Themes Evolution's Genius

Sign in to add comments or Join (It's free and fast!)

• Gabo Moreno – May 10 2008

  An unambiguous example of the formation of a new species as a result of an accumulation of mutations??? What are you talking about? Species evolve as a result of many factors with variation (these require mutations) and selection, not accumulation of mutations by themselves. Many many many many many ... (you got the idea) ... mutations do not have any effect, some mutations have huge effects, and so on, all depending on where they occur. Please take a good look at a book on molecular genetics and evolution, then come back with a more properly posed question. Do not give me such a cheap interpretation of neo-darwinism (read something other than intelligent-design propaganda). In the meantime, if what you want is unambiguous examples of new species resulting from the whole process with variation and selection, how long do you want your list to be? I doubt anybody has a complete list, but I would just name "humans" as a good example. If you mean examples of selection acting on variation, take a look at the examples in "the origin of species" by Charlie D. himself.
  As of the cult post. What can I say? I do not think sarcasm substitutes for good arguments. And yes, some have taken evolution to a cult level, devoid of any reasoning once the most basic level is understood. But that is not the question. The question is whether we can talk about evolution with intelligence rather than with anger. Can we?
  I tend to write too much, so my apologies to TED.

• jozef tari – May 10 2008

  Evolution is probably the best religious belief one could have since the beginning of intelligent humanity.

• C McConnel – May 9 2008

  If the theory of evolution (as expressed in Neo-darwinism) has been proven to be a fact, then name one single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species as the result of an accumulation of mutations.

• Bilderberg Club – May 6 2008

  Our club help perpetuate the theory of evolution. We know full well that most of you would never use your own intellect to question the theory. And so it has attained cult status. A religion in its' own right, with high priests, bibles, and a delusional congregation. We could not be more happy with the outcome.
  Many thanks to all our fellow cult followers, who we will continue to use to advance our plan of world domination. The capstone will be placed soon. And the Georgia Guidestones will come to fruition.
  Thank You All. Thank you All !

• Gabo Moreno – May 2 2008

  Hi Dave--I still do not know why I enter these debates. Yet, let me tell you this. I do not know where you get your information, but there are many scientists working on the origins of life (other than Dawkins, science is huge now, not a single person can hold the whole enchilada). Oparin's book is the basic for starters, and from that point on ... lots of different ideas on how it could have happened in the details, where the different theories (backed up by experiments on self-organizing chemical structures) adjust to probable earth chemistries, and data accumulates, and details get solved, and so on, but pretty much "we" have a nice good idea of how life began. These ideas, theories, are quite reasonable, consistent, and none of them require "intelligent" intervention for life to start.
  Of course, then you use typical arguments, both of them among my personal favorites:
  (1) "To dismiss the possibility of intelligent design is to arbitrarily limit the debate." There is no debate, that is the problem, "intelligent design" is not science, let me repeat this: intelligent design is not science; sorry, but once again: intelligent design is not science. Thus, we cannot include intelligent design in the debate if the debate is scientific, the thing about science is the search for illumination, for explanation, it is about talking to our intelligences with facts, rather than with heart-held magical beliefs. (The reason I became a molecular biologists is precisely the amazing feeling I got when I noticed that we can explain life phenomena at such detail, with such straightforward logic. I am convinced that our brains are wired to enjoy understanding.)
  (2) "Science is no more able to DISPROVE the theory of intelligent design than it can PROVE any other explanation." So many wrongs in a single sentence: excuse me, but "intelligent design" is not a "theory". It is a disguising of religious beliefs into semi-scientific wording to make them more appealing and convincing to misinformed authorities in order to put creationism into the science curriculum. Then, of course science has been PROVING "any other explanation" quite convincingly, you just do not want to see it. Especially if most of what you read/see/listen comes from the "intelligent design" community. Or whomever you think has the authority.
  Your first argument about "limiting the debate" is pretty much that idea of "it is about listening with open minds." So, let's do this, I invite you to watch NOVA's online video: "intelligent design on trial":
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
  You will find illumination (provided the open mind is there, if you already saw it, then try again but with an open mind, yes, an open mind!).
  I am glad to note that you are not discussing evolution versus intelligent design, that is a first step in the right direction. Maybe some illumination already came your way, it is then just a question of time until you find the right information about the theories on the origin of life and you will be free. Free to believe whatever you want religiously, yet understand that science is science is science, and enjoy it.

• Dave Erickson – April 29 2008

  A couple of points to weigh when evolution and "intelligent design" are considered: First, not one scientist in the field - or any field, for that matter - can explain the origin of life, including the celebrated Richard Dawkins. Second, to dismiss the possibility of intelligent design is to arbitrarily limit the debate - not that much "debate" seems to be exercised - of the origin of life. Not "creationism" with its religious overtones, but intelligent design. Science is no more able to DISPROVE the theory of intelligent design than it can PROVE any other explanation.
  At the same time, I see no conflict between the Biblical story of creation and the theory of evolution EXCEPT in the notion of how life began. To assume that a "day" as expressed in the Bible's creation story is a 24-hour time span is human arrogance. Who can say what a day is to "God?"
  Can we agree that for evolution to take place, there must be a starting point of existing life which over time goes through environmentally induced change of one kind or another? The complexity of even a single-celled organism is such that modern science cannot create one. Maybe in time it will, but the prognosis is not favorable. "Science" once accepted a flat earth and a solar system centered on the Earth, for example. The number of scientific "facts" which turned out to be false is legion, and it may yet be proven that evolution just doesn't cut it - or maybe not. Until PROVEN otherwise, intelligent design deserves the application of just as much academic rigor as does evolution.
  Please, no rants from either camp on my opinion. Thoughtful, reasonable comments welcome.

• Walter Rodriguez – April 27 2008

  I think we have to ask ourselves simple questions: why are there so many religions in the world with such varying views? why are we still at war because of them? Maybe at the heart of the matter is the fact that humans simply invented religion as a way of coping with our lack of ability to explain the natural wonders of the world. Religion in this respect is quite a clever and humanistic invention. It helps people cope with the lack of answers. Science is providing new answers to questions everyday. Perhaps the real evolution is science itself. Perhaps we are irrational creatures hanging on to "old" concepts and ideals that are no longer relevant in today's world. If there was a creator then the real interesting notion is the fact that people who believe in evolution may actually have a higher opinion of GOD than people with religion; that being GOD invented "evolution" as a way for life to progress and adapt to the changing environment. We are all humans and we are all in this together.

• Oliver Soulaki – April 27 2008

  I think its really sad that you can make such a comment on a website with such anti-creationist themes. Credible videos, yeah right. Credible for someone who is illogical and irrational, perhaps. I suggest you watch some of Richard Dawkins videos, get your facts straight. Creationism and Intellectualism do not go together, and by that I mean at all .

• Michael Jones – February 26 2008

  It's really sad that so many people think it's an either/or proposition and that is just isn't possible that God did create the world and everything in it, yet still allowed for His creation to evolve over time. Illustramedia produced several very credible videos (Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Privileged Planet, Where Does the Evidence Lead?) that might challenge those that are "too intellectual to believe in Creationism" to sincerely explore and consider what other prominent scientists have concluded and see "where the evidence does lead." You can find details at http://www.illustramedia.com/productions.htm if you wanted to challenge yourselves at all.

• Kelly Burnette – November 15 2007

  James...here where I live in central Florida, there's yet another controversy underway. Yet another school board member is pushing to have equal time for "intelligent design." It's as if Dover never happened.