Is Evolution Real?

Is Evolution Real

By far, one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real. Evolution can be defined as the metamorphosis of a biological being over a time range. Evolution leads to diversity of beings.

It is of course no surprise that there is debate over the reality of it. Whether it is fact or fiction.  Whether humans were created by a supreme being or just evolved from a previous being that had existed before. A seeming battle of Elah between the camp of evolutionists and that of the creationists.

The origin of man looks like one of those questions that won’t stop being brought into discourse. The design of the human body looks like a perfect work of art and there has always been a fascination as to where it came from. A fascination of the genesis of it all. Where it all began from. How we all got here.

Charles Darwin, in 1859, released what is generally now referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s main argument is that there is often a struggle for survival of the fittest of any specific species over time and hence there are changes made for adaptation purposes and consequently new species over time arise from these continued variations.

As stated earlier, on the other side of the coin of the valley in this debate is the camp of those who believe in creation. People who believe in a supreme being that controls the affairs of everything else and that He created everything else as well. Needless to say, they very much doubt whether evolution is real. They believe in creation. The biggest grouse they postulate with the evolution theory is that if everything evolved into place, shouldn’t they have also evolved out of place? How can things so dramatically change over some billion years and then not change over the next few billion years? It is a bit difficult to argue with them in that regard.

David Attenborough, a popular scientist tries to explain this recently. “I think that we’ve stopped evolving because if natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, is the main mechanism of evolution – there may be other things, but it does look as though that’s the case – then we’ve stopped natural selection. ” He said. “We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95–99 per cent of our babies that are born.” Attenborough continued.  Though Attenborough makes some sense in his explanation, it is one which smells of convenience and desperation to fit in. If it was a case of man putting an end to natural selection as Darwin explains, what about wild animals? Antelopes? Lion? Even ants? Surely they have not had as much success in keeping their young alive as we have.

Whether Evolution is real or not is not a debate that will end anytime soon but one thing remains sure, the human body is a perfect machine. Probably the greatest machine to have ever been in existence, and whatever is responsible for it is on a level higher than our level of reasoning as human beings.

 

By Olajide Jatto

 

Daily Telegraph

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Livescience.com

Curiosity.com

 

32 Responses to "Is Evolution Real?"

  1. olasonn   November 25, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    From the article:
    “Whether Evolution is real or not is not a debate that will end anytime soon”

    Eeeeh…the “debate” has ended long ago.
    Just because a few people, who ALL happen to believe in a very specific interpretation of their holy books creation story refuses to accept reality, doesn’t mean there’s a debate in which the outcome is unclear.

    There are people who claim the earth is flat and that the earth is the centre of the universe because they think their holy books tell them so, it only means they’re deluded. So too with the creationists.

    Reply
  2. Spector567   November 25, 2013 at 9:52 am

    So in short you have NOTHING.

    Because you FAILED to mention that we have scientifically DISPROVEN the second in EVERY SINGLE branch of science. There is ZERO positive evidence for creationism in the biblical sense.

    Vs.

    The big bang theory that has a tonn of evidence. Do we know everything? heck no. However, at no point is that an excuse to resort to an idea with nowhere near enough evidence and has been distinctly disproven and say it’s equal. It flies in the face of all common sense and morality.

    and it is certainly not an excuse to purposly and knowingly confuse 3 separate theories from 3 separate branches of science. Each of the theories work just fine without the other. In short your complaints about the big bang have nothing to do with evolution.

    Also FYI. The big bang theory was created by a catholic priest. Georges Lemaître in 1924. however, I’m sure you’ll find away to suggest he was out to kill god as well based on no evidence.

    Reply
  3. Con-Tester   November 25, 2013 at 4:39 am

    Evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, matter, time, space or life. Conflating these things is a creationist canard that they would indeed do well to avoid if they are serious about having fruitful debates. In this vein, Wikipedia cautions

    “One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation-evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations. … When biological evolution is conflated with other evolutionary processes, this can cause errors such as the claim that modern evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis or the Big Bang.”

    Ignoring for the moment the fact that creationism is not testable or falsifiable and that there is nil plausible evidence for creationism and voluminous evidence militating against it (or at least rendering it a superfluous conjecture), how is creationism a useful or in any way an enlightening account of observable phenomena? What does creationism explain or enable that is not covered in far simpler and far better substantiated strokes by naturalistic narratives? What new knowledge does creationism provide or promise? What new questions does creationism prompt?

    Reply
    • Graham Dull   November 29, 2013 at 3:01 am

      Con-Tester
      You stated: “Evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, matter, time, space or life.”

      I agree that this is absolutely true when referring specifically to ‘Biological Evolution.’ Biological Evolution does not attempt to and neither does it explain “the origin of the universe, matter, time, space or life.”

      Defining the term “Evolution.”
      1. In general usage: Evolution — Refers to a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
      Thus we talk about the ‘Evolution of the Universe,’ and the ‘Evolution of Life’ (abiogenesis).

      2. In biology: Biological Evolution — Refers to a change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.
      Thus biological evolution refers to changes to organisms which already exist, and we use terms such as the ‘Evolution of Species,’ the ‘Evolution of Fishes,’ and the like.

      I totally agree with you that Biological Evolution does nothing to explain the existence of life.
      Graham

      Reply
      • Graham Dull   December 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm

        Origin of life — An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis
        “Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”. High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins… It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration.” http://creation.com/origin-of-life

        Is the origin of life a part of evolution? If it isn’t, how could evolution have happened without it?

        Reply
        • olasonn   December 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm

          No, the origin of life is not a part of evolution. THis should be well known and not a big secret.
          Creationists do seem to like linking the two and trying to shoot down one in hope that it will take down the other with it.

          The point is…it doesn’t matter to the ToE how life originated. If Abiogenesis is correct, it came with comest or if aliens planted it here….it has no bearing on the validity of the ToE. That’s why they are two distinct things.

          No, we don’t know for sure how life originated, we may never know…but we know that it has evolved over loooong periods of time.

          Reply
          • Graham Dull   December 2, 2013 at 2:08 pm

            olasonn
            olasonn, You are obviously satisfied that Life comes from Life. This we agree on.
            You seem to be suggesting that we have no idea how Life actually came from Non-life.
            Following your reasoning; ‘If Abiogenesis is correct, it came with comest or if aliens planted it here….’
            Or just maybe ‘God’ planted it here (My suggestion). Do you agree that this is a possibility?
            Graham

          • olasonn   December 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

            I couldn’t say if it’s possible or not really.
            But I don’t think WHAT you believe is that important, it’s WHY you believe it. And as long as I have yet to see evidence of any gods or even find one which people who believe in it agree on its attributes, I see no reason to believe it. That’s the important thing.

            But, it’s moving away from the topic…which is that evolution is true no matter how life originated.

          • Graham Dull   December 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm

            olasonn
            You stated: “But, it’s moving away from the topic…which is that evolution is true no matter how life originated.”

            I follow your lead and we’ll leave the question of the origin of first life alone. Rather we’ll get right into the heart of ‘Biological Evolution.’
            Example: After 1.6 billion years of evolution, Eukaryotic cells appeared.
            Eukaryotic cells are not simple, in fact they’re incredibly complex. Everyone now recognises this. Prokaryotic cells are much simpler. Viruses are much simpler again.
            Biological Evolutionists have no explanation as to how or why ‘Eukaryotic cells’ evolved. But with a stroke of a pen in evolutionary articles, Prokaryotic cells evolve into Eukaryotic cells.

            olasonn, How do you yourself account for the appearance of ‘Eukaryotic cells’? What is it that you accept, (and WHY do you believe it?)
            Graham

          • olasonn   December 2, 2013 at 4:34 pm

            How do I account for the appearance of Eukaryotic cells?
            I don’t, I’m not a biologist.

            I accept that the experts of the world know the most about the topics they are educated and experienced in, and that I would need an extremely good reason to go against an overwhelming scientific consensus.

            I also know that religious people have throughout history had a habit of rejecting valid science and believing in nonsense and that whenever the only opponents are them and they are so for pure religious reasons there’s an even less reason to think they are on to something.

            How’s that?

  4. Con-Tester   November 24, 2013 at 11:44 pm

    Olajide Jatto wrote many, many things about biological evolution that reveal a profound and extensive ignorance, perhaps even a deliberate one, of the subject matter, as well as a willingness to erect straw men and to confabulate misrepresentations. It’s a similar order of risible distortion to that of a secularist who earnestly claims that Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in Zeus on a green unicorn.

    Parodies aside, I understand that to some extent this could be a language problem. Jatto, after all, is Nigerian and his/her ham-fisted sentence construction and idiom perversion give the game away. But why then is s/he writing in an English medium publication?

    Reply
    • Jay Clemons   November 25, 2013 at 9:24 am

      Con-Tester – I mostly agree enthusiastically with what you have written; I would just qualify that enthusiasm with a humble and considerable respect for anyone who is multilingual to the extent that Jatto is. Although Jatto’s article is unintelligible in places, he does evince an apparent preference for the notion of an “intelligent designer” based, seemingly, on the concept of the “human body” as a “perfect machine”. But of course, the human body is not a “perfect” machine in any sense. Humans are merely primates with larger brains (and smaller toes!) than our distant cousins. We have a number of maladaptive features like tonsils, appendices, coccyges, wisdom teeth, etc., that can only be explained by inheritance, and not by any kind of “intelligent design.”
      In the end, Jatto does not answer the question he poses; and he doesn’t even contribute anything important to the discussion. My conclusion: he needs to study evolution more!

      Reply
      • Con-Tester   November 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm

        Jay, I speak, read and write four languages, English being the second, so in my view multilingualism, while superficially admirable, is not a good reason to soft-pedal ignorance.

        I agree that Jatto and likeminded deniers need to become much better informed about many things. Spending five minutes with Google and visiting a handful of creationist/ID websites is nowhere near sufficient to undo the dedicated and painstaking studies by several hundred thousand specialists in a multitude of different scientific disciplines over 150+ years, all of whose findings converge on the same essential picture. Those experts don’t debate whether or not “evolution is real.” They know it to be so; what they debate are the details of how it proceeds. In fact, evolution deniers display an enormous disrespect, arrogance even, for all that toil and effort when they denounce it with nothing more than a fistful of tired, discredited and unconvincing tropes. I personally have enormous respect for someone who has enough savvy to recognise the Dunning-Kruger effect, or even just the potential for it, operating within themselves. A good dictum in this context is that, when, as a layman, you think you know better, you’re very probably missing something and so it’s better to shut up.

        Reply
  5. Mick   November 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Dear Olajide Jatto,

    I don’t think you understood Attenborough’s comment about evolution. He was talking about the very specific case of humans. Even then, for a long-lived species such as us it is very difficult to observe changes over time. It would take several generations to see genetic responses to effects from today. It is impossible to say what good or harm we are doing by keeping our high survival rate. Eg Type 1 diabetes used to be rare because the sufferers would not have lived to child bearing age. Now it is much more common. This is good for the individual surely but in the long term, who knows.

    Evolution both in the wild and in labs has been observed and documented widely.

    However evolution does still go on

    Reply
    • Graham Dull   November 24, 2013 at 6:48 pm

      Mick
      You stated: “It is impossible to say what good or harm we are doing by keeping our high survival rate. Eg Type 1 diabetes used to be rare because the sufferers would not have lived to child bearing age. Now it is much more common. This is good for the individual surely but in the long term, who knows.”
      I wonder how the ability of species (any species) to better take care of their young interferes with the process of evolution. It is the basis of evolution. Evolution is generally understood to occur without any conscious input or design. Of course it’s understood that the first life arose from non-life supposedly 3.6 billion years ago, and that it arose by chance. But for any creature consciously nurturing its young, we can hardly say that the better the survival rate the more negative the result.
      Charles Darwin may have excluded a ‘higher conscious being’ from his view of evolution, but he certainly would not have regarded the intelligent and conscious decisions of creatures to be outside of the evolutionary process. An increased survival rate of offspring is the driving force of the ‘survival of the fittest.’ Thus the increased survival rate of those with diabetes is evolution in action.
      I suggest that Charles Darwin would have taken a different view ‘regarding the conscious input of species’ than either you Mick or David Attenborough. To Darwin an ‘improved conscious input of species resulting in a higher survival rate’ would drive evolution.

      Reply
  6. MNb   November 24, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    “one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real.”
    Not really. You won’t find much debate on this subject in the big western-European newspapers. That’s because science is widely recognized as valid, unlike creationism. Astrology and alchemy are other examples of not big debates in these countries, for the same reason.

    Reply
  7. Spector567   November 24, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Graham Dull
    If you can’t make an honest argument than perhaps you should consider the fact that you don’t have an argument at all.

    You have literally butchered 3 or more different theories and than attempted to combine them together to form some mutant hybrid that is not recognized by ANY branch of science or any body with a high-school level understanding of the theories.

    There are literally millions of Christians across this globe who find plenty of meaning within there lives and can do so without disparaging, or making up stuff about the work of others. I’m only sorry that have so much hatred for other Christians, and people that you felt the need to lie about what they actually believe and what they actually said.

    Reply
  8. vilgessuola   November 24, 2013 at 7:18 am

    A handful of creationist cranks and crackpots refuses to acknowledge the findings resulting from the hard work of a very large number of very smart people in a variety of disciplines over the last 100 years – and you call that a ‘debate’?

    Reply
  9. Rev. Stevils   November 24, 2013 at 7:03 am

    Among those that understand the evidence and comprehend the basics of genetics, there is no debate. Much like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution is based on observation and evidence. Unlike creation, which is based off of fairly tales and has no solid evidence.

    Reply
    • Graham Dull   November 27, 2013 at 3:08 am

      Rev. Stevils
      You stated: ‘Unlike creation, which is based off of fairly tales and has no solid evidence.’
      Do you believe the first two chapters of the Bible are fairy tales? If you do, do you also believe that the last two chapters of the Bible (Revelation chapters 21, 22) are fairy tales too?

      Reply
  10. Bob   November 24, 2013 at 5:41 am

    Claims of Creationists
    These are the tenants of Creation
    Stephen Fry stated it clearly:
    “If ignorance is bliss, why aren’t there more happy people in the world?”
    a. God created himself and has always been here, somewhat bored until…
    b. God said “let there be life” – 6-7000 years ago
    c. Man created from dust, women from man’s rib – 6-7000 years ago
    d. Stupidity was born — 2nd Nov 1948
    I can’t personally vouch for Point ‘d’, it’s a joke — but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

    Caution Needed
    We owe it to ourselves to seriously reconsider the above
    When and how did nothing become something?
    When and how did non-living matter come to life?
    When and how did consciousness arise?

    Our own life’s experience comes about because we are alive, we are conscious, and we are able to interact with the world around us. Our very existence poses so many questions — such as.
    Why does anything actually exist at all?
    Did everything just happen for no reason?
    Is God the creator of all things including life?
    How did God himself get here? Where did He come from?
    Is there a greater purpose to life?

    The origin of Evolution: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
    The origin of Creation: “God did it.”
    Bob

    Reply
  11. Graham Dull   November 24, 2013 at 4:14 am

    Claims of Evolution
    These are the tenants of Evolution
    Sir Terry Pratchett stated it clearly:
    “In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded”
    a. Nothing became something — 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago
    b. Non-living substance came to life — 3.6 billion years ago
    c. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) became eukaryotic cells (these cells contain a nucleus and mitochondria like the cells in our bodies) — 2 billion years ago
    d. Consciousness arose — 2nd Nov 1948
    I can personally vouch for Point ‘d’ — but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

    Caution Needed
    We owe it to ourselves to seriously reconsider the above
    When and how did nothing become something?
    When and how did non-living matter come to life?
    When and how did consciousness arise?

    Our own life’s experience comes about because we are alive, we are conscious, and we are able to interact with the world around us. Our very existence poses so many questions — such as.
    Why does anything actually exist at all?
    Did everything just happen for no reason?
    Is God the creator of all things including life?
    How did God himself get here? Where did He come from?
    Is there a greater purpose to life?

    The origin of Evolution: “In the beginning there was nothing — and it exploded”
    The origin of Creation: “In the beginning there was God.”
    Graham

    Reply
    • Jay Clemons   November 24, 2013 at 10:32 am

      “Tenants” of Evolution? Really?! I think not…Sir Terry Pratchett is no authority on evolution; and the “theory” of evolution, as formulated by Charles Darwin, does not address the origin of the universe or how life came into being. The tenets of Darwinian evolution have to do with how different species come into being; how genetic diversity arises, how it is reinforced by geographical and temporal isolation, the role played by natural selection in creating differential reproductive success, and stuff like that. The contrast with the “creationist” narrative cannot be more stark; it’s a pretty easy choice. As time and scientific discovery go on, all the findings of genetics, paleontology, ecology, geology, etc., support and confirm the evolutionary narrative. Consider the “debate” resolved…

      Reply
      • Graham Dull   November 24, 2013 at 4:06 pm

        Jay
        You stated: “…the “theory” of evolution, as formulated by Charles Darwin, does not address the origin of the universe or how life came into being. The tenets of Darwinian evolution have to do with how different species come into being; how genetic diversity arises…”
        Darwinian evolution as you expound it here is much more limited in scope than we view it today. You rightly point out that Charles Darwin did not seek to explain ‘how life came into being,’ ‘the origin of the universe,’ etc.
        He was looking at the smaller changes which occur within species. How species adapt and how they survive, and the mechanisms for such changes. The survival of the fittest. That fact that such changes occurred was not new with Darwin. It had been known since ancient times. Darwin built upon this knowledge. “It will produce thorns and thistles for you” Genesis 3: 18. People (at least someone) back then knew that plant species would change. Darwin described how changes such as these would make them long-term survivors.
        An excellent example of this is the protection afforded by the thorns of Acacia trees growing on the African Savannah. These trees are browsed by giraffes, and if an Acacia tree now existed without thorns it would quickly become extinct. (Survival of the fittest) Darwin wasn’t new in postulating that plant species would indeed change. But Darwin took his observations a lot further than this. He did not recognise God as creator. He understood that living species changed over time, yes, but he also believed that the origin of life was from another source. He believed that somewhere in the past, life arose from that which was not alive. He disciples continue to affirm this understanding.

        Reply
        • Spector567   November 24, 2013 at 7:11 pm

          Graham so in short you are arguing about a PRETEND theory of evolution that was not published based upon what you “think” darwin said and something that has NOTHING to do with the current theory today.

          I have one serious question for you. Do have any Positive proof of creationism. Anything to say how EVERY SINGLE branch of science disagrees with it.
          Or do are just disagreeing with a theory that is accepted by millions of Christians including the Vatican. Only because the guy who created it may have not worshiped the same god you did. (contrary to all published evidence).

          How very tolerant of you. I’m sure Jesus would be proud of how you treat people who are different than you.

          Reply
          • Graham Dull   November 25, 2013 at 3:32 am

            Spector567
            You asked: “Do have any Positive proof of creationism.”
            Do I have any Positive proof of creation?
            When talking of the ‘origin’ or ‘first cause’ of all things, we’re generally presented with two views.

            (1) The origin of Evolution: “In the beginning there was nothing — and it exploded”
            “…the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking
            Evolutionists are divided regarding the ‘Big Bang Theory.’ Although all evolutionists accept the Big Bang as a fact, some argue that there was some substance in existence prior to the bang, thus arguing the case for cause and effect. Thus there is an earlier unknown date for the first existence of some form of substance. Others argue that as nothing is eternal, the Big Bang is the obvious beginning of everything. We can ask, what (if anything) existed in the 100 billion years prior to the Big Bang?
            There is currently no scientific or human answer to such questions.

            (2) The origin of Creation: “In the beginning there was God.”
            There is no scientific or humanly derived answer for this statement either.

            We can’t scientifically prove a first cause whether we’re creationists or evolutionists.

        • Jay Clemons   November 25, 2013 at 8:30 am

          I note that you left off your list of tenants one very important one: that the planet Earth formed (came into existence) about 4.54 billion years ago. That is not a “claim of evolution”, but it is a fact nonetheless. It is widely believed that life did not exist on the planet at the time of its formation. So sometime later, life “appeared” on the planet. That IS a claim of evolution, and it is self-evidently true. The question of how did life colonize a lifeless planet is a question that interests all of us, and one that there is some scientific investigation into; but no legitimate evolutionary biologist claims to know the answer to that question with any certainty. Certainly not Charles Darwin! Of course, “Creationism” claims to answer that question with great certainty and specificity; but no legitimate evolutionary biologist believes the account of the creation that is in Genesis. So it remains an unanswered question, as far as evolutionary theory is concerned.
          Meanwhile, as you allude to, the theory of evolution has been elaborated very substantially since Darwin (and Wallace!) propounded it, by means that Darwin could only have dreamed of: genetics, radio-carbon and other means of dating, paleontological discoveries, ecology, plate tectonics, etc. I think it is fair to say that before Darwin, we didn’t know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor; but now we know that to a high degree of certainty; and Darwin contributed some key insights into how different species can succeed ancestral species over time. And an explanation of how life changes over time is a very important part of the history of the planet, wouldn’t you agree?

          Reply
          • Graham Dull   November 26, 2013 at 3:18 am

            Jay
            I appreciate your comments and all of your summary.
            “The question of how did life colonize a lifeless planet is a question that interests all of us, and one that there is some scientific investigation into; but no legitimate evolutionary biologist claims to know the answer to that question with any certainty.”
            I suggest that we leave that question of the origin of first life alone because it is difficult. Rather let’s get right into the middle of biological evolution.
            During my teens and into my early twenties I believed in the “Theory of Evolution.” I was a teenager during the 1960’s. I wasn’t taught evolution at school as I finished my basic Primary School education two weeks after turning thirteen, and then I went to work on the family farm. It was during this time that I read from encyclopaedias and from the media everything I could find regarding evolution. I believed and accepted it. I don’t accept it today.
            Turn back to that time (1960’s) and look at the limits of human understanding regarding every aspect of biology and other sciences. For instance, take a look at our total knowledge regarding ‘Eukaryotic cells’ back then. They seemed to be such simple things, and if my Grandmother baked a cake she could produce something quite complex by comparison. (An exaggeration, but not too over the top.)
            Eukaryotic cells are not simple anymore. Prokaryotic cells are much simpler. Viruses are much simpler again.
            With a stroke of a pen in evolutionary articles, Prokaryotic cells evolve into Eukaryotic cells. I’m not convinced it is so easy. I’m simply not convinced.

          • olasonn   November 26, 2013 at 4:41 pm

            Graham Dull wrote:
            “I suggest that we leave that question of the origin of first life alone because it is difficult.”

            Well, I for one am glad scientists don’t stop looking for answers when topics are difficult. What an odd remark.

            You say you don’t accept evolution. If I by that reasoned that you are a believer in a god of some kind and just happen to take some creation story literally…am I on the right track. And do you think that is a coincidence and not the real reason you refuse to accept what the huge majority of experts in all fields of science accept?

          • Graham Dull   November 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm

            olasonn
            You questioned my comment: “I suggest that we leave that question of the origin of first life alone because it is difficult.”
            olasonn, I apologise. It is a case of a misunderstanding. The context is ambiguous.
            I made that comment specifically to Jay Clemons to whose post I was replying. Jay had been endeavouring to limit and concentrate the discussion on ‘biological evolution’ where we could get down to some detail. He suggested we look at these areas (which are related directly to the subject) “genetics, radio-carbon and other means of dating, paleontological discoveries, ecology, plate tectonics, etc.”
            I was responding and agreeing with him that we put the topic of abiogenesis to the side.
            My interest in abiogenesis/creation remains at 1000%.
            Graham

    • Ken Phelps   November 24, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

      Read and heed.

      Reply
  12. articulett   November 24, 2013 at 1:38 am

    Evolution is real. There is no debate among scientists regarding it’s veracity– just as there is no debate about whether gravity is real or whether atoms are real. The evidence is overwhelming: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-common-ancestor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk The only people who don’t accept evolution are those who don’t understand it and those who think that they will be punished forever unless they believe a certain religious creation story.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.