"Evolution is not about how life began, but how it has evolved."
In 1859 Charles Darwin, a British naturalist, published a book, “On the Origin of The Species by Means of Natural Selection”, which after its publication, caused a great deal of controversy that still continues today. It is the only scientific theory that has engendered so much vilification and the only one non-scientists feel they can comment on even though the overwhelming majority do not know anything about evolution.
No one questions Einstein’s theory of relativity or quantum theory, but many still question the theory of evolution even though 99 per cent of US scientists accept the theory as fact.
What is the theory of evolution and how does it work? A simple but long way of putting it is that life on earth began with one primitive species and gradually over a period of 3,500 million (3.5 billion) years, through small (or occasionally large) changes which could be passed on to the next generation (known as heritable changes) produced many new and diverse species. The mechanism for most, but not all, of evolutionary change is natural selection. Lesser mechanisms include genetic drift, sexual selection and symbiogenesis.
The process by which small changes occur is called mutation and is an entirely random event. However, natural selection is far from random. Natural selection is the process where those small changes endow the organism with favourable or deleterious traits making it more or less likely to live to reproduce. The organism with favourable traits will survive and reproduce, those with unfavourable traits will not. Eventually all of the subsequent generations will possess this trait.
Natural selection is unconscious; it cannot anticipate what changes are going to be needed to survive. The evolutionary watchmaker is blind. Evolution is also not about how life began, but how it has evolved.
One should also realise that the evolutionary time scale is measured in hundreds of thousands to millions of years. One only has to look at the common dog which arose from the Asian grey wolf approximately 15,000 years ago and see the enormous variations that have been produced by unnatural selection. Could not the same thing happen over millions of years by natural selection? Evolution therefore is gradual, it produces different species over time, there is a common ancestor and there is natural selection.
The theory does not predict that species will be constantly evolving or how rapidly they will evolve. Some groups like whales and humans have evolved “rapidly”, while others have hardly changed over hundreds of millions of years. When the selection pressure is strong it can occur quickly, but once a species becomes well-adapted evolution will slow down.
Evolutionary biology is a historical science that depends not on a single piece of evidence, but on the convergence of numerous lines of inquiry. It draws on the knowledge of such fields as geology, palaeontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, embryology, molecular biology and genetics to name a few. Detectives using various branches of science can reconstruct a murder scene 30 years later using the same technique of convergence of evidence.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution is the fossil record. Fossils are traces of once living organisms. The process of fossilisation is an uncommon occurrence and usually requires death where sediments (of rivers, lakes, etc) or volcanic ash can be deposited. Over time the hard parts of the organisms become impregnated with or replaced by minerals leaving a cast of that organism, although less common, soft-bodied organisms have also fossilised. Some insects have been preserved in resin from trees. The ages of fossils can be deduced from the geological strata in which they are found and with radiomimetic dating. From the field of geology we know that there were different geological periods stretching over billions of years, with the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest on top.
According to evolutionary theory, certain testable predictions can therefore be made. They include the following:
- The deepest and oldest layers of rock would contain fossils of the more primitive species, while the younger rocks would contain more complex fossils. These younger rocks would also contain organisms resembling present-day species and we should be able to see some species changing over time, i.e. showing descent with modification.
- We would be able to find in the fossil record some cases of speciation (formation of new species), with one line of descent dividing into two.
- We should be able to find “transitional forms” of species that link together major groups, suspected of having a common ancestry and these forms should be found in layers of rock that date to the time when they separated.
- We should see imperfection in design and adaptation.
The fossil records confirm these predictions. Starting with the Cambrian age rocks, the layers have shown that about 600 million years ago simple organisms like the jelly-fish, worms and sponges arose; fish came about 400 million years ago and amphibians come about 50 million years later. Fifty million years after, reptiles appeared and birds about another 50 million years later. The first mammals showed up about 250 million years ago. Humans are very recent as our lineage branched off from other primates about 7 million years ago. In order to disprove evolution, one only needs to find the fossils of birds in the amphibian geological stratum, but to date none has been found.
If, as evolutionary theory contends, reptiles appeared in the fossil record before birds it can be predicted that the common ancestor of birds and reptiles was an ancient reptile and would look like one. In this case the common ancestor was a dinosaur. Contrary to popular misconceptions, dinosaurs could be huge or small. In 1890 a crow-sized fossil, Archaeopteryx lithographia, was found in Germany having just the traits one would expect to find in a transitional form. Its age was estimated to be about 145 million years, which would place it at exactly where evolution predicted it would be found. Other transitional fossils have been since found in China as well.
As these fossils get younger they showed that the basic skeletal plan of birds, and essentially feathers, evolved before birds could fly. What this tells us is that structures developed for one purpose can be adapted for other uses. A similar transitional form was found in Ellesmere Island in Canada’s north in 2004 and named Tiktaalik. It had features that make it a direct link between earlier lobe-finned fish and amphibians, one of which was that it had a neck, something fish do not have but amphibians do. It was also found in rocks 380 million years old, exactly where it was predicted such a fossil would be found. In the case of humans, in November 1974 a fossil nicknamed Lucy was found in Ethiopia which was transitional between the great apes and man. Its pelvis and femurs (thigh bones) were decidedly human showing that it walked upright, its middle was a mixture, but its head was apelike. The fossil was about 3.2 million years old, the age at which one would expect to find a human transitional form. Since then many other transitional human fossils have been found.
Genetics can also show that apparently different species had a common ancestor. The chimpanzee is 98.5 % homologous in its genome (that is the entire DNA sequence) to that of humans. We share many so-called dead genes, which are genes that are no longer used to produce a gene product, but are kept in the genome. We also have many particles of viral DNA incorporated in our genome which have been rendered harmless by mutations. We find that some of these remnants sit in exactly the same positions in chimpanzees as in humans.
Primates, bats and guinea pigs do not, as other mammals do, make vitamin C as we are able to extract enough from our diets. It turns out that we still possess those 4 genes needed to make vitamin C, but one has been inactivated by a mutation. In humans and other primates the same mutation is found in the same gene. Guinea pigs and bats have different mutations. The evidence clearly shows that we have a common ancestor and this separation has been estimated to have taken place 7 million years ago. Lucy and other transitional forms could, therefore, not be more than 7 million years old and none have been shown to be.
Some, including those calling themselves Intelligent Design (ID) scientists, contend that while micro-evolution occurs it is never enough to produce a new species. When asked how new species are produced they say an Intelligent Designer does it. Michael Shermer in his book, “Why Darwin Matters”, says, according to IDers, micro-evolution occurs and “then a miracle happens” to form species. What is a species? A species can be defined as a reproductive community—a gene pool. New species arise as evolutionary accidents when a group in a species is isolated from its relatives. Over long periods of time, the genomes of the two groups change to the point where they no longer mate with each other. One can use language to illustrate this point. Latin was once the language of the Iberian Peninsula and Italy. Today there is Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese. The common root of all these languages can be found in Latin, but today they do not understand each other. We also see that Spanish and Portuguese are fairly close to each other suggesting a more recent split e.g. humans and chimpanzees.
Sexual selection can also play a part whereby females prefer to mate with males having certain characteristics. Over time those characteristics will become dominant and females will only mate with males exhibiting those characteristics.
Embryology (the study of the developing foetus) and comparative anatomy have shown that all vertebrates develop in the same way. They all begin development looking like a fish and as it proceeds different species begin to diverge. Fish embryos develop what are called branchial arches which eventual go on to form the gills with its nerves and blood vessels. The foetuses of other vertebrates, including man, also develop branchial arches, but they eventually become different structures. In man the 6th branchial arch with its blood vessel and nerve move down into the chest to form the heart and great vessels. Sometimes these arches do not close and the child is born with a branchial cyst.
In looking at the sequence of development of foetuses a fish embryo’s circulatory system develops straight into that of a fish. An amphibian embryo’s circulatory system at first looks like a fish embryo and then changes to develop into an amphibian circulation. A reptile goes from looking like a fish to an amphibian and eventually into a reptile. The human circulatory system goes from first looking like that of a fish, then to an amphibian, to a reptile and finally to human. These stages happen to follow the evolutionary sequences of its ancestors. Embryonic whales and dolphins form hind limb buds which then disappear, indicating that they evolved from land animals. To prove the point, rarely, whales are born with hind limbs; and, again rarely, humans are born with tails demonstrating our descent from animals with tails.
If there is an intelligent designer, why are there so many instances of unintelligent design? Of what use is a male breast with nipples? Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve in order to go from the brain to the larynx (voice box) travel down the neck, into the chest and back all the way up again to the larynx? The evolutionary reason can be seen by referring back to the fish where the 6th branchial arch’s blood vessel moves with its nerve into the chest to form the heart, and the nerve, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, can only follow. The larynx is situated in front of the oesophagus (the gullet) so that food has to pass over the larynx to get to the oesophagus. We can all remember choking on food as a result and many persons have died because of this unintelligent design. The reason again can be found in how the organs evolved.
This has been a brief and, of necessity, a simple look as to why evolution happens to be true. The assault against it by the evangelical Christian community has been strong because it brings into question the story of Genesis and the flood. Evolution has been accused of belittling man’s place in creation making him into just another animal. It has also been said that if evolution is true we are no more than animals with no morals and conscience. One should realise that before 1859, we had incest, genocide, wars, the crusades, the Inquisition, slavery and other forms of depravity, so these acts of immorality could not have been due to evolutionary theory.
Evolution has taught Man altruism, to be cooperative and to abhor certain types of behaviour in order to survive as a group and individually, and even in primitive societies these traits exist. Accepting the theory of evolution will not turn one into a vicious beast ready to commit immoral acts. The Vatican and many other religious organisations and faiths accept the theory, one of the greatest scientific theories of our time, as it allows us to look back from whence we came and our place in the universe. As Michael Shermer said, “Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the pre-eminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from and where we are going.”
W. S. Lofters, is a Jamaican physician (retired) in Kingston, Ontario
About Mark Lee
Editor, author and writer with career spanning print, radio, television and new media.
Excellent article! Too bad those who SHOULD read this amazing article will, instead, read tales and adopt stories that will do nothing for their growth.
This article is scientifically incorrect. “No one questions Einstein’s theory of relativity or quantum theory, but many still question the theory of evolution even though 99 per cent of US scientists accept the theory as fact.”
Where did Lofters get his statistics from? He does not say. Did he make them up? Well Gallup poll asked the very question of US residents, What were the responses?
1. “On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don’t have an opinion either way” Gallup
2. “There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin’s theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.” Gallup
3. “Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997).”
THE THEORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF MAN FAILS SEVERAL ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOL
I bet Lofters did not mention the scientific protocol or the Law of Conservation of Angular momentum. Of course he did not. Why destroy his own unproven religious belief?
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method has four steps:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM
In physics, the angular momentum of an object rotating about some reference point is the measure of the extent to which the object will continue to rotate about that point unless acted upon by an external torque.
Based on this law after the Big Bang theory all the objects thrown away should continue to rotate in the same way.
However several moons are known to rotate in a direction that is opposite to that of the planets. All science teachers know this fact. Then why do they still believe in the big bang theory?
There is so much evidence that this religion of big bang and evolution of man is one of the greatest frauds in history it is frightening. But all you have to do is give some scientists some grants and titles and it is proved!
If Lofters so believe in his religion let us see another evolution of man..say in canada.
Good work in setting and answering your own question. Dr Lofters said, and you quoted: “many still question the theory of evolution even though 99 per cent of US scientists accept the theory as fact”. According to you “Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll”. What therefore is the issue? Four per cent? (the difference between his 99 and your 95 per cent)
As I have demonstrated and it seems you missed what was shouting in my response, evolution is a unproven theory that fails the test of the scientific protocol. The big bang theory on which evolution depends fails an established law of physics as I also demonstrated. And I challenged Lofters to demonstrate that his religious belief of evolution of man if he so believes in it, can be repeated!
Statistically a difference of 4 percent is huge, large and easily sufficient to render a corelation test a failure!
For your benefit, a quote from the article: “Evolution is not about how life began, but how it has evolved.”
The issue of statistical margins of error would have been relevant if your main argument had challenged his. But he spoke of the community of scientists and you spoke of the general population, citing 1991-1997 polls, a range of 13 to 19 years old. But Dr Lofters is better able to address these queries if he chooses.
Evolution has rendered the Genesis account of creation obsolete and as science continues to demystify many aspects of our existence, our dependence on religion will continue to wane. Mankind is growing up, growing away from the fears of the infancy and childhood stages, and though the change may not be complete until long after our passing, it is inevitable. I have slowly come to the realization — most painfully at first, that religion is man’s feverish attempt to furnish answers for life’s mysteries, and to provide himself with an exit of hope — the Petah Tikvah — as he leaves this vale of tears. Perhaps the triillions who have existed, even as homo erectus gave way to our species, are just part of an endless stream of carbon units who will in time evolve into another species, more similar to homo sapiens in form than in thought-processes with this need to be consoled during life and at its end. After all, though faith may now play a useful role in controlling and consoling, there may come a time when the species will outgrow this need, having moved past its infancy and childhood and slowly awaken to adulthood. Mankind will grow up.
I read with amusement the attack on my article on evolution by John Anthony. He writes with so much vitriol that one can assume that a sacred cow of his has been undermined. He says that my quoting a statistic is “unscientific”. The method used in obtaining any statistic may be unscientific, but quoting it is certainly not. Before replying I went back to my source and I quote from it. “The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology and others. One 1987 estimate (a Gallop poll) found that 700 scientists out of a total of 480,000 US scientists give credence to creation science. An expert in the evolution creation controversy, professor and author, Brian Atters states that 99.9% of scientists accept evolutionary theory”. That the poll shows that 5% of scientists are creationists does not negate the 99% figure as many creationist accept evolution as true, but believe that God is guiding it (see Michael Denton and Michael Behe). If Mr. Anthony were to check out the website http://www.answersingeneisis.org he would see they accept the basic tenet of evolution, natural selection, but again attribute it to God.
Not long ago 38 Nobel Laureates wrote a letter to the Supreme Court in the US pointing out that creationism is not science and that evolutionary theory is correct and sound. The National Academy of Science in the US has also stated very clearly that evolution is the only sound scientific theory regarding the origin of man.
Mr. Anthony, like others before, him has tried to make out that evolution is “only a theory” and that it is unproven. It is quite obvious that he is not aware of what exactly is a scientific theory. It is not guesswork or speculation; it is a convincing explanatory body of evidence about the real world. It must make testable predictions and be vulnerable to falsification (ie there should be experiments devised which could prove it false). Evolutionary theory has made predictions (re-read my article) and it is falsifiable except that all attempts to falsify it have failed. That is why Michael Behe, the foremost creation scientist, accepts that evolution has occurred and is occurring. He, however, gives the credit to God, not natural selection. For evolutionary theory to be proven wrong all that is necessary is for birds to appear in the fossil record before reptiles and so far none of its predictions have been proven incorrect. Darwin predicted that because man and chimpanzee are so closely related and both are found in Africa, that the intermediate forms between man and chimpanzees, would be found in Africa and so they have.
I would recommend two books to Mr. Anthony and anyone else interested. They are “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne and “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins. They nay not change his views, but may enlighten his ignorance.
Vitriol eh? Amusement eh? How convenient you forgot to mention the scientific protocol and how the theory of the evolution of man fails it utterly! How convenient Lofters forgot to mention anything about the Law of Angular Momentum and how it utterly undermines the big bang theory! So when is consensus science? We well remember that not too long ago many famous scientists believed that the dark skin man was not as intelligent as the pale skin man! So according to Lofters this consensus was correct? Perhaps it would still be if those scientists still believe so and perhaps it is. Let us see what the consensus today is of the scientists in America is on whether the dark skin man is as intelligent as the pale skin man! So consensus is accepted as scientific when the theory of evolution of man is being discussed but at other times it is rejected? Now perhaps some will understand why God says that he laughs at the atheists! Their reasoning is inconsistent and contradictory and they just evade and overlook the very established laws of science whenever they undermine their unproven theories. Lofters offers no explanation as to why there is no more apes being evolved into more men. After all there are still apes in the world are there not? So why don’t we see the Evolution of Man being repeated and at various stages of the Ape to Man Evolutionnary process? Questions like these cause the atheists to get angry and evasive as they expose the holes in their atheistic religion.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF MAN IS A RACIST DIATRIBE FROM A RABID RACIST!
Lofters and many dark skinned persons who believe in the religion of The Evolution of Man would like us to forget that Darwin was a stard raving racist demogogue! They conveniently leave out the complete title of Darwin’s book but why? Are they trying to deceive readers? Are they themselves deceived? Here is the title of Darwins book that I bet Lofters would never, never, never use!
“THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE”
In other words all you dark skinned persons who love the Religion of The Evolution of Man, this racist theory was coined to explain why the cpmsemsus of scientists believed that the pale skin man was superior to the dark skin man. Now why would Kadene, Mark Lee and Lofters adopt such a theory? Why? Wny? Why?
Here is another quote from another famous Evolutionist; “THE STANDARD INTELLIGENCE OF THE AVERAGE ADULT NEGRO IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE 11-YEAR OLD YOUTH OF THE SPECIES HOMO SAPIENS.”
HENRY FAIRFIELD OSBORN-EVOLUTIONIST AND CURATOR OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Why would dark skinned intelligent persons subscribe the a religion and its unproven theories that claim they are inferior beings? What the hell is wrong with these people? Why woulld a web site owned by a dark-skinned man put as its lead story an article on a belief system that claims he is an inferior being? What the hell is wrong with us?
Out of The Religion of the Theory of Evolution came;
1. Racism
2. Nazism
3. Communism
4. Humanism
5. Genocides- one example is the Australian Negroes who were slaughtered directly because of the Religion of The Theory of Evolution.
It is difficult to discuss anything rationally with someone like Mr. Anthony. Yes, the full title of Darwn’s book is as he says, but if he reads the book (something I am sure he would not stoop to doing) he would see that Darwin was not talking about white versus black races, but about plants, birds and animals. He does use the word “savage” to describe aboriginal people, but that was the custom of the day.
Mr. Anthony ascribes racism to Darwin and his theory. Many Christians made a very good living by transporting and brutalising black people for over 250 years of slavery. One should remember that slavery was abolished in 1838 many years before Darwin wrote his book. Christians did not need his book to be racists, they could do it all by themselves. Nazism distorted the theory of evolution for their own ends. If Mr. Anthony would, instead of frothing at the mouth and “shouting”, read what Darwin wrote, he may (and that is a big may) write a somewhat better critique. Even Creationists do not accuse Darwin and his theory of the things he does. The people who committed genocide in Australia, North and South America were good Christians. None of them I am sure had read Darwin’s book since these atrocities all happened before his book was written. I would strongly recommend he checks with Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute as they could have told him of ways not to put his foot in his mouth, by making ludicrous statements.
Obviously Mr. Anthony has read about something called the law of angular momentum and big bang theory and is using his knowledge to impress the natives. We, however, are unimpressed Mr. Anthony. One aspect of the scientific method he did not mention is a principle called full disclosure, whereby scientists have to put there work in print for all to see, for others to repeat their experiments and for it to be criticised and be, so-called, peer-reviewed. To date there have been over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject of evolution and none has been able to falsify it. In fact, the theory has been strengthened by the use
of DNA technology. Evolutionary theory has been put through the wringer of scientific scrutiny and has come out unscathed. The number of scientists who regard themselves as Christian is about 45% and yet the overwhelming majority accept the theory of evolution. Yes, science is based on empiric evidence and not consensus, hence even they have to accept the evidence.
He asks why no more apes have evolved into man, If he had any knowledge of evolutionary theory he would know that man did not evolve from apes. What has been stated is that millions of years ago man and the great apes had a common ancestor. In the course of these millions of years, man and apes have evolved along their own paths with man and the chimpanzee being the closest living relatives of that common ancestor.
I would like to ask Mr. Anthony a few questions. What evidence would he need to see to be convinced of the soundness of the theory? Why did the Creator produce so many imperfections in his design? Why, if Adam was created first, was he made with breasts? What was the purpose? Why is the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe 15 feet long running down the neck, into the chest and back up again to the larynx, when the
muscle it is to innervate is only a few inches away? What statement did I make about evolution that is scientifically incorrect? Why do some Creationists accept that evolution has taken place, even if they attribute it to God? Why does he believe that a European religion brought to enslaved black people by Europeans in 1783 who wanted to save their “wretched souls”, is true?
I hope Mr. Anthony, will calm down, remove the racial and religious chips from his shoulder and engage in reasoned dialogue. Reason and evidence are hard for Mr. Anthony to comprehend, however.
It is obvious to me that John Anthony, has no idea of the meaning of Charles Darwins Contribution to Human existence. Darwin did not publish shoddy work, his research was found to be meticulous and he was way ahead of his time and is still thought of as the father of modern biology. His disgust and opposition to slavery is well documented. There has always been and will always exist [those] like John Anthony, whose purpose it would seem is to glorify nobody but himself and his imaginary fairy father in the sky, time and again I have suggested that he educate himself further, before spouting his idiocy as if he was professor of lifes ways and means, alas he is hard headed also, so I just made up my mind that he is unredeemable and not worth my time. Charles Darwin has left an indelible mark in the history of Human journey and discoveries in the search of self identification and understanding. The god squad will always oppose and do their utmost to discredit and deny Darwin’s importance, hence John’s vitriol, John, you are inconsequential, yuh naw seh nutting, (you are not saying anything) like flatulence in the wind, you too will pass.
John, your quotes of Darwins words, suggesting he was a racist is saying you are also a racist. Darwin detested racism. As I said, it is well documented, but you would attempt to divide humanity by highlighting the prevailing negatives of those times in which he existed. You can not prove your god’s existence, so you try to debunk atheism at every opportunity. Your shoddy work and attempts are well documented John, get a life, accept that the creator you would have us accept rather than scientific facts is only an ancient idea, coined by ignorant and evolving man early in his natural development. I wonder if your development has been stultified by your reluctance to open your eyes and your acceptance of ignorant philosophies?..maybe eh?..
W S L, your excellent and well written article, hit a nerve which has caused Johns diatribes, I wonder if he ever considered that the discription of the god spoken of in the bible is that of a raging psychopath, who if the discriptions were true , would be the most prolofic murderer of all time This same god condoned and invented slavery, seperation of the races and whose name and memory, when revealed as only an idea by scientific revelations, will be deleated and regarded as the most negative of all of the Human experience. religion has seperated Humanity in ways no other idea has. Life will outlast a mere idea, as it must!. Darwins memory and name has survived and will be spoken of forever, his name will never be erased as John and those of his ilk would prefer. Time is our master.
Buckland we know that you are deathly afraid of answering any question asked of you about atheism and evolution so why are you here? Why? You are so afraid.
Answer the questions instead of spouting about peer reviewed papers! Many peer reviewed papers supported many medicinal drugs that turned out to be catastrophic failures like Fen Fen. So peer reviewed status is not God-like!
Many established laws of science undermine the theory of the evolution of man! Can you list them all? As a scientist you should. By the way, the term “natives” is considered in some quarters to be a condescending one. Don’t use it here. Use it among your canadians.
WHERE ARE THE HUMAN FOSSILS? WHERE ARE THE TRANSITORY HUMAN FOSSILS? WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THERE VISIBLY APES BEING EVOLUTIONIZED INTO HUMANS?
This is a great question…for both creationists and evolutionists. If evolution is true and man has been slowly evolving over millions of years then we should find thousands of human fossils? This is what Darwin said we could expect if his theory were true. However, paleontologists have been looking for these transitional humanoid fossils for over a hundred years and not one has been found. No wonder God laughs Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Is it true that I heard that in Canada there are many Apes which are literally half humans as they are in a state of evoluting into humans? Send me a picture! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
When a purely scientific discussion degenerates into racial stereotyping as does Anthony’s argument ,it is time for rational minds to decist in any more exchange with what is clearly a boderline demented religiously enslaved mind.
When a purely scientific discussion generates into racial stereotyping as does Anthony’s argument,then reason suffers. Religion has no place in a discussion of facts.
When a scientific discussion degenerates into racial stereotyping as does Anthony’s agrument ,reason suffers. Religious myth has no place within the realm of scientific certainty.
john anthony is well-known on the internet for his diatribe and meaningless rants. It is useless to conduct any rational debate with him, and what is most hilarious is that he keeps demanding evidence when his own “truths” claim to require none. He would not recognize evience even if it jumped up and bit him on the nose. He is still left desperately clutching the six-day creation story that has been already officially debunked, even in religious circles. Not to mention the outrageous demands of the Iron Age Hebraic invention of a “Superior being” that has proclivities even more depraved than mortal man during the same period. The picture painted of the Hebrew god is what man in his ignorance imagined him to be: despotic and tyrannical, condoning slavery, genocide, infanticide rape, forced marriage and property theft, racism in claiming the Hebrew nation as “His people”,demanding worship of himself, and throwing tantrums when he is not adored. John is just following example. I have decided to just ignore him, like all the other ignorant fundamentalists, zealots and anti-intellectuals.
The very bible defines faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evience of things unseen”. So he hasn’t a leg to stand on. The hope of something,, no matter how strong this hope, does not make the “something” real. It is not logical. While we do not have all the answers to our origins and our final destination, it is no reason to embrace the beliefs of a elderly patriarch from Iron Age Mesopotamia who professed to hearing voices in his head instructing him to kill his son and mutilate his genitals. Nowadays, such a profession will certainly land you in the crazy house.
The last corespondence i had with john , he foward me some statement about atheists being the most murderous people on earth. I responded by asking him if the god he served and proclaimed did not hold that title hands down. I PROCEEDED TO POINT OUT THE FLOOD THAT KILLED EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD INCLUDING INNOCENT CHILDREN , AND ADULTS (WHO MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED BY SOME OTHER GOD TO BE SO CALLOUSLY DISPATCHED WITHOUT WARNING) , EXCEPT FOR NOAH, HIS FAMILY AND THEIR ZOO. IT DID NOT SAY MUCH FOR HIS LOVING AND MERCIFUL GOD EITHER, WHO PROMISES TO KILL US ALL AGHAIN WITH FIRE NO LESS ON HIS RETURN. SEVERAL WEEKS NOW, I STILL AWAIT HIS RESPONSE. LOL.
Please use regular case when posting as uppercase is difficult to read.
How can a atheist quote the Bible? What kind of twisted hypocrisy is this? Well the real truth is that there are no real atheists at all. What these people are may just be some hateful, spiteful beings longing for acceptance. Their refusal to answer questions proves that they have no belief in their unbelief.No wonder God just laughs. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
One question the atheists dare to answer; How do you determine what is wrong or right? Or this one; since it was not illegal for Tiger Woods to have several mistresses on what basis was his related actions wrong? Let me laugh some more!
You really are having a good laugh there god.