text:
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.
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.
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.
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.
fact is dear boy, you see what you want to see. you can't see evolution, only two extremely different species
Actually, penguins do fly, just underwater. The propulsive actions are more or less the same.
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.
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.
A theory is a theory.
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.
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.
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.
Dawkins is a clown denying the fossil record. Evolution as a means to species was never a theory under the scientific method.
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!!!!
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.
Oh come on Ric, you don't even know what a theory is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Where does a physics giant such as yourself believe black box radiation comes from Ric? :)
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
From your posts here it is a certainty that you do not work in physics Ric.
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.
I hold a masters in ee goofball. Is posting here making a fool of yourself all you have to do?
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.
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.
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????
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.
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.
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!
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.
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"
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!
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
You sir are a moron. Go back to School.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
Species occur rapidly following a mass extinction, thee opposite of evolution.
Gravity is also a theory. So go out and test that.
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.
Robbs, you are completely wrong.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
My now dogmatic you are!
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.
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
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.
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.
That flame was brought to you by ...
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.
Your preaching to the Choir, need to explain that to Mississippi, Alabama, and few other states
"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.
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.
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.
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.
michelle o'bama doesn't look anything like a chimpanzee
I see why Berry loves Mooshel.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Aren't you going to miss church?
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.
Evolution is just a theory? So is gravity, and I'd say it's pretty legit...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Anyone who utters the phrase "just a theory" is just an idiot and likely of the religious zealot variety.
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."
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.
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.
Yeah, but that's all just your theory.
Gravity is just a theory too..
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.
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.
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
Man created God in his own image – not the other way around.
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.
Please read completely.
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.
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')."
Wrong Kyle, a theory is experimentally demonstrable and repeatable; under the scientific method.
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.
Evolution as a means to species was once a notional hypothesis, under the scientific method, but now it is false.
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.
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.
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.
You're very glib, aren't you?
Michelle Obama???
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.
Theory under the scientific method means experimentally demonstrable and repeatable, something Darwin's notional hypothesis never was.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Science is something you know nothing about Ric, but you have made a religion out of evolution.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Once again evolution as a means to species has never been a theory under the scientiffic method.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article said nothing that hasn't been well known for decades.
time moves on.
another generation.
maybe they will read.
And you can turn your lights off
No mention of sunscreen, tho.
I have a question for the Creationists, not directly connected to this article. If everything was created only 6000 years ago, why do we see objects in the sky that are more than 6000 light years away. This means that the light from these objects has been travelling towards us since before the universe began and there the objects themselves were in existence BEFORE the Universe began. There are two possible explanations for this which will still comply with your belief that everything began 6000 years ago. The first is that nothing is this far away and the scientists have simply measured the distances incorrectly. The second is that when the Universe was created it was made to LOOK as though it had been around for a lot longer.
Which one is it?
I have a question for the Creationists, not directly connected to this article. If everything was created only 6000 years ago, why do we see objects in the sky that are more than 6000 light years away. This means that the light from these objects has been travelling towards us since before the universe began and there the objects themselves were in existence BEFORE the Universe began. There are two possible explanations for this which will still comply with your belief that everything began 6000 years ago. The first is that nothing is this far away and the scientists have simply measured the distances incorrectly. The second is that when the Universe was created it was made to LOOK as though it had been around for a lot longer.
Which one is it?
I am studying to be an elder in the United Methodist Church. I feel rare as I do believe in evolution and do not believe it devalues creation at all. Why can't a creator push our species from a common ancestor that made us unique and built in his image. I argued this same point you have made once to a friend who used a psalm which was used in context to show the beauty of God. The verse said something along the lines of "he stretched the heavens." believing God must have stretched light which in my opinion was not what it meant. Someone else mention wormholes that would make light access us from different points in space and making the distance shorter.
a very interesting thought I believe is Genesis 1: 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
Why couldn't the dust that is mention be meaning to the evolution process that God took a single cell organism evolved it over millions of years eventually splitting it from other creations and making us! Beings of intellect and creativity, beings who are similar to him! We are able to love,build, and change the world around us.
The vast majority of seminaries that train pastors DO NOT teach nor believe the world is only 6000 years old.
This is a minority held belief.
I'm a Creationist because I believe what the Bible says. However, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. It simply tells us that "in the beginning" God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:2 tells us that before the Creation story that starts in verse 3, the earth was already there because the earth was without form and void. In Genesis 1:28, God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. It's impossible to replenish something that has just been created. We can tell from the Bible how old Adam and Eve are but we cannot tell how old the earth is or any other living things that may have been here before Adam and Eve.
Do you read and believe the book on which you faith is based, or is it a loose collection of guidelines to you? If it is true, it claims that you are made by hand, by God. If that's true, then you can't have evolved. It sounds like you've signed up for a gig you can't actually play.
As someone else already pointed out, the bible says God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was void and without form. It doesn't say how 'old' the earth is. I believe that God created the earth, and everthing in it. I believe that humans were created in Gods image, and that we have been a separate species from apes from the begining. I also believe that God gave His creations the ability to adapt, and yes , evolve in order to survive.
The vast majority of seminaries that train pastors DO NOT teach nor believe the world is only 6000 years old.
This is a minority held belief.
O good! I do my classes online at the moment, but in my home town it seems they want to believe in the 6000 years. I actually think we have written history over 6000 years old right? maybe I am wrong on that though I never was good at history!
it may appear that evolution is the fact that some would obliterate with baseless dogma.
But my guess is that the "real-righting" to-bring-back-the-good-old-days is to make the physical universe revolve around some spot on planet earth.
My word, a christian that actually thinks! You had better watch out or they will drum out of the church. When you start relying on that peice of christian fiction called the bible you will have taken a giant step toward thinking for yourself and that, my friend, is forbidden in the cult of christianity! However, we athiests will leave room in our crowd for you.
Matthew, this sums up pretty much what any biblical scholar will teach you in any major seminary in North America today.
Jamie Mosley, Matthew above sums it up very well.
Some of the greatest living scientists of this age (Francis Collins) are strong born again Christians and they are embraced by both science and faith. The Vatican has a world class astronomy center in Arizona that teaches on creation and the big bang and the evolution of the universe.
because the bible does not say a couple of millions years, it says god created man in one day, and if one day to god is a million years then he should have said that , if your god is so infallable, why would he confuse his creation man, with a book that condradicts how long it took him to make the final products, thats like saying man i cook these cookies just for you and then you go in the kitchen and find the cookie box from the bakery, you start to think why would this person tell me a fib like that just serve the cookies say they are good and see if I enjoy them, if they are good i don't care if they are homebaked or store bought, if it took 1 million years to create us or more then say so don't say i created you in one day hell i created all of this in 7 days which we all know is not true,
Because if Everything started from one point and went out there from, the light we are seeing from those distant stars was once very close! Next question!
It has no proof. God can make anything appearing as he wishes.
I'm not sure I understand you here Paul. I am not talking about the Big Bang here, which appears to have happened 13.7 Billion years ago, but the simple fact that we can see objects in space that we can accurately measure to be say 10000 light years away. This means that we can actually see them as they were 10000 years ago, which is 4000 years before some fundamentalists believe the universe was created. It does not matter if they were closer to us at one point as we are now seeing them as they were 10000 years ago.
I do realise that as many of you have said, the view that everything is only 6000 years old, is a very small minority view. Personally, I have no problem with any belief on the Universe or Evolution as long as it does not attempt to nullify the facts. As a result I have no problem with the Universe being created to look a certain way, to fit in with th scientific evidence.
How do you know the things that you are observing are true? How do you know God didn't want us to look the things the way we see it? God can make anything appear as new as it was born yesterday or as old as it was born 13.7 billion years ago.
And hence we have no free will, as such the entire Bible fails.
And this boys and girls, is the reason why we need you to study in school and learn about science.
Otherwise you'll be condemned to spouting misguided nonsense and live in baseless fear for the rest of your lives.
Dad killed me for these twits?
Afraid so. Hey, let's really screw with them and talk about how there's a duality of good and evil and both are embodied in the form of deities.
Please, keep your daughter in your church so she can marry someone like you. I imagine you don't have a job that pays beyond 30 dollars an hour which proves my point that your not capable of getting good grades in a University. The children of Scientist will marry others whose I.Q. are as high as them or even higher, and in the end your grandchildren will become as apes when observing those that will become like Gods.
After reading Andyx3's comments I have to say I now believe in the theory of evolution. Andy or a monkey: what is the difference? Nothing.
i have a college degree, make a 6 figure salary and I am a Christian. Being a Christian is more important then making a lot of money or obtaining a college degree. Being a Christian is the part of me that makes me successful at work and home. I am a better coworker, mother, wife, and friend because of it.
DB, yes I am a monkey, but a highly evolved one. I can reason and understand math, language, science, art, and logic unlike my primitive ancestors. I don't doubt that you have a college degree, but having a college degree doesn't mean you have genetic materials that help you to see reality. Some people who are mental patients keep loosing their sense of reality because there is some chemical imbalance in their minds. If you don't believe in evolution then you are missing a key component in your genes that doesn't allow you to discover things or it doesn't allow you to solve complex problems like Einstein. If your just joking with me because you feel sorry for others then I can clearly say your very intelligent and your mind is complete.
DB, "Being a Christian is the part of me that makes me successful at work and home. I am a better coworker, mother, wife, and friend because of it."
And for this I feel sorry for you. Do you not think it more pure if you were able to be the best of those things (coworker,mother,wife,friend) knowing that you can do whatever you want on earth, and when your life is over there are no eternal consequences? True freedom is very refreshing and I believe allows people to be the best they can. You can be better than needing religion. Have a pleasant evening.
Its obvious this article hit the nerve of many people. Maybe some don't want to hear the truth about their bloodline, so they will bash the article to hold on to the lies they believe they should hold on to. If there was an Adam and Eve, face it we are from the same dark seed.
>some don't want to hear the truth
why should they?
they got the monopoly on it.
Wow! You do sound angry ... Angry hypocrite, not Christian .. Much like conservatives and faux news people
Sorry berticode, but it has been proven that the angry ones are liberals, not conservatives. Nice try.
If Christians were born sinners that's fine they should volunteer to lock themselves up in prison for being born guilty. Me, I would rather remain free as an intellect.
No, we are born atheists. How do I know this? Because it takes a society that conjured up this mythology to tell us that this god exists. If it were otherwise, we'd be born with the knowledge that this god exists. After all, if he is so benevolent, loving, compassionate, and in other ways far-out and funky, why doesn't he show his face (if he has one) to us at the moment we first see our mother's face? It IS our current mythology that will, with the passage of time, go the way of the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods. Maybe not in our lifetime, but mark my words. It will happen.
Hey, that's Donald Trump's picture.
Got to you didnt I! STOP USING MY NAME Boyger!
Atheists are very open minded. That's why we're atheists. One thing YOUR type doesn't understand is, that most atheists were believers FIRST! Unlike you, we kept an open mind, and learned the truth.
So what is truth. And within the context of your answer please explain how you are open-minded when it comes to believers of different faiths. Or is your faith the only true one?
Ayn Rand and other Objectivists would state that we still have free will, and yet still declare to be an atheist. Even if you wouldn't/don't agree with Objectivism, the following is something to chew on: Self-responsibility without God can still make sense.
When you're an Atheist,you can no longer ascribe your mistakes as part of devils machination in order to waylay your faith in God.You no longer have the option of chalking any irresponsible acts as something that Satan or the malevolent spirits made you do.You are held morally answerable to your own action as Jesus's forgiveness is no longer an out for you.Hence,Atheism requires that an individual must be morally strong and intellectually complete.And I dare say,you're on a very long way from becoming one my friend.
I'm as white as they come with freckles all over my body. Explain that Mrs. super special brilliant anthropologist
U cant handle the truth!
Liberal Playbook – Play 1- White guy bad!
I knew you were joking because you sounded too stupid to be human. Catholic priest rape boys because they are stupid and they subject themselves to celibacy if their biology demands they breed. They turn their uncontrollable desires towards the male gender believing that God will not punish them as harshly. Another reason a person with a low I.Q. might become a priest is because they might believe the employment opportunities are great.
Ungawa to that!
If Obama had a son...:)
Monkeys look more white with those thin lips and small nose. Like that missing woman found pic. But then some whites look like pigs too.. Lmao
well it does have some important life lessons....like these for example...
Exodus 21:20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Leviticus 25:44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
The reason that many of you can't understand evolution is because you have never taken genetics...Or you didn't pay attention when you did...Seriously, if you understood a little bit about transcription,translation, & protein synthesis, evolution would not be that difficult to comprehend. I'm not writing off the possibility of a creator, but to completely write off evolution is nonsense...better yet, ignorance.
I'm sorry for posting all this crap, but I really am a bark chomping moron.
Forgive me?
The evolutionists laugh at the creationists for their belief in God and intelligent design. And granted, we can clearly see evolution has taken place with many species. What is also funny is that the evolutionists would never believe that one race is more evolved than another because they cling to the political correctness religion - despite the evidence.
it is not about laughing.
It is about having no facts, to back up in-your-face physical reality, being passed off as critical thinking, that makes it shocking and not a laughing matter.
Further amplified, from a country that has nuclear weapons, making ignorant comments like US House Representative Broun MD. Got to wonder what kind of nut job medical school passed this fool onto the public.
Why there is a monkey there? Not a white ape?
Again a loser! Use my name, You do that because my facts are TRUTH!
The lack of understanding of basic science concepts in these posts is frightening. Evolution is considered a scientific fact, which means that all known evidence supports it. Scientific fact can change if the evidence supports another theory. The biggest mistake science made about evolution is to state that humans evolved from monkeys because people who apparently are uneducated think a chimp can turn into a person. This will not happen. Millions of years ago, we had common ancestors. There have been many species of monkeys and human-like animals between that ancestor and our current forms.
I can tell your brain structure is highly evolved like Eisenstein. Just me, scares me, his behavior is equal to that of a raging chimp, I guess he is not as evolved as us. I hope he keeps his daughter away from our kids who are studying in the Universities. He will definitely pollute the gene pool and ruin our grandchildren who need every ounce of genius they can get to stay ahead of evolving technologies.
@Francis – you are absolute correct - the people who argue against the science facts that comprise the theory of evolution must be living in the woods in rural Missouri and get their science educations from Sunday school. They are functionally no different than the Taliban. They propose wiping every person from the earth that does not believe in their fairy tale and ghost stories. They advocate for a system of disinformation and brainwashing for their children and ours emphasizing false history and fake science. These people – left to their own devices – would take over the country and put us all back in the slave bonds of perverse religion – where people symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a jewish zombie believing that if they telepathically accept him as their master that he will allow them to live forever in paradise by removing an evil force from our souls put their because a talking snake told a ribless women to eat fruit from a magical tree!!
Evolution as a means to species was never a theory under the scientific method.
I see no difference between those who believe in science and those who believe in religion. It all boils down to be an argument of faith. Each side must have faith to believe because neither side has absolute proof. The only difference I see between the two is the search. One determines the search is complete and the other still looks. But faith...it is all about faith and neither side has the lock on faith.
Science takes nothing on faith. Everything must be tested, proven, and peer reviewed.
Faith didn't create the airplane, antibiotics, mass produced fertilizer to feed the world's people by taking nitrogen from the air, the light bulb, the printing press, anesthetics, too many other medicines to name, electronic/photonic computers and communication connecting the world, electricity to power the world, the refrigerator to preserve food, pasteurization to preserve food, medical devices like X-Rays, NMR, ultrsound, stethoscope, optical and other sensors like telescopes, microscopes to open our awareness of the universe at many more scales, artificial materials like plastics,...
Scientists and engineers did.
What has religion done?
put all the existential spin you want.
Science has the quality control standard called 5 sigma, look it up on wikipedia.
When a faith healer can heal 2 million people, or at least correctly diagnose the physical reality 5 sigma deviation in a row; then that is the religion I should consider joining.
If you see the invention of electricity as direct product of the bible, and all the modern inventions related to, point it out, don't skip the hindu's or the animists with their sacred texts.
Andyx3s – YOUR STUPID SON CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE EARTH, I WON'T WANT HIS IQ OF STUPIDITY TO BE TRANSFORMED TO ANY OF MY HUMAN GENERATION. KEEP YOUR APE SON IN A CAGE.
I bet that monkey looks a lot like your mother.
That's because he is my mother.
And I'm a big idiot! In case you didn't notice...
So, Mr. Just Me. I guess your demeanor is no different than a wild raging chimp. You just contradicted yourself, you have something in common with apes. I don't have an angry temperament and my I.Q. level was tested at 150.
My IQ tested at 58. I'm an imbecile.
dear just bipolar me: seek help.
Did none of no one even finish high school? A scientific theory is different from the normal use of the word theory. Gravity is also a theory so I guess we shouldn't believe in that either. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It is a fact that this happens. Why do you think there are different breeds of dogs? Why do we have to get a different flu shot every year? Why are our vegetables so much bigger than in earlier times? We've been doing artificial evolution for hundreds of years and we can literally observe evolution happening in viruses and bacteria. We can also look at bone structures of earlier populations and we know they looked different.
Haha well I guess I never finished English class.
My mom, too.
You don't have to be agnostic to understand evolution. The Catholic Church itself believes in evolution. You can be both intelligent and religious if you try.
Like I said before, your brain structure is not the same as Albert Einsteins, please keep your daughter away from intellects and make sure she marry a Chrysler auto worker with a low I.Q. Please don't pollute the gene pool of intellectual people.
You can find Jesus in the light socket, stick your tongue in there for a blessing!
I did that when I was a little boy.
Great article! please add more informative pieces like this. As you can tell by these comments, general scientific knowledge is severely lacking. You're providing a much needed service!
Mike Litoris – IF YOU WOULD JUST STOP BEING SO STUPID AND CLOSED MINDED, YOU WOULD READ THAT ADAM AND EVE HAD DAUGHTERS. YOU STUPID ATHEISTS WANTS TO LECTURE US ABOUT THE BIBLE, YET, YA CAN'T EVEN FIND THE SCRIPTURE WHERE IT STATES THAT ADAM AND EVE HAD DAUGHTERS. NOW, GO APE, GO FIND ME THE SCRIPTURE OF WHAT I SAID SO YOU CAN STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A DAMN FOOL!!
So Adam had daughters and then banged them? Cool story bro? Did the talking snake watch?
You are an idiot. Don't argue things you aren't well versed in. It makes you seem quite foolish.
At the proposed time of Adam and Eve, there were hundreds of thousands of people living all over the planet. Please educate yourself.
This is a Science page for the discussion of science, nobody is preaching anything to you, you came into the domain of science, I'm sorry I had to correct you.
Are you sure your a bible reading Christian? Last I heard, Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able.
Worst, most offensive comments ever. I am now convinced that either (a) we are still years away from a post-racist society; or (b) the current phase of evolution is turning most of us into trolls.
I grew up with these god-fearing anti-science people.I was smart enough to move to more liberal environments. My grown-up children are grateful
"I'm smart"
What happened to the talking snakes?
Like I said before, my son is studying in Harvard and he is a computer major. Please, keep your daughter away from him because I don't want my grandchildren to inherit your I.Q. level.
Im certain your overachieving pretend son will be safe.
George Bush – THE TALKING SNAKES PREACH CONTRARY TO THE WORD OF GOD DAY IN AND DAY NIGHT.....LIKE YOU.
So I evolved from a talking snake? Get your stories straight.
Are you that stupid? Insects, mammals, birds, and fish are different creatures. Did you ever go to school?
People who argue the merits of the theory of evolution ought to read the theory first.
Ah, everyone, look at the little troll! He's soooooooooooooooooo cute. He spouts ignorant nonsense, claiming to actually have the opinion of a bigot, but really he just wants attention. You just want to eat him up!
still reading right through you just me. nice try again.
Just Me, any chance you might be familiar with the name and works of Richard Dawkins? No, I thought not. Here's a tip, pick up a copy of his book The Greatest Show on Earth. He'll spell out for you very directly, though in terms that are probably way over your head, that evolution is no longer a theory. It is, indeed, fact. Yes, we do have a common ancestor with all other life forms on earth. I'm sorry you're still gullible enough to believe fairytales that feature talking snakes and lily-white people who supposedly came from a very dark-skinned region of this planet. And, no, the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. Time to wake up and smell the toast, dearie!
read some books that arent the bible. evolution goes further back than apes – chickens and ducks have a common ancestor. chimps and humans do too.
besides, if evolution – which is merely the change in genetic trates in organisms through generations – isnt real, how do you explain the existence of dogs, which we all know were bred from wolves. and isnt it funny that wolves still exist too.
PLEASE keep repeating that to as many people as you can... You are making creationists look stupider than any rational person ever could.
we are all born atheists.
Nice display of literacy, Mr. ALL CAPS!
The theory of evolution does not state that humans came from monkeys. Most of the people on here trying to disprove evolution are really just proving that they never took the time to understand it.
Evolution states that humans and monkey share a common ancestor. Your fifth cousin twice removed on your mother's side doesn't invalidate your existence in the same way that it is possible for both man, apes, and monkeys to be present today.
It was proven long ago the out of africa theory is wrong
Do you have a source for your claim? Or should we just accept it on faith?
Science, especially anthropology is not in the proving business.
it was also proven that every May 9th – butterflies come out of my butt. Make sure you dont miss the show – it will be soon.
BELIEVING IN ADAM & EVE THE BIBLE IS MUCH MORE SANE THEN BELIEVING IN THIS lDIOTIC CRAP WE ARE READING. I RATHER BELIEVE THAT MY ROOTS ARE TRACED TO A REAL HUMAN BEING THEN A MONKEY.....STUPID DAMN ATHEISTS AND THEIR FREAK'N DEMONIC LIES!!!!
Sure, you were created from mud, and then tricked by a talking snake, makes sense!
George Bush – I BELIEVE IN TALKING SNAKES. THEY POST CRAP ON HERE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Just Me, I hope your just joking? Have you tested your I.Q. lately? If you have a daughter please keep her away from my son who is now attending Harvard to major in Computer Science. I don't want the intelligence level in my grandchildren to be diminished because of your daughter, marry her off to a Chrysler auto worker. By your understanding of life, I can tell we are not all created equally.
Your mom. And her brother.
Gotta love CNN for comic relief...
Is CNN saying blacks evolved from apes?
A little RACIST there!
they did
WHAT they're not just saying but proving is they have not evolved as FAR from apes.... including more frequent resorting to shrieking in the females and violence in the males to resolve disputes. Dismissible as a stereotype in that it is not universal and equal opportunity must be extended to all Americans regardless of DNA, but not unfounded or unseen either.
I thought that CNN was saying that dark-skinned people have vitamin D deficiency and the resulting bone problems. Maybe they can sell milk at the store with extra vitamin D for dark-skinned people.
But so did whites.
No, genius, they're saying that we ALL evolved from apes. Doesn't matter what shade of skin – we all have our origins in a common ape ancestor.
Also, because of the way phylogenics work, we didn't "come from" apes. We ARE apes. If you can't accept that without it throwing your entire worldview and self-worth into chaos, then you need to reexamine your life.
Pasty skins can only spend an hour a day outside. God has cursed them with UV penetrable skin which causes them to be overly susceptible to all the variations of skin cancer. The pasty skins would trade all the could for more melanin in their skin, luckily they'll never be able to acquire it. It's what's thinning their ranks as we speak.
"From 1970 to 2009, the incidence of melanoma increased by 800 percent among young women and 400 percent among young men." – SkinCancer(dot)org
Everything I would believe about evolution but we became human starting from a single cell? How about the feeling? How can mutation cause difference in feeling?
Don't stop believin', hang onto that feelin'
Being created from mud makes more sense? Because mud has feelings?
prove to us mud does NOT! lol
Wasn't the idea that a cell was created from a mud? All the elements from mud? What do you think mud is? Isn't it the same material as you?
so if it cant be explained – must be some supernatural being. Welcome to 854BC.
You know how babies are made Jethro? They start from a single cell!
forgive Daya – actually the ripe age of 2. Pretty smart for his age.
Daya, feelings were created by evolution so we can communicate. Crabs don't have feelings and their system of communication is simple but then crabs don't belong to social groups like mammals do. Dogs and Wolves have feelings, when they growl at each other it is to establish dominance. Rage in some mammals gives them authority. Our feelings are the most complex by far, so there is your answer, evolution created feelings for human communications since we live in social groups.
They're crabby.
Sure, but if mutation can add something we call 'feeling' into us, we should be able to do that too. We haven't been able to create a cell, unless started from another cell or a part of a cell. Life might be advancing to some degree, but I don't still believe the way our science explains.
It's called the nervous system. It's been around at least since the first insects appeared.
This article should clear up a great degree of MISCONCEPTION for centuries among the human race, even as I busy type away. As, any person with some elementary knowledge re the factors of HOT/COLD climates our (respective ancestors made their homes) Does indeed, determine one's COLOR/PHYSICAL differences ... come on my pale faces relatives .... you got lucky, get over it. : – )) I'm a 4th generation born in the southern hemisphere of the Americas. The oppressive HEAT (365 night/day) chokes you into submission and drains whatever energy you have left!
wow what an ape!
So how does this explain the color of Orientals?
The amateur scientists on this blog are quite amusing. Scientists are smart enough to develop antibiotics, mass produced fertilizer to feed people by taking nitrogen from the air, the light bulb, the printing press, anesthetics, too many other medicines to name, electronic/photonic computers and communication connecting the world, electricity to power the world, the refrigerator to preserve food, pasteurization to preserve food, medical devices like X-Rays, NMR, ultrsound, stethoscope, optical and other sensors like telescopes, microscopes to open our awareness of the universe at many more scales, artificial materials like plastics,...
but you all are much smarter than they are. Tank your religion for your deluded view of the world.
ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN EVILUTION ARE MONKEYS. AS FOR THE REST OF US SANE PEOPLE, WE ARE HUMANS. GOOD THING WE ONLY HAVE A FEW MILLIONS lDIOT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVES IN THIS IDIOTIC CRAP!!
Keep banging your sister Jethro.
George – Both of your parents are APES, therefore, your dad banged your sister.
That does not even make a bit sense, you think all apes are brother and sister?
That behavior Sir, is reserved for Bruncles and the like...
i read right through you. you are just stirring the pot to get a reaction. nice try.
LOL, you cannot even articulate your thoughts!
Creationists love this stupid argument: If monkeys evolved into humans why are there still monkeys?
That is like asking if new dog breeds are breed why are there still old dog breeds?
Hey there are now purple tomatoes, that must be impossible because there are still red tomatoes!
if land creatures evolved from sea creatures, why are there still sea creatures?
Its an evolutionary split, when a species splits and a large population migrate elsewhere different adaptation are acquired to help the species survive. Monkey's and humans are similar in so many ways. But we evolved slightly more. There are dog breeds that are known to be smarter and live longer than others, have different bone structures and such.
What dog breed was there that doesn't exist any longer?
Okay, so whales originally came from the sea and walked on land (this explains their rudimentary legs). They soon became so heavy they returned to tjhe sea. It is to laugh. This is an unbelievable as dogs evolving from wolves.
You never read Darwin's theory did you?
Wait – so you people believe in Noah's ark and Adam and Eve – BECAUSE ITS IN A DAMN BOOK THATS LIKE 2000 YEARS OLD, but everyone else is crazy if they believe in evolution which is supported by science and logic?
its not logical to believe that we came from monkeys. Yes they are a close match to us but that isn't proof.
Because something is written in the Bible isn't proof. Not saying the bible isnt how it really happened, but it makes no more sense than evolution at BEST
we didn't come from monkeys, and science has never said that. you people hurt my brain.
So what did all those carnivors eat when they got off the arc anyway?
UMM, Fish, Read the Bible smiley :)
And she loved every minute of it.
OK, sane one. You are still the offspring of a placental primate mammal, because yo mama grew you in a uterus and squirted you out live. Tell that to Jesus.
BELIEVING IN ADAM & EVE THE BIBLE IS MUCH MORE SANE THEN BELIEVING IN THIS lDIOTIC CRAP WE ARE READING. I RATHER BELIEVE THAT MY ROOTS ARE TRACED TO A REAL HUMAN BEING THEN A MONKEY.....STUPID DAMN ATHEISTS AND THEIR FREAK'N DEMONIC LIES!!!!
you fool
Supported by science? I am still to see the scientific evidence of evolution being a real thing. All I hear and read is theorizing and lucubration, but no systematic explanation. In reality, evolution is a pseudo science that bases its assumptions on morphological and anatomical comparison of fossils. But when it comes to the molecular level, all arguments are weak. Take for example the DNA (genetic code). It is a CODE, code equals language and language equals intelligence. Now the question is...whose intelligence?
Evolution has NOT been proven by science and logic. That is why it is STILL called a theory. Darwin himself said to prove his theory there would have to be a fossil record and that has never been found. A theory is a hypothesis, conjecture, speculation and nothing more, yet our education system since Darwin, ran with it and it is now accepted as fact, even though it is STILL NOT PROVEN. Evolution and Atheism usually go hand in hand, but consider this. If we know if man in all his genius, cannot create anything from nothing, how intellectually preposterous is it to actually think that in the beginning nothing created everything.
Spot on... Phillip! Dare I say, the monkey theory .... continues to drive many up the wall, no matter what further scientific proof emerges. Many Asian countries, particularly China and India celebrates and honors animals ... there is a: "Monkey & Elephant gods who are a big deal for India Hindus known as Ravana & Ganesh beloved by many and sacred. Let's hear it for the animals..
The ark was found years ago. On a mountian top. Encased in a glacier, which had melted back enough to grant access to the interior. There was still straw an the floor...I saw the footage when it was found, most likely before you were born. So I'm afraid that yes, I believe in a book that is 2000 years old. I don't believe 'everyone' who believes in evolution is crazy, but you have to admit that there's a few.
I suppose your ancestors could had come from apes...monkeys..orangutangs .. Mine didn't.
The pure BS of this sort of evolution is nuts. If we came from apes, we would still be coming from apes.
Nope, only the liberal ones evolved...
You forgot the D, as in DEvolved.
Your brilliance is blinding
So you can from 2 people that imbred for 6000 years? Wait, then God killed most of them in the great flood, and they inbred even more from Noahs family! Yee-hah!
It's ok if you have Down's syndrome bro. Nobody cares. You don't need to broadcast it like that and get all defensive.
wow Klydedayle. The stupidity of that comment should win you some sort of prize. Ill make some calls.
I have already won the prize!
Please tell me these people are just Trolls.
I refuse to believe that these folks missed the entire 20th century, but can still log onto a computer.
So tanker troll just how did life start originally?
If we have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand.
Two atoms bounced off of each other and an Operating System began. More bouncing made for a more complex program. System crashes eliminated the most faulty programs.
Yeah. A bit annoying to have to deal with. People can be completely science illiterate and still learn to use technology. Recent news articles have show primates in zoos learning to use computer touch screens to manipulate images and play around with certain apps. Since it apparently takes no formal intelligence whatsoever to do, that easily explains the appearance of unbelievably ignorant comments here.
Typo central up in here, and this proves nothing. Does not disprove other theories. But to the guy who said something about fish, they are a total different species, cannot compare fairly.
Fish in the deepest ocean places don't have bones either.
Haha...this is the 'news' CNN is reporting these days?
Yep, im going back to FOX.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Fox welcomes your feeble little brain back into its sheeple herd.
I have never seen so many stupid people believe that we even evolved from apes when humanity is traced back to Adam and Eve. There is NO proof that we evolved from apes.
And where is your proof of that? Oh, right, in a book of mythology written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated, frightened men.
I will have to assume your joking and therefore LOL
There is no proof that Adam or Eve actually existed, either, just a myth written in a book.
The proof is abundant unlike your creation drivel. Maybe you should go back to your fake moon landing, or 9/11 conspiracy threads.
Spare me from the people that ACTUALLY BELIEVE what's written in the bible. A old book which has been rewritten numerous times and stop added, or taken out to appease churches. DAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Explain to me how we all descend from Adam and Eve if they had only two children, both of whom were male? The Bible doesn't say that Eve procreated with her sons, and even if she did those offspring would be brother/sister to Cain and Able. Now we all know what happens when humans repeatedly inbreed, so most likely the human race would have killed itself off were it truly descended from Adam and Eve. But you would know this if you paid attention in biology.
The bible says God created Adam and Eve FIRST. It doesn't say 'only'. And Adam and Eve had many, many children. There is also a passage that says the sons of God saw the daughters of man and took them for their wives. Now I have no idea what exactly that means, but its clear,that Adam and Eve's family wasn't the only ones on the earth.
Except all those fossils and DNA but you go with your fairy tale book of you want
Is anything in this article really science or just speculation until a new theory come along?
Science proves a direct link between monkeys and liberals...
Let the uneducated sheep of christindom begin their tirades....LOL
now is that nice???
Nice to Fred...not Gordo
I'm the REAL Fred and I approve this message.
Conservative throw their babies into the air but forget to catch them as they fall head first. That is how they insure the continuity of the Party.
If you believe that, then you must be a liberal. Everyone knows Conservatives deny science and fancy book learnin'.
Oh my gosh you people have to be kidding me.
Who even makes up this stuff.
It is totally funny how people can waste so much time on coming up with such crap.
It is all BULL CRAP!!!!!!
It's all about research grants...
People are so naive, believing in a book written over 2000 years ago by Middle eastern men, LOL!
I can't believe how all of you managed to turn an interesting informative article into a silly argument about race. Go eat a couple cans of sardines (brain food) and improve your thinking.
Great....I'm a monkey? I'm never going to church again. My parents are liars. They said God created man.
Don't feel to badly about it.
They lied when they told you that you were "special" too...
That was funny!
Close, man created God. That way men could use this mythical creature to scare other men into doing what they wanted.
More specifically, you are a mammalian primate, because yo mama bore you in a uterus with a placenta. Get over it. Science is real about this.
They lied about Santa also.
Wow... How can they call this "science"? What a joke, evolution is laughable at best...
But an invisible man in the sky is a hard fact?
Lol there is more proof that Jesus existed than animals evolving...
Oh yea Jesus, What ever happened to that guy?
What proof ? I've never seen a single iota of proof.
Well, I exist. So if I claim that I'm the son of God and can do a lot of magic stuff, I guess you'll believe me.
Stirred not shaken,
Josephus and other historians mentioned about Jesus.
it amazes me fred, that people like you know so much more than the millions of scientist world wide, who use the scientific method to come to the conclusion that we are descended from the branch of the primate tree. name calling would stoop to you lack of intellect.
Especially when they found fossils to prove it. Proof of Jesus? Oh yea an old book. Does that mean Santa is real too?
Millions of non-atheist scientists think evolution is cracked too...
Evolution can explain why monotheism is just a passing phase in the growth of consciousness. Keep deluding yourself. I find in insulting to a concept of God that we scrawny mortals would refuse to believe that a universal spirit would not be involved in endless change.
I have never seen so many people hostile to evolution. This truly scares me.
they dont like the truth. don't worry in 10 years there wont be many close minded people left. the new will replace the old
And yet many who believe in evolution will refuse to believe that it could act on human races, and produce non-superficial differences between them.
Exactly! I say the same thing in my post directly below...
Considering that the various human races can still interbred and the offspring produced are not infertile, the physical differences are fairly superficial.
Culturally, we are vastly different from eachother.
Well, it's not just religious conservatives – liberals are hostile to evolution too!
You see, Darwin believed that blacks were inferior to whites. He believed that blacks did not evolve as far as whites had evolved. That is part of his Theory of Evolution and his Theory of Natural Selection.
But liberals are HORRIFIED at that idea – so they ignore it or deny it or disagree with it. But liberals – just like many religious conservatives- reject Darwin and Evolution as well, but for different reasons.
Well put.
The similarities between liberals and the fundies they continually mock are obvious to anyone but them.
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths." - Bertrand Russell
Why does that scare you?
Evolution is an observable phenomenon. But most evolutionary explanations of human nature are carelessly comprised and do not rule out the possibility of intelligent intervention. Most evolutionary explanations act like evolution has an intelligent purpose. But in theory it shouldn't.
A single simplistic theory may not cover all of the bases.
I love the concept and evidence of evolution- I long for the time when these religious dinosaurs will pass away, along with their books of monotheistic myths, and the future can imagine there's no heaven, hell, punishing deity, or rules against thoughts.
I am amused by the use of past tense in the headline leading to the article ("To understand how skin color evolved..."). Guess what? It is still evolving. If the planet survives, you don't know what will be here in 5 million years. It has to be "To understand how skin color has been evolving..."!
"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.
We do not come from monkeys. WE COME FROM GOD. THE GREAT CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH AND ALL THINGS. WE BELONG TO HIM. AMEN.
If we aren't related monkey's, why are you screaming and throwing poo?
That must have been coming from your monkey cousins!
go slither back under your rock you brainwashed m0ron, in His name we pray, AMEN. *fart*
There's not a single evolutionist who believes anyone came from monkeys. We both, man and ape, came from a common ancestor. Know your argument. It is proven through the use of dating techniques, DNA analysis and simple biological examination. Anyone with a brain can plainly see it. I'm sorry for the loss of your brain. I hope you recover it some day.
what do you this is CSI?
I believe you believe that, no matter how illogical.
To think that races differ only in skin color is as ridiculous as anything that ever came out of the mouth of the most lunatic religious fundamentalist.
Racial differences are in the bones, the biochemistry, and the brain.
When is CNN and their flock of Sheeple ever going to accept the truth that the world is just 5000 years old ? We all know the many different "races" and all the so called archeological evidence of evolution and branching off of races & species was all simply planted there by God to test our faith !
when are you going to accept the fact that the planet earth is billions of years old? we are lions yall are sheep, a lion does not lose sleep over the opinion of a sheep. We know the truth.
It's actually paleontology, and that's about the fact that it's much much more interesting to have a world 4.5 billion years old, where "God" let the stew of life brew, bubble and change. 5000 years? Pull your head out of the Bible, genius, and look around. And stop insulting God.
Maybe you should stop reading fiction books (the bible) and pick up a non-fiction book for once. There is tons of evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old at least, and CNN is reporting on this stuff because it is actually news unlike your precious religion that only gets news for their "religious leaders" raping little boys. Also, sounds a little racist to me that you mention "god planted different races to TEST OUR FAITH?" Why would having different races test our faith? Everything about your brief comment just reeks of stupidity.
Wow ... I see a few people responding here who obviously are not fluent in sarcasm
Evolution is a theory. Thats it! no more no less. No Proof, No evidence. Thin VERY Thin.......
That is true. There is no (as in zero) facts that prove evolution. It is all theory and hypothesis. There is thousands of years of history that support that there was a man named Jesus as the bible tells.
Faith is much stronger than Theory :)
Jesus would have had no objection whatsoever to the theory of evolution. As a revolutionary himself and an enlightened person, he would have been fascinated by it.
the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence!
Cute twist of words, Still NO evidence! Just Sayin..
Better than just one book
And Religion isn't even a hypothesis.
What do you got?
Pardon me if I don't take seriously the views of someone who doesn't even know what the word theory means in a scientific context.
OH Jackie, are you going to use variable definitions to twist the truth? PULEASE! Theory is not based in scientific fact PERIOD! Twist away now GO!
Sorry Kevin, Evolution is proven fact. In science the word "theory" means something completely different than in common speech. You should read up on evolution because I think you're confusing it with abiogenesis (the origin of life)
Thank you. At least someone isnt a complete and utter moron. I've never understood why people who have never even looked up what evolution or a theory is feel like fighting against it so hard.
Please show us all the Scientific facts! I am sooo excited GO!
you are completely false. Gravity is a theory you fool. A scientific theory is essentially as fact as you can be. It means evolution has been put through the scientific method non stop and has never once failed it. If it did it wouldnt be a theory. Thats why things we know for a fact are theories like gravity. You have absolutly no understanding of science. almost every single scientist knows without a doubt evolution is a fact. If they dont they are not a real scientist. A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method. Since evolution has never failed it they are correct in giving evolution the status of a theory. Please actually read the definition of this work instead of using your commonpeople definition.you lack of intelligence hurts us all.
What causes Gravity? GO!
The complete fossil record of the horse proving its evolution is just made up stuff I suppose. The lack of scientific reasoning and education in some of our population is truly appalling...never mind you just can't fix stupid.
Fitting Jigsaw pieces together from the ground that are thousands of years old! I can use a Drummel tool and make them fit too...
News flash: Jesus is dead, has been for over 2000 years, and yet you religious nuts keep worshiping his twisted, tortured graven image hanging on some cross like a universal sacrifice, while paying lip service to the gospel.
Dead to you is about right....
The fact that adults educated in a first world country like America can make absolutely asinine statements like this . . .jeeze. I have no words.
What is truly amazing is the false notion that species are an outcome of evolution is still taught in American primary schools.
If we evolved from monkeys then why are they in the zoo?
Too lazy for too apply for welfare.
Man, use your brain and try to debate not insult!
your lack of understanding of evolution is saddening. evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys we both had a common ancestors. we branched off into what we are now and they branched off into the many chimps you see today. Please don't argue about things until you actually learn a little about them. This is 2nd grade stuff and quite sad you don't even know the basics yet feel a need to argue against it. I bet your the same kind of person who uses evolution is just a theory as an argument not knowing that theory in scientific terms means something completely different. Gravity is a theory by the way. You dare to challenge that?
Yes we do have a common ancestor, Adam. But not everyone can get along with some their family members
If early American settlers came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
They adapted to life in that region and formed a society of their own.
I love these science articles for the mere fact it ruins so many conservatives' days. Anything that upsets them is just fantastic. The Bible is a story book, dummies! Don't like it? Too bad.
may Thor strike you down with his mighty hammer for your blasphemy. in Odin's name we pray.
Klaark, your right, the bible is a story book that was created by the people that made this universe. If you go to youtube and you put in the search engine "Slot 2 Wars" you will be able to listen to a message that those people left for human kind. The song is in Russian, but it emits an English sound with a message for those who live in Canada, Australia, England, America and bilinguals who understand the English language. I speculate that the message has more than one meaning in various languages but I only understand English. A female creator if you want to call it says on the song, 'Evanka created shoe, Evarnia achieves, no honestly shoes smell." Since, this female creator can speak in clear language, but refuses then you can deduce that those creators made us just for fun. Human language and sound descended from innate particles that came from distant stars and all the matter in this universe is organized into a book so you observation that the bible is just a story are correct. Not only did those creatures create the bible but every other book on this earth and we ourselves are part of a different type of three dimensional book and as the days pass they turn like pages.
The pic looks like Patrick Ewing.
That mag cover a few years back featuring Lebron and Gisele illustrated species differences nicely.
I think that was why a lot of people didn't like it. The contrasts were just too glaring to be ignored.
Does CNN have no shame? Blacks are evolved exactly as much as whites. Species occur rapidly following a mass extinction, the opposite of evolution. I know some in biology are ashamed of this.
Where does it say otherwise? You must have access to an invisible extra paragraph that I don't see.
They never said blacks weren't "evolved" as much as whites, and by the way that means nothing.
Blacks' ancestors remained in Africa, where the environment remained stable for millennia. Blacks have been subjected to less evolutionary pressure than Euros or Asians. They are less "evolved" than the latter groups, whose ancestors went through bottlenecks, or selection events, that ended many old genetic lines.
This is why blacks are genetically more diverse than Euros or Asians - theie old ancestral genetic lines have been preserved.
Jackie, John is correct, and may I point out why there are so many differences in opinion in this forum. Not everyone that comes into this forum has the same level of education for various reason and not everyone that comes into this forum has the same genetic level of intelligence so not everyone can understand and see science the same way as others. Some people actually think they can go out and slay a lion with a tooth pick, well good luck.
News Flash: No one is black or white. We range in skin tone from deep chocolate to pale pinkish beige. It's only pigment. We can all interbreed, and we are all the same species, with lots of regional diversity. Get over your hangups about being black or white, because you're not.
sickle cell is genetic
Yes, we know that, but chimps don't have sickle cell it's only common in northern African people. Thank you for your input Einstein. They are showing the relationship between vitamin D production and skin color and how dark pigment protects against the radiation of the sun. They are trying to assemble a time line for evolution but popseal explained very well when he said there are too many variables that are involved in the evolution of organisms.
This explanation contradicts logic and evolution. How did people with dark skin survive for so long without a high production of vitamin D? How do fish that live in the deepest parts of the ocean survive without vitamin D. How come birds can't swim under water except if they are penguins. Evolution adapts to any condition that life encounters. There could be a wide range of reasons why skin turned from dark to light as humans migrated up north. Camouflage in animals changes the hair color so that could be one reason skin color changes. Lighter colors blend well in the snow. Another reason could be mutations, if a mutation occurs and the environment allows it to survive then it is passed down through generations. A light skinned mutation, varied types of higher intelligence, vitamin D production, and camouflage could be adaptations to the northern environment as well as defects like peeling, damaged, painful skin, and a weak immune system.
This does not say that dark people didn't synthesize sufficient amounts of Vitamin D, it's suggesting that since their equatorial exposure to UV is much HIGHER, they still were able to make Vitamin D.
Sir, you are arguing the issue with individuals that are far below your intelligence level. Just leave it be! It's a no-win situation since most of them have not examined species closely nor truly understand the evolutionary process!
Light skinned to be camouflaged in the snow? Have you ever seen a white person's skin stay white in the snow? It is bright pink / red. And a black person blends in with the African landscape? The explanations offered are perfectly plausible. Melanin protects the skin from UV. More sun exposure = more UV exposure = greater necessity for melanin.
My god, I think I was eight years old when I figured this out. This is science? I hope government money didn't go into this common sense assessment.
You figured out how humans synthesize vitamin D with sunlight when your were 8 years old?
I was typing the VERY SAME question.
I think he means, and I agree, that at 8 it was easy to figure out that climate had an evolutionary effect on pigmentation
@pw – that's very different from actually doing the work to prove it and publishing your findings in a peer reviewed journal.
You still hadn't found your penis much less figured anything about vitamin D and skin color.
98% compatible DNA between humans and a chimp. With 3,000,000,000 bits of information in the DNA, that leaves 60,000,000 differences to go, and evolutionists are chimps again. My college math professor said it is a mathematical impossibility for random inert matter to arrange itself into a reproducing one cell life form....by itself. There are just too many factors that have to be perfectly related. We can talk about the transformation of light into an interpretable image by the optic nervous system another day. BC comics asked one day, "If we come from monkeys, how come we still got monkeys?"
Whatever gets you up in the morning, bub, just keep your Bible away from me.
There is a reason Math teachers don't teach Biology...
Because they know the odds are so huge for evolution to happen.
If we came from dirt, why is there still dirt?
We came from the dirt that Allah breathed into. All things that Allah wills, happen. Our food comes from the dirt that feeds our bodies
Because we didn't come from monkeys. We came from something else, and let the monkeys live. Most of the other quasi-hominids we did in fact kill to extinction along the way so we could be on top.
Because not all monkeys evolved Jethro.
We did not come from monkeys. We came from the same predecessor which also gave rise to monkeys. Much like all modern airplanes came from the Wright brothers' plane. A 747 and crop duster have a common ancestor but have no relation to each other.
this is fake, human ancestors aren't monkeys
The Bible is a story book and God isn't real.
Dude, I've met your Mom.
She's a monkey...
You are so dumb.
Why, because you think that your great mom is a monkey?
The posts on this site prove we are a nation of mostly idiots
With all of the bible-thumpers out there who think that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution in schools, are you really that surprised.
You are correct in your observation and assessments.
The sculptures bring these hominids to life. The way to look at them is not as defective or primitive humans. They were well adapted to their environment and did well. These were hundreds of these species alive over the years. Only one linage survived
Just because its a fact doesn't mean its true... ;-)
How about just because it's true doesn't mean it's a fact? Makes about as much "sense." NOT!!!
More evolution lies...
Evolution is scientific fact. Proven, period.
LordIsONE – Evolution is a lie and that's a FACT!
Please relocate this article to the "Voodoo" section where it belongs. It certainly isn't science.
The article if full of assumptions like losing hair 1.2 million years ago? For what reason? Human body is more complex than that to simply evolve! Looks like you can be a prof. of anthropology if you can concote fairy tales like these.
Sometimes you wonder where they pull this sort of stuff from and then call it science and some how feel good about it!
It evolves, even the roman catholic church excepts evolution
I care less what the catholic church teaches.
The fact remains that the odd's of evolution are so huge to the point of being impossible.
Just to give an example that human genome contains 3 billion nitrogen bases of types in a specific sequence, plus 20000 genes!
CareLess, I'm a geneticist and if you're attempting to use the genome as an example of creationism, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The genomes of all life are the ultimate examples of evolution in progress and as a map to the past, since all hereditary change is based on first changing the genome. The raw definition of evolution is just a change in allele frequency (aka gene sequence) in a population.
As biologists lament today, "if only Darwin had known about genetics."
There is this really cool thing called fossils. You should read up on them sometime.
And don't forget he missing links. Let us know when you find them.
Besides if any of these anthropologists studied probability, they would then understand the difficulty of evolution. 3 billion base in a genome in a specific sequence, and 20,000 genes make the human DNA. Hard to evolve, when the probability of the sequence changing into a different species is quite staggering.
they get their info from the same place as the bible thumpers who want you to believe in those same imposibilities in that sacred book of theirs
That ape is far more intelligent and civilized than many posters on this board.
Until the sun supernovas and you all will be ... toast. Until then, just be glad that you aren't purple, 'cause I'm the one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater and looking for purple people to eat.
I thought it was the people eater who was pruple, not th epeople?
I thought it was the people eater who was purple, not the people?
I am surprised that they don't seem to include people who's skin color changes. The more these people's skin is exposed to the sun, the darker their skin pigment becomes. We call such, a "sun tan". It doesn't take generations to change skin color, just a few days.
Josh, tans are caused by a totally different phenomena- you're basically cooking your skin.
Tans aren't heritable.
I thought the guy in the picture looked like Charlton Heston.
DEFINITELY more Obama in him than Chuck Heston!
Unimportant! I second that motion
So de black foke be havin' mo pig mint so dey kin blen in with the dawk 'n hide bettah?
You must be very proud of your overt racism.
Racism against whites, you mean? He's saying blacks are better.
This creature certainly looks more intelligent than Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas combined.
In just 6000 years, God changed us so much! He is the smartest guy I have a personal relationship with.
Time to grow up, there, ache.
You didn't get your false beliefs from your parents, by chance, did you? Ha ha.
God didn't have anything to do with it. Have you ever heard of Charles Darwin?????
Whatever crutch you need to make it another day.
What makes you think God is a he?
One day every knee will now & confess our Great & Might Lord Jesus Christ.. Period..
Someday so very soon..
They've been saying very soon for 2000 years now. Don't hold your breath.
Perhaps they mean "very soon" in astronomical terms, which could be tens of thousands of years; a drop in the bucket, considering the age of the universe.
End time prophecies have to be fulfilled before that day comes.
If horses have gods, their gods are horses.
Jesus be dead.
What this article fails to mention is the intellectual capacity of brains in europeans and those of african heritage.
The article was about the relationship between skin pigmentation and vitamin D. Perhaps you are lacking in brain capacity?
Where, anywhere in that article, does it correlate pigmentation to intelligence?
OK, here we go with the same old tired racial BS about how so-called Euro-types can think better than Afro-types, (but not better than Asia-types,) because some morons at the beginning of the last century thought women from the Caucasus region were the most beautiful broads in the world. Whereupon those Euro-types started calling themselves Caucasians and blah blah blah. I am extracted from Euro-types, and I an NOT white, but kind of a tan-beige. So screw you, white and black haters.
Who are the top scientists and mathematicians in the world today? People from Africa and Asia for the most part. Hardly any white Americans. I'm white American and I know we have as much potential as anyone else but our education system can't compete with what happens in other countries right now. Without foreign students even our colleges would have far fewer top scientists and mathematicians. It isn't a race thing.
Girls are hot.
She's hot. Like a gal with high cheek bones.
Yeah, learning is dumb!
Yeah. Learn to boil your feet, idiot!
Greg don't need no learning, he gonna be a rapper. You'll see! You'll all see. Greg's got his grade 5, he'll be just fine. hyuk hyuk.
I like fiction as much as the next guy...but it's not learning.
Greg. You are right on.
Rah Rah Rah! Let's all argue about evolution and God and all that.
God is a fable. We're science. My belief is better than yours.
Take that!
Myth: A scientific theory such as evolution and big bang. Truth: God lives
The most important point is that we're all human – and if you can't celebrate the variety and beauty of differing skins colors, then I feel sorry for you.
Well said ThinkAgain...well said