/

        October 6, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Wait, you want first hand experience of what I talked about... let's see... I actually went to a museum with all these strange bones belonging to strange creatures that we don't see on earth anymore... but not just one bone, lots of them... and they were too similar in shape and size to be random rocks with funny shapes... Hmmmm... then, this guy, he was wearing a white lab coat, and I knew he was smart, cause he had glasses and a pocket protector filled with pens... anyway, this guy was talking about how they found these bones, and he had pictures... stuck on... a wall.... showing these rocks being dug up and stuff... and then... he said really big words that probably used up most of the letters in the alphabet... and then...

        What ever... you're not reading anyways are you? you're just ready with your next Kent Hovin lecture in circular reasoning... or do you prefer Kirk Crock-o-duck Cameron?

        October 6, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
      • Dan

        fimeilleur, I draw a bizarre sense of amusement from these conversations. It's kinda like playing whack-a-mole with this guy.

        Now to the main event:

        "Dan it may not be enough for the Earth to evolve but sure something is going to happen when the temperature."
        Addressed earlier.

        "On and we couldn't predict the Earthquake on the East coast. Neither the one on the west coast by alaska either."
        The inability to predict an earthquake merely shows we're not far enough along with plate tectonics yet. This has nothing to do with evolution. However, our understanding of germ theory is good enough that I can state, with a pretty good level of certainty, that if you get exposed to Zaire Ebolavirus, you're going to have a really, really bad day.

        "Again Dan, do you believe in a supreme being."
        Addressed in earlier post. No, not as you mean it.

        "Have you been to all the archeological places with all the findings? Were you the one dissecting the information? Do you have any evidence of an ape evolving and for some reason didn't make it to the finish and died? Did you find any skeletons of the so called ice age and stone age.? Were you there? Are these evidence something you know first hand or something you saw on television? Were you there Dan?"

        I've spent thousands of hours reviewing all sorts of scientific literature – papers, movies, books, museums. I've concluded that the evidence being presented is sufficient to merit acceptance.

        I've played your game – I've addressed, in every post I've written, every point you bring up. Now I'd like you to have the intellectual fortitude to go back and answer questions I've raised in my posts, which you've conveniently ignored. I'd also like to address the following:

        You stated you " conclude I can learn and listen about evolution" – I'd like you to actually attempt to engage in serious discussion, providing some legitimate, cogent analysis of the topics raised. "Huh? Huh? Did ya see it? Huh? Huh?" is not a question warranting serious consideration, but I and others have obliged nonetheless.

        A conspiracy theory is a scenario where someone engage in a thought process involving vast, nigh-omnipotent forces working against them to withhold the truth and manipulate them or even a large group, such as all of society. Your line of questioning ("did you see it?") seems to imply that you might believe the theory of evolution, the fossil record, and associated work, are the product of some sort of vast scientific conspiracy to mislead. Do you believe such a thing? If so, why? If not, why then, do you ask such a question?

        October 6, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Yes I think it is a conspiracy theory to mislead persons.

        October 6, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • Dan

        ....

        "if so, why?"

        October 6, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I have answered your questions... now answer mine... the color of the robe Johnakim Lucien...

        October 7, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  26. Tonelok

    I don't understand how this study is the definative reason we are still evolving. Why not how the average human is much taller than several hundred years ago, for one example. Seems like they are trying to use grant money to fill time.

    October 5, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  27. SHIARRA

    AND JUST AS THE INTERSEX/ XXY MALES MANIFESTOS HAVE SAID, SAME SEX IS GENETICS, AND ALL MALES ARE GENETIC FEMALES IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER,THATS WHY MEN HAVE TWO CHEST DOTS NATURES FOODS AND WATER ARE ALL 90% ESTROGEN BASED

    October 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Dan

      What?
      ... Water is estrogen based?

      ... Manifestos?
      I can't even begin to make sense of this.

      What are you trying to communicate?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  28. Johnakim Lucien

    Interesting piece of writing.We are dying not evolving. We have more vaccines, more medical procedures where we could do heart transplant yet still we still die very early. Children die very young these days. One may argue that it was always the case but if we have more technology why it is that more diseases emerge.In Bible days people use to live like 900, 800, 700 years. Today we live 30,40 100 for the most on average. God has set 70- years for us to live and if we live longer so we are indeed blessed. So to imply that we are evolving I would not say yes. Young people get sexually active as a result of the hormonal changes in them, what they eat and what they watch. This has to be taken into account. What you eat would have an effect on you.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      No, the Rigveda says nothing of men living that long... Are you sure you have the right creation God?

      Seriously, by definition, when a CHILD dies, he/she is YOUNG... when's the last time you read "a child died this morning at the age of 89..."

      If you want proof of evolution, look at, and read, the evidence for the evolution of the Indohyus into today's modern whale by Thewissen et Al. The fossil record distictly shows the progression of the nostrils from the snout, to the blowhole on top of the head.... as well as the disappearence of the hind limbs. These fossils are all found in the layers of rock and sedement that they are supposed to be found as predicted by evolutionary theory. Still no evidence of your global worldwide flood 24 cubits deep.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Spiritual things are Spiritually Discerned. Where is the evidence of the Ice Age or for that Matter the stone age? The evidence of the fossils you spoke about only concurs with my Biblical evidence. Man has indeed evolved not from a monkey or ape for that matter. Man was made perfectly. People were indeed taller before and many of the fossils are evidence of larger breed human beings. Now persons aren't that height and they don't live longer. There is ample evidence of God in nature.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Evidence of an ice age (there have been many (14 if memory serves me correctly) Wholly Mammoth, Wholly Rhino, "the ice man".. all preserved from this time periode. Also, glacial ice core samples, geological formations that are best explained by regressing ice flows, etc. etc. etc.
        Evidence of a stone age... cave paintings in southern france, archeological dig sites where stone tools have been discovered, ect. ect. ect.
        And in what verse does the Bible perfectly corroborate the evidence that mammals returned to the sea after adapting for life on land, and readapting for aquatic life?
        Evolution doesn't claim man came from apes or monkeys, but that we came from a common ancester... education... it's important...
        care to point me to the museum where these fossilized giants are housed? Or explain why, if prior to Noah, humans lived for close to 1000 years, and then life expectancy dropped to at best 50 years, and now it's up to close to 80 years? Is your version of God toying with us?
        maybe there is ample evidence of nature in your version of God...

        and finally...Spiritual things are Spiritually Discerned... then let the spirits work it out... I'll stick to reality.. you should try it some time.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur, have you been to all the places mentioned? You see the thing is that you base everything on things read and or seen on TV,second hand information. I have experienced God for myself.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        The colour of the robe Johnakim Lucien...

        October 7, 2011 at 12:19 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        History shows us that man has come to the realization that God was the one who created us. I agree with the evolutionist that we have a common ancestor. This is very true. What needs to be dissected further is where these ancestor came from. Darwin denied that there is a God in his existence, which make it seem like a conspiracy theory to detract persons from beholding the Creator of the Heaven and the Earth. The Archeological findings maybe testament to the fact that the beings did exist. However, that is based on their findings and their interpretations. We have and I speak for myself have never delved into such areas. Evolution also agrees with creation of the passing down of behavior etc, to other generations. However, Creation and the Bible does say that because of one man Sin entered the world. And because sin reigns in us that we die. The wages of sin is death. We have that common denominator which coincides with the theory of evolution. I say natural selection theory = the effects of sin on the human race. God will and forever remain whether you or Dan like it. He will remain the God of many. That is the choice he has given us. We were not made like Robots. We are being given the power of choice and this is what you are exercising there. Yes man or animals if you wish does adapt. After all we have different climatic conditions.

        October 7, 2011 at 8:58 am |
      • Dan

        "History shows us that man has come to the realization that God was the one who created us."
        No, history shows us that man has made a whole bunch of ideas up to explain natural phenomenon. Most of said ideas have been entirely without logic or empirical, supportive evidence.

        "I agree with the evolutionist that we have a common ancestor. This is very true."
        Great! I'm entirely unconvinced you have any legitimate understanding of why you hold this belief though.

        "What needs to be dissected further is where these ancestor came from."
        Science is working on it as I type this!

        "Darwin denied that there is a God in his existence, which make it seem like a conspiracy theory to detract persons from beholding the Creator of the Heaven and the Earth."
        Darwin did *not* deny God. He actually incorporated God into his work and explanation thoroughly. He was wrong about a number of things, and lacking many tools – most importantly, an understanding of genetics. But Darwin certainly viewed God as the source of moral law, and "first cause."

        " The Archeological findings maybe testament to the fact that the beings did exist. However, that is based on their findings and their interpretations."
        This is true. However, no alternative explanation has yet been offered that "passes the muster."

        " We have and I speak for myself have never delved into such areas."
        You should! Visit a museum, read a book. You'll learn a thing or two.

        " Evolution also agrees with creation of the passing down of behavior etc, to other generations."
        Um...sort of. What you're referring to is genetics and inheritance. I'd be curious to understand the specifics of your interpretation of the bible regarding such matters.

        "However, Creation and the Bible does say that because of one man Sin entered the world. And because sin reigns in us that we die."
        Your point? Also, "creation" as you mean it is not a separate entity from the bible for purposes of discussion. It's redundant to state it that way. You could say "creation *in* the bible", but...

        " The wages of sin is death. We have that common denominator which coincides with the theory of evolution."
        The bible specifies Adam and Eve, who supposedly lived a great many years. Evolution talks about Australopithecus and various other hominids, who likely lived less than 20 on average. They do not "coincide" except in the sense that your parents have parents.

        " I say natural selection theory = the effects of sin on the human race."
        You offer no basis or rational reasoning behind that statement.

        " God will and forever remain whether you or Dan like it. "
        We don't "like" or "dislike" it. We have no opinion on whether your God or any other God, Goddess, or pantheon of such deities should remain or not, as we don't believe in them. You're asserting an opinion you have no basis for as fact.

        "He will remain the God of many."
        But not all. Xemu will remain important to Scientologists, Zeus was a God of the Greeks, and Vishnu holds much favor in India. What's your point?

        "That is the choice he has given us."
        What choice? You didn't even specify anything.

        " We were not made like Robots."
        You're right, we weren't assembled in factory. We are offspring of sexual reproduction.

        " We are being given the power of choice and this is what you are exercising there."
        I agree that we "have" the power of "choice", in a very narrow epistemological sense. I don't have unlimited choices in general, but I do have a great many choices available. I'm not clear on why you believe it was "given" by some particular deity or deities.

        " Yes man or animals if you wish does adapt. After all we have different climatic conditions."
        Among other types of conditions, yes.

        October 7, 2011 at 10:53 am |
      • Dan

        Johnakim Lucien, you have demonstrated, repeatedly, a complete absence of any legitimate interest in learning, engaging in meaningful debate, or having a genuine dialog or exchange of ideas. You fail your immediate family, who you could make better by bettering yourself. You fail our species as a whole, by not attempting to further the advancement of knowledge of any sort, religious or scientific. And most notably, you fail yourself, and your God, who you believe endowed you with the ability to learn about Him and His creation.
        You have demonstrated no relevant knowledge of the faith you claim to hold, no relevant knowledge of the sciences, and no desire to gain it. In short, I hope you choose to someday better yourself in life.
        You don't make me mad, or frustrate me in the least. You, and those like you, however, do give me pause, and make me sad at wasted potential. I initially thought you were a troll, as I don't mind/take amusement in "feeding them", but now I've realized it's appropriate that "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."
        I wish you only the best, but will no longer engage in dialog with you.

        October 7, 2011 at 11:08 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So even after I demonstrated that the infallible truth of the Bible is fallible, and it is the sole reason for anyone to believe in it's tales... you're going to keep believing it... That's your prerogative... but it's called willful ignorance. Think about it.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      You say that Sin was brought into this world by man, and that is your rebuttal to evolution... but the only reference to that I am aware of is the Bible... you claim the Bible is true... what is the colour of the robe Johnakim? It's not a hard question.

      October 7, 2011 at 11:33 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        lol....you're funny. The colour of the robe was purple according to my Bible if my memory serves me right.

        October 7, 2011 at 11:34 am |
      • fimeilleur

        You are correct. John 19:2: The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe.

        Or are you wrong? Matthew 27:28: They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him.

        BUT THE BIBLE IS 100% TRUE!!!!! These two colours are on complete opposite sides of the colour spectrum it is near impossible to get the two confused, not even colour blindness...

        October 7, 2011 at 11:44 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Johnakim Lucien, you have demonstrated, repeatedly, a complete absence of any legitimate interest in learning, engaging in meaningful debate, or having a genuine dialog or exchange of ideas. You fail your immediate family, who you could make better by bettering yourself. You fail our species as a whole, by not attempting to further the advancement of knowledge of any sort, religious or scientific. And most notably, you fail yourself, and your God, who you believe endowed you with the ability to learn about Him and His creation.
        You have demonstrated no relevant knowledge of the faith you claim to hold, no relevant knowledge of the sciences, and no desire to gain it. In short, I hope you choose to someday better yourself in life.
        You don't make me mad, or frustrate me in the least. You, and those like you, however, do give me pause, and make me sad at wasted potential. I initially thought you were a troll, as I don't mind/take amusement in "feeding them", but now I've realized it's appropriate that "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."
        I wish you only the best, but will no longer engage in dialog with you.

        You know what Dan for once you are actually right about something. I have failed my God, failed my species and failed in my reasoning. I still have a lot to learn. I however haven't made a mistake in sticking to my God and my knowledge of him. This is based on my experience with him that I go on with what i believe of him. I am young and have my life ahead of me to learn the mysteries of this life. As I traverse I amass knowledge which will make me wiser. The Theory of Evolution has gulf-ed much debate. Creation on the other hand is not without doubts as I have stated earlier. I could explain the reasons for the changes in man without the theory of evolution. The Bible does explain whether you believe me or not of the changes in man as time progresses.
        The main reason why we are changing or rather 'evolving ' in this present generation is because of sin.
        Man was made perfect in the sense of perfection with organs functioning in place by an all powerful God. God also gave man a diet to take care of the body. He gave them the natural fruits, nuts and grains in the Garden of Eden. As a result of disobedience. Sin and decay entered the world.
        The plants was no longer perfect. Proof of these is the abnormal growth of certain species inspite of proper care. Also in light of chemicals that are put toward them then it still does not help at times. In Eden there was no need for that. The rain was too water the Earth and the Sunlight was to enable growth. All this could be seen through study of science. Back to the problem of sin, persons are not born abnormal. Henceforth sin is the transgression of the law. There are different laws. Laws of health, moral laws, sanitation laws. One of them can be seen is if a man jumps from a tall building he is breaking a law. Then the result is either injury or death. On the other hand if we eat too much of one thing then we could have complications. The Bible speaks to that effect on temperance.
        So the transgression of the law does have ripple effects on the society today. When we don't follow codes of conduct then we end up in trouble. Ultimately our happiness depends on our trust in God and the obedience of church laws. I know my knowledge is limited Dan, but simply because if you choose to go contrary to what you know is good for you then you end up in trouble.
        Sometimes persons say that God was revengeful in the old testament, it is a result constant disobedience to God. God himself has things he cannot do because of his government.
        So Dan I am on my way to greater things. I thank you for the insight, I will stick to my God but will also learn of other things as you have stated so I could be perfected to some extent in my deliberation as it relates to life.

        October 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Johnakim Lucien,

        sorry, I originally posted this in the wrong spot. For context... I repost.

        So even after I demonstrated that the infallible truth of the Bible is fallible, and it is the sole reason for anyone to believe in it's tales... you're going to keep believing it... That's your prerogative... but it's called willful ignorance. Think about it.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        fimeilleur you have not proven to me the Bible is fallible....and thanks for your consideration.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Purple or Scarlet... which of the two is true... they can't both be... and remember that everyone says these stories were written down from eyewitness accounts that were accurately transmitted verbally for two hundred to four hundred years and yet no mistakes were ever made because God wouldn't allow that... Purple or Scarlet... I ask again.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        This is just symbolic of royalty the Bible does not contradict itself.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        LMAO... good to see you still have a sense of humor...

        Jeremiah 3:12: ... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
        Vs.
        Jeremiah 17:4: Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.

        Nope you're right, no contradiction there.

        Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
        Vs.
        John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.
        Vs.
        Numbers 14:14: Thou, Lord, art seen face to face.
        Vs.
        John 6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father.

        My goodness you are so right... there are absolutely NO CONTRADICTIONS!!! I'm so sarcastically sorry!!!

        October 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him..
        Stop taking what you want to justify your reasoning. Jesus here is referring to his Father. Jesus was the one Jacob and all the rest saw face to face.
        1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        2The same was in the beginning with God.

        3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
        That was Jesus so this carries no weight.

        The fire you are referring to here is a fire that consumes. No one can stand in the presence of God. That fire which the Bible says that consumes will burn forever and if e are found with sin we will be consumed in the presence of God. Further God will not retain his anger forever in the sense when we repent of our sins that fire will not consume us.

        October 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I'm sorry, Jacob and Jesus lived at the same time? This is what is called "mental gymnastics", I'm not taking anything to prove your bible is contradictory... just the bible.

        One other point I forgot to bring up about the robe... so the color is symbolic for royalty, as symbolism, then the robe could have been white, and then symbolically told as scarlet or purple... is that what you're saying? are you saying that people made this sh!t up? Please win this argument for me...

        October 7, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  29. Todd

    I love that we still morons in this world that try to deny evolution. NEWS FLASH: EVOLUTION IS NO LONGER A THEORY, IT IS PROVEN AND ESTABLISHED AS FACT. Anyone who denies evolution is 100% fact is a six letter word that starts with an R

    October 5, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • Dan

      Evolution is a theory. I don't deny evolution, but it's a theory. Your bizarre post and insults do little to further acceptance of science.
      Why does "theory" need to be defined 20-30 times on every science article? Why do people STILL not understand the meaning of the term despite this?

      October 5, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        You're too quick... 🙂

        October 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      I just want to point out one thing... Evolution IS a Theory... it is a scientific theory, that is NOT to say it is the same as a guess, a hunch or a supposition. Gravity is a Theory in the same respect, as is Relativity.

      Some people think you can swap out the meanings of a word so that it suits your agenda... take the word gopher as an example... am I talking about a tortoise? or a rodent? depends on where I'm from doesn't it? So we have to agree on the meaning of the word before future meaningfull conversation can take place.

      As this is a science blog, the scientific meaning of Theory should always be applied. If you mean guess, say guess, or if you want to sound scientifically literate, use Hypothesis (but you better be able to test it). Scientific fact (observation) vs. fact (true statement) is another pet peeve of mine.

      But I digress...

      October 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      rabbit?

      October 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • Dan

        Rattle, perhaps? Robust?

        October 5, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        rascal?
        rotund?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  30. Chris

    LO X-MEN FTW

    October 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
    • Chris

      lol*

      October 5, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
  31. Isaac

    Summary of the Evolutionary Theory –

    "Today, on the way to the apple, the worm turned left instead of right when blocked by the rock. Therefore, dinosaurs evolved into birds and man from apes. If you don't believe this you are a fool. God isn't real, therefore do whatever you want."

    Sincerely,

    The Informed Scientific Community

    P.s. I'm a Scientist. You cannot even fathom what that means so don't try to understand. Just tilt your head back and drink the lies I tell you to.

    October 5, 2011 at 11:35 am |
    • Dan

      By "Scientist", I'm guessing you mean "Christian Scientist."

      October 5, 2011 at 11:57 am |
      • Isaac

        Nay Dan, I actually don't mean that. I mean the same scientists that tell us that the melting polar ice caps are going to send tidal waves into Texas.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
      • Dan

        So your assertion is that a lack of existence of God provides the go-ahead to act as you please? The corollary to this is the only thing stopping you from raping and pillaging is your fear of divine punishment.
        What's stopping me from raping and pillaging is principled ethics. Who's the one with questionable morality in this scenario?

        And when did scientists assert that worms turning left provides evidence related to dinosaur evolution? What you've constructed is a straw man argument. Fail.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Isaac,

        Wow, quite the jump... I don't know of too many evolutionary biologists who also study climate change... maybe you can list them...

        October 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        I suspect he does not literally mean he is a scientist. I think he is role-playing a bizarre caricature. I doubt he has any idea what a scientist actually does. His scientist is a cartoon character in a lab coat who is part of some evil conspiracy.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
      • Isaac

        @Dan – it was satire Dan. I'm on your team. Chill bro.

        A comic cartoon scientist would give me more factual data than your Darwinian clones.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Isaac,

        I think you're confused dude, I'm pretty sure Dan is on the side of Evolution... I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong...

        October 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
      • Dan

        No correction needed!

        October 5, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
  32. tobryant

    PBS documentary on Autism clearly showed that children with Autism possess genes that neither their parent nor grand parents possess. Not quite the wings you hoped for?

    October 5, 2011 at 11:29 am |
    • Dan

      De novo mutations don't refute evolution. They actually support it, and are well documented and understood.
      Good try though! It did require actual knowledge to post that.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:59 am |
  33. Isaac

    Dear Liberal Clones, this is called "Cultural Evolution" not "Physical Evolution".

    October 5, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • Isaac

      Did anyone read the article?

      Stearns says, "we must remain AGNOSTIC on a DEFINITIVE conclusion;" and, "We're changing...in ways that are being shaped by our CULTURE."

      October 5, 2011 at 10:55 am |
  34. Nick

    Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.

    Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
    Science Requires a Biblical Worldview

    The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

    Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

    These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
    Can an Evolutionist Do Science?

    Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?

    The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.

    How Would an Evolutionist Respond?

    The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”

    One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will.” But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.

    An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion; in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?

    Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it.” This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.

    Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day

    Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

    It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
    Evolution Is Irrational

    In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

    Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.

    Conclusions

    Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.

    October 5, 2011 at 10:39 am |
    • fimeilleur

      You are so wrong it is painfull. Science is independant of God, Vishnu, Brahma, Baal, Jupiter, Zeus or any of the other gods in the recorded human history.

      Your claims "God is consistent6 and omnipresent" are laughable... is your version of God also in Hell? How is your version of God consistent when he says sh!t like: Jeremiah 3:12: ... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever; and Jeremiah 17:4: Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Same book, inconsistant message.

      Although you took a long time to cut and paste your verbal diarhea, this is as much as I am going to refute your claims 'cause quite honestly, now that these two have been blown out of the water, you're not standing on solid ground.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • Johnakim Lucien

        Your statement is not logical to me so now I can only pronounce it, with all due respect as codswallop.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Read it s l o w l y... it helps... you can find out what big words mean in the dictionary... can't help you more than that.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      I gave up when you claimed uniformitarianism as a biblical law. Your post qualifies as "not even wrong" (Wolfgang Pauli)

      October 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
  35. The Jimster

    oh oh...reliigious argument...5...4...3...2..1...GO ATHEISTS...lol

    October 5, 2011 at 10:08 am |
  36. Usaywha?

    We have evidence of human evolution when it comes to unexplained medical events such as the girl's who had a liver transplant and her blood type changed to match the blood type of the liver. you can look at the average height of humans 1000 years ago to the average height now. Also humans could be broken down into species since there are different types of humans on this planet but that would probably offend.

    October 5, 2011 at 10:02 am |
  37. MyTake

    *Yawn* - It is inevitable. Every time there is an article that mentions evolution the narrow-minded bible-thumping fundie zombies come out to show how much they DON'T know about science and evolution in particular. There lack of knowledge on the subject seems at least equal to the misinformation they repeat. These idiots would relegate education back to the 15th century. We need more and better science education in the US. We are falling behind and these intellectual ne'er-do-wells are part of the problem.

    October 5, 2011 at 9:52 am |
  38. Dave

    Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

    October 5, 2011 at 9:01 am |
    • MyTake

      Just to put finer point on it. Any theory is based on a set of facts in order to make predictions about future findings in the are of the theory.

      October 5, 2011 at 9:54 am |
      • MyTake

        *area*

        October 5, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • Nick

      Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

      Some point natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
      Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
      So what is it?

      Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.
      Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.
      No Need For a Theory of Origins

      Ultimately, we have no need for a theory about the origin of life and the universe. God, our Creator, gave us a perfect, factual account of how and when He created, and how humanity came to be. While we can—and should—study His universe, He graciously provided the proper framework to truly understand—the Bible.
      Evolutionary ideas are simply one way in which humans seek to deny God’s authority. In fact, all of us are guilty of this; all of us have rebelled from Him and deserve death. But because of His great love, God provided a means of being rescued through His Son, Jesus Christ, so that we may be made right with Him again.

      October 5, 2011 at 10:47 am |
      • Dan

        No direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed?
        Long after the discovery of genetics, we encountered an odd problem. Other primates we normally consider "relatives" have 24 pairs of chromosomes. We only have 23. Holy crap! That's a problem! So someone got a great idea. Chromosomes have sequences on the ends called telomeres, and centromeres in the middle. A sequence of telomere, centromere, telomere (with other genes in between these sequences). So that someone said lets look to see if two chromosomes in fact became one over time. This is a prediction – a testable hypothesis that would support or decry evolutionary theory. Guess what? It turns out that humans have a chromosome with the following sequence: telomere, centromere, telomere, telomere, centromere, telomere. Wow! So then they examined the actual sequences of genes found in this chromosome, and compared it to other chromosomes in other primates. Guess what? Turns out that the sequences match! The hypothesis / line of thinking can be looked at like this: 1) that humans evolved from apes 2) humans and apes have different numbers of chromosomes 3) the chromosomes don't just disappear, so the chromosomes must somehow have become rearranged such that two chromosomes became one bigger chromosome 4) we should look for evidence of this in the chromosomes themselves
        It checked out! This not only supports natural selection, but also supports common descent, which you separately decry.
        Another example of evolution ("natural selection") in action is antibiotics. We regularly observe this one. We are actively creating new species of bacteria with our wholesale use of antibiotics (google staph bacteria). Same with insects and insecticides. We are creating enormous selective pressures, causing significant, observable change in some bugs as a collective species.

        To your other point, what "tests" which don't confirm evolution are you referring to? This is a vague, unsupported assertion, with no place in a principled argument.

        October 5, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  39. Yogi

    Hi everyone,

    of course there is still evolution. Otherwise it would be sad if you look at the world how it shows up now.
    The next step of the evolution is the awakening of the Kundalini energy, which resides in everyone.

    October 5, 2011 at 7:48 am |
  40. cosmicsnoop

    All right, enough nonsense. The truth is we were genetically manipulated and created by the Annunaki from the tenth planet, Nibiru. These are the beings described as the Nephilim in the Bible. There was a highly advanced culture on this planet that was wiped out 11,500 years ago in a great cataclysm. That's the source of Atlantis stories. We are a very young species in this Galaxy and were created by a more highly advanced one. Same type of thing as we do now. Get over your egos and accept the truth. There are plenty of books out there about all this.

    October 5, 2011 at 7:37 am |
    • fimeilleur

      forgot your meds this morning?

      October 5, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • Chris

      Books can be rewritten or changed soooo

      October 5, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
  41. Scared

    One thing this type of discussion repeatedly proves is that athiests know far more about the bible and Christianity than Christians know about evolution or even basic biology.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:48 am |
    • MyTake

      Well said

      October 5, 2011 at 9:56 am |
  42. Mama

    I am displeased with this study. It's bull ****. Sure we're probably still evolving but looking at it based on when women have kids? Stupid as ****.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:28 am |
  43. Alice

    Well, it seems CNN still believes in idiots. The fact that woman get earlier pregnant has nothing todo with genetic drifts but rather with society change. I mean for a very very long time the usual age of pregnancy was 14-17. This changed because of our society NOT because of genetics.

    The way the human evolves is in my opinion more subtle. My guess is that the CLOCK genes specially the per3 genes are on the verge of becoming a major trait.

    The reason is that today we live in warm houses, at night its always warm and in day thanks to increasing solar radiation its not as healthy anymore. So i suppose that people will become Nocturnal. It makes sense from my point of view, sleeping in day and waking in night does have clear advantages in future.

    We should however continue to support research, because science is the best kind of seeing the future...but no i dont think people can get wings...would be cool though....

    October 5, 2011 at 5:05 am |
  44. mmi16

    The Universe is God's work shop....He's been playing around for Trillions of years

    October 5, 2011 at 4:52 am |
  45. Paul

    From the article:
    "Other studies revealed that adult humans in regions of Africa and Northern Europe developed the ability to tolerate lactose in their diets as recently as 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Scientists say the evolution was linked to the cultural reliance on milk as an agricultural product."

    That's not acruate. They did not develop the abilitly to tolerate lactose. They lost the ability to turn of lactase (the enzyme that breaks down lactose) production after weening.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:29 am |
    • Dan

      That's just playing word games. It's like saying people didn't develop the ability to walk upright; they lost the ability to be effective tree-climbing quadrupeds. .

      October 5, 2011 at 10:48 am |
      • Paul

        It's not words games at all. We didn't gain the ability to process lactose. Babies already have the ability to process lactose. Lactase production normally gets shut off after weening. But now lactase ist still being produced, thus allowing adults to continue to process lactose. See, some humans didn't gain the ability to process lactose (it's already there), it's just that some humans continue to produce lactase. It's a loss of the ability to turn off lactase production.

        October 22, 2011 at 1:40 am |
  46. TG

    The acceptance of evolution is everywhere, with even the Roman Catholic church going along "for the ride." The Pope's own Pontifical Academy of Sciences said almost thirty years ago (1982), that "we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and the other primates beyond serious dispute."

    However, as a house must have a foundation on which to build, so likewise must life have a foundation upon which to build – the cell. For the cell to function, it is made up of proteins. Could even a protein have arisen by chance ? Consider: A protein is made up of amino acids, specifically "left-handed" amino acids (as opposed to "right-handed" amino acids), 20 different ones being required.

    These "left-handed" amino acids must be placed in a precise order or the protein will fail to function. Could this have come about by chance ? What are the odds of a protein forming at random ? 10 followed by 113 zeros. Mathematicians have acknowledged that anything beyond 10 followed by 50 zeros is impossible.

    Since it is impossible for a protein to have formed by accident, the foundation for a cell and for life, then how could man have evolved ? He couldn't. It is no different than a computer processor "evolving" at random. No computer processor will ever arise from chance, nor has life arisen by chance.

    October 5, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • fimeilleur

      your father produces 100 million sperm everyday of his life, that's 3.65 billion sperm per year since the age of puberty (14?) He lived what, another 63 years (average) after that? So in his life, he produced 230 billion sperm cells, and yet you are here... The odds of that happening... especially after you factor the improbability that your father came to being with the same mathematical improbability, and his father before him, and so on... yet you all exist(ed)... Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE the odds that you turned out to be you... and not some other genetic variation of you that could have been...

      See, you're doing statistics wrong... you exist because your parents had sex... that's it... you exist. The probability that the exact you came to be, looks improbable, but here you are.

      Same with the proteins... they are here... deal with it.

      October 5, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Scared

      Your mis-use of the terms "chance", "random", "accident" and "impossible" indicate you do not know what you are talking about. First and foremost, these terms are NOT interchangeable. The creation of proteins is by no means random, because the process will create the exact same proteins each time if done in the exact same way each time. That is not random. That is merely following basic laws of biology and chemistry. (perhaps a little physics thrown in) So "What are the odds of a protein forming at random ?" Zero, because proteins do not form "at random".

      Further, the claim "Mathematicians have acknowledged that anything beyond 10 followed by 50 zeros is impossible" is patently false. In order to be "impossible", something *must* have a probability of zero. By definition! You will hopefully understand this when you get into high school. "10 followed by 50" has a low probability, but is still possible because it is not zero!

      While I think fimeilleur's example was brilliant, the problem is compounded by the process of chromosomal crossover, which mixes up the genes so much, that the odds of any specific set of genes being passed to the next generation is less than 1:10^70. Thus, by your own , uh, "logic", it is impossible that you exist. Yet, there you are.

      My suggestion is you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It addresses your bogus probability calculations and a lot more. Ken Miller's "In Search of Darwin's God" is another good one. BTW, Miller is a practicing catholic who testified against intelligent design in the Kitzmiller-vs-Dover. The vast majority of biologist (literally 95%+) maintain evolution is a fact. However, you are free have the stone-age thinking like the Taliban, if you wish.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:12 am |
      • Dave

        Well said!

        October 5, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • MyTake

      Actually, the are known processing in place that take the chance out of much of it.

      October 5, 2011 at 9:59 am |
  47. salman

    sweet, so far, the only wings i've had were buffalo wings! and yes i'm joking. i know that evolution takes generations for there to be a profound impact.

    October 5, 2011 at 12:45 am |
  48. julianpenrod

    Supporters of evolution will say anything to try to promote it. Among other things, it sounds strange that women in 1766 would have their first children at an average age of 26, then, by 1940, start having them at 22. In the 1700's, large families were the norm and used for handling farm work. The impetus then was on having families young! By 1940, with the less rural nature of society and the effects of the Depression, it seems reasonable that women would wait to have their first children! In short, the very "data" used seems suspect!
    And, overall, social systems do affect the age of first children very significantly. Just after the Middle Ages, it wasn't uncommon for young people in their mid teens to be betrothed. The age to having first children actually seems to have increased during that time!
    If they really wanted to do a study of changing genetic characteristics, why not address the age of first menstruation rather than use the proxy? It seems unreasonable in the extreme that there would be such a lock step associating of age of first children with the onset of mensturation. It seems extremely likely, using family records, that they could have gotten the more intimate information even going back to the 1700's. All but certainly, during the increase in interest in science during the 1800's, that information could be available in significant amounts.
    But there is another crucial fact to keep in mind. Evolution of whatever form is supposed to be a reaction to changes in conditions, allowing creatures to adapt to do better under the conditions. But cities and human society provide protection from the onslaughts of nature that animals and plants don't have! Society provides what evolution is supposed to address; societies supply habitation, food and safety, things that evilution either arranges for a creature to obtain, or that evolution makesunnecessary for them to have. There should be no evolution in the presence of the city.

    October 4, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Your points have already been addressed by others in this forum... Personally, I think it's bad reporting on CNN's part, but I haven't read the actual scientific paper... if CNN's portrayal is accurate, then I'm sure the peer review process will point out the social influences that most probably influenced the findings rather than the evolutionary ones. But that is how science works... Reporting, on the other hand, can make a small, unobtrusive correction at a later date.

      October 4, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      I suspect that the research is far more sophisticated than the reporters were able to convey. I am also certain that the researchers aren't so simpleminded as to have overlooked social and cultural factors, and to have not done their best to control for them.

      As for your last paragraph, from the perspective of evolution the "environment" is not limited to the pristine natural world; a city is just as much an environment as is a forest. The selective pressures may be different in the city environment than in the "natural" environment, but that again is the very stuff of evolution. Changes in the environment provide pressures that allow for particular traits to be passed on. A clear example might be resistance to contagious disease. An individual in a city environment that comes into contact with thousands of others on any given day is going to be much more exposed to viruses than someone in a low-density population. That environment over time might gradually select against (natural selection doesn't actually "select for" good traits, it "selects against" bad ones) individuals with immune systems that are less effective at fending off particular viruses. To follow this further, a catastrophic epidemic can have evolutionary affects in a very short time. How many people do you know that have died of the plague? Probably none, because most of us are descended from people who happened to have immune systems that allowed them to survive it (they were not selected against).

      It can be complicated stuff, but that doesn't mean it should be casually dismissed with no real understanding. Realistic explanations are rarely simple.

      October 4, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
  49. Jason

    I am a minister. The Bible, especially Genesis, was written by a people, the Hebrews, who had no desire or intention of writing an empirical essay with scientific facts. They wrote it to help explain, by faith, what they believed was behind the physical world; i.e. that there is a spiritual dimension to life and we find it in relationship to 'God.' They NEVER intended Genesis to be taken literally (this is not a debate but simply true for anyone who understands ancient Hebrew as a language, a culture and linguistically) and so they would be flabbergasted to see people of faith taking it as 'science' today. They write that the earth is FLAT and that the sky is WATER held away from the earth by a DOME! Anyone care to argue they meant that literally? I believe in evolution and I believe there is a Spirit of love that desires us to be in right relationship with each other, creation and the spiritual through love and respect. Biblical literalists don't have a leg to stand on in regards to Genesis being literal. Although parts of the Bible are meant to be literal – the issue is often solved by examining each text as a separate entity. (i.e. Job is most likely a poem about suffering, not a historical account).

    October 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      So Minister Jason,

      I appreciate what you're trying to bring to the table, and I also appreciate that this isn't the Belief Blog, but...

      How does one tell the difference between what is literal, and what is allegorical, and what is a flat out lie?
      38,000 Christian denominations can't be all true... and certainly not one of them is 100% right in it's interpretation of the Bible...

      If the Ancient Hebrew made stuff up about the origins of life on earth, how are you to trust their account of the existence of their God?

      October 4, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
  50. Bree

    This has to be the most flawed an idiotic "research" article I have ever read. It was so stupid I had to stop reading 1/2 way through. First of all, 150 years is NOT enough to see an evolutionary change. What is that, 3 generations? Are these people freakin' serious?

    So any change that could be attributed to a thousand other factors (which are much more likely, by the way), they decide to attribute to evolution, a process that takes millions and millions of years?

    Why they also decided to compare human evolution to X-men is beyond me..

    October 4, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Just one correction, 150 years is about 6 generations (average is 25 years)... or maybe it's 7.5 generations and were "evolving" to an average of 20 years...

      Just kidding about the last part. But you're right, this is a bad article...
      Bad CNN, BAD!

      October 4, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • MyTake

      I don't see what the problem is. My dad was born with extra knee-caps and when I was born I found out I have X-ray vision. 😉

      October 5, 2011 at 10:03 am |
  51. Jon

    People are not having children at a young age because they are evolving. It's because they are maturing at a youger age. And that's because they are better fed.
    Civilizations are their own worst enemies. Conditions improve so that people are healthier. Children mature faster. But civilization requires late maturation. There are some things we have to learn before we reach puberty, like language and respecting others and ourselves.

    October 4, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  52. Mike Paul

    Comic books are neat, but all fiction manages to ignore questions like "Where does the energy come from?" People won't suddenly be able to produce the MASSIVE amounts of energy required to bend magnetism to their will or bend (decent quality) steel with their bare hands. Most of Superman's powers could be replicated by the willful control of the nuclear force known as 'gravity' but, again, where would the energy come from? An organ that converts matter directly into energy, or absorbs yellow sunlight fast enough to spit it out in giga-joules on demand? How would that WORK?

    So no, none of the neat human mutations are coming, but maybe blue fur is on the way...

    October 4, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
  53. manyfaucets

    Humans are not evolving in any reasonable interpretation of what evolution might mean. Humans are domesticated animals like dogs. Whether we are aware of it or not, humans have made conscious selections that have affected the genetic makeup of humans in a way that mimics the same process by which dogs were domesticated. We exhibit the same narrowing of genetic diversity. X-Men?? Not even close. Bushmen of the Kalahari are one of the few human groups that still the broad genetic diversity typical of a flourishing wild animal. They might be evolving but not us.

    October 4, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      But, manyfaucets, even if you are right, that IS evolution. Changes in gene frequencies in a population through time is the basic idea of evolution. The domestication of the dog is and excellent case study in evolution. Both homogenization and diversification of gene pools among humans is evolution in action, not an end to evolution.

      October 4, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
  54. R

    In US main stream media is not doing enough to educate people about science. That is where I like BBC over any other US media. When they talk about science, they talk about science only and reporters are very well informed then relatively uneducated CNN reporters. Whenever I see news about science and if they are about theory like Evolution, all they write is c-r-a-p to provoke debate instead of focusing on actual study.

    October 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • Jon

      I hate to disillusion you, R, but BBC is not a US media.

      October 4, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
  55. DaveD

    This study represents the sort of vapid extrapolations that mar evolutionary science. As interesting as it is that over the years women on a tiny Canadian island started having babies sooner, how does this answer the questions that plague Darwinism? How, for example, did life arise? Where did genetic information come from? For speciation to occur, does a parent give birth to a completely different organism? If so, where does that organism find a mate? Despite these problems, some people use Darwinism to argue that God is a lie and that religious people are evil or stupid. If this makes you as mad as it makes me, check out more on the topic at halfaleagueonward.com.

    October 4, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      I agree with your first couple of sentences. But few of the other questions you bring up plagued Darwin or any post-Darwinian scientist. The idea that an individual gives birth to a baby that is a new species is a question that only plagues those who have never actually studied evolution. Darwin nor anyone else ever suggested such a thing, and it is an absolutely silly notion. That is one of the biggest problems with science education – overcoming all the MISeducation people have received and passed on.

      And by the way, "Darwinism" is a silly term veiling ad hominem attacks. Evolutionary biology is no more Darwinism than physics is "Newtonism" or "Einsteinism." Any first year grad student in biology has a much more sophisticated understanding of evolution than Darwin ever did because unlike dogmatism, science is cumulative and self-correcting.

      October 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • MyTake

      "Despite these problems, some people use Darwinism to argue that God is a lie and that religious people are evil or stupid."
      Let's address these one at at time:
      1 – Who is arguing God is a lie. I would not. Science does not answer metaphysical questions.
      2 – Some religious people are not that bright only because they let their faith trump their intellect.
      3 – Evil would be a judgment that I would not share. Ignorant – evidently.

      BTW, "Darwinism" – ?
      The 19th century call ... they want their word back. 😉

      October 5, 2011 at 10:12 am |
  56. sonic10158

    I hope that guy in the pictures doesn't crap on a car below him

    October 4, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  57. mutanthuman

    What?! No superpowers! *teardrop* So sad! I always wanted mind control. Boo hoo. But seriously, I'm curious about where this human evolution is going. How the occupants of earth millions of years from now, finding our bones, will think of us? Would be similar to how we look on the dinosauars today? Who knows?

    October 4, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  58. Tørkestativ

    "(Evolution means that organisms change over time based on inherited traits)."
    Are your readers really stupid enough to need you to explain what evolution is? Seriously? That's ridiculous.

    October 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • R

      Definition of evolution need more detail than what you wrote.

      October 4, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Dan

      Have you read the comments? The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".

      October 5, 2011 at 11:10 am |
  59. R

    IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS PERSON, NO NEED TO READ MY OPINION, I KNOW YOU WILL NOT AGREE WITH IT.
    OTHERS, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
    "Human Evolution might have slowed down after Human started advancing in science. For example, humans can successfully cure plenty of diseases. So change through natural selection is less possible in Human. For example, tuberculosis was not curable a century ago. So, most survivors were immune to the disease. Now a days, tuberculosis is curable, thanks to advancement of medicine. So people with weaker immune system are still living. This is the reason, i think, why human evolution has slowed down."

    October 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Evolution is also geared toward environment, i.e. a desert lizard that doesn't have a great range (territory) and very little need to migrate for food or shelter, will remain in a specific geographical area, thus future generations will adapt and be better suited for that specific environment. We, as humans, are global travelers, and as North Americans, are privileged to have an abundance of food. Our genetic makeup that was once specialized (skin color, eye shape, etc) is now very much intermixed, as well as development of textiles (for clothing) and materials (for shelter) we are already pretty adapted (or smart enough to make ourselves comfortable) in any environment on this planet. Future adaptations are hard to predict, but my guess would include things like average height (look at the height of the doorways in 15th century Tallinn, Estonia for example) weight, bone mass, cranial cavity (augmentation?). We may also lose distinctive hair or eye coloring, although, that may be boring...

      October 4, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • Isaac

        Micro-evolution is understandable. But the theory of macro-evolution has yet to be proven.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
      • Dan

        Isaac – what's not proven about it? Refer to my comment on chromosomes and our ape relatives.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
      • Isaac

        It's been 'observed' through make believe fossils. There is no science. Just a hypothesis that sets out to prove that God isn't real.

        October 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
      • Dan

        Chromosomes are make believe fossils?
        This conversation reminds me of the "Charlie the Unicorn" videos on youtube.

        October 5, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        micro and macro evolution are appologetic terms introduced by proponents of "intelligent design"... no scientist makes the distiction. Evolution IS or it ISN'T. Gravity works or it doesn't... there is no micro gravity vs macro gravity.

        make believe fossils... LOL.

        October 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
  60. IThinkImMe

    Wow, the ignorance here is only dwarfed by the arrogance. To believe that we haven't evolved and that it is all due to God is incredibly egotistical. Here is an example of evolution;
    Lets say that time travel is possible (possible yes, plausable, no) and you took a laptop or electronic device back with you 1000 years. Do you think the people of that time could comprehend what you are showing them? Or do you think they would consider it black magic and have you burned at the stake?
    Now take that same person and fast forward 1000 years. Undoubtedly there will be fantastical scientific advancements (assuming we don't blow ourselves up beforehand) but will a person from 2000AD be able to comprehend the technology of that time better than someone from 1000AD? I would venture yes. Understanding your environment and adapting to it is the basis of evolution.

    October 4, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  61. ZoSo

    You're all missing the point; having children at a younger age is NOT an evolutionary trait, it's just a conscious choice...

    October 4, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
    • Dan

      Um...yes and no. A four year old human could "decide" to bear offspring, but that decision would be irrelevant, as that's physiologically impossible for our species. A rat (fancy rat, for those inclined to the specifics), on the other hand, would already be long dead after having produced several generations of offspring at four years. Therefore our ability to bear children is a product of genes, which are a product of selective pressures (i.e. evolution).

      October 5, 2011 at 11:15 am |
  62. Brainfartie

    If the theory of Evolution holds true, who took care of the first crying baby? Did a whole bunch of goo from the sea turned into male and female monkeys? Then one out of the 240 species of monkies, one advanced?

    October 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      I'll give you two choices:

      A) Go back to school and LISTEN
      B) Stay in school and LISTEN

      Notice, neither choice involves your scientifically illiterate preacher from your church.

      October 4, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
      • Chris

        don't troll dude

        October 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Chris,

        How is this trolling? I am directly answering his claim...

        October 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
  63. TonyP

    Ok ok. I believe in evolution and i do not believe in conflicts beliefs in life after life. But what the hell is shit !?!. Am i really led to believe that this is science's convincing argument for evolution specifically this is the "best evidence" that we are still evolving. I dunno maybe i missed something. Sounds pretty flaky to me though

    October 4, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Probably, as many have pointed out, this is a poorly constructed article written and edited by someone who doesn't have the full scientific publication, and/or a poor understanding of the science involved.

      Reading what is presented, I am more convinced that the evidence of a younger average maternal age at childbirth is due to social norms changing as well as ... well lets face it... in 1799, Canada was still being populated by migrants coming across from Europe. The voyage was often difficult... I imagine not many young children made the journey.

      October 4, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
  64. The_Mick

    There have been a number of recent books that discuss human evolution SINCE we became modern humans. That includes the development of light hair and eyes, the adult ability -particularly of those of Northern European descent- to digest milk, and more. There's no question we are still evolving.

    October 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  65. Dr.K.

    People will not grow wings with feathers because evolution is historically contingent. All feathered creatures descended from a common ancestor with feathers. We as mammals do not share that common ancestor because our line diverged before feathers developed among bird ancestors. Mammals can adapt to flying and have developed membranes (like bats and flying squirrels) but not feathers. For that matter, humans can adapt to flying and have developed airplanes (cultural evolution) but not feathers. Both of those are examples of convergent evolution.

    The point is, mammals should not ever be expected to develop feathers. That is a logical outcome of even the most basic understanding of evolution. It is not in any way an argument against evolution, but making that claim is indeed a strong argument against an understanding of evolution.

    October 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Dan

      While I "hear" what you're "saying", try to stay away from the morphology approach to taxonomy when constructing these arguments. Otherwise people will start prattling about horses and zebras and take the conversation down a very pointless path.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:18 am |
  66. Iambradley

    There is a very simple reason for this, these people live in Ile aux Coudres, I have been there, and there is not a lot to do if you are a local and not a tourist. And before you think that this is absurd, the last major Ice storm that hit Quebec resulted in a mini baby boom because people were bored and trying to keep warm. Just search for Ice Babies and Quebec.

    October 4, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • sam

      I agree, plus Quebec Girls are naughty!!!!

      October 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  67. Joe

    Okay, so what existed before the big bang? If nothing, then how did something evolve from nothing? If something existed prior to the BB, then how did it evolve? Why was it there to create the BB? How was the pre-BB elements there in the first place.

    Ask these questions of every dedicated evolutionist and the world will see an increase in the number of institutionalized people.

    October 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      Pre-big bang there was large amounts of energy which lead to the big bang creating all the matter in our universe. The reason this ball of energy exploded is a mystery and just because we don't know why it happened doesn't mean it had to be god. It just means we don't know.

      There is a very large chance that pre-BB did not follow the same physical laws that we follow here, so energy did not really have to come from anywhere. Energy may have just been allowed to build without any real reason, this would lead to a big ball of energy that would eventually explode into our universe.

      See, perfectly legit explanation for the beginning of the universe and no god needed. And through physics we can see that there is no god needed to run the universe either, it runs pretty well on it's own. So this would lead any rational intelligent person to believe that there is no god and never was one to begin with.

      October 4, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • Joe

        Wouldn't the bigger mystery be how the pre-BB energy came into existence? Your response lacks logic. Please don't put before the horse, the cart. If you can inform me how the pre-BB enery came into existence, then I might buy your argument.

        October 4, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Joe, you are making the all too common error of confusing big bang cosmology with biological evolution. They have little in common except that they are derived from science. They are both unusually robust theories supported by more evidence than you or I can even comprehend, and the only significant reason for resistance to them is stubborn adherence to iron-age explanations of how the universe works.

      October 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • Joe

        Dearest Dr. K:

        You're 100% wrong; all life dervives from the elements of the universe. You know, the gases and etc. combining to form life. So, tell me, what existed before the BB?

        October 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Joe,

        Let's just say you have a point that the building blocks that came together to create life, came from the BigBang... and you want to know what came before the BigBang... truth be told, science doesn't know for sure, there are many plausible hypothesis, but as of yet, the ability to test these hypothesis escapes us. Now for more truth... YOU don't know either. Say your version of God "did it" has the same weight as saying Brahma did it... or Nanbozho did it... or any of the countless Creation Gods that (claimed to have) existed in the past. There is as much evidence for your version of God, as there is for these other gods... that's to say... NONE.

        October 4, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        Wow, 100%? That's a new record for me. So explain to me what aspect of evolutionary theory addresses the origin of the universe. (on second thought, don't)

        fim is correct in that you are implying a false dichotomy: if the big bang theory (a physics theory having nothing to do with evolution) does not answer every question one might have, then the Christian God must have magically done it. That is false because there are countless other possible explanations.

        Let me put it simply for you: Even if you could disprove the big bang, that doesn't mean biblical creation wins. Even if you could disprove evolution, that doesn't mean that biblical creation wins. Both of these explanatory frameworks (theories) will probably eventually prove inadequate based in new data (for example, if nuetrinos travel faster than light, that changes everything), but it is unlikely that either will be replaced by biblical creationism. That theory has pretty thoroughly failed to fit the evidence.

        October 4, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Dearest Dr.K.

        the only thing I can point out to in you being "100%" wrong... is that you called it "stubborn adherence to iron-age explanations of how the universe works"... it's the bronze-age that did us in... sheesh!

        LOL

        October 4, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        You're right. Now I guess I was 101% wrong.

        October 4, 2011 at 11:33 pm |
  68. Jakester...

    Until the study is released that shows me how Autism came into being, I believe that it's evolution in process. I swear that my non-verbal son can communicate without speech using his mind. ; )

    October 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  69. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    1. Our pinkie finger is not as long as it was a couple of thousand years ago based on skeletons. Why? Because for the past million or so years we have been less dependent on an arboreal based life-style. We no longer hold onto branches with our hands.
    2. Our toes are not as prehensile – see above.
    3. Our jaws have gotten smaller. One result of this is an increase in orthodontia to make room for teeth, and removal of wisdom teeth. This is because our diet no longer includes rougher grains and meats that require a lot of chewing. Evolution not only adds features, but removes them, too.
    4. Our appendix has become an afterthought of our digestive process. See item 3 above.
    5. More people have vision and hearing problems. As we are no longer tribes of hunter-gatherers, we are no longer as dependent on our vision and hearing (and to a lesser extent – smell) for immediate survival. Remember, the better hunters had better vision and hearing, therefore they got the best mates, as opposed to the cavemen who could make the most ornate table setting, and do wonders with wooly mammoth fur throw rugs.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  70. babayaga

    The next evolution is that straight men EVOLVED to Gay Men.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • Dan

      I'm not the least bit homophobic, but that's silly in context of the argument 😉 Gay men don't get to pass on their genes, so they're an evolutionary dead-end.
      That says nothing negative about them; merely a contextual fact.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:23 am |
      • fimeilleur

        you discount sperm donors, in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy... hardly a dead end.

        October 5, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
      • Dan

        Surrogacy is still "heteros3xu4l" as a reproductive concept, though oddly it would seem a "gay gene" could be passed along. Interesting. I guess advances in science are just as ok to consider an evolutionary step as feathers/wings/flight is, "neat trick" as it were....
        OK, I retract my comment, with the footnote that we apparently need to collectively work on our definitions / phrases, as the phrase "s3xu4l reproduction" is utilized a lot in the literature, and that's quite arguably not what's taking place in your proposed scenario.
        I wonder if the "gay gene" is X-linked or something? That would be quite the problem for the discussion!

        October 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I'm not sure I get your x-linked comment... do you mean the X gene vs. the Y gene? If so, I would think so because homosexuality isn't gender biased.

        October 5, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
      • Dan

        "X" is a chromosome, not a gene.
        Males are XY, females are XX. Paternal contribution determines the offspring's s3x.
        If the father contributes a Y, the offspring is male. (Please no one follow up with XXY, phenotype issues, etc. I'm going over basics here. I understand those exceptions)
        So were there a "gay gene", and it was on the X chromosome, in humans, the gay father would never contribute a gay gene to a male offspring.
        Since we're talking about surrogacy here, I'm sure you can see at this point how it's incredibly unlikely that such a trait would achieve meaningful population penetrance under this scenario.

        October 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        so we're on the same page then... I don't like spelling on this computer, spell checker sucks... that's why i used Gene vs chromosome... call it lazy. 🙂

        Yes, lots more to be researched and discussed on this topic..

        October 5, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  71. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    Christians love to come to thes boards and post questions about evolution. The fact is Most of these questions are far to complex to answer on a message board. You ask these questions as if the inability to answer it in a 3 sentence post is proof evolution is false. If you really want to learn go get a book or better yet take a college course in biology or geology. Just because you can't understand the answer does not make you right.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Word, brother. (or sister)

      October 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • MyTake

      You make an excellent point. To answer these questions (or insinuations) the person asking should have at least a basic understanding of the field in question. I find that most biblical-literalistic Christians lack that with the added bonus of not being able to think logically or for themselves. The amount of time required to educate them about their false premises alone would be a Herculean task. (i.e. If we came from monkey, why are there still monkeys)

      October 5, 2011 at 10:26 am |
  72. patrick

    "No mutations producing another pair of appendages have ever been observed – among humans or any four-legged creatures – in 350 million years. That's among millions of different species – not only our own. It's not going to happen." hmm i kinda think that statement is not true. what about all the births, human and animal, are born with extra appendages, that although are non functioning, are still there. we have all heard stories of that

    October 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • Dan

      Of the incidences of what you're referring to that I'm familiar with; they aren't heritable traits, they're developmental problems.

      October 5, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  73. GatorALLin

    I liked the article just to get us thinking about "What if" ideas. I think our genes are expressed or turned ON due to outside factors like exposure to the elements (increase of sunshine, or altitude, or pollution), but they happen just slow enough it is hard to see it unless you look at a larger group or over more time. I am sure an increase in protein in the diet could change first reproduction times (just like eating too much chicken with hormones, or watching se#y MTV and other things to spark hormones or brain activity toward thinking along those lines to make that starting age continue to drop More Today!). I also think you Will see Super Human Evolution take place, but not from natural selection, rather from our own manipulation of genes and science. It will occur at first for sports injuries or military applications to repair the damaged human body to get back to "normal" and then once you can use those mods to go beyond Normal, those with the money and connections will start to get the mods themselves! If you could get a eye implant to go beyond 20/20 vision and see your computer or iPhone screen would you.... I think some would. And Once the some who did had a clear advantage over you, then others may be forced to try and keep up (for work, or fun, or ego). Dr. says, "while we are in here we can stop at normal, or give you the next best upgrade....what do you say?" I say Yes please.....6 million dollar man, here we go! Evolution does not stop with man....what makes you think we are actually at the top.....forever? I think there will be a human 2.0 and beyond. It has been going on for a while now.... pig hearts..... maybe grow a limb back next when you lost it in war.... then grow a new memory area for your brain due to damaged area....why stop at Normal?? Here is the kicker....you can't stop evolution even if you wanted too.... what if everyone could perform at Lance Armstrong levels (with the right blood cells that hold more oxygen you can now!). I think the signularity will push this even faster than linear advancements we have seen in the past. Watch out....future is already here...

    October 4, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  74. FoolKiller

    And of course it has nothing to do with growth hormones in beef and chicken…

    October 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • GatorALLin

      I agree hormones plays a role now for sure...along with more Sxey TV and info that girls lock on to at an earlier age than ever before...but appreciate they started these numbers from 1799-1940 and seems a bit before the increase in hormones for making bigger cows with more meat, or chickens with huge breasts, etc.. JustMy2cents...

      October 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  75. Evolver

    Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. The evidence for evolution it overwhelming in quantity and quality. Evolution is an established scientific fact that has been observed and measured both in nature and in controlled laboratory experiments.

    October 4, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • GatorALLin

      ...since your suggesting cool books.... thought it fun to toss one more into the ring.... "Ray Kurzweil's, The Age of Spiritual Machines" . This book brings together the theory of evolution, philosophy, biology, chemistry and the exponential growth of technology to explain how the world became to be what it is today, and where it will continue to go. Kurzweil puts together very strong arguments for his theories and predictions and leaves me a believer. I think that every computer science major (and anyone interested in the future) should read this book.

      October 4, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Scared

      "The Greatest Show on Earth" is next on my list. I just finished "The Blind Watchmaker" and am now in the middle of "The Selfish Gene". His writing style reminds me a lot of Isaac Asimov's science books. Lucid, as well as entertaining.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:15 am |
  76. kaiser

    it's pretty irresponsible to publish this. the writer has no idea about this subject, and the scientists treat culture like it's secondary?

    evolution led to humans using cultural as the dominant mode of "progressing".

    October 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • kaiser

      err, culture, not cultural

      October 4, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
  77. ObviousLee

    Let's face it, we'll over-populate ourselves into extinction before we ever evolve.

    October 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  78. Marc

    Wait a minute. Women have children earlier than they used to and this is evidence for evolution? I thought that's evidence of people having sex. The age of childbearing is controlled by puberty and that happens a lot earlier than 22.
    I really do not grasp the parallel between evolution and having kids four years earlier than your grandparents. I'd call that a change in culture.

    October 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer