2001, Science  -   283 Comments
Ratings: 7.23/10 from 35 users.

EvolutionThis seven-part documentary explains why Charles Darwin's dangerous idea is so important today, and how it explains the past and predicts the future.

What underlies the incredible diversity of life on Earth? How have complex life forms evolved?

The journey from water to land, the return of land mammals to the sea, and the emergence of humans all suggest that creatures past and present are members of a single tree of life.

Episodes included: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Great Transformations, Extinction, The Evolutionary Arms Race, Why Sex, The Minds Big Bang, and What About God.

More great documentaries

283 Comments / User Reviews

  1. oz never did give nothin' to the tin man
    that he did'nt already have

  2. If Creationism is in fact Science and not Received Dogma, then the Creation Scientists must have some arguments among themselves. Science advances by argument and the best explanation of what we observe wins...even if it is counter intuitive. For example, we all see the sun go around the earth each and every day, but most, if not all, of us accept the fact, based on the laws of science, that the earth goes around the sun.

    Arguments you may be having might include, "If the eye is intelligently designed, why did the designer put a blind spot in human like eyes?" or "Why did god create animals where no humans lived?" or "Why did the designer place human organs in front of a central column instead of around it?"

    While we're at it, Creationists and IDers spend most of their time explaining why they think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is wrong, but don't seem to spend a lot of time saying why their ideas better explain things.

    I've listened to Ken Ham and his ideas about Historical Science vs. Observational Science or that Noah only had to build an arc big enough to hold "kinds" not every species. He was unconvincing on the first point because it is vague, e.g. no one living today saw Caesar cross the Rubicon, and on the second because he doesn't every come up with a list of "kinds" or even define the word precisely.

  3. If there is a better, more thorough documentary series on evolution than this PBS Nova treatment, I haven't seen it---(and I can say honestly, I've seen most of them.) I'm a longtime member of NCSE and have had an abiding interest--- (no, 'passion' is a better word)--- for this area of science education and its trials and tribulations.
    Not to drop names but I said in an e-mail to Dr. Eugenie Scott over a decade ago that science educators have dropped the ball on evolution science in the area of public outreach. It's not enough to sit in an ivy-covered academic tower and celebrate the "grandeur in this view of life" among ourselves, expecting science to trickle triumphantly & fairly into the public mind. We need, I urged, to start getting the facts out there, to hit back. I am gratified to see this series, as well as an entire PBS Nova website special section on "Evolution". Also, Neil deGrasse Tyson gets enthusiastic kudos for the TV series “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”.

  4. Dr. Berlinski (not a creationists, although I am) and hundreds of other non creationists show, macroevolution to be unpredicatable, it's not even a theory, its a weak hypothesis at best thank u

    1. could you please give me a scientific definition of macro evolution? i will try to address your concerns after the definition is given

    2. I think when creationists talk about 'macroevolution', they mean "changes of kind" as in modification into not just a new species but to another 'Order' of taxonomic rank.

    3. i agree. with the exception of never defining "kind" in any way.

    4. Not interested in the opinion of various people. I'm interested in what the science itself tells us. So are the vast majority of scientists, who all accept the theory of evolution.
      I can point to people who still claim that the Earth is flat, or that we live in a geocentric universe.
      Arguments from authority, and arguments from popularity are worthless. What matters is what the evidence shows us.

  5. Too bad the video is gone would have liked to have seen the new ideas promulgated.

  6. The theory of evolution is a faith based religion that has been decidedly discredited by the evolutionists themselves. It serves now only as a method of thought control for the mindless masses who can't think for themselves and would rather be slaves who are told what to think and do.
    All evolutionists do is throw mind-boggling amounts of "time" at every question and expect rational people to just accept it. The gig is up, GAME OVER, why don't they just admit they have no idea what they're talking about so we can start a new dialogue.
    Also, STOP teaching it in schools as a fact that has been proven but is backed up by patently absurd pseudo-science. It is an insanely improbable theory.
    Societies institutions are lying to you to keep you ignorant and enslaved. It's time to wake up monkey man and claim your humanity as the divine God given gift that it is.

    1. As this is your first post, I will try really hard to make you feel welcome here to TDF.
      Now remembering that I'm being nice at this stage can you please show me the evidence to back up your absurd claims about evolution????

    2. I appreciate the tolerance and openness to explore new ideas on your part.
      Scientism is a political agenda being inflicted on modern man. We are being conditioned to accept anything attached to science as unquestionable because science is supposedly founded in logic, reason and factual demonstrations of proof. We are expected to believe that it is impartial and not burdened with emotion or whimsy and thus should be accepted by all creeds and cultures regardless of personal beliefs. However, scientism is not science. Scientism is a cult of belief and so are evolutionists.

      Despite what you've been told a million times to believe by the mainstream media evolution is not settled science. There is not the slightest bit of hard evidence to back up its assertions and many reputable and qualified people openly dismiss the theory as impossibly absurd. Unfortunately you don't get to hear these dissenting views through news sources that only tout the "approved" version of reality.

      There are far to many people these days who are prepared to accept anything they are told because "science says so". Science is not the ultimate authority, it is simply another branch of human understanding of the world in which we live. It will never answer all our questions and when it comes to the origins of life we are way out of our league to make absolute statements. The theory of evolution is, in a word, dumb. We need to re-think it and at the very least in classrooms it should be presented alongside other ideas and not mis-represented as a proven fact.

    3. I didn't see an alternative mentioned.

    4. Do you want me to zip up your pants and wipe your nose too sunshine? The extreme doubt cast on the theory of evolution due to the lack of confirming evidence after over 100 years of dedicated research should be enough to allow the acknowledgement of alternative ideas. If you rightly question the "science" that we are falsely led to believe is indisputable fact then you will find a door is opened to you to explore the alternatives. Do your own research, make up your own mind, YOU are responsible for your own life.

    5. Extreme doubt cast by whom, exactly? What do you believe are the facts of the matter, rather than evolution? Most reputable scientists in the field consider the following items to be very strong evidence of the validity of the theory:

      1. The universal genetic code
      2. The fossil record
      3. Genetic commonalities
      4. Common traits in embryos
      5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics

      Do you have any peer-reviewed information that can counter the support for the theory inherent in what has been learned about these?

    6. G'day Pysmythe,

      He's not the sharpest tool in the shed a trip to his nearest museum and library wouldn't go astray from what I've read from David at this stage....mate ..:)

    7. G'day mate, insulting my intelligence only shows a lack of respect on your part. To get respect you have to give respect. You did give me fair warning though but I guess you're only nice to people who agree with you and that's really a shame. I did not mean to insinuate that just because I think evolution is "dumb" that those who believe in it are also dumb. Instead I see it as a matter of social manipulation and control where for some reason we are all being forced to accept Darwin's theory as settled science when it most definitely is not.

    8. Reading you cry about lack of respect, after reading the thread and your exchange with pwndcaf in particular, and your none answers to most others is laughable. Practice what you preach mate. "To get respect you have to give respect." lol.

    9. Where I come from a person has to earn respect it's not just given!!! And until you answer all the questions put to you what respect have you earned?

    10. i am sure he has visited the "creation science" museum or at least its website. does that count?

    11. Umm, only if they're volunteering to become an exhibit ;)

    12. Homo Intelligens Consilium?

    13. G'day Edge,

      I took my son to the Brisbane museum yesterday, both he and I could spend hours there to be able to explain the beauty life and then being able to show the fossil evidence to help him understand. With saying that he is more critical in his thinking than I give him credit for at times. I think that comes from the mothers side ....;)

    14. lol. best to always give credit to the mother. i am glad you took him to a museum. i am not sure about your area but here too few parents would do that.

    15. Sad i would say the same from the times we have gone there and we do visit quite both the library and the museum on regular "adventures" so to speak...lol.

    16. If you look into the writings of many proponents of evolution theory you will find that inevitably at some point, when pressed for hard proof, they admit they have none. It is still at this point all theory, speculation and hypothesis and no proof. To overcome the lack of factual evidence they simply insist and insist that they are correct. This is not science, this is propaganda. The question you should be asking, the question I asked myself, is why are they trying so hard to convince us that evolution is real despite the lack of evidence? My point is that there are no facts or hard evidence, so why is evolution considered settled science?

      Lets start with the fossil record. There is no evidence of what should be an abundance of transitory organisms. The missing link for any species is non existent despite all our efforts to find it in an overwhelming amount of data. No one can say we didn't try but it simply just isn't there. Now you could point to this fossil or that fossil but nothing conclusive enough to satisfy real scientific scrutiny. Bananas don't turn into chickens, monkeys don't turn into men. The only thing the fossil record proves is that fully formed and functioning organisms have lived on the earth for a long time.

      Your other points are basically about genetics. I am not a geneticist and I doubt you are either. However, I know enough to tell you that spontaneous appearance of something as complex as the genetic code on a water covered rock floating in space is nothing short of a miracle. The odds against it happening are so staggering as to be incomprehensible. The more important question for the theory of evolution is when did nothing become something? No small question yet one that is conveniently pushed aside as too bothersome.

      If you, like me, are really interested in getting more information, from reliable and reputable sources, I would suggest you look for Professors and Theologians with dissenting views whose opinion you value. Believe me when I tell you there are many of them.

    17. I'm not sure how much you should expect something as arbitrary, as much of a crapshoot, really, as the fossil record is to corroborate evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt any better than it has up to this point. But there is evidence showing, for example, transitional forms from sea creatures to land creatures, as well as from reptiles to mammals. About some ultimate origin of the genetic code, I'll leave that god of the gaps sort of argument for those who feel compelled to jump ahead, or back (or to Ridley Scott), for answers, instead of taking the necessary intermediate steps that might lead to a more reasonable answer. And the fact that we share so many genes in common with so many other lifeforms when there are so many other biological and chemical combinations that could exist is immensely powerful evidence of one common genetic ancestor for all life on this planet.

    18. Wait a minute, did I misunderstand or did you just say the fossil record, which you sighted as a proof, was a crapshoot that has shown us as much as it can about our origins? Isn't that what I said? Even with an over abundance of fossils we are still no further along to demonstrating evolution.

      Please tell me specifically what evidence you have of any life form transforming from a fish to a non-fish and especially a reptile changing into a mammal.

      Prometheus, really!?! But again, isn't that what I've been saying all along? That Hollywood and the main stream media are desperately trying to convince us of something that isn't true. A LIE that they have to repeatedly pound into our collective unconscious even if it means suggesting that the Earth was seeded by aliens, WHY? If evolution is the smoke and mirrors what are they trying to hide from us?

      Sharing genes with other organisms does not mean that all life forms came from the same primordial amoeba. All it proves is that there is an architecture in order for life to exist. We exist within a connected living system, an ecology. I would be shocked if life forms did not share fundamental underlying characteristics. Sure other biological and chemical combinations "could" exist, but they don't so what does that tell you? Those combinations do not produce life. Life is life, it exists perfectly as it needs to in order to be life. You are not a cosmic accident of chance.

    19. No, I did not say that, precisely. And I never cited the fossil record as a proof, but rather that it is strong evidence in support of the validity of the theory. Nor did I say that it has shown us as much as it can, but rather that it has shown about as much as we can reasonably expect, given the element of luck involved in collecting fossils, up to this point. The future, in other words, of fossil study is sure to turn up even more evidence in support of evolution.

      The evidence for transitional forms is there. All you have to do is be willing to look for it, in your own right. I would, however, leave out the theologians, as they can't help you very much in this regard, as it isn't their expertise. Particularly the ones whose opinions you value the most.

      The 'Prometheus' allusion was only intended to be humorous... If you didn't get it, or like it, so be it. They can't all work, you know.

      The fact that the genetic code is so very similar across the board for all forms of life on this planet can ONLY mean that it arose from a common, much earlier, and simpler, form. In my opinion, with your mindset being what it apparently is, the question you really should be asking is whether or not that initial source of it was an accident, about which I have felt it wiser to defer.

    20. The known fossil record is OVERWHELMING at this point and it has shown NO evidence of evolutionary transitory forms at all. There is no evidence of transitory forms anywhere, I've looked, I've done the research, they don't exist. You say they do then it should be fairly simple to point them out to me but you can't. I say there is no evidence of evolution, you say there is but you don't know what it is. You believe in evolution because you are told that it's true by scientism.

      I'm sorry I didn't get the joke about Prometheus but it's because I don't think it's funny. We as a culture are being brainwashed into accepting a pseudo-scientific explanation for the origins of life on our planet. We are being deceived in order to fulfill the purposes of an agenda.

    21. Can't? Or won't? Why should I, when you won't do me the same courtesy? And you've already been pointed to Berkeley (among other things), for heaven's sake, one of the most respected institutions in the country, and brushed it off as if it couldn't possibly have anything to teach you. So, just as you said to pwndecaf, we're pretty much at an impasse... I don't see much point in continuing, do you? And such language as "being deceived in order to fulfill the purposes of an agenda" fairly conclusively tells me as much as I need to know, anyway.

    22. You're the one who said: "The evidence for transitional forms is there." So I'll take that as a "Can't". Why should you show me the proof of evolution which you claim to have? Why not? You're the one who believes in it. If it's so obvious it should be so easy to demonstrate, it is science after all. Unfortunately you can't and I knew that when I asked so I'm sorry and I won't take it personally.

      Berkeley doesn't have any proof of evolution either so what do want me to do? Read through the same old rehashed Darwin propaganda until I start to feel good about myself so I can engage in polite conversation with you about how we used to be monkeys?

      No thanks, my eyes are open. You can stay in "the Cave" if you want to but I'm outta here.

    23. You are being unreasonable, how old are you? You keep talking about your Monkeys, Monkeys and the human apes that we are, originated from a common ancestor, not even going to bother to put on any links, it would be to no avail.

      Either you come up with proof of your claims, or desist, you are beginning to sound like a troll. Did you say "I'm outta here"? Please, do not let the door hit you on your way out!

    24. You guys are all the same. "I would post proof but I can't be bothered". For all the responses to my posts no one has posted any proof of evolution, why? Because there is no link monkey man, it's missing. It's missing because it doesn't exist.

    25. I offered no links because I do not have too. You are like a broken record, am getting tired of you, as I believe so is everyone else. Go back to your creationist websites where you will be welcomed with open arms, I think?

      I am going to put you down as a troll, unless you come up with proofs of your original claims I will have no recourse except to ban you as a troll. Warning # 1.

    26. The transitory form question is illogical, and you are using it as a game rigged in your favour. If someone showed you a fossil that is widely appreciated as a good example of a transitory form (take Archaeopteryx - Feathered Dinosaur/Modern Bird) you might say that it was a unique form in its own right, or ask for another form between it and an earlier/later one. Of course we can not show you a specimen from every single generation, the fossil record will always have gaps because of the very particular conditions that are required to form fossils.

      Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence however. Maybe you should do some fossil hunting, you never know, you could find the answers you're looking for. (If you did you'd be very very well compensated for your efforts at least)

      All forms presently living as well as all earlier forms that adapted to environmental changes without becoming extinct ARE transitional forms. There are no end points or 'goals' in evolution (well there are end points - but you really don't want to be one of those, as it means you're extinct and your genetic line has ended) nor is there a starting point - evolution does not address the question about the origin of life, merely how the forms we categorize as species arise from earlier forms. You are criticizing evolution without having a good grasp of exactly what it means.

      Gladly, the fossil record is a fraction of the supporting evidence for evolution alongside more recent genetic discoveries, and a very great many lifetimes research and study by diligent biologists, zoologists, paleontologists, geologists and archeologists. With infant genetics growing its first flight feathers, now involved in the study are molecular chemists, molecular biologists etc. Now if you want to suggest another means by which the forms we call species arise, knowing what we know, we are all ears - but as you mentioned agendas I would question yours first.

    27. I appreciate the thought you put into this.

      We are talking about the supposedly settled science of evolution which we are constantly told is the accepted explanation of where life comes from and how we got to where we're at then how can my position be rigged? The gaps in the fossil record should not be dismissed with a "Oh well, that's the way it is. I'm sure there was plenty of evidence we'll never see". The fossil record clearly shows the sudden appearance of fully formed organisms contrary to the expectations of evolutionists.

      If we were talking about God or who the best QB who ever played the game was we could go back and forth and discuss the issue emotionally and agree to disagree. But this isn't that, evolution is supposed to be science, proven with facts that back up its claims which evolution clearly does not. So my problem with it is why are we as a society being propagandized with it as if it were established fact.

      The problem is that there is no supporting evidence in the fossil record, none. Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record fully formed and functional, no transition. If modern living species were in a state of continual transition we would not be able to classify them as species in the first place. There would be no pigs, there would be lizard-pigs, there would be fish-rats. If all species are constantly evolving there would be chaos. I see order, I see definite distinction. You can't breed a horse with an elephant.

      Even if evolution doesn't want to tackle the question about how life appeared, it still claims all life evolved from a single source which eventually transformed itself into everything you see today and know about from the past. Is that acceptable to you?

      The agenda is the overwhelming lack of critical thinking on this board and in society in general. The agenda is scientism. I don't believe everything I'm told just because science says so.

    28. Hello David. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, though as a rebuttal it is I feel insufficient. You are not addressing my points, though you seem competent and confident in rhetoric.

      I said [re the denial of transitional forms]:

      you might say that it was a unique form in its own right,

      To which you replied:

      Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record fully formed and functional, no transition.

      Firstly, if what you think a transitional form should be is either not fully formed or functional then you are talking about an embryo. You go on to talk about lizard pigs etc. regardless, like I said the game is rigged as you can deny any transitional form we show you from an argument of personal incredulity, which is a logical error. Archeopteryx shares features of feathered Dinosaurs; tail, jaws and teeth, AND modern Birds; warm blood, flight feathers etc. plus it dates from around the end of dinosaurs and the beginning of birds. So here is the lizard bird (or at least, something very similar) - not a lizard pig granted but should we take the non existence of your arbitrarily demanded fantasy creature as reasonable doubt? It is a strawman argument anyway, evolution does not predict the existence of a lizard pig. Lystrosaurus might be a contender though... If you want a prediction that evolution made implicitly try ring species.

      You said:

      The gaps in the fossil record should not be dismissed with a "Oh well, that's the way it is. I'm sure there was plenty of evidence we'll never see".

      In reply to:

      the fossil record will always have gaps because of the very particular conditions required to form fossils.

      I did not dismiss the gaps, I simply stated that there will always be gaps clear reason given. If I place an answer in your gap, you could always say 'Hey look, two more gaps!' How narrow does the gap need to be? To restate my point, maybe the evidence you demand persists, maybe it does not; but have you gone and looked? Until that coin comes down heads or tails it can not support your point. Heads I win tails you lose, right?

      Evolution doesn't need to tackle the question about how life appeared because evolution is change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Abiogenesis is the grouping of scientific hypotheses devoted to the origin of life. Evolution does not claim that all life evolved from a single source, it is simply the process by which it appears to have happened with all the currently known evidence taken into account. What is your alternative? What rational support can you give for it? If you want an honest attempt to trace evolution back to the origin of life, try 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins. At least the first sections explain very clearly the mathematics of large populations and inherited characteristics down to individual genes and lineage. Contemporary genetics has since made some minor corrections to some of his necessary later assumptions I think, as well as filled in an ever increasing amount of gaps as more and more species have their genome mapped for study.

      There is no agenda in science. Like any tool it may be used by people for their own 'agenda'. Science is a precisely crafted methodology based on observation, reason and empirical evidence. 'I don't believe everything I'm told just because observation, reason and empirical evidence tells me so' is reasoning against reason, which is a little bit Monty Python, if not completely absurd... he typed on his computer built upon the technologies conceived by people using science. No one is suggesting that you believe what you're told, quite the opposite in fact. Serious questions are highly appreciated but when they're the same old crude misrepresentations like Mr Comforts 'Crocoduck' or your 'Lizardpig' it betrays a lack of personal investigation into that which they claim to refute. Whatever you do believe, if you expect everyone else to take it seriously you'd be well advised to have good reason and be prepared to find your own evidence.

    29. Mate!

      How old are you? not being rude as it is leading in to the following question, which is why don't you choose a breed of animal, ie: birds, fish or if young and wealthy enough dogs to see the time frame for evolution required when man manipulates it then you may how much since the theory of evolution make compared to any creationist voodoo magic man theory.

    30. Nice try David, but there's a problem with what you're attempting to do.

      Trying to adapt the arguments that you've seen used against religion, and frame it in a way to say evolution is wrong (in an backwards attempt to prove your creationist ideas) won't work and here's why.

      When religion makes a claim and is asked to back it up with evidence, all they have is the Bible/Quran/whichever scriptures (books everyone agrees were written by man), and personal anecdotal epiphanies. Which is why there is no proof, there's no evidence.

      Trying to twist that style against evolution doesn't work because, as you've already seen there is, despite your denials, very real evidence given that is independently reviewed and verified. You can too yourself if you wish. No 'faith' needed.
      The sum of this real evidence suggests that not only is evolution a theory, it's a fact.

      As you've not given any evidence against evolution when asked, I'll not waste my time repeating that question again, I have another one.
      What religion do you subscribe to?

    31. You're sharp, I think I like you docoman!

      I do not deny the fact that I believe I am a child of God but I am also a man who believes that the universe operates under governing rules that we call science. It is in my capacity as a believer in true science who is questioning the truth evolution. I am willing to be proven wrong and it will not bother my faith in God so if you like we can put Him to the side for a moment.

      None of you who have responded to me on this board have been able to back up your claims that evolution is a fact with any compelling evidence. No one can produce the smoking gun. It is a fantastic idea at this point where acceptance of it can only be described as faith on your part.

      Evolution is not settled science and we need to stop acting as if it were no matter what other beliefs we might hold. It should be presented in classrooms alongside other widely held beliefs. It should never be presented as conclusive fact in any educational environment.

    32. Science is 100% right to the best of our knowledge and it is continually self correcting and by the peer view process of all new or improved findings we have came a lot further than if we still believe in the creationist fairytales taught to them by perverts and pedophiles from a book of lies....

    33. No, wrong on a couple things again.

      " the universe operates under governing rules that we call science. It is in my capacity as a believer in true science who is questioning the
      truth evolution."

      The first part, sorry but duh, that's just stating the obvious. Of course the universe operates under rules which come under the definition of what we call science.
      The 2nd part, its good that you question science, that's a prerequisite not only for your own critical thinking, but also science itself.

      But that's not what you're doing. You are stating flat out that evolution is wrong, etc etc, but then don't offer either evidence against, or a counter theory that explains what we see that has the required accompanying evidence.

      You have been shown a 'smoking gun', at least one. You've been pointed towards numerous other parts of the evidence to look up and learn about, work out yourself if it makes sense and is accurate. You claim it doesn't/isn't, but you don't give anything else but denials. No logic, no evidence, just hollow words.

      Of course Evolution is not settled science. No science is, even the very few 'facts' we have are still subject to being changed if the required proof is demonstrated.
      Yes, there are things still being worked out, like punctuated equilibrium, the only example I've seen you point out so far btw, and that is why Evolution is still at the 'theory' status, not fact.
      It's a fact that plants and animals evolve, I've watched it and helped cause it myself, you've seen the results of it every time you look at different breeds of dogs, for example.

      It should be taught in school. You could do with a bit more research on some of the definitions, experiments and reasoning behind it, some of what you've said demonstrates you don't completely understand what you're disputing.
      What other "widely held beliefs" do you think it should be taught "alongside"?

      What is your answer to the fossil record we have discovered so far?

      And genetics?

    34. For obvious reasons, he doesn't dare supply any sources to back up his claims, but we all know who the usual suspects are. On the other hand, if he has conjured up all of these, uh, facts, across so many different fields, and has truly out-thought all of those talented people who devote their lives to this work, largely out of his own noodle, hell, we could be looking at the Antichrist here! Someone lit up enough to be put in charge of the whole shebang! He should teleport himself to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and get busy stackin'...

      I have to try and keep a sense of humor about all this sort of rubbish... You think back on the history of Christianity over the centuries, how it has always fought so hard against the promulgation of any idea that threatens its power, only to wake up one morning to all this hypocritical outrage about how persecuted believers are, and how they are being unjustly subjected to an AGENDA.

    35. I knew I liked you docoman, you're the first honest poster on the board!

      Thank you for agreeing that evolution is a theory, not a fact as it is so often put forward as such. Especially in the classroom, it should be taught, but not as settled science which we both agree it most definitely isn't. That alone is HUGE to me that you have the intelligence and thoughtfulness to acknowledge that, where no one else here seems able to do.

      As far as the rest of your response I think you have overstepped yourself. There is no smoking gun. You have neither witnessed nor caused evolution, sorry to burst your bubble on that. A dog breeder never came away with anything but a dog in the end. Some big, some small, some fluffy, some mean but all dogs. It is the same thing with Over The Edge's E.Coli experiment. There was no evolution, E.Coli went in, E.Coli came out. You guys are confusing Variation within a species as proof that E.Coli can evolve into poodles if you just give it enough time. I disagree, why? Because it's an insane idea with no evidence to support it at all.

      How condescending of the posters who sent me links to "evolution 101". Basically demonstrating what I have been saying all along. It's a cult, it's propaganda, if you're not on board with evolution you must be an idiot. Believe me when I tell you that I've done my homework on this.

      Micro-evolution is simply variation within a species (acceptable and obvious but not supportive of evolution theory). Macro-evolution is fish crawling up on land and changing into mammals (No evidence of any kind either living or dead that this happens).

      You still cling to evolution and ask me to provide you with proof against an idea that has none of it's own. My proof is your lack of proof. This is science, not religion. If you want to hold onto an idea that many consider a fantasy than you do so on FAITH, and that is my point. You are a faithful follower of the cult of scientism and evolution. You let them tell you what is true even though they can't prove it. What other "scientific" claims you are being asked to accept on faith? Man Made Climate change? Seems like another excuse to steal money from the poor through taxation and give it to the rich politicians and their friends.

      Just because I can't replace the theory of evolution with a new idea that might satisfy you doesn't make me wrong in pointing out the flaws in this one. One belief that should always be presented whenever evolution is discussed and taught is Creationism. There are other ideas as well that I'm sure should be given merit.

    36. Unbelievable! you do not even know what a scientific theory is or what it represents, and then you say you have done your homework? what homework? again how old are you, me-thinks you are just a young kid still going to grade school, parochial no doubt, tell your teachers they are wrong.

      "Creationism"?? at least you came out of the closet!

    37. he came out on his first post then quickly ran away from his burden of proof with "wake up monkey man and claim your humanity as the divine God given gift that it is." and never provided proof of such a massive claim.

    38. Let's stay on topic. We're talking about YOUR massive claim of evolution theory.

    39. read through my posts to you and tell me what claims i made that i haven't backed up?

    40. if "Micro-evolution is simply variation within a species (acceptable and
      obvious but not supportive of evolution theory). Macro-evolution is fish
      crawling up on land and changing into mammals (No evidence of any kind
      either living or dead that this happens)." where does speciation fit in? it isn't micro evolution by your definition because it is a different species. so is it macro evolution? or are you going to invent another definition? and can you show me scientific definitions that define these terms this way?

    41. Your E.Coli experiment example did not create a new species. It demonstrated variation within a species. It is not conclusive proof of evolution. Evolutionists have invented enough jargon to cover up their errors so no I will not be adding any more. When you ask for definitions are you asking about Micro and Macro evolution? If so google it or please be more specific.

      P.S. I knew you couldn't stay out of this, thanks for coming back.

    42. it is a new species. read the study. so it does not fit YOUR definition of micro evolution. not only that it fits the scientific definition of species. again you refuse to back up your claims. sad really

    43. Since it is obvious you know absolutely nothing about evolution. Will start you off with an easily understandable link.

      evolution 101...


      understanding evolution...


    44. That's the laziest response yet, posting links to Berekely? You have obviously missed point but I'll let you try again. Why don't you tell me what evolution is as YOU understand it and I'll do my best to respond. Don't forget to include that part about where complex cellular life capable of transforming itself into anything such as plants, animals, insects, humans etc. suddenly appears on a barren rock floating in space.

    45. what part of the theory of evolution leads you to believe "complex cellular life capable of transforming itself into anything such
      as plants, animals, insects, humans etc. suddenly appears on a barren
      rock floating in space." has anything to do with evolution?

    46. Lazy?? you know nothing about evolution, yet you pass my links by? Tunnel vision?? strikes me of an ID proponent. You wanted answers, they are all there in my links.

      Nothing suddenly appears except in creationist La,La land. Or from your gods if you believe in such.

    47. I looked at your Berkeley link, pretty weak and sparse on conclusive evidence. I'm not interested in another evolution pep rally that tells me it's true because it's true. I know as much if not more about evolution than you do I just don't agree with it. You did sort of answer my question though. Evolution can't explain the spontaneous appearance of life so that leaves what?

    48. gravity is a theory so I guess you still think the earth is the center of everything and that people on the other side of the planet have velcro on their feet or maybe earth is still a box and you can fall of the edge of the earth. hay how about this for evidence of evolution it dose not only apply to the changing of species but also knowledge. we use to walk every where then we EVOLVED our knowledge by creating the wagon then we eventually created the automobile that soon became the better cars we know today. or how about the exchange of knowledge it used to be you would only get new knowledge by traders then you would get it by books but would still be hard to get and then their was the computer but still it was not finished you still needed to go to the library to get certain information it wasn't until browsers like Google came that we could truly share all our knowledge but now we can talk to people like you still living in mommy and daddy's basement that have no idea what and how the world really works. how that for your evidence,

    49. Excellent example of a "theory" no one deny exists. There is absolutely NO evidence of exactly HOW gravity works (Newton gave us a fine operating manual, but the schematics STILL TO THIS DAY remain a mystery). Is gravity a warping of space/time creating the effect of accelerated motion (as Einstein theorized) OR is gravity a particle (the graviton, as particle theorists have put forward), much too small OR beyond our technology to capture or measure with a man-made device? I don't know (wish I did, 'win the Nobel...). But one thing I DO know is gravity exists! To get hung up on the theory/law debate is to COMPLETELY miss the point. Just like "new species" or a "new breed", this argument is nothing but a red-herring. Given 50,000 years, man could most certainly create a new "species" through selective breeding techniques (perhaps much sooner). Again, the short time man has been emplyeeing "animal husbandry" and selective breeding is not enough time for "radical" changes to occur, worthy of deeming something a "new" species. Nature has all the time in the world...

    50. That won't be necessary - I've done pretty well wiping my own orifices and I figured out zippers long ago - but how nice of you to ask!

      Meanwhile, I HAVE made up my own mind and you have provided nothing.

    51. What do want from me then? If your mind is made up then no amount of evidence (or in the case of evolution, LACK of evidence) from me will change it. If you have read my posts and still say I have "provided nothing" then there's no sense wasting our time.

    52. I can answer that for you mate how 'bout you start showing a bit of respect to others and answer there questions...

    53. I want nothing from you and you have been good for that. Thanks again.

    54. hay why dont you make up your own mind the way you talk Im sure your a creationist you hypocrite why dont you make up your own mind instead of following your religious leader.

    55. Are you brain dead or have you got some type of reading comprehension problem d*ckhead!!!
      I will ask you again show me the evidence to back up your absurd claim about Evolution????
      Why is the theory of evolution "dumb" in your opinion and what would you call the process of the development of the world and everything that has been on it up until know and how we as a planet evolved.?

      Please don't insult other members intelligence by posting such BS and without any evidence to back up you uneducated absurd claims you childish little boy. Do you still believe in santa and the tooth fairy as well?

    56. I agree with you, but, with due respect, please try to keep it civil so we can have an ongoing discussion without resorting to a war with the inevitable result all posts will be deleted. Thanks.

    57. G'day Achems,

      No problems got a little frustrated with the non responsive answer. Will make sure I've had my medication before replying in future...:) Cheers

    58. Okay, no harm, no foul!...Cheers

    59. WOW! That escalated quickly, straight to name calling and a foot stomping tantrum demanding compliance!? I understand that I am challenging what is obviously a fundamental belief system to you that defines your concept of reality but try to stay calm.

      You realize that you are demanding proofs against a theory, an idea, that is not backed up by any proof. As I have stated evolution is a belief system that is founded on faith. Despite the lack of hard evidence you choose to believe it anyway. Why? Maybe because it is an idea that is forced upon you from birth by a society that only wants your subordination and sees you as a commodity.

      Why are we all suppose to accept evolution as settled science when it's not? Why are you so angry that I don't want to drink the kool-aid? Why are we all suppose to just accept whatever scientism tells us without question, like a mob of zombie slaves acting like we're an informed public?

      You see everything through the lens of evolution. You basically ask me, if evolution is wrong than how did everything on earth evolve. You can't see past Darwin's beard!

      I used to be like you. I understand where you're at. Re-evaluating my belief in evolution was a life changing experience for me that shook me to my foundation. I re-examined all the evidence, asked the hard questions and eventually came away a changed man.

      I'm not satisfied with the theory of evolution as there are too many holes and questions unanswered, most never will be answered and that bothers me to the point that I object to it being considered the "accepted explanation".

      It is shameful that evolutionists look down on anyone who won't go along with them. To a scientist, expressing legitimate doubt to colleagues is tantamount to career suicide. How sad and unimaginative we are becoming when scientific inquiry must cow-tow to the bullies and the fanatics, the politics and corporate money. This is scientism, science is what we tell you it is.

    60. you state "evolution is a belief system that is founded on faith. Despite the lack of hard evidence you choose to believe it anyway." what if i provided a repeated/demonstrable example og speciation that is fully observed? would you consider that "hard evidence"?

      you also state "I'm not satisfied with the theory of evolution as there are too many holes and questions unanswered" what are these holes and unanswered questions specifically (two or three for now please)?

    61. You're welcome to provide your example however, Speciation is not hard evidence of evolution so whatever example you give will definitely not show a transitional form. You start with a bird you end up with a bird. You start with a bee you end up with a bee. Albeit a different type but so what, in the end it's animal husbandry occurring naturally, such as in an isolated environment like an island, or forced by the bee keeper or horse breeder.

      As far as the holes in evolution theory you only really need 2 to topple the whole house of cards.
      1) No transitional organisms living, dead or fossilized. No proof of any life form changing into a completely different type of life form.

      2) No explanation to how complex life spontaneously appeared from nothing.

    62. 1. Everything alive is a 'transitional organism'. Evolution hasn't stopped, it's still going.

      2. The Theory of Evolution isn't about how life started, that's abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life changes.

    63. have you ever studied the theory of evolution from a scientific standpoint? nowhere does an organism give birth to anything other than a variation of itself. ?

      " You start with a bird you end up with a bird" that is exactly what evolution claims. no organism will ever evolve out of its heritage. we are STILL apes. we are STILL PHYLUM - Chordata (fish) and no amount of evolution will ever change that

      1. every fossil is a transitional fossil and if we observed life "changing into a completely different type of life form." evolution would be proven wrong

      2.again where in the theory of evolution is it claimed "complex life spontaneously appeared from nothing."

      you obviously do not have a basic grasp of the theory of evolution i suggest you read actual science books on the subject before you display any more of your ignorance

    64. You say: "no organism will ever evolve out of its heritage". Didn't the whole thing start with single celled organisms? Where does transition occur if nothing evolves out of it's kind? How does a fish crawl up on land and become a human being?

      Your address to my points:
      1) If we could observe evolution taking place it would disprove the theory of evolution. So the absence of proof is proof of evolution? That's mighty convenient for you, how could I argue against such logic?
      2) How did life appear then if it didn't happen spontaneously? How complex did it have to be to eventually "evolve" into everything we know today as a life form? Seems to me it would've had to be a tough little bugger to end up with the myriad of life forms we have today.

      And finally, why don't you go back and hit the books because you're not as smart as you think you are. This time do it for yourself instead of trying to get an "A" on your test and impress you teacher. Re-examine what you were taught to believe in and you will discover that you have been misled about a great many things. All done for the greater good of society producing another obedient worker.

    65. okay last time for me. i do not say " "no organism will ever evolve out of its heritage"" evolution says that. backed by mountains of evidence.

      how many times by how many posters do you have to be corrected by for you to stop misrepresenting evolution? nowhere is the origins of life a concern of evolutionary theory.

      1. twist my words around then misrepresent the theory again. good job

      2. again abiogenesis is not a concern of evolution. wow

      reply if you wish but i see where this is going and i will not be responding.

    66. So when you say: "i do not say " "no organism will ever evolve out of its heritage"" evolution says that. backed by mountains of evidence."

      You did say say that though. But if you're now saying that you are just repeating what evolutionary scientists say then I once again tell you that you are a slave to the propaganda of scientism. These are not your ideas, you're just regurgitating information you've been taught in school or seen on the TV. This is what they want you to believe even though there is no proof. Why is that?

      There is not a mountain, nor a mole hill of conclusive proof to back up your claims that what? We all emerged from a common ancestor that crawled out of some prehistoric swamp? Monkeys climbed down from the trees and became self-aware humans. You say I am misrepresenting evolution when YOU are the one who is defending it with a scatter brained argument that can't make up it's mind.

      And lastly, you say that abiogenesis has no place in questioning evolution. This just demonstrates the madness for belief in it. You have a watch and can tell me what time it is but you have no idea where it came from or how it was made?

      I'm tired of you too, goodnight.

    67. Mate!

      As it is you that have made the claims the burden of proof is yours to provide.

      So start presenting your evidence for these " many holes" and what questions have you got "unanswered" apart from the obvious?,

    68. as for my example. please see the "long term e-coli evolution experiment" it is exactly what the theory claims with every step documented and ending in a separate species from the original. please hold the theory to the standards that it claims and see if it stands of falls on that standard. building a strawnan is lazy

    69. Lenski started with E.Coli and 20 years later what did he have? E.Coli that had adapted to it's environment over time but E.Coli none the less. The so called "newly evolved DNA" could just have easily been latent in the original specimen. Living things will adapt to their environment and pass these adaptations to their offspring. However, a new organism was never created in this experiment. Not evolution, sorry.

    70. Wow, I can't believe this discussion. Where is the evidence of transitional species....uhh......HOW ABOUT EVERY LIVING THING. Here's the thing about evolution, although beautifully logical, evolution is not APPARENT in our very short life spans. But you wanted two examples of species in transition. Well, again, take a look out your window. But think on this, the marsupio has fur, is warm blooded, and LAYS eggs. If one is looking at the evolutionary history of mammals, the marsupio gives us some idea (blueprint if you will) of how, millions of years ago, the transition from egg laying to live birth may have occurred in our own species. Our small rodent ancestors may have laid eggs AT FIRST, but the eggs were kept warm in folds of skin but this was dangerous and difficult. The quicker the eggs hatched, the better chance of survival. Eventually, leading to live birth. Another example of transition? How about the COUNTLESS species of dinosaur (from fossilized records) with hollow bones and feathers. Some were clearly flightless but could use their feathers to sort of glide. Flying squirrels, I would argue, are CLEARLY a species in transition as THIS MOST CERTAINLY was the same path the bat took. They are just a bit further behind. If you open up your eyes, one can see transition in all living things.

    71. Mate!

      Although you may be skeptical about evolution, it would be foolish to think that the theory of evolution is not as accurate as it is. We have enough evidence from fossil remains to DNA and everything in between, but with a man with your great knowledge you would know all this.

      So may I be so rude and get the actual answer to my original question which was, show me the evidence to back up your absurd claim about Evolution????

    72. You say: "We have enough evidence from fossil remains to DNA and everything in between"

      I say you have nothing but faith in a dead theory. Your the one claiming to be right so show me your proof of monkeys changing into humans.

      The evidence to support my claim that evolution is false is the lack of evidence supporting your claim that it's true.

    73. wow really? please show me where the theory of evolution claims "monkeys changing into humans."? do you even read the responses? you have had your statements questioned and refuse to back then up multiple times while continuing to make the same misstatements even after being corrected. oh i get it. are you Ray Comfort using a different name?

    74. So when you say "we are STILL apes" you mean what exactly? Why don't you tell me where humans came from according to your precious theory.

    75. It would appear that your belief is centred around imaginary sky fairies!

    76. Ridiculous

    77. And even worse than that. What a profound degree of irony there is in his last two sentences!

    78. 1. Planet is billions of years old not thousands
      2. Adam and Eve is genetically impossible
      3. Noah's Ark is ridiculously impossible
      4. Christ's "miracles" are an ancient story talking about celestial occurrences and was not alone the Egyptian God Horus was also ALL the things Jesus was said to be BEFORE Jesus.
      I could go on forever....please, no one listen to i*iots whom are the brain washed slaves of religion. Your Friend a hard true blue atheist. We were herbivores whom stared eating each other then hunting then the protein shrunk our stomachs and grew our brains. Meat is a super-nutritional meal next to a branch salad and fruit when you can get yout hands on some fought over fruit. Do what thou wilt my friends, were alone. Just us and the animals and insects.

    79. you are either a troll or have an extreme case of stubbornness. check out the fossil record, and please define 'transitional species' if all the gradual changes from homohabilus(sp) to us arent believable proof

    80. If "the theory of evolution is a faith based religion", then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

    81. I can't help but comment so late in the game. One of the defining characteristics of science is active encouragement of contrarian theory. If you can debunk the theory of evolution please do so. We are all listening intently. We will celebrate your genius. You will become rich and famous and have the means to promote your alternative theory far and wide. But you need first to clear up some things about which you are confused. There are no missing links. Everything is in very slow transition. Slower than you can perceive. You do not go to bed middle aged and wake up old aged. There was no homo erectus woman that gave birth to a homo sapiens baby. Of course bacteria evolving into something else is still bacteria. What else would it be? As to the lack of proof of evolution I submit your eyes and mind are blinkered. Something from nothing? Yes, exactly, but you might want to seek an understanding of what nothing means. Your argument from complexity is also telling inasmuch as it suffers fatally from infinite regression. If the universe and everything that's in it, including the myriad life forms on Earth, is far too complex to have come into existence on its own, then what of the Creator who must be even more complex? This is one of those great unanswered questions. Perhaps He exists, but there is no evidence for His existence. One thing we can be sure of is He isn't Yahweh, or any of the 1600 other gods man has created and worshipped throughout the milenia.

      I would be loathe for you to lose your faith. Faith is a wonderful balm. But that does not make it true. If you are sincerely interested in finding truth, then read some of the works of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus. The very best position of attack against something is from knowledge. Seek to understand that which you wish to undermine, in this case the theory of evolution through natural selection, and you will be well served. I suspect, however, that once you come to some level of understanding - it need not be nearly absolute - that you will find it difficult to deny it. It is perhaps better for you and your peace of mind that you do not.

  7. Evolution is to eugenics as Physics is to stabbing people. It's just a silly slope comparison.

    Darwin, nor any evolutionary biologist has ever claimed anywhere that there is a weakness in the human genome that requires fixing by erradicating certain people or that certain human beings are superior to others. European antiseminism originated from blood libels, which were pushed by the roman catholic church.

    Anyone who studies the beliefs about human intellect will find that the predominant theory of sociobiologists is that our advanced human intellect is mostly due to an evolving symbolic interaction, not due to an evolving biology. Ideas, values, these are the things that progress us as a species. Biology got us to this point, but without symbolic interaction we really aren't much smarter than apes. So trying to mess with the hardware via some sort of selective breeding or eugenics would be pointless. The species is improved through the natural selection of superior ideas because our advanced intellect is formed by a software we download as infants from the people who raise us called symbolic interaction, not from the hardware that makes our brains. The hardware merely makes this download possible.

  8. Hitler's idea of cleansing the world of inferior races came about from the pseudoscience of eugenics. A misappropriation of genetics, evolution, the pagan ideal "super-race" and an unchallenged powerful elite class led to the destruction of many "enemies of the state."

    The misuse of an idea does not contribute to either proving or disproving its validity. All those who claim a religion should understand this concept.

  9. Oh god, don't you just love science?

  10. This is one of the best documentaries in TDF. Had watched it long back, but watching again…
    it would have been so wonderful if all humans would had evolved from Bonobos! no war … no violence,… no domination of power… but all will be enjoying life making love ;) our world would have been a much better place!

    1. oh how nice.. Quite a pipe dream you have :-D but that would prove that we didn't evolve much after all since you are set to live our lives like monkeys. Even monkeys have a pack leader.

  11. "I feel like every documentary in the Science, Society, and Nature sections on this website sparks a debate about religion.

    To me, this says that this one of the most controversial and divisive topics of our world."

    Either that or it's one of the most trolled internet topics.

  12. I feel like every documentary in the Science, Society, and Nature sections on this website sparks a debate about religion.

    To me, this says that this one of the most controversial and divisive topics of our world.

  13. Evolution FTW!!

  14. The Declaration of Independence had it right - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal". Darwin's point was to show a select race that had evolved beyond all others. If you believe Darwin's anti-scientific theory (as Hitler did), you must agree that all men have not evolved equally.

    1. @Thomas Moore
      could you show me proof for the statement "Darwin's anti-scientific theory " also hitlers "social darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution or science just because someone twists or misrepresents real science doesn't make it science (example creation science isn't science either regardless of the name). could you show me where in the theory of evolution it states "could complexity and life grow from random "dead" eternal material?" and last but not least you obviously believe in a creator. could you show empirical evidence for your views. now you are welcome to use the bible for evidence but i will not accept anything from that self contradictory, homophobic, historically inaccurate, anti-female,pro slavery. logically challenged and morally bankrupt pack of lies

    2. Darwins theory had nothing to do with human races. all men have evolved to suit their environment.

      only someone with no education in biology could make such asinine comments.

    3. you are quite stupid bub...The separate races evolved to suit there separate environments. So no I'm not nearly as adept at living in arctic conditions as an Inuit is. Nor am I as suited for the desert as a Ethiopian...but guess what? bet I'm better off in the swamp than either... these differences make us stronger as species, we are capable of conquering any climate DUE to our slightly different evolutionary paths...So no, u douche bag; evolution doesn't mean one race is superior but that we are all different, our skill sets may not be exactly the same but all are of EQUAL value....

    4. you are quite stupid bub...The separate races evolved to suit there separate environments. So no I'm not nearly as adept at living in arctic conditions as an Inuit is. Nor am I as suited for the desert as a Ethiopian...but guess what? bet I'm better off in the swamp than either... these differences make us stronger as species, we are capable of conquering any climate DUE to our slightly different evolutionary paths...So no, u douche bag; evolution doesn't mean one race is superior but that we are all different, our skill sets may not be exactly the same but all are of EQUAL value....

    5. Arguing that Hitler's "Final Solution" was correctly derived from evolutionary laws is like saying that beating a spouse till she's black 'n blue is natural and right because the sky is black at night and blue in the daytime.

  15. evolution only explains the cellular level theres much more detail in the universe then that just google this .....unified field of consciousness

  16. I predict it will take me 3 days to watch this entire thing. Worth it for a lifetime of knowledge.

  17. You know...how weird darwin docs are coming out far too many in number these days...kind of seems like an agenda is being pushed. Remember..talk about something too much and it takes hold.

    1. It should be talked about exhaustively because even in this millennium there is a vast majority of people who deny evolution and cling to the story of creationism to explain our origin. It's not really an agenda, so much as intellectuals wanting to usher in an era of enlightenment. To say that teaching the theory of evolution is an "agenda" is like saying talking about the theory of gravity is an agenda or teaching people that the earth revolves around the sun is an agenda.

    2. Religion in itself is no more an agenda. It is people who take both science and religion their agendas, despite of them being basically just ways to view world. Two sides of the same coin. Science has the upper hand in explaining natural phenomenas, but the atheist people who practise science don't grasp how much or little they may actually know. There's documented phenomenas like UFOs and their technology, ghosts, mediums like clairvoyants, dark matter, and other mysteries our science hasn't fully understood yet. And who knows of the mysteries we that haven't even been revealed to us yet. Both science and religion should be humble in the face of something bigger than them.

    3. Is that why the fairytale religions took hold, talked about to much??

  18. why do christians who don't believe in evolution post on here? If you're curious that's great. This is a science documentary, you're gonna get science. Why watch just to complain?

    1. Teaching people who are brain washed is almost a waste of time. I commend some of you for your patience. My blood is boiling just reading their comments.

    2. Lacoste's blood boiling may be the answer to emermaid's question. It is hardly Christ-like to taunt inquiry and make fun of people wanting to learn. But the Church has hardly been Christ-like for a a couple of thousand years.

  19. Science is evil says Ken Ham. Who then posts it on the internet using his wireless blackberry. After that he takes the antibiotics and painkillers for the sore throat he's been suffering with. He then uses his mobile phone to reserve his next flight to the US where he is giving a large seminar through wireless speakers to a crowd underneath a glass structure made of new space age lightweight materials. He then goes to bed on his memory foam matress developed by nasa and pops a couple of sleeping pills so he can drift off.

    Science......Who needs it? Ken Ham

    1. nice one !!

  20. excellent series - very enjoyable

  21. Either these guys are just trolls or they are retarded. No offense to retards but Dawkins says dont be afraid to call these guys idiots and thats the strategy I prefer. Teaching people who are brain washed is almost a waste of time. I commend some of you for your patience. My blood is boiling just reading their comments.

  22. Very sad that @human thinks he is using logic and reason or even good analogies. Wrist watch analogy then he continues with breakfast analogy. Very very sad and misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution only explains the diversity. Science still looking into birth of cosmos.

    Not trying to insult I just think its sad that he is smart enough to convince dumber people than himself as if he knows anything at all.

    To me, religion is total brainwash. Ok fine science dont have an answer. But how can you for one second think that you have the answer by saying the word god. You cant even describe god or even have same definition as the next theist. And if you are smart enough to use god in a general sense as in a creator and not include the bible in a conversation, you are still pretending to know an answer.

    @Bee Lets pretend you are correct in your above statements. "faith based science" is still in a position to change its answers and theist claims already know the answer. You are wrong. Even if science uses a little faith, at least it has 1 piece of evidence to go on. God has absolutely no answers. The bible is not evidence and has nothing to do with interpretation lol.


  23. @bee
    evidence is proof. if you have enough evidence it tends to prove the truth. but not only does science have evidence it also has facts and yes evolution is a fact there is too much evidence to say otherwise.people tend to get darwins theory of evolution and evolution itself confused .they are two separate things. now there are many facts of evolution that lend credence to darwins theory and most scientists accept it as the best explanation of evolution.but with any theory is has the opportunity to evolve or be disproven over time. but over 150 years on the evidence we continue to gather only strengthens it.science has no room for faith it goes where the evidence leads it not leads the evidence where it wants to go like creationism.

  24. The main point I make is this:
    Evolution like Special Creation are both, yes, BOTH

    Exactly!!! It's getting a bit tiresome reading those who are evolutionist atheists (or agnostics) claim they have proof for what they believe. No! No! No! You have evidence! Christian evolutionists, Christian creationists and atheist evolutionists alike have evidence. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing but it is NOT proof. Now, will you just stop doing it? It's boring ... and certainly not scientific.
    Have a lovely day.

    1. To even say that Evolution is faith based is the epitome of ignorance. Evolution is a FACT based on literally thousands and thousands of evidence (which is another word for proof) from observable fossil collections to DNA comparing analysis.
      Lovely day to you too.

    2. total nonsense.
      evolution is a proven, indisputable fact.
      creationism and all religion is a faith, with all that that implies.
      if you do not want to experience knowledge, go back to church.

  25. @mab

    There are no creationist scientists who believe in an old Earth, there are no secular scientists who believe in a young Earth. Fortunately, science is peer reviewed, making it accountable for it's claims. Science is also allowed to be wrong, to the point that scientists find every possible way to prove another scientists theory wrong, in order to make sure it's right.

    And what we have is a global evidence, peer reviewed for decades upon decades that stands up to the scrutiny, showing that the Earth is billions of years old. Hell, tree rings alone (Dendrochronology) show the earth to be older than the 6,000 years that creationists say.

  26. absolutely fantastic doc, thanks Vladko

  27. For the layman, accepting or denying the theory of evolution often involves some degree of an appeal to authority. Most of us do not have a PhD in the life sciences and most of us do not have the knowledge and expertise to conduct meaningful research in this field.

    The evolution supporter looks to biologists, people who dedicate their careers to the study of life, to shape their own informed opinions. Virtually every PhD in the life sciences accepts the basic principles of biological evolution and natural selection. The number that object is so small as to be essentially nonexistent.

    The evolution denier looks to theologians, people who dedicate their careers to the study and interpretation of one or a handful of really old books. It is important to note that even amongst the community of theologians, the majority of THEM understand that the life sciences are beyond their expertise and defer to what science has to say. Even among theologians and the faithful, evolution deniers are a minority.

    Would you ask a biologist for a metaphysical interpretation of a particular ancient holy book? Probably not, or if you do, you recognize that their authority on the subject is questionable. Likewise, asking a theologian for a scientific explanation of life is beyond his or her expertise.

    Darwin's theory of evolution is not theology. It does not prove or disprove the existence of any supernatural beings or realms. The theory has nothing whatsoever to do with these topics.

    Likewise, creationism is not science. It is the scientifically-illiterate opinion of a minority faction of theologians who insist on narrow, literal interpretations of their ancient books.

    Incidentally, they fail to recognize that these books were written by and for people of a radically different era who had a dramatically less complete understanding of the natural world. The real goal of theology in our age (and indeed, the majority of modern theologians have already recognized this) is to find the universal themes and meanings in these ancient texts that may still be applicable today. Lessons like kindness, love, and the nature of good and evil are timeless and perhaps something can be gained from this direction of theological and religious study.

    By opposing science and the innovation of human knowledge through open inquiry into the natural world and by insisting on the literal, infallible truth of their particular books, this minority fringe is doing a tremendous disservice to religion, theology, and humanity in general.

  28. Very nice dox-set, Not sure if it is to much to ask for, but can someone please upload the dvd-version?

    I've seen that PBS are selling it on DvD but I just lack the cash :(

    ...or perhaps THIS IS WHAT YA GET FOR FREE, wona better qval buy the DvD! Uploading it is illegal??

  29. This is primarily in response to the creationist nonsense from "mab" way up at the top, but this applies to anyone who tries to feed me the line "We all look at the same evidence, we just differ in our INTERPRETATION." As if they're trying to say that evolution and creation are both equal theories that should be considered with the same merit.

    This is nothing more than a slimy attempt to muddy the waters. There is one simple fact that makes the theory of evolution an actual scientific theory, which creationism lacks: PREDICTIVE POWER. Scientific theories do frequently BEGIN with speculation/guesses/hypotheses to explain a set of data or observations, but they become theories when the hypothesis is developed enough to make some solid, testable predictions about the unknown. Verifying or disproving these predictions is what determines the merit of every real theory. Creationism never makes it beyond this point. Creationism lacks any sort of predictive power. Creationists want to frame the debate as a mere difference of opinion regarding the interpretations of each side's view of the evidence, but they miss the point.

    Creationism makes zero testable predictions, or the ones it would make are blatantly and laughably wrong. For example, young earth creationism would predict that the age of geologic strata has essentially no correlation with the types of fossils dug up. (I.E. Human fossils should be regularly and consistently found in the same strata as dinosaurs and trilobites.) It would predict that telescopes could see no further than about 6,000 light-years away. It would predict that each organism's genome is 100% unique (or at the very least that the variation between species should be about the same... human-chip similarities should be about the same as human-starfish). It would even predict that ligers and mules are impossible. It would predict that humans should not have extraneous organs like the appendix.

    Every single one of these predictions logically follows from the creationist "theory." And every single one is wrong.

  30. Hear me humans {Rumbling Voice Thunder in background} I did not write the BIBLE! Those men long ago no not what they speak of. Support Evolutionists they are close to find me...

  31. For the one who is obsessed with the evolution of the eye:
    If you had really studied evolution you would know that the genetic mutation of a cell to make it more sensitive to light would give the organism a distinct advantage over it's competitors. For example, in plants, it would enable them to turn towards the sun and give them a growth advantage. In animals, it would enable them to do the same and keep warmer than their competitors. This is a distinct advantage especially if you are a cold blooded reptile. As this cell further evolved to send images to the brain, the advantages are obvious.

  32. PS- no life has been created in any lab. Check the details of facts. It had to make contact with living cells and be incubated in live tissue, but life itself was not created, just the physical makings. Really. Read up. It must still be in some science site online, as I just saw it recently.

  33. Gee, where is any reviewing or referring to the videos? All I've read above is people expressing their emotions & egos, & criticizing others. Shame on all of you. I think some of you lurk around this great documentary site just waiting for a vid that gives you an excuse to express the nonsense we have all heard way too much of lately.
    Evolve, people. At least become respectful adults soon. Please.

  34. @mab and everyone trying to explain to him evolution.

    Give it up, everyone is going to believe what they want and what their taught to think is right.

    Obviously mab is just doing this to get a reaction. Nobody KNOWS what the truth about this is but why constantly try to debunk the other persons idea. Rather prove how and why your idea is possible.

    You want my opinion dont waste your time like I am to try to prove a point to someone who is more than likely just trying to get a reaction.

    Let us keep fueling the fire.

    1. Nobody KNOWS what the truth about this is
      Yes we do...Evolution, we've got more than just one book on it!

  35. Who do you suppose will knock your teeth out ? Evolution ? God ? or Me ! .... Love always J

  36. ok this has definately been a hot debate and i gotta say that i am probably going to make things worse. i enjoy learning about all kinds of sciences, and this was the first time i have gone ont of my way to learn anything about evolution.
    one common thing that seems to be consistant in all realms of science is that once you get to the start of it all (cosmology) that things start to really break down.
    so im going to throw this out there and say that evolution is a very reasonable theory. but my one question is that when you take evolution so far back that you get to the very first cell, what made dead matter combine in a way to have the spark of life?
    its the same problem with the cosmos, what caused the big bang?
    but that is the main thing that has perplexed me and im sure we will find out how to artificially create a whole new breed of cells that arent just hijacked bacteria.
    my other question is, if life is created in the lab, what does that really mean, how do we define life then?

    1. Brilliant Question...something is eternal because everything came from something or someone. The question is - could complexity and life grow from random "dead" eternal material? ...nope...

    2. why not?

    3. you forgot the dead things react.

  37. Now I'm sure you do not have evidence to respond. Therefore, it has caused the Islamic religion and charged him and this is evidence of hatred against Islam, because you know that the only religion is able to encounter. Secondly, not being able to respond. And I will bring you to question. where it came from the first article? What was before the Big Bang?Why do we die? What is death? Where to go? The thing that make him lose a body to be dead?

  38. @human, i will say the properties that exist today and make up all matter and energy have ALWAYS EXISTED. now since we know energy cant be created nor destroyed and we know energy exists, we can say my position is not that extraordinary.

    YOUR POSITION is that there is a magical man that has always existed who lives outside of time and space (whatever that means) and whom we have never seen nor have any evidence for other than conflicting books written by superstitious humans.

    YOUR position is guilty of disobeying Occam's Razor, mine is open ended, uses the information we have, and doesnt presuppose anything that cant be altered.

    finally there is nothing great about Mohammed. he was a war monger who had sex with a 9 year old little girl. he was not a prophet of god. you only believe the religion you have been brainwashed to believe by your culture and family.

    Human, you are talking like you are 100% right and know you are right. but that is dishonest to me and you. be honest with yourself and admit you dont know what you are saying to be true, but you only hope or wish it is because it is the comforting fairy tale you were brought up with.

    1. I don't disagree with the vast majority of your argument, but would just like to point out that up until about two hundred years ago
      being married to a preteen was the norm, and not just amongst Muslims. Christians did it too!

      You can't really allege that Mohammed was a pedophile without insisting that almost everyone else before 1800CE was one too.

    2. it not just 200 years ago. The "age of consent" in Vatican City is still 12 years old. This, despite the pedophilia scandals. As far as Mohammed goes, well, one of his wives was 9 years old. If that's not pedophilia, I don't know what is.

  39. I would much rather 'meat' Sophia Loren:))

  40. @human
    "these day is Doomsday we will meat our messengers Moses and Jesus and Mohammed"

    Lulz... so that's what you guys do on doomsday? MEAT your messengers? shii...

    1. note to self...don't have a job in the post office on doomsday lol

  41. Of course all something that is created there must be created. Will say it is God's creation? Answer is simple. You are here confuse between the Creator and the creature you want to measure the attributes of the Creator and the attributes of created beings, and this is a mistake.I hear ya atheist you and I we both believe in the cause and one that there exists no beginning did not need to one ... Has never been a time ... The presence of the same ... You are your selection article and I chose God. If you want you would like to make fun of those who believed in the existence of not as his first start with yourself because you believe that the article did not first to it. Finally, I say whenever taught the Messenger of Allah I believe in Allah and His Messengers ratified Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and pardoned you.

  42. @Human, following your logic everything needs a creator meaning the creator would need a creator and so on forever.

    but you will say "no no no, the creator of the universe doesnt need to be created"

    i would say why? why do you say everything needs to be created except this thing you have no proof for?

    the elements came together to form what was needed for the cereal without any need for an intelligent designer. it all happened naturally.

    comparing man made things to naturally forming things is silly.

    there are many things more complex than humans that came about naturally.

  43. @ human:

    If English is your second language, you are forgiven.

    But the rest of it , no!

  44. If I told you that this site is designed by accident what would be your response?
    If I told you that you woke up in the morning and found breakfast ready by chance what would be your response?
    Every sane person knows that everything exists, there must be created from it is that created the universe?
    Who created for you eyes, ears and stomach, liver, colleges and heart. Are you created yourself? Say the development will tell you why did not evolve if since 2010 years since the birth of Christ and even before that there is no doubt that we are proof of that since we have the same body of Christ feet and hands and eyes and ears. See yourself will know you are a big mistake.

  45. @human, you are the one lying. you are rambling nonsense about silly stuff you dont know. you are just believing a story you were told and now you look crazy in front of everyone.

    I dont have any faith in the same way someone has faith in a god. i dont believe nature is god or blind chance. you are creating strawman arguments.

    ask yourself if you really really know there is a god or if you just constantly tell yourself there is one...HONESTLY truly think about that while you are lying in bed tonight.

  46. you are a big lier yes because no human can live without faith even you... you have a faith. you have a god your god is the Nature and you have another one the Blind chance.
    in the end i want to tell you that there is a great day we and you will see it but with Various situation these day is Doomsday we will meat our messengers Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. and we will meet our god Allah. ask your self who you will meet....................................

  47. Religion isn't only becoming less popular, it's becoming less necessary. In places like America and Africa where fear is sewn everywhere one turns, the stampede toward self reliance and confidence(and the resultant move toward not having to search for magic men to have faith in) is slower - but is growing in speed.

  48. The fact that evolution and atheism is becoming more and more popular now days can only mean one thing. religion and creationism is becoming less popular. So Darwin was right survival of the fittest.... some people adapt to changes in their environment better than others the ones that don't eventually die off (if it weren't for modern medicine they probably already would have... Aren't we atheists nice?)Part of the human population is experiencing a wonderful change they get to use their brain for what it was meant, to think and not believe. The rest gets to well keep standing in the dark corner and rot away. 1000 years from now the only remnants of your cults will be your churches thats if we haven't torn them down and built abortion clinics on top of them.

    Go drink some jesus juice and enjoy your ride the end is near....

    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein~

  49. To the religious guys, if you have questions on evolution, read books on evolution. If these books do not convince you, then may be evolution is not for you and you should stick to your bible or quran or whatever book you deem fit to your medieval way of thinking.

  50. Creationism is just a Swan's song for religion. Loud and annoying as one also.

  51. just think how much more advanced we might be had not christianity once more stood in the way of scientific progress for the past 100 years. just like Galileo whose ideas were finaly brought into mainstream science after being marginalized as "dangerous" for generations; we are just now starting to accept that evolution is a principal that can help us understand the world we live in. Where might we be today if it had not been dismissed whole-sale as an "afront to god"? this closed-mindedness is the real afront to humanity and the human race.

  52. @ know who is my god
    Thats ok with me if thats your belief system.

    However, you are not untouchable .I understand peoples need for faith, kind of like our faith in science , except science has the ammo and religion , spit wads. M y beliefs are always under fire.By every sect. I live in the d#$% bible belt.Im an atheist from Ca.

    You guys are no better than anyone else. Dont use the times we live in as an immunity right.
    Save us from the torture of having to be "politicly correct", because its hard on an atheist that has a distaste for religion.


    Please entertain yourself , but dont act like you hold a higher place because of your beliefs.

    I wouldnt. Debate without an openmind is like jumping into a volcano.

  53. I know who is my god my god is Allah. and i know who is your god you have tow the first is natural and the second is the blinded Fortuitously.

    1. My god is Cthulhu...and he'll kick your gods ass!

  54. @ sean

    Since you have been there, try to remain emphathetic to those who are still there. Since you acknowledged that you came out of the bondage (I have done the same), evidence exists that it can happen, no matter the amount of conditioning even from infancy. The human ideas of beings beyond ourselves that are higher than we are, in comparison to other natural organisms, find its earliest revelation at Game Pass Shelter in South Africa. Pilgrimages are still made today to the prehistoric site by shamans. Some of the painted layers (using blood, seman and red ochre) have been dated to 27,000 years ago. They are the workd of the San "People" who are sometimes known as pygmies or bushment. They are the descendants, according to genetics, of the oldest ancestors of humankind as derived from DNA testing of the y-chromosome. Theirs is an oral tradition of God, but a connection to the transformation of humans into sacred animals reminds me of ancient Egyptian beliefs.

    Hang in there and recognize that belivers are required to "defend the faith". It may come across as 'hate' but the spirit behind the action was predetermined in the gospels, the acts of the apostles and other selected texts that were put together under the authority of Emperor Constantine in or around 325 AD. That spirit controls their thinking and when challenged, peace and meekness goes out the window. I reccommend "The God Who Wasn't There" for your viewing pleasure. There are many more on this site. The list is fantastic but this one helped me to see the process of how Christianity supplanted other beliefs; swelling from the goal of a reformation of Jewish belief into a global religion.

  55. Scientists have plausible explanations for the evolution of most organs. You don't have to put faith in any single one of them to realise that it's more plausible, with the evidence we have, that they evolved over millions of years rather than be spontaneously created by some conscious force that there is no proof, nor indication of actually existing.

    This is basically the intellectual process we have to go through in deciding whether evolution is true or not. With all the evidence witnessed from sources like the ones "epicurus" mentioned a few posts above, and more trivial evidence like children being alot like their parents, yet slightly different, points to the feasibility of evolution.

    Noone is really asking you to denounce god, only to accept how plausible the theory of evolution is. After all, before the big bang, you can fit God in all you like...

  56. @sean: Interesting! That Spell 125 is basically the 10 commandments phrased differently, thanks for the tip, didn't know about that one.

    And yes, the rest is a good summary of plagiarisms inside the bible. I especially love the multiple personalities of 'Jesus Christ', makes me laugh every time :-)

  57. I must say I do enjoy the debate on this page all in fact I went thru most before even viewing the documentary and now that I have completed that task I wish to add a view point of my own, feel free to send hate mail I will read it and reply. I was born under the christen faith, I went to church 3 days a week and even attended a private school that enforced the ideas of faith into every subject. But one day some asked me why do I believe in god, to them I reply that was the way I was raised. It took some time for me to come to grips that my faith was something I was born in but on a personal Lv had no idea why so I went on a bit of a journey. I traveled to different parts of the world were other were born into a faith and you know what I found. Each major and most minor religions all have a different set of rules and a creation story. After this finding I had to ask my self which one was right not “right for me” because that would mean I would have simply picked on I liked and just because you like something and it makes you fell good inside dose not mean it is right just comfortable. Then after a few more years I desired to study religious history researching on the story of the beginnings. And in 17 years I could not find a single story out of 421 I studied that could be back up out side of there holy books each and every one of them need faith... the truth is there is no god or gods. We want there to be one so we don't need to explain the world we leave in just follow the rules because we are brain washed into be-leaving that if we cant explain something that god or gods are behind it. In my research the one of many simulates is god is a tool for understanding But we now leave in an age were we can get the answer we seek , so instead of depending on what we are told its time for all us to find the real answer.
    I also wish to make another point about the bible, out of all the holy books I have read I have found this book is full of the most lies and plagiarizers I wish to list just 3.

    The ten commandment-
    they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bear false witness" and so forth.

    The story of Noah and Noah's Ark
    is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over 200 cited claims in different periods and times. However, one need look no further for a per-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh,[written in 2600 b.c. This story talks of a Great Flood commanded by God, an Ark with saved animals upon it, and even the release and return of a dove, all held in common with the biblical story, among many other similarities

    Jesus Christ
    Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.
    Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming. He performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.
    Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.
    Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.

    Now if Charles Darwin’s idea are 100 fact yet I not sure but I have to say he was original... that is all bring on the hate mail

  58. fitness is the ability to survive. genetic code was added.

    1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

    * increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    * increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    * novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    * novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

    2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
    * Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
    * RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
    * Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

    3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

    4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

  59. @Epic,

    Can you define your meaning of "fitness"? And was genetic code added; or was the existing genetic code turned on or off?

  60. Oops, I'm sorry! I had read it as a claim, yet it was a question. Sorry about the misunderstanding!

  61. Thanks Epicurus, that sums up the best proof against BBC's claim.

  62. @BBC NOOOOOOO, a mutation is NOT ALWAYS A LOSS OF INFORMATION. im so sick and tired of this creationist claim. let me show you some examples of 100% documented beneficial mutations:

    1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

    In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

    Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

    Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendants are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

    In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

    The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.

    2) Bacteria that eat nylon

    Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

    These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.

    3) Sickle cell resistance to malaria

    The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

    In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

    This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.

    4) Lactose tolerance

    Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

    It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk.

    5) Resistance to atherosclerosis

    Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

    Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.

    6)Immunity to HIV

    HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele.

    anymore "brainbusters"?

  63. @BBC

    If you are truly interested in finding the answer to such questions then I suggest you go to your local university and ask an evolutionary biologist. I am not an expert in that field.

    "Can genetic code magically appear in the DNA over millions of years, is it added too? "

    Magically you say. Don't you see the irony in this comment?

  64. I know that this documentary is false, how do I know? becuase the bible tells me so. If you want to know about fossils, the devil put them there. Darwin is a demon in human form, and science is the work of the devil.

    If you don't beleive this you are going to hell beleive me, i know, i have experienced the majesty of God, all you unbeleivers need to go to church, god will touch your lives and you will see.....

    seriously though, good documenrary, just joking with the bible thumping btw.

  65. @young,

    The finches all had the same genetic code, it was just rearranged in the different finches. This is what produced the different adaptations. How does the genetic code work?

    Can genetic code magically appear in the DNA over millions of years, is it added too? Just to clarify a mutation is a loss of information (antibiotic resistant bacteria for example)? Or for the adaptations to occur does it have to have the code already present, with certain traits turned on, and certain traits turned off?

  66. @BBC *sigh* i know you are being genuine with this question, and im not sighing at you personally, more about the fact that you most likely are beyond grade 11 and if our education system (i say our because you said you were in canada and so am i) is so bad that you would think scientists just assumed something without good evidence, we are in a sorry shape indeed.

    the finches adapted not only because we have the different finches for their regions but we also see fossils of dead finches that show intermediate stages. and not just with finches with almost all animals. and ESPECIALLY the animals on the Galapagos Islands.

    Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak. The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin (CaM). Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology.

    honestly i really hope people stop thinking scientists are uneducated morons who just make wild guesses based on their imaginations....science is NOT religion. it works.

  67. @BBC

    Because there was different finches with different adaptions for different islands in the same region.

  68. I know this is going to sound stupid, i am prepared to be ridiculed. But i had a simple idea, being simple minded.

    Why do we assume the finches adapted to their surroundings? Is it possible, that they were already equipped with these tools (beak for instance), and therefore used the tools they already had?

    1. no...skeletal evidence tells us that.

  69. @asd...lol to think i havent studied the quran. typical ethnocentric muslim thinking.

    well lets take an HONEST look at the verse you DISHONESTLY tried to put forth.

    the actual verse is from al-Anbiya'(The Prophets) 21:30

    21:30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    This verse clearly does not mention the conditions of the big bang. This states that the heavens and the earth were two separate entities and they were split apart. The Earth is actually a part of the universe, not separate from it.

    Secondly, Qur'an states that the sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy with the following verse

    21:33 It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

    This verse clearly states that the sun and the moon rotate around the Earth, as was commonly believed at the time which agreed with the Aristotelian model of a geocentric universe. Why would God refer to the sun rotating around the centre of the galaxy in a verse about night and day? If that was the case, the verse would not make much sense.

    The following verse is supposed proof that the Qur'an states that the universe is expanding which has only been discovered in the past one hundred years-

    51:47 With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

    However, nowhere in this verse does it say that the Universe is expanding, only that it is very big!

    The muslims also try to claim that the earth was made in 6 days here:

    And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six Days, and naught of weariness touched Us. (Qur'an 50:38)

    It is a known fact that Muhammad had contact with Jews and Christians, and much of the Qur'an is modeled after the Bible. While the Qur'an does not have the bible's claim that "on the seventh day God rested" (Genesis 2:2) it still proclaims the earth to be created in six days.

    Muslims who seek to cast the Qur'an as being compatible with modern science, point out that the Qur'an also says that a day for Allah and the angels is similar to 50,000 years (Qur'an 70:4). In citing this verse, Muslims try to say the Earth was completed in 300,000 ( 6 x 50,000 ) years. While it is a nice try, the reality is this still does not agree with modern science, which states that it took several billion years for the Earth to reach this stage. Billions of years passed before there were trees, or forests, or animals.

    Furthermore, such claims open the Qur'an to more criticism. The verse that allegedly says a day equals 50,000 years (Qur'an 70:4) states:

    "The angels ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years." This verse actually seems to be discussing the speed of travel for angels. Possibly it is saying that the angels can travel in a day, the amount of space it would take others 50,000 years to cover. My goal is not to offer alternative interpretations to this myth. However, I dispute the claim that the this verse is saying a day equals 50,000 years because such a thing contradicts other parts of the Qur'an!

    A day cannot equal 50,000 years because according to the Qur'an, a day equals 1,000 human years (Qur'an 22:47 & 32:5). Furthermore, to claim that it took Allah 300,000 years to create the Earth is to insult the God of Islam, as when he creates, he says "Be!" and it is (Qur'an 2:117).


  70. @asd - Maybe I'm missing something but didn't Muhammad commanded knowledge upon all Muslims, and urged them to seek knowledge as far they could reach, and also to seek it at all times. If this is so... why does your grammar suck so bad?

    I'm sure you know at least one language more than me, but no excuses.

    1. when you can insult him in well pronounced Arabic, (or whatever) you might have the right to make that point.

  71. @ Hardy:

    I gave some blogs about that, in English, ha.

    Somewhere here on TDF.

  72. I guess am getting bored!!

    @ asd:

    Complete religious ranting, you give no proof, just repetitious verbage
    that we all heard before.
    Boring, boring, boring!! :(

  73. Epicurus, please don't try. Just warning you, this is going to go nowhere :-D

  74. my god "Allah" have more than thousand evidence he explain them in the "Holy Koran".(i wish if you read it with scientific look) Allah said that:"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"(chapter17-verse30)

  75. @asd what is your scientific evidence that made you say there is no zeus? what scientific evidence do you use to say there are no fairies or no invisible ninjas living on your ceiling?

    the lack of ANY evidence for something after thousands of years of looking...not even a tiny spec of a shred of evidence has been found....you have to dismiss an idea. the god idea was useful but it has run its course.

    you only believe in whatever god you have been taught to believe in. and you have no more evidence than the ancient greeks that worshiped zeus.

    so what is the scientific evidence FOR your god asd, and what is the scientific evidence against every other god.

    these are the stipulations YOU just put forth so live up to them.

  76. don't ask me what is the scientific evidence for god. but ask your self what is the scientific evidence that made you said there is no god. i'm believe in my god what about you. i'm seeing my god in every great thing he create for me :the sun the moon the sky the stars....... . my god is only one god.

    1. It's Your responsibility to provide proof for your theory!

  77. Imagine if there were scientific evidence for god!

    I'd just love to watch christians, muslims, jews and any other religion fight about who has the correct one figured out. From behind bullet-proof glass, that is.

    1. I think we may have already reached the latter stage. The former is not likely because we have to show we have faith in God even though we don't see Him, otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.

  78. @Mab

    There is NO scientific evidence for God and nothing will change that, no matter how much you quote those sophisms, speculations and misdrawn conclusions.

    If there were evidence for God, it wouldn't be called "faith", it would be called "knowledge".

    Some of the comments on these documentaries make me sad... but more than that, they scare the hell out of me.

  79. every thing in the world every planet in the land every stare in the sky said that there are only one god create every thing and any thing. when i look to a great house i said (what a great man who built these house ,and when i look to the sky i said what a great god who create these sky.

  80. religion was only an attempt of primitive man to explain the origins of the universe and the mysteries of life/death, a map of the journey mankind has made in trying to understand these things. The Bible had its place in that journey, but you don't use a road map printed in 1930 to get around a modern road system today. Doesn't mean you cant use a 1930's map to get around, just means that so much more has been added to the landscape, that the old map has become obsolete.
    Its admirable that you has so much love for that old map, but don't waste our time giving us directions to places that have long since succumbed to urban sprawl, we haven't got the time or the luxury to be lost again

    1. It could be said that atheism is an attempt of modern man to cast all that troublesome morality aside, by rationalising that there is no God you can worship yourself. The only problem is those moments of doubt, when you are on your own, or you remember death. That's why the modern age has so many toys to distract us, we can't be left for a minute with our own thoughts, because we will wonder at the pointlessness of our lives...

  81. The big bang is right in the text of Genesis, a formless void, called a blackhole, out of which stars are believed to come. Doesn't a haploid DNA look like a "rib". Now if you read international journals of physiology, you come up with a subject of the "primary respiratory mechanism", another separtate rhythem underlying heart rate and respiratory rate. The so called "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam. The bible is the story of the Hebrew and Christian people. It does have to be read carefully, and you will see that I have read the text fairly about these aspects.

    Science changes, like Evolutionists, not all agree, not all believe what Darwin believed. What scientific basis has creationism, well, read what I just wrote, there is a lack of understanding of what's in the bible.

    1. yeah...if you squint hard enough so that you can't see the words, and imagine really really hard, then yeah i can see that!

  82. Isn't it amazing that there are so many thoughts and opinions, beliefs and theories on the evolution/creation argument, its as if I'm looking at Darwin's theory right in the face, unfolding as we throw arguments back and forth.
    Those who are dinosaurs, trapped in their mind set and belief structures and those who are mammals just emerging still young in their theories, but willing to adapt, willing to venture out into uncharted territory sometimes to go extinct, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how this story ends its sort of happened before

  83. @K J Jose: "super scientist", "the almighty god" ... :|

    @allan: 100% on your side

  84. I think if I was walking with Darwin and we came across a working wristwatch he'd probably say something like, "Hey someone dropped their watch!".

  85. whatever law was there God put them there.
    some of them are known by man and others are not.
    when man finds a new natural law- which could be proven wrong later on they are opened to a new favour of god. which help them harness new opportunities,

    - as natural laws seems to be alright within their respective range. you won't apply strictly newton's law of motion to the photo of light. we cannot say we know everything yet...

    the evolutionist jump the gun saying that there is no god.

    god created all things initially some got extinct others merged with each other and other even evolve to some degree to adapt to their environment. evolution is a theory if true show the power and mercy of God who empowered the bodies of living beings to adapt and never left them and their offsprings to live in hostile environment helpless.

    it believe that the darwinists should be a bit more realistic and see how long will it take for an amoeba to become a human being if the changes happens every hours. and please consider the relative age of the earth and think that the changes due to evolution happens only once in a while. even the simple DNA is not so simple as thought before. an amino acid chain, protein proping up will take a long time and all these in 1000 0000 of spiecies. the earth is not old enough. except if we come from space which the one believing in god say, loosely speaking.

    darwin was obviously living in a period of religious extrimism, but it does not mean that his theory need not to be refined. there are nothing wrong with the adaptation of darwinism but to extrapolate it so much to say it is denying god is too simplistic.

    it could deny god, as it could also be interpreted as not to deny god.

    please don't pick up on my grammar i'm a bit in a hurry now. just wanted to share something quickly.

    lol :)

  86. Well said Stevie! Cheers!

  87. Christianity is the belief that a cosic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and tell him telepathically that you accept him as your master, so he can then remove an evil force from your soul that is present there because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from the magical tree.

    Don't know about you but this makes perfect sense.

  88. The bible should not be understood literaly,looking at creation story in Genesis one can be able to understand its evolution presented in a clothed manner.Besides bibilical theory is one among many.
    On the 7th day God "rested" how could he rest yet he never ever got tired,apart from creating Man the rest of the beings all he ever said was "let there be".The question is 'what does REST imply'?
    My intention is not to preach,am just proveking you to think deeply{dont ask the priest for answer,he will just pretend he knows the answers or do what he is good at misleading you!!!!!!!!!!!!The answers to understanding the bible or any other holybook lies in YOU

  89. If the universe is expanding,where does it expand to?Whats their in the space that allows it to expand?outside the universe whats their?what is the history of that ball like thing that exploded in bigbang theory?
    On the other hand when we deal with evolution,do species evolve as individual or as a whole?For example Man character is shaped by his thought system wheather he is aware or not,so when does he form the thought parten?If two newborn babies grow up in exactly the same environment will they form the same character?Is there a chance that there is life before birth and after death?
    I'd really welcome your opinions in regards to this dilemma

  90. This is a lot simple than everyone makes it out to be.
    Based on fact, there is more and more evidence as well as supporting scientific facts to continue to support the theory of evolution opposed to the less hard evidence to back the theory of creation. I don't know of anything remotely solid from the creationists theory to make me even start taking it seriously.
    . God created the Earth in 7 days: "well who the hell was there to record this at the time and then pass it on in a book"
    . God created Adam and Eve : "Once again who the hell was there to record their activities to later say what Adam thought and did that would bring him to commit Sin."
    I mean out of all the stories in the Bible, is there at least one that science can back up with solid fact to give creationists some kind of stable ground, or is everything the way it "just cause" as my first gf in elementary school used to say.

    And I'm really sick of reading big words coming from small minds. Great you can write and sound good, but the level of ignorance is unbelievable. Throwing around scientific terms and theories, having "battles of the mind". Instead maybe you could learn a thing or two by accepting the facts and constantly learning even if its something that you don't necessarily agree with.

    P.S MAB
    You are a fool.

  91. wow @Mab is certainly one of the least educated and most ignorant creationists i have come across.

    and to completely ignore my whole post other than the Nylon part which he completely didnt understand and failed to go research for himself, thats just sad. its clear he doesnt CARE what the truth is. he just wants his delusion to be correct.

    will you address any of the points i brought up....one by one would be nice. and before you do actually go look them up.

  92. If I read a self-formulated argument / comment here sometime soon, I will surely care to read it.

    Until then, I simply don't have the nerve. I took time to explain my arguments to you, now you should have the decency to do the same.

  93. TDF Rule #99 - NO f u c k ing copy & paste.


    "But if you think you understand Quantum, than you do not understand Quantum at all."
    I just had that same conversation with my 11 year old son other day.

  94. Why is the sky blue are we there yet are we there yet! Mab kindly tell us where in the bible are described dinosaurs otherwise f*** off. You are melting my email notifications you derr twatt.

  95. This merely a cut and paste debate which Mr V has proven.

    Mab if you have a single self owned cognizant thought please illuminate us.

    Zeus bless you! (Pbuh)

    PS You are a retard. OMG dammit I promised myself I wouldn't say that!

  96. @ mab:

    Very interesting, like yavanna said, how about putting it in your own words, instead of cut and paste. You where postillating that which are cognizant to our physical senses.
    Basically you where going analog instead of digital.

    You where talking about energy and matter, there is energy in everything, even in so called empty space.

    And then there is dark matter, show where that is written anywhere in the bible.

    To fully understand anything about existence and where everything originates from you have to understand Quantum. which you failed to include.

    But if you think you understand Quantum, than you do not understand Quantum at all.

    So If you tell us your viewpoint about the Quantum theory and how it relates to creationism, I will tell you mine.
    I do not use cut and paste, why don't you try it?

  97. If God created everything then I guess his existence must be outside of what we call the known universe. Evolutionists have to explain the same universe, but in terms of natural causes, but you have the problems of the 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics to take into consideration.

    As far as 'human forms' like Dryopithecus, Australopithicus and Homo, this opens up an interesting can of worms. Let see first what some evolutionary thinkers had to say about 'sub human' forms:

    Proof #7—Evolutionists Tell Stories about How Evolution “Could” Have Happened and Claim That These Stories “Prove” Evolution. Do They?

    Evolutionists make up pretty stories to try and make their theories sound plausible. Here is one example from Charles Darwin’s own writings in an early edition of The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 184. This section was removed from later editions after Darwin was criticized by his fellow evolutionists for obvious reasons:

    “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

    Such stories were also contrived by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley to promote their views in favor of white supremacy, in support of human racism and in justification of their chauvinistic sexism. In The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York; A. L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178, Darwin wrote:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

    On page 326, he continued:

    “It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”

    In echoing Darwin’s sentiments recorded above, Thomas Huxley wrote in his Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, New York: Appleton, 1871 p. 20:

    “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.”

    Henry Fairfield Osborn was a disciple of Thomas Huxley. He would eventually become the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees from 1908 to 1933. He would continue to strongly promote the evolutionary theories and the racism of his mentor. In an article in the Museum’s own magazine, ("The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue) he wrote:

    “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ... but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens.”

    There are many other such stories which are promulgated by modern evolutionists. The made-up story that the fossil bearing layers are in “the right order” thus proving evolution is one. The Geological Time Column or Time Scale is contrived by rearranging the layers found around the world and assembling a mythological column. 75 to 80 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by sedimentary rock containing fossils. Yet, 80 to 85 percent of those sedimentary layers do not have even three of the layers shown in the typical school textbook diagram of the Column.

    Evolutionists sometimes have a problem swallowing their own stories at times about this myth. Concerning the very method used by evolutionists to “date” their fossil finds, as well as the layers in which they occur, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History drew attention to the problem of circular reasoning used by evolutionists in his book, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985, p. 51-52, with the following statement:

    “[Evolutionary] Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ...”

    “And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?”

    Story-telling can reach its zenith in double-talk. Here is an example from Dr. J. E. O’Rourke writing for the American Journal of Science. ("Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.)

    "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."

  98. what a waste of server space, not to mention annoying email notifications.

    Mab show where in the bible it mentions dinosaurs or answer one question asked or acknowledge one answer given.

    Presumably you think you have a soul. Use it. Stop being a robot cut and paste machine.

  99. To your last point:
    Well, who created the creator?

  100. "There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal."

    I'm going to stop you right there. Yes there are. Ever heard of humans?

    We have species of Dryopithecus, Australopithicus and Homo, just to name three, that show a clear, gradual development to homo sapiens sapiens.

    If you chose to ignore these fossils: your loss. But just because you have the urge to be specially created by some god doesn't invalidate evidence.

    Oh and please do elaborate on the evidence that destroys Evolution. I am intrigued.

  101. How about something scientific for the existence of God:

    Many times people who do not believe in God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. To examine this, let's first understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific examination.

    In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It's a conservation of energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, but however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

    The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

    Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science.

    Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, even though science has proven that impossible. Option B: Everything in the universe has ALWAYS existed for all of eternity, which, by the way is also shown later in this CD to be scientifically impossible due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to violate them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

    Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”

  102. I'll pass this along for you. However, based on your chatter, I'm wondering if your teachers used the same belittling language to make you accept your view points?

    Evidence for Creation vs. Evolution

    The scientific evidence for Creation vs. Evolution can show anyone interested in Christian apologetics that you really can believe in a Biblical Creation, a worldwide flood and the evidence against Evolution according to logic, science and intellectual reasoning.

    One small example of evidence for Creation over Evolution is exposed in something I call the Micro/Macro Deception. One of the dirty little secrets most people don't know is that there are, in fact, 2 types of Evolution – Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happens. Here comes the deception part. Evolutionists fill our textbooks, news reports and peer review publications with legitimate examples of observed Micro-evolution and no examples of observed Darwinian.....or Macro-evolution. (Because there aren't any) The evolutionists then lump it all together and call it “proof of evolution”. So allow me to prove what I just said is true by explaining in simple terms the difference between Micro and Macro evolution.

    First though, we need to properly understand the word “evolution”. In the literal sense, “evolution” is not a bad word. It merely means “change over time”. We all change over time, so in the strictest literal sense, we “evolve”. Our thinking even “evolves” as we get older. But of course, that's not what the evolutionists mean when they tell us humanity “evolved” from a common ancestor.

    Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch. Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. All of the toads had it within their genetic structure to develop longer legs, so whenever the occasional toad would be born with a dominant “longer leg” gene, he would have an advantage over his brother toads, tend to survive and then pass that dominant gene onto his tadpoles and before you know it, the whole Cane toad population “micro-evolved” longer legs.

    Similarly, if you put some dogs on an island where the climate was too cold for their fur, eventually a dog will be born with a dominant gene for thicker fur and he will survive, pass that gene onto his puppies and over time you will see that the dogs will have “micro-evolved” thicker fur. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. In all of these cases with the finches, the toads, the dogs etc., the changes they experienced were already built into their genetic codes. That is critical to remember. At no time did a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop in any of these cases. It was merely a shuffling of EXISTING genetic information. (Remember that, you'll see why soon)

    This “Micro-evolution” is fully accepted by Creation Scientists. It has always been seen as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. This is the sign of a smart God.Now let's go from "Micro-evolution" to “Macro-evolution”.

    Macro-evolution is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Cane toads to “Macro” evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. So here's the dirty little secret the evolutionists don't like talking about. There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal. The finches stayed finches, the toads stayed toads. If the kind of evolution being taught to us now were true, those toads would evolve into non-toads, maybe a bird or possibly eventually a lizard or perhaps a cow someday.

    For this to happen (and here comes another dirty little secret), the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with NEW, ADDITIONAL genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. That's right. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling or a duplication of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today....it stops. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, scientists and the cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation.

    What's so dishonest though about this whole debate is that evolutionists fill our textbooks and science journals with “examples” of evolution occurring all the time, but if you read what the actual examples are, you see that they are all the “Micro-evolution” examples from earlier. That's right, 100% of all “proof” of evolution occurring is nothing more than certain features on animals making slight changes in shape or size, but staying the very same kind of animal. Some dolphins may develop longer or shorter fins, but they have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird. The evolutionists know this, and so they point to these genetic adaptations within a species and say “look, evidence for evolution”. It's the Micro/Macro deception. They are hoping that by showing you the ways a horse can genetically develop different breeds of size and shape, you will take that as evidence the horse used to be a whale. Remember, a dolphin developing longer fins is not in any way evidence that dolphins used to, at one time, be non-dolphins. So it is, in my opinion, very dishonest to use examples of commonly accepted micro-evolution as so called evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Macro-evolution.

    You may say “but it takes millions of years for those dogs to evolve into a cow”, but remember, it only takes one day for an animal to be born with new, additional genetic information and since that is required for Evolution to be true, and it supposedly has been happening throughout billions of years of evolution, we should today, still see that happening everyday, yet of all the millions upon millions of animals born worldwide, day after day, week after week, year after year, the percentage of current animals born with new, additional genetic information is 0.0%. It has never once, ever been observed.

    Remember, people can be made to believe just about anything if they are only given part of the evidence, but when ALL of the evidence is presented, the truth has a funny way of coming out. Have you ever wondered why so many evolutionary scientists fight legally to stop school districts from debating the evidence against Evolution? Why all the legal battles to keep evolution from being debated? The fact is there are mountains of scientific evidence for Creation that destroys evolutionary theory and exposes the deception used to promote Evolution.

    This is just one of the many examples in the Creation vs. Evolution debate censored from most textbooks and scientific journals showing that the evidence for Creation and the arguments against Evolution really do support a Biblical world view.

  103. I thought so - he doesn't smell like Chris.

  104. Vlatko - is this a clear example of what I argue as a problem on the site regarding aliases or is this a brand new nut job? Please tell us who this perp is !!!!

    I`m gagging to know! Woof!!!!

    1. This is a brand new creationist @Yavanna. Fresh meat.

      But we should never exclude the possibility that some old *** job is using a different email address.

  105. And @mab since you don't read what was provided with links and you haven't read the 5th grade evidences we'll have to move on with the lessons. So I'll past something for you:

    Creationist Claim:
    The eye is too complex to have evolved.

    Scientific Response:
    This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity (the definition of this argument is at the end of the comment). The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

    * photosensitive cell
    * aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
    * an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
    * pigment cells forming a small depression
    * pigment cells forming a deeper depression
    * the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
    * muscles allowing the lens to adjust

    All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

    Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

    Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

    It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

    This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

  106. No, I mean Morris, the cat from the '9 Lives' commercials.
    He was picked to do those commercials since he had the talent
    to poop in dashes and dots to communicate with his owners....
    Hey, wait a minute. Do you mean some Human named Morse is trying take credit for that?

  107. Loony tune Trolls, putting a bad light on your creationism.

    You apparently have an animal fixation, go watch the doc. Zoo.

    Or better yet check the web on illegal animal porn!

    Have fun!!

  108. Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance.

    Millions of years. Not from today to tomorrow. Ever heard of radiometric-dating? Kalium-Argon method? Didn't think so.

    By the way, we are controlling natural selection with dogs because we breed them instead of letting them evolve in the wild. They would die there, by the way, because they are biological unfit for the environment.

    As said, you obviously have no idea of evolution or you would come up with some REAL arguments against it.

  109. I see that conversation with creationists is truly impossible. An overdose of irony and quite frustrated comments.

    We all see that @mab won't discus properly until someone provides him a prof for evolution. Right @Mab?

    Ok so let's go to the 5th grade classroom and begin with simple ones:

    1. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bacteria that can live in the toxin. You have selectively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).

    2. Look at "Purebreeds" Like dogs and cats. These animals were artificially bred to "Selectively" "Bred in" or "Bred out" certain genetic traits. By doing this we are just exploiting the "Natural Selection" of the Evolutionary process, since in the wild, Nature (the forces of the surrounding environment) provide the "Breeding" of Natural Selection. You can see this quite clearly in natural species that get isolated.

    3. Isolated groups of animals will almost always develop differently than their none isolated counterparts. Look at any group of animals that get isolated on islands and you can see the differences from their mainland counterparts quite readily. Darwin observed this process in all it's glory on the Galapagos Islands. He saw it first hand and the rest is history.

    I know what you'll say in advance. That the bacteria remained bacteria, cats and dogs remained cats and dogs and there is no way that a specie will transform to a different specie no matter what you do.

    Anyhow I've stated my three EVIDENCES/ARGUMENTS to support the theory of evolution.

    Keep in mind that refuting my evidences by saying that the species remained the same during those experiments will not imply that God created the life on earth with one single breath.

    So now if you could be so kind to tell me your three very basic simple evidences that support Creationism (God created everything in six days).

    And one small remark: Please write paragraphed text in full width of the comment box. I assume you write in some word processor and than you past it here. Before you hit submit please structure the comment.

  110. Carla here Hardy,

    Good points! I'll try and tell my owner that when he comes.
    I want to think smarter than him since we dogs have a good
    change to evolve into some animal other than just another dog.
    I mean you have seen that, right, a dog using natural selection to become a non-dog? We were all once just dirt when the earth formed and then something came to life. We see that all the time now. Natural Selection causing life from non life. Darwin proved it, right?....right?

    I'm told my aunt Poopsie
    had puppies last week and one was a cat! OMG, how embarrassing to thing that cats are a higher life form that dogs. Humph! Don't tell anyone, ok Hardy.

  111. Carla, it is "Morse" code you dumb dog, not Morris code.
    You better let that, big ol' Dobbie hump you, your off spring might get
    some smarts.

  112. Okay, this post was so full of ignorance, I think I threw up a little. It just goes to show that you don't have any interest whatsoever to at least UNDERSTAND evolution. But before leaving you to yourself, one last attempt to at least get you thinking:

    Evolution is driven by natural selection (see survival of the fittest). Natural selection is driven by random mutation to produce (randomly!) fitter organisms.

    This is just touching the surface, not talking about any of the other factors that create and alter natural selection. I'm afraid anything more might confuse you.

  113. Well you all caught me. I guess I will have to
    reveal myself. My name is Carla. I am a short
    haired Chihuahua. I believe in evolution like you do.
    When my owner is not around and he leaves his computer
    on, I jump up on his key board and bang away at
    these keys. It's really fun! Isn't it amazing that
    this random chance process produces some incredible
    complexity and the appearance of intelligence? I have
    no idea what I'm doing except that I'm hoping to click
    on the AKC website to see some cute male Boxers. They
    really do it for me. So if you keep being pestered by those creationists, use this e-mail from me as evidence of
    random chance processes producing something that appears to
    be designed.

    I'm patiently waiting for my mutation bump on the back of my rump to develop into a seeing eye. I need this mutation to work since I have a Doberman Pincher next door that I need to see when he tries to sneak up on me and have me for a snack.

    You know that Chihuahuas are great at adapting well to our surroundings. Didn't you ever see that Taco Bell commercial?

    My owner sometimes takes me to see all of the evidence for evolution at our local natural history museum, like the Field Museum in Chicago. We saw many bones of dinosaurs there. Next to the bones were words on a metal plate that said the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and that they evolved from tiny cells billions of years earlier. That's proof! It's a darn good thing they found that plate along with the dinosaur bones or else we would think that dinosaur was created! We can't have that. Chalk one up for our side!
    My owner said that the dinosaur bone is just evidence that a creature existed and a person came up with a story about how it came into existence since all people have to come up with some story of how things originated. What does he know, humpf. It evolved because it said so right there on that plate. So there! [I'm just amazed that it was in English in a really cool font 65 million years old. Do you suppose that's were we got the idea for our computer fonts?]

    Someone said something about a Nylon eating bug. I ate a shoe once, therefore I evolved from a slimy pile of goo millions of years ago. Great objective proof there Epicurus, I couldn't have banged the keyboard any better myself.

    I say that Morris Code, like DNA code was created by random chance processes many many years ago, both have the appearance of a 'language' with 'repeated characters' that contains useful message for a specific idea. I am learning that Morris Code now and will attempt to learn the DNA code so I can mix some up randomly and evolve a great 'beef cake' Chihuahua with a eye on his but for seeing behind us.

    Oops, I hear my owner pulling up the driveway. I will talk to you latheroasodin0inv0r923n[l laksdy208n[q.

    asodiqnqc3292nn fl 'arf, arf''


  114. Yeah, I think the troll got to me.

    If the next post shows no interest in the answers I have given, I won't waste more energy on this.

    One last comment before I await mab's answer:

    "Your post: Evolution isn’t based on things happening at “random”. It’s about adaption.

    You may want to talk with Hardy, he seems to think that the
    evolution of the eye uses random chance. I’ll let you two
    duke it out."

    This shows you have NO, and I mean absolutely zero, knowledge about the topic. I suggest you at least read the wikipedia article on it - maybe you will understand it. A hint: both adaptation and random chance are part of the theory of evolution.

  115. Why evolutionists are silent about the problems with the evolutionary theory?

    "Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little evolutionary change for most of their geological history. When evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation."
    Proposed by Stephen jay Gould , wikipedia

    Richard Dawkins would hate to acknowledge there is a problem ,as if evolutionary theory is a divine revelation.

    Physcist's do tell, what problems they are facing like the problem of incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics inside black holes .I have seen plenty of documentaries on this subject e.g elegant universe..

    I would love to see any documentary that explains stuff that gives information about,where the theory of evolution breaks down or is unable to explain! May be there are some out there but i would prefer that it is not be by intelligent design lobby...

  116. @ Achems

    Sorry only just finished watching this series which I suspect the troll hadn't. You said "I would like to ask you a question. Do you think @ Mab. is really Chris?"

    I don't know. Chris seems to speak his own mind and has a really good grasp of science and the English language, whereas this person seems to be yet another "answers from genesis" drone. He asks questions, doesn't listen to the answers. Has no interest in the answers in fact. I can't quite understand why you guys are putting so much energy into his "debate" he is generating attention for himself and winning on that front. It's standard trolling at it's worst . All is missing is a crocoduck and the "no transitional fossils" attempt at tomfoolery. Personally I think MAB is a typo (even though the D is some distance on the keyboard from the B.)

    As for the earlier comments about knowing both sides of the argument well you only have to pay attention to arguments that aren't retarded. Furthermore atheists / agnostics are generally better versed in religious "facts" than most theists so to say otherwise is not particularly astute. Comments like that deserve the full wrath and mockery of the Reb! I`m sure he'll turn up at some point :)

    I really enjoyed the first part of this doc. It was interesting and pleasant to see a representation of Darwin as a real person. A man who loved his wife and family, and was initially a "man of God." A scientist sometimes unsure of himself, who challenged his own theories more than any other. It was a very good re-enactment of this much demonized and wonderful human being who despite his rapacious intellect remained sensitive as to how the ramifications of his work would be damaging to the status quo.

    The last part of the doc was an utter violation to include as part of this otherwise very educative series. I`ve noticed a lot of American made films relating to this subject include some form of appeasement to religiosity and this political correctness left a bad taste in my mouth. Especially the part with the bearded wonder telling children to ask scientists "were you there a million years ago to witness that" etc. It was however rather funny to see models of dinosaurs lined up and going onto the model of the Ark however; strange there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the hol(e)y books though huh?

    May God Be Less!

  117. @ Joe_nyc:

    Yes and religee's, are like sheeple, getting ready for slaughter.

  118. Jeeeez!
    Atheists are like vultures.

  119. @mab

    did you want the genetic evidence? the fossil evidence? what would be sufficient evidence for you? what do you expect out of the evidence you demand? you act as if there is no evidence or the evidence is all based on assumptions. this is clearly a display of your own ignorance on the subject.

    please go look up Endogenous retroviruses, Chromosome 2, and the lab experiments done on E. Coli, AIDS, fruit flies, guppies; all species which have shown speciation in a lab setting.

    all agriculture is based on the theory of evolution and if it were incorrect we would not have food.

    Nylon was not created until the 1930's, there is a bug that lives off eating Nylon....are you saying god created this bug in the 1930's, or that it just existed without eating? or will you admit that it evolved?

    im sorry but demanding evidence when there are buildings FULL of evidence (museums and universities) that you just choose to ignore or pretend you know better than the people who dedicate their lives to studying this topic.

  120. @ mab:

    No proofs you say? why do I need proofs about anything?
    Where have I said that Evolution is etched in stone?

    Unlike you, that comes across seemingly with all the answers.
    That religion is the only "Numero Uno"

    Proof ? like you present when you supposition my so called deficiencies?
    You came on this forum with an agenda,so lets hear it!!
    Or are you just blowing smoke?? Show me your proof!


  121. @Diogenes: Almost right, but you're regarding the whole thing in a too small time scale. Believers, up until now, have been the fittest - easy answers make for a stable society. Yet the values are changing - over the last 1000 years (= very short timespan, evolutionary speaking), knowledge and science have become more prominent and 'worth the while'.

    300 years ago, a christian might have said: "I have a disease, so I will go pray for god to heal it."
    Today, a scientist (which means more or less atheist, 93% of American scientists deny the concept of a god, I can quote the source if you like) would say: "I have a disease, so I will scientifically come up with the cure for it".

    @mab: Yes, I have learned this from textbooks, teachers, the internet and - get ready for it - my own brain. There are more than one theory on this topic and I have come up with my own preference through simple and refined logic. If someone will give me a better theory I will change my views. Unfortunately, "god did it" isn't a better theory.

    Which brings me to my next point, because your "Were you there?" argument is void. Were you there when Ludwig XIV was king of France? No, yet still you take it as fact.

    In essence what I'm trying to make clear is the difference between science and religion: science requires quite a large amount of thinking, while religion is the easy answer to hard questions. If you're looking for something that gives a complete answer to everything without requiring you to even produce a single nerve cell, follow religion.

    If you don't like evolution, try to find a new theory and write a dissertation on it. But please, don't try to dismantle a theory which has come up with plenty of proof with 'Well, it's wrong because god did it, and god did it because it says here in the bible.'

    And by the way - if you're actually saying that professors make evolution sound 'too complicated', you might not be the best suited for science. As said, it requires quite a bit of research, thought and logical reasoning. It's quite hard to argue with people that have no knowledge on the topic at all. And yes, I have looked at the 10 best arguments for 'special creation' and disproven them at first glance. Go on, test me on it.

  122. As I suspected Achems Razor,
    you have no proof and are
    typical for 'your side'. I hope your not
    a college student who has paid for classes
    on evolution. Your professor might not be
    impressed with your lack of ability to defend
    what you have been taught. Your lack of an
    answer just proves my argument, Evolutionists
    have a faith based argument for their side. Yes,
    they do use science and scientific principles
    to a certain extent, but when it comes to
    the proof of their explanation, or even the strongest
    evidence of their argument, all they offer is what
    YOU offer with that last statement, the principle
    of "A is true because B [which I don't know anything
    about] is not true]. I know one class you didn't take
    or have not passed: Logic 101

  123. @ mab:

    This doc. is about evolution, not religion. Religee's will come on docs
    even if they are talking about outhouses!

    So by default, the onus is on you, my friend to prove your beliefs.

    You think that I have zero knowledge about anything?? "Crybaby"

  124. No I'm not kidding Achems Razor. The title of this program we
    are posting on is under the banner of Evolution.
    Therefore, you are suppose to prove your side since
    it is the evolutionist who continually claim it is
    their side that is 'science fact' and all other
    explanations are 'fairy tails'. Well, I'm just calling
    your bluff! You go first! Lets end this thing once and
    for all on the evolution side, THEN I would be happy
    to list a few of the strongest cases for the side
    of special creation? OK? It's obvious from your comments
    that you have ZERO knowledge of any other side's explanation
    or that you invested ZERO minutes pondering what you may have heard. Have you took that same mocking, cynical attitude toward Darwinian Evolution? It's seems by you inability to answer my question regarding 'provable, verifiable, testable, observable evidence of the formation of just the eye', then let your next reply absolutely state it for the record. If you state ANYTHING ELSE, we will all know you have ZERO proof for your 'Evolution RELIGION', a faith, a 'smoke and mirrors' belief.

    Now state your proof, your best evidence.....then I'll state mine....................

  125. @diogenes

    Your quite right, it does not disprove the existence of god but rather disproves the bibles explanations and descriptions of god.

  126. The person who thinks theory of evolution disproves the existence of God ,is ignorant!. It rather give the belief in God a great impetus!
    According, to evolutionary theory the members of species with desirable genetic makeup survive better. The believers in the world are more than the atheists , thus proving that they have more appropriate genes and characteristic. When it comes to natural selection , it's choice would be to choose a irrational believer who denies evolution and believes in a God over a rational atheist.

  127. @Nobodies Right

    Evolution is theorized to have taken place over a long period of time, much longer then the age of the earth according to any religion. Therefore they are not compatible.

    As was stated above, creationism is religions last attempt to hold onto the belief in god. They are willing to accept that most events described in the bible are false, just as long as their is a god.


    The "scientific approach" involves creating a theory, and then closely examining any evidence or theory which disproves yours. Creationism does not look for evidence to disprove their theory but rather evidence to support it. This is what is considered by the scientific community as a pseudo-science.

    1. if you believe in a god made up of nothing more than the laws of nature, as do pantheists, then it it hard to argue it doesnt exist. so it is probably a good idea if we are going to talk about god, that we first clarify what we mean by it/

  128. Theism and evolution are very compatible my friends!

  129. Okay, I have some questions to the religious folk that have been vehemently defending creationism or intelligent design.
    If there is a god (and that is a big if), why would you devote so much time and effort defending, honoring and worshiping such an evil, malevolent being?

    30000 thousand people starve to death every day. 75-150 different species go extinct everyday. Untold millions have died over the millenniums because of 'him'. Sickness and disease run rampant throughout the world. 1% of the worlds population controls 95% of the wealth. The worlds population has spiraled out of control.

    So if he is this all powerful, infallible, omnipotent being that can create the universe in seven days and raise people from the dead, why not take a couple of extra seconds to make sure you did it right?

    Why would he have let the world become this way?

    My second question is if there is a god, why doesn't he show himself? If he appeared to EVERYONE on earth at the exact same time (he's is god so it shouldn't be too big of a problem to manage this) and with his god like voice say:

    "I am Bob the God. Worship me and only me" or something.

    Overnight all the millions of problems that religion has caused would be solved.
    And this second question is what it boils down to for us educated people who believe in evolution.

    Where is the PROOF of your god?

    An couple of ancient books cobbled together from hearsay and speculation is hardly proof. I read Mother Goose fables when I was younger, but I didn't really believe that Jack had a magic bean and went to visit a giant in the clouds. I sure wouldn't be bringing it to class and using it as a science textbook.
    Whereas science has millions upon millions of documented, verifiable and testable FACTS. Ask an immunologist if he believes in evolution and he could SHOW you how the AIDS virus evolves very rapidly to become resistant to drugs. Ask a horse or dog breeder who decides which animals they should breed and why they're breeding those animals in particular.

    But since most evolution happens over much, much larger period of time, we will have to rely on the accumulated fossil record of species past before us. Good thing there is only hundreds of museums around the world that display these things along with the verifiable scientific data that goes along with this hold-in-your-hand real objects.

    So it really boils down to one thing: PROOF
    Science can prove it's arguments and the religious cannot.
    I sometimes shake my head at the fact that this is even a debate at all.

    I for one am proud to have monkeys as my ancient ancestors. They are allot smarter than the majority of the human race.

    Achems Razor: Cheers to your posts Sir. I have read your comments in various spots around this site and I almost always agree with you. You are a true diplomat on these slightly touchy subjects.

  130. @ mab:

    Are you kidding? You are coming across as another person some of us are familiar with. I will say the same to you as I did to that other person, you seem to have the answers, so lets hear them!

    You know as I do that science has not as yet come up with the theory of everything, not so religion, which claims to have all the answers.

    So the onus is on you to prove without a doubt, your theory, or irrefutable proof on creationism. All evolution is trying to do is put forth some theory's of evolution. Where did it say in this doc. That these are viable proofs that are etched in stone.

    If I read your post correctly you came up with your eye thing not me at least.

    You want me to offer some proofs which are not there, so you can say, well than, God had to have done it.

    You first, lets hear it, and I am sure everybody else would like to hear your proofs!


  131. Well Achems Razor

    If you have provable, verifiable, testable, observable evidence
    for the evolution of just the eye, let alone going from non life [after the 'big bang'] to a life form, then let us hear it. Read through my posts and see if you can fair better than the others who commented on them.


  132. I look at it like this: If a well paid evolutionary professor
    is hired by a university and teaches Darwinian evolution,
    shouldn't he explain it in a way that his students could,
    in turn, explain it to others so that it made sense [and was supported by evidence that can be tested, demonstrated and recreated.] And, if he cannot demonstrate it, he should state that it is his own 'interpretation' [or the interpretation of the information by the scientist in the text book] of what he believes is the cause of the effect he is explaining. Instead, they use 'high sounding'
    language that is intended to impress, but actually confuses
    the students [which does no good]. Sadly, he tries to convince his students that all Darwinian Evolution is science fact, when it is interpretation, inference, belief or assumption. I think they keep changing it, like you say, is because they discover that the explanation they stated previously is inconsistent with the available evidence, so they need to alter it to 'save face'. The creation scientist have been more consistent in that area.

    BTW, someone above posted that he researched creation science/intelligent design and found it a bunch of bunk.
    Well, I would have to ask what exactly did you find as nonsense and tell us why. Posting comments like that are really useless commentary since you don't give us any
    point to discuss. Google Answers in Genesis and start with their easy to read and understand 'The New Answers Book(s), 1 and 2' written by Ken Ham. Their info is top notch.

  133. I agree @ allan:

    Scientific discipline does not require its submission be accompanied by a statement of beliefs.

    Creationists statement of belief is a conclusion fixed in stone!
    A creationist is not free to alter there beliefs should the evidence contradict them.

    Instead they make up fanciful tales such as a "Water vapor canopy"
    surrounding the Earth, prior to there supposedly great flood.

    The creation of starlight in transit, and the hydrological sorting of fossils during the great flood.

    The theory's or beliefs of scientists are not etched in stone and can be changed in light of new evidence.

  134. and in regards to the theories being faith based - the difference with our faith is that it changes over times.

  135. @mab

    Once again, I think your questions would be better suited for someone who devotes their life to the study of this field.

  136. allan,

    One thought on your final sentence:

    Your post: Evolution isn’t based on things happening at “random”. It’s about adaption.

    You may want to talk with Hardy, he seems to think that the
    evolution of the eye uses random chance. I'll let you two
    duke it out.

    As far as 'adaption' [sic] ...adaptation, you need something in place to adapt to, don't you? Before the first creature with a seeing eye could see, how did it adapt to see in the first place? If you want a seeing eye, don't you need the DNA in place to tell it to form that particular organ? How does strict adaptation make a non functioning organ begin?

  137. Valatko,

    Did I read your post right?

    Your Post: The fact that they [scientists] don’t have solid evidence (like records for complete transition/transformation from proto-eye to modern-eye) is not making your argument right.

    So they don't have evidence? Your making my point exactly.
    Good job. They don't. The main point I make is this:
    Evolution like Special Creation are both, yes, BOTH
    FAITH BASED. When you hear evolutionists claim that
    their side is 'science fact' and the creationist side
    is pure faith is falsifying the position. Each side is
    a belief, but the evolutionists don't want to come out and
    readily admit to that. You will always read news articles on the debate of "Science vs Religion", not "Religion vs Religion". Once we come to terms that Darwinian Evolution is not provable scientific fact, we can then proceed to examine which side has a better argument for the data and evidence at hand. Sound reasonable? So do your homework and examine the best arguments from both sides to see who has a more reasonable explanation.

  138. Hardy,

    Very impressive post. Did your words come from
    an Evolutionary text book, notes from the lecture
    from a university professor or did you actually
    eye witness these transformations, random selections
    mutations and all the rest? You know that science
    is based on things you can see, test, demonstrate
    and repeat. Maybe your professor [if you had one] or the author of the textbook was an eye witness to these transformations, mutations, random selections and the like?

    Just curious. It will help me deliver a good answer to
    your question.

    The reason I asked if you ever studied the top 10 arguments for special creation is this point: If there are two distinct and opposite explanations for a given subject, wouldn't it be wise to evaluate each of them and judge them with an equally critical eye [sorry for the puns] on their own merits? Say your on trial for 1st degree murder. You have your explanation and the prosecution certainly has theirs. However, the judge says to you and your defense team, "Sorry gentlemen, but we only want to have the jury hear the prosecution side on this trial". Would that be acceptable to you? Ben Franklin said, "Listen to your enemies for the will tell you your faults."

    I'll wait for your response.....

  139. one of the comentors said , it is all to confusing , a creationist i think he was , confuse and conquer . Get you focused on things that are confusing , make things even more confusing by throwing in Social expectation factors then let the massess fight among themselves over things of no REAL importance ( fun , interesting , ego building , but not important ) day after day slaves fight among yourselves . ohh so you wanna fight about the importance of science? we represent 1/100th of a second out of the hour of Earth science is UN important but great thing to fight over , thus distracting the slave to be used by ...... ?

    well that is a question , who or what uses the effort of the CELLS who stupidly are confused into fighting among themselves theus in effect becoming conquered and all the while becoming more and more specialized and dependant on the whole ..... ? there is that ? again ...

  140. @ Hua:

    Right on! Number one!

  141. I have finally managed to finish this series. And what a wonderful series it was. It very clearly explains the different processes that had to happen in order for our species to evolve. I would like to think that this would be the end of this this creationism "debate", but it probably won't. I really hope that these creationist use this documentary and the millions of other bits of available information to come to some kind of rational, sane and thought out conclusion about where we came from. It is time to get rid of a bronze age fairy tale book as being able to provide any real answers to scientific questions.

  142. @mab

    I did not claim to believe in the theory of evolution, but rather the science behind it which I believe with time will have an air tight theory of mans orgins.

    I think that it's obvious that the reason I think creationism is rediculous is not because of evolution, but because it's just plain blind faith mascarading as science.
    I have looked into the theories of creationism and intelligent design, I'm not sure if I know your ten best arguements, but what I have read just seems like rubiish. Sorry that's just how I feel about it.

    As for your conversation allow me to rephrase it. Imagine Darwin and I were walking in Egypt and we stumbled upon the great pyramids of giza.We look at it and each of us thinks how did this come to be and why is it here. He says, ” It’s obvious that random chance processes produced this thing and that it has no purpose’. Do you see how rediculous that is now? Evolution isn't based on things happening at "random". It's about adaption.

  143. "Have you actually studied the 10 best arguments for special
    creation? Doesn’t make any sense to claim you know what the
    ‘other side’ is, if you don’t actually know what the other side is saying."

    "This stuff is so complicated that I don't understand it, therefore [insert allah/jahwe/god here] created me." isnt an argument.

  144. I'll try to explain it quickly, because I don't want to waste too much time:

    1. Photoreceptive cells (VERY primitive!) appear by random chance inside multicellular organisms, they react to light much like plant cells, only that the light is not absorbed to synthesize ATP (adenosine-triphospate, our cells way of 'working' - by removing one phosphate-group, energy is released which can be used by the cells), but to increase membrane-potential inside the nerve-cell (basically, the electrical signal of the cell increases through light being absorbed).

    2. These photoreceptive cells are able to detect light. This is a evolutionary advantage, because these cells are eukaryotes and contain chloroplasts or predecessors of the chloroplasts we see in plant cells today. Detecting where there is 'more Light' creates more energy for these cells, even though their movement isn't directional (trial and error of where they move to).

    3. Random chance brings forth cells with ever more enclosed photoreceptive cells which detect light DIRECTIONALLY. This is better for the organism, because it can detect where the light is actually coming from rather than just detecting the absence or presence of light.

    4. These 'caves' that have formed are quite susceptible to physical damage from their environment, random mutation causes transparent tissue form over the hole.

    5. We are now at the point where very large multicellular organisms have developed. These have a large energy-intake to sustain ever more complex eyes, the photoreceptive cells increase in number. This makes shapes distinguishable - they may be blurry, but a tree is different from a stone, at the least.

    6. The thickness of the transparent tissue is varied through mutations, some tend to increase the efficiency to see the environment which makes escaping from predators / catching prey quite a lot easier.

    I'm curious about your answer.

    "You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink."

  145. @ Yavanna:

    I would like to ask you a question.
    Do you think @ Mab. is really Chris?

    I have a sneaky suspicion. Correct me if I am wrong.

  146. To allan,

    So does your belief in evolution come merely from the
    'unbelief' of special creation? "If I don't accept that A is true, therefore B must be"??? Is this logical? If you believe something thenbe prepared to defend it, not by trying to guess what the other person's 'theory' is and put it down, but by proof, logic and evidence of why you believe what you believe.

    Have you actually studied the 10 best arguments for special
    creation? Doesn't make any sense to claim you know what the
    'other side' is, if you don't actually know what the other side is saying.

    I like the idea that you say that the theory of evolution is 'not perfect'. Your on the right track. Eventually you will find it's non existent, just 'you'd better think this way or else....'

  147. Nice 'attempt' Hardy on "Proof" of the evolution of the eye.
    Did you actually read the Wiki link you posted??
    Here is the first paragraph [and it doesn't explain the actual process of the 'so called' evolution of the eye in the rest of the site. Here it is [notice if you will, the number of times it says 'BELIEF, BELIEVED, ETC.'........

    The common origin (monophyly) of all animal eyes is now widely accepted as fact based on shared anatomical and genetic features of all eyes; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.[10][11][12] The majority of the advancements in early eyes are believed to have taken only a few million years to develop, since the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[13] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be at a distinct disadvantage without such capabilities and would be less likely to survive and reproduce. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

    Notice that it doesn't say how it actually evolved, it just says that these 'scientists' believe that it happened. You just have to take it on blind faith [no punn]. This paragraph boils down to this: Evolutionary scientists believe that the eye evolved and drew nice pictures, therefore it happened. Right.... So they can't actually explain how an eye slowly formed from a non seeing eye [glob?] to finally one that can see? Hmmm. How many useless appendages, half lungs, partially formed stomachs, etc. do we find evidence for? Any in the fossil record?? Provable, not 'believed to have' evolved.

    Did that blind creature hope that it would be his offspring to develop the first seeing eye [glob] so they wouldn't have to keep bumping into objects like it has all it's life?? Oh, yea, he would have to find, err, bump into a female to produce that first generation of seeing creatures.

    Again, I will be very patient and wait for some very logical, very credible evidence of evolution of just the eye. So far, from this group, all I hear is chatter and no evidence.

    One more thing. For the one who made the comment about me being illogical about taking a walk with Darwin because he lived so long ago...
    It's just a hypothetical scenario to get to the substance of my thoughts....random chance evolution with no meaning or purpose for the thing discovered vs special design with purpose. I can't grasp how it's too great of a concept for you to stretch your imagination to understand my 'conversation' with Darwin, when you use your imagination to believe in Darwinian Evolution.

    Again, give me proof and evidence for the evolution of the eye. Let's just start there.


  148. haha njtaaa, great write-up would read again, A+++

  149. Evolution, the greatest sign of God!.

  150. Why It’s Great To Be A Theist

    1. You get to believe in God.
    2. You get to follow God’s Commandments, or Sharia, for a hall pass to Paradise.
    3. You can marvel at evolution and think, “Well done, Lord.”
    4. You can Tele-evangelize, cry into the camera, and collect millions.
    5. You get to point your finger at unbelievers and shout, “You’re going to Hell!” (try it, it feels great!)
    6. If you’re a Catholic priest, you get to fondle and violate boys and the Pope will save you.
    7. If the world around you is going to crap, you get to blame God.

    Why It’s Great To Be An Atheist

    1. You don’t have to believe in God.
    2. You can do whatever you want. It’s okay. Just don’t let the Government catch you.
    3. If you’re queer, you can get a sex change so you don’t have to get corn-holed any more.
    4.You can kill a fetus and say, “It just wasn’t the right time to have another kid.”
    5. You can be the Doctor who kills the fetus and say, ”Bring this to the lab, I think we can use it,”
    6. You can write a book denouncing the existence of God and make millions.
    7. If the world around you is going to crap, you get to blame the Theists.

  151. I actually find creationism to be quite an interesting movement. As allan has pointed out its "the last attempt of religion to offer an explanation to the evidence which has all but abolished any reasonable, logical approach to faith."

    They have basically come to the point of saying that "we'll accept everything in the bible to be false, just as long as we can still have a god". Religions last stance, it's a good thing.

    As for owing our existence to science is concerned - we're basically saying that gods work isn't sufficient for our modern world, so we've taken matters into our own hands. And god dammit, we're doing a pretty good job at it :)

  152. @meb

    My knowledge of the theory of evolution is from "myriad shows, movies, and ‘documentaries’ extolling the ‘higher scientific thinking’". So why you would be seeking answers from me or anyone else on this site is beyond reason. I would recommend that you consult professors at your local university for these in depth explanations. The theory obviously isn't perfect right now, but as science advances the theory will become more refined.

    It is obvious that "creationism" is the last attempt of religion to offer an explantion to the evidence which has all but abolished any reasonable, logical approach to faith. One could state that the big bang was the creator, but that is not acceptable to "creationists". They need an explantion that proves that the creator was intelligent and conscience, and will latch on to any ludacris claim which promotes that narrative. For example the supposed dinosaur foot prints which were discovered along side human prints. Creationists immediatly latched on to this claim as proof of the great flood, until of course this claim was proven to be false.

    Creationism does not offer an explantion, because it's explantion olny gives us more questions.

    MOST living human beings on earth today owe their exsistence to science and advances in scientific fields. If you need proof of this look at the child mortality rates of the 19th century. As for me being a type one diabetic, I would have not lived to the age I am now had I have been born 80 years ago. So if their actually is a GOD, an intelligent creator, then science and your fellow human beings care much more about you then he does.

    I would also like to ask you a question. In regards to Neanderthals and the other forms of humans which have walked this earth and gone exstinct, what was their purpose? Are they in heaven? Are they in hell? Why is our species of human special enough to get gods word and grace but not theirs?

    “The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no agruement. “It must have came from god.” Anything we can’t describe, must have come from god.” – George Carlin

  153. @ mab:

    I will just make it short and sweet.

    How do you know atheists, re: evolutions, only know and study evolution?

    Did you ask them? what are the numbers?
    Atheists know approx. how many religions, religious people there are.

    Me thinks it is the other way around, most religious people only study religion, the religion they where born with, and, or, brain-washed with!

    One good question you have presented, how did the first creature evolve? My question, if there is a God, Gods, ? how did the first God, Gods evolve?
    And please do more than that omnipotent stuff, and please do not just refer to Bible scriptures. You know what I mean, "the Bible told me so"
    Show me some hard evidence, if you can.

  154. @mab

    Charles Darwin isn't around today so you can't take a walk with him. Therefor you can't assume to know what his rational would be. When you base your logic on assumptions then your logic is flawed.

  155. I find it rather silly to hear people who have only studied evolution, read about evolution or who have only been exposed to it by the myriad shows, movies, and 'documentaries' extolling the 'higher scientific thinking' of today's evolutionist, compared to the 'silly religious unproven' beliefs of Creationists. Of course anyone who has been only exposed to one side will always take that side. And if that doesn't work, smearing, mocking, belittling and intimidating those who do not tote the [evolutionist] party line are marginalized, at least. [As if those tactics were the best arguments an evolutionist could give].

    Come on, let's expand the thinking level here. So some of us that you don't fear researching the best arguments of the 'other side', say the top ten best arguments for the evidence of Creation Science and logically dispel THEM with science, reasoning and rational thinking.

    Evolutionists and Creationists all have the same evidence to look at [dirt, bones, chemicals, etc.] but the difference is how the evidence is 'interpreted'. Let's suppose Charles Darwin was alive today and him and I took a walk. On the ground was a working wrist watch. We look at it and each of us thinks how did this come to be and why is it here. He says, " It's obvious that random chance processes produced this thing and that it has no purpose'. I say, "What? Look at this think. It looks like it keeps track of time and it's working. It was obviously designed to do that, even though we don't know or we can't see it's creator".

    Here is one for this 'brain trust' of apparent evolutionists: Please explain here, if evolution is true, and the Big Bang was true, how did the first creature 'evolve' a seeing eye or a hearing ear, with all of the millions of parts that had to all be there in order for it to function by 'random chance'.

    I'll be patient for all of your replies. Please refrain from mocking and just give me logical answers...


  156. The Universe is a fractal and God is its strange attractor.

  157. Great series, save for the last vid. It just all went "Pfftbth".

    Seriously, it was so unbelievably apologetic. To teach creation as a scientific theory is just ridiculous. And I loled at a few comments in that vid. Quote:

    "I just knew god was the creator and my mom agreed with me on that. I don't really know how I learned that, it's just... I probably read it in the bible."

  158. Haha very good Achems..

    I see Its already started too..

    I had a wager on at least 24 hrs, oh well.

  159. @ Triad:

    There is no peace of mind on TDF. IT keeps the Brain cells functioning at high gear!


  160. @ K J Jose

    "The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no agruement. "It must have came from god." Anything we can't describe, must have come from god." - George Carlin

  161. @ Achems

    Haha, There sure will be..

    And for peace of mind, best not to check back In..

  162. I have been fascinated about Darwin's theory of evolution since my teen age! Have tried to read every book, documentaries, arguments and anything that I can get hold of. Having read all these the core point you reach finally is: behind all these there is a super scientist and I like to call him THE ALMIGHTY GOD.Thank you Vlatko.

  163. well, I guess I will have to go second.

    You are right, @ Hua: probably a lot of forthcoming comments.

  164. Excellent. I am looking forward to watching this series.
    I have the feeling that this movie might generate a few comments so I will go first.
    Darwin is right.
    I'm sure I will expand on this later but for now I'm going to watch this documentary.
    Thanks again Vlatko. This is a wonderful site. :)