What Darwin Didn't Know

2009 ,    » 68 Comments

What Darwin Didn't KnowThe theory of evolution by natural selection is now scientific orthodoxy, but when it was unveiled it caused a storm of controversy, from fellow scientists as well as religious people.

They criticized it for being short on evidence and long on assertion and Darwin, being the honest scientist that he was, agreed with them.

He knew that his theory was riddled with difficulties, but he entrusted future generations to complete his work and prove the essential truth of his vision, which is what scientists have been doing for the past 150 years.

Evolutionary biologist Professor Armand Marie Leroi charts the scientific endeavor that brought about the triumphant renaissance of Darwin's theory.

He argues that, with the new science of evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo), it may be possible to take that theory to a new level - to do more than explain what has evolved in the past, and start to predict what might evolve in the future.

There is another documentary (PBS), on the same topic, titled What Darwin Never Knew.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 6.91/10 from 22 users.

More great documentaries

68 Comments / User Reviews

    Gary V
  1. Gary V

    Another great doc about the genius Charles Darwin, In HD too. Thanks Vlatko.

  2. Guest
  3. Guest

    Its great for scientific community to research in all fields of life and beyond, and bring humanity to enlightenment. Problem occurs when some idiots (with their agenda) start using these theories and facts of enligtenment to debunk old religions, myths, ethics and values, so that their worldly derires could be fullfilled. By denying divine creator they automatically kill human divinity and spirtuality, so that thousand years old human ethics could be replaced with modern dogma: HUMAN RIGHTS

  4. Paul So
  5. Paul So

    I almost cried watching this....it is...absolutely beautiful...to find universality not in the heavens but within the plurality of beings of the earth....is mathematically sublime.....

  6. Guest
  7. Guest

    Maybe thats why we are destroying the very planet that gave us all a nature and nurtured us to the point we are now. Is that the way of thanking earth? By destroying it with nukes, pollution, wars, environmetal disasters and by sucking its pure non-renewable resources into the evergrowing and abusing capitalist system?

  8. David Foster
  9. David Foster

    Ah, "but we are just an accident of circumstance", sayeth the teacher; "insignificant to the cosmos".


    what difference does it make how we evolved, as they say, "it is what it is". We keep seeking the right answers to the wrong questions and even go to the extent of war in honor of those wrong questions. And by the way Steven, when something goes bang, a big bang or a little bang, in a vacuum it will continue to expand without resistance. All this horse crap is after the fact. Where Did We Come From And Why Are We Here? Anyone?, I didn't think so.


    well put arifkarim

  14. Guest
  15. Guest

    @ David Foster
    Yes, we are just another "accident". Only that accident created an almost never ending life with "conscious". Its possible that inanimate matter transform into animate body. Whats not possible is that animate matter getting "will" to survive and reproduce. Where would u skeptics are gonna get that everlasting will and struggle for survival that is common in all species, also plantlife :D
    Why do all species including humans at most, all want to "live" and not die or not exist at all? Why is there any existence anyway? I think ur accidents have to be far too complex and random so that they are gonna make building blocks of life as they exist today.

  16. wald0
  17. wald0

    They debunk the existence of some magical carpenter, they debunk the notion that the universe was created for man alone, they debunk silly ideas like virgin birth, resurrection from death, etc. You act as if they try to do away with morality, this isn't true and you know it. All they are doing is stating the obviouse, that religion serves to passionately divide the human race and is no longer needed. In fact it has a negative net effect on this planet, no matter how much you personally get out of it.

    It takes away our divinity? GOOD!! Maybe its time we realized we are not divine, we are nothing special, and we have no divine mandate that allows us to destroy one another nor this earth. I get so sick of this lie that is perpetuated by avoiding the truth of religion and trying to talk about it as if it were just some personal belief that some people have. If that were the case I wouldn't care who was religious and who wasn't. But, thats not the case- religion has infected politics, causes wars, destracts people from the true issues at hand, effects our education system, and hands the perfect tool to both despots and mad men all over the world (including right here in the US). But hey, as long as you feel nice and safe in your idealogical bubble who cares huh?

  18. Vlatko
  19. Vlatko


    Obviously you don't want to discuss the material in the documentary. I wonder why?

    "Where Did We Come From And Why Are We Here? Anyone?, I didn't think so."

    I hope you can provide the answers to those questions?

  20. Eniki520
  21. Eniki520

    keep on keppin' on brotha


    Hi Vlatko, please forgive me if i have upset anyone i am under the weather right now and perhaps i didn't watch the documentary with the right attitude, it was just a general statement. I even thought about what i said after said it knowing i didn't watch the whole doc. How ever i do have some input but right now is not a good time for me to go into it, in a couple of days or tomorrow i would like to share some thoughts

    PS: After discovering Top Documentary Films I got rid of my TV, what an insult to humans. Thank you young man for the wonderful service you provide! I was talking to my oldest daughter not long ago and she said, "You know dad all that crazy stuff you use to talk about has now become the norm.

  24. David Foster
  25. David Foster

    Some would have us define life as a mechanism. I would not. We are the life. The mechanism merely serves that life. Do you agree?

  26. Matt Mosley
  27. Matt Mosley

    It doesn't matter where we came from, all that matters is that we are here.

  28. Gary V
  29. Gary V

    @Matt Mosley

    Of course it matters where we can from, maybe not to you but I think that most people are very interested in where we came from. It is one of the biggest questions that mankind has been searching for the answer to for several millennia. If we had not asked these questions then we would all still be stuck in the Dark Ages & believing in outdated ancient myths, oh I forgot that some of us still do. Thankfully Charles Darwin & many others had the insight & intelligence to be able to answer that question for us.

  30. Gary V
  31. Gary V


    If you take the time to watch some of the many excellent & interesting documentaries right here on TDF about evolution then you will find the answer to the first part of your question "Where Did We Come From And Why Are We Here?" As to the second part I think that the current consensus/theory to the question "why are we here?" is to reproduce for the continuation of our species, just the same as all the other animals on this planet & hopefully as we are doing so that we at least try to make it a better world for future generations to come. Although so far we have not been doing a very good job at that, no that is not entirely true we have made some major advances through science. But we could all still do a lot better if we really tried to, firstly we all need to lose our selfish money grabbing attitude & adopt a far more Humanistic approach to the world & our fellow Human beings around us.

  32. Gary V
  33. Gary V


    "Its great for scientific community to research in all fields of life and beyond, and bring humanity to enlightenment." This is the only intelligent thing that you said in your entire comment & when people start "using these theories and facts of enligtenment to debunk old religions, myths, ethics and values" This is a very good thing for us all because it is because of those "old religions, myths, ethics and values" that Humanity has not progressed as far as we could have done. If you find that you need a book of outdated myths to teach you ethics & morality then I feel very sorry for you, I'm glad that I was born with enough intelligence to work out what is right & wrong for myself. I also see that you do not agree that everybody is entitled to have "HUMAN RIGHTS", this I find very disturbing. If you choose to still live in the Dark Ages with your outdated ancient myths then that is fine by me, but please do not try to hold the rest of us back with them.


    I go along with a lot of what you are saying Gary. Gary there use to be this country comedian,"Brother Dave Garner", i only heard him maybe once and i have always carried something he said with me, "If you think you've got it all nailed down what's that all around". I wish i could be that simple Gary, at times. And you and i are on the same page about treating people a lot better! Amen. I'm afraid there is more to it than, Eat, Sleep, fornicate and cleaning your yard Gary.


    Gary you suggested that i watch TDF more often. Gary i watch TDF almost every day.

  38. Gary V
  39. Gary V


    I did not suggest that you watched TDF more often, I merely suggested that if you wanted to find the answers to your question "Where Did We Come From And Why Are We Here?" that you tried watching some of the excellent docs about evolution, there you will find the answers to at least the first part of your question.

  40. kman67
  41. kman67

    In philosophy the most fundamental of questions is, " Why are we
    here? "

    If there is no reason, just that 'we merely are' , then nothing really matters --- we can save the world or destroy the world, it won't matter --- we are as meaningless as stones on the ground.

    Life goes forward, ebbing and flowing, somehow leading to something, something it would seem very important. If we are merely walking 'blobs of flesh' doomed to die and be no more --- making way for future generations, then they too will follow the same process, and likewise be no more important than us. This is madness. Even what we say here is utterly useless. What do we aim to accomplish if there is no objectivity in all this? How can we TRULY be objective when life itself would have no objectivity?

    I believe in reincarnation; I believe we come here to experience life for ourselves and once we get 'our ya ya's out' we go home, to heaven which has everything more than we have here. People glorify pea-brains like Darwin who have no objectivity, he can give you little or no peace of mind or wisdom, he studied the known world, while others like Socrates and Plato and Christ observed the deeper and more important things in life. Priorities people...

  42. dogsaysbark
  43. dogsaysbark

    Trust me, you are no more important than that stone on the ground. You are just a fat dude sitting in his chair staring at a computer screen waiting for the inevitable: fertilizer for the ground you will be buried in.


  44. dogsaysbark
  45. dogsaysbark

    Charles Darwin was a gifted genius way ahead of his time.


    A lot what you say is true except for that last paragraph. Boy that's a doosy. If you use the phrase: I believe this and i believe that, ref: reincarnation etc and so on then you must respect all the other "I believes", I am not sure but i kind of figure if you believe you should have enough fact to back up your beliefs. And another thing to all these i believers, if one believes and sticks to that hunch or guess work you might be keeping a closed mind and live life to a total lie? If we are reincarnating for example; one hundred years ago there was 1.5 billion people on the entire earth and today there are 6.4 billion people on the entire earth well i mean we must have had a back log on the people that needed to be reincarnated. Think about it, if there was reincarnation one would think that there would always be the same amount of people on the earth that have died. I mean the population keeps expanding where are all these people reincarnating from. And the fact that the Sun is not infinite and it's not it's burning out, which means it is not infinite but finite, yes it's burning out as we speak, then i ask you where will all the people reincarnate to because when the sun burns out there will be know more earth to be born AGAIN into? And why would the Deity (God), continue to bring more people back here and cause this imbalance in the life forms on this earth with all these people and then have to correct the over population. I mean i am just trying to carve out some essence here i realize how abstract my composition is above but i hope i am communicating here?


    Well Put!

  50. Jordan Todd
  51. Jordan Todd

    I don't think you fully understand what the word "objectivity" means...

    Also, calling Darwin a "pea-brain" is, well, pretty ballsy of you, as I'm pretty sure you haven't contributed to any monumental leaps in any field of science...

    But to the root of what you said, just because we have no specific, supernatural purpose doesn't make life meaningless. In the grand scheme of the cosmos maybe, but doesn't your life matter to your mother? Your family? Your friends? To you? Do you not find enjoyment in life? Maybe you find meaning in whatever it is that makes your heart soar, your passions, your loves, your relationships? Maybe life is what you make it?

    What I am saying is that I do not need any sort of spiritual or supernatural phenomena or being to exist for me to find meaning and joy in my life. I find joy in the human experience that we all share.

  52. Jack1952
  53. Jack1952

    Most religions actually mean to unite the world. This is where the problem lies. A religion's attempt to enforce a unity of thought and belief is what causes the divisions among the people. For all humanity to agree on all things religious, political, or economic is an impossibility. Ideally, we should all agree to disagree and allow one another the freedom to pursue our individual philosophies. That would imply that we respect one another's individuality. Most religions cannot allow this. Every religion insists that it alone knows the truth and the hope of mankind rests on the ideal that all humans must realize this truth. That is how a religion can justify cruelty. They are doing it for our own good and the good of all mankind. Hopeless, isn't it?

  54. Guest
  55. Guest

    ...not sure if the energy that moves the finger on the keyboard will turn into manure.

  56. boomzy
  57. boomzy

    "..to heaven which has everything more than we have here." Dreaming of where you are going to go when you die, sounds like taking life for granted to me. Priorities people.....

  58. Guest
  59. Guest

    If we are nothing special, why the heck are we behaving like this world was made for us? Both religious and non-religious secular people are alike constantly waging wars and misery to rule this world. If we are nothing special, then u gotta tell me why we have this disguesting will to rule? None of the other species has neither the ability nor power to do what we can...

  60. Guest
  61. Guest

    The so called "HUMAN RIGHTS" are also man-made in a man-made human organization like UN. IF religions are the product of human brain, then HUMAN RIGHTS are also coming from same place. Only difference is the age. Your love for human rights but hatred for human rights given by different religions only shows how brainwashed u are :D

  62. Jack1952
  63. Jack1952

    We wouldn't have even reached the myth stage. Formulating those myths suggest that people were, even then, trying to understand their roots. They may have been wrong, but it was a first step. What's sad is when someone sits down and refuses to take the next step.

  64. Jack1952
  65. Jack1952

    One of the best docs I've watched on this site. Thanks.

  66. kman67
  67. kman67

    I've put about 18 yrs of intense study into ' the meaning of life' and threw absolutely everything at the concept of God. Part of me doesn't even want to believe because it's so much easier believing in myself. Believing in God always involves mankind and man's an arrogant self centered, cruel, self-glorifying idiot --- I have no reason to believe in such a monster, but inside of him is a beautiful light ready to explode. It took me a year to realize I was 'born-again' and I asked many questions and received many answers; like an inner dictation, something that science can never understand because intellect is superior to reason --- science is merely reasoning; the senses are inferior to reasoning, but reasoning is inferior to intellect. I was told and believed through ALL the senses for reasons only a highly developed spiritual being could understand. This I can take glory in because it is the truth. But I can tell you 'Glory' involves much pain, it is much easier being a ego-minded simpleton. I am now part of the 'Sonship', we look out for the rest of you because many are sick and need correcting. Not punishment, but correcting. In the scheme of things I have more respect for atheists than fellow Christians because atheists just don't believe in anything, while Christians and Muslims glorify cruelty through the concept of hell --- Jesus expects us to forgive while God roasts his enemies in hell, one cannot possibly believe in both. Of all entities the Christian church needs correcting the most. But people like Darwin sway people from the whole possibility of connecting with their higher power. Take the spirit out of evolution and it is meaningless. Spiritual evolution is why we are here. Christians and Muslims don't want to believe in reincarnation because they want to incinerate unbelievers and atheists don't want to believe because when you get right down to it they believe in nothingness. The reasons there was a 'backlog' in people reincarnating is because the world would be over populated. We are all in this together. Don't you think the Ultra-Supreme-Being has it all worked out? Or is your concept of the perfect imperfect?

  68. Miranda Hoyle-Dodson
  69. Miranda Hoyle-Dodson

    I watched this in my college biological anthropology course. As a student studying for a major in biology, I found it to be a fascinating and well-thought-out documentary that really opened my eyes to evolution in a new way.

  70. Munira Hassan
  71. Munira Hassan

    the big bang theory. Matter was created out of nothing (not really nothing just a reaction to gravity) energy cannot be destroyed or created only recycled. The Universe is still expanding and there are small tiny remnants of the big bang in our part of the Universe. So all those people being born now is just energy transfer. The big bang most be intelligent (the creator who made man in his image) and we all will eventually return to him, the Universe will contract and implode on itself and the cycle will begin again. Did you not watch Futurama! lolol.

  72. Si Belsi
  73. Si Belsi

    something wrong with Professor Armand Marie Leroi ..he is so charismatic and thats preventing me to concentrate on the main subject...

  74. Bas balla
  75. Bas balla

    Pigeons are sill pigeons after all this years of evaluation. That don't talk even today. They may change in color and very little in figure.
    What I want to tell is as you say we are way head of Darwin's age. Not we must accept as human our capabilities are limited so we know our time is not at all a time once you start traveling on space. it is as simple as that.

  76. jonathan jackward
  77. jonathan jackward

    should have named it" can darwin even tie his own shoes?"

  78. jonathan jackward
  79. jonathan jackward

    yeah, it's nice to see what my grandfather was taught as a child.
    a great antique film, should make one about the earth being flat, and it's totally okay to handle dead bodies at the morgue then deliver a baby without washing hands other great gems of the era!

  80. Jack1952
  81. Jack1952

    You are assuming that since people in the past have had ideas that have been proven to be inaccurate that all knowledge garnered in the past is wrong. The cutting edge discoveries of science are based upon the discoveries made in our grandfather's time. I did not start learning calculus in grade 1. I learned basic arithmetic (2+2=4) and built upon this knowledge and finally studied calculus in college after having a firm grasp of mathematics. This is true of any field of study.

    The principles of evolution were laid out by Darwin. He is not the final word. However, the study of the fossil, geologic and genetic record have shown that the basic foundation of Darwinism is correct. That is cutting edge scientific research. Some aspects may be proven to be incorrect but that does not negate the veracity of the core principle.

  82. jonathan jackward
  83. jonathan jackward

    Jack1952 in science there is a materialistic dualism worldview and a monistic idealism worldview. the world view of materialism has dominated science until recent times.now there is much evidence to support monistic idealsim,within such theories as "the quantum mind","Grand Unified Theory","Orch-OR","Strange loop","Supersymmetry","Anthropic principle","BellsInequality. ""HeisenbergUncertaintyPrinciple",
    and "neural correlates of consciousness " just to name a few. monistic dualism opens the doors to questioning materialism in a accepted scientific approach, and is scientifically valid. although creationism portrays ignorance and a lack of scientific appreciation for the modern lifestyle in general, it does not mean that the materialistic dualism world view so many hold to be true , is completely fact either.

  84. docoman
  85. docoman

    kman67.. You've become 'born-again', enlightened, and are now part of a group, the 'sonship', that needs to watch out for and 'correct' everyone else that doesn't believe what your group believes. Anyone that doesn't believe what your group does is an 'ego-minded simpleton.' (pretty much the gist of what you said)

    It seems your group does share something in common with other christians and muslims, and most other organized religions.... the belief that you are right, and thus anyone that doesn't think the same must be wrong, and therefore you have some right/need/duty to 'correct' them.
    This need to 'correct' everyone else, is in itself an 'arrogant, self centered, self-glorifying, cruel and ego-minded simpletons' belief that has caused much pain and suffering throughout our history.

    Anyone that thinks they HAVE to be right and therefore others NEED to be corrected, is not enlightened. It's close-minded and arrogant to think that, and as history has shown time and time again often dangerous, whether it's a religious or science based belief.

    However you arrive at your own personal beliefs is individual, evolution or creation, in whatever form you prefer, doesn't make one or the other right or wrong. One doesn't have to rule out the other. Maybe both are wrong, maybe both are right at the same time. There is usually more then one path to the same destination.

    The truth of it is, NO religion or person or science knows for sure, it is only what they 'believe' to be true, however convincing the evidence may be, or enlightened they feel. They may, or may not be correct. We all need to keep an open mind, and be very careful to not confuse belief with fact, a very common mistake.

  86. Marvin Bowen
  87. Marvin Bowen

    Have a look at a counter-argument. :)

  88. Anthony Pirtle
  89. Anthony Pirtle

    Hahahaahaa please. Those videos are so funny.

  90. Anthony Pirtle
  91. Anthony Pirtle

    Please don't waste your time looking out for me, Kman. You and your sonship buddies can look after yourselves.

  92. Chris Avera
  93. Chris Avera

    I do not care if four bodies were found at different levels in the same area proving evolution easily, most religious minds would say the devil put them there.

  94. Devon Griffiths
  95. Devon Griffiths

    Actually, methodology IS important in how you reach your conclusions.

    Also there are statements that are true and can work logically ... and there are others that aren't. This idea that everyone can just make up whatever they want and everyone should just accept it as equally valid to any other idea, is complete rubbish. 2+2 does not equal 5. There is only one right answer.

    I can only surmise that this sort of idea, which has become fashionable, is the product of the sort of coddling that has gone on in education over the last quarter-century or so; where every student had to be "validated" and sometimes marks and grades were done away with altogether, lest the students "lose confidence in themselves".

    I do appreciate that sometimes people are mistaken in thinking they are correct, however, this is exactly why we have methodology and formal logics, and why we apply ideas to scrutiny and criticism to test their validity. You seem to want to do away with this. Why?

    I have to ask: does truth have any meaning to you? Or are you comfortable with a world where anything anyone just makes up has to be accepted as valid? I'm not, sorry to say. I want the BEST ideas to prevail, the strongest ones, and that means the ones that can withstand rigorous criticism. Ego has no place when it comes to ascertaining the truth. Ideas are not things to cling to - no one should be ashamed to abandon a weak idea that doesn't hold up to a close inspection. And certainly I do not believe that we should abandon criticism as a means of testing the validity of ideas. Let the strong ones prevail and let the weak and false ones die, and if egos are bruised, it is only because they make the mistake of being intolerant of criticism.

  96. docoman
  97. docoman

    I agree with you. But, (there is usually a but.. :) we must also remember that the BEST, strongest ideas don't automatically mean fact. It is the difference between theory and fact is the gist of that post you're replying to I was getting at. (apart from the response to being preached at)
    That's the best thing about science in it's true sense, it is self-correcting. Willing to admit in the face of new evidence that ideas need to be updated, or completely changed or discarded.

    In answer to your question, "does truth have any meaning to you? Or are you comfortable with a world where anything anyone just makes up has to be accepted as valid?"

    I think if you read and understood that post as I intended, plus the many others I've put on this site, you'd already know my answer to that. But, to help you keep up, here is part of that last post that shed's light on the question you raise;
    "Anyone that thinks they HAVE to be right and therefore others NEED to be corrected, is not enlightened. It's close-minded and arrogant to think that,..."

    A question for you from your post. When you say, "I want the BEST ideas to prevail, the strongest ones, and that means the ones that can withstand rigorous criticism", what do you mean by 'prevail'?

    That only the most accepted idea, even though not fact, is the only thoughts/words allowed? That is a world I wouldn't like to live in.

    How would we ever advance, if only the current BEST idea is all we dare think about? We'd still live in a Heliocentric universe if that was the case ;)
    The term 'think about' doesn't mean accept and believe every idea that comes your way.

  98. Devon Griffiths
  99. Devon Griffiths

    Well ... "theory" in science means something very different than it does in common use. In science, a "fact" is an observation - not an explanation for an observation, but just the observation itself. For instance, that things fall back to Earth when dropped is a fact, because it's an observation.

    An explanation for an observation - such as proposing that they are drawn to the Earth by a force called gravity - is initially a hypothesis. If it becomes widely accepted as a result of experimental confirmation, then it's a theory (not a fact). Theory, in science, doesn't mean there is something uncertain or that it's just a good guess, it means, its a model that is very succesful at predicting facts (observations).

    Science is self-correcting because it admits to a process of criticism. If it's models (theories) are to be revisable, then we must accept that the best ones are simply the ones that are most popular among scientists because of their ability to predict things well and because they stand up to criticism well (so far). We can't say they are absolute and fixed or we'd never be able to revise them, if new evidence or better theories came along. They are no more than our best idea, the ones most popular with knowledgeable specialists in those fields, at this time. Tomorrow a better, stronger idea may come along and gain more ground with scientists, because of its enhanced ability to withstand criticism and its greater success in explaining and predicting observations of phenomena.

    That we no longer believe in a heliocentric universe is precisely because it *wasn't* the best and strongest idea. It was faced by a stronger, better idea that killed it. The only way we would still believe in heliocentrism, is if we weren't willing to go with the best idea.

  100. docoman
  101. docoman

    I agree mate, totally. As I said, we need to remember that difference between theory and fact. Being wrong shouldn't be a crime, IF it's only thought and not bad actions. I think that sometimes the rebuttal of a wrong idea helps us learn a new fact we didn't notice before, by working out exactly 'how' they're wrong. It can be an unconventional way for finding a new 'right'. I does for me sometimes.

  102. Ken Davis
  103. Ken Davis

    All they're doing is multiplying more assertion. Using more technology doesn't make a lie any more true because from the beginning it wasn't true.

    Seeing living forms vary isn't evidence that one life form transformed into another distinctive lifeform. It really never happened and has never been observed.

  104. robertallen1
  105. robertallen1

    When was the last time you actually saw a boy become a man or a caterpillar become a butterfly?

    Your education in biology in biology is obviously at an all-time minimum.

  106. nemomen
  107. nemomen

    There is an ever growing knowledge of the fossil record, a growing knowledge of genetics, and a growing knowledge of biology and ecosystems that are not assertions but data. Evolution is a fact based on the fossil record, the only part up for debate is the mechanism. We have done enough contemporary research in speciation that it's really unremarkable to see life forms transformed into distinct lifeforms, that was a thing Darwin observed in the Galapagos. Now there is a reliable scientific basis for explaining, describing, and illustrating speciation - it really happened and has been scientifically observed.

  108. Guest
  109. Guest

    I love people but you ignited that pain of a huge mistake i made so
    sorry if I'm being rude, feel free to ignore me. In fact i would
    recommend, i wouldn't want to wake you from the dream before its the
    right time. You don't wanna realize when your old and dying i can tell
    you that much.

    There's a lot of bull**** in what your saying, its condescending,
    arrogant and full of unprovable assertions. You seem to think your
    smarter or better in some way than the majority and attribute it to your
    spirituality. The meaning of life is hardly something worth putting 18
    years into, why does there need to be a meaning to life in the first
    place. Life is beautiful and amazing anyway and i don't need
    spirituality to enjoy it, I've walked down that path and I've been a lot
    happier since I've admitted to myself that there was absolutely no gain
    to myself from believing in a tab of acid might tell me. We the
    majority are avoiding people like you, you have no compassion for
    humanity at all and that's why I'm gonna hate on you so much. Anyway
    your in the background and little to no impact on the world, Your
    teachings are an in-concise ramble with absolutely no value to society
    in any way, its just more easy bull**** to hard questions. We are not
    here for spiritual evolution, we are just here. I don't bother trying to
    connect with a higher power besides from not believing in one...
    Judging from the size of the universe if a higher power existed i don't
    think it would give a **** about us. We are only connected through our
    senses, that whole connected to each other in a big mega soul is a
    metaphor that takes many forms but doesn't have any real value
    explaining the world we find ourselves in. Yes we are all on the same
    planet congratulations for paying attention at the movie theatre, i
    think you should go smoke some pot and eat another tab of acid. Start
    shooting speed-balls and eat whatever the hell you want, party every
    night and cure hangovers with Benz-pot cocktails. Sounds like its what
    you were put on this planet to do, you don't need spiritual bull**** to
    excuse yourself from over indulgence. I may just be assuming that your a
    drug addict, maybe your sober everyday i don't know. But you sound like
    a drug hippy is all I'm saying. Oh and you are the ego fueled
    simpleton, everyone else is normal. The world is not full of ego-minded
    simpleton like you seem to be saying between the lines, the whole glory
    filled with pain like the message your carrying is too tremendous for
    the general public to admit and we're all just scared of the truth. Like
    your some kind of special being who is selflessly admitting the truth
    for the good of mankind, well I'm gonna state the obvious here and
    say... THAT'S A DELUSION. I've been there duude, i use to parade around
    saying the same bull****. I use to believe that i had an answer no one
    else had, but then i stopped smoking pot and woke up and smelt the
    roses. 18 Years? Long time to reach an assumption with no gain beyond
    gratifying the mistake of spending 18 years working on an something with
    no definition of study or measurement of completion. I love humans, you
    don't but you do. Which often means you don't but don't have the balls
    to just say it and instead come up with bull**** to pretend to yourself
    and other that your not a complete ********.

    Welcome to science.

  110. dumbworld
  111. dumbworld

    K Davis your small theologian mind lacks the ability to think in terms of millions of years, the changes don't just happen overnight. Of course when your religion tells you the Earth is only 4000 years old of course you will have a problem understanding the basic concepts. Unfortunately for you, we know the Earth is about 4.6 BILLION years old, that is undeniable FACT, not theory. Now over 3.8 billion years ago, life on Earth began through the simplest forms. Saying that no change in species has occurred since then is simply absurd, we would all still be amoebas. Therefore your thought and opinions in this topic are also absurd, please, cease from posting in the comments of science documentaries, you only make you and your religion look stupid. Creationism and intelligent design have both been refuted, please, try again soon.

  112. K Davis
  113. K Davis

    Data has no meaning without interpretation. It's the interpretations of a false philosophy that are assertions. But I have news for you. The interpretations of evolutionists leave many more questions than creation and global flood interpretations. No evolution hasn't been proven, nor can it be. Virtually all the fossils are found in flood type deposit rocks. Darwin did not observe evolution; he observed variation.

  114. K Davis
  115. K Davis

    The problem is lack of information yourself. If you ever read Genesis, you find that the earth was present before creation week. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen. 1:2 That leaves open the possibility that the earth could be billions of years old. Creation week was much more recent though, 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, no Bible believer limits that to 4,000 years. Everyone knows that carbon dating is ineffective for more than a few thousand years. Accidents of nature cannot produce life. It's never been done in a laboratory. No changes don't take millions of years. Organisms vary all the time in a matter of years - that's how they were created. But they weren't created to transform into new distinct types - never been observed, statistically impossible even for a protein to form on it's own. You left the world of facts when you said that life began 3.8 billion years ago. All the fossils are found in flood deposit rocks.because they were buried by the Biblical global flood. The smallest were on the bottom because they were the least mobile when the flood sediments settled during the flood. I have news for you - evolutionist interpretations of the data leave many more questions than creation, flood-based interpretations of the data. Evolutionists aren't smart.

  116. Mr_Silly
  117. Mr_Silly

    Little late to the party, no?

  118. over the edge
  119. over the edge

    If i could get some sources to back up the following claims that would be great
    -"Everyone knows that carbon dating is ineffective for more than a few thousand years"
    -" statistically impossible even for a protein to form on it's own"
    -"All the fossils are found in flood deposit rocks"
    and could you please define "distinct types" ?

  120. dumbworld
  121. dumbworld

    I'm literally speechless. That is actually your response. You don't live in reality and there is no hope for you.

  122. Dean Thompson
  123. Dean Thompson

    Spot the creatard.

  124. Dean Thompson
  125. Dean Thompson

    Ah, Genesis. That well known science text.

  126. Dean Thompson
  127. Dean Thompson

    You can't spell, sequence a sentence, or present your ideas clearly.

  128. redflaming
  129. redflaming

    Evolution is a mere postulation which it implies certain mutations in the genes though it can't convey the "which" part it musters to survive.This mutations can be futile and if evolution works as branches thus it must show the organisms that the mutations didn't happen.

  130. tim
  131. tim

    Actually yes it is. Taking the Genesis 1 vs 1 There are two facts stated. Firstly " in the beginning" . The universe had a beginning. This is now regarded as scientific fact. Despite the scientific problem that there will never be a scientific explanantion of how the universe began. since prior to the "Big Bang" time and space do not exist..
    Secondly the greek word for "the heavens and the earth" means a designed ordered creation, one with structure. this word is the basis for the philosophy of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacons "New Method".

  132. Cooree
  133. Cooree

    Darwinism - theory of fools! So fools, let me see if I've got my head around your position on life: Nothing plus an unexplained explosion plus time plus chance plus a bit more time - equals everything! I might not be as enlightened as other contributors here but: if there was nothing one million or fifty million years ago wouldn't there still be nothing now? It's so true that people who don't believe in the God and Father of Jesus Christ - will believe anything! Even the most absurd like the lie of Darwinism.

  134. DustUp
  135. DustUp

    Did the hundreds of fish in the first African lake all evolve from the same species? And did the same thing happen in the second African lake? Since both are just THEORIES without proof. Let me propose a theory which of course I find more likely: That at some point in history the fish from both lakes came from the same place. If the claim is that it was geologically impossible(which no claim was made or if it was I missed it) that would also be a THEORY not fact. How can one know what continental shifting and other earth shifting activity or weather or tsunami activity transpired.

    In Tasmania, did the unique Tasmanian creatures evolve or devolve or mutate from similar species or were they always different? It is up to us to say I don't know and cannot know until we actually do know. Just because some guy or gal, no matter how notable, comes up with a theory, means what? It could mean that s/he was looking down in a microscope instead of up; such as the fellow and his two lakes of similar fish. A cyclone or storm could have transported the fish or fish eggs from one lake to the next or from another spot to both lakes, even in different years.

    Using THEORIES to prove THEORIES is bunk as the docu speaker/scientist was doing with his lakes of fish. He proved one thing only, that no man gets everything right. They all made contributions to something... what, I don't know. They all seem to be Giraffes, stretching their necks to claim they have found an answer but have they? I cannot help but sense they are misinterpreting what they are seeing. Hats off to those who look for truth, but are they? Or are they just trying to avoid intelligent design and what that may mean? I appreciate very much the fact that Darwin showed the flaws in his THEORY. Saying "I don't know" can be the most intelligent thing.

    Can a system of DNA / Genes controlling what raw cells become, from one critter to the next just happen from a supposed Big Bang (yet another THEORY)? That doesn't register with me. Can a walking catfish climb out of the ooze and become a chimpanzee? No. This has been seemingly proven by others in GENETICS. THAT is what Darwin didn't know, or didn't want to see, nor those of this docu. If it were possible why then don't mules propagate? It has been shown by the geneticists that if you stray too far from the original, it works its way back or stops working.

    Some animals change their colors with the seasons, millions of years isn't needed. Was that "natural selection" or "intelligent design"? Is the Golden Spiral "natural selection" or "intelligent design"?

    Clearly there exists: mutations, natural selections, unnatural selections, as well as event driven selections. I think that is well proven. It certainly doesn't mean there isn't intelligent design. It doesn't mean you can extrapolate those observations into something else, such as all life randomly evolved via natural selection from the same base organism.

    Here is another THEORY (only mine as far as I know): DNA doesn't follow back to that base life form, it follows back to the same building blocks which most life was built upon including that one. It is said that most of us are descendants of some great conqueror. Is this true or is the DNA actually telling a different story? That our DNA has the same building blocks as did this conqueror. Meaning that many if not all in his tribe of warriors had the same chemistry not just him. Clearly these great conquerors had many warriors who were not his children, who survived and were allowed to breed. Did only his children survive and none of the rest? Of the hundreds if not thousands of years of dog breeding, they can select for different traits but they are still DOGS. Try to breed a dog into cat. Oh no problem it only takes millions of years per Darwin who claimed species come from other species. I don't buy it at all. It seems the geneticists are more accurate in that regard. So are humans evolved monkeys? Or does their DNA have much of the same chemical building blocks? Much like atoms can supposedly make everything. Molecules can make all sorts of related compounds. Is DNA tracking genetics or chemistry which they infer into genetics? Maybe they haven't quite learned that language accurately yet.

    What does it all mean? The world is a wonderful and wondrous place that we really don't understand that well because we are out looking at everything we can find and making conclusions from it which may have little bearing on reality.

    It would seem wiser to be still and know thyself. Learn to control one's emotions and ego. When you ask the universe a question it doesn't mind letting you know, it comes to you when you aren't really even thinking about it, at least not intently. Is that natural selection that evolved from the muck? Do the gurus and mystics have any less valid theories? Is a scientific THEORY better than a non scientific THEORY? If one is familiar with math and both are unproven, it wouldn't seem so. Or is some of their information worthwhile as Darwin's theories? Which of those will be more useful and potentially beneficial to you and the world? It all depends on whether you desire to believe we are merely an accident so if it is more convenient to get rid of a group of people in your way, no big deal to do so. Or whether we are spiritual beings here for a purpose to learn something, to rise above our animalness to become helpful to and considerate of others, especially those we disagree with. It is easy to like those you agree with. When you are kind to those you disagree with, then we have made progress. Mostly hit and miss for me as yet. Then again some cannot be awoken with kindness. They will go on promoting the Godless ideas of Marx, Darwin, etc. promote socialism and therefore enslavement of mankind, and blame others for what they have caused.

Leave a comment / review: