Is this a clue to toenail evolution?
Paleontologist Jonathan Bloch holds the nail and skull of an ancient extinct primate, Notharctus tenebrosus.
January 24th, 2012
11:26 AM ET

Is this a clue to toenail evolution?

While sorting  through primate fossils at the American Museum of Natural History, Stephanie Maiolino and Douglas Boyer found an extraordinary specimen. Encased in a block of mud and rock was the fossilized foot of an extinct creature called a notharctus.

They sent the foot, still encased in mud, to their colleague Joe Groenke at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, New York, and he did a CT scan. The foot bones were in good shape, and one of the toes looked unusual.

"It had a flattened tip, as you see in nailed-anthropoids, but the base of the claw showed that it would [be] projected up like a grooming claw and that it had weak muscle attachments, meaning the toe wasn't used for grabbing objects and locomotion like the other toes," Boyer explained.

In other words, the toe bone looked a little bit like something that would be paired with a toenail, and a little bit like a digit that would be paired with something called a grooming claw. The primate to which it belongs, Notharctus tenebrosus, lived about 47 million years ago.

"A grooming claw is a specialized nail on the second toe, the one next to the big toe, of some primates,"  Maiolino explained. "Grooming claws are used to scratch through and clean the fur, especially around the head and the neck."

Anthropologists always look for a grooming claw when they are examining fossilized primate feet. In some cases, it helps them figure out what type of primate they are dealing with. Lemurs, lorises, galagos and tarsiers have grooming claws. Most anthropoids don't. This case is quite an exception.

"It may be that we have found a fossil that captures a stage in the evolutionary transition of a nail to a grooming claw," Maiolino says.

The scientists report their findings in the journal PLoS One.

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

Post by:
Filed under: On Earth
soundoff (264 Responses)
  1. Kellys UC:A

    You are only the religion on where you are born

    Nothing more

    February 10, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
  2. Ian

    "Gravity is a theory. It is also a fact. Anyone who disagrees is invited to jump out a ten story window." - R. Dawkins Basically sums up the "It's just a theory!" argument.

    January 26, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  3. Setz

    Wow. Well, to begin, way back to the beginning of the discussion, this is at least a fun finding. Everything aside, locating any link in the chain is an achievement unto itself, and congratulations to the discovery team.
    Second, as per fossilized remains or remains in general, oftentimes in nature it is difficult to locate what is left from creatures that were recently with us. The Asian rhino? Weren't they poached to extinction just recently? Since most of their remains were used by poachers and wildlife for food, it would be difficult to identify. A rhino has horns; their bones, do not. So, placing yourselves into nomadic early-stage man, wouldn't most wildlife near them be fully used? I'm not applying anything beyond logic.
    And, as a general courtesy to everyone, can we withhold slinging mud? Politicians do that. This is a science article; the field where we find, explore, and affirm or denounce. In no way are we searching to disprove God, or gods, or spirituality; rather we are simply attempting to better understand the direct world around us.
    I wouldn't put the claim to not having debate, just keep it topical. When commenting here, let the scientist within out for a moment. Or at least the little kid with a vivid imagination. Not the stewart to one's personal beliefs or interests.
    Cheers, -S

    January 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • DC

      Best post/response ever.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:26 am |
  4. sabina barnes

    God is real ian and so is the bible,your not real!

    January 26, 2012 at 2:40 am |
    • Primewonk

      Of course the bible is real – you find them laying all over the place. But that dooesn't make the bible true or factual.

      And which gods are real? We've invented tens of thousands of them.

      January 26, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • Ian

      If I'm not real, how am I responding? And where is your evidence for your God?

      January 26, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Ian

      Also, I beleive my name should be capitalized, considering it is a proper noun, and it should be "you're," not "your." Furthermore, considering your apparent support of the Bible, it too should be capitalized.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
  5. john cougar mellenkamp

    This is why I am glad to live in a country where people are allowed their first amendment rights. I feel that more people have been killed over their beliefs unless it is for greed.

    January 25, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  6. Anorman

    Creationists, I urge you, lay down your arguments, for they are shallow and unwarranted. Science has time and time again proved your views to be false and full of hatred. Please explain to me how we can see the andromeda galaxy at 2.5 million light-years away. if light travels at a CONSTANT speed of 300 million meters per second, and it takes 2.5 million years of travel for us to see the image of said galaxy, how is it possible that you still believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old? How can you seriously see this mountain of evidence AGAINST your theory, yet still ask "where is the evidence"? We can literally watch HIV virus evolve through generations. Give up your macro vs micro fight. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    January 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • dued guy

      Not all creationists believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.. and not all creationists dismiss evolution within a species… however they dispute that evolution is the origin of life… I urge you to open your mind a little… you may learn something.. 😀

      January 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
      • Ian

        May I suugest opening your feeble mind? If you insist on belleiving in creationism, I won't stop you. But if you try to force it on others and our education system, then there is a problem, and a violation of the First Amendment. 🙂

        January 25, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Evolution makes no statements on the origin of life, just the diversity of it

        January 25, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
      • dued guy

        That's funny what is the name of the book Darwin wrote again?? How is intelligent design a violation of the first amendment again?? Suprise someone resortng to ad hominem attacks instead of presenting any logical argument

        January 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
      • Ian

        Several court cases, most natably Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, in which ID was labeled an extension of religion.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        I'm pretty sure Darwin's book is the origin of species, not the origin of life. Meaning it attempts to explain how the diversity of species came about, not how life itself happened

        And intelligent design is a violation because the only 'facts' that it has are in the bible. It's purely a religious idea meaning it would go against the first amendment

        January 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
      • Ian

        And the book was On the Origin of Species. Not life. Species.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
      • dued guy

        So then there is proof or evidence of one species transitioning into another? Not just life evolving within a species?

        Either way if you don’t consider evolution the origin of life, why would you care about ID?? After all one attempts to explain the origin or species and the other the origin of life.. How are they even comparable?

        I get that courts have labeled ID as religious and that with you open mind you listen to everything you are told to believe. what about life being planted on earth by aliens? I have heard prominent evolutionists say this is a possibility. Is that not intelligent design? Oh I get it just label it as religious and try to make it go away... Totally open minded right there..

        January 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
      • Ian

        There's a difference between "possibility" and "probablility." Is it possible that I might get killed by a wolverine today? Yes, but it is not probable.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
      • Ian

        Abd, unless the aliens designed the life, then it is planting, and the aliens had to somehow evolve, anyway.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        So then there is proof or evidence of one species transitioning into another? Not just life evolving within a species?

        -yes, they're called transition fossils

        They're comparable because both try to explain how humans came about. One says they evolved, the other says they appeared. One has science to back it, the other has nothing to back it.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
      • Ian

        Yes, actually. Look at the evolutionary history of horses and whales. And also take a look at saurian evolution from the Triassic to the Cretaceous.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
      • dued guy

        Obviously I meant to post this on this thread...

        OK and what about my other arguments??

        What about the Cambrian explosion??

        January 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
      • dued guy

        I have looked at the “evolution” of horses and there are so many holes in the “evolutionary” tree it would be an insult to call it science.

        January 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
      • Ian

        Horse evolution is one of the best recorded and best preserved of all mammalian evolutions. But, if you choose to reject it, thats no skin off my nose. Take a look at Albertasaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex, then, and therapod evolution.

        January 25, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        You can always just type in transitional fossils, that comes up with things that may be helpful.

        January 25, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        The holes mean nothing really though. Can you explain the fossils and the diversity of life without using something that can never be proven, i.e. without using god?

        Scientists try to keep their ideas to things that can only be proven. You can't prove id, but you can eventually prove evolution. And that's the best theory there is to explain the fossils as well as the diversity of life on this planet.

        January 25, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
      • dued guy

        Actually you are mistaken. You cannot EVER prove a theory to be true. No matter the amount of supposed “evidence”. I suggest reading about the scientific method and theory so you actually know what we are talking about here. With that being the case using your logic of ID being unable to be proven, it is equal with evolution.. hmmmm looks like those holes mean something now don’t they..

        January 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        I know the scientific method quite well. And some theories can eventually be proven true. The theory the earth is a sphere, that it circles the sun, the theory of valence electrons. The theory of gravity is being attempted to be proven as we speak at CERN

        But to get to you're point about id being equally valid as evolution, you are way off. Evolution has mountains of evidence for it, even if there are holes, ID has 0 scientific evidence.

        January 25, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
      • dued guy

        Are you sure? Then what does a theory become after it is “proven”?

        I really suggest reading about what a scientific theory is and you will quickly find you CANNOT prove a theory to be true.

        January 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
      • dued guy

        Again that being the case you can safely say we both believe in something that you cannot prove.. So why do evolutionists hate on ID folks so much?? Are you afraid of God??

        January 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Okay, well, either way. Scientists go with theories that have facts behind them without adding in something that has zero proof behind it (god). ID relies completely on god, which has no proof and therefore, is a bad theory and doesn't hold a candle to evolution.

        If ID had even one face behind it other than the bible which has many things wrong with it already, I'd say I could understand why people believe it, but it doesn't. ID has nothing to back it up.

        January 25, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
      • Ian

        You cannot fear what does not exist. And, by saying that, you prove to be a religous creationist, not an advocate of ID. All your other arguments have failed, from the aliens to the horse evolution And I pose you the same question: Are you afraid of science, or your relgion being disproved?

        January 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        I'm not afraid of god at all, I don't even believe in him. And I don't hate ID folk, I hate stupid folk. And to ignore hard evidence to say that your way is correct despite the complete lack of evidence. I see that as stupid.

        Forgive me if I offend you with that but that's my opinion

        January 25, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
      • dued guy

        I asked a question about God therefore I am a religious creationist?? That is completely illogical. In fact YOU brought up religion before me.. does that make you religious?? How is it my argument failed?? Oh because you said they did.. well that is your opinion (subjective evidence) and it in no way makes my argument invalid. I am not afraid of science at all.. in fact I love science. Look there you go asking a question about religion… you must be some sort of religious zealot.. 😀

        I get what you are saying.. you believe what you do because people say to, despite the fact there are holes in the so called evidence.. Is that not being closed minded?? You admit the evidence has holes but you accept it without question.. Are people who believe in ID any different?? You may not accept their evidence (the bible) and say it has holes but they don’t accept yours which has holes as well.

        As you may know philosophy is better suited to provide evidence regarding religion, where science is better suited to provide evidence for the physical world. Obviously you reject anything ID because of your bias towards science.

        January 25, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        "Are people who believe in ID any different??"
        YES! They lack proof. There are no holes in the bible, the bible is a hole. The only thing they really got right were town names. Just about everything else has been proven false. And anyways, how can you believe one thing in a book if it is so far off base with many other things. Something with that many errors cannot be used to base a point off of. Evolution has holes,(which is to be expected because the way fossils form) but at least its all completely true. We know there are fossils, we have them. Even transitional ones which all but prove evolution.

        January 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        It's one thing to have holes, its another to be blatantly wrong in many areas.

        January 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Also, I believe what I do because it is based of good science, not because someone told me to.

        January 25, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
      • dued guy

        The bible has been proven wrong?? How so?? Again opinion is not ample evidence.

        Your statement, “Evolution has holes,(which is to be expected because the way fossils form) but at least it’s all completely true.”
        Soo which is it.. “it’s all completely true” or that it “has holes”. Also as we previously discussed a theory cannot be proven true.

        “We know there are fossils, we have them.” Of course there are fossils but there are many gaps between them. The reason there are holes in the theory is because this evidence is and has been manipulated to fit a hypothesis in attempt to create a theory. There was no fossil evidence when Darwin came up with his hypothesis described in the book “Origin of Species”. Therefore we can take your reasoning “And anyways, how can you believe one thing in a book if it is so far off base with many other things.” and say that it is not believable.

        January 25, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
      • Ian

        Try flood geology, young earth creationism, the origin of life, disease, Pi, science...

        January 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        "The bible has been proven wrong?? How so?? Again opinion is not ample evidence."

        It's not opinion. How about the global flood? Never such a thing happened, as proved by science. Adam and Eve populating the earth? Impossible, two organisms is not enough to make a viable population (this actually happened twice in the bible if you remember, Noah repopulated the earth the second time with his family). Following the time line of prophets in the bible and their age, the bible implies the earth is about 6000 years old. Obviously wrong.

        "Your statement, “Evolution has holes,(which is to be expected because the way fossils form) but at least it’s all completely true.”
        Soo which is it.. “it’s all completely true” or that it “has holes”. Also as we previously discussed a theory cannot be proven true."

        The theory is completely true based on the fossils that have been found so far. It may have holes, but so far, it's been proven completely true.

        "The reason there are holes in the theory is because this evidence is and has been manipulated to fit a hypothesis in attempt to create a theory. There was no fossil evidence when Darwin came up with his hypothesis described in the book “Origin of Species”. Therefore we can take your reasoning “And anyways, how can you believe one thing in a book if it is so far off base with many other things.” and say that it is not believable."

        The evidence hasn't been manipulated, the theory has been slightly changed since Darwin. He had a theory, everything fell in line with the basis of that theory so the basic concept was kept but it was tweaked along the way. The way all good science is done. If the evidence fits the basic concept, you keep the theory, if not, you throw it out. So far, Darwin's theory has held up pretty well.

        January 25, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
      • dued guy

        So are you are saying the bible has been proven wrong in the literal sense?? Because that is what your argument implies, however not all take some of the portions you mentioned literally (as you can see described in my first post on this thread). For those that do take it literally they believe in a God who can supersede the so called “proof” against the bible. While this may not satisfy you, that doesn’t matter as the same goes for them in regard to your supposed proof of evolution.

        Now you say it would be impossible for Adam and Eve to have populated the earth because there were two of them?? (BTW it didn’t happen twice it wasn’t just Noah and his wife, he had several sons). Well that same argument disproves evolution. If a species transitioned and another species was created there would not be mass amounts of the new species there would be small amounts. And what does that say about the origin of life?? If life originated from some primordial ooze would there have been mass amounts of life from the beginning or would there have been a single life form that evolved into many??

        Again I ask you to READ about scientific theory. A theory CANNOT be proven true. Ever! You would think someone who praises science so much would actually understand how it works. Such a shame..

        So in the end both are simply beliefs which have different evidence and neither can be proven absoultely true or false. You can reject the evidence all you want but that does not disprove anything.

        January 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        You can't just pick and choose. It's either right or wrong. Who are you to say which parts are completely true?

        And noah's kids are still his direct bloodline so it was still just him and his wife that did it.

        That limit for a species doesn't apply for ase.xual organisms since their dna stays very similar from one generation to the next. And for organisms that need to mate, a small change isn't going to keep that one from mating with the ones that don't have the mutation. This allows the superior genetics to continue to the next generation. If you studied just a little evolution you might know that.

        January 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
      • dued guy

        Of course people can pick and choose it doesn’t mean they’re right. Just like believing a theory doesn’t mean you are right. I suggest looking into philosophy and theology some and you will realize it’s more than picking and choosing. Who’s to say they are right or wrong?? You?? I don’t recall saying it is true or not nor did I say I was anyone who would do such a thing. I am simply educating you on something you don’t seem to have knowledge about. Kind of like scientific theory.

        Yes Noah’s sons were of his blood line; however his son’s wives also went.

        So you are saying life came to be from nothing and was able to mate and reproduce right away? Or did ase. Xual organisms evolve into organisms that mate to reproduce? Either way different species have different chromosomes and are unable to mate with other species (a few can but are sterile).. Oh wait I see it happened really gradually. But that wouldn’t mean thousands and thousands of transitional fossils EVERYWHERE not just a few scattered across the globe.. and what about intermediate fossils??

        Funny you are telling me to study science when you don’t even understand scientific theory…

        January 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Everything that dies doesn't leave a fossil, I thought I should mention that since you apparently weren't paying attention in science class. It's pretty rare for something to leave a fossil, and even more-so if the organism was boneless. And everyone says it happened gradually, what would make you think it didn't. Despite all this, transitional fossils are still found all the time.

        And I understand scientific theory great, you on the other hand seem to be having trouble grasping the difference between fact and fiction. You can't just choose parts of things you want to believe and leave out others. That makes any 'fact' that you give get called into question. If I quote only half an article to prove my point, but the other half disproves the first half then my point was never proven. In fact, all it does is show that there was never a good point to begin with.

        January 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
      • dued guy

        Billions of years and billions of life forms… yet only a handful of fossils. Shouldn’t there be more?? Even with fossils being rare??

        You seem to know what I believe yet I haven’t said anything explicitly other than ID. You also seem to lack and understanding of philosophy. I suggest reading about philosophic logic and you find your statements regarding what someone chooses to believe are false. You seem to think science can prove everything to be either true of false and this is simply not true.

        How about all of my other questions in this thread you have failed to answer??

        LMAO you know the scientific theory?? You have said over and over and over again that you can prove a theory true. This is absolutely FALSE. Let me explain it for you little buddy. You can never exhaustively test a theory.. Meaning there is no possible way to test every variable that could arise. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A THEORY TRUE.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        "shouldnt there be more??"
        No there shouldn't. They are that rare.

        You said you believe in ID which only comes from the bible which is not a legit source since its wrong on MANY accounts. You also said you pick and choose proving that you don't actually have a case for believing in ID. You have no argument. And you're trying to bring philosophy into a scientific argument where it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if I were an idiot at scientific theory, you haven't even come up with a real argument yet.

        And what other questions haven't we answered? We've debunked just about every point you've tried to make. All I've seen these last few posts is you telling me I don't know anything about scientific theory.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
      • dued guy

        Wow now you are putting words in my mouth. If you are going to claim I said something then quote me.

        LMAO question and evolutionist and they stumble around unable to answer any questions about what they believe.

        I have asked dozens of questions which you never even touched. My arguments remain sound.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Haha. If you say so. I think anyone who reads this will know exactly who won this

        January 25, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
      • Ian

        Lets just end this now. Dued guy, you wish to believe that a higher power created life. Fine. I am the Best, you and I believe live developed without intervention. Fine. Now lets kill this thread.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • dued guy

      OK and what about my other arguments??

      What about the Cambrian explosion??

      January 25, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
      • Ian

        What about it? An increase in predation led to a massive burst of aductations and new species.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Aaaa

      light travels a lot faster than 300 m/s its closer to 300,000,000 m/s or 186,000miles/s.

      February 14, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  7. dued guy

    lmao I didn’t know people still believed in evolution 😀

    January 25, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Ian

      Plenty of people still believe in evolution. After all, its taught in public schools... unless you were homeschooled.

      January 25, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • JSMAN

        Yes, evolution is taught in our public schools, and we all know how sucessful our public schools have been. The same close minded thought process that made creationism seem outmoded is now happening with evolution. People who aren't open to rational debate on either side are the reason for our failing public education system

        January 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
      • Ian

        And you support which side?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
      • JSMAN

        I support the side of research. I would consider myself a creationist, but that said, I realize that both theories have holes. I have no qualms with the research this Paleontologist is doing, but I’m opposed to the other comments that regard either side as a ‘fact’. No scientific theory is fact – gravity for one. It would be absurd for me to claim that the theory of gravity is ‘fact’. Yes, the empirical evidence is there, but any physicist will tell you that action at a distance is not understood. A proper understanding requires both versions of gravity to be taught (wave theory versus particle theory). Why is the theory of evolution not subject to the same scrutiny?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
      • Ian

        A scientific theory is different from the layman's use of "theory". Scientific theories have a large amont of evidence backing them. Your use of the word theory is mor applicapable to a hypothesis.

        January 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
      • Achernar

        I'm sorry, but I just hate it when people trying to present a scientific argument say that they "believe" in evolution.

        I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it as scientific fact. Big difference. This is based upon years of reading and study of the evidence, geological, biological, genetic, etc., etc. compared to the total lack of evidence for any of the hypothesized alternatives.

        While the origin of life is still unsolved, what we do know indicates that it could happen through normal physical processes. There is no need for anything beyond standard physics and chemistry. I fully expect that science will create completely artificial life within my lifetime, and I’m not young.

        January 25, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
      • Cflo71

        I'm very intrigued with your statements and would love to learn more from you.

        January 25, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
      • Ian

        @Achernar: You know what I meant.

        January 26, 2012 at 6:34 am |
      • Achernar


        Yes I do know what you meant. The problem is that he creationists don't. When you use fuzzy words like "believe", you encourage them to think that an acceptance of science is equivalent to a faith in a particular interpretation of a religion. You know that the two are completely different.

        January 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • Ian

        I see your point. I'll be more cautious about that, next time.

        January 26, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Kate

      An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution

      The fossil record is immense now. Currently adding more daily. Growup.

      January 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
      • JSMAN

        Growup?? Really?? How is that comment any less close minded than the creationists of the 1950s?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Ian

        I like how JSMAN's only attack on your argument is on you, not on the argument itself.

        January 25, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • sillyamericans

      And what do you believe in? god? that's funny

      January 25, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • JSMAN

        Yes, funny. Maybe thinking for yourself is laughable to you, but I would prefer rational debate over being a slave to what is currently taught. Where did you do your fellowship again?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
      • Ian

        I like how religous people talk about being slaved to modern science, when they would just as readily slave us to their dogma.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
      • JSMAN

        Ian, notice that I have not pushed the beliefs of creationism on anyone. I'm simply advocating doing research with an open mind. I can not speak for every creationist just as you cannot speak for every evolutionist.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
      • Ian

        True, but I was not talking about you.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  8. mahdee

    Awesome research – a lifetime of dedication and study. The study didn't stop when school was out. By the way, Jonathan could use a manicure!

    January 25, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  9. I'm The Best!

    I don't see how there are people who actually believe in creationism. There are so many facts for evolution, its crazy to think its wrong. I can point to transitional fossils, everyone who has ever studied fossils, and micro evolution. All creationists have is a single book that has been proven wrong on many points: age of the universe/earth, shape of the earth (its a sphere which isn't a circle), past events (no global flood). I don't see how anything in that book can be taken as true after many partake of it has been proven false

    January 25, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • Ian

      @ I'm the best: A very well worded argument, but I warn you: the creationists will resort to claiming to be you in order to bring you down.

      January 25, 2012 at 9:35 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        I know, but I feel as though it will be pretty obvious which is the real me. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true so if you see a post that makes me sound like an idiot, its not me

        January 25, 2012 at 9:42 am |
      • Ian

        Oh, I know. They already pulled that stunt on Josh and I.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • Dan

      Too late on the idiot thing.

      January 25, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        You not disproving any of my points begs to differ. In fact, it kinda makes you seem like the idiot

        January 25, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Purple Belle

      I think that is humorous that you BASH the Bible and say it has been "proven wrong" yet it hasn't really. And yet almost all the scientific things have been proven wrong, and you don't ever mention it.

      January 25, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
      • Ian

        Such as....

        January 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        First of all, how have the things I mentioned from the bible not been proven wrong? There never was a global flood, civilizations take more than 2 people to start and how has a circle ever been a sphere?

        Secondly, that's how science works, you make a theory based off the evidence you have and if more evidence comes up that disproves that theory, you make a new one. This is how it progresses and becomes more accurate. And no theory is ever thrown out, just built upon.

        January 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  10. Primewonk

    The level of scientific illiteracy from many of the posters is simply astounding. It shows exactly why we now trail most countries in math and science.

    Good lord – some of these posters think that in science a theory is a guess or a hunch. And how often do we need to explain that humans did not evolve from apes or monkeys.

    The theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all of science. The fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the evidence for their theory as the folks who study evolution.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:48 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      Amen to that. Evolution is WAY better understood than gravity

      January 25, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Ian

      Thank you for that brilliant statement.

      January 25, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • Achernar

      I have been doing a lot of reading on ideas about quantum gravity lately, facinating stuff.

      To think that the holigraphic principle may be true and that the universe may actually be two dimensional is absolutely mind blowing.

      January 25, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
  11. john cougar mellenkamp

    Fritz..actually it was 4004B.C. Or the jewish calendar is 3760B.C. They think Jericho goes back 10,000 years about the time copper was discovered in the middle east. However, there is a city they dated at around 11,500 years ago which saw evidence of stone carving in the Neolithic age as evidenced by the use of flint tools to carve the statue. I feel that since food was easier to gather near the sea that since the ice age the sea level was 200 or more feet lower than today I bet therd are remains of even earlier civilizations that are even earlier still. NOT ATLANTIS..OR MAYBE HMMMMM

    January 25, 2012 at 5:22 am |
  12. Cflo71

    @Ian I am very impressed with your post. I have been in between "believing in god" and "atheist" for years now. I feel the same way, there is absolutely no evidence to prove there really is a god. however, there was several intelligence gaps with the evolution theory.

    January 25, 2012 at 4:05 am |
    • Sam

      There are gaps in ANY scientific theory, and that's what makes science so interesting. There is always more to discover and figure out and add to.

      Creationists and intelligent design advocates who like to point out the gaps in evolution don't understand how science operates. It's sad that other people listen to them.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • Primewonk

      Please list these gaps.

      January 25, 2012 at 10:16 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        Watch the (relatively) recent episode of futurama 'a clockwork origin'. Near the beginning it points out one of these gaps. It's laughable
        (season 6 episode 9)

        January 25, 2012 at 10:32 am |
  13. midas

    God created us though evolution, there is to many facts to ignore on both sides.

    January 25, 2012 at 2:27 am |
    • Primewonk

      Except that adding a god to the mix provides no additional explanatory power. It only adds a layer of complexity that is not needed.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:38 am |
  14. dudley0418

    I don't believe it's possible to measure spirituality with a scientific tool. It's like trying to measure the color blue for the way it effects different people. Certain hypothesis can be made using science but it will never explain why people prefer a particular color, food or style of music, for example. Faith is belief without reason, like loving your mother or trusting your dog. Such things cannot be measured, so it is impossible to argue them.

    January 25, 2012 at 12:23 am |
    • lemur60178

      Well said.

      Evolution explains how populations adapt to changing environments. There is no spirituality attached to that. Faith survived the loss of a geocentric universe and a global earth. It will survive the recognition of a unity to life which continues by a process which guarantees its survival....

      January 25, 2012 at 2:00 am |
  15. dudley0418

    Evolution theory attempts to explain biology. The human condition is more than just biology.

    January 25, 2012 at 12:15 am |
    • Ian

      You have to remember, though: what makes us special is our intilligence, nothing more. All our morals, ethics, meanings of life, were created by us to control our baser instincts.

      January 25, 2012 at 6:45 am |
      • Dan

        Why do you not recognize the implication in that ?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
      • Ian

        What implications?

        January 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
      • Ian

        Clearly you do not recognize nihilism when you see it.

        January 25, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Primewonk

      If humans are more than biology, please post the science that supports your contention.

      January 25, 2012 at 10:19 am |
  16. john cougar mellenkamp

    If the republican tea party was created in 6 months, the world MUST have been created in 6,000 years.

    January 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
  17. hemo

    Why are we doing this?? we are only invoking the wrath of GOD!!

    January 24, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • Ian

      I'm trembling.

      January 24, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
  18. Auintr

    Let the madness begin:

    January 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
  19. Josh

    if ignorance is bliss, this is the happiest bunch of people i have ever encountered.

    January 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
  20. do the math

    If creationism is true, then you still have to admit that we are built from 98% of the same "parts" as chimpanzees, since that's how much of our DNA is IDENTICAL. Maybe that's just another amazing sign of God's ingenuity, re-using the same blueprints as much as possible. You can believe whatever you want, but the evidence is all in favor of evolution and every day more fossils are found, and more "links" are discovered. Our cilia use the same mechanism as found in many protist species. The earth is not 10,000 years old. To believe that, is ignorance at its best.

    January 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • Ian

      Thank you!

      January 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • Math done

      Actually new evidence in biology corrects that estimate to a number closer to 95% identical. By the way, 5% of DNA and RNA is more info than all of the articles on wikipedia by 10^6.

      January 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
      • dudley0418

        righteous post.

        January 25, 2012 at 12:16 am |
  21. michael


    January 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  22. mike

    he dont be mean

    January 24, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
  23. mike

    Hello that thing u said about ian wasent nice

    January 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
  24. mike


    January 24, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
  25. Chancellor

    Agnosticism is the only sensible reasoning. I believe we can't prove any sort of Creator, religion is simply a control of population. Nor can we prove any valid form of evolution, so I laugh everytime I see a heated debate upon which the substances that are made arguable include suspending reasonable thinking. Live and let die lol

    January 24, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Someone

      Even doe I'm not antagonistic,I agree.It's stupid to argue and debate about religion and science.It's like arguing that white people are better than black,with is stupid cause all people are equal.

      January 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
      • Ian

        Yes, but religion is not equal to science. They are two completely different schools of thought.

        January 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Agnosticism is a cop out... it's like not voting in an election.

      To say we don't know is fine... but the amount of evidence proving the existence of God is exactly the same amount as the evidence proving the existence of Saturn, Horus, Vishnu, Baal, Thor, etc. Therefore, they must all exist as well... God claims to be the only god out there... he is obviously wrong as I've just "proven" the existence of other gods. God must either be imperfect, or a liar.

      The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim of existence, not the other way around. Surely you don't expect anyone to disprove the existence of elves, gnomes, leprechauns, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, minotaurs, etc.

      Seeing as no one has come forth with a magic burning bush, or miraculously parted sea, or a boat that can hold 32,000 animals, the food required to feed them all, and a way of disposing all the waste produced by these animals on a daily basis by only 8 extremely senior citizens made only of lumber and pitch...

      On the other hand, the expanded definition of evolution (gradual change over time) has been demonstrated in geology, astronomy, chemistry, palaeontology, genetics, and may others... in fact, nothing in biology makes sense OUTSIDE of evolution.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:39 am |
  26. Someone

    Science><Religion,please stop comparing the two because it's stupid.Science has theories and in Religion we just don't fully know.Maybe if people would stop comparing them and combine them we would have a better understanding!

    January 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Jason

      The evolutionist magazine Nature even admits that Darwin's theory was deeply flawed. The more I read scientific articles, the more I see how evolution is a joke and complete unscientific. It takes way more faith to believe in the lie of evolution than the fact that everything we see was designed. Just like us humans create things. Its not that far fetched.

      QUOTE: This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."–

      January 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
      • sharoom

        Wow you are quoting that completely out of context. That Nature article is not an "admission" but was written specifically to explore the question posed in the excerpt you posted: what was Darwin's view on the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution? You've only posted part of the INTRODUCTION to the article. Here is the rest of the introduction:

        "Another category is that species and higher ranks in the taxonomic hierarchy are often separated by gaps without evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution.

        Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. It is these additional principles that are of interest here because they are often forgotten in discussions of the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution.

        The keys to Darwin's thinking about macroevolution are the 'principle of divergence' and extinction. In this Review, we consider how these principles have fared since the publication of On the Origin of Species, and we discuss whether Darwin's concept of the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution can provide useful insight today. This relationship continues to generate controversy both within the biological sciences and in the confrontation between science and religion. On the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, a status report is surely in order."

        January 24, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Sharoom, you've just been introduced to the dishonesty of the quote mining creationist. Thank you for including the full quote so that those who are on the fence know the truth. Peace.

        January 26, 2012 at 1:21 am |
  27. john cougar mellenkamp

    I agree with the bible thumpers. I heard that notharctus was actually is only 6000 years old and is actually a recent ancestor of Iranian president Apeminedejad

    January 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • You are incredibly stupid

      True Christians do not believe the Earth was created in 6,000 years. Please pull your head out of your anus and then get it examined.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
      • mickey1313

        if you believe the bible is fact, then you believe the world is only 6k years old. Sucks for Sumeria since it was founded well before 4k BCE. THe bible is BS along witht eh torah and the koran, books writen by man to control men

        January 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
      • dudley0418

        Does a 6000 year figure exist in the Bible? I've read it a lot and I've never found one.

        January 25, 2012 at 12:19 am |
      • Fritz

        Nah, that 6,000 year stuff comes from this guy Bishop Ussher who calculated the age of the Earth by adding up the supposed ages of the prophets in the bible. Some christians think he's some sort of demigod...but it's all bunk, geologically speaking of course. The earth really is older than we can imagine. It's ancient. Billions of years for sure.

        January 25, 2012 at 3:18 am |
      • Jon

        i've never read in the Bible where the earth is only 6,000 years old... interesting

        January 25, 2012 at 8:47 am |
      • Dave

        Actually, the god of Abraham, YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah), is only at most 3500 years old. Many of the gods is other religions are far older.

        January 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • The Media's Agenda

      The media in America has an agenda. They will not EVER feature an article from the many thousands of reputable scientists that do NOT believe in the lie of macro evolution. That is not the only agenda they have.They have racial agenda's, political agenda's , etc. Whoever pays CNN the most money is the one who gets to publish the story. Whatever special interest group funds said media outlet is the one who gets the front page story. The evidence is out there though for any who want to find it.
      I am grateful to have met a number of scientists in my University that went against the grain. They thought for themselves. They did not allow peer pressure to dilute true science. They were not brainwashed to believe the big lie of evolution. I am grateful to them for being true to good science.

      January 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
      • Primewonk

        That's because there are no real scientists who claim evolution is false.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:32 am |
      • Ian

        You used a double negative. Clearly, someone's english courses failed them.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:51 am |
      • Entertained Tyler

        Have you noticed everytime some uses the term "true science" it's in fact junk science lol.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:59 am |
      • Dave

        Actually, there are about eight, none of whom is reputable.

        January 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        What I find funny, TMA, is that Project Steve has 1185 (as of Jan 9th 2012) scientists who have the first name Steve who SUPPORT the evolutionary theory. Now, if science was conducted by "who has the most support is obviously right" that would be something, but it's not run like that... it's actually based on the idea that there isn't a better theory out there... ANYWHERE. So all your kollege teachers should really get their theories published if they wanted to be taken seriously...

        January 26, 2012 at 1:31 am |
  28. John

    If God knows the beginning and the end; then he knows our fate. If he knows our fate, then there is no such thing as free will.

    January 24, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • kj

      What if it(he?) already knows what you're going to do without any influence. You still have free will but it just knows what you are going to do. It is all powerful and all knowing which could mean it knows everything past, present, and future

      January 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        If it knows what you're going to do no matter what then you never had a choice in the first place because you were always going to do that thing. If you didn't have a choice then you don't have free will.

        It's as easy as that.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  29. Kerry

    @Ian, @Aaron you guys are spot on with your arguments. You guys are great!!!

    January 24, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Candid Candida

      actually reading ian's comments you can see they are illogical. he contradicts himself constantly.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • Ian

        Please, point out my contradictions. I would like to improve and streamline my argument.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        All I hear is crickets, Ian... unless he's compiling an extensive list... yeah, that's gotta be it... he's making a detailed list so he can lay it all out at once... That's what's taking so long...

        January 26, 2012 at 1:33 am |
      • Ian

        @fimeilleur: Awesome response! I was wondering about the lack of a response....

        January 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
  30. just me

    Sorry for the misspelled words, typing on an i-phone sucks at times.

    January 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  31. just me

    Here is one for the bible thumbers and for the scientist. Scientist say that man originated from ape, and the bible says that man is in gods image. So the question is, is god a ape?just something for you to think about.

    January 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • Kerry

      Interesting theory... makes you think

      January 24, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Wow

      That was quite simply the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Please leave rational, logical thoughts to those of us with working brains.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Ian

      A better question would be: Is there a God?

      January 24, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Except, of course that science doesn't say we evolved from apes. We ARE apes. We share common ancestory with the other species of great apes.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:29 am |
      • Ian

        Thank you, Primework, for dignifying the last species of hominid.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • PhooBar

      There is an awful lot of quasi-religious, pseudo-philosophical B.S. generated here over one little monkey skull and a toenail.

      Let me break it down for you, Sesame Street style.
      Once upon a time, there was a funny little monkey who had a funny little toenail.
      Some people think he may be related to other funny little monkeys.
      The End.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • fimeilleur

      Man shares a common ancestry with the great apes (gorillas, orang-utans, bonobos, chimpanzees). This is like saying you share common ancestry with your 2nd cousin. Try to follow:

      Grandpa Joe Smith and Grandma Gene had two children: John and Isabelle. John married Martha, Isabelle married Micheal Jones. John and Martha had three children: Simon, Alvin and Theodore. Micheal and Isabelle had one child: YOU. Simon married Jeanette and they had a child: ME.

      So, people asking the question "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is like asking YOU "if you're related to ME, why don't you guys have the same last name?".

      I hope this clears things up.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  32. Jack

    Yes the infamous nail and grooming claw hybrid has been recovered. It explains so much about our existence.

    January 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Tori

      Haha! Good one. Too bad good science is being ruined by these atheistic media-w hore scientists. Stick to FACTS please. That is what good science is about. Not baseless assumptions.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
      • Entertained Tyler

        It's ironic you're complaining about other people using "baseless assumtions". Does that mean you have proof to your claims? Are they just baseless assumtions?!

        January 25, 2012 at 10:12 am |
      • Ian

        Who would you prefer explaining science? Evangelical preachers?

        January 25, 2012 at 10:19 am |
  33. Connie

    Ian, I think I love you. T

    January 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Josh

      i know Ian really well. He's an awesome person and probably one of the most intelligent i know, and we often have conversations on matters such as the topic of this chatroom, and on our choice to be atheists.

      January 24, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
      • Ian

        Nice to see you on here, Josh.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • LIAR!

      @ Josh, What a crock!!! You know Ian? How do you know which 'Ian' is commenting! This is so obvious that YOU are Ian simply trying to make yourself look better because that idiot stepped over himself so many times and was buried alive with facts by the Christian commenters! hahahaah

      January 24, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
      • Ian

        Because we just spoke on Facebook together.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
      • Ian

        Thanks for yet another insult. The only reason I overstepped myself is because I am out numbered. How can I prove we are two different people? How can we prove that everyone is not the same?

        January 24, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
      • Josh

        @Liar, I am actually a real individual person, thank you very much. I know Ian personally and he invited me to this chatroom, so thank you for yet another idiotic 'contribution' to this page.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • Josh

        How can we prove that I am not you on a chatroom, where just a name, created on the spot, is presented. You could be the president of France, i could be a Filipino pharmacist. How do we know you are not simply every other trolling Bible-thumper on this page, who created multiple aliases in a weak attempt to appear as a stronger united force, with still less brain cells than Ian or myself?

        January 24, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
  34. dubya

    and believing in a god that lets kids get raped is any better? evolution is proven by science, while on the other hand, no one has everf ound any physical proof ever, to link to jesus

    January 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Guest

      Everyone wants to think they're special and created by a special "god",but I think there is so much more proof that we descended from monkeys
      Like how smug some people act,especially in chat rooms.
      Good to hear someone else believes if there was a god,there wouldnt be child rape.And if there is a god and child rape,then that god is either too weak or too apathetic to be worthy of acknowledgement,much less worship

      January 24, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
      • dubya

        touche'. or starvation, aids, cancer, obama 2012 lol (sorry i coudnt resist)

        January 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
      • You cannot blame God for MAN'S BEHAVIOUR

        You could not be more wrong. The fact that evil exists does not disprove a God. That logic is deeply flawed. Think of it this way: A knife can be used to cut rope. It can also be used to kill. If someone uses the knife for EVIL means and kills someone, does that mean that the knife could not possibly have been made because it was used to kill. Its as simple as that.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

        Epicurus (c. 341-270 BCE)

        January 26, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • vds

      Not relevant

      January 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Ally

      you cannot blame rape on God, are you stupid? We make choices. If your kid goes off and kills someone, does that mean he was not created and does not have parents? No! We all make choices and have free will. Your argument is flawed.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Someone

      What? "IF"there's a "GOD" he gives us the will to do as we please.....what I heard....It's a test he is putting us threw to see how we would go by in life.At the end he judges and if you look at it from a religion point of view if you rape kids your going to hell. hmm a perfect world would be weird.....we would make no mistake or learn nothing so we would have no point of living. Perhaps evolution and the bible is link we don't know.....I still wouldn't argue that religion is better science or vice versa.....they both have flaws.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
      • Ian

        Nicely put.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
  35. Amy from Ontario

    Um, perhaps it was just designed that way. What idiot would think that this implies anything? Lots of animals spit in the face of evolution like the duck billed platypus, the fact that bumble bees should be too heavy to fly according to physicists. The list goes on and on. I enjoy scientific articles but please leave out the sci-fi about evolution. I and other intelligent beings already know it was designed by the ultimate scientist: God. Appreciating the intricate ways they were designed is not impeded by knowing it was designed. Can a person truly appreciate Starry Night if they did not understand the painter, Van Gogh, behind it? It ADDS to the appreciation and beauty. That painting PALES in comparison to natural art that was also designed.

    January 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Ian

      Thank you for being respectful and intelligent in your argument. But, again, I ask for proof of the existence of God and of Intelligent Design.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
      • Jon

        you ask for proof that there is a God... can you provide proof that there is no God?

        January 25, 2012 at 9:02 am |
      • Ian

        No Jon, I can't. But the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not me to believe.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:32 am |
      • Jon

        i disagree... i choose to believe and if you want me to not believe, then the burden of proof is on you. i never asked you to believe and i never force my beliefs on anyone... so the burden of proof is NOT on me.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:33 am |
      • Ian

        Well, it appears we are at a stalemate. But may I point out that neither of us possess concrete evidence going either direction? You have your faith, I have my lack of faith. And please, remember the First Amendment.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:39 am |
      • Jon

        i never said you could NOT believe in what you want... i respect other people's beliefs just as i expect others to respect mine. guess that goes towards you 1st amendment comment as well. i just found it interesting that you made the comment to show proof that there is a God, i assumed you had proof yourself that there was no God...

        but yes, i agree. i feel that there is no proof that there is AND that there is no God... i feel that individuals are able to make the choice for themselves to believe or not to believe.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:43 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        @ Jon
        The burden of proof is on the one making the "its true" claim. Like if I say invisible monsters are real, I'd be the one to have to prove it, not for you to prove me wrong.

        It has nothing to do with whether you want people to believe or not. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim

        January 25, 2012 at 9:49 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Jon,

        You started the dilemma with "can you prove there is no god" after Ian asked for proof of god... so this is the way it works... present your proof and allow Ian to refute it. Otherwise, you just have fingers in your ears shouting "blah, blah, blah". You then went on to say that you aren't pushing your beliefs on anyone... excellent. Thank you for that. However, there are many in the Christian community that DO try to impose their beliefs on others, by trying to introduce creationism in the science class room, by trying to post the 10 commandments in public spaces such as court houses, political offices, hell, even the presidential election. Look at the republican race: Mitt Romney isn't Xtian enough for most Americans even though Artcle 6, para 3 states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Also see the Obama muslim issue (as false as it may be). If you don't support the const1tution, you shouldn't be in the US... and like the bible, either you're all in, or not at all. You can't pick and choose parts of the const1tution you want to uphold, can you?

        That is why the atheist community fights religitards so adamantly. They are "un-American".

        January 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Aaron

      Just because science is in the process of understanding something and has yet to come up with a solution does not mean "god' had anything to do with it or that it will always be unexplainable. and by the way, no matter what argument you use, god is never an acceptable argument as it can bare no accountability or evidential proof. god is the reason idiots are idiots, because the chose not to think and think they know it all.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Dexter

      Ok, I'm sorry but how exactly does the poor little platypus "Spit" in the face of evolution? What a crack pot claim. But then again, you probably believe that this entire universe was made in 7 little days, by a supremely powerful god that needed a day to rest, yeah.... very likely *sarcasm*

      January 24, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • BlueTemplar

      @Ian Ahh. Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. Know where I got that from? Evolutionists over the still missing link.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
      • Ian

        Well then please provide some proof that:
        a: God has interfered with the universe
        b: The Christian God is the real one
        The Bbile is not a credible source, either.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Genie

        @ Ian, have you ever examined the Bible? People like you are no different than any other bias, ignorant fool. If you had examined the Bible and cross referenced it, you would find like millions have that it is scientifically, archaologically, medically, and historically sound. I have spent many decades examining it. While people have tried to disprove it, they time and time again have to eat crow because they are wrong. An ancient tablet or reference work belies their claims and silences them. While HUMANS erroneously believed for centuries that the world was flat, the BIble thousands of years before said that 'God is dwelling above the CIRCLE of the Earth'. While people thought that the Earth was sitting on top of an elephant or some other idiotic beast, the Bible truthfully revealed that 'God is hanging the Earth upon NOTHING'. Those are just two striking examples.
        Aaron, please do the research for yourself and leave your infantile bias behind. Accept truth for what it is and then you will finally grow as a human being.

        Thank You.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
      • Ian

        Genie, I have read and researched the bible. The issue is that there is no concrete proof. Medically, the bible is about as accurate asa musket. And a "circle" is not an oblate sphere, like the earth actually is.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
      • Josh

        @Genie, so circles aren't flat now? what imaginary deity told you that? perhaps you should spend more time examining a geometry textbook rather than the fairy tales in the Bible...

        January 24, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
      • Ian

        Genie, I would like to point out that the Elephant idea originated in India. Also consider Atlas, and the idea that the World was carried by turtles.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • Genie

        @ Josh, I am not even going to dignify that asinine comment with an answer. You are the same as fundamentalist christians. You present truths to them and they just urinate all over it. Could you be any more stupid? MY POINT was that people thought the earth was a FLAT BOARD LIKE OBJECT, NOT A CIRCLE. *Sigh*. You must be 12 or something if you cannot grasp my argument. Pathetic tool.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
      • Josh

        Sorry Genie, you're right. I guess my comment didn't make much sense. Then again, I am high as a kite rightnow ! hahaha

        January 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
      • Ian

        @Josh's imitator: You're an ass. You've sunk low enough to start impersonating people and claiming they're on drugs. If you had a shred of courage or honor you wouldn't do that.

        January 24, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
      • Josh

        @Genie and my impersonator, you don't have enough dignity or intelligence to write comments under your own alias, and so resort to the lowest form of idiocy by attempting to imitate people much more intelligent than yourselves. And you have the courage to go as far as to say my comment regarding Genie's referral to a circle not being a flat shape is the likes of a 12 year old...

        January 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Genie, please tell us again how to cure leprosy? Do you kill the second bird? or release him after you've declared the sick clean?

        And if King Herod died approximately 4 years before the birth of your Christ, why would his ghost try to kill 1 year old Jesus?

        Are these some of the medical and historical references you're holding on to?

        January 26, 2012 at 1:55 am |
    • Uncovering Truth

      @ Aaron: Why do you still have to resort to name calling? It is because you know you are wrong. Sorry, you are. The reality is that the more science advances, the more proof there is that it was designed, not less. Even Darwin admitted that there were no intermediate links found in that day, and there are definitely none today. He even says so in the Origin of the Species book. You cannot cherry pick what you feel fits in with your prejudiced views. A TRUE humble person will ADMIT when they are wrong and accept the truth. Here is the quote to see for yourself:

      ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES:He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution was true.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
      • Ian

        Credible, peer reveiwed scientific sources, please. And the sources should probably be written by a scientist, not a minister or journalist.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
      • Uncovering Truth

        Ian, are you blind? I quoted it. Its from The Origin of the Species' written by Charles Darwin. Try reading before you spout your mouth off.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
      • Ian

        I apologize, that was for something else. My mistake.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I'll touch on two things you stated. Firstly, directed to Aaron, you say he resorts to name calling. How so? His statement was this is why idiots stay idiots. No where did I find him say "you (or anyone) are an idiot". See, that is name calling... otherwise, he was just making a fact claim.

        Secondly. Why so few fossils and no transitional fossils... you have to understand the fossilization process... not enough room on this chat board... take a book out from the library... science section, not religion or philosophy... As to transitional fossils, I am pretty sure you will ONLY accept a 100% complete lineage (mother to child to grandchild to great grandchild...) to prove one species became another.... where did I see something like that before... OH right. The Bible... the book of Luke gives 41 ancestors to link Jesus to Adam... PROOF Jesus was from the line of Abraham and David therefore he fulfils the prophecy... or do we take the book of Matthew that only lists 26 ancestors all the way to Abraham... Ouch... that one's hard to reconcile.

        So you accept the Bible's failed list, but reject evolution's partial list that can never be completed to the standards that you demand of it. That is a nice double standard that you have.

        January 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
      • Ian

        Now that I look at this again, it is clearly qoute mining.

        January 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
  36. Ian

    I love how you bible thumpers are always trolling science articles. Get a life. And please, don't tell me to "read my bible."

    January 24, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • michael

      i like cheese

      January 24, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Dana Carvings

      I am more of an agnostic, but it seems to me Ian that the christian commenters all had valid arguments and quoted from various sources whereas the atheists like yoruself are just rude without any proof whatsoever. That is why I can't stand atheists sometimes. You guys are so rude and you never have any proof.

      January 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
      • Ian

        You are right, atheists tend to be rude, but so do christians. Also, these people come here prepared to do this; I came here looking for intelligent conversation on human evolution, but got dogmatic religous beliefs.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
      • Dana Carvings

        ? I didn't see any dogmatic religious beliefs. I saw someone quote from Darwin's own book. I didn't see anyone quote the Bible.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • Ian

        There were some, but not direct.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
      • theresa

        Dana, I have been asking that question for many years! Why are athiests so often rude?

        January 24, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
      • Ian

        @theres; Because we have been persecuted for so long.

        January 24, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
      • Jon

        not as long as Christians have been...

        January 25, 2012 at 8:55 am |
      • Sam

        Yes, but they are using Darwin's quotes out of context and the articles they are quoting, too. This is what opponents of evolution do. They cherry pick. Do you want me to sit here and quote the rest of the Origin of Species and go through all of the articles they wrongly quoted?? Why is it on me or Ian to do so? Why don't they go and read the whole book? Or quote articles that refute the articles they quote? I think people like Ian are just tired of trying to prove a point when all the evidence is right there for the creationists to read and study. I've done my share of studying and working, and I'm sure Ian has as well. I guess it's just a matter of stamina and fatigue.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:00 am |
      • Ian

        Thanks, Sam, for pointing out the qoute mining; these people selectivley qoute to meet their needs.

        January 25, 2012 at 9:31 am |
      • Ian

        And Jon, Christianity has been the dominant Western religion for the past 1500 years. Have you ever heard of heretic burning? Or modern American anti-intellectualism? Or maybe even secularism?

        January 25, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  37. hahaha

    A fossil? Shouldn't there be millions of these types of things? Evolutionist scientists are so incredibly stupid.

    January 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • Ian

      No, there shouldn't. Bones break down, and get damaged all the time. Also, very specific conditions are required for fossilization to occur.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
      • Dexter

        Thank you Ian for showing some intelligence, as opposed to the lack of in the "intelligent Design" morons who still desperately try to claim science for their bronze age religion.

        January 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
      • Ian is an idiot

        Wow, desperate much? Why is it that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that each animal was fully formed and within its kind and yet NOTHING in the fossil record shows any transitional creature whatsoever. Show me the proof of evolution. THERE IS NONE.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
      • Graham

        On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • WRONG

      But we have fossils of nothing but complete whole animals. Do dinosaurs ring a bell you incredibly stupid individual?

      January 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
      • Ian

        No, we don't. Look up Spinosaurus and Irratator.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
      • Sam

        The complete fossils you see in museums are sometimes put together with bones from different dinosaurs. Idiot.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:56 am |
  38. NY C

    If macro-evolution were true, we would find ENDLESS half formed and transitional parts COVERING this Earth. Alas, there are NONE. But go ahead and keep trying to beat that dead horse. No reputable scientist agrees with macro-evolution anyways. It breaks all the laws of science.

    January 24, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Ian

      Again, fossils are rare because of the condition necessary for their fromation. And don't go for the "useless half-formed whale argument" here. If you actually did some research on both subjects, you might have a clue about ehat you are talking about.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Aaron

      Can you please stop acting like you know what you are talking about? Just because something dies and become buried in the ground does not necessarily means it becomes fossilized. Someone's high school education failed them horribly, assuming you got through that much!?

      January 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Erik P

      Very true NY C. The fossil record holds ZERO evidence supporting evolution. Its the biggest lie of the 20th century and stupid people fell for it hook, line, and sinker like Ian here.

      January 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • Ian

        Thank you for your personal attack. I would like to point out that I have a fairly religous family, yet I am atheist. Fuerthermore, you have fallen for the greatest lie in history, religion. There is empirical evidence for evolution, yet no scientific and provable evidence for God or creationism.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
      • Ian

        Also, Evolution came out in the 19th century.

        January 24, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Uncovering Truth

      Aaron, of course people know not everything is fossilized. But NONE of the fossils show intermediate transitional creatures. I will quote again Darwin's own words admitting that he could be wrong, and in fact, he is.

      He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution was true.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Josh

        so because orange is the intermediate color between yellow and red, you are saying we should recognize it only as orange and not a step between two other colors?

        January 24, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
      • Ian

        Yes, there is. Look at hte change of saurian species from the early Triassic to the Late Creatacious up to the KT Event.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
      • Sam

        No, it isn't an accurate picture. No evolutionary biologist will say that. And if they do, they are a bafoon. If you consider that most life on planet earth is soft bodied (bacteria, eukaryotes, archae, cnidarian, worms, etc) we will NEVER have a totally accurate picture of evolution.

        Darwin did what any good scientist will do and that is to have a little bit of doubt about your theory. You can't say the same for creationists.

        January 25, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • Sam

      May I make a recommendation? Enroll in a community college and take a course in archaeology. Fossils are not abundant considering how many animals have lived on this planet. We're lucky to find the ones we do, and that's why it's such a big deal when we find them.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:43 am |
  39. Sancho

    Mucho lamo

    January 24, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Ian

      Tu eres un mono muy estupido. Tu no tienes mucho inteligencia, y eres es ordinario, y un ano. No tienes una vida? Que disafortunatamente.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
      • dubya

        sweet. thats a second language burn.

        January 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
      • Kerry

        @Ian se nota que el espanol no es tu idioma principal, pero muy bien hecho. Me has impresionado imensamente

        January 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm |

      Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

      January 24, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
      • Ian

        And we see them change. Ever hear of drug-resistant bacteria? Or is that God's way of punishing us for our sins?

        January 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
      • Samples

        Ian you dolt, it is still BACTERIA!!!!! It does not change into anything else! It did micro-evolve but it will never MACRO evolve into a chicken or anything else. *Sigh*. You failed miserably in this chat. Please leave and stop embarrassing yourself.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
      • Ian

        The bacteria stay bacteria because they have no need to further mutate; they are extremely successful in their microscopic state.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
      • Ian

        Considering I am practically standing on my own, besides Josh, Aaron and the few others, I am doing fairly well, considering how outnumbered I am.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
      • Entertained Tyler

        @ Ian


        January 25, 2012 at 10:33 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Ian, Sorry I'm late to the dance...

        Bacteria is still bacteria... yes... and vertebrates are still vertebrates... MPEIAL, see what I did there? Do you see how broad your definition of bacteria is?

        How about proof the Bible is a lie? Historically inaccurate, medically unsound, morally unethical, geographically questionable (Nazareth was first referenced around 200 archeological excavations dating around the time of the Roman empire... hmmmmm makes you wonder if the city was created to justify the story... maybe to satisfy the queen of the Holy Roman Emperor... who was on a pilgrimage in the area... and built a church there... "Please spend your money here")

        January 26, 2012 at 2:14 am |
  40. Dave

    Cute. I love how evolutionists are always grasping at straws with these kinds of things. Huge fail on their part. Oh well, how can you prove a lie anyways?

    January 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Ian

      And how do you prove YOUR lie?

      January 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
      • Ian

        I guess I am out of my league here. Evolution is taught at schools as if it is a fact and I just blindly believed it I guess. Back to the drawing board for me.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
      • Ian

        Hey, fake Ian! If you have to resort to claiming to be me, at leat post in the same style as me. I do believe evolution is a fact, because it is. And my Bio class hasn't even reached evolution yet.

        January 24, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
      • Ian

        Also, science is very important to me. And, after seeing the American resistance to science, I think I might go work for the Europeans... or the Chinese...

        January 24, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • Aaron

      Yeah and the god argument isn't grasping at straws??? At least fossils are concrete evidence that life existed past 6000 years ago, the idea of god leaves nothing to grasp for because IT DOESN'T EXIST! AMAZING!

      January 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • Ian

        No, you forgot! All those fossils over 6000 years old are Satan's doing, to confuse God's children! (Ssrcasm off)

        January 24, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
      • Dr. Brown

        Sorry Ian. No one believes that. Your attempt at smearing those who believe in Creator to make yourself appear smarter fails terribly. Please leave this discussion.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
      • Ian

        @Dr. Brown: I've had people tell me that, so clearly some do.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • .

      @ Aaron, you are a complete moron. I will say this slowly because apparently you are too stupid to grasp this: THERE ARE NO FOSSILS SUPPORTING EVOLUTION. Got it? Re read it because you seem like you just got off the short bus. Leave science to those of us that can actually comprehend it. Thanks.

      January 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
      • Ian

        Please cite a credible source for your reasons, and also explain why you believe Aaron is a moron. There are plenty of fossils that support evolution; look at the whales' ancestors, or Archaeopterex.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
      • Ian

        Please cite a credible source for your reasons, and also explain why you believe Aaron is a moron. There are plenty of fossils that support evolution; look at the whales' ancestors, or Archaeopterex. And no, the Bible does not count as a credible source. Thank you for your very rude contribution to a psuedo-intelligent discussion, and have fun degrading our scientific community and setting us back to the Middle Ages.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
      • Gina

        Um, even the most basic scientific knowledge would tell you that all known mutations in living beings are neutral, harmful, or fatal. They never produce benefit to the creature. Its like believing that a short-circuit in a motherboard could somehow improve its performance!!! I don't know, it seems like basic logic to me. But if someone is bent on not believing in God, then don't. He certainly isn't making you. I for one am happy to do so and it enhances my interest in biology and other fields of science.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
      • Ian

        @Gina: Neutral mutations can be benificial; i.e., the development of lungs from swim bladders in ancient fish. Yes, it was a total screwup on the part of the fish's DNA, but look were we are now. And thank you for respecting my spiritual beliefs. It is hard to find that in the modern age.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Evidence is all around us

      God story? That's hilarious. If every single human on the face of this earth has no issues grasping that something as simple as a WATCH was designed, how much more for the incredibly complex cell let alone a complete being? You see, your desperation to grasp at straws that are scientifically impossible to even exist takes FAR MORE FAITH than believing that CREATION requires a CREATOR. I pity people like you. I am so fortunate that my father who is a biologist and also accepts the EVIDENCE of a God is intelligent and humble to do so. He taught me so much and I came to appreciate the natural world around me and WHO designed it. What an empty and pathetic and uneducated person you are if you can actually look at the BILLIONS of life forms and think it all was purposeless blind chance. That is absolutely pathetic.

      January 24, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • Ian

        Please use proper grammar. And try to be decent towards other people.

        January 24, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
      • Sammy

        That is a great argument. I never thought of it that way. Thanks evidence.

        January 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
      • kcdude


        January 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
      • Auintr

        Argument from design, the watchmaker analogy, the fine-tuning argument, and so on, mixed into a zelous and, ironically, condescending rant, makes your comment quite amusing to read. It does, of course, bring nothing new to the table. Let's just say people why know what they are talking about are running the show these days, and that the maddened, frothing around the mouth, backwards people have lost all power in the enlightened world.

        January 24, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
      • Ian

        Thank you, Auntr. Finally, some sanity.

        January 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I think I read this from the Banana Man and his stool pigeon Kirk Cameron... or was it that completely heteros3xual Kent Hovind...

        Opens the door to the question :who created the creator? EVERYTHING HAS A CREATOR RIGHT? infinite regression... leads to infinite creators... why not cut the BS and just stop at things we REALLY have... objects... no supernatural required.

        January 26, 2012 at 2:20 am |


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer