Skin color is ‘bone-deep’
This is a sculptor's rendering of Australopithecus afarensis, an ancient human relative that lived 3.2 million years ago.
May 4th, 2013
06:00 AM ET

Skin color is ‘bone-deep’

By Kelly Murray, CNN

From the darkest brown to the pastiest white and every shade in between, humans display a tremendous variety of skin colors. Human skin color is directly linked to our survival as a species as we lost our fur and developed a need for protection from the sun, and then migrated into cloudier regions of the globe. Over the course of evolution, scientists argue, skin color was influenced, among other factors, by our need for healthy bones.

To begin to explain this, we turn to Nina Jablonski, professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University. She is a well-recognized researcher in primate evolution, and specifically the evolution of human skin, and she was the subject of a Science Seat on CNN Light Years.

The story of human skin color begins with our furry ancestors about 6 to 7 million years ago in Africa, the last time that humans and chimpanzees shared an ancestor. Jablonski says that these ancestors, called Australopithecus, still had ape-like body proportions: fairly long arms and relatively short legs.

“When we look at their skeletons in detail, it’s pretty clear that they were not active runners,” she said. “They could walk on two legs but they weren’t running or striding purposefully across the savannah most of the time, they were sort of living lives that are much like those of chimpanzees: fairly close to the edge of the forest, sometimes going into trees for protection, and then walking for short distances in the open to forage.”

By about 1.2 million years ago, humans ancestors had lost their fur and were able to sweat more efficiently to avoid overheating. The fossil record shows this in the species Homo ergaster, for example. During this time, individuals began to walk across the hot savannah, so there was a need for more internal body heat regulation.

Without fur, however, our skin was exposed to the strong equatorial sun. The skin pigment melanin, which is responsible for most of the color of our skin, is a terrific sunscreen. Darkly pigmented skin became a substitute for fur.

But as our ancestors migrated away from the Earth’s equator, which has lots of UV exposure, it became less and less beneficial for those populations to have so much pigmentation as protection from the sun. Why? For answers, we must look at vitamin D.

“Vitamin D is produced at high levels in the skin when it is exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun,” says Dr. Michael Holick, a professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University Medical Center. He is a leader in vitamin D nutrition, and among countless other works, published the book “The Vitamin D Solution.”
According to Holick, back in the 1930s to 1950s, it was thought that the main reason for skin pigmentation was to prevent having too much vitamin D being produced in the skin. Too much vitamin D leads to vitamin D intoxication, which can result in death. However, in the early 1980s, Holick and his colleagues published a paper that disproved that theory.

“It turns out that Mother Nature was quite clever, in that any excessive exposure to sunlight destroys any excess vitamin D produced in the skin,” Holick explained.

Vitamin D is produced in skin that’s exposed to the sun, and it’s involved in helping the intestines absorb calcium, which is a critical nutrient in our bones. However, heavily pigmented skin reduces a person’s ability to produce vitamin D in the skin “probably by 90-95%,” according to Holick, meaning they were more likely to be deficient in the vitamin.

As our ancestors migrated to areas away from the equator, with lower UV radiation, pigmentation became a problem. For example, Holick explained, a person from Africa who is very darkly pigmented has a sun protection factor of around 30. That person would have to be out in the sun at least 10 to 15 times longer to produce the same amount of vitamin D as a lightly-pigmented person from Europe.

Vitamin D is critical for healthy bones, which have always been essential to human survival. Not only are healthy bones important to movement and holding our bodies upright, but they are essential for reproduction. A pregnant mother who is vitamin D deficient can have a baby born with infantile rickets syndrome, a disease that leads to severe bone abnormalities. If the mother remains vitamin D deficient, she is also calcium-deficient. If breast milk is the main food source for the infant, the infant will not receive enough calcium to build healthy bones.

The female infant "will have a flat, deformed pelvis with a small pelvic outlet, making child delivery impossible,” Holick said.

While rickets may not have affected male reproductive abilities as much, it would have given them weaker, more brittle bones, increasing their risk of fracture, and therefore affecting their ability to survive.

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with a host of other health problems, such as preeclampsia, asthma, upper respiratory infections in children, and even multiple sclerosis, Holick said. This is because of the vitamin’s role in immune function, as it is thought to decrease risk of developing autoimmune diseases.

On the other hand, scientists know that too much sun can deplete a person’s reserve of folate, a B-vitamin that is necessary for cell division and repair and known to reduce risk of fetal birth defects. A big source of folate comes from leafy green vegetables, but Holick argues that our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have eaten plenty of those. Today, many people do not eat enough of them.

So how much sun do modern humans actually need? Dr. Holick says that it’s not possible to give an absolute recommendation because of the time of day, latitude and skin pigmentation, which all influence vitamin D production.

“For example, a lightly pigmented person in Boston in June at noontime, 10 to 15 minutes of sun exposure between the hours of 10 AM and 3 PM on arms, legs and abdomen and back when appropriate 2 to 3 times a week is usually sufficient,” Holick said.

Now that most humans in modern society spend most of their days indoors, away from sunlight, you might assume that humans will eventually become homogeneous in terms of skin color and may lose darker pigmentation.

But Jablonski offers a different explanation for why human skin color will become more homogenous:

“Because of human migrations, especially in the world’s largest cities, skin color will become somewhat more homogeneous because of increased admixture of people, while depopulated rural areas will tend to remain much as they are.”

She emphasizes that that increased color homogeneity will result as a product of the intermingling of populations, not natural selection.

“There is no significant evolution acting on people who are either ‘too light’ or ‘too dark’ for their solar conditions because we have layers of protection in the form of complex culture, like buildings, clothing and diet,” she asserted.

Any city-dwelling person, regardless of skin color, can become vitamin D deficient if he or she doesn’t receive enough sun exposure. As Jablonski explained, just as lighter-skinned people are more likely to suffer from sunburn and therefore skin cancer, darker-skinned people experience more vitamin D deficiency because short periods of outdoor exposure aren’t sufficient to allow them to produce enough vitamin D in the skin.

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (937 Responses)
  1. What

    What in the hell are you talking about? Please do not besmirch the name of Einstein by posting such idiocy under his name. The very first thing you need to do is look up the definition of 'theory,' because it doesn't mean what you think it means. The colloquial usage has changed it to mean something akin to an educated guess, but in science a 'theory' is a comprehensive explanation for a set of empirical facts derived from experimentation. In other words, a scientific theory is a fact. The biological theory of evolution has been tested and retested for over a century and not one experiment has contradicted it. All of them have confirmed its findings and the predictions have all been confirmed. You see, that's also one of the foundations of a scientific theory. Not only must it have explanatory power, but it also has to make predictions that scientists can test. If a prediction fails, then the theory is thrown into doubt. That has never happened with evolution. Sorry, but that doesn't even come close to the nonsense of religion.

    May 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      A Theory under the scientific method is experimentally demonstrable and repeatable, like Relativity. Darwin created his own "scientific method" of being able to be shown false. Species occur rapidly following a mass extinction, proving Darwin's notional hypothesis (under real scientific method) false. The current baseless assertion of punctuated evolution is itself an oxymoron, not even close to being a theory.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
      • CRD

        How exactly does " Species occur rapidly following a mass extinction" prove evolution or natural selection wrong?! This is perfectly consistent with natural selection?

        Also, how else would "species occur" other than by evolution. I hope you understand what "rapidly" means in evolutionary terms. It's still many thousands of generations. The greatest extinction on record – The Permian–Triassic extinction of 251 My ago killed 95% of all species and cleared the way for an explosion of new life forms. How fast was this? About 10 to 30 million years.

        May 5, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
  2. Natty Dread

    For all "creationists" and bible thumpers – seems to me you will have to wrestle with the fact that the "garden of eden" was in fact Africa. And "Adam & Eve" were Africans, most likely very dark Africans. Yet Christian tradition has been very unwilling to recognize this. Chew on that for a while.

    May 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
  3. Bill Richardson

    Hey, how did they get that picture of my 7th grade math teacher?

    May 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
  4. Joseph Bleaux

    LOL at all the evolution deniers. I bet you still think the Earth is flat too.

    May 5, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Seyedibar

      Of course it is. The bible says so.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
  5. burrman

    so many people are butt hurt about this?! ever-changing information is the beauty of science. if you people have such distrust for the scientific community, why don't you get off of your damn computer and go stand outside for the rest of the day?! everything you own and everything you know about today's world is because of scientific research... don't take it for granted.

    May 5, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      Science has changed and today we know evolution as a means to species is false. To publish this here today is just plain racism, not science at all.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
      • Joseph Bleaux

        How utterly stupid.

        May 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
  6. Draftsman

    All that any of this debating "proves" is that a chimp can peck keys on the keyboard of a device that a scientist designed using logic, and that has "evolved" to a level accessible to a chimp.

    May 5, 2013 at 10:51 am |
  7. religion

    is that a picture of jesus?

    May 5, 2013 at 10:28 am |
  8. Tim

    brain deep too.

    May 5, 2013 at 10:23 am |
  9. Joseph Bleaux

    Evolution is a fact. The only "theory" part is the exact details of how it works. You can cover your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA! and refuse to accept it but that won't make it go away. And for your information, the Catholic church accepts evolution. Only ignorant, illiterate and down right stupid people attempt to refute it. Religion is ancient mythology and primitive superst!tion. I'll take modern science over ancient mythology any day.

    May 5, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • J100409

      Please stop calling theories facts. A confirmed theory is still a confirmed theory, not a fact. "The apple fell down," is a fact. "Gravity makes things fall down" is a theory. It doesn't matter how high the confidence level in a theory is, theories and facts remain fundamentally different. Facts are true or false. Theories are accurate or inaccurate.Facts are observations. Theories are explanations. Just because the theory of evolution is substantially right does not make it a fact, any more than the theory of gravity is a fact. Not everything that is true is a fact. (Although everything that is a fact is true.)

      May 5, 2013 at 11:45 am |
      • Seyedibar

        Evolution is a fact. The theories you refer to are explanations of the mechanism by which it occurs.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Evolution as a means to species is however false.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
      • Joseph Bleaux

        Did you even finish the 3rd grade? Obviously not.

        May 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
  10. Hugh Mann

    Blacks have longer arms by far than whites and are in every sense of the word, more apelike than other races. That picture in this article looks like 50 Cent.

    May 5, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • w l jones

      Follow the hair a thin lips

      May 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Natty Dread

      Ok, fine. Who's your daddy?

      May 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  11. John P. Tarver

    From DNA we know that Ape is not an ancestor of man and that we do not share a common ancestor, yet CNN publishes this racism. Biology has much shame today.

    May 5, 2013 at 9:48 am |
    • Joseph Bleaux

      Wrong.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Dru Richman

      Intentionally wrong. Read this and weep – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

      May 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Oh my, now wiki is a science text. Bwahahahaha ....

      May 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Joseph Bleaux

      Why don't you do some actual research instead of just throwing out nonsense you pulled out of your posterior. Then you might actually know what you're talking about. Right now, you don't.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
  12. luvlar

    Judging by the picture, I'd say Oprha needs a shave.

    May 5, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      That is the whole racist point of CNN publishing this nonsense.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
  13. Steve

    That picture looks like my next door neighbor.

    May 5, 2013 at 8:43 am |
  14. w l jones

    Well well let the good scientist explain why people on two other planets look similar to people here on Earth. Question are primate on other planet beyound our solar system.

    May 5, 2013 at 8:43 am |
    • Dru Richman

      And what planets would those be?

      May 5, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
  15. Jim Weix

    Science flies you to the moon.
    Religion flies you into buildings.
    Jim Weix

    May 5, 2013 at 8:04 am |
    • Not buying it

      I don't believe anyone here is doubting or questioning the existence, achievements, or importance of science. Nor or many here touting the undeniable existence of God or the great achievements of religion. Atheists immediately want to turn the evolution of man into a science versus religion argument when it's not really.

      I believe in science – hold a scientific degree and work in one of the most scientific industries in the world. I have great respect for scientific process and the proving of scientific theory for the betterment and understanding of mankind. That aside, the point I've been stating is that there exists no proven scientific evidence of our "missing link" despite hundreds of thousands of research hours and billions upon billions of research dollars. It seems we can find everything but the link needed to connect the dots of the theory.

      Until we do, this remains unproven theory and should be treated as such. This article is biased in such a way to imply that the link is a proven fact.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:36 am |
      • Joseph Bleaux

        There have been many "missing links", most have now been found. Read some science books for a change instead of books about ancient mythology and ignorant supersti!tions (the bible).

        May 5, 2013 at 10:24 am |
      • peridot2

        Not Buying It, the missing link between fish and land animals has been found. It's time to pay the bill. The fact that you don't keep up with scientific discoveries doesn't mean they don't happen continually. They do, every day, all over the world. One must pay attention.

        There's not a single magical missing link. There were many and many if not most of them have been discovered. The blanks have been filled in for those of us who live science. It's as simple as watching NOVA and NATURE on PBS and reading the science news every day.

        May 5, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • Lindsay

      Well said.

      May 5, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • peridot2

      Mr Weix, it's anger,hatred and resentment that flies people into buildings.

      'Nuff said.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:31 am |
  16. What?

    Bible believers are funny, they swear it is true yet have no idea who really wrote it or proof any of the stories are true. Funny how they didn't start writing it until 70 years after Jesus died. Yea, I'm sure they didn't add any colorful info to make it sound better. After all Middle Eastern men are known for being rational.

    May 5, 2013 at 7:23 am |
    • luvlar

      “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
      ― Sam Harris

      May 5, 2013 at 9:10 am |
    • peridot2

      The Bible was written by fallible men. As a Christian I don't believe every single word is the truth. However, I do believe that it contains the Word of God. There's some good stuff in there. However, it must be taken with a grain of salt. Slavery's wrong, God doesn't care about masturbation, birth control isn't a sin, etc. Those were cultural truths for the time (and misinterpretations made by human males who knew zero about human biology).

      May 5, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Joseph Bleaux

      The bible, like all religious texts, is nothing but ancient mythology and primitive superst!tion, written thousands of years ago by members of a primitive, tribal society. People that believe in imaginary, invisible, supernatural beings in the sky are scary to me. They blindly accept ancient myths while rejecting modern science. Not a healthy outlook on life.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:28 am |
  17. What?

    Looks like every other African American

    May 5, 2013 at 7:17 am |
  18. Devin

    The comments are disgusting and I doubt 95% of the people posting here hold a high school diploma.

    May 5, 2013 at 7:10 am |
    • peridot2

      Agreed that those who deny evolution lack education. There are some highly educated Christians who don't accept the concept. I don't know how they do it. I'm an educated Christian...evolution's a fact, I learned it in school. There was never any doubt or argument between church and school.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:12 am |
  19. silly religious fools

    interesting that science continues to improve on it theories, teaches baselines in a provable manner. In other words science will always self correct looking for the truth. Religion teaches everything as fact and when disproved, they cry that passage was just a parable. Yet religion hasn't an ounce of proof for a god they claim to know.

    May 5, 2013 at 6:38 am |
  20. youni43

    nicely written. However, the Jablonski rationale seemingly ignores a sophisticated understanding of biology? The speculation that people moving north would lose their color through evolution presupposes that naked dark skin would result in vitamin D deficiency preventing successful reproduction? Just as then, today there is no significant evolution despite solar shielding of clothes or indoor employment. Skin color does not indicate bone health.

    What jablonski has overlooked is the new science of how vitamin D affects the microbiome - the garden of microbes that lives in the gastrointestinal tract. If the writer wants a REALLY FASCINATING story about vitamin D and survival... it probably in the microbiome. Apparently Vitamin D is important to how well the gut microbiome helps our immune system, inflammation, etc - these are fundamental physiological functions that make the difference between life and death on a daily basis starting at birth.

    May 5, 2013 at 4:45 am |
  21. stephenayers42

    I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks it's incredibly silly we humans pretend to know what went down millions of years ago.. it's a joke. We can't even see a minute into the future.

    May 5, 2013 at 2:57 am |
    • Rogue351

      The past holds evidence we can measure and evaluate based on known constants. Wait long enough and you will know the future because it will become the past. Study the past enough and you will have a good idea of what the future may hold. From your comment I can be fairly certain that you will not be reading any sort math, science or history book in the near future. If I wait a short period of time I am sure you will prove that by your next comment.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:01 am |
    • Alex Besogonov

      Yup. Totally silly.

      Like knowing the weather HUNDREDS, nay, even THOUSANDS of miles from my home! That's so stupid that I'm not buying it! Nobody can see that far! Those elitisg (only elitist spell it correctly) libruls can't fool me, no sir!

      May 5, 2013 at 4:34 am |
  22. seamusmartin

    Cogito ergo sum

    May 5, 2013 at 2:54 am |
  23. Rogue351

    God is also a theory. The difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of god is this. The theory of evolution is based on scientific findings compiled and challenged over many years. The theory of God has also been challenged through out history as well. However those challenges mostly occurred on the battle field with the looser having only two choices, believe and be controlled or die. So really who's "theory" is more sound ? The theory of investigating, test, observing and challenge to then create a theory ? Or the method of sending an army to a village telling them they can no longer worship their pagan gods but must worship a new god. A god whose message comes from one source and that source also happens to be the same people that are now collecting taxes from your village. If you choose not to believe this divine word and pay these taxes you can leave and be hunted down like dogs. Or you can stay and die. I am 100% certain that organized religion started out as a positive idea but once kings, lords and bishops found they could use it to control and profit from, things changed. And with that the message also changed to better suit the times. For example look at the Baptists protesting military funerals because of gay people, or the way the Taliban treat women, there is proof of this changed message happening everyday all around the world. The theory of evolution is primarily funded by grants or donations. The word of religion is enforced by armies, throwing acid on innocent women, or blaming groups of people, such as gays for the misfortunes of a country. And lets also not forget how many millionaire have been made by the word of god via pastors with mega churches taking money from people who cant even afford to eat because they believe if they do not give they will not go to heaven. Or as in the Mormon church if they do not pay they will not be allowed access into there temple. So the real question should be. which theory is more detrimental to humans over the course of history, that of religion or of evolution ? Which theory has had the greatest influence on elections. Which theory if more forced on the general population of the United States ? It does not say in evolution we trust on our money now does it.

    May 5, 2013 at 2:13 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      The difference between God and the notional hypothesis of evolution as a means to species is that science knows for a fact that Darwin was wrong.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
      • Rogue351

        And 99% of those who participate in organized religion do not follow the teaching to the letter as they are directed. But still assume they will go to heaven. They also know the background of said religion and choose to look passed its violent ascent in their lives. Why, because they are covering there own behind on the off chance it is real. However most has not really thought about the premise of what if god is actually not as nice and loving as they have been told. Something else they choose to overlook. Science on the other hand puts all legitimate arguments on the table and is not afraid to amend them if new evidence come up. Something religion will only do if it assist in control of the member or increases income. Science wins out either way you look at it for being the more honest of the two theories. BTW – your argument makes no sense, You provide not one shred of fact to back it up, just your own speculation that in the long run may cover your behind if religion is true. If you had actually looked at the odds of that being the case then you are more along the lines of stupid as apposed to gullible. Either way religion does not support bettering humanity it supports dividing it. Once again science wins out looking for common links between people. Pull your head from the sand and try some critical thinking, math, read some history and look at it from the perspective of what religion has actually brought to mankind and then weigh that against what science has brought in a 10th of the time.

        May 6, 2013 at 1:44 am |
  24. Elmer

    Cannot wait till the sky-fairy believers continue to die off and make room for more logical, proof-oriented individuals on this planet. The definition of stupidity if to ignore mountains of tangible research and evidence in favor of an invisible magical all-knowing unicorn who NO ONE has ever been able to prove exists.

    May 5, 2013 at 2:01 am |
  25. Really

    WHAT!! Come on CNN you really put up a BS article like this....I thought you guys were the Top Dogs...GTFOH with this BS.. Really.."Our Furry Friends from Africa..Really?

    May 5, 2013 at 1:40 am |
  26. Shelia

    Evolution is not proven fact, to promote as such is nothing but dogma....

    May 5, 2013 at 1:04 am |
    • Elmer

      Open a scientific book NOT published and distributed in the Bible belt. Educate yourself.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:02 am |
    • Toolalaa

      Scientific theory is supported by data. The scientific literacy in these posts is sadly lacking. Please support your conclusions with facts/data not subjective reasoning. Alas, the bottom line is science and faith are incompatible with each other.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:07 am |
    • Dru Richman

      "Evolution is not proven fact..." Neither is Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and many others...but nonetheless the theories do explain the reality on the ground.

      May 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • paul

      you are so wrong and out dated.Read a book please.It hasnot been a theory for the last 40 yrs..Its been proven on a micro,macro level,in the fossil record,with humans today...ignorance is bliss for some isnt it?

      May 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • Rogue351

      Religion is not a proven fact. Also if you have a look at the word theory it does not claim to be a proven fact. Ask yourself which has more tangible proof, religion or evolution. Go to a museum and have a look around and then go to a church and look for tangible proof. If science give you a story and tells you to believe it people ask for proof. If religion give you a story and tells you to believe no one asks for proof, why is that ? With religion you are directed to faith. With science faith place no part. So which of the two theories actually have more evidence to back up the claims ? You will not look into this because your faith tells you not to. With science if if things do not add up you are encouraged to explore and try to explain. Don't you find that odd ? Science does not ask or tell you to believe blindly.

      May 6, 2013 at 1:55 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        The atheist religion of outdated science includes the false notion that species are an outcome of evolution.

        May 6, 2013 at 9:59 am |
  27. David Bur

    I refuse to believe that my great uncle was an Ape LOL. Wake up you idiots whether you want to believe it or not we were all created by God Almighty. Behind every creation is a creator. We did not just appear out of nothing. Nobody would believe that a bottle in the middle of the room "just appeared" there!!!!

    May 5, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • Zack

      Guess what Bubba. Your grandpa was an ape... and so are you. All humans are primates. We share a common ancestor with the other primates millions of years ago. Our closest cousins are the chimpanzees, the Bonobos chimps are especially human-like in their behaviors. Science is a very interesting subject. It's what has allowed you to post on CNN's website with your profound ignorance on this subject. Science is the reason you live longer, that you remain healthier, that you communicate over thousands of miles, that you treat diseases etc. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and it's terribly ironic that you show so little appreciation for something that allows you to live a fruitful life.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:53 am |
  28. John P. Tarver

    A theory under the scientific method must be demonstrable and repeatable, a fact Darwin ignored when he wrote his ant study. Gravity is known to be mass bending Time, from the Theory of Relativity. CNN publishing this racism is disturbing.

    May 4, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Sad excuse for thinking there Tarver.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Biology is ashamed of themselves.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:56 pm |
      • Zack

        Have you been reading science books written by children?

        May 5, 2013 at 8:54 am |
  29. sybaris

    Hmmm, what's more likely, evolution of the body to conform to environment or some invisible "whatever" poofed you into existence?

    May 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
  30. Von

    So does this mean we're all waiting for our next era of evolution?? GARBAGE ARTICLE.

    May 4, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      Nope, human social engineers have put a stop to evolution.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm |
    • MalcomR

      No. We're waiting for natural selection pressures to weed out the kind of f-ed up thinking that I suspect your brain is engaged in. Sorry, but you live in a world dominated by science and technology. Your time is up.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
      • FaithBuilder

        Really? Christianity is growing exponentially across the globe and God is pouring out his Spirit on hungry hearts.
        Meanwhile, academic eggheads and electronically addicted nerds are still a tiny minority living in their ivory towers unable to give any hope or solace to a suffering world. The secularists are the ones with no real answers.
        I have never met an atheist who is not angry! Angry at God and hostile towards those who believe in Jesus Christ.
        What are you afraid of? What the Soviets feared most was a revival to sweep their nation. China is filled
        with Christians underground worshiping in house churches. Meanwhile, atheists have been responsible for
        100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.). The world still needs Jesus.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Well FB, you apparently have met very few atheists. Most of those I know are positively ecstatic with life.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:56 pm |
      • MalcomR

        FB, you're a sad example of humanity. Why don't you read some of my posts on this page regarding the role of science in the modern world and how, if not for it, you would be "typing" your posts on a papyrus mat using a reed stylus (if you could even read or write, which would be highly unlikely). That is, assuming you hadn't already died of a simple infected splinter from said reed at the age of 10.

        Wake up and smell the reality. It's refreshing!

        May 5, 2013 at 12:10 am |
  31. MalcomR

    I have two cookie cutters that each stamp out the exact same shape – looks sort of like a bird. I am the only cookie-stamper that uses these. I tend to bend the cookie cutters over time by the way I hold and press them. My birds have become more rounded in the wings than when they started (they're those cheap tin cutters).

    Along comes a new cookie-stamper to help me. He gets one of my two identical cookie cutters and goes off to his own cookie-stamping station. Over time, his cookie cutters have become more flattened in the beak and tail areas due to the way he holds and presses them.

    We compare our cookie cutters after many months of work and find them to be quite different. What started as one "bird" shape has "evolved" into two distinct "bird types" due to being isolated and under different environmental "pressures". The original cookie cutter shape simply no longer exists. It has morphed over time into two similar (related) shapes.

    Hopefully this helps.

    May 4, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      I suppose the bird cookie cutter was a finch and the guy you gave one to lived on a different island? Was it mostly the beaks than changed?

      May 4, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
      • MalcomR

        Awesome! You are exactly right!

        May 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
    • Not buying it

      So Professor Malcolm finally figured it out for us. We are all the creations of a higher being using tools of some type. Brilliant! Thanks professor! LOL

      May 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
    • FaithBuilder

      What a bunch of "hokum"

      May 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Said the person who fervently believes in a never seen sky fairy.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
    • MalcomR

      How did I know that even this very simplified-yet-accurate analogy would be over the heads of certain posters here? Clearly the idea that things can change over time due to their environment is ludicrous. What was I thinking when I thought I could use my brain, and maybe a simple first-order differential equation to see that things can indeed change with time? Crazy!

      May 5, 2013 at 12:25 am |
      • Not buying it

        Your analogy is absolutely ludicrous. You have attempted to explain the connection between man and chimp via a convoluted story of a mis-shapen cookie cutter.

        You expected applause for this? LOL. You sound closer to an eight grader than a over the hill atheist. I would have expected a more scientific explanation using gene-matching or chromosomal abnormalities – not a story about a shoddy cookie cutter. Ridiculous.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:32 am |
      • MalcomR

        Very good then. Why don't you give us some details as to why you don't accept the vast number of concordant lines of evidence that prove – without doubt – that all life has evolved via descent with modification?

        May 5, 2013 at 1:16 am |
      • Not buying it

        I have not once stated that I don't believe in evolution – I actually do. I just don't buy the evolution of man and chimp from a common ancestor and my skepticism is rooted in the fact that there is no proof – none. There is theory, but no proof despite tens of thousands of man years of research and untold billions of wasted tuition monies.

        Why can you not understand this?

        May 5, 2013 at 1:20 am |
  32. GO_GOP

    Unnecessary article. Also the points are all incorrect. Also what is important is this is completely against the teachings of the Bible. The Holy Bible is the word of our Lord in heaven and is the absolute truth.You can build theories that suit your own (and Satan's) personal agenda but cannot ever prove the Bible wrong. It is the ultimate truth. Seek Jesus.

    May 4, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • MalcomR

      I feel for you. I really do. And I am thankful every day that religion in the western world is on the decline. Your kind is going extinct via the very process that you insist does not occur. It's a bit of irony that I'm sure is lost on you, but there it is.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:14 pm |
      • FaithBuilder

        Actually Christianity continues to grow exponentially!
        Atheism has very few adherents because it offers zero hope and offers no purpose for existence.
        Atheism flourishes in places and times of material abundance. In places where farmers need
        a good crop for the survival of their families or bullets fly on the battlefield there are very few
        who do not call on God. It really is possible to outsmart yourself.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
      • kent

        i love this post. nice

        May 5, 2013 at 2:17 am |
    • Jody

      Again, Other People Wrote the Bible. They say what Sounds good to Them. Also, Should there be An Eye For An Eye and A Tooth For A Tooth OR Turn the Other Cheek? There are Lots of Contradictions in the Bible. How can the Bible be The Absolute Truth IF There are Contradictions in the Bible? You CAN Prove Things in Science. Jody

      May 4, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
      • FaithBuilder

        You have just put on display an absolutely superficial understanding or knowledge of the Scriptures.
        The Bible is miraculously harmonious in its teachings and principles written over a period of 1600
        years by men of diverse time periods and backgrounds. I suggest you watch the debates between
        William Lane Craig and your new-atheist heroes like Christopher Hitchens. Craig wipes the floor with
        them and Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate Craig.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • sqeptiq

      Ignorance is so fulfilling, isn't it. And easy to maintain.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
      • FaithBuilder

        That was an angry statement. Anybody seen a happy atheist lately?

        May 5, 2013 at 12:04 am |
    • CRD

      What a bunch of crap... the Bible was written by men (and maybe women) based on stories passed from person to person over 10s, 100s or thousands of years, and translated to different languages. Try writing a detailed account of your grandfather's life history based on your memories of stories you heard and ponder a bit on how accurate it might be.
      By the way, a literal interpretation of the Bible must certainly support a gradual evolution of God from a stern, almost sadistic diety (animal sacrifice, infanticide, etc) to a more caring and forgiving one of the New Testament.

      May 5, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
  33. Sam

    Nothing like evolution to bring out all the Bible freaks.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
    • MalcomR

      It really does frighten them because it makes a definitive statement that their cherished fairy tale is absolutely wrong. Of course the fact that they actually believe (fundamentalists I'm talking about) the whole 6 day/adam/eve/talking snake/donkey/zombie savior/3-in-one thingy means that they already have a severely skewed reality module.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
    • Not buying it

      Nothing like a religious believer's response to bring out the elitist atheist crowd to try to bully them off of their stance. We cannot allow for others to have their own beliefs, right? That's the way the liberal plays the game – I get it.

      Why do differing thoughts so threaten the liberal elitist?

      May 4, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        You can have all the beliefs you want but don't expect thinking people to accept your mystical magical explanations.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:01 am |
      • Not buying it

        I have no mystical magical beliefs, but if I did I wouldn't try to bully you into believing them. Of course I'm not a liberal, so I have that leeway.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:14 am |
      • MalcomR

        Oh this is great! We can't even hope to defend our position rationally, so let's try... hmmm... It's a LIBERAL thing! That's it! Dang leftist commie liberal s.c.u.mbags with their rigid, inflexible thinking! Except that every liberal elitist scientist is subjected to the most demanding peer review of their work and is FORCED to change their views in the harsh light of Facts (!). I wonder how that works?

        May 5, 2013 at 12:37 am |
      • Not buying it

        I defended the right of the believer to state their case without being bullied. A reading challenged Septic accused me of having "mystical magical" beliefs. I simply stated that I have none ad pointed out his liberal bullying behavior. I need to provide no further explanation than I did. Sorry Professor.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:44 am |
      • MalcomR

        No one has the right to NOT have their position challenged and even ridiculed. You, as a conservative and (I'm certain) const.i.tution-loving person, should know this. Have you never read the const.i.tution? I have.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:13 am |
  34. Cecil

    My question remains the same. If we, the human race evolved from primates, why are there still primates? The logic isn't there an the explanations provided by anyone. According to scientist evolution doesn't stop, we are constantly evolving. If evolution doesn't stop why are there still primates?

    May 4, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
    • Sam

      Because we are ape-like, and there are various types of primates, not just one specie.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:40 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      Maybe evolution can proceed on more than one track? All of the primates in the world today, from Senegal Bush Babies to you, have evolved from earlier primates going back probably sixty or eighty million years (though you'll call that BS since you probably believe the world is six thousand years old).

      Really, if you are going to attack science you should probably learn something about it, though that might not be possible.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:40 pm |
    • MalcomR

      Let me help. We are primates. We share a common ancestor with Chimps (our closest relative). Evolution does indeed keep going. But we did not evolve FROM Chimps or Gorillas or any other current primate. We and Chimps diverged from a common ancestor group that was separated into geographically isolated populations. Each group of the original – call it A – continued to evolve. One of the groups evolved like this: A -> H, and the other group evolved like this: A --> C. A no longer exists (although this is not always the case).

      Does that help?

      May 4, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
      • Not buying it

        Yes, it helps us understand that you have further diluted the theory of another lifelong prisoner of the university system who had to publish or perish. Your opinion carries no more weight than any other here. Thanks for sharing though.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
      • MalcomR

        @Not buying it: Good substance there. Well thought out and informative. Really, what makes someone so bitter with academia? It's ok. I know what it is. It's no sin to be less than up to the task of earning a degree let alone and advanced degree. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:14 am |
      • MalcomR

        Also NBI, in case you hadn't noticed, these are not opinions. They are "simply" statements of observed Facts, per my post on Facts and Theories. Read it. It's a good one.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:16 am |
      • Not buying it

        Sorry Professor, but I will stack my degrees, including the advanced ones, up against yours at any time. Fortunately for me I left the university to pursue practical application versus never ending dreaming. Like I said, there is high probability that you work for me these days (assuming you have indeed escaped university life by middle age).

        May 5, 2013 at 12:17 am |
      • MalcomR

        Wow. You must have a really small p.ecker. Or a shriveled libido. You are really playing that dominating "you probably work for me" card hard. You really want me "under" you, don't you? Why don't you use those degrees to compose a rational argument or response? They must have cost you a bundle. I know mine did. Shame to waste that.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:45 am |
      • Not buying it

        Pretty scary how easily I backed you into name calling mode and thinking about this size of my manhood? You may have unresolved issues that you should look into.

        You pat yourself on the back quite a bit believing that you are actually posting deep thought, rational argument, and originality when, if you go back and read your work as a whole, it amounts to little more than biased personal opinion, ridicule, and childish analogy.

        And no, my degrees cost me little other than time as they were sponsored scholarships. Sorry to hear that your's put you back.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:53 am |
      • MalcomR

        Oh I predicted that "scholarship" thing with precision! My wife is cackling! Beautiful. No, I did have to pay quite a bit for my learnin'

        So which post of yours should I reference for the informative and evidence-based arguments against current evolutionary theory?

        May 5, 2013 at 1:07 am |
      • Not buying it

        Stating that you predicted something without showing others your hand before the fact falls right in line with your believing that you are a man of deep commentary and that you understand what others cannot grasp. It's all a pile of BS – but it appears to make you happy, right?

        As I have stated, my goal here is not to prove nor disprove the theory of evolution nor the existence or non-existance of creation. My point, all night, has been that I don't know, you don't know, and the anthropologists who spend lifetimes trying to connect the dots don't know so why act so superior to those who think differently than you?? You are not proving anything nor adding anything to this discussion that would further prove the evolution theory. All you have proven is your ability to cut-and-paste other's theoretical ideas.

        Your wife is "cackling". Does she know that you think of her as being witchy??

        May 5, 2013 at 1:17 am |
      • MalcomR

        Mother f***ing word filter. I'm done.

        May 5, 2013 at 3:06 am |
      • Not buying it

        Poor malcom. Don't be such a pansy. Somebody out there loves you!

        May 5, 2013 at 8:21 am |
    • sqeptiq

      Cecil, YOU are a primate. Please educate yourself.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • Dru Richman

      If Americans came from England, why do the english still exist?

      May 5, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
  35. Semper Cogitatus

    The most interesting thing about evolution is that ever since it became widely accepted human society has been trying to put a stop to it.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:23 pm |
    • MalcomR

      Pretty much. It would be almost impossible today to get truly isolated populations of humans for any length of time. However, if we ever colonize other worlds, we will see a slow divergence of the human species.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
  36. MalcomR

    Excuse me? Not scientists? And "not particularly bright"?

    Back to your cave you troglodyte! Here. I have torch for you. It have fire. It make light. You not bump head on stalact.i.te.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:20 pm |
    • MalcomR

      Damn, this posting thingy is cornfusing...

      May 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
      • Not buying it

        Only to the not yet evolved monkey cousins. To man it is pretty straight forward.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
      • MalcomR

        Oh, ouch.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:02 am |
  37. MalcomR

    I wonder if anyone here realizes that without a thorough understanding of Relativity (yep, that would be Einstein) the GPS system would be impossible? Because the relativistic factors resulting from the speed of the satellites and the fact that they are in a slightly varying gravitational field are significant at the precision required by this system?

    And that due to GPS, crop yields have increased significantly from GPS guided planting and harvesting?

    Yeah, that science stuff. Elitist and useless. Why bother, right? Ignorant buffoons, the lot of you (except those who aren't and you know who you are. Thank you.).

    May 4, 2013 at 10:12 pm |
    • Not buying it

      You're welcome. GPS technology, the ability to determine one's location according to the man-made lat/lon system via man-made satellites revolving around the Earth's proven gravitational field and relaying that information down via man-made communication systems, while all impressive achievements for man, has nothing whatsoever to do with making the leap to the evolution of man from a primate ancestor.

      You seem to have problems differentiating between physics based proven fact and unproven theories in anthropology (which is not science to begin with).

      May 5, 2013 at 12:11 am |
      • MalcomR

        Now you see? You know nothing of the depth of evidence for evolution, and just deny it outright. Just like those "technicians" I mentioned before. Can you please explain to me how direct analysis – with mathematical precision – of the distribution, common sequences (including those pesky retroviral markers), etc. of the DNA of (currently) thousands of species just happened to fall into a nice tidy and perfect cladistic pattern? Take your time. Do some research, then get back to us.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:53 am |
      • Not buying it

        First off I do understand the "depth of evidence for evolution" because I fully understand the phenomenon of publish or perish. Still cannot connect the dots so it's still just theory. Second, I never said that I fully dismiss evolution of man – only that I don't know all the answers and neither do you. The difference is that you act like you know a secret that nobody else understands. you don't.

        As for ERVs

        • Possibility of similar infections in both man and chimp that resulted in similar ERV markers
        • Similar ERV markers can be found between man and ape, but you are not proposing that man and ape shared a common ancestor so how do you explain that troublesome fact

        A common ancestor has never been found. Plenty of man and chimp ancestors, but no common ancestor. We can fossils back to the beginning of known time, but no common ancestor. I’d say that common ancestor is as impossible to prove as the existence of God

        May 5, 2013 at 1:09 am |
      • MalcomR

        "Man and ape". Oh my, where to begin?

        1) I don't any "secret". But I can read.
        2) Similar ERV's? Where did you get that? No, EXACT ERV's, otherwise they would not be some of the strongest evidence for common descent. They're exact. And they are ancient as evidenced by the FACT that they appear in species known to have existed far longer than humans or chimps that fall in perfect cladistic sequence.

        BTW, Humans, chimps, gorillas, etc. are ALL considered "great apes".

        May 5, 2013 at 1:27 am |
      • MalcomR

        Also, Excuse me? I am not "proposing" anything. I am stating OUTRIGHT that "Man and ape" absolutely had a common ancestor. The most recent of which was the progenitor of humans and chimps. And are you really going to argue that because there is no DEFINITIVE common ancestor (there are strong candidates) yet found that that is somehow solid basis for dismissing the theory? Give me a break.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:31 am |
      • Not buying it

        Yes, I should have said common ERVs between man and "gorilla" – I lacked specificity there but the conundrum remains.

        OK, so you are "stating OUTRIGHT" that there is the great undiscovered common ancestor out there somewhere. So? What credentials do you ring to the table other than drinking the kool-aid that others have set out for you? None.

        You will argue that there is no God because one cannot prove evidence of it. The fact that lifetimes of science, anthropology, and archeology have been futile in the search for the missing link brings us to the same conclusion that we have for the existence of God – nowhere but theory. Give ME a break.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:39 am |
  38. southernwonder

    ladies and gentlemen, anthropologists are not scientists, neither are they particularly bright.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • MalcomR

      Excuse me? Not scientists? And "not particularly bright"?

      Back to your cave you troglodyte! Here. I have torch for you. It have fire. It make light. You not bump head on stalact.i.te.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      Anthropology is a "social science", and certainly doesn't belong in the same building as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology or other "real" sciences. It does, however, often use a lot of sciences as tools and is far more scientific than psychology.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Sam

      You may be southern, but not a wonder. Very typical Southerner in fact.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:41 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      And what are your credentials for making such an assessment? Your ignorance is not something to be proud of.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:07 am |
  39. Atheists are Apes

    when science proves to us with divine evidence that there is no God and that something came from nothing, I will listen. Evolution is a myth that has brain washed millions of people. But praise be to the Lord, BILLIONS hasn't been brain washed by EVILUTION.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
    • kenny

      you must be an extremely happy person... if ignorance is truly bliss ...

      May 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
    • MalcomR

      "Atheists are Apes". Why yes, yes we are as a matter of fact. As are we all. Good observation.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      And I suppose the world is six thousand years old and those things we scientific fools call dinosaurs are really dragons?

      May 4, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
      • MalcomR

        My understanding is that they really were Dinosaurs, but they were herbivores, and quite friendly to humans. I've even seen pictures of Jesus riding a Velociraptor. Pretty bada.s.s if you ask me!

        May 4, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      The mere stating of your premise is proof of your ignorance. No evidence can EVER BE FOUND of non-existence. Try it yourself; prove with scientific evidence that there is no such thing as a sentient octopus that can read minds.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:13 am |
  40. MalcomR

    It's amazing to me, the near hatred of science and learning that is often displayed in these forums. Sadly it is no different, in my experience, in the real world. Almost everything you touch today has been "Engineered" in some way, based on a legacy of pure research and discovery by some of the most amazing people ever to have existed.

    I wonder what "practical" people like "Not buying it" would be doing right now if some "elitist theory monger", whatever the hell that is, had never bothered to investigate oh, i don't know, let's say electrons maybe? Or the electromagnetic fields that arise when electrons move?

    Maybe he would be arguing the uselessness of studying why "doctors" that don't wash their hands regularly are more likely to have dead patients than those that do (while cowering in fear of the Black Death maybe), Germ Theory anyone?

    May 4, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
    • kenny

      fervent religious people will take advantage of science on any given day... unless it contradicts their fairy tales... then its bs.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • Not buying it

      I'm far from a religious zealot. I'm agnostic to the core. I just don't favor bully elitists who act like they know all the answer when clearly they don't. I can prove the theory of gravity. We can prove many theories. But nobody, not even the witless atheist commenters here, can "prove" the evolutionary connection between monkey and man. Many have tried, all have failed. While we all understand (and can see and prove) evolution among those lower on the food chain, nobody can prove or disprove where we came from and how.

      But let's put facts aside and act like we know everything because that's what our liberal elitist professors told us, right?

      May 4, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Agnostic meaning "without knowledge." You really didn't have to tell us that.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:16 am |
      • Not buying it

        Redefining words to meet your objective is a real talent of the liberal, right. "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

        May 5, 2013 at 12:19 am |
      • MalcomR

        Agnostic – An atheist without the courage of his convictions.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:55 am |
      • Not buying it

        Atheist – relieving oneself of moral responsibility and betting on the come

        May 5, 2013 at 1:25 am |
      • kent

        not buying it: i'm not buying it.

        May 5, 2013 at 2:22 am |
      • Not buying it

        Kent: That's OK, but I am not selling anything.

        May 5, 2013 at 8:23 am |
  41. anonymous

    This isn't news. It's been well understood for a long time.

    May 4, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
    • MalcomR

      But still interesting. I suppose and endless spate of Lindsay Lohan stories is more newsworthy?

      May 4, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
  42. Marcus Aurelius

    if Evolution is fact, than man must be de-evolving into self destruction

    May 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
    • MalcomR

      I don't know about that, but your post points out another popular misconception. There is no such thing as "de-evolving". There is only continuous adaptation to the environment. There is no "goal" that any life form is striving to reach. Only the mechanical process of organisms living and dying, with some surviving just slightly better than other members of the species, due to a slightly more environmentally well-suited suite of traits.

      May 4, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
      • Mike

        You are trying to use logic on someone who doesn't know the difference between then and than.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
      • Not buying it

        Thanks professor. Go get a real job and help further society. We have enough elitist theory mongers out there to last our lifetimes. By the time your stint here on Earth is over you will have no more answers than you have today – which is none. We need more practicians, less theorists.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
      • MalcomR

        Actually, Not buying it, my field is Electrical Engineering. My first research project out of school was working with a group that was developing a new form of ventilation to better treat premature infants with severely underdeveloped (and fragile) lungs. Since then (30+ years) well, lets just say I've been quite productive.

        And you sir/maam sound like an arrogant, ignorant t.w.a.t.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:30 pm |
      • Not buying it

        I "sound arrogant"? Do you ever read your own posts professor? LOL. You say "I've been quite productive" as if that is to impress me (being the humble person you are). The fact is that there's a high percentage chance that you work for me as I am in the engineering world myself and have also been quite productive and highly successful.

        My trick is not bullying others when their beliefs differ from mine. I'm comfortable enough in my skin to allow for others to have varied beliefs, especially when my beliefs are not proven but are simply a "theory".

        May 4, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
      • MalcomR

        @Not buying it: Well, that's just peachy for you. And maybe I do work for you. I've worked for many arrogant/ignorant engineering managers in the past. The fact that you use the term "professor" with such derision, and mistakenly refer to Theories as "simply" a theory, tells me with certainty that you have very little grasp of the "science-y" part of engineering or science.

        Most of the engineers – and even a surprising number of the scientists – that I've worked with were not very interested in much beyond their narrow field. Most of them, like you I suspect, were in it because they had to pick something and well, daddy was an engineer so....

        No, I imagine that you are one of those weak-minded sheep that "tolerate" others beliefs mainly because you can't even begin to defend your own. Tolerating a belief that is harmless is one thing, but tolerating "beliefs" that are blatantly wrong and that dismiss the intellectual achievements of humanity, is just cowardice. Good luck with that.

        And BTW, I generally post explanations to help with peoples understanding of a subject. Why don't you post a clear explanation of why you think the evolution is "simply a theory" despite:

        Fossil record
        Taxonomy
        Direct laboratory observations of evolution in bacteria and other groups
        Retroviral DNA
        Gene drift
        Ring species
        Allele frequencies
        And so on...

        And yes, you can look all of this, and more, up yourself. The fact that you haven't already tells me that you're really just a troll. Bye.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:01 am |
      • Not buying it

        I've read several "theories" about how to win the lottery. Having a theory doesn't make one brilliant nor does it necessarily bring along a fact to join it.

        Professor, it amuses me greatly that you call me a sheep when it is you who drank the evolution theory kool-aid and have closed your mind to other possibilities. I follow no one – hence my ability and willingness to admit that I don't know where man originated – and neither do you.

        So dismiss me with your "troll" name calling because I refuse to be bullied into agreeing with your close-mindedness. That's a good liberal...

        May 5, 2013 at 12:26 am |
      • MalcomR

        Very good. Very consistent. Zero technical content, all emotion. You are a funny type of intellectual coward. I prefer the ones who simply admit when they are completely ignorant in a particular subject. Did I refer you yet to some of my posts with actual content? They might be helpful.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:00 am |
    • Andyx3s

      Richard Lynch said that Illegal aliens have an I.Q. between 80 and 90 while Europeans and Asians have an I.Q. between 120 to 180. I'm afraid that if the Illegals keep streaming into this nation and they keep breeding like rabbits because they don't understand English and they don't know the definitions of the world rape and they don't understand when they breed they are commit rape and they have to stop breeding, then our abilities to manipulate advancing technologies will dissolve while Chinese intelligence increases to the point they will just walk into this country and ask to buy American for $24.00 in beads and trinkets and we will sell it to them because we won't posses their intellect.

      May 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
      • MalcomR

        It's amazing to me, the near hatred of science and learning that is often displayed in these forums. Sadly it is no different, in my experience, in the real world. Almost everything you touch today has been "Engineered" in some way, based on a legacy of pure research and discovery by some of the most amazing people ever to have existed.

        I wonder what "practical" people like "Not buying it" would be doing right now if some "elitist theory monger", whatever the hell that is, had never bothered to investigate oh, i don't know, let's say electrons maybe? Or the electromagnetic fields that arise when electrons move?

        Maybe he would be arguing the uselessness of studying why "doctors" that don't wash their hands regularly are more likely to have dead patients than those that do (while cowering in fear of the Black Death maybe), Germ Theory anyone?

        May 4, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
  43. allah316

    This is CNN highlight news story today? Sad.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
    • MalcomR

      Sad? Why? I found the article fascinating. Something I did not know about the evolution of skin color variations, as it is well outside my field.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      So, you already knew all of this, eh?

      May 5, 2013 at 12:20 am |
  44. MalcomR

    Wow. So much confusion over facts vs theories. Let me help. A Fact is an observed, repeatable reality. "Objects fall". Equations are used to describe the behavior of things that appear to conform to these observed Facts. As more Facts about a subject are observed and tested (successfully) against these predictive equations, the facts and their mathematical descriptions can be gathered into a Theory that ties all of the observed Facts and their mathematical descriptions into one consistent framework.

    So, for example, the observed Facts regarding evolution are not in dispute. Life evolves. Just like objects fall. The descriptive framework for evolution is the Theory called Evolution by Natural Selection. Just as the Theory of General Relativity is the descriptive framework for gravity.

    Theories are continuously tested against the observed Facts. As new Facts are observed, they must conform to the descriptive framework (the Theory) or, as scientists, we have a problem. Or, as the history of science demonstrates, a huge opportunity for new discoveries. Well established facts (like the observed evolution of life or that objects fall) rarely change, but as new and possibly conflicting Facts are observed, the Theory must adapt or die.

    A great example is the adaptation and extension of Newtonian Gravitation into General relativity due to, for example, observations (Facts) of the precession of the orbit of Mercury that were not explained by Newtonian Gravitational Theory.

    Thanks for reading and hopefully understanding.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Yup.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
      • MalcomR

        Do you find it just a bit frightening, as I do, that most of the commenters here may actually represent the general populace?

        Gives me the willies...

        May 4, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
    • Dru Richman

      Well said, sir.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
  45. yom

    good science fiction ... like a script from planet of the apes.
    i can tell you that your ancestors, but not mine were never furry.
    and god created man in his image

    May 4, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Even if you were right, how do you know he didn't use an earlier ape as the scaffolding?

      May 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
    • Andyx3s

      Yom, I suspect your Chinese or Korean, I may be wrong. Is that what they are teaching you in those Korean churches.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Prove the existence of "god."

      May 5, 2013 at 12:21 am |
  46. Shirley

    Wow, amazing how so many people can put on blinders and choose to return to the dark age–i.e., block out any semblance of scientific understanding, be completely blind to the fossil records and other mountains of evidence that leave absolutely no doubt as to the validity of evolution. They can simply put on blinders, put a bag over their head and chant "it's a lie". Well, fortunately for us, we don't have to rely on human opinion to know about evolution and the evidence referred to above doesn't have the ability to "lie".

    May 4, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
  47. Not buying it

    Evolution must work after all..... A few folks rebuked old Colin and he perished like the five legged tree frog.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
  48. Facts

    Evolution doesn't even come close to the truth, at least we should be seeing on going changes, I can believe in something like a butterfly metamorphosis and the like with real and accurate scientific evidence.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Do you also not believe that the sun formed by gravitates effect on a hydrogen cloud over a period of time much greater than our life times?

      May 4, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
    • roadrunner321

      Ongoing changes can be seen across generations of species with lifespans short enough to study. Evolution happens across generations, not in a single lifetime of a species

      May 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You want to see evolution. Expose yourself to an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Good luck there.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:24 am |
  49. Andyx3s

    What happened to, Just me, I rather enjoyed his mindless rants, he gave me something to strive for. Now, I don't have anyone to out maneuver or out wit.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You can't outwit the witless. That's like outliving the dead.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:28 am |
  50. jim atmad

    If I choose not to believe in the 'theory' of gravity, does that mean I'd float off into space?

    Not 'believing' in science paints you as having the same mentality that led the Catholic Church to punish people who understood that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

    Faith is a wonderful thing, but it is an entirely different thing from rationality and understanding.

    Science is science and faith is faith. Treating Genesis like a science manual has been proven wrong before.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Faith is not wonderful, it is medieval nonsense.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:29 am |
  51. megatalldave

    I wish CNN had a rating system that scaled -10 dogfight to +10 discourse. This way we could have the comments that were just more of the same dogfight sink to the bottom and the interesting discourse rise to the top.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • nana

      the interesting discourse is in the other room having a martini with Truman Capote

      May 4, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
  52. nana

    yaaaaaaawn...thanks for the entertainment. I also liked the article. But now after reading all these posts I think I'd better go wash my brain out.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      If you get too close to my cage, I'll wash out a lot more than your brain, baby.....

      May 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
      • nana

        just so long as you stay in the age darling

        May 4, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      I'll throw my poo poo on you, too.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
      • nana

        promises , promises

        May 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
  53. Mike

    That's no Australopithecus! That's my uncle Herb.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
  54. Darrell

    Michelle looks sharp as always.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You just proved the theory that millions of monkeys typing will eventually type an english sentence.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:31 am |
  55. Drunk Monkey

    Hoo hoo hoo hoo haaaaa haaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

    May 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      Log off, Dad. You're drunk again.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
  56. chris honry

    What a bunch of idiocy. Worthless academics sjucking money off society

    May 4, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      Face it, junior. I'm your daddy.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
    • White_is_Right

      the money used to fund this garbage should be spent on developing more lethal guns and bullets that kill easier.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Congress is already on the job there.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:32 am |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      And they call me a monkey?

      Geez.....

      May 4, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
  57. rr

    Why doesn't CNN come out and admit that they are a leftist, progressive organization that is hell bent on promoting lies? This story isn't nothing more than garbage.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      "isn't nothing more"???? I hope you aren't breeding.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:33 am |
  58. Monkey in the Picture

    I'm suing CNN. I didn't give them permission to publish my photo.

    Wait'll my agent gets ahold of them.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
  59. AmaOA

    If we can trace all humankind back to the Bushmen of the Khalahari then surely we can connect the Bushmen to apes. But no one has yet to find that link of dna because WE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS. Who the heck started this BS?

    May 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • Monkey in the Picture

      Shut up and eat your banana, Bonzo....

      May 4, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Well, you just single-handedly disproved the universality of evolution.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:34 am |
    • Alex Besogonov

      What do you mean by 'that link of DNA'?

      We are absolutely sure that we and great apes share a common ancestor about 2.5-3 millions of years ago. That's proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the DNA evidence (in particular, by unique endogenous retrovirus insertions).

      And yes, we haven't evolved from modern monkeys but we share a common ancestor even further in the past. So monkeys are our cousins, in a sense.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:18 am |
  60. Evolution-lolol

    It might actually be worth reading if evolution was true. What a joke of a theory.

    There are 6 forms of Evolution. The only one that is factual is Micro Evolution, which goes into species variation, e.g., long hair, short, big, small dogs etc.

    Macro Evolution etc, is a total lie.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      When you graduate to middle school you'll get the rest of the science explained to you.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:35 am |
    • Joseph Bleaux

      How utterly stupid.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:20 am |
  61. Martha

    Colin, this is your mother. Now get off that computer and finish washing the dishes. You pathetic excuse for a son.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
    • Colin

      Awww, ma..... I always gotta go just when I'm having fun.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
  62. Not buying it

    Q50. Colin here is a:

    (a) Elitist JA who thinks he knows everything but knows nothing

    (b) Mental case

    (c) Troll

    May 4, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Colin

      See my point below. Ever thought of taking issue with the argument and not just attacjking the person?

      May 4, 2013 at 8:19 pm |
      • Not buying it

        There is no point in arguing with your type. Nothing that anybody can say (or prove) would be convincing to you. I happen to be an agnostic but I can't imagine ever needing to ridicule those who believe – or those who don't. Bullies like you are a dime a dozen. Get a life!

        May 4, 2013 at 8:23 pm |
    • Alex Besogonov

      Just curious, if Colin is an elitist troll mental case – would it change validity of any of his/her questions?

      May 5, 2013 at 4:15 am |
  63. Felix Tung

    Putting Michelle Obama on here is very rude!

    May 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You certainly are an expert in rude.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:37 am |
  64. Babs

    Colin is obviously a lonely man that needs to:
    (a) get a job.

    (b) get a girlfriend (or boyfriend)

    (c) get his fat a$$ of the computer and go take a walk.

    (d) quit boring us readers.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm |
    • Colin

      Ever noticed that believers always use the ad hominin approach. They are never capable of arguing their point, so they just attack the person. Childish stuff.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
      • heroicslugtest

        *ad hominim

        Pfft, look. He can't spell either.

        I understand evolution too, but sorry, I couldn't help it.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      And you obviously are grammar challenged.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:38 am |
  65. Colin

    Q16. If you are worried that your children, who you love very much, will not believe something you tell them, such as "smoking is bad for you," would you:

    (a) have your family doctor explain to them the various ill effects of smoking;

    (b) show them a film produced by the National Insti.tute for Health on the topic;

    (c) set a good example for them by not smoking; or

    (d) refuse to give them any evidence of the ill effects of smoking, insist that they rely entirely on faith and then take them out into the backyard and burn them to death if you ever catch them smoking?

    And, as a bonus question, what would you think of an "all loving Father" who chose option (d)?

    May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
    • red2616

      LOL! Well said! Logic doesn't work on bible thumpers though. I like where your thinking is.
      I use Noah as an example.
      If he got two of every Animal before the flood while he was building the ark, then why would he need the Ark? Wouldn't he just use the same imaginary vessel that he went from Middle east to California (Western Diamond Back) to Australia (Platypus), to Northern China (Asian Silver Back Gorilla) to The Galapagos Islands (throw a dart and pick one) and back to the Middle East to save two of EVERY Animal? And for a man of 480 years old, That had to be rough. Then the incest sets in but I guess God made an exception in this case. Now for the racists that causes a huge problem. If Noah's family repopulated the Earth than we are all related! So basically racists are really self loathers.

      What would the average bible Thumper do if Jesus actually existed and came back today?
      The same thing as the first time but this time it would be a Prison for the Clinically insane and a new religion would start that says all the current religions are wrong.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
  66. Not buying it

    This article contains nothing but fluff and hypothesis. Meh! Nobody knows nor will anybody ever know so all those on the "God created everything" and all those on the "There is no God and we all originated from the sea" are all full of BS. Nobody knows, but everybody has an opinion – which is just that.

    By the way, how does any of this explain Tanning Mom?

    May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      So, in essence, your opinion is that everyone who doesn't agree with your view is stupid?

      May 5, 2013 at 12:40 am |
  67. Colin

    Q.15 Please choose your favorite Catholic superst.ition from those below. For the one you choose, please say why it is any more ridiculous than the rest of the garbage Catholics swallow and give an example of a non-Catholic belief which is just as stupid.

    (a) Grocery store bread and wine becomes the flesh and blood of a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago because a priest does some hocus pocus over it in church of a Sunday morning.

    (b) When I pray for something like “please god help me pass my exam tomorrow,” an invisible being reads my mind and intervenes to alter what would otherwise be the course of history in small ways to meet my request.

    (c) You can pray to a dead person for something. This dead person will then ask God to fulfill your wish. If this happens twice, this dead person becomes a saint.

    (d) A god impregnated a virgin with himself, so he could give birth to himself and then sacrifice himself to himself to negate an “original sin” of a couple we now know never existed.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
  68. Colin

    Q.14 Probably the most fundamental tenet of Christian faith is that God sent his son Jesus to Earth to die and save us from the original sin of Adam and Eve. We now know that Adam and Eve was a myth. As such, any thinking Christian should:

    (a) Honestly and courageously question this and any other aspects of their faith that don’t make sense.

    (b) Make up some euphemistic nonsense like “well, we didn’t mean that literally” after having done exactly that for the last 1900 years until science comprehensively disproved it.

    (c) Just ignore the blatant contradiction and sweep it under the mat; or

    (d) Hold on to the myth because it makes them feel good.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
  69. Colin

    Q.13 The statement “I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and the reason I follow the Bible is because it is the word of God” is:

    (a) Circular reasoning at its most obvious;

    (b) The reason 99% of Christians believe what they do;

    (c) Specific to the Judeo-Christian parts of the World and totally rejected by all other parts of the World; or

    (d) All of the above.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:13 pm |
  70. Colin

    Q.9 If I am found wandering the streets flagellating myself, wading into a filth river, mutilating my child’s genitals or kneeling down in a church believing that a being is somehow reading my inner thoughts and prayers, I am likely driven by:

    (a) a deep psychiatric issue;

    (b) an irrational fear or phobia;

    (c) a severe mental degeneration caused by years of drug abuse; or

    (d) my religious belief.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
  71. Colin

    Q.8 What is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from Christianity:

    (a) Christianity tells people not only what they should believe, but what they MUST believe under threat of “burning in hell” or other of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no “sacred cows” in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them;

    (b) Christianity can make a statement, such as “God is comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit”, and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence;

    (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas Christianity is regional and a person’s Christianity, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than geographical upbringing; or

    (d) All of the above.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
  72. Colin

    Q.7 The only discipline known to often cause people to kill others they have never met and/or to commit suicide in its furtherance is:

    (a) Architecture;

    (b) Philosophy;

    (c) Archeology; or

    (d) Religion

    May 4, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
    • Bostontola

      d.

      There are good people in all fields, and bad people in all fields, religion is unique in that it compels good people to do bad things.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Science flies men to the moon; religion flies men into buildings.

        May 5, 2013 at 12:43 am |
  73. simple genetics

    Let this DNA council meeting come to order.
    Conditions have changed so we need to decide how to adapt.

    That is not how the theory works. When conditions change the normal die off and some of the freaks thrive.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
  74. Kenman

    Hey Kelly,
    Maybe you evolved from monkeys, but the rest of us didn't, so go climb a tree.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
  75. Colin

    Q4. Millions and millions of Catholics believe that bread and wine turns into the actual flesh and blood of a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago because:

    (a) there are obvious visible changes in the condiments after the Catholic priest does his hocus pocus;

    (b) tests have confirmed a divine presence in the bread and wine;

    (c) now and then their god shows up and confirms this story; or

    (d) their religious convictions tell them to blindly accept this completely fvcking absurd nonsense.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
    • simple genetics

      e.) Because they have to pretend to believe to remain a member of the gang.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:13 pm |
  76. Mantismech

    Creation theory should be taught in school. It should be put under the same scientific analysis and scrutiny as plate tectonic theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
    • Chris

      They tried. It was immediately thrown out for lack of evidence.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Been done. Epic fail!

      May 5, 2013 at 12:43 am |
  77. Colin

    Q3. I honestly believe that, when I think silent thoughts like, “please god, help me pass my exam tomorrow,” some invisible being is reading my mind and will intervene and alter what would otherwise be the course of history in small ways to help me. I am

    (a) a delusional schizophrenic;

    (b) a naïve child, too young to know that that is silly

    (c) an ignorant farmer from Sudan who never had the benefit of even a fifth grade education; or

    (d) your average Christian

    May 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
  78. Colin

    Q. 2 You are about 70% likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are:

    (a) a reptile handler who has severe mental issues;

    (b) a five year old boy who just read a fairytale;

    (c) a scientific fraud; or

    (d) a Christian

    May 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
  79. Colin

    Q.1 The completely absurd theory that all 7,000,000,000 human beings on the planet are simultaneously being supervised 24 hours a day, every day of their lives by an immortal, invisible being for the purposes of reward or punishment in the “afterlife” comes from the religion of:

    (a) The ancient Celts;

    (b) Bronze Age Egyptians;

    (c) Pre-Colombian Aztecs; or

    (d) Modern Christians

    May 4, 2013 at 8:07 pm |
  80. wrm

    And it also a good way for an unnamed media outlet to make money.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:07 pm |
  81. Carlton

    So...what about the hair difference Ms. Jablonski??
    As a nice black gentleman (disarmingly so), I would love to know the original exclusivity of nappy hair...and of course, the anthropological rationalizations for this.

    Kind regards,
    C.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
  82. Tyrone

    Dat picture look like my sista Shoquanda. She be a crack ho.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:04 pm |
  83. Colin

    Christianity is the belief that a god impregnated a virgin with himself, so he could give birth to himself, then sacrifice himself to himself to forgive the "original sin" of a couple we now all know never existed.

    Atheism is the belief that the above belief is completely fvcking stupid.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
  84. Vader 2016

    Looks like a typical Obama voter .

    May 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
  85. White_is_Right

    porcelain-white skin is the most beautiful skin color in the world.

    May 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • Andyx3s

      racism is not an intelligent method to use so as to view life, because the Nazi's said they were Aryans, the superior race of the world and yet they depleted their resources fighting too many wars in too many different fronts and they lost the war, thank God.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
      • Jon Lonnie

        Betcha didn't know: the word Iran and Aryan come from the same linguistic root. Look it up! Aryan doesn't mean what the Nazis and skin heads believe... Sorry for the digression.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
    • Jon Lonnie

      And trolls obviously come in ALL colors...

      May 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
      • Andyx3s

        I read an article that they did DNA test on Hitlers relatives and they discovered he had north African ancestors, it could explain his low I.Q. and his ranting range.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
  86. KNOW THE FACTS

    So as long as CNN is willing to admit that white man is the most evolved of all the species of humans.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm |
    • str8whtguy

      guess you haven't read the definition of "species" lately.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • Gregor Mendel

      So evolution is OK when it proves your redneck point? Kind of hypocritical, ain't it? Go back to church and repent, Bubba.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • Alex Besogonov

      Actually, no organism is 'more evolved' than others. A bacteria is as evolved as you are.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:05 am |
  87. Jimi

    George Bush, I love you. Seeing you sitting there with a quiirky grin, on top of all that muddy thinking, brings a smile to my face.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
  88. Really, CNN?

    Oh, CNN! Really? The stuff you use to fill your weekend space! This is ridiculous! God created the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants. We are created in His image. We did not evolve from animals, who lost their fur, and now we suntan until we can re-create that "terrific sunscreen melanin," until we evolve further and our fur finally returns! Whew! People, please pick up your Bibles and feed yourself accurate text before Jesus Christ returns!

    May 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm |
    • Jon Lonnie

      Sure thing, Elijah. Better get back to the bunker. Everyone knows the Book of Mormon is the truth, not your silly old bible.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
  89. HenkV

    Judging from this picture Lindsay Lohan cleaned up a lot already after just one day at Betty Fords. Good going!

    May 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
    • Andyx3s

      What does Lindsey Lohan have to do with apes, skin color, or vitamin D?

      May 4, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
  90. L. Singh

    Holy Smokes! Must be a full-moon out tonight ... judging from the array of posters and their crazy
    points of view!

    May 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
  91. stickyhumid

    The only "news" about this article is that they seem to be suggesting that the "race" differences are more than just skin deep.... that there might be actual and important differences between the races rather than just the superficial skin color.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
  92. str8whtguy

    I'm having a great time reading the comments to this. The drivel some of you are spouting can only be attributed to some kind of organized idiocy campaign. Keep it going! I, for one, am truly entertained.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
  93. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your talking snake theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupis familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s. There are now 600 or so breeds of dog, all of which descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.

    If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable; living in every suburb, licking our faces, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one sub-species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast male racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two episodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less). Likewise, the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead pan-handling Greco-Roman Jewish hippie, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”

    Amen!

    May 4, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
    • simple genetics

      Intelligent design is not evolution.

      May 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm |
    • Jon Lonnie

      I think a more logical explanation is God hates us. I mean, in our lifetimes, bacteria have EVOLVED antibiotic resistance! How else can you explain it? Random mutations? Pfah. God hates us.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • Andyx3s

      Evolution is correct and I would use evolution to give the best dating and marriage advice the world has ever seen. Men should never sleep with a woman on the first date, they should first observe her for 6 months to see what kind of personality she has and if she has a high libido. If she is not the type of woman that stimulates you then quickly leave her and date another until you find one that is compatible to men.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
    • CRD

      Collin, what a great summary of some of the most obvious facts supporting evolution, i.e. the fact that living organisms can and do change over many generations. Although most of your examples result from artificial selection (aka breeding), the mechanism by which selection occurs is almost immaterial.
      I suspect that for many creationists/intelligent designers, this will have been the most reading they have done on evolution (if they even read the entire post), yet they will still deny evolution with passion and conviction as if backed by volumes of knowledge...

      May 5, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
  94. Four Two

    Gee, CNN, wonder why you put this story up.....probably to ignite arguments with nothing even close to skin color in mind. The media turns my stomach sometimes.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
    • Jon Lonnie

      I think they put it up because its an interesting science story. If you are offended by science, read the bible or fox news...

      May 4, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
  95. peach

    Michelle?

    May 4, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
  96. Conservative rule?

    Darwin's theory and the bible are similar in that the people who have the most boisterous opinions never read either.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
  97. Non-monkey person

    How is it explained then, that people who have RH negative blood, do not have the Rhesus monkey protein?

    May 4, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Mutation.

      May 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
      • Non-monkey person

        Hi, Until it's proven to be a mutation, I'll just consider myself a non-monkey.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:02 pm |
      • Bostontola

        Don't worry, you're a non monkey either way. All those mutations from the past have resulted in you. Mutations are not a theory, they are directly observed in animals and plants.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
  98. Bostontola

    Gravity is a directly observable phenomenon so most people accept it. The various theories of gravity over time have done a better job describing it and explaining it, but they are still incomplete. That doesn't mean we declare gravity doesn't exist.

    Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. The various theories of evolution over time have done a better job describing it and explaining it, but they are still incomplete. That doesn't mean we should declare evolution doesn't exist.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
  99. Einstein

    CNN: half fact, half made up or presumed crap. Comments: 1% serious and interesting, 99% toxic vitriol from both sides which accomplishes nothing except to inflame more hatred rather than civilized discussion. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it is still a *theory*. However, it's treated universally in the western world as scientific "fact" routinely in journalism (e.g., CNN), much like how the Catholic church had convinced the entire Western world once that the world was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe. Evolution itself has become almost as much as a religion as Christianity with Darwin as some people's Messiah figure – it requires so much faith because there are still so many holes in his theory and there is so little evidence of transition from one species to another. As much as scientists scour the Earth there still hasn't been found definitive, hard scientific proof of a link – and if we haven't by now, when will we? DNA evidence clearly shows we all came from East Africa – but from what or whom? We still don't know... it's still just a theory.

    May 4, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • Andyx3s

      It can't be a theory, if you observe the fact that birds fly and penguins who are birds swim underwater but can not fly. Evolution changed the bird into a penguin so it can find fish to eat under water. It's a simple observation about evolution which is also a visual fact.

      May 4, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
      • WarriorT

        The only problem with your analysis is that it is incorrect.
        #1 Evolution is still a theory no matter what you "believe"
        #2 Birds such as Ostrich, Chickens, emu, cassowary, rhea, kiwi, and penguin all dont fly yet they are still birds; wings, feathers, warm blooded, egg laying birds.
        #3 Several species of bird can swim. Ducks, Pelicans, and the amazing Puffin to name a few.
        #4 If "evolution changed the Penguins to adapt to the food source, then why not keep the ability to fly to locate other food sources.
        Natural Selection is not evolution my friend.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
      • neloise

        fact is dear boy, you see what you want to see. you can't see evolution, only two extremely different species

        May 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
      • KGB

        Actually, penguins do fly, just underwater. The propulsive actions are more or less the same.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
      • Julie

        I just want to point out that, penguins didn't develop the ablility to swim. It's the other way around, Penguins are flightless birds. Birds that have developed the ability to fly are in a sense more "evolutionized" birds. Remember that all animals came from the water and have a primitive ability to swim. Limbs and wings and everything else came after.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:55 am |
      • getyourlearnon

        Two things. First, Julie, birds evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs. Penguins likely evolved from a bird that had some flying ability, but we don't know this for sure. They didn't evolve from a sea creature, though.

        Second, evolution is just a theory, but so is gravity. Everything "law" you hear about in science is not really a law but a theory with strong evidence behind it. However, evolution is one of the strongest theories we have. The fossil record supports it. We can observe when it happens in bacterial populations. And both math and logic support it. You really cannot have natural selection without it causing evolution, so any attempt by a creationist to separate the two is illogical.

        May 5, 2013 at 9:14 am |
      • Eric

        A theory is a theory.

        May 5, 2013 at 10:16 am |
      • QuestionEverything

        Well, Evolution is a theory because there are still plenty of things in it that can't be explained. For a creature to evolve, through trial and error, many wouldn't exist today. Creationists often argue the Bombardier Beetle which fires a boiling hot fluid from its rear as a defense mechanism. For the Evolution to work as it does with all things, the first Bombardier Beetle to do this would have killed itself and the species would go extinct. Modern BBs have a series of protections in their rear which keep this from happening, however, it would have had to have HAPPENED already for these evolution to take place as the protections serve no other purpose other than to keep the beetle from exploding when it produced this defense.

        They also argue about Giraffes who have to slow their blood pressure through a series of muscles in their neck when lowering their head. Again, these muscles serve no other purpose than to regulate blood pressure to the head - without them, blood would rush to the Giraffes head and it would pass out making them susceptible to predators. Again, for these muscles to 'evolve' there would have to be a reason (like the beetle) but this reason would ultimately lead to the death of the species.

        I don't take anyone's word that they know whats going on... its pompous and arrogant to say "this is what it is and there is no other explanations" Even Scientists make stuff up like Creationists .. we are a planet of idiots.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
      • Carl

        Yep. Even Pope John Paul II accepted the theory of evolution. But some people still won't grow up. I'm surprised we got past the "Earth is Flat" stage.

        May 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
      • Nicodemus Grumpschmidt

        WarriorT, I gotta give you the award here. You're 100% wrong on all counts. To prove it, read The Greatest Show on Earth by world-renowned educator and researcher, Richard Dawkins. He eloquently and conclusively explains why evolution is not merely a theory but fact. Among his many credentials: Recently retired inaugural holder of the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Yes, he IS an authority on the FACT of evolution, something with which your baseless belief cannot compete.

        May 5, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Dawkins is a clown denying the fossil record. Evolution as a means to species was never a theory under the scientific method.

        May 5, 2013 at 9:38 pm |
      • MJ

        That is awesome,.. people can say just about anything, call it science, and most people will accept it as proven fact,.. without thinking it through at all. That is one of the silliest "theories" I've heard yet! Why is it when there is any racial overtone the "logic" explained, with a straight face, is something a kindergartener would know better than to believe. By that logic Polar Bears would have no bones and be natural swimmers, but the heated debates over evolution vs no evolution took over the momentum of the argument and totally missed the point. That is ONE OF THE SILLIEST articles to make prime time EVER!!!!

        May 11, 2013 at 3:37 am |
      • Ric B

        So you cannot answer any of the simple questions I posed to you earlier. I get it and I get you "theory". Your theory is that since it LOOKS impossible to you it MUST be Magic!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL So show me one shred of scientific evidence that has been independently verified to be accurate that disproves the theory of evolution. I can already predict what you are going to say – just more circular arguments – no facts – no sources – no peer reviewed evidence – more lies from scientific work 40 or 50 years old and taken out of context to suit your wacko conspiracy.

        May 11, 2013 at 11:49 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Oh come on Ric, you don't even know what a theory is.

        May 12, 2013 at 9:36 am |
      • Ric B

        You are a funny little man. You must be a christian to have that much contempt in your body for facts and truisms. And again – for whoever is following these posts – you provide no counter veiling facts or hypothesis. You only call names and make false insinuations regarding the knowledge of the author of the opposing arguments. That is as pitiful as pointing out spelling errors as a means to discredit an arguments validity. So where is your opposing hypothesis? Where are your facts, observations, experimental results, predictions of findings for the future? Where is that one shred of evidence that would evolutionary theory on it's head. A piece of Noah's Arc – the Body of Jesus – a true miracle performed in front of a doubting crowd – an older species found on a layer of strata out of order with predictions of evolutionary geology – two exact languages evolving on seperate sides of the earth? You have none of that? Oh – that is really too bad for you and your ilk because you are just going to go down in history as another group of religious crackpots who sullied the earth with your presence for a short period of time.

        May 12, 2013 at 9:47 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        All I need to do is apply the scientific method to your gibberish Ric, any further efffort is unnecessary. Today the hard science of QM is changing everything about biology and your religion of false science is doomed. Any person who cares about scientific integrity should be in joy to know the science of something from nothing has taken over biology. As anyone with a physics background knows, QM began as the study of black box radiation, that is something from nothing; how very creationist.

        May 12, 2013 at 11:19 am |
      • Ric B

        No actually something from nothing is what you attribute you mythical god. We know exactly how matter formed, how much is in the universe, how old the known universe is, where the first life most likely evolved and the proof in is your DNA. There are matter and forces that are still not understood – but with new telescopes in space – looking further and further back in time and measuring thing that you cannot see with the human eye will help explain and categorize it in the real near future. Science is not a religion – it is not a belief system based on mythology. It is a living and changing set of facts of the universe that are provable and verifiable and repeatable. Like you keep ignoring. The next geological discovery or paleontological discovery will be in EXACT accordance with the laws of physics and evolution. I am still waiting for your proof – proof in verifiable and repeatable facts like evolutionary theory that any of your short winded statement are true. You cannot' – you won't and that is why you will be marginalized by even your own children and grandchildren once they get an real education.

        May 12, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I assure you that black body radiation is certainly something from nothing, the basis of the tools genetics will use to end your absurd religion of racism Ric. Einstein postulated in 1927 that QM and relativity require a sentient being outside the universe to make the universe real. Fact is the findings of genetics have been predictablee so far and will continue to unravel your nonsense.

        May 12, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
      • Ric B

        Ooooh – black body radiation. Any illiterate can find ANYTHING on the internet. When was the last time you had a college level course in Cosmology? Again – you have nothing of construct to say – you throw out big words trying to convince other people that you have a knowledge base in science. In reality you know nothing. You do not even have a grasp on the "scientific method" as you like to put it. Come back when you get an education and can prove any single point that you have tried to make. You might start with the difference between biology and physics. LOL

        May 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        As we know from relativity, time is independant of space, proving the notional hypothesis of the big bang false. (ie time-space does not exist) Therefore cosmology has embraced a vacuum fluctuation "something from nothing" origin of the universe, based in black box radiation. Along with biology, cosmology come to understand the building blocks of our universe and life itself are QM.

        May 12, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
      • Ric B

        The same nonsense with almost exactly the same words jumbled around in a different order. The FACT is you have no clue what you are talking about. Did you know that there re people in this forum who study this for a living? I am an applies physicist. What are you?

        May 13, 2013 at 8:36 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Where does a physics giant such as yourself believe black box radiation comes from Ric? 🙂

        May 13, 2013 at 9:46 am |
      • Ric B

        Tell me what you believe "black box" radiation is! I have been working in the field of physics for over 30 years moron. There is NO SUCH THING as black box radiation. Go back to school before you argue with people who actually KNOW something.

        May 13, 2013 at 9:48 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        No black box radiation? Then how did Einstein first mathematically describe black box radiation to become a renouned scientist? Do you mean to say you took a physics class in high school?

        May 13, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
      • Ric B

        You are real source of entertainment!!! LOLOLOLOLOL I suppose the only reason you have to talk about this stuff on the internet is because people would LAUGH at you in public. You must be referring to BLACK BODY RADIATION you illiterate nut job! Planck's law describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a definite temperature. The law is named after Max Planck, who originally proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneer result of modern physics and quantum theory.

        May 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
      • Kilgore Trout

        Good lord, so many ignoramuses pretending to be experts here. It's like listening to kids on the playground trying to pretend they know what they're talking about...

        May 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
      • Ric B

        Should I add your name to the list of "ignoramuses"? Because you certainly provided NO useful input other than your failed attempt to show how much "smarter" you are than the rest of us in a simplistic single sentence bumper sticker format.

        May 12, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
      • Kilgore Trout

        I guess it depends on your definition of ignoramus, Ric B. I don't pretend to be smarter than anyone, but I do claim some specialized knowledge of this topic. I have a PhD in Anthropology with an emphasis on Human Evolutionary Ecology, so I think I qualify as at least somewhat familiar with the topics under discussion. For the record, I pretty much stand on your side of the argument, so no offense intended.

        May 12, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
      • Ric B

        My sincere apologies. I believe you were intentionally or not responding to my post. Since you work int he field – I work in physics not biology or research – you should post some insightful responses to people who state that evolutionary as an explanation of speciation has been disproven. John P Tarver above comes to mind.

        May 13, 2013 at 8:40 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        From your posts here it is a certainty that you do not work in physics Ric.

        May 13, 2013 at 9:44 am |
      • Ric B

        From your posts it is pretty clear you did not get past 5th grade science class. My 12 year old grandson is more science literate than you. Getting science critiques from you is laughable. With people like you around trying to evangelize bronze age explanations for well know scientific facts is an embarrassment to the country and a open invitation for good students from Asia and India to come take the best jobs we have to offer here. Good luck in your poverty.

        May 13, 2013 at 9:52 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        I hold a masters in ee goofball. Is posting here making a fool of yourself all you have to do?

        May 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
      • Ric B

        No – I actually save peoples lives and teach others how to as well using REAL science and applied physics. You dont have a clue – you are an illiterate narcissus who probably does not even believe half of what you say. You MUST be a Christian to have that level of ignorance, hatred and the passion for making enemies while making a fool of yourself.

        May 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Your unprofessional behavior pretty well excludes you from any white collar job Ric. I know it is always especially troubling when a special needs individual like yourself is separated from employment. You know nothing about physics, but it is real cute to see you try.

        May 14, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
      • Ric B

        Maybe you can explain where volcanoes come from. Were they put here as a magical trick in order to entertain our senses? If so, why are there volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io. The moon Io is far to small to be fueled by an internal radiation engine like the earth. What drives the volcanoes on Io. Gods magic????

        May 13, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
      • Kilgore Trout

        Thanks, Ric B. I've responded to Tarver before, and he is not just wrong, but absurdly wrong. His errors have been pointed out, his arguments disproven, but that doesn't change anything. John P. Tarver and others like him (creationists and conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers) aren't interested in learning. They are already so certain they know the answers that they only seek evidence that supports what they already believe, and anything that contradicts their dogma must somehow be wrong.

        In direct opposition to the scientific approach – that of reviewing the evidence and modifying our ideas accordingly – they insist on their ideas and modify the evidence accordingly. It's intellectually dishonest; it gets them nowhere and slows the rest of us down.

        May 14, 2013 at 4:05 am |
    • Surthurfurd

      There are no real "laws" in science. Even the "laws of gravity" are considered by scientists as Theories. To get the rank of Theory, a postulate requires enormous proof from multiple sources.

      May 4, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
      • Jerry

        Exactly.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
      • UseUrBrain

        Theory is simply a body of knowledge by definition. And this can change based on new information available. Not an absolute fact.

        Theory in many fields can be proven and established as true, which is not possible in anthropology!

        May 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm |
      • gargengirl

        Yes and you won't find any scientists who are arguing about whether or not evolution is true. They agree it is true. It isn't up for debate anywhere in the scientific world, only among people who apparently didn't pay attention enough in high school l to remember or learn the difference between a scientific theory and the use of the word theory in common, every day language.

        May 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
      • Chris

        The only science with absolutes is mathematics, and even then they end up being called Theorems. Otherwise it is impossible to know all the factors, hence "theory"

        May 4, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
      • UseUrBrain

        gargengirl, gargengirl, gargengirl !

        It's not up for debate? Seriously?

        What else do you expect "scientists" who are signed up to accept their theories as fact to do except to accept it as a fact !!!

        How about asking a bunch of theologians if God exists? Would you accept that God exists because they said so.

        Listen, this is all about research grants and their livelihood for scientists more than expounding the truth!

        May 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
      • gargengirl

        You might go retake high school science and learn about what a scientific theory is before making opinions on topics such as this. Obviously you didn't pay much attention in class or didn't understand much if you think evolution is debatable. It's only debated by ill informed people.

        May 4, 2013 at 10:46 pm |
      • David

        What garbage. The scientist that proves Darwin wrong would never have to worry about a job, grants or getting published for the rest o their life. The idea that there is some cover up is the biggest example of idiocy and lack of critical thinking I've ever seen.

        May 4, 2013 at 11:26 pm |
      • GCode

        Your electronics work off electrical theory, specifically using the Heavyside Function with majorly.......Guess what? It works. So a universal statement that a theory is just a theory is bs. Theory means based in God. Laws is mathematics pertain to the fact that using said law the results are consistent and reliable. Get it straight!

        May 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
      • GCode

        Your electronics work off electrical theory, specifically using the Heavyside Function with majorly.......Guess what? It works. So a universal statement that a theory is just a theory is bs. Theory means based in God. Laws in mathematics pertain to the fact that using said law the results are consistent and reliable. Get it straight! Truly, it's the Africa part that makes many uncomfy!

        May 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • Jerry

      A scientific theory doesn't mean it's just a "theory". A studied, and credited scientific theory is considered fact, until proven wrong. Theory in the civilian world has a different meaning than in the scientific world.

      May 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm |
      • UseUrBrain

        Again, theory is a body of knowledge, especially in anthropology. This can change with new information.

        Anything that can change is NOT fact, just a theory!

        May 4, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
      • kvnlod

        You sir are a moron. Go back to School.

        May 5, 2013 at 2:35 am |
      • @UseUrBrain

        @UseUrBrain
        A theory may never be a "Fact". A theory is generally accepted as true and has been vetted through various means. If you are uncertain between the two definitions, see below per the National Center for Science Education:
        Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
        Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

        May 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Gregor Mendel

      Einstein? Really? The professor is spinning so fast in his grave right now, the earth's rotation is being affected and the equator is bulging another 1%. I'm sorry. Are physics and gravitation forces too much of a "theory" for you? Let alone Zombie Einstein.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • David Hume

      Sir, in science theory means something different from the everyday use of the word theory. In science, theory means a very likely explanation that has empirical evidence from many different sources. When it comes to evidence macroevolution is a fact just as gravity is a fact of the universe. Once again in science, theory does NOT mean hypothesis. It is on the same level as scientific law. If you want to investigate my claim, then doing research on canine evolution is a great start!

      May 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
      • DeepeThought

        Sir, The THEORY of macroevolution is NOT a fact! There is no possible explanation for the following: macroevolution requires a cell with all its components intact and its DNA in order to reproduce. Reproduction and changes in the dna are the very basis of evolution. Yet, the first cell could not have come into existence because it would have required all the structures in place first. The odds of all the NECESSARY structures spontaneously coming into existence are so astronomical as to be zero. Therefore, the THEORY is flawed. Yes, I am a scientist, and yes at the doctorate level, and yes, science has become a religion.

        May 4, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
      • DeepeThought

        Sir, The THEORY of macroevolution is NOT a fact! There is no possible explanation for the following: macroevolution requires a cell with all its components intact and its DNA in order to reproduce. Reproduction and changes in the dna are the very basis of evolution. Yet, the first cell could not have come into existence because it would have required all the structures in place first. The odds of all the NECESSARY structures spontaneously coming into existence are so astronomical as to be zero. Therefore, the THEORY is flawed. Yes, I am a scientist, and yes at the doctorate level, and yes, science has become a religion!

        May 4, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
      • Jody

        You can't go by Religion because where did God come From and You can't go by maybe Evolution because where did the First Cell come From. I think there was The Big Bang and There was An Explosion and Things Started Happening. Things Developed and Living Things had Cells whether they were Animals or I think even Plants and something made the Cells Start Dividing. Maybe if the Cell did not Divide, then the Cell Died or Things went Wrong. The Cells were Dividing Too Fast and That Person got Cancer. Other Things go Wrong and They get Birth Defects. Jody

        May 4, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
      • KJC

        It seems like a lot of people here are using physics theories as a category of theories that are factually known. But at the basic level in physics, scientists still disagree a lot. I mean, which is true? String theory or the standard model (supported by the Higgs Boson) or something entirely different? People are dedicating their entire careers to figure this out. Both are theories and neither is considered fact. That's ok and should not need to upset us so much, as should be the same with biological theories.

        May 5, 2013 at 11:32 am |
      • UseUrBrain

        Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.”

        May 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
      • Joey

        DeepeThought, you should do everyone a favor and return your degrees, unless of course they are from some Christian College in which case they are considered useless by most thinking people.

        May 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • gargengirl

      You do not understand the difference between 'theory' used in every day language and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is treated as fact because it basically is a fact. You might spend some time to read about this.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
      • brahman1

        @ DeepThought. I think your credentials are highly suspect. Any cell biologist understands that the cell does not need to spontaneously appear as a fully functional cell with all the various organelles already functioning. In fact it is well understood that proto cells may have developed from the marriage of RNA/DNA viruses and lipid spherical membranes providing a rudimentary cell wall. Later on organelles developed, in some cases as a symbiotic relationship where another cell was incorporated into a larger predator cell, lost it's own membrane BUT maintained it's own DNA. How else can one explain the existence of mitochondrial DNA that is out side the cell nucleus?

        Any scientist that does not understand that a theory is peer-accepted, verified, and repeated multiple times before it can become a theory, clearly is not a true scientist. Please post your credentials, and where you achieved your supposed doctorate.

        Evolution is not up for debate for anyone with a shred of scientific credibility. Sure, all the exact mechanisms of how evolution works are not all known, and will no doubt keep scientists busy for centuries to come, but to claim that evolution has any similarity to the blind faith of religion is simply ridiculous.

        May 5, 2013 at 1:39 am |
    • heroicslugtest

      You don't really understand the word theory.

      Some other things that are "just" theories are germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, and the theory of relativity.

      I presume you believe in germs, cells, atoms, and mass energy equivalence, right?

      Evolution is just as much a fact as those. There is no evidence against it, and mountains for it.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • jim atmad

      Evolution is as much a 'theory' as gravity. Not believing in science no more means that evolution isn't responsible for the various species than it means that you would float off into space.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:19 pm |
    • Bill

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

      May 4, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • Victor

      Holes in the Theory of Evolution? There aren't as many as you think, and the only reason for the "holes" is that scientists don't "make up facts" to fill the holes. Religion can say whatever it wants and explain itself in any way it so chooses...because there will never be a way to prove or completely disprove it. That's because it's ALL conjecture and fantasy.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:23 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Species occur rapidly following a mass extinction, thee opposite of evolution.

        May 5, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • red2616

      That was a completely pointless post.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
    • CA Liberal

      Gravity is also a theory. So go out and test that.

      May 4, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
      • Robbs

        Wrong. Gravity isn't a theory, Its a law.
        A law requires it to be tested over and over and over again without change and is irrefutable.
        A theory is something that has been tested yet some data refutes it or there is a lack of data.
        A hypothesis is an educated guess best on some evidence.
        A postulate is a hypothesis with more evidence but no way to test all the mechanisms.
        unfortunately we have never seen macro-evolution take place nor when we test it does the animal or bacterium live or produce off spring, so we cant account for chromosome jumps.
        Its a rather large annoyance that people try to use micro-evolution as proof for macro when the arggument is in a completely different sector of biology.

        May 5, 2013 at 11:01 am |
      • Joey

        Robbs, you are completely wrong.

        May 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Thugvon

      Somebody who has a problem with theoretical science claims that the DNA evidence CLEARLY shows we came from East Africa LOL....Hello, that would be a theory too. How can DNA clearly state geography?

      May 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
      • Alex Besogonov

        Assuming that it's a honest question – we can trace population migrations by checking the distribution of specific mutations. It's a somewhat complicated business, but completely straightforward.

        May 5, 2013 at 4:01 am |
    • Edward R. Jenkins

      It's over. Get over it. Anyone denying evolution at this point has a religious agenda - there's too much evidence. Darwin killed creation myths worldwide with an explanation that has now been backed up by 150 years of scientific discovery.

      If you want to try to disprove evolution, go look for a pre-Cambrian fossilized hominid - that should do it. In the mean time, we're moving on to discover other areas of the universe.

      May 4, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
      • Absolutely

        Some just won't see it. God created us from dirt and women are meant to obey and have babies.....it hard to speak scientifically with knuckle draggers...

        May 5, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Professor Yossarian

      Einstein (?) and all those who get all giddy and hysterical about "evolution is just another *theory* similar to the "theories" of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Sorry to burst your little bubbles. Evolution is a "scientific hypothesis" Creationism or ID are conjectures. News flash! they are not one and the same thing. Anybody can entertain a conjecture (without evidence of any sort). I can say, for instance, I have a conjecture that the world (and all creatures big and small, including Dinosaurs) were created in seven days flat, some 6000 to 8000 years ago by a fellow we call God (yes, with a capital G for dramatic effect) who looks a lot like you and me, by the way, and in that world was created a guy we now know as Adam from whose rib was created a woman who we have named Eve. If that conjecture rocks your boat, hurray! But it ain't a scientific theory. It is probably not even a theory it is a conjecture. Conjecture = a proposition which is unproven, may never be proven but requires no verification. Scientific hypothesis= a complete or incomplete explanation for a natural phenomenon that best fits all the data so far obtained by rigorous scientific method that is open to verification or falsification by said rigorous scientific method. Key word, here, is "open". A scientific theory is one which has already undergone extensive verification.

      May 4, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
      • FaithBuilder

        My now dogmatic you are!

        May 4, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
    • John in AZ

      The problem is that you don't actually know what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense. It seems, since you juxtapose it with "fact," that you believe it is just an idea, or inference, or speculation.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • kenny

      so you think we came from adam and eve a few thousand years ago? evolution is the most likely scenario and NOTHING else comes close. Until something comes closer... we treat evolution as near fact ... moron

      May 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
    • Semper Cogitatus

      It's probably a waste of time pointing this out. but evolution is both a theory and a fact. The two words are not mutually exclusive in science.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
    • cyclonus11

      Evolution itself is an observable fact, not a theory (like gravity). It is something that can be observed in real time. The theory of evolution is the explanation of why it happens – natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc.

      Also, there is no 'only a theory' in science. Layperson theory and scientific theory are two completely different things. In science, a theory is at the top of the hierarchy as they have the most evidence to support them and are generally accepted by the scientific community.

      May 4, 2013 at 10:42 pm |
    • anti 0=mc2-E

      That flame was brought to you by ...

      May 4, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Study a little more so that you understand that "scientific theory" is far different from speculation. Evolution is well-tested and predictive which is as close to fact as the world allows.

      May 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
    • Oh boy

      Your preaching to the Choir, need to explain that to Mississippi, Alabama, and few other states

      May 5, 2013 at 12:43 am |
    • Elmer

      "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

      If you spent more than a day in a high school science class NOT in the Bible belt, you would have learned that the SCIENTIFIC definition of a "theory" is VERY different from the general use/layman's definition of a theory. It is called a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which means it has been experimented, recorded, and yielded proof of validity.

      Educate yourself, and PLEASE do not procreate.

      May 5, 2013 at 1:56 am |
    • oh_please

      EVOLUTION is obvious even to the most moronic of individuals.
      Anyone can look around them and see the reality of the world as fact.
      To believe in God is what is truly moronic.

      Wrap this around your crazy mind for a moment...wind back the clock and life on this planet is older than the planet itself. We may have "evoloved" on this planet but we didnt START from here. Wrap your brain around that one. The math doesnt support it. Life simply is older than the planet that the life is on, thats proof enough we came from somewhere other than this planet.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:14 am |
    • kent

      einstein, you're no einstein. you want something to be a certain way, and won't accept the universally accepted scientific theory of evolution. that goes right along with the cell theory, theory of gravity, theory of plate tectonics and of course your own theory of relativity. truly i get a kick out of people like you that question the validity of the scientific method used in the theory of evolution. no matter how hard you want to believe and tell others, you are absolutely wrong. science over creationism will win more than lebron james and the entire heat playing my local high school basketball team. the evidence is that impressive. maybe you look at the scoreboard the way you want, but we don't accept your views or eyesight.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:14 am |
    • Kilgore Trout

      Wow. Just, wow. What a lot of ignorance on display in one thread. Clearly, the majority of responders could not even define evolution, natural selection, or even science.

      May 5, 2013 at 3:42 am |
    • joegoofinoff

      michelle o'bama doesn't look anything like a chimpanzee

      May 5, 2013 at 6:09 am |
    • Paolo

      I see why Berry loves Mooshel.

      May 5, 2013 at 7:19 am |
      • peridot2

        She's better-educated than you are and I'd bet my house that she's smarter. BTW, my house, a lovely modern ranch, is paid for and owned in fee simple, (that means mortgage free), Pablo.

        What would you wager that you have more mental assets than Mrs Obama? I doubt you own a car (my Outback's paid for, too).

        May 5, 2013 at 10:07 am |
    • Toolalaa

      You need to look up the definition of theory. A theory has been tested and/or supported with data. It is not a subjective thought as you suggest in your post. This misconception of "theory" is a battle of scientific literacy that continues among adults and students alike.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:01 am |
    • Zack

      Yes, it is a theory... a Scientific theory, which is far different than the casual use of the word theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomena (facts) by way of observation, deduction, testing, prediction, and so on. It's the pinnacle of scientific understanding. Scientific theories are not the same as the laymen use of the word theory, which simply means conjecture, or guess/assumption. The evolutionary theory of biology is one of the most robust and supported theories in science. Our understanding of it has allowed us to develop vaccines and other treatments against the ever evolving microbes that attack our bodies. In the age of the internet... ignorance is a choice. Use Google search–it is your friend.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:48 am |
    • ed dugan

      Well Einstein (a rather presumtive name at best) in spite of what you say I smell a christian underneath all that rhetoric. Everything in life is a theory; a "god" that supposidly created everything, the bible, in spite of it's ridiculous statements, the whole schmear about jesus, heaven, hell, you name it and give me some solid proof that any of those "theories" has an ounce of truth attached to it. Evolution might be considered a theory by some but it's the only theory that has any basis in fact. The rest of what I mentioned is just baloney. If it were not christians would not need that bridge to nowhere called "faith" to help with their self-delusion.

      May 5, 2013 at 9:41 am |
    • Lindsay

      "It's just a theory."

      A "scientific theory" is not the same as the word "theory" used in normal conversation, which means a conjecture or hypothesis. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

      Or did you already know that, and you question other scientific theories such as gravity and relativity?

      May 5, 2013 at 9:48 am |
    • Joseph Bleaux

      Evolution is a fact. The only "theory" part is the exact details of how it works. You can cover your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA! and refuse to accept it but that won't make it go away. And for your information, the Catholic church accept evolution. Only ignorant, illiterate and down right stupid people attempt to refute it.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:16 am |
      • Joseph Bleaux

        And for your information, the Catholic church accepts evolution. Only ignorant, illiterate and down right stupid people attempt to refute it. Religion is ancient mythology and primitive superst!tion. I'll take modern science over ancient mythology any day.

        May 5, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • jofish15

      If you knew anything about how scientists use the word theory you wouldn't say that evolution is "just a theory". You would say it is a well-tested and even experimentally-tested theory that holds up to scrutiny. You would also have to say that religious creation stories are repeatedly disproved hypotheses.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • Wow

      Aren't you going to miss church?

      May 5, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • Steven Kazanjian

      did you know dogs are proved to come from wolves? How about the FACT that our DNA is 98% identical to monkeys??? Ever look between your toes and fingers? Looks like webbing doesn't it? How about the fact that humans have become taller and taller since recorded history? What about our developing intelligence over the past 10000 years? Evolution is all around you and readily visible.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Brad G.

      Evolution is just a theory? So is gravity, and I'd say it's pretty legit...

      May 5, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • Seyedibar

      Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is fact. When people refer to theories in regards to evolution, they are referring to specific explanations for the mechanisms behind evolution, much of which we are still discovering. There is zero scientific debate as to whether or not the process of evolution exists.

      May 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • What

      What in the hell are you talking about? Please do not besmirch the name of Einstein by posting such idiocy under his name. The very first thing you need to do is look up the definition of 'theory,' because it doesn't mean what you think it means. The colloquial usage has changed it to mean something akin to an educated guess, but in science a 'theory' is a comprehensive explanation for a set of empirical facts derived from experimentation. In other words, a scientific theory is a fact. The biological theory of evolution has been tested and retested for over a century and not one experiment has contradicted it. All of them have confirmed its findings and the predictions have all been confirmed. You see, that's also one of the foundations of a scientific theory. Not only must it have explanatory power, but it also has to make predictions that scientists can test. If a prediction fails, then the theory is thrown into doubt. That has never happened with evolution. Sorry, but that doesn't even come close to the nonsense of religion.

      May 5, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Pseudotriton

      Total nonsense. Evolution is a natural process and is a fact, period. There has been countless scientific demonstration for the process of evolution. Only un(der)-educated people like you, particularly in the US would insist on statements like "but evolution is just a 'theory'", when you don't even understand the definition of "theory" in a scientific sense.

      May 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • notogop

      Clearly, many people responding here have not evolved and should, in noway, accept or believe in the theory of evolution. Creationism is much easier to blindly accept since it has been around for a much longer time and is taught in the Bible.
      The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it! Now, isn't that much easier than thinking?

      May 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • paul

      sorry but you are no einstein,the saying that evolution is a theory is so outdated and stupidly wrong on all accounts.Evolution is a fact of nature,it has been proven on a micro scale a macro scale,in the fossil record with humans and animals,with viruses,and bacteria.While evolution has billions of instances that prove its truth,creation has none.There is no eden.no bones of adam or eve,no ark,no world wide flood,no tower of bable,no talking snake,just one book of stories passed down,thats all.So ignorant as you are,ill informed and out dated are the words you speak.please go read what has happened in evolutionary biology and neuroscience in the last 50 yrs and you may gain some education and become less ignorant.But then again you probably think gravity is a theory as well.To test it please jump off a building

      May 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Kent Atwood

      I find it ironic that someone who took the name Einstein does not seem to understand the basics of science.
      Is evolution a "theory"? Yes, almost everything we learned via the scientific method after the 19th century is classified as a theory. The scientific method is a filter we use to continually to test what we know to separate the credible from the incredible.

      Because we call it a theory instead of fact does that make it less likely? No. Whether or not you agree with evolution it holds up better when subjected to the scientific method than say a theory that a magical bearded man snapped his fingers and created the universe.

      If you want to talk about faith to justify your beliefs all power to you. Far be it for me to deny anyone their faith. However if you really want to subject what you believe to the rigorous standards of the scientific method and expect it to hold up to evolution I think you are subjecting yourself to a world of pain.

      If you can come up with a theory that stands up better to the scientific method than evolution then more power to you. You are free to submit it just like anyone else. I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to what you come up with.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • SkepticalOne

      Anyone who utters the phrase "just a theory" is just an idiot and likely of the religious zealot variety.

      May 5, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • rld

      Grow up and/or educate yourself::

      "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."

      May 5, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Ric B

      OMG! I cannot believe that in the year 2013 we still have people who know so little about science as to say that humans are still looking for a missing link!! haha There are SO many "missing links" and even better than that – their is incontrovertible evidence of linkage through our relatively new understanding of DNA. Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) represent footprints of previous retroviral infection and have been termed “fossil viruses". Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

      May 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Mark

      It's absolutely insane that theories like this are now presented as being common sense fact. Please people use your own heads. Research and study both sides of the debate with an open mind. Leave particular religious dogma out of it if you want and just look at the science. All evolution does is provide enough reason to discredit all major religions and water down the actual question of the origins of life so it's no longer much of an issue. That seems to be enough to keep this ridiculous myth going however.
      Evolution is a total hoax. It's only believed because of the ignorant confidence of those who preach it.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • Paul223

      Yeah, but that's all just your theory.

      May 5, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Ellie

      Gravity is just a theory too..

      May 5, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • HusseinBaidarJr.

      1. I see myself, physical attributes, behaviour, psychology, and the way i go about things.
      2. I observe the above mentioned things in my mother, father, and their families.
      3. I see that i have inherited certain things from both the families, some in the exact way, some as amalgamations of both the sides and from within the both sides.
      4. I see that only I have inherited patterns from both the sides, my paternal and maternal sides do not have similarities between them except for the basic instincts of life.
      5. I observe that all the above mentioned things apply in my sister's case as well,

      and in every other living being's case that i have seen or that i have read or heard about.

      And I conclude that there has to be a reason why we carry forward certain (and only certain things!) from our ancestors and pass certain things (and, again, only certain things) down to our next generations.
      What do you think it is?
      You need to broaden you perspective to understand the phenomenon.

      And, if you have not yet found answers beyond certain points (such as how did amoeba come into being or how the big bang blew) does not mean that all that has been found out is wrong.

      May 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Evolution is a tested theory

      Evolution occurs in the laboratory. Microbes evolve thoughout the flu season. Early migrants to volcanic islands evolve and their evolution has been accurately tracked. If you have enough brains and detrmination, you can perform your own experimental evolution studies, but first you have to understand more about science.

      The best science explains nature with least number of assumptions. It is testable by experiment. If you have a theory, like intelligent design, that you want to promote as a scientific theory, you have a problem. First, it is not the simplest theory to explain mutation and evolution.

      We don't need a god to explain the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution explains it completely and it has definitely been tested that you can create a strain of antibiotic resistant bacteria by underdosing the antibiotic so that some of the bacteria survive. Over time the bacteria that survive are the resitant ones. This effect is completely explained by Darwin. You want scientists to respect intelligent design, you explain the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria with intelligent design.

      May 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • MrChameleon

      Darwin said himself in order for his theory to be correct the missing link bones need to be found. Last I checked they were not, yet his theory is still taught as factual. So much for University's not having and agenda.

      Some bones that have been found are said to be "close", but being close with genetics is reasonably far fetched. ;-p

      May 5, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
      • Ric B

        Man created God in his own image – not the other way around.

        May 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The global geological record proved Darwin's notional hypothesis that evolution is a means to species false 40 years ago; as species occur rapidly (single generation) following a mass extinction. The only science ever in "origin of Species" is the ant study.

        May 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm |
    • Tulipo

      Please read completely.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

      May 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Lauradet

      Earlier today there was an article "Why Christians are the most hated minority" you may want to visit that article, because you are a prime example of the topic.

      May 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • kyle

      Many people here are confusing scientific theory with the common usage of 'theory'. There is a major difference. For simplicity's sake I quote wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." and "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis')."

      May 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Wrong Kyle, a theory is experimentally demonstrable and repeatable; under the scientific method.

        May 5, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • Soda Bob

      Being a "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. As a general rule, the usage of the term "theory" is not correct, in a scientific sense. For example, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is "just a theory" called Heliocentrism. In the same way, evolution is "just a theory," in that it is the best scientific explanation of the facts as we have them.

      May 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Evolution as a means to species was once a notional hypothesis, under the scientific method, but now it is false.

        May 5, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • Ray

      The problem with your post, Einstein, is that conflates the scientific meaning of 'theory' with that used by the general population. Evolution is a FACT, there's no getting around it. What many of the radical religious like to hook onto, however, is that the human family tree is regularly modified or updated, depending on new discoveries. A lot can happen over millions of years, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that there are changes. It's really pathetic that so few in this country, with the amazing education system we have, choose to remain stupid.

      May 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • John dunia

      Am just surprised all scientists are found in the US. No where else. And they can really convince you that their facts are more accurate than from anywhere else in the world.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • SillyRabbit

      The word "Theory" in science, has different meaning than the word "Theory" in any other part of life. I encourage you to read this article on one controversial scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory) One could easily apply the same explanation made in this article to any other non-controversial scientific "theory" if you would prefer, such as Circuit Theory, Gravitational Theory, or any of the other thousands of "Theories" we have in Science.

      Regarding the statement of using Science to "discredit" religion.... This seems to imply that the two are somehow on equal ground.... Which is not the case. Religion or Faith, is something you either believe or not. It is something that doesn't require evidence nor does it require facts. It's something that can be complete nonsense, with no facts to support it or there can even be facts that disprove it (fact: the earth is not 6000 years old), but you can still believe it. Much like my belief in Santa. I believe in Santa, because it makes the pagan celebration of Sol and Victus (known as a Christmas today) more enjoyable to me.

      Science, however, is not something you can believe in or not. It is something you either acknowledge or you don't. It is something backed by research, evidence, and continuously evolving knowledge. Science doesn't care about your religion and it also doesn't care if you want to take that which we don't know or understand about the Universe and say "you don't understand it, it must be god". It's fine for you to think that, but if you are content enough with that answer, that you stop researching, you stop trying to understand how it works or "how god made it work" if that is your belief, then you are useless in the Scientific field.

      Point being: Science is not, nor has it ever been some evil force that wants to discredit or disprove religion. It simply doesn't care about religion. Religion however, has made many efforts to hinder scientific research and development. And that's a problem.

      May 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • Jake

      You're very glib, aren't you?

      May 5, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • big b

      Michelle Obama???

      May 5, 2013 at 9:30 pm |
    • kabs kubs

      The noun "theory"as applied in the Theory of Evolution connotes a coherent group of tested general proposition used as principles of explaination and prediction for a class of phenomena.It is a law or a doctrine,and not the conjectural status of a certain idea.

      May 5, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Theory under the scientific method means experimentally demonstrable and repeatable, something Darwin's notional hypothesis never was.

        May 5, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
      • kabs kubs

        @John P.Tarver,Darwins theory is not scientifically demonstrable?As opposed to what kind of theory?Creationism?Now I'm not usually crass but you're coming across very strongly as somebody who's really bloody idiotic.

        May 5, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Darwin's false notional hypothesis that species are an outcome of evolution was proven false by the fossil record 40 years ago; thanks to geology. Dr. Gould then wrote a 1400 page peer reviewed paper attempting to fix the most glaring problems.

        May 6, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • waf_98

      Hey Einstein, you obviously are uninformed about the significance of the scientific term "theory." Find a dictionary. Fast. Before you open your mouth again. Or write something attached to your name. And right after you do that, you need to read up on the theory of evolution, but not from anti-evolution web sites or literature.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Evolution as a means to species never met the bar to be a theory under the scientific method and has been known to be false for 40 years thanks to the fossil record from geology.

        May 6, 2013 at 10:19 am |
      • Ric B

        What a TROLL – Gould was an evolutionary biologist. He postulated that the fossil record shows evolution in abundance including the so called missing links – of which there are thousands of examples now – and he was known for his work on punctuated evolution. Meaning that evolution of species came in fits and starts. Saying that anything Gould did disproves evolution is just your weak and ignorant biased mind at work. Even DARWIN invited criticism of his theory because that is the way science works. Unfortunately for you – you will never understand how science works because you are trying desperately to keep your myth alive!! LOL

        May 6, 2013 at 11:39 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Gould responded to the findings of geology with respect to the global fossil record and the Iridium-24 layer between eras. Yes you re a troll Ric, but that does not advance science. Gould had to admit that Darwin is false and you should too.

        May 7, 2013 at 1:32 am |
      • Ric B

        You just keep flapping your gums but you produce nothing but ignorant sounds. Provide references for your assertions and someone might take you seriously. Until then you are just another science denier who makes claims but can never substantiate them. You argue about things you have a shallow knowledge of. You are just another science dummy with a computer and an internet connection.

        May 7, 2013 at 10:53 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        I provided the peer reviewed response of biology to the global fossil record from Dr. Gould. If geology had not proven Darwin false, Dr. Glould would never have had a reason to respond to the hard physical facts. I am thinking your response is as though I told a Christian, "there is no Jesus." Religion does not belong in a science class.

        May 8, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
      • Ric B

        You have provided nothing but your false and ignorant interpretation of the now deceased Dr Gould's work. So you have cited Dr Gould – who postulated only that the FACT of evolution is that evolution sometimes comes rapidly and at other times slowly. This does not destroy or overturn the OVERWHELMING evidence in the geologic strata that evolution is a fact. It also does not destroy the learned opinions of the hundreds of thousands of other paleontologists and geologists who contribute daily to our knowledge of the fossil record. Nor does it overturn all of the evidence from every other scientific discipline on the planet – one of the most important and most recent being DNA evidence. THAT is the missing link!!!!

        May 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I applied the scientific method to Dr. Gould's work, which even fails Darwin's fake scientific methiod of being able to be shown false. All of the geological evidence is that species occur rapidly following a mass extinction, the opposite of evolution. If you do not like the fact that the scientific method relegates the oxymoron of punctuated evolution to being a baseless assertion, I reccomend you avoid the subject.

        May 8, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
      • Ric B

        You must actually enjoy making a fool out of yourself with such statements as "I applied the scientific method to Dr. Gould’s work". I cannot wait to see your paper. Have you published it and with whom? Did I miss it because I am quite sure I pay pretty close attention to any new evidence for or against evolution. It seems to me that you have done nothing but take a lie advocated by a creationist view of the world and try to apply it to a hypothesis from 1972 – that is 40 years ago!!!!! And here are the facts – like you are interested in facts! LOL Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University near his home in SoHo. Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge. He was awarded the Linnean Society of Paleontological Society Medal (2002) and London's Darwin–Wallace Medal (2008). So how does a guy like you fold the facts of an Evolutionary Biology Teacher and a Darwin Award for contributions to the field of Evolution with the lie that his contributions to the field of study DISPROVE the very facts of the theory he was teaching?????? I cant wait for your response. And don't forget your OWN contribution to disproving evolution through your own application of the "scientific theory" . HAHAHAHAHA

        May 8, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The fossil record from geology is hard physical evidence that Darwin's notional hypothesis that species are an outcome of evolution is false, not a just a hypothesis from 1972. You seem unclear on how science works Ric, are you a member of NEA? It is unfortunate that so many in education arre unfamiliar with the scientific method.

        May 9, 2013 at 8:13 am |
      • Ric B

        Have you eve even been to a museum? Every 5th grader is smarter and better educated than you but more importantly – they are not dishonest . You are simply a liar and a fraud trying to sow doubt in the strongest theory known to man and all in the name of religion. This is why people like you are shunned and marginalized in society. You make false statements and false connections – like I am an educator and member of NEA. You do not have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to scientific theory, scientific process of discovery and simple things like the geologic strata of the planet. You are a sad excuse for a human. So enjoy you ride down the elevator shaft of irrellevence and please take some of your like minded individuals with you. You are a small and weak excuse for a human being and you have made it abundantly clear that you are not smart enough to get through a high school level science class.

        May 9, 2013 at 11:25 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Once again: a Theory under the scientific method must be experimentally demonstrable and repeatable. An example of a Theory under the scientific method would be Relativity, from which we know gravity is mass bending Time.

        May 9, 2013 at 11:56 am |
      • Ric B

        I guess you just get your science education from the internet and you tube. How do you reconcile your illiterate science view that punctuated equilibrium overturns the theory of evolution when in fact it only reinforces hat we already knew and just adds more knowledge to the base? The real demonstrable and repeatable fact here is that anyone who goes back and rereads your posts will realize you are a compulsive liar. Constantly repeating – even after being proven wrong – that Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium overturned the theory of evolution. Then you repeatedly and demonstrably double down on your lies by trying to drag others down to your illiterate level of understanding by stating that you actually know something about the scientific method of thinking and discovery. When in fact you demonstrably and repeatedly show you have no idea what the scientific method is. Science seeks the truth through experimentation and the null hypothesis. Do you even know what the null hypothesis is? It is the process of trying to disprove your own hypothesis. When your fail to prove the null hypothesis you prove your hypothesis. When you PROVE the null hypothesis then your original hypothesis is wrong. You are nothing but a small man with a small brain and an education that does not go mush further than your ability to write the english language. It is SO obvious that you are a chrisitan and an believer in all sorts of things that are not true – like ghosts and demons and anti christ and eating flesh and blood of a jewish zombie. You ignorant posts here only reinforce the need in this country to keep people like you and religion in general out of the decision making process.

        May 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The slow change over time was well known for thousands of years before Darwin created his notional hypothesis that species are an outcome of evolution. The sole reason Darwin's postulate is a notional hypothesis is that is it based in the well known physical reality of a slow change over time., Once Dr. Gould decoupled from the slow change over time there was not even a nbotional hypothesis of evolution; one step further removed from being a theory. A leap of faith.

        May 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
      • Ric B

        Religion or Faith, is something you either believe or not. It is something that doesn’t require evidence nor does it require facts. It’s something that can be complete nonsense, with no facts to support it or there can even be facts that disprove it (fact: the earth is not 6000 years old), but you can still believe it. Much like my belief in Santa. I believe in Santa, because it makes the pagan celebration of Sol and Victus (known as a Christmas today) more enjoyable to me.
        Science, however, is not something you can believe in or not. It is something you either acknowledge or you don’t. It is something backed by research, evidence, and continuously evolving knowledge. Science doesn’t care about your religion and it also doesn’t care if you want to take that which we don’t know or understand about the Universe and say “you don’t understand it, it must be god”. It’s fine for you to think that, but if you are content enough with that answer, that you stop researching, you stop trying to understand how it works or “how god made it work” if that is your belief, then you are useless in the Scientific field.
        Point being: Science is not, nor has it ever been some evil force that wants to discredit or disprove religion. It simply doesn’t care about religion. Religion however, has made many efforts to hinder scientific research and development. And that’s a problem.

        May 9, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Science is something you know nothing about Ric, but you have made a religion out of evolution.

        May 10, 2013 at 8:16 am |
      • Ric B

        I dont know anything about science???? HAHA HA
        I am a professional in a field of applied physics. Next time you go to your doctor make sure you ask for the PRE evolutionary treatment. Why is it that children are born with out enough Vitamin K to survive until Applied SCIENCE professional inject them at birth? Why i it that blacks have cycle cell anemia? Why do YOU have a "tail bone"? Why do YOU have an appendix? Why do whales have leg bones. Why do you have the remnants of rare viruses called indogenous retrovirus markers that are in the SAME position in your DNA as Apes and other lower species. Evolution not only EXPLAIN these oddities it PREDICTS them!

        May 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
      • Ric B

        People like you do not listen with the intent to learn – you listen with the intent to respond. That is just the opposite of what science is and does. So do not try to sell yourself here as a literate science professional seeking the truth about evolutionary theory. You are an ignorant bipartisan religious extremist doing anything you can do to keep your violent and bloody myth alive by trying to convince the weak of mind the uneducated that evolutionary theory is false and creationism is true. You show your ignorance and lies in every post for everyone to see and that is actually a good thing. This is further proof that people like you in American society are a liability and not an asset.

        May 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I do not understand how you make the leap from the luddite scientific view you hold to creationism. The scientific method is not a church and evolution as a meanst6o species is not now nor has it ever been a theory NASA has a notional hypothesis thar retro-viruses are carried on the meteor that deposits tje iridium-24 layer. Under the NASA nottional hypothesis only those organisms infected would survive; matching the conclusion of geology that species occur in a single generation.

        May 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
      • Ric B

        Iridium is a very rare element in the Earth's crust, but is found in anomalously high concentrations (around 100 times greater than normal) in a thin worldwide layer of clay marking the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, 65 million years ago. This boundary is marked by a major extinction event, including that of the dinosaurs along with about 70% of all other species. All of the species prior to this event are in layers of sediment in times that one would expect and the fossils and other evidence are in accordance with the predictions supplied by evolutionary theory. The same is true of all of the fossilized remains after the event and as one would predict using evolutionary theory in more recent sediments. Ho do you propose that the iridium layer does anything other than PROVE evolutionary theory? Unless you are simply dihonest and that can also be predicted by ones belief in Christianity and Creationism.

        May 9, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Once again evolution as a means to species has never been a theory under the scientiffic method.

        May 10, 2013 at 8:18 am |
      • Ric B

        Just because you keep saying it over and over does not make it – nor will it EVER make it true! There has NEVER been a more well understood theory of how species evolved than the Theory (facts) of Evolution. That is the working knowledge base of millions of scientists all over the planet – nit just here in the US – and you can PREDICT and demonstrate how it works. So if you do not "believe" it – that is not a big loss or even a blip on the radar scope to the missions of scientists who study this as a living. You have NO credible evidence to the contrary and that is why you are marginalized in society as a bipartisan and religious nut case. You only demonstrate your vast ignorance with every post. What is your "counter hypothesis" by the way? I am sure every paleontologist and geologist and biological evolutionist cannot wait to hear YOUR theory and examine the evidence for it.

        May 10, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The scientific method does not come from me Ric and if you were from a physics background you would known that. The QM based science of genetics is slowing driving the ignorance of yourself and your cult out of biology. The revolution of hard science has arrived for biology and your religion can not stop it.

        May 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        You will have to be satisfied with lying to children now Ric B, as grown-up science has moved on from Darwin's nonsense. I doubt your personal attack on me for pointing out where biology is today will help your case.

        May 7, 2013 at 9:12 am |
    • marine5484

      You are so far off base it is sad...... Theory in the scientific community means it is the best way to describe processes in the natural world. Gravity is just a theory but, I'm betting that you wouldn't jump off a tall building. Every fossil or skeleton that we find that is new is the "missing link". Do not play the god of the gaps argument.

      May 5, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        No, a Theory in science is described by the scientific method. Relativity is a theory that describes gravity as mass bending Time, but evolution as a means to species was never a theory, in science.

        May 6, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • Jon

      Facts are true whether you believe in them or not. Evolution is almost universally accepted by those who understand it. "Theory" is a scientific term that means an idea predicts or describes the world accurately and is well supported by evidence. Now, in terms of the evidence you feel is missing from evolution, I would point you to Richard Dawkins book called "The Greatest Show on Earth." It details the majority of scientific evidence for evolution.

      Oh, and to your point about there being no transitional species, you should know that all species are transitional. In case that's not convincing, check out the evolution of whales, birds, horses, insects, pitcher plants, and orchids for VERY dramatic examples of macro evolution.

      Thanks!

      May 5, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        This Science discussion must use the language of science where the scientific method defines a theory. Your definition of a theory is based in populism, not science.

        May 6, 2013 at 10:08 am |
1 2 3

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer