October 19, 2007

How Endogenous Retroviruses Prove Evolution

A lot of evidence out there proves evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. It ranges from the similarity between our own DNA and that of the chimpanzee all the way up to chimp chromosome #13.

Today I'd like to talk about Endogenous Retroviruses, How they prove evolution and how they prove that we and the chimpanzee, At some point in the past, Shared a common ancestor.

For those who don't know 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 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.

So what does this mean and how does it prove evolution? Well, When a Retrovirus infects the host it will leave behind a tell tale sign, Like a calling card, In the hosts genome. This calling card is then passed on to the hosts offspring in cases where the genome change was made in a Germ cell.

So if evolution is correct we should find that we share Retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, And we do, At numerous locations in our genome. Could this be a coincidence? Well it could, But it is highly unlikely. For it to be a coincidence humans and chimpanzees would have had to get infected by the same viruses and have the viruses insert the DNA change in exactly the same place. So as humans have around 3 billion base pairs and retroviruses generally insert their DNA randomly it's impossible that ourselves and chimpanzees would have the same instances of retrovirus DNA at the same locations unless we inherited it from a common ancestor.

This evidence is even more compelling when we learn that we share multiple instances of retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, All of which occur in the same locations in our genome. The odds against this happening by chance in a genome with 3 billion base pairs is astronomical.

120 comments:

  1. That's it? That's the proof? You say the chances of humans and chimps being infected at the same point in the genome is close to impossible, i.e. the odds are too high. However, you seem to dismiss the chances that are equally if not greater that the proper genetic mutations would take place for argued evolution. So, on the one hand you might dismiss the "odds are too great" argument made by ID's, but then you turn around and use to to base your argument on? Hmm...not very convincing. In either of these, all one has to do is post that silly picture of how correlation does not equal causation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are these people so dense that they think disproving something in the Christian Bible disproves God?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Are these people so dense that they think disproving something in the Christian Bible disproves God?"

    Are you so sure that insulting them is going to help your cause?

    What exactly in the Bible does it disprove?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "... you seem to dismiss the chances that are equally if not greater that the proper genetic mutations would take place for argued evolution."

    What are these proper mutations you speak of? Who said we should evolve in a particular way? It is equally likely we could have formed very differently, according to evolution, and in that case we'd have the same markers in the same places.

    It's true it can't be "proved", but at a billion to one. I like my odds. :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. Technical note here, but you can never prove evolution, no more than you can prove any theory. There is a vast body of scientific evidence that supports evolution, but by the scientific method does not allow for proof of a hypothesis.

    Also, intelligent design cannot, by definition be scientific since there is no conceivable experiment that could demonstrate the intervention of a higher power.

    Great work though, and very compelling. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So, on the one hand you might dismiss the "odds are too great" argument made by ID"

    That's because the "odds are too great" argument, as used by ID, shows that they actually have no clue how evolutions works. The odds of beneficial mutation over time is 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems that evolution may be your god and you work hard to prop it up. Do you devote this much time to other theories like gravity? Science should not be a religion that has to be preached.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Holy cow...the posts on here by the anti-science crowd are stunningly ignorant. I guess I shouldn't be too hard on them, though. I used to be a young-earth creationist many years ago. I can at least understand where they're coming from. In my current frame of mind, though, it astounds me to see their complete disdain for logic and science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It seems that evolution may be your god and you work hard to prop it up. Do you devote this much time to other theories like gravity? Science should not be a religion that has to be preached."

    You are right, Science isn't a religion. But it does need people to defend it in the face of primitive myths and filthy lies. I don't want my children being told lies.

    And to answer your other question. No i don't spend this much time defending gravity, But the second someone starts saying it doesn't exist i will (or more than likely id ask them to prove it by jumping out the window).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bush cowboys dont believe evolution but will believe iraq had wmd and iraq caused 911.

    Get a life guys.You seem idiotic every day.Now will i go to hell:)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, intelligent design cannot, by definition be scientific since there is no conceivable experiment that could demonstrate the intervention of a higher power."

    It doesn't have to demonstrate a higher power, just intelligence... or is forensics and archeology not science?

    Don't play word games or you will get killed son.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Hmm.. not very convincing.
    - jered.

    Yeh, until you realize that there are over 200,000 Human ERV's which can be found in chimps at orthologous positions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Don't play word games or you will get killed son."

    What does it mean to get "killed son"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Now will i go to hell:)"

    Can't go to a place doesn't exist. Let's not even ask.

    "Don't play word games or you will get killed son."

    Haha. Your empty threats are funny and make you seem pathetic. I hope you do see this.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Big Poppa. Sure you can! You can't prove the existence of a pantheistic god, but you can prove evolution is true.

    You just have to have enough test cases which, in union, cannot have another explanation. We have only been at it for a few hundred years. Give it some time and evolution will be a collection of laws.

    This one is serious headway. Cut two entities from different clothes and the fabric lines won't match up. Cut them from the same cloth and you will find similarities on a micro level. You can prove something this way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. People that believe in Christianity already show their own ignorance. Evolution is a FACT.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I cannot understand why some people have a tough time accepting that a book written 2000+ years ago might not have all the right answers to all the questions.

    This factoid is but one of many many factiods that point to evolution among species.

    It's time to move on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Religon is like the darkness.

    You can't actually see anything in the dark however you can possibly imagine that you do. When someone tells you that there is something there you will believe it.

    Pull the fucking curtain from your eyes and reveal the truth to yourself.

    Or...follow others advice and live the rest of your life knowing everything that you do, because you heard it from someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is interesting. So if I grant you the fact that the odds are too high for different viruses to leave identical traces, will you grant me the fact that by your theory the odds are too high for life to even come into existence to begin with? The odds always seem to be against me, even when the numbers are in my favor. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The odds always seem to be against me, even when the numbers are in my favor. Strange."

      The problem with your comparison here is that you are looking at two completely different scales of probability. If the odds of having abiogenesis occur are 1 in 500 billion; by the sheer vastness of the cosmos probability dictates that there are likely to be many hundreds of examples of this taking place. Conversely, If the odds of many genomes mutating identically between two specific, yet separate unrelated species are again 1 in 500 billion; the likely hood of this being true are drastically unlikely, if not completely impossible.

      Especially when coupled with as much evidence as Evolution and/or abiogenesis have going for them, deliberate design explaining this phenomenon is laughably unlikely. There is no way any rational, informed, thinking being should accept deliberate design as the best explanation of how life came to the form it is currently on this planet.

      Delete
  21. It boggles my mind how gullible the Christian true believers are when it comes to the magical beliefs they were taught before they were smart enough to know anything about science.

    God is the remnant of our species childhood. We need to grow up - look at the evidence - and let the TRUTH be our intellectual goal. Not some magical truth bestowed upon some nomads in a legend 2000 years ago. Scientific truth is based on observation and analysis of the universe in which we live.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "jered"-

    If you would take even the slightest time to actually comprehend the meaning of this article, you would see why your statement that the author is using the "Odds are too great" fallaciously is false. The article states that the simplest explanation for humans and chimps to share the same retrovirus code in the same place on the genome is that a common ancestor of the two had the original infection. If you are familiar with the concept of Occam's razor, you will understand that this, being the simplest explanation, is infinitely likely in comparison to random chance. The reason for this is because one infection is more likely to cause the observed result than two non-related infections producing the same results.

    Aside from that, you seem to have a faulty understanding of what "mutation" means. In genetic term, "Mutation" is, in a sense, a replication error - a slight smudge on the xerox machine, as it were, which causes a single base pair to change. This in turn causes a change in the protein sequence that the DNA strand produces when read by the cellular machine, which in turn causes different functions in the body. This is altogether quite common - just take a look at how often cancer occurs (Cancer is caused by a "bad" mutation). In some cases, a replication error occurs in sex cells (sperm or egg) which gives the offspring an advantage in its environment. This, in turn, allows that offspring to breed more often, which causes that particular variation to become more common. Speciation occurs when two different mutations branch away from each other, and each variation fills a different niche in the environment. That's evolution, and it's a gradual process with simple odds - it's not guided, so random replication errors produce "good", "bad" and "Neutral" mutations fairly equally.

    Now, as to your final sentence, I can only say "Huh?". I'm stunned as to how little you truly understand if you can't realize just how wrong that statement is when considering the article above. The concept of the article is quite clear: IT IS NIGH IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE CODE WOULD BE IN THE SAME SPOT UNLESS THE TWO HAD COMMON ANCESTRY. SERIOUSLY. WE ARE TALKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THRICE WHILST WINNING THE LOTTERY AND GETTING INVITED INTO A THREESOME.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Impressive. God did some good work creating the process of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. evolution is not a theory-- it is fact. any system with entities that reproduce imperfectly (i.e. with random mutations or even other kinds) and compete for resources will evolve. in fact i do believe it borders on common sense. just think about it for a second. how could things NOT evolve in this scenario? do intelligent designers claim that mutations don't happen?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I Don't believe in evolution or creation. so I am non biased toward either argument although I have researched evolution very thoroughly and I have found that evolution disproves itself... 2nd law of thermodynamics says "the expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

    ReplyDelete
  26. what if its all made to look so plausible by some eccentric alien

    ReplyDelete
  27. "the expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system. . ."

    We don't live in an isolated system. We get plenty of energy from the sun. Even the moon!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am a Catholic, and I believe in evolution.

    But also, m. derosier, you said "IT IS NIGH IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE CODE WOULD BE IN THE SAME SPOT UNLESS THE TWO HAD COMMON ANCESTRY. SERIOUSLY. WE ARE TALKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THRICE WHILST WINNING THE LOTTERY AND GETTING INVITED INTO A THREESOME. "

    Now, what exactly are the chances that the Earth is as perfect as it is? We have a moon that protects us from some asteroids, it also controls the tides and keeps the earth's orbit in balance. Our sun is close enough to warm us, but far away enough so we don't burn. Jupiter also protects us from comets and asteroids and things like that. There are many more things, like electromagnetism being just right so it keeps atoms together but doesn't crush them or something like that. I forget.

    But the point is, the chance of this virus being on our DNA in the exact same place is much more likely than the cosmic perfection that is the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "We don't live in an isolated system. We get plenty of energy from the sun. Even the moon!"

    First of all the energy from the sun is dissipating, and your ignorance is quite funny because the moon gets it's light from the sun, it is merely a reflection of the light

    second, that isn't even relevant

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear moron,

    It is most likely that you being mentally retarded is not your fault but that YOU may have been slightly evolved from a chimpanzee... but as for the rest of the sane population of the world backs up there argument or in this case, mindless rantings with hard facts.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Righto! Single hard fact for God then please.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Its an interesting thought which makes you think about where we came from.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I Don't believe in evolution or creation. so I am non biased toward either argument although I have researched evolution very thoroughly and I have found that evolution disproves itself... 2nd law of thermodynamics"

    Anyone starting off by claiming their misunderstanding of thermodynamics somehow invalidates evolution can be binned. It's that simple. They do not know what they are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Again, are YOU retarded? you're ignorance to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is amusing do you even know what Entropy means?

    If you are a physicist, then why don't you explain your understanding of thermodynamics for the rest of us and back up your statements with hard fact (preferably non-contradicting scientific laws and hard facts if you are unable to)

    ReplyDelete
  37. unless you are unable to*

    ReplyDelete
  38. While I'm not one to take sides on this particular issue i can understand where both of you are coming from. CV, on the one hand is attempting to pull the so called " second low of thermodynamics " out his pocket, while the apposing argumentist is under the impression that we are in an open system and therefore the above stated law would be a poor argument against evolution. May I ask however, what evidence there is that we live in an open system?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "It doesn't have to demonstrate a higher power, just intelligence... or is forensics and archeology not science?

    Don't play word games or you will get killed son."




    Okay.. So they would have to demonstrate recognizable intelligence with regard to the universe, species, et all being created. Now.. I would venture to say that a "Higher Power" would be fairly synonymous with intelligence in this sort of discussion. You either have a inanimate theory of evolution or similar, or something "tangible" that can possess intelligence. Last I checked ID supporters aren't trying to argue that a rock or peat moss can possess intelligence. Are you?

    I'm a bit miffed that you threaten some sort of action warning of articulation or grammar yet you aren't able to recognize the similarity of "Higher Power" and "Intelligence".

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's pretty easy to show that Earth is an open energy system. Wait until local noon, go outside, and look straight up. There's this great big ball of fusion going on up there. We call it "the Sun."

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Are these people so dense that they think disproving something in the Christian Bible disproves God?"

    God was not mentioned once in this article, why must everything be about God, goddamnit!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. I keep asking evolutionists why we moved from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction and no one can give me a definitive answer. A single gender with asexual reproductive capabilities would be most self-sufficient and optimal for survival. If the whole point of evolution is to mutate for the benefit of survival then this goes against the very core of it.

    When reading Dawkins, he keeps using the words "assume", "it seems", etc. If evolutionists are trying to convince me that the theory is in reality fact then please stop using these words because they are very unconvincing.

    ReplyDelete
  43. i guess, the idea is that at this point creationism/intelligent design and evolution theory are just as plausible as each other.

    either billions and billions of mutations or whatever happened over billions and billions of years and now we get the extreme complexity that is the earth and universe and humanity and whatever,

    or a supreme being created it all and natural selection or whatever is part of its creation.

    i think it's important to note that faith requires/desires no logic or proof. the definition of faith: "belief that is not based in proof."

    so, a god will never be proved, evolution may be proved someday in the future. it's still not. at this point, saying that it's highly unlikely that it's not true is not enough...


    and regarding the comment above me, i've always wondered that too! there are lots of things that humans do poorly in terms of survival, if we're the pinnacle of evolution or whatever. we destroy ourselves and our environment. are we really that 'evolved?'

    ReplyDelete
  44. "But the point is, the chance of this virus being on our DNA in the exact same place is much more likely than the cosmic perfection that is the Earth."

    Let's consider for a second that the likelihood of you knowing both the probability of the "virus being on our DNA in the exact same place" AND the probability of "the cosmic perfection that is the Earth" is in line with the probability of me pooping out a rhesus monkey in the 12 minutes.

    Suffice to say: You're talking out of your ass, dude.

    However, I almost concur being that there is, what I would assumed to be, a fairly limited number of possible positions this "signature" could appear in our DNA. You must also take into account the number of possible "signatures" that can appear in N positions. So now you have an entirely new set of die that could have another million sides.

    In closing... Whether the "probability" is equal or not has no bearing on a matter such as this since the number of "rolls" is completely different between the two probabilities being compared. For example... If I had a 6% chance of shitting out a rhesus monkey.. The likelihood of me shitting out that rhesus monkey if I only shat twice would be pretty slim... However if I were to shit hundreds of times... You bet my swollen ass we'd be knee deep in rhesus monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Your article is moronic at best. Let's break this down shall we?

    * Mr virus comes and attack said body (be it chimp or human).

    * Mr virus then supplants some of its DNA into the host's DNA.
    -We CANNOT assume that this virus will make it throughout the entire body NOR can we assume that it has even the slightest chance of getting to the Sperm or egg cells. Even IF the virus DID get into a sperm/egg cell that made it into the reproductive cycle then you must realize that DNA transcriptase (spelling?) typically does not allow anomalies so large as to let an ENTIRE virus's DNA remain in the host's cell that is infected or to remain during copying to make a new cell. You are basing your "proof" for evolution off such weak evidence and with such a lack of understanding of the human body its a wonder you bothered to post in the first place.

    Lastly your GodBeGone name is hideous. God being wished out of places is the reason things like the VA Tech shooting happen. You want God out of science? Fine then you find YOUR OWN universe to study...and stop studying God's!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "If the whole point of evolution is to mutate for the benefit of survival then this goes against the very core of it."

    Evolution does not necessarily dictate that ONLY the best possible permutation will occur. Evolution dictates that mutations DO occur whether they are for the better or for the worst. Survival of the fittest dictates that those on the "worst" side of the coin have a higher mortality rate and thus do not survive, leaving the favorable mutation.

    "A single gender with asexual reproductive capabilities would be most self-sufficient and optimal for survival."

    I would like to see your research to back up your assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  47. whoopn, Retroviruses are a fact. They exist and they do exactly what i claimed they do. Look it up, I don't have time to sit here schooling you on something you should have read up on before professing to be an expert on it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Good work. For your next assignment, you must show whether mosquitos can transmit AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Impressive. God did some good work creating the process of evolution."

    i lol'd. a troll is a troll is a troll.

    but hey, if i were God i'd probably make a universe that makes itself because FRANKLY i WOULDN'T CARE about the massive string of events that lead to you wearing the same pair of boxers for a week.

    there may be a god. there may not be. the TRUTH is that nobody will ever be able to *prove* anything one way or the other, but the evidence against a 6 day creation is massive.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I respectfully submit that this could just as easily be evidence of a common designer. It is logical that we would share much of the same genetic features as other creatures that God made. Since human and chimp DNA is very similar, it is logical that certain sites are simply predisposed to the insertion of certain retroviruses. It could be that when said virus came around, it attacked chimps and humans in the same manner. Just like how you'd expect two different models of Ford cars to experience many of the same mechanical breakdowns and be involved in the same recalls. They may look very different on the outside, but because they share many of the same parts they have have the same vulnerabilities built into them.

    Anyway, that is JMHO. I don't agree with ID and certainly don't want it taught in public schools. Religion should be taught in the home, in churches, and private religious schools but has no place in the public school system. I am a Creationist, but accept that the Hebrew of Genesis 1 implies that God could have created the Earth and the Universe long before He returned and created life on this rock (that could have been billions of years old at the time of Creation). Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This probably needs to be said again "there are over 200,000 Human ERV's which can be found in chimps at orthologous positions". We are not talking about ONE virus here. It's said that up to 8% of the human genome is made of viral DNA.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yep well I'm not someone who needs further proof of the existence of evolution but this would be more convincing if you didn't seem to believe a capital letter is necessary after a comma.

    ReplyDelete
  53. All you sinner's questioning God's work and believing in this singul evolution nonsense is the reason Jesus has to kill all the babies in Africa. When will we realize God did not intend us to use reason or evidence, but to use our faith in the sacred infallible teachings Western Reformed New Presbyterianism.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The 2nd law of thermodyamic and entropy apply to randomized system. A cellular organism or even a single cell by its very nature is an ordered system that has to maintain its order for its very existence. Once the order dissipates it's no longer. And we call it cell "death." To apply the 2nd law of thermodynamic to a cellular organism or cellular process is fundamentally erroneous. Please review your physics 101.

    Evolution is a science of how different species came about. It is about process of differentiation. It is about how a species interact with its surroundings. A process of change. A working theory if you will of how such changes can be understood. Please note evolution is not and never was described as a Law as in Laws of physics. Evolution, as with all of scientic theories, presupposes lack of divine or supernatural intervention. An apple falling from the tree does not require God's or other divine entities intervention to accelerate by 9.807 m/s2. Please understand that. Divine intervention is not figured into the equation at all in its process of thinking. This way of thinking, i.e. excluding possibility of divine intervention in common observable process and using the available observable facts to arrive at a conclusion - we call it science, gave us the Laws of Physics and scientifically advanced enlightened world that we live in. You're enjoying the benefits of "God does not intervene in this process"-way of thinking. Your computer, electricity, synthetic fibers and other materiel goods you enjoy. All came from "God does not intervene in this process."

    Evolution does not require belief or faith. It is just a systemized way of understanding our physical world and how species came to be. It is a tool we use to understand the world. It is not a faith. I laugh when I hear people say " I don't believe in evolution." No one ever asked you. You either use the tool or you don't. If you don't use the useful tool, you're that much disadvantaged against your competitor. Because of my limited imagination, I can't begin to guess how intelligent design would ever benefit us or advance our sciences. As for Creationism? It's highly improbable that Creationism could yield useful science.

    I have problems with people who don't "believe" in evolution only because they're trying to get me to believe in something without proof. Bible is a laughable document as a proof of something or someone who may or may not have performed miracles and who may not or may have created this world. Yet I belive it because I chose to believe it. It's a decision that is not subject to debate. I only have doubts when my pastor and more powerful believers in the revealed truth try to ram it down my throat.

    Religion really is about monopoly. Monopoly of truth, Monopoly of power, Monopoly of salvation, Monopoly of absolute misery. Absolute power absolutely does what? You know the answer.

    Science classrooms are not a forum for religious proselytizing. All the ID followers and creationists need to get out of my science textbooks and my science classrooms. Mine and my childrens. I will teach my children Christian values in my home and my church. I will not let my science room turned into a Church extension. Science is a god-free zone by definition. Just get it through your head.

    Do you think in China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Russia and India, they're teaching Intelligent design in their biology classes? Do you think in Harvard U, they're debating intelligent design?

    Yet here you are. Lamenting the declining American competitiveness and failing employment opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe evolution occurred, based on various evidence, but to say that endogenous retroviruses prove it is ridiculous. That's like saying God exists because he talks to me.

    To the comments that make highbrow claims of science being an understanding of facts about our universe and the science classroom being a refuge from religion: Bullshit. Scientists engender and embrace their own belief systems, and many scientists intentionally ignore facts to fit into their belief system. History is fraught with examples of scientists who tried to fit their "observed facts" into their particular theory, and sciences today are filled with conflicting and even mutually exclusive theories. You refer to "Science" as though it were one coherent, irrefutable entity, but it is not. Scientists have just as many religious beliefs as anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "God was not mentioned once in this article, why must everything be about God, goddamnit!!"

    look at the title moron "God be Gone"

    ReplyDelete
  57. Science is a god-free zone by definition.

    Really?? I didn't know that. I'm actually pretty sure that Isaac Newton once said "It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion." and "God created everything by number, weight and measure."

    That really sounds like he wanted God out of the equation, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Science is a god-free zone by definition."
    Really?

    Science:
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

    I didn't see "NO GOD" anywhere in that definition...

    ReplyDelete
  59. You're confusing the person and his work. Yes Newton was a religious man. Einstein also was religious man. According to what I've read, Darwin was once on his way to becoming minister (at least, his father intended him to be one anyway).

    But do you see in Newtonian Laws of Physics any mention of Bible verses? Do you ever see him invoke God in his equations?

    Where is God's fingerprint in Eistein's theory of relativity? Does he ever argue for the existence of God in his writings? Yes he does time after time after time. Do I believe in God? Yes. Do I believe in theory of evolution? No, if you expected me to say yes you obvious didn't read my post carefully. Theory of evolution is not a belief system that requires belief by faith, faith in unprovable. Theory of evolution is just a tool. Use it or lose it. I'm just saying it's a damned good starting point.

    And no, Curtis, stop quibbling. I never said science was a one big monolithic institution that cannot tolerate opposing views. Sure there are crazy theories out there. Theory of Dark Matter for example. Big bang is also just a freaking theory. Even Theory of Relativity is just that. Theory. Now we don't see church ministers and pastors and deacons arguing against theory of relatitivy do we? Even now scientists are trying to prove theory of relativity (general and special).

    You can have all the arguments and debates you want in any forum, please just don't barge into the junior high or highschool science classrooms and try to dictate what teachers should and should not teach kids. Or perhaps you could deign your self to write a science textbook and publish it under your name?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Science:
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

    Where is the Book of Genesis in that definition? God was never once mentioned in that definition, was it? Perhaps you could rewrite it.

    Science:

    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws ACCORDING TO GOD: the GOD'S mathematical sciences.

    I guess you proved you point.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "May I ask however, what evidence there is that we live in an open system?"

    I think someone needs to brush up on his thermodynamics. Take a look at the equations, find the term for heat flow and then crane you neck out of the window and look up at the giant ball of buring gas above our heads and them tell me we're in a closed system.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It doesn't have to mention God in it at all but to say that there is an absence of god in the definition of science is also false

    ReplyDelete
  63. First off to you fools saying "theory of relativity isn't in the bible lol"

    The Bible is not supposed to be a science textbook. That is not it's point nor its purpose. Could God have put it in there? Sure, but he didn't because that wasn't its point.

    Also, I am not confusing the person and the work. Newton believed that you couldn't have God without science or science without God. He felt they were too intertwined.

    Also, no matter what, you guys can never disprove God in the same way that we can never prove God.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "We CANNOT assume that this virus will make it throughout the entire body NOR can we assume that it has even the slightest chance of getting to the Sperm or egg cells. Even IF the virus DID get into a sperm/egg cell that made it into the reproductive cycle then you must realize that DNA transcriptase (spelling?) typically does not allow anomalies so large as to let an ENTIRE virus's DNA remain in the host's cell that is infected or to remain during copying to make a new cell."

    And yet we observe the same process (ie viruses inserting their shit into our genome) happening today. Wierd huh?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Also, no matter what, you guys can never disprove God in the same way that we can never prove God."

    Yes but i also can't disprove the tooth fairy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Science does not invoke God's will to postulate theories and mathematical models to understand our physical world. If you have to argue with that statement, you need to review your physics, biology, chemistry textbooks. It is just how science approaches its subject. Absent sudden and miraculous divine intervention (which somehow doesn't tend to happen often), how would this physical world phenomenon be best understood - is the basis of how science approaches its topics.

    Sure scientists can be deeply religious. In fact they often are because they understand the subject matter they're investigating the best and see the intricate design and "God's touch" in it. Einstein was that way. Newton as well. Many of the today's well-known scientists are too. But it is their choice. THEY CHOSE TO BELIEVE. Are you giving my and your children choice too?

    I too choose to believe. I also choose to believe that it is wrong for the Christians to barge in on science classrooms. Give them the facts. They get plenty of God in homes and churches. Just spare them their classrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  67. So how does anyone take proof of Evolution as an attack on the bible. Only the Christian and other religious wackos would believe that and then as further proof of their organized mental illness, threaten other people with death.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "M. Derosier"

    Thanks for your post. I admit there are thing I don't know allot about, that is why I ask. Many times people simply state what retroviruses are, then say they are proof of evolution. I am wondering how they are -proof-. Im not saying it doesnt make a good case, I am saying he did a horrible job of showing why it proves anything. First, he says there is a one in 3 billion chance that is it coincidence. But, there are only 30,000 genes in the human genome, and I suspect about equal for chimps. Considering .03 percent of our genome is retroviruses, where did 3 billion come from? Second, the idea that chances of beneficial mutations is equal to that of negative and neutral, is flat false. The majority, upwards of 99 percent, are neutral. Not only that, 99 percent are not inherited. So too say the odds are good, is not based on anything. I agree retroviruses show a compelling case for a relation between species, but it does not prove anything beyond that. There are alternative explanations, and no one has addressed those. Why? Because the information if filtered through the lens of evolution, and this is deemed automatic proof of a hypothesis. That is not science. How do they in fact -know- that it is not a coincidence? Is this mutation perfectly identical, or almost? Could this be the result of a viral infection that attacks a certain part of the genetic code, as in some kind of preference? Could it be that cells defend parts of the dna strand from intruders and force them to a certain part of the genome? Does this occur in every Human? Every ape? Or, is this all based on samples taken from a few chimps and few humans? And last, my favorite, just to get everyone up in arms, couldn't God have just made them that way? :)

    I am no genetic scientist, so if I am ignorant of something scientifically here, just correct me, don't call me names. I honestly want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Jered. We share 100,000+ instances of retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, All of which are found at the same places. This occurs in a genome that has 3 billion base pairs.

    If this isn't a result of us sharing a common ancestor it would be an amazing coincidence. The same odds as if you had a lottery ticket with 3 billion numbers on it and you picking 100,000 correct numbers to win the lottery.

    I'm no mathematician, But if someone could figure out the odds of this happening chance i would be grateful

    ReplyDelete
  70. I believe in evolution. I believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive except in Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions. In Hinduism for example, God is supposed to have taken several forms (or Avatars - now you know where the word came from :-)
    If you look at the avatars, they progress from a fish thro' amphibian and land animals till it reaches man - a clear EVOLUTION - and one postulated in myth several millenia before Darwin or Mendel.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dear Christians, plaease keep your quaint myths and bullshit religion to yourselves. Religion is for the weak.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I would just like to say "wow"... gotta love the comments. I would love to get into this never-ending argument about god (no capitalization on purpose); but I would rather live my life as well as I can, learn as much as I can and, by example, show that god is unnecessary to lead a meaningful and fulfilling life. In fact, from my knowledge of some close friends, religion hinders the enjoyment of life. Spouting science will not convert theists - spirituality can be maximized through atheism, that should be our message.

    Have fun hating each other.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Matt. Thanks, if that is true then there isnt much more to say than it gives a strong case. Can you point me to an article? No offense, but I can't rest my whole belief on evolution on a blog entry. And I agree with the person who said this doesn't disprove or prove God's existence. It's just interesting.

    "Religion is for the weak"

    Jesus, and Paul, agree with you. Read the New Testament. Im not exaggerating, look at how Jesus treats the religious, and look at what Paul says about those who are too serious about their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I will give you that this is, within a limited definition, a "proof" of evolution. Here are a couple of tips for you:

    1) If you don't contrast evidence of these viruses effecting other species DNA in other places in the chain, is it possible that these viruses simply hit those spots? Please cover this in you next rant. I'm not arguing that you are wrong here, but if you don't cover it you may as well be.

    2) Evolutionary theory still has 2 very large holes to fill before it can really be more than just a theory: a) A repeatable, laboratory verified process to create life from inanimate objects. b) Repeatable, laboratory verified evidence of one species evolving into another. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are still aspects of the theory of evolution that are NOT "proven."

    3) Most of the people that I have met that support the theory of evolution are more of a threat to the scientific process than all the religious nuts I have met (and I spent 13 years in fundamental, "Christian" schools). If you can't respect someone else's right to be wrong, then you are as much of a self-righteous, bigoted, hate-monger as anyone who has ever lived. If it is an issue that matters (Let's all kill people of race "X," for example) I support people intentionally tearing apart their arguments. If it is not an issue that matters, slow down and take a deep breath (Do you really care if the guy serving you burgers, beer, pharmaceuticals, or selling you a car believes in God or not? I'm guessing, NO).

    ReplyDelete
  75. If you don't contrast evidence of these viruses effecting other species DNA in other places in the chain, is it possible that these viruses simply hit those spots? Please cover this in you next rant.

    Possible? Yes. But highly, Highly unlikely. For it to be a coincidence, Like i have stated numerous times before - please start reading - it would have the same chance as you picking 100,000 correct lottery numbers on a ticket that went from one to 3 billion the first time you filled out the ticket.

    Evolutionary theory still has 2 very large holes to fill before it can really be more than just a theory: a) A repeatable, laboratory verified process to create life from inanimate objects. b) Repeatable, laboratory verified evidence of one species evolving into another.

    Well your first point is easily beaten. Evolution doesn't claim to be able to explain the origins of life, Only the origins of the species. Evolution is what happens after the first single cell organism came in to existence. I'm sure eventually science will explain the origins of life. we are already on the verge of creating artificial life in a lab using fabricated chromosomes.

    As for your second point. provide an experiment and we will conduct it. But please don't ask evidence from scientific experiments when you know full well the experiment it;s self is impossible. Evolution takes millions of years. This question demonstrated enormous intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    If you can't respect someone else's right to be wrong, then you are as much of a self-righteous, bigoted, hate-monger as anyone who has ever lived.

    They can be wrong. It's just a shame you have such a problem with me using scientific data and evidence to prove how wrong they are. What exactly do you have against people trying to educate the ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
  76. In my opinion, an atheist who tries to "educate" people telling them religion is a lie are just as bad as religious psychos who want to convert everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  77. If Christians want to claim evolution is wrong they damn well better be prepared for people to smack them upside the head with evidence proving otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  78. i'll post my comment to get lost in the sea of comments. just this, evolution is real and this is just a small piece of evidence supporting it. with that being fact, it should also be common knowledge that that fact that evolution exists isn't contrary to the bible or God, rather its just one small way in which we can see how he put this world together.
    now, quit arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Matt,

    Ok, I get that you hold the position that it is highly unlikely that viruses don't necessarily modify the same spots of genes in different species. I just missed anything resembling a link to information explaining that claim.

    Also, you are very clearly not ONLY supporting evolution here. Let me point out that you believe science will eventually be able to explain the origins of life. You, sir, have a religious belief. We may hope that science will continue to discover things for humanity, but there is no logical reason to assume that this is the case. It is equally plausible that we will start a world-war that will knock us back to the stone age, or simply destroy the planet through greed/pollution.

    Well, I personally don't think that you can conceive of an experiment demonstrating a species evolving. Hence, I didn't propose one. There is quite a bit of debate about how long it takes to evolve from one species to another, not everyone supports the theory that it takes millions of years. Also, there is some evidence now that suggest that something called "epigenetics" may also play a role in species differentiation, and we don't know much about this (including how much of it matters).

    Before you call someone intellectually dishonest, consider standards you are using and whether you meet them yourself. Endogenous Retroviruses do not, by themselves, prove evolution. Once again, they support a small part of some people's theory of evolution. No more; no less. It is not intellectually dishonest to say that you can't "prove" one species evolving to another in a lab. It is a fact. People who espouse evolutionary theory do not bother me in the slightest. People who want to use "science" to "prove" religious people wrong do bother me.

    Science by definition, is incapable of proving or disproving anyone's religious belief. Science by definition does not allow "supernatural" evidence, only natural, repeatable, and peer-reviewed data. That pretty well rules out all miracles and supernatural events, doesn't it? Who is intellectually dishonest now?

    I don't have a problem with people trying to educate the ignorant, but that isn't what this website is about, is it? Nope, this is like going to Bob Jones University's web page expecting to find open discussion on proofs for and against evolution. You are a choir boy who is preaching to the choir. That isn't a bad thing; just own up to it. You aren't trying to educate the "ignorant;" you are trying to arm the other "true believers."

    ReplyDelete
  80. This site is exactly the same as Sony Defense Force. It takes small facts and blows them out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
  81. i just think its upsetting how hateful all the godists get...considering god is a peaceful being, it is only natural to threaten and create war in his name. Stop being so insecure that someone else does not share your beliefs. If you believe in a god and that he is a all knowing, good creator, then why are you so threatened by the world that he created? You limit yourselves considerably by all this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  82. God is real.

    Evolution is real.

    All religions are wrong.

    All religions are right.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. this might be off topic, but as far what the world sees right now... religion causes war, teaches hatred against rival religions and many more, that makes my faith gone by inch.

    Scientist is just trying to show some proof ... so I guess religion must show some proof as well... faith alone (as a proof) isn't enough

    ReplyDelete
  84. Blaming religion for the world's problems is like blaming guns for people dying. It is just ignorant. Yes, guns are involved in people's deaths, but they didn't do the killing. People did the killing, and people are doing the "science."

    I hate to point this out but "science" was used to justify Hitler and Stalin's actions. They were a couple of the worst mass-murderers in history. That doesn't make science bad, just like some pope who bribed the election committee to start a crusade to benefit himself and his home country doesn't make religion "bad."

    As far as proof goes, everyone talks about how you can't trust religious "nuts," but can you trust "scientists?" No. Start actually looking up the various "missing links" that have been discovered. Let's see, fraud, fraud, mistake, fraud, fraud, etc.

    How many scientists who are researching evolution are also atheists/agnostics? Probably all of them that aren't intelligent design nuts. Hmmm. . . wait, is this a possible conflict of interest? Why, yes it is. DUH! Ok, so you can't trust the ID people because they are religious zealots, and you can't trust the evolutionary scientists because they are anti-religious zealots. Who can you trust? Yourself you say? Nonsense. Do you really have the time, energy, money, and expertise to personally run the experiments and do the fieldwork? No. So what do you do? What every good religious person does! You just trust the "clergy."

    Look, it isn't the fault of legitimate scientists. Don't go looking to ignore professionals and academics. It is the fault of humanity and humanity's limitations. We can't all know everything, study everything, and understand everything. We have to choose to trust people, and that is the start of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The best way to sort out the whole evolution vs intelligent design is this:

    1) Evolution (and by extension all science), is a theory, however if new evidence comes to light that challenges this theory, then all scientists (with the aid of peer review) will modify their viewpoint accordingly. This way the theory progresses and becomes closer to the truth.

    2) Intelligent design (and by extension all religion) is a theory, however if new evidence comes to light that challenges this theory then you are ridiculed & shunned. This way the relgious theory stays stagnant and unchanging.

    The 'theory' that time slows down the faster an object travels was a 'theory' until it was proved by space travel. It was predicted by the math and was so proved by observation. If it wasn't then another theory would have been put in its place, and it would be seen if observation backed this up.

    The 'theory' of evolution is the same. It is predicted through observation, and by a certain extent through science. It will be proved either way at some point. If observations don't fit (and I don't class intelligent design, or 'faith' as observation), then the theory will be modified.

    I for one cannot agree with a theory that doesn't allow itself to be modified when independent observers put forward contradictory evidence.

    Religion = stagnant and unchanging viewpoint on the world that we see around us.

    Science = ever evolving viewpoint that changes as new observations come about.

    My scientific viewpoint of the world is much more beautiful than the religious one. I look at the natural world and the wider universe with wonder - so many new things to discover, so many new ideas to be explored.

    These ideas are encouraged, and are vital with science, they are stamped out flat and are actually dangerous concepts with religion.

    ReplyDelete
  86. If believing that science, which only been around since the 1500's, will continue to provide answers for increasingly difficult and complex questions as it has consistently in the past is to be considered religious... than nearly everyone follows the Religion of Science. It is now expected that computers will become ever faster with greater capabilities and new and innovative ways to interact with the data. Is the rise, and continued EVOLUTION, of computers not directly linked to science?

    Oh wait, computer science and engineering has nothing to do with god so I can't throw that little jab, can I? Screw that. I will and I did. We all believe in science and whether you want to admit that or not is none of my concern - just don't be surprised when the masses stop believing in omnipotence. The sad thing is, for me, that will never happen in my lifetime; though I am convinced that it is inevitable that human SOCIETY will EVOLVE to a point where religion is no longer needed, or even wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  87. How, pray tell, do you explain life coming from rocks?? It is a scientific fact that life cannot come from un-life. If it can, how come rocks don't poop babies today??

    ReplyDelete
  88. To the last poster: are you a creationist? Or someone who knows nothing of the early stages of evolution, and is happy with their ignorance and only too glad to troll atheist blogs.

    If so, please let me know how you can scientifically justify the spontaneous, by the hand of god, rise of life? You do know that energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed - merely converted.

    I don't know what science texts you are reading, but I thought it was common knowledge that life began in aqueous environments, not on (or according to you - in) land. Overtime atoms combined to form molecules, which continued to become ever more complex chemical structures until some formed wall structures which provided an environment for biological systems to evolve.

    Take an introductory biology course, please - I'm no biologist but I know the basics well enough for my own needs, but definitely not to teach others (hence, get taught by someone who knows their s***, not me).

    I would like to comment more on your bold statement. COMPLEX life cannot "poop" out of inanimate objects, yet simple structures will form over GEOLOGIC time given sufficient energy inputs in a resource rich environment.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Back to the original point - can anyone point me to a not too complex evolutionary tree-type map showing retroviral inserts in primates? It would be great to see data on the shared and the unshared inserts, and see how well it maps to current evolutionary trees.

    ReplyDelete
  90. If viri insert their DNA into Germ lines and is then inherited by the organisms offspring is this not an acquired characteristic and therefore Lamarkism? Damn so I guess Dawkins was wrong about Evolution I wonder what else he is wrong about.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Evolution = Change over Time

    Funny how Time can make all things possible.

    If we evolved from chimps, why didn't the rest?

    We see the issue with bad genes with incestuous relationships, but yet we are to believe to "break apart" the "human" children had to mate together to keep the difference, and again and again so there were distinctive differences.

    It is the same why racial couples keep racial children, interracial couples produce interracial children.

    So the first "hairless" monkey really had to mate with another hairless one or as close as it.

    Put your belief in it if you want to.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Someone said this...
    Now, as to your final sentence, I can only say "Huh?". I'm stunned as to how little you truly understand if you can't realize just how wrong that statement is when considering the article above. The concept of the article is quite clear: IT IS NIGH IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE CODE WOULD BE IN THE SAME SPOT UNLESS THE TWO HAD COMMON ANCESTRY. SERIOUSLY. WE ARE TALKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THRICE WHILST WINNING THE LOTTERY AND GETTING INVITED INTO A THREESOME.


    seems to me that winning the lottery actually increases your odds of being invited into a threesome, so i would choose another example. I like the idea though, sounds like a lot of fun. Of course i prefer, having a threesome while finding out you won the lottery then getting hit by lightening, indoors mind you, when you orgasm. Go out with a real bang. haha get it, bang!

    ReplyDelete
  93. Are you so dense that you believe a virgin had a child? how is this possible, are you so dense you believe that your religion is right and the other 100 or so are all wrong, we evolved from single cells all the way up threw apes to where we are now, so many things prove the bible wrong too many to name, all religion does is cause war, man all came from the same bio-material and if we cannot all agree on that and make peace we are certainly doomed.

    ALSO
    I would like to point out that the bible is a good "story" to follow as it teaches valuable life lessons. it has regrettably also been used for terrible things such as political or personal gain or control. Such acts have killed or tortured countless innocent people because of beliefs their

    PROVING EVOLUTION or DISPROVING ALL RELIGIONS WILL UNITE THE WORLD doing so we can all WORK TOGETHER not having to worry about warand focus on things such as; cure for disease, space travel, space colonization, cybornetics (human cyborgs),fammine.

    Inbreeding is also bad adam and eve that just makes no sense, the kids had kids with each other or what?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Doesnt this mean that chimpanzees and humans all descended from one and the same individual that got bitten in his sperm cell by 100.000 retro viruses, so we can all share that stuff?
    Are we to believe that? One individual and 100.000 viruses bite in his one sperm cell that made us chimpanzees and human happen?
    Strange thought.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Excellent explanation, it's just a shame a lot of the people on here cannot quite grasp it & do not feel that this (let alone the colossal amount of other evidence; novel nylonase activity, deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, chromosomal homology, genetic homology, vestigial structures, protein homology, the fossil record, genetic markers) is conclusive evidence for evolution.
    Science WILL prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "So the first "hairless" monkey really had to mate with another hairless one or as close as it."


    Wow, the lack of logic & scientific understanding is collosal. This is a classic example of the "tyranny of the discontinuous mind".

    Every day when you look in the mirror, you look the same as you did yesterday. Yet if you take a photograph of when you were 2 years old and compare it to when you were 16, then 40 then 75 you'll think you're lookng at 4 different people. Evolution is similar, species change slightly over time because of selection pressures.

    Species only diverge when not in contact for a period of time. We see animals today in each stage of speciation. 1) Cows & buffalo CAN mate and produce fertile offspring, 2) Horses & donkeys CAN mate but produce STERILE offspring, 3) Red squirrels & grey squirrels CANNOT mate because they're too far diverged.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Doesnt this mean that chimpanzees and humans all descended from one and the same individual that got bitten in his sperm cell by 100.000 retro viruses, so we can all share that stuff?"

    Not one individual. Many individuals in the line of common descent. We accumulate mutations over generations.

    ReplyDelete
  98. OK for all you people that want to prove evolution in this comment thread, answer me this, if every bit of matter in this universe started from electrons and neutrons that turned into molecules, cells, animals and eventually humans, where did the first substances come from?

    ReplyDelete
  99. "People that believe in Christianity already show their own ignorance. Evolution is a FACT."
    Prove it to me then. Give me facts, because I am ready to prove them all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Every day when you look in the mirror, you look the same as you did yesterday. Yet if you take a photograph of when you were 2 years old and compare it to when you were 16, then 40 then 75 you'll think you're lookng at 4 different people. Evolution is similar, species change slightly over time because of selection pressures." Okay right there, you are trying to PROVE evolution is true, but yet you just proved it wrong. If every thing in this world is improving (as you evolutionists HAVE to believe to believe in evolution) then how do explain us getting older and dying? We are not improving, when we look at a picture from when we are two and compare it to a recent picture, in the younger picture we look young innocent and have no blimish, in the recent picture we see wrinkles, grey hair (or if you're not old, you will be). Face it you are going to die and when you come close to your death you start to fall apart because you ARE NOT IMPROVING! Science geeks, if the second law of thermodynamics(heat and other natural processes tend to only go one way and that is toward less usable energy and greater disorder) is true then that proves it wrong right there. Also if the law of inertia is true (for non-science geeks it states: the tendency of matter to stay at rest if at rest, or to continue moving at a constant velocity if in motion)how do you stay firm with the belief that life created itself? If it wasn't there, then how did it come out of rest to move at a constant velocity? Or take Newton's first law of motion that states that the velocity of an object is not changed unless it is acted upon by an outside force. If this is true than one electron could create itself and then connect itself to a neutron and evolve.
    Another thing if you look at a watch and see all the little cogs and springs it is ludicrous to say that this just happened, and even even more stupid to say that if you put the clock on the side of the road and leave it there for "millions and millions" of years then it will turn into a frog. Humans are far more ccomplex then a complicated watch and yet you say WE just HAPPENED? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "God was not mentioned once in this article, why must everything be about God, god******!!"
    I think someone has some conviction on his heart

    ReplyDelete
  102. "'Now will i go to hell:)'

    Can't go to a place doesn't exist. Let's not even ask."

    Haha! This had me laughing. Ya'll are both going to hell if you believe in evolution! Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from hell because he loves you. And yet you still reject him!! You stiff-necked people! If you read this you HAVE to feel some conviction in your gut even if you don't want to admit. If so, and you realize that maybe I do know what I'm talking about...sorta and you don't want to burn for eternit in hell then all you have to do is

    A. Accept Christ as your savior
    B. Believe in Him with all your heart
    C. Confess you sins, not to people but privately to God.

    One more thing, since God created you he knows EVERYTHING about you, he can read your thougts and he knows the exact amount of hairs on your head (kinda creepy huh)and the most scariest thing is, when you die you will put in front of the judgment seat of Christ and He will judge you based on your actions. If you have heard about Him and still accepted Darwin (who really wasn't even as steadfast in his own theory as you are) then, have fun with Darwin in hell! I'll be in heaven singing "Amazing Grace" and chillin in my mansion with Isaac Newton and Galileo!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ali, Re-read what you just wrote but replace "jesus" with allah, thor, vishnu or any other deity you can think of and you will get an idea of why your argument is far from convincing and why your empty threat of a fictional punishment for an imaginary crime doesn't frighten a disbeliever in the least.

    Anyway, this post is about evolution and the evidence supporting it. if you want to preach would you mind finding a street corner and standing on a box yelling like every other mental case has to.

    any further off topc rantings will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I noticed someone talking about entropy (I’m using the form of this word that describes the fact that the world cannot become more ordered). We do not live in an isolated universe. On the contrary, there are many sources our universe gets its power from. For example, an explosion like the one proposed in the big bang theory. This would provide power, but the rest of the law states that you need some way to harness this power. A nuclear chain reaction does nothing but destroy unless we are able to harness it. On top of that, it also releases more entropy (I’m now using this word as the measure of disorder of a system) into the surrounding area. Finally, where did this power, comment, small exploding condensed ball of matter come from? Whatever evolution theory you believe in, thank goodness, none of them are claiming matter came from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Why we moved to sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual reproduction? That's an easy question, you must not have asked too many people.

    It's the same reason you can't bang your sister for 30 generations and not have a fucked up genome. If a cell carrying very complex genetic coding asexually reproduces for 30 generations, the code gets messed up. With sexual reproduction, you have to haploid cells, creation one diploid cell, which creates genetic variance. The new cell is happy and healthy with an intact genome. No mass unfavorable mutations.

    That's why nature would obviously favor sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction.

    ReplyDelete
  106. you are all blind, if i'm realted to a chimp then why didn't the chimp evovle into a human to? In the bible alll humans share two common ancestors, Eve and Adam, they might have been different than humans today but they weren't monkeys that evolved into humans over time or there would be no monkeys because they evolved into humans. And why don't we see eolving monkies today? If i was relatd to a monkey and over the generations it evolved into a human and anoither one stayed a monkey then why did one monkey i guess down grade and one upgrade? monkeys and humans are different.

    ReplyDelete
  107. you say about the similarity of dna, ok every program on my pc is obout the same, becouse it's made by 0 and 1. or maybe the result is very different?

    ReplyDelete
  108. "if i'm realted to a chimp then why didn't the chimp evolve into a human to"

    It would make more sense if you tried to actually understand evolution with an open mind and do some reading. A major component of evolution is geographic separation. Another component is environment. Some environments necessitate more adaptations for survival than other environments. I'll give an example in the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Example: The ancestor of the human and Chimpanzee lives in the jungle. It doesn't really look like either. It's not particularly good at living in trees but it has found itself living among a lot of them. It evolves to become better at living in trees because tree life allows it to be free from predation. Anything that increases the chance for reproduction is evolutionary pressure and predation is a big one.

    At about the time these animals are evolving to be tree dwellers, a group leaves and lives on the plains. It encounters predation and other evolutionary pressure. It's really hot, for instance, so those with less hair are more likely to survive and reproduce. It also gets attacked by other large animals so other mutations lead to advantages. Evolution is faster here because getting food generally means eating other animals. In the jungle it is possible to live from fruits and leaves. So, on the plains competition for food is much greater so evolutionary pressure is much higher, for all animals involved.

    Humans took a different evolutionary path because our surrounding was different. Once humans evolved to a certain point of evolutionary success, once we achieved a certain level of intelligence, which is our most powerful evolutionary trait, we stopped evolving quickly and we spread out throughout the world.

    I think most Christians could understand Evolution if they would at least try to embrace it instead of only looking at it from the point of view of disproving it or pointing out perceived flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  110. This may show strong likely hood of ancestory with a chimp, but not with a fish etc. This also does not disprove that there is intelligence involved in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  111. The main problem I have is that soooooooooo many people believe that Evolution is a "fact". It is a theoretical interpretation of a set of facts. The facts are separate from the interpretation. They can easily be interpreted as many theorys, as they have.

    I personally don't believe in Evolution as stated in the Science books today but rather adaptation. Even Darwin in his tree of life has several points at the bottom indicating that there was a prototype or aboriginal version as he calls it for each of the different plants and animals. These originals adapted to the different environments that they were exposed to so that there are multitudes of variations of each now. That fits the evidence as well as, if not better than, the idea that all evolved from one bacteria. But it can't be proven because there are only two ways that can happen:

    1. You can reporduce the opservation
    2. You have a reliable person observe it and document it

    Neither of these exist for either position unless you believe the Bible and that God instructed man to write down what He did. According to Darwins Origin of Species and that there was an aboriginal version of each plant and animal the following passage, Genesis 1:24 makes sense:

    And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

    ReplyDelete
  112. Ok. Everyone. I was once an atheist. But then i looked at facts. Lets see. DNA. The information in DNA is a specific code which makes us what we are. If the code even loses a letter or more we would most likely die. Second. Nonlife cant create life. Thats a FACT. Next if the first cell really was made( chances are literally 1 to 10to the 42000 power. Fact. Next. The Bible hasnt been mistranslated. The dead sea scrolls dated thousands of years ago & they didnt change anything. The bible is exactly the same. Next. If the cell made life. Then it started to "evolve". It couldnt survive. It wouldnt have formed eyes yet( which if parts are missing it doesnt work at all). Look at the fossil evidence. Theres not one of transforming forms of life. Now im a 14 yr old male & the theory of evolution is impossible. No matter what. DNA CANNOT be altered. It can kill the animal. Also. DNA is a specific code of trillions of organized codes. How can DNA evolve into the perfect code. Its impossible. Soon the theory will be taken from textbooks. Lets quit pretending we came from monkeys. Its usually only because we dont want rules. Well. U can disobey God but that doesnt change the fact hes real. This has gone on long enough. Look it up. I advise everyone to read "Darwin's demise. Why evolution cant take the heat". It completely 100% disproves Evolution. & no. It doesnt use the bible( which isnt mistranslated ). It uses facts. After u read it. I guarentee u that u wont believe in evolution. Read it go ahead. Because there are facts.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "nothing cant create life"

    we dont believe this, we believe that there was ALWAYS something.

    the first law of entropy states that matter can neither be created or destroyed; thus, there has always been something, and god does not fit into the history of the universe.

    you're saying that if you remove a letter from the dna sequence (which is wrong, it is comprised of nucleotides, not 'letters', showing your lack of knowledge) then you die; this is completely irrelevant and does not prove your theory or disprove mine.

    religion is fantastic, it guides the stupid to living righteous lives, but the creationists are stopping society from progressing by saying that you cannot prove evolution.

    evolution has been conclusively proven again and again, and you shun the evidence, refering to your bible, which CAN NOT BE PROVEN, because it is a fictional work.

    Your theories are flawed and you are immersed in them due to your fundamental stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Someone made a comment that evolution is an impressive creation of god. (theistic evolution) But evolution is impressive in the light of the fact that it is not created and is not guided by an intelligent being. The resulting living organisms of evo are impressive but for an all-powerful intelligent being evolution would in fact be one of the most inefficient and immoral ways of bringing about humans.

    ReplyDelete
  115. People should be required to pass an IQ test before being allowed to post comments on this page. It's amazing how many people claim something to be fact just because they believe it is. It takes more than just believing something for it to be a fact. It requires proof, and speculation is not proof. Atheism is the lack of a belief, which requires no proof. Atheists don't have to prove anything. However creationism is a belief, yet no one can provide any peer-reviewed scientific evidence in support of it. Amazing isn't it? It is odd how often creationists use the word "fact" without understanding the definition of the word. The lack of ability of creationists to understand scientific proof puzzles me. I do hope that natural selection will run it's course on the ignorant. Sadly I think it's unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "This probably needs to be said again "there are over 200,000 Human ERV's which can be found in chimps at orthologous positions". We are not talking about ONE virus here. It's said that up to 8% of the human genome is made of viral DNA."

    so your saying that ur stupidity comes from ur dad being a monkey

    ReplyDelete
  117. The scientists discover evidence and formulate theories to fit the evidence. When a theory makes a religious leader feel threatened, the religious leader tries to outlaw the theory. If that does not work, the religious leader tries to invent a new theory to fit religious doctrine, and then tries to make the facts fit the religious theory. We the people need to recognize this and realize that religion is a business and a wannabe government. Religion has accomplished a lot of good in the form of moral education and providing comfort, sustenance, and counseling to those in need. It is good to believe in something bigger than ones self other than materialism and people. Religion has accomplished this. Now religion must take a step back and allow science to do its job and explain how the world really works.

    ReplyDelete
  118. humans are all fools they cant belive the truth they always refuse what is the truth i pity them all

    ReplyDelete