What Darwin Never Knew

What Darwin Never Knew

2009, Science  -   208 Comments
Ratings: 8.30/10 from 67 users.

What Darwin Never KnewEarth teems with a staggering variety of animals, including 9,000 kinds of birds, 28,000 types of fish, and more than 350,000 species of beetles alone.

What explains this explosion of living creatures-1.4 million different species discovered so far, with perhaps another 50 million more to go? The source of life's endless forms was a profound mystery until Charles Darwin's revolutionary idea of natural selection, which he showed could help explain the gradual development of life on earth.

But Darwin's radical insights raised as many questions as they answered. What actually drives evolution and turns one species into another? And how did we evolve? On Charles Darwin's 2009 bicentennial, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, NOVA reveals answers to the riddles that Darwin couldn't explain.

Stunning breakthroughs in a brand new science-nicknamed evo devo - are linking the enigma of origins to another of nature's great mysteries, the development of an embryo. To explore this exciting new idea, NOVA takes viewers on a journey from the Galapagos Islands to the Arctic, and from the Cambrian explosion of animal forms half a billion years ago to the research labs of today.

Here scientists are finally beginning to crack nature's biggest secrets at the genetic level. And, as NOVA shows in this absorbing detective story, the results are confirming the brilliance of Darwin's insights while exposing clues to life's breathtaking diversity in ways he could scarcely have imagined.

More great documentaries

208 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Ignorance is bliss. 1) No "Mod" shows on my display. Nor can I do a search. Possibly due to the Script Blocking and other Blocking software I have running in attempt to keep various sites from polluting my computer. I would imagine there are others who can see "Mod" as well.

    2) Too often so called scientists "find" what they want to find, regardless of what evidence may not definitively show. And when they, like most news programs, or govt, only provide the limited edited information that supports what they want you to believe. And if people are inclined NOT to consider that there may be much more to the story than what was presented... You then get a bunch of arrogants who limit themselves to what they want to believe, like they actually know something, which they clearly cannot, limiting themselves as they do; then using whatever venue they can find, like this one, to puff their ego at other's expense.

    3) If one specie can become an entirely different specie as the UNPROVEN THEORY presents, then how is it that a healthy viable organism produced by the crossing of two slightly different species, such as the crossing of a horse and a donkey to get a mule, cannot even reproduce? And we are supposed to believe that DNA mutates indefinitely and that organism will still reproduce?

    4) It seems the better theory with actual hard and fast evidence to back it up is that when a specie deviates or adapts too far from its original, it either reverts back or dead ends.

    5) If nature is neither good nor evil, it just does what it does, then how is it humans, being part of nature, especially Marxist socialists-communists can be so evil? Desiring to force all to live as they say, limiting the freedom of all AND ending competition to their companies and their rule. Killing off 10 times as many in Europe as Hitler was purported to exterminate of Jews. Then there are the Asian versions which killed many 10s if not 100s of millions. Then the African version. Even if a better system comes along which it did long before in at least one Native American nation but most notably when the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were signed. Yet people with limited information with the propensity to not investigate further, fall prey to their emotions which are manipulated via propaganda that the socialists are the ones who care and that is the direction of our social evolution. Despite the reality it has proven to fail mankind horribly throughout history.

    6) Despite the failings of Darwin and his theories, they are still promoted heavily by the Marxist socialist-communists, Why? Simply because they don't want God, nor any higher power, or sense of right and wrong, getting in the way of what they want to do. Do they want to "take care of the poor" as they claim? Not at all. There wouldn't be any poor if they got rid of the welfare departments and just gave all that money wasted in govt, to the poor. They need more poor to keep voting for them. The purpose of open borders.

    7) Look up and read what is chiseled into the Georgia Guidestones, what those behind the promotion of socialism, for what they want to do to you.

    8) What does politics have to do with the theory of evolution? These days, everything. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if that had always been the case.

  2. "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy", Life of Brian

  3. What are you dips going to bring up? You don't know who I am do you? What I am is a molecular biologist who was taught under the best teacher, like him, I don't believe in a "tree of evol0lution."

  4. If the creationist would like to have all their questions answered about evolution, read 'Why Evolution is True' by Dr. Jerry Coyne

    1. Coyne, nothing more than a common biologist, is great with talking about bacteria (those cupcakes on his website look delicious) and making fanciful claims that never prove evolution as a system on it's own.

      He somehow believes evolution within a species "proves" evolution, like it somehow works its own magic. Evolutionists are like bullies who try to intimidate you with their lingo. The fact is they can't prove evolution beyond just the shortsightedness of "like begetting like." It's all blustering, intimidation and good science they took over to speculative science. No one should never be intimidated from these knobs, a bunch of atheist who start with the premise; "We don't believe in a God, so let's see how we can prove our existence without Him."

    2. I'd love to see you debate Dr. Coyne, he'd chew you up and spit you out. Evolutionists are bullies? The lingo is science with evidence not the word salads you espouse to. Right we don't believe in god. Prove your existence with him! Actually you are proof that there is life without him. Why did god create man? He was returning the favor!
      Evolutionist don't really care about religion unless the creationists try to teach it in schools. The court has ruled that creationism is NOT science. Teach it in a religion class as a philosophy...it's NOT science. Evolution is.
      "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is"

    3. Philip Skell would have ripped Coyne a new a**hole... next?

    4. Oh do you mean Philip Skell - the Cowardly Creationist? "Skell is well-known for his monomania: claiming that the theory of
      evolution is not relevant to medicine or experimental biology, and repeating this claim over and over again in numerous articles and op-eds. This, despite the fact that Skell is not a physician or biologist, and, as far as I am aware, has no training in these subjects. But he does like to flaunt his membership in the National Academy of Sciences." (Recursivity)

      Email from Skell to Coyne showing his ignorance

      Here's an encounter of Coyne - Skell.
      https :// why evolutionistrue . wordpress . com/ 2009 /03 /05 /626/

      Here's a good one, Skell disowned by his own family
      https : // why evolutionistrue . wordpress . com /2009
      A comment in disowned by family.
      "This goes to show that even when an organism (family member) is flawed, the rest of the species (family) does not have to be.
      Evolution at work!"

      Yup, I'd like to see Skell try to rip another a**hole for Jerry....BWHAHAHAHA!

      Dr. Skell...RIP!

    5. ROLF. That's what your bringing up? Gee, I wonder if the guy is impartial when his website is called "whyevolutionistrue."
      He got disowned by his family, wow, that sure did throw his scientific accomplishment out the window. I happen to know someone who was disowned by his family for being gay, the best true individual I ever met, Skell is in good company if you think that is a slight.
      By the way, I brought this up years ago. Evolutionist love personal attacks on former evolutionist that have jumped ship, always ugly, always patronizing.

      I'm sorry Fish, didn't you threaten to report me because you didn't t like how I was talking to you? Or was that someone else with delicate sensitivities evolution should have weeded out?

    6. Let me say this again, It looks like my first post was deleted from a moderator (aren't you suppose to be impartial? Yet I'm arguing with you more than anyone here). Philip Skell would have ripped Coyne a new one.

    7. I will make the same offer to you as I do all deniers. Would a completely observed repeated and documented example of one species evolving into another convince you?

    8. I love how you use the loaded term "deniers" like you somehow lump me in with we didn't land on the moon deniers, nice semantic trick.
      What are you gong to bring me?

    9. And about my offer? Also please own your comment at the top of page. You "claim " to be a molecular biologist but also claim "Coyne, nothing more than a common biologist" But I would assume his education exceeds yours.

      Using multiple names is against the comment policy consider this your warning.

      Edit: Just for giggles Iooked into your past posts. Last year you posted in a reply to me "Since I'm not a molecular biologist, maybe you should ask Doug Axe how he came up with that number." So you are either lying now or lied then. Either way you are dishonest.

  5. Unfortunately, most people consider science in general and evolution in particular to be an attack on religion / God. This thought arises from a lack of understanding of God in the first place. Also, a poor conception of God / Creator is what leads people to reject God. For example, It is like saying "I don't believe in air because when I flap my arms I do not fly". If one understood what air is (through science) they wouldn't make this claim. In fact, once they learn about the properties of air (through science) and how it affect us, their belief in air will only strengthen. Most of today's religions portray a distorted picture of God. And when Atheists reject God, they are just rejecting that distorted image of God and not the reality of God.

    I am a firm believer in evolution. And when I learn about the intricacies and marvels of nature such as evolution, it only strengthens my faith in the Lord of the worlds. And I exclaim "Glory be to Allah".

    1. Careful not to confuse evolution with species adaptation. There's no evidence of a species changing into another species due to either one.

    2. Oh yes there is lots of evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor! Evolution is evidenced based, creation has no base. It's pseudoscience that doesn't understand the need for evidence. It's laymen trying to be scientists that don't understand the scientific method. The holy books don't explain anything, other than god/allah did it!

    3. Nope. There's no link at all. Both men and apes are physically mammal animals, although man has intelligence while apes have only instincts and mimics. Above all, man has a soul given by God. You like to call us "lay men" when you really have no idea who I am. I'm very sorry for you and other atheists, some will only realize their mistake in the afterlife, unfortunately too late.
      This is like "trowing pearls to pigs".
      I rest my case.

    4. Which god are you talking about? is it the Hebrew god? Another thing, do not give any veiled threats about any afterlife?? You rest your case? you have no case, except as coming across as a scared little Rabbit.

      Funny religee's

    5. You people seem to think there is this great divide between who believe in a different God (Muslim/Christian). They all have the commonality there is a God, so for you to, as believers there is no creator at all, to pit one against another, makes all believers in a grand creator laugh in your face.

    6. "You people"? what people are you talking about?

    7. You tried to ban me?! ( I see you edited your post so you left out the you reported me, ask the moderator?) Didn't like what I had to say so you pull this? Come on, I got to know this year's ago, if someone says something you disagree with, just refute it. Don't go running to moderators or use your 'good' trigger finger to press the "report" button.

      I'll make you deal. Stop commenting on my posts in trying to argue with me and you won't see me set foot in this place.

      Oh yeah, it was you who was trying to ban me, not fish (sorry Fish). Man up and try not to look like a prison rat.

    8. I am a moderator, and there are no deals. You are the one that replied to me. OTE is waiting for a reply from you. Me (trying to ban you)? I do not have to try.

    9. I am always amused by those who lack the observational skills to see Mod beside our names.

    10. When does man get his soul? Where do souls come from?

      Why did god create man? He was returning the favor! What happens to the soul when a christian dies and is dead until the resurrection? Is it in limbo? What happens to the nonbelievers' souls? Are they thrown into hell when they die or do they die and wait until the resurrection and then thrown into hell?

      Who's right the 2,2 billion christians(afterlife) or the 1.8 billion muslims (affterlife wth virgins if you blow yourself up) or the 3 billion nonbelievers, some who believe will become stardust once again..a nice thought!.

      sorry, cannot put links on TDF (mod) read community guidelines at bottom of page

    11. There is evidence that animals have morals and if you have ever paid close attention to animal behavior not all of their actions are instinct or mimics. In many species there is a great deal of learned behavior that is not instinctive. Humans have instinctive and learned behaviors the same as animal i.e. walking and sex are instinctive, eating with utensils and driving are learned. "Primatologist Sally Boysen, who has been working with chimpanzees for many years, shows that the chimps are truly processing the information and not just learning by rote. Boysen's discoveries mean we may have to re-evaluate how we think about primate intelligence." (Prime-Time Primates) Chimps are intelligent!

      Now about souls! God gives every man/woman a soul. Why? Seems to be a waste as only 2.2 billion christians use it while the other 5 billion nonbelievers just waste it. What happens to the soul on death? From what I've read, everyone dies then when Jesus comes back all the christians who've been good are raised from the dead and go into heaven. Is that their soul that has been in limbo or their physical bodies? Now the billions of nonbelievers, when they die, are their souls caste into hell right away or are they like the christians and their souls are in limbo 'til Jesus comes, raises them and then throws them or their souls into the lake of fire? What happens if islam/qu'ran is correct and allah is the right god? You're screwed and will be with us wherever allah puts nonbelievers, it won't be a nice place if I know allah...nah ...you'll be dead just like us either way!

      A lot more questions can be answered by evolution, science, the scientific method and evidence than can be answered with a holy book (taken literally or figuratively) and faith! Yes, there are things science doesn't know but curious minds are always looking for answers. They may not always be the right answers but eventually as scientists keep looking and more evidence is found the correct answers are eventually found. That is the beauty of science. i.e took 100 years to prove Eienstiens theory of gravitational waves was correct. Scientists are always looking!

    12. The "scientific method" can be spelled out in easy terms, you can be a layman and still see what is true and what's speculation. What a pompous ass to believe only "scienty" people can grasp, what is at best giant leaps of faith with trying to prove ape to man, the intricacies of evolution arguments.

    13. Resorting to name calling eh? I was referring to the majority of believers who have heard creation from the creationist pseudoscientists i.e Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and there ilk. They certainly do not use the scientific method as evidence doesn't seem to matter to them. Anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years doesn't understand the scientific method or evidence. It is fact that apes and man had a common ancestor. Check out the Smithsonian display for the proof of our ancestor, a fine looking fellow. I've read most of the bible. Which origin story do you believe Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? Have you read the Origin of the Species? If not, you are arguing from heresay. I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Dr. Jerry Coyne, it's very good and a lot shorter than Origin and explains 'the intricacies of the evolution arguments'! Evolution has no leaps of faith, faith is creationists' evidence...Ha!

    14. I**ot. who's claiming the age of the Earth is 6.000 years old? Ken Ham isn't even a scientist. what you grasping at?

    15. You state "There's no evidence of a species changing into another species due to either one" Would a completely observed, repeated and documented example of one species evolving into another species convince you? Or as i suspect will you move the goalposts and quite possibly change your wording to "kind" from "species"?

    16. First, show me where I said; "There's no evidence of a species changing into another species due to either one?"

      Just out of curiosity, what are you going to bring up as a species evolving into another? Is this a "gotcha!" question because I don't see it happening. The "missing link" arguments that even evolutionist are desperately trying to show?

    17. the reply was pointed to Lucas not you. My offer from two months ago still stands. Also you never addressed how in one post you claim not to be a molecular biologist, but in another you claim you are. tripping over your lies are you? on second thought forget it. I have no time to debate with a dishonest person

    18. I recommend a great book called "Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Monkey Trial" by John Perry. It really showed a bias in the media towards evolution that is carried over to today.

  6. I hope that you don't believe that "God" (thinking in form of existing religious view) created us, space and etc.

    Religion is just human consolation that he understands world around him and has some rules to obey so he can get some kind of reward after death.

    'Life is not the opposite of death. Death is the opposite of birth. Life is eternal."

    1. Life is "eternal"? Man was created imortal ( not eternal, since he was created ) and given an imortal soul. He lost that imortality to Satan. Only God is eternal ( no begining, no end ) and only Him can re-establish man's imortality.

    2. I hope you don'believe in just dead processes, a way of making sense with what you can't grasp.

  7. Over and over again evolution has been a theory proven wrong

    1. Name a single thing that disproves evolution. A single thing! Cus I can't think of anything that does. It seems to make all the sense in the world.

      Which the questions that this says it answers seem to already be answered by common sense and an understanding of evolution. What drives evolution? Survival. What turns a species into another? Evolution over a long period of time. How did we evolve? The strongest and most well-suited to the environment survived to pass on their genes to their offspring. And on and on it went til now. Humans no longer evolve though. Because the stupid are the ones that breed. Because smart people find all kinds of ways to keep the stupid people alive longer. And the smart people are too busy improving the world to make a bunch of babies. And the stupid people have excess time to mate.

    2. 1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

      2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

      3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

      4. Fossil Record

      5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

      6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

      7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    3. 1 could you please give me a specific example of irreducible complexity

      2 please explain what "Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite" have to do with the theory of evolution

      3please show me these probabilities including all math

      4 could you expand on this

      5 what does a non living computer language have to do with DNA

      6 please back up this statement with some evidence

      7 what does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with evolution

      all you have done is made statements you have provided absolutely no information or explanations (backed with facts) of why these statements are true or what they do to disprove evolution.

    4. why arent you responding to Over The Edge? you made claims but didnt provide ANY evidence.

      so respond to over the edge if you are so certain.

    5. Survival has nothing to do with reproduction. What makes a plant or animal want to reproduce? How do they know that they need to reproduce in order for their species to survive? Why would they even care? One major problem I have with evolution theory is that it takes the present practices and desires of plants and animals and applies it to early evolved life. How did they know (decide?) if a mutation was good or bad before the new appendage/organ was completely finished? Without intelligence there is no purpose in life.

    6. i will try to address your points

      1."Survival has nothing to do with reproduction

      yes it does. in evolutionary terms "survival of the fittest applies to a species and/or population not an individual. the members best suited to their environment will stand a better chance of reaching sexual maturity and therefore produce more offspring passing on their genes to a larger group of offspring.

      2. " How do they know that they need to reproduce in order for their species to survive?" instinct and biology

      3."Why would they even care?" most organisms don't. again instinct and biology

      4."One major problem I have with evolution theory is that it takes the
      present practices and desires of plants and animals and applies it to
      early evolved life." please elaborate

      5."How did they know (decide?) if a mutation was good or bad before the new appendage/organ was completely finished?" they decided nothing. if a mutation aids in the ability to reproduce then it is selected for. if it is a deterrent to reproduction it is selected against. an organism does not grow part of an appendage with an end goal in mind. parts get repurposed. a dinosaur evolves feathers for warmth or sexual selection (or another beneficial purpose). the feathers get longer and allow gliding or more warmth or other. they evolve further (along with other beneficial mutations) and flight is possible. nowhere along the path was the end preprogrammed and nowhere was a harmful mutation selected for

      6." Without intelligence there is no purpose in life." my life has purpose i do not know about yours. but even if you are right that proves nothing. the fact that something makes you feel important or all warm and fuzzy inside in no way adds weight for an "intelligence"

    7. What I don't see here is the mathematical improbability of evolution (Molecular Biologist Doug Axe brings up this point, but far from the only one). Life as we know it now coming from chance is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Evolutionist counter the mathematical argument with saying the only thing they can; "It's not IMPOSSIBLE." Well, yeah, NOTHING is impossible, but it's IMPROBABLE and that's what evolutionist ignore because they have their head buried in biological sciences (I believe it was Sir Isaac Newton who believed God could be found in numbers).

      Speaking of Biological sciences...

      Evolution states that organisms adapt to their environment via natural selection, but natural selection is an oxymoron. What or who chooses which traits will be beneficial? If it’s a case of trial and error over eons of time, there should be mass graveyards of what’s left of transitional junk animals that just couldn’t cut it. Instead we have a handfull of questionable bones that evolutionists trot out like it’s the second coming. They say it’s EXACTLY because of those long eons you won’t find the graveyards, but the massive amount of time natural selection supposedly needed to work it’s magic doesn’t matter because you still have to explain the theory as coming from randomness. Randomness begets chaos no matter the timeframe and only consciousness can manipulate matter and reverse chaos. To add. As a gay man I shouldn't exist if "biology and instinct" ran the show. Homosexuality goes against both 1 and 2 of your above points.

      Also what I've been wondering...

      The golden ratio of Phi is found in everything from nature, to human DNA, to our solar system. Some believe it to be the signature of God, a mathematical stamp God put on everything that is the equivalent to our "Made in Taiwan" you see all over the place.

    8. you state "Life as we know it now coming from chance is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." evolution has nothing to do with where life came from. also evolution does not rely on chance as it is guided by natural selection. could you show me the math to back up your claim?
      you go on to ask "but natural selection is an oxymoron. What or who chooses which traits will be beneficial?" what? survival of the fittest selects the beneficial traits (that is biology 101) no "who" is required.
      "If it’s a case of trial and error over eons of time, there should be
      mass graveyards of what’s left of transitional junk animals that just
      couldn’t cut it." but we have museums full of extinct species that could not adapt. also if the mutations were not beneficial they would not be passed on and there would not be your mass graveyards.
      evolution is not random. i suggest you get at least a basic grasp of the subject before attempting to refute something you do not understand. the golden ratio could be just a coincidence. or maybe evolution selects for it as more efficient. it in no way is proof of a "god"

    9. Really not cutting it with your answers and being snippy with me doesn't help your case if you're trying to pass it off as; "I don't believe he doesn't know that!". Sorry, but unlike some here who cut and paste, I can argue my points.

      You said:
      "evolution has nothing to do with where life came from..."

      So you leave it open to a creator starting non-life to life? And the rest evolution took care of? Most evolutionist would stop you right there with even the hint of a creator in the mix. Now if that's NOT what your saying, you still leave it open for a creator because you state no one knows how or why the first life started.

      You said:
      "also evolution does not rely on chance as it is guided by natural selection..."

      You still didn't answer my homosexuality argument that refutes your two previous answers. ironically those who oppose homosexuality oppose evolution on the same religious grounds with not realizing homosexuality is a monkey wrench to the pro-evolution side.

      You said:
      "could you show me the math to back up your claim?..."

      Are you talking about the "1 in trillions" statement? I didn't make it, a molecular biologist named Doug Axe did, Google him, he's an interesting man.

      You said:
      "you go on to ask "but natural selection is an oxymoron. What or who chooses which traits will be beneficial?" what? survival of the fittest selects the beneficial traits (that is biology 101) no "who" is required..."

      O.K. forget the "who" if that's what you're hung up on, but “Survival of the Fittest” didn't even come from Darwin it came from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. Let me say I do believe in adaptation, we see it all the time in species of animals with small changes in the beaks of birds for instance, but that's a far cry of species making these little or big jumps to being something new altogether.

      You said:
      "but we have museums full of extinct species that could not adapt..."

      Are you talking about the Archaeopteryx birdy that's the Holy Grail for you people? I'd like to know all these transitional animals that are just tumbling out of museums because they're so packed with them. Let me tell you a little story of Ida (a supposed "Missing Link") that even Goggle put as their homepage banner.

      Ida being our Auntie ancestor is pure speculation and media hype at it's worst. Ida was not found yesterday, she was found in '83 and didn't warrant attention then. She, from what has been stated so far, is a lemur-type animal, from her racoon size body to her bushy tail, so what that does is make her a missing link between pro simians (read "lemurs") and simians (monkeys), not some kind of link from primate to human. The big selling point with Ida is that she has opposable thumbs (humans have opposable thumbs unlike most mammals), but guess who else has opposable thumbs? Lemurs. She also, unlike today's lemurs, lacks a “grooming claw” and her teeth are similiar to that of a primates instead of what is called a “toothcomb,” so what does that make Ida? An extinct type of lemur without a grooming claw and a toothcomb, nothing more. Keep in mind that every few years these kinds of hyped claims of a "Missing Link" are made and everytime these claims are found lacking.
      Sorry, but extinct, before unknown, primates and extinct lemur-type animals does not evolution make.

    10. ="So you leave it open to a creator starting non-life to life" it is possible but certainly not probable. but until i am presented with actual evidence i will not believe. also if you are referring to a biblical creator then that is demonstrably false.
      - your homosexuality argument can be answered by a first year student (snippy again). within evolution you have decent with modification along with an acceptable range of gene expression. homosexuality could be the expression of a combination of genes that are beneficial separately. also the only argument you have against the benefits of homosexuality is the lack of offspring. we as a social species rely on much more than individual reproduction for our survival as do many other organisms. this is an old and tired argument.
      - please tell me the name of the publication that Ida was claimed to be the missing link? here is a hint it has a history of terrible peer review and very few (if any) scientists took it seriously. nice try.
      i answered your questions. do you plan on answering mine?

    11. Smarty pants ;)

    12. jokes on you maybe i am not wearing pants ;)

    13. Does it deserve a wolf whistle or would I be howling at the moon? ;)

    14. lol you actually left me without a smart arse answer. first time on TDF for me i think. well done ;)

    15. What?? As over the edge said, there are many species that are now extinct and 'didn't make it'.
      Have a look at Australia and our now extinct megafauna. There are caves in the Nullabor Plain where they are currently excavating many different fossils of now extinct species. Google 'nullarbor plain cave fossils', hit images for some quick pic's. Have a look/read of a couple of the links about it, I can recommend the Flinders University site, they're doing some of the excavating, and have video etc of some of what they're doing.
      Another link that can be seen here in Aus is there are some Aboriginal cave paintings of a couple of now extinct megafauna, that the last died off at the end of the last ice age due to changing climate. Human recorded evidence of seeing them thousands of years ago, painted long before Darwin or the term evolution came about.
      Fossils, DNA, cave paintings are some of what says you are incorrect.

    16. Maybe you didn't understand what I initially said.
      Who said ancient animals didn't go extinct? I didn't.

      I give you an A for effort with thinking you're proving a point against me with saying; "There are pictures here," "Some cave painting over there," "A video of what's going on over on this side."
      I see you are on your way to be a great debater for the evolution cause with all this fuzziness.

    17. What, are you cutting and pasting so much you can't keep up with what you've claimed?
      From you above;
      " If it’s a case of trial and error over eons of time, there should be mass graveyards of what’s left of transitional junk animals that just couldn’t cut it. Instead we have a handfull of questionable bones that evolutionists trot out like it’s the second coming."
      Those caves in the Nullabor are some of your 'graveyards of transitional species', and as I showed there are more then a 'handfull of bones'. Tonnes to be more exact.
      btw... it's not like the second coming at all... they actually have something real and tangible.
      I showed you that there is much more then what you claim, gave you what you asked for. You come back with 'fuzziness'. lol.

      You get an F, again.

    18. You DO know I can cut and paste my own stuff, right? It's called laziness, but it's still my stuff.

      Notice I said "transitional animals? Not extinct animals. See? You got it right this time when you actually quoted me. Now why don't we put the claims of these supposed transitional specimens in peer reviewed journals? I'm sure "over the edge' would agree since that was his problem with Ida. (hint: There is a lousy track record of animals being hailed as the missing link, only to be proven otherwise in time)

      If I get an F, you wrote 3 words on an essay.

    19. And if you look close, you'll see 'transitional animals' in what I suggested you look at. Seen any giant kangaroos lately have you? Or are they a stepping stone to what is here now?

      And if you're going to talk track records... how many million different creators are you up to now? lol, a good comparison if you look properly. Evolution has fossils, DNA, experimental observations. Creation has... stories, hang-over myths and a lack of understanding of the other sides argument.

    20. You repeated this elsewhere (how people who believe in a creator are wrong too and the extinct koala you linked to) with different wording, I answered you there.

    21. I missed it. How many million was it?
      Because they're replies to you repeating that science has made some mistakes. In some weak attempt to discredit evolution and promote creation. You need evidence to do that, not the drivel you've offered.

    22. The fact is Francisco, whatever way to try to twist and change it about, adding an extra layer (without any evidence) to an unanswered question will always end up complicating it further unnecessarily. Pushing 'first cause' back one step doesn't alleviate the problem/question at all, however much you wish it to.

    23. That's nice on paper *rolls eyes*

    24. But obviously hard for you to comprehend. "Such is life" - Ned Kelly.

    25. It's too bad you can't seem to apply that to yourself. I'm not the one fretting with these desperate attempts at trying to prove ape became man, key word is "trying."

    26. Still with the ad hominem? I never mentioned ape becoming man...

    27. Ape was the basic and most well adapted to manipulate genetically but still provided necessary qualities needed to fulfill the extraterrestrials needs. Or maybe they were the closest to the DNA they were using. Our ancient civilized ancestors didnt live in a fairy tale they wrote and drew what they saw. So of there accounts were misinterpreted technology but some were perceived correctly but the information was passed incorrectly through lack of understanding what they saw.

    28. Your hypothesis that fossils are other species that are now extinct and not predecessors of modern animals brings to mind another problem for many that share that belief. Noah couldn't fit the 'survivors' that are still alive today on the quoted Ark dimentions, let alone thousands more 'now extinct', non-transitional species that supposedly were around then. (don't try the 'they died in the flood' BS, the cave paintings already mentioned, amongst other things, rule that out for you. The fabled Flood would have left visible traces in the paintings assuming as you'd have to that they survived it) The fact is, the bible stories and what is actually here don't match up, no matter how hard you try.

    29. Attacking the religious beliefs of others is not making your case. No matter how hard you try ; )

    30. If you think pointing out a flaw in it's logic is attacking, so be it. 3rd ad hominem from you in a row now... nothing about your 'mathematical argument' anymore? Transitional species? Anything remotely interesting?

    31. Okay, well we could fit all the DNA of all the species of the KNOWN WORLD into a small vessel then flood the KNOWN world to wipe out a cross breeding of experiments. Oh yeah extra terrestrials. The grand son of Enoch, known as Noah was chosen but their were no other survivors other than family to tell us that it was not a huge boat but a technologically advance ship used to house the DNA until the flood had receded. A small explosion off of any coast under the water would surely flood the majority of the KNOWN WORLD. If Australia was not part of the original experiment then there would have been no floods there then we would no see flooding evidence.

    32. "Google Doug Axe he's an interesting man"?
      Doug Axe doesn't understand information theory.


    33. A little about Doug Axe:

      Dr. Douglas Axe is the director of the Biologic Institute. His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After obtaining a Caltech Ph.D., he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. He has also written two articles for the Journal of Molecular Biology. He has also co-authored an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an article in Biochemistry and an article published in PLoS ONE. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles.

    34. So what, he is still a biased religee! Science and religion is like oil and water, will never mix.

    35. Your own bias is showing when you say "religee." O.K. He has a faith. Guess what? Many scientist in the various science fields do too.

      Somehow this has become a debate about Doug Axe. Let's go to what the greatest proponent of evolution believes, Richard Dawkins:

      ""The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

      - Richard Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130]

    36. So now you're saying that your particular version of a creator is statistically less probable than your "1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" supposed calculation of life starting by 'chance'. Hence the Dawkins quote.
      That's a change from your earlier stance that creation is more probable. So which is it? Is Dawkins correct now and we'll "go with" that, or your earlier claim;
      "Evolutionist counter the mathematical argument with saying the only thing they can; "It's not IMPOSSIBLE." Well, yeah, NOTHING is impossible, but it's IMPROBABLE and that's what evolutionist ignore because....."

      Seems you don't even know what your supposed 'mathematical argument' is, you've done a back-flip now.

      P.S i do agree on one point, we should 'go with' Dawkins over Axe any day of the week, as it seems most of their peers do as well.

    37. I had a version of a creator?
      Please do go with Dawkins. His quote is pretty much what Axe is saying without all the math.

    38. If you don't have a version of a creator, how do you get your 'creation' then?
      I see you've dropped your point now your odds contradiction is pointed out. Also a nice try at putting Axe and Dawkins on the same footing, but no, they are not saying 'pretty much the same thing' without all the math.
      So, which is it, is creation or evolution the least probable?

      Or is that going in your 'too hard to answer so I'll ignore or distract from' pile too, along with the backup of your quoted odds?

    39. Extra terrestrials!! intelligent life with the understand of DNA and biology. They also understand evolution and natural selection. They combined all this knowledge and bam they created a hybrid species known as Homo sapien. Its simple really and we as humans almost have all that information but sadly we are lacking in some areas.

    40. Great, not a creator, but aliens from mars...

    41. I know I'm late to the debate and could even be accused of trolling but I can't let this go by. It's creationist cherry picking at it's worst. Yes Dawkins said, "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we
      believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially
      the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." Referring to a mathematical argument. The next sentence in the paragraph is:
      But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical
      forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by
      operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead
      eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and
      mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and

      Creationist create lies and make assumptions and do not evidence to support their assinin claims.If you want a laugh and to see what pseudoscience is really like go to 'Answers in Genesis' No qualms about making unproven statements with zero evidence. We are to believe them because Mr. Ham the school teacher said so. To learn about evolution and answer all your questions read 'Why Evolution is True' by Dr. Jerry Coyne.

    42. Oh brother! So evolution can mimic conscious design. I have a radical idea, what if instead of evolution mimicking design, there is no mimicking and what looks like design really is design? Your logic says if it acts walks and talks like a duck, it must be a moose. Pull away the veneer you evolutionist has so carefully crafted for yourselves in the eyes of the public and you just look like an average fanatic with crackpot ideas with no bases in fact. You people take the cake with making speculation, guesses, bones you make a storybook myth about and stabs in the dark as a given fact. The emperor really has no clothes.

      What's funny is that evolutionist can't even agree on basic tenets, but you all say "evolution is true" like some kind of mantra.

      Too much...

    43. "We evolutionist cant agree on basic tenants"? then why do you religee's have 28,000,000 gods in recorded history not counting the 300,000,000 different gods in eastern and Indian religions. And the thousands offshoots of the Christian religions not counting all the rest of the different religions. Gods, gods and more gods, where does it stop, nobody knows, oh wait! maybe the planet knows and will shake all you religee's off like fleas.

      Funny religee's

    44. Am I talking about religion? This is about evolution, bring up the price of tea in China, doesn't take away the sorry attempts to make evolution your own religion.

      Nagging doubt...

    45. Right, try again.

    46. Your claim that "evolutionists" can't even agree upon basic tenets is at best misleading and at worst untrue. If by basic tenets you mean fundamental axioms that are the central organizing principles of biological science, then they have been settled and operational for some time now.
      I re-read your comments several times and it seems to me that you have little actual understanding of the area of experimental science which is not the "theoretical" field. It is where the actual leg work happens...where evidence and experimental testing come together. In turn, those results impact the "theoretical".
      And by theoretical I don't mean hypothesizing by guess work or hunch but a specific area where theorists extend the perimeters & horizons of a general theory (theory in the science sense of the word).
      Many with such incomplete views of the nuts & bolts of science seem to have this type of jaundiced, suspicious view of science. More's the pity.

    47. And you say "I have an afterlife because I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ! I am going to heaven when I die!" There is not a iota evidence that this is true. You believe it because you believe god wrote the bible. The only proof that god wrote the bible is the bible says it is the word of god. Isn't that nice, no peer review, no evidence, just the writings of some bronze age nomads...but it's true.
      All the science behind evolution, scientific method, peer review etc. etc is all BS according to you. If a science paper had even one errors as the bible has it would never get published and the author would go back and correct the errors. Not so with the bible, you swallow it with all it's errors with the genocide, infanticide, incest, rape etc. Seems I don't know which parts of the bible to take figuratively or literally. Christians can't agree on that. We all know what happens when members of the other 'great' religion take their holy book literally, they murder writers of comic books, kill solders in Canada, kill women for adultery, behead people with a knife, rape women, kill christians and burn people alive. I prefer science to religion where it is all taken literally. The evidence is unquestionable, evolution is true. Please show me one peer reviewed paper that proves evolution didn't happen? Written by credible scientists using the scientific method with empirical evidence not faith, and published in a credible scientific journal. Can't use the pseudoscience creationist crap of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, that's not peer reviewed and has no evidence. There is a reason why people laugh at creationists! (Google it to see)You sound like an intelligent person, do you really believe Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis Or Kent Hovinds lectures on creation and Noah's flood? If you do, you don't have the slightest inkling of what science is or what science does.

    48. Wow, Achems_Razor! You're so wrong. I know you're trying your best not to believe, but He is The One who gave man ( or better, " breathed" in man's nostrils ) intelligent life to grasp a bit of science. Otherwise, your beloved evolution would've left "man" as just another animal species.

    49. man IS " just another animal species.".

    50. Well, if you say so, you may be. I know I'm not.

    51. You made the claim! Prove you are not of the human animalia species!

    52. It's mot my say so. By definition it is a fact

    53. On a cellular level.

    54. Is this a question or a statement?

    55. Statement.

    56. then i agree.

    57. Keep in mind we are also on a cellular level with my kitchen towel sink rag and my roof tiles.

    58. Sorry correction. On a

      DNA level. But seeing as we are discussing biological issues I assumes you meant the scientific definition of cellular and in that case i disagree with your last statement.

    59. Doesn't matter. Even though you want to make that distinction, to only keep your belief in biological evolution, it still holds true.

    60. lol if we are going to discuss biological evolution shouldn't we use the biological definition of cellular?

    61. Man is and will always be an animal species, we only, counting the time span of the universe, came swinging down from the trees a short while ago, of course until A.I. comes into the fold with Quantum computers to further enhance the reasoning factors of the brain, then we will be cyborgs.
      "Breathed into my nostrils"?? good luck with that! Since you are making a claim about something breathing into nostrils and procuring life, show empirical, contemporaneous and primo-facie EVIDENCE!

    62. You're just showing your ignorance of the Bible. You should then read it before commenting. Your choice.

    63. So what? the bible/bibles are just another of the man made book/books that expose info. info garnered by MAN when they thought that the earth was flat and the center of the universe, no deities involved.

    64. i have never cut and pasted without giving credit so do not imply i did.
      - i certainly did answer your homosexuality argument. not my fault if you do not grasp the answer
      - i never said "no one knows how or why the first life started." stop with the strawmen. seriously
      - when you actually answer my questions i will give you a 100% observes and repeated example of one species evolving into another
      - google putting something as a homepage banner is not equal to peer review in a respected journal
      please stop misrepresenting my statements and try being intellectually honest.

    65. Can you tell me when I accused YOU of cutting and pasting? I was referring to Deshaun Williams. I can see though how you thought I was talking about you because I didn't mention him by name (it's obvious a cut job even though his heart is in the right place).

      I grasped your technical attempt at your homosexual explanation when I summed it up in one line. So what proof do you have for it since hard facts are so important for you to believe (I can start to see the anger veins coming out of your neck).

      Strawman argument? I'm simply going by what you stated about a creator apart from evolution:
      "it is possible but certainly not probable."

      What questions? Are you having a different conversation than from the one you are having with me? Well? Name them.

      Did you see the links? I didn't even mention Google.

      You sound like you can barely contain yourself with anger.

    66. you state that you didn't even mention google but you said "Ida (a supposed "Missing Link") that even Goggle put as their homepage banner" i took goggle as a typo of google . was i wrong?you were not simply "going by what you stated about a creator apart from evolution" because i never said "you state no one knows how or why the first life started" i never took a stance concerning the origins of life at all and never claimed what anybody else knows. as for what questions i asked lets see
      - the math behind your 1 in trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. would be a good start. i know you tried to duck the burden of proof on that one but you made the claim even if you based it on the work of another.
      - maybe show me the Origional article Ida was based on ?

    67. This is becoming so redundant and boring.
      I give you links on Ida, all you do is bring up what I said about Google when I first started to comment.
      Since I'm not a molecular biologist, maybe you should ask Doug Axe how he came up with that number.

    68. The golden ratio may only be golden to our surroundings. It may be the math that was used to manipulate our genes to function properly in this environment. Assuming you believe we may have been placed here by something with an agenda. Missing link perhaps?

    69. So a missing link put the Golden Ratio in everything from a snail's shell to the universe? Aliens right?

    70. Speaking of mathematical improbabilities, which is more improbable. Life as we know it comming from chance proteins and amino acids randomly creating the ancestor of a single celled organism. OR, a flying spaghetti monster who is invisible , knows all, and creates universes and intelligent life.

    71. Are those your only two options? Because I've never met anyone who believes in a material pasta-based intelligence as the cause of life and yet it is frequently proposed as a source of life by evolutionists. Certainly you can make a better argument to support evolution...maybe not.

    72. I love these arguments. Chance happening here, amino acids popping up there and all of it coming together to make not even a margarita.

    73. The comment about life as we know it seems off. Life as we know happened, so that seems to be 100 percent possible.

      I think we were here and aliens edited and manipulated our genes for whatever there reasoning was. Of course it took many tries but eventually they got it. Then to subdue or control there precious children they create religion. They basis to religion is faith and that means to just believe and not to question. They do not want us to leave this planet because we are not completely indigenous to this planet. Parts of us are but that is because they needed subjects that were so the experiment would work. If I commissioned certain people to write accounts of my glory and awesome power but I told them everything to put in it I can create order and consequences. The biggest payoff to religion only comes after we are dead but at that point it has served its purpose, to control without question. Seems much like a tyrant or dictator doesnt it. People need to wake up and realize religion is good but its completely fabricated. Of course you think I am a lunatic because your following without question. Although, if your religious and claim I am a lunatic then your faith has faltered because that means you have cast judgement upon me and you are not your god so you do not have the right to do so. Perception + consciousness = reality.

    74. Here is my theory on evolution. One does not know to reproduce, its instinct. Everything feeds off of one another, this goes for the universe and all in it. Our position (on Earth) has allowed ourselves and those things around us to grow and evolve off of each other dependent upon on surroundings. We do not develop the capacity to live in a gas filled planet because we do not live there. The majority of fish live in the sea because that is were they live. We live on the land and so forth. The only thing that has even a slight chance to disprove evolution is religion. Even then it has no logical or valid claim that can even begin to build a case. On the other hand, science and evolution disproves creationism at every corner. For those who are religious, good for you, there is no doubt that following such beliefs promotes a positive lifestyle (no drugs, violence or other crimes.) Every where we look we see things being created though but not by a supernatural being. The Universe is GOD, it is the most powerful thing we know of and is completely capable of creating us and everything else. The law of nature rules the universe and it creates internal feelings that give us reason and a sense of right and wrong. I could go on for hours but who would listen anyways.

    75. You described adaptation of a species, that's not evolution.

    76. Sounds like you really need to watch this documentary!

    77. I saw it, maybe it needed more car chases and man strippers because it was as boring as spit.

  8. Proves nothing. Again beating a dead fish and asking it to talk. Human ape fused chromosomes paradigm.

  9. OK. Your point is well taken. I do not know how the stress in an organism could trigger a shift in its' physical nature and I am aware that there may be no "will" written into the DNA for this kind of change. But there is strong evidence, supported by established fact in the field of human psychology that collective stress triggers a shift in consciousness. Since it is possible that animals experience some form of stress in a difficult enviorment I thought the same may be true in "physical" evolution. This would mean that the mutations are ordered by the organism in need of a change and that the "mutations" are not random. Is it an established fact that mutations are random? If so, is it not possible that stress could alter one of the continuously emerging mutations to be just what is required?

  10. objection: Schopenhauer stated wat it IS, Darwin discovered how it WORKS

    1. I thought you said you didn't know what causes the change in the DNA. I don't understand your objection. Would you please elaborate?

  11. This video disproves evolution and makes a great case for creation resulting from an immediate change through on/off switches as opposed to a slow evolving change.

    1. Marleonetti
      i couldn't disagree more but i will give you the chance to elaborate on your claims. please provide testable observable and peer reviewed evidence? also if you or anybody else disproves evolution that would in no way prove your claim for a creator. so please provide positive proof for a creator if you can?

    2. I"m still waiting for creationist 'science' to actually provide some real scientific studies on this subject--testable, provable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science just like that which supports evolution--rather than slick marketing soundbites.

      There's a world of difference, isn't there?
      --Attack something else. (marketing strategy at work)
      --Provide your own proof. (scientific method at work)

      If there's any actual case for creation 'science,' then present it on it's own scientific merits instead of attacking a different theory.

      Whether one particular mechanism (or portion) of evolutionary change is "slow", punctuated, fast, or any other speed:

      a. it makes zero case for a different theory .

      b. it still leaves any other theory with their own burden of proof.

      c. you never defined what you mean by "immediate"

      In reading your sentence, I got this mental image: "Flip a switch, get wings" "Flip a switch, get feathers" "Flip a switch" get beaks" "Flip a switch, get hollow bones"...really? Is that how it works?

    3. Kateye70
      ""m still waiting for creationist 'science' to actually provide some real scientific studies on this subject" that's going to be a long wait

    4. I don't think you grasp how often evolutionist change their mind to accommodate how they believe. Proven wrong, they just go to another theory, but never going outside the evolution paradigm.

    5. So when was the "human switch" turned on? Before or after the dinosaurs? And which species of animal got "immediately changed" into humans through a flick of the switch? Not an ape, surely? ;-)

  12. What Darwin never knew?
    What the world would end up doing with his theory.

    1. oQ
      i agree and nice to see you ;)

  13. BUT WHY ???
    All true. The DNA being same, the switches that turn on and off, which means if it was possible to control the switches, one life form cud be turned into another by will. Then, understood that there is another strand of DNA which orders the switches. All amazing and previously believed by me.
    BUT the question still remains. According to the fish theory, the one that walked into land and thus developed limbs, we can understand that the basic need for survival led to a will, a rather strong will, even if for that moment(as animals do not have imaginative fear of future danger), and this will led to a concious effort for change in DNA, probably the deciding DNA decided to turn on a few switches to convert fins to limbs, it is understood.
    But in the apes, natural phenomenon, like acts of survival(like in the fish), will not trigger switches to develop such muscles of the brain which actually tell us to fight for others, to share, to hate, to conserve for greed. These things go against the law of nature, which is the primary reason why we are conciously destroying the planet unlike any other creature which lives in harmony quite unconciously.
    Why wud an act of natural selection work for its own destruction by giving a primate something we call imagination. It isnt for survival. Apes infact are very much capable of survival, being quite strong, and have long lives.

    We are constantly looking at the Darwin view that we are similar to apes, so we must have come from them. That's because the western past tells them that humans were ignorant in the past, and now science and knowledge is there so we are becoming better, humans are becoming more intellegent(from ape intellegence to human intel)

    Why don't scientists think that it is agreed that things evolve, but one rule doesnt hold same for everything. When the DNA and genes are basically the same, AND THERE ARE SWITCHES provided the same way in ancient fossil creatures like in us, maybe all creatures existed at the same time. It was a matter of switches being on or off to decide what the creature wud look like and what will be its habitat, food, etc.

    Why does any creature over a period of time have to evolve FROM another creature, and not by itself. The research isnt proving that humans came from apes. It just proves that humans and apes are similar, and how they are similar. But that cud mean that apes came from humans(those humans who refused to think and only thot of food and survival, mutated to apes)
    There is a certain pre conditioning here. Those scientists who say that we find ape fossils but not human fossils to prove that apes existed before humans, and thus humans came from apes, shud see that in the recorded past, every culture used to cremate their dead, even egyptian common man(only the kings, etc went to tombs, pyramids), turning them to ashes.

    1. Saurabh Dey
      not to be rude but please study natural selection, mutations and epigenetics for starters. your view of evolution is flawed and i fear that you are drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence. if you disagree please provide proof for the conscious choice or "will" leading to mutations. also there is no evidence to support species going from water to land in one generation so are you also claiming that many generations "willed" the same change to achieve a conscious result? humans did not come from apes. we are part of the family of Great apes and we shared a common ancestor with the apes living today. lastly please provide proof for "in the recorded past, every culture used to cremate their dead" because i do not agree but seeing as you made the statement i assume you have facts to back that up ?

    2. yes, evolution is needing to change something (like, blend in or reach up or get over to another environment) and making it happen gradually - maybe through generations or may even be in one's lifetime; depending on how complex a change is to bring about. The 'will' gets written into the DNA of the subsequent generations, so there's no extra effort ensuring the 'same change' down the line. Some organs shrinking i(in size and/or functionally) is due to the non-usage under changing circumstance. Mutations leading to cancer are due to 'un-natural' needs such as those necessitated by community living and happening in one's lifetime - the body tring to adapt to adverse environment rapidly thereby producing partially developed or deformed cells. OK, my cancer theory might be a bit far-fetched, but while all those 'experts' shamelessly say that nobody knows the reason (let alone a cure), I keep making my own.
      Not sure about cremation thing; I would have thought the early humans ate their deads' and probably used bones as tools till they wore out or broke.
      However, any reference to religions or religious writings as far as science is concerned is just an old trick to promote one religion over another.

    3. Geeta_ndov
      you stated " evolution is needing to change" i disagree. the "change" is through random mutations leading to natural selection there is no "will" involved. if we could consciously "will" a change we would all be able to fly. we do not change to fit into another environment by choice. when a species either gets introduced to another environment it is not suited to or the conditions change in an existing environment the best suited survive and any mutations that occur that benefit the survivability are selected for and those with the mutation survive better. if a species could "will" a change extinction would not occur. also why would some "will" to survive and some not? i will skip over your cancer "theory" as you state it is far fetched.again not to be rude do you understand epigenetics? a study of that subject on a fairly high level might answer some of your perceived misinterpretations

    4. You seem to exclude the organisms from the definition of 'nature' when you apply 'natural selection' concept. The survival or extinction depends on how big a change occured and how rapidly. Not all creatures require the same complexity of change to adapt because they were of different make-up to bigin with. Some change needs are not imminent; there would be a work-around albeit making life a bit harder (like having to hide till the color changes). To someone that wondered why rat changed color, but it's hunter didn't improve the eye-sight, again the complexity,
      You can skip over it, but trying adapt to an abusive condition, physical (like change in food/work/living environment) or mental (say, having to live among abusive people) could trigger the DNA deformities by a need to change to be able to live. And people don't survive that need, probably brcause most of them require too complex changes.
      No haven't even heard that word, but don't perceive it rude to be pointed it out - sometimes knowing less of existing theories expands the horizons of the think-box

    5. Geeta_ndov
      here is the problem i have. you are adding a concept (will) to an existing theory without providing proof for that concept. who knows on some level you might be right. but until proof for a claim is provided it carries no weight.

    6. "evolution is needing to change something"

      It's a popular misconception but I'm afraid that's not at all how Evolution through Natural Selection works. It was an idea floated around many years ago by those who still found it hard to grasp there is no intent at all in Evolution through Natural Selection (EtNS) and was discounted as a theory. Similarly no 'will' gets written into DNA.

      EtNS is simply a case of random mutation(s), that, by chance provide some form of procreational advantage in that individual...and hence there is a greater possibility of that initial parental, random, mutation, being passed on and increasing in future generations. By the same token, if the random mutation(s) were disadvantageous then by definition, they are less likely to be passed on.

      Here's something to think through: You get a cat and chop its front legs off, you allow it to breed, and chop that kitten's front legs off...and so on and so on for 100 generations. You're saying that at some point legs would start growing somewhere else on the body to try and get around the front legs keep being cut off by an external agency? Surely you can see that isn't the case.

    7. If you removed the front legs of a cat it could not survive in a natural enviorment. So to continue this experiment for 100 generations it would be necessary to intervene with spoon feeding to keep the cats alive. This spoon feeding would become the new enviorment eliminating the need to compensate for the loss of the front legs.

    8. Your chosen wording suggests, just the same as the poster I was responding to, an ignorance of the subject matter. So, pick a different scenario and then explain the mechanism for how [quote] "compensate for the loss of" might occur.

  14. White europeans moved to america. Europe was cold but america was warm. The Mayans there looked different. But, soaking the sun still gives the whites a sunburn. There looks haven't changed in the warmer region with plenty of sun exposure, different air and habitat, even after almost 500 yrs. The african slaves, considering they came from a hotter, humid, tropical climate with jungles of huge diversity in life, they look the same, havent grown fairer. The european families living in africa today who havent mated with anyone but their own race, look the same inspite of living in hotter climate. I do not reject transformation, but I feel it is not absolute, I think its subjective. Yes offsprings of different species mating, will be different, and also I also believe that the subconcious effort of a species to protect itself, to blend in, and to hunt better, would lead to change in its dynamics slightly. But that rat example was a bad one, The rat wud not mutate so fast, it will just avoid the black rocks. Plus animals do not have imaginative fear(its only for humans, that's why we save food and form civilization), animals have current fears, if the rat goes out during the day to scavage it will continue to do so every single day, not thinking that its gonna get hunted. They dont dive in to save their friends from getting hunted, or change their habitat. That is a human capability(ad to an extent is found in mamals during lactation). If I have to imagine the rat theory, I can think of a few possibilities :
    1. The white rat tht went on the black rock and gets eaten, and another rat tht was watching it felt the pain and fear and wanted to be different, which led to the changes in her DNA while she was pregnant and led to the birth of slightly darker rat.
    2. The black rock matter and the matter of rat's skin biologically interacted and saw a possibility of the rat getting hunted, so made changes in the DNA so that it could adapt. But that wud be unfair to the coyote. Nature is not unfair. Why wud the black rock only affect the rat's hair and not the coyote vision contrast.
    I don't know much about Christian religious beliefs much, but Vedic system calculates the age of universe, circumference of sun and other scientific things very accurately and much before the western world. It seems logical, and scientific, so I'd also like to believe in other things it says like :
    1. Everything is constantly changing, life, matter, energies, and nothing is absolute but the one conciousness. OK... it affirms that changes and evolutions keep taking place all the time.
    2. It talks about dinosaurs(giant lizzards), the large fishes, etc.
    3. It also points that humans have been on this earth in a much developed stage for a very long time. The fact that all ancient people, even animals as far as we know from all cultures around the world were cremated, and houses were built on top of other houses, and all waste metals were re melted and re used, is the reason why we dont have much archaeological evidence, only we find those where mass death suddenly happened and lands were ruined to an extent that microbial activity under the ground reduced to an extent that things got preserved.

    I would give probability to both ideas under Scientific Logic, since we wern't present back then.
    1. We came from apes, previously fishes - 50% OR
    2. Including slight changes/mutations, the major lifeforms existed always - 50%

    One thing where thr is no probability :
    We know it all -0%, OR We will always be learning - 100% :)

    Happy thinking.

  15. Evolution by natural selection is a wonderful idea. Really powerful and wondrous. All life, all the vast variety of the natural world is intimately connected by common heritage. All life is part of a vast family tree descending back throught time. Those who wish to dismiss this idea, because it doesn't fit with the religious dogma of a book are doing manking a great disservice. Not only rejecting the evidence of the natural world but dismissing the power of science itself. It is truly shameful that there are those who to this day wish to replace this incredible idea with the shallow and ignorant belief that all life was simply placed here as it is by some supernatural being, the evidence of which there is not a single scrap of evidence.

  16. how did the fish breathe when first coming out of water...

    1. it is thought that the first animals to leave the water where "snail like" animals that held their breath to cross from one body of water to another body of water close by. another option is to have a water breathing animal that also left the water for short time to lay their eggs away from predators on shore(example from today is the Grunion). also a water animal could leave the water for a short time to gather food at the shoreline. over time an animal that could stay out of water longer could travel farther,lay eggs farther up shore.or get to food without competition would have an advantage over those who could not and over time develop ways to breath. a good example of fish with both lungs and gills is the lung fish.

  17. Arnold,
    In addition to the radiation supplied by heavenly bodies impacting the planet there is of course another theory, well substantiated by the fossil record, that such impacts on a global scale actually clear the field for species that would otherwise not have made it with all the competition around.
    It is quite clear to scientists that mammals would not have had any chance to develop if the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago had not hit the planet.
    The evolvement of the human species therefore owes much to that single impact, fortunately timed very well for our sake. The geological history of the planet is full of such instances where conditions wiped out an enormous number of species, either en masse or gradually over time.
    The majority of the people on this planet can not overcome their egos enough to be able to appreciate such harsh realities.

  18. This was a very interesting program on DNA, what makes us human, and how switches in the DNA make every life form possible. What is interesting is how evolution is continuing everyday. This was sadly observed in the cases where brain development was cut in half and with muscular dystrophy.

    However what we are not seeing is the changes of the brain leading to smarter humans. For instance what does the DNA of the brain look like for a scientist and a documentary programmer / videographer?

    What other humans are being created that have exceptional mental, creative and physical abilities?

    All in all very interesting work.

    I would like NOVA to do a show on what is involved in creating a documentary like this. The entire process from concept to funding to script to filming to editing and the addition of special effects and the narrators voice. NOVA documentaries are so complex in the numerous details to bring a subject to life that I would enjoy seeing the entire process of creating one.

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

    1. Well, if you want to see changes it's not going to happen overnight, you will need quite a few generations. However I will say this. Average IQ increases by 3 every 10 years. It is called the Flynn effect if you want to look it up.

    2. for how long? if the averge iq is 110 lets say that as close to averege. if you keep that RATIO and travel backwards then 300 yrs ago the averege iq was about 20... and 400 yrs ago it was then -10..... hmmmmm and somewhere between 1200bc and 5000 bc we were supossedly building pyrimids with an iq of a highly negative number........

    3. You evidently failed to read about the Flynn Effect despite the other poster suggesting you do?... and yet you still chose to comment? *wonders in disbelief*

      It's simply stating the observed facts of an increasing IQ score. However, this could be explained simply by those taking tests being more and more familiar with the 'thinking processes' required to take the tests, (e.g. Education content/teaching style converging with what what IQ tests actually test)

  19. To Voice of Treason

    You're the one who is daft and let me add ignorant. "Think about it" is hardly an offer of proof.

  20. Hey,

    Natural selection is a myth.

    Seriously, think about it.

    It's bordering on daft.

    1. How is natural selection a myth? What is your reasoning behind that idea? Maybe it's because I'm a Biology major, but natural selection makes complete sense to me and I think it is necessary for species to evolve and become better. How do you think they evolve if they don't do it by natural selection? I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this because I'm interested in your opinion so please reply! :)

  21. @dread

    Hello there!
    It's nice to see that you made this connection but
    can I clear some points out for you?

    Chakra is mentioned in Hinduism FIRST.
    Darwin refined and proposed it as a SCIENTIFIC theory rather than "chakra" which has nothing to do with evolution, what so ever. You might as well talk about Bible code and evolution.

    Unknown to rest of the world? Please tell me what kind of information you have that points to Evolution proposed as a theory around rest of the world?

    Btw, anyone can make vague connections. Even me, in Hinduism Rams servant Hanuman is half monkey and half human. Just because they made some vague connection does NOT mean they had any clue about evolution. I'm from India and I can confidently say that Darwin was a genius. And I would never make any comments about "west" or "white people". We are Homo sapiens and that's about it. Even Buddhas teachings just define humans as Humans and don't divide humans in any shape or form.

    Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with white people or west. It's just science. The most powerful tool that changes understanding rather than a book that hasn't been changed since 2500 years ago.

  22. Hello sarp kaya

    The film quiet often gives credit to Darwin that what it spoils. though the WEST came to know Evolution through Darwin that does not mean that it was unknown to the rest of the world. that what i tryed to point out.

    -listen to the narrator...
    "It shook people up, changed the way people thought" "Darwin provided a proper scientific theory" etc; etc;

    By the way We westerners have a long way to go.....

  23. Evolution knows nothing about "west" or "east" my friend. Nor does it care about ancient mythologies, religions or other cultural and national divides. It seems you have some racial bones to pick with the "west" ? That is not the topic of this film.
    Neither does evolution pretend to know how life began on this planet (a lot of people think it does). Philosophy or religion has nothing to do with evolution, or any other scientific activity for that matter.
    If you are satisfied with Buddhism or Egyptology as the best way of explaining how you are what you are, then that is your problem my dear friend. Whatever rocks your boat. But that really is not the purpose of this discussion methinks...

    1. It seems

  24. hello, sarp kaya
    its just that the WEST always want to & try to mislead the mass by stating that if not for them that the rest of the world would be blind or to say how great the white race(!!!i ain't no racist) is. & that sounds really sad.

    After all Buddhism is not a religion its a philosophy. if you wish! read it to check.. also Buddhism is not the only teachings that mention 'bout evolution.. their are plenty of ancient source with similar thoughts like Egyptian etc;

  25. Ohh thank you dread for this astounding revelation.
    And to think that all these centuries we were fooled by science in to thinking that it could provide answers to such questions. All those shameless Nobel prize winning biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, archaeologists, astronomists and geologists had us fooled the whole time. What an atrocious conspiracy ! And I am sure they knew all along that the true answers were in Buddhism but they hid it from us. Off with their heads and burn their books is what I say !

  26. Check Buddhism and the cycles(Chakra)of life..
    -Though Darwin has been credited with the "best idea" regarding evolution.

    Further more, the science's still have more question to be solved pertaining to evolution.. while Buddhism already have the answers for them too. checkman

  27. I have taken several sections from 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene' to show you that the causes of mutation are not unexplained as you believe. I have also added some other sections that further explain the process of natural selection in a basic way.

    EVOLUTION basically consists of endless repetition of REPRODUCTION.

    In every generation, REPRODUCTION takes the genes that are supplied to it by the previous generation, and hands them on to the next generation but with minor random errors - mutations. A mutation simply consists in +1 or —1 being added to the value of a randomly chosen gene. This means that, as the generations go by, the total amount of genetic difference from the original ancestor can become very large, cumulatively, one small step at a time. But although the mutations are random, the cumulative change over the generations is not random.

    The progeny in any one generation are different from their parent in random directions. But which of those progeny is selected to go forward into the next generation is not random. This is where natural selection comes in. The criterion for selection is not the genes themselves, but the bodies whose shape the genes influence through DEVELOPMENT.

    In addition to being REPRODUCED, the genes in each generation are also handed to DEVELOPMENT, which grows the appropriate body in the womb, following its own strictly laid-down rules. In every generation, a whole 'litter' of 'children' (i.e. individuals of the next generation) is born. All these children are mutant children of the same parent, differing from their parent with respect to one gene each.

    In its most general form, natural selection must choose between alternative replicators. A replicator is a piece of coded information that makes exact copies of itself, along with occasional inexact copies or 'mutations'. Those varieties of replicator that happen to be good at getting copied become more numerous at the expense of alternative replicators that are bad at getting copied. That, at its most rudimentary, is natural selection. The archetypal replicator is a gene, a stretch of DNA that is duplicated, nearly always with extreme accuracy, through an indefinite number of generations.

    Mutations are caused by definite physical events; they don't just spontaneously happen. They are induced by so-called 'mutagens' (dangerous because they often start cancers): X-rays, cosmic rays, radioactive substances, various chemicals, and even other genes called 'mutator genes'. Second, not all genes in any species are equally likely to mutate. Every locus on the chromosomes has its own characteristic mutation rate. For instance, the rate at which mutation creates the gene for the disease Huntington's chorea (similar to St Vitus's Dance), which kills people in early middle age, is about 1 in 200,000.

    The corresponding rate for achondroplasia (the familiar dwarf syndrome, characteristic of basset hounds and dachsunds, in which the arms and legs are too short for the body) is about 10 times as high. These rates are measured under normal conditions. If mutagens like X-rays are present, all normal mutation rates are boosted. Some parts of the chromosome are so-called 'hot spots' with a high turnover of genes, a locally very high mutation rate.

    Third, at each locus on the chromosomes, whether it is a hot spot or not, mutations in certain directions can be more likely than mutations in the reverse direction. This gives rise to the phenomenon known as'mutation pressure' which can have evolutionary consequences. Even if, for instance, two forms of the haemoglobin molecule. Form 1 and Form 2, are selectively neutral in the sense that both are equally good at carrying oxygen in the blood, it could still be that mutations from 1 to 2 are commoner than reverse mutations from 2 to 1. In this case, mutation pressure will tend to make Form 2 commoner than Form 1.

    Mutation pressure is said to be zero at a given chromosomal locus, if the forward mutation rate at that locus is exactly balanced by the backward mutation rate. We can now see that the question of whether mutation is really random is not a trivial question. Its answer depends on what we understand random to mean. If you take 'random mutation' to mean that mutations are not influenced by external events, then X-rays disprove the contention that mutation is random.

    If you think 'random mutation' implies that all genes are equally likely to mutate, then hot spots show that mutation is not random. If you think 'random mutation' implies that at all chromosomal loci the mutation pressure is zero, then once again mutation is not random. It is only if you define 'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement' that mutation is truly random. All three of the kinds of real nonrandomness we have considered are powerless to move evolution in the direction of adaptive improvement as opposed to any other (functionally) 'random' direction.

    To this, we can add a fourth respect in which mutation is not random. Mutation is non-random in the sense that it can only make alterations to existing processes of embryonic development. It cannot conjure, out of thin air, any conceivable change that selection might favour. The variation that is available for selection is constrained by the processes of embryology, as they actually exist.

  28. @ mvairavan

    Well "it" doesn't exist really. This is a random process directed by natural selection. First we must consider that 99.99999 percent of the time, only slight variations occurr, like if eyes are the advantage then it will be the color of the eye, -which generally is not of any consequence.

    Now once in a few hundred generations or even longer, the entire gene may be skipped. In this case the advantage is not passed on to an offspring and that offspring will probably not survive to reproduce as a result- viola, the issue is fixed now the vast majority of the species continues to pass on the advantage.

    Now if the off spring that did not recieve the advantage is crutched up by society and continues to reproduce- that can be a weakness for that species. This is why people that practice social Darwinism (I do not, this is wrong in my opinion) say that retarded people or deformed people should be exiled or exterminated. The say they are a drag on the rest of societies resources and they may reproduce creating more and more persons like themselves therefore leading society into further and further decline.

    All I have to say to these people is two words, Stephen Hawking. Look what we would have lost if this brilliant man had of been ostracized or descriminated against- but I am getting off on a tangent sorry.

    My point is that most of the time, infact the vast vast majority of time the beneficial gene does get passed on, the copier does not make these types of mistakes very often at all.

    Eventually it will though, and if it is a detriment- like the advantage not being passed on- nature will stop that genetic line through selection for death or at least no reproduction.

    If it is a modification of the advantage, and that modification is beneficial nature will select that animal for life and reproduction. Make sense?

  29. @sarp Kaya

    "if they result in changes that benefit the organism in some way, they give that organism an “edge” over its competitors that will, in most cases, allow that organism to live longer and reproduce more than its competitors. "

    Still this parts seems like a magic!!! If mutations are random(not perfect), then how can it determine this is what happened when they are born to pass it on.. As shown in this documentary, the hit ratio for this mutation seems very high resulting in creating an almost new variety or i should say different type of species as in the case of birds in the Galapagos

  30. @ @ sarp kaya

    Well, I really spoke to soon. You are right, in a way. The type of changes you referr to can change the way a species looks over time. And i guess every once in a while it makes a really big mistake and we get that leap forward that very seldom occurrs. But we still haven't determine the cause, just the mechanism.

    We need to find out what causes this copier to make these mistakes, how random or not random is the pattern of when and to what degree the mistakes are to be made. I mean, I can't remember what the protien is that carries out this job of copying but I have seen animations of ther little buggar shootin' 'em out, does this thingy have some sort of internal sequence built in? If so we should see mutations occurring at the same time intervals over and over. Unless that sequences is like a code that repeats itself but is so long that it seems random to us, does that make sense to you? I don't know how to say what i want to say, darn my pitiful knowledge of mathematics!

    Its like timing in a song, sometimes the pattern doesn't repeat it self or come back to start until the very last of the song. This makes it seem very scattered and almost like it is not related to itself enough to be called a song even, more like just random notes that are in the same scale but lack a specific melody. I play jazz and this is why a lot of younger musicians have trouble with jazz, timing-timing- timing. Anyone can make sound, music is sound moving through time. Any way, I wanted to say that really you are right, I just didn't look at it the right way- my bad.

  31. @ sarp kaya

    I don't think you are right on this one, not to be arguementative. But mutation is a sudden change in genes not a accumulated change that occurrs slowly. What you describe is simply the meachanism that makes us have very small differences that are really inconsequestial to the species as a whole, like having blue verses brown eyes. Here is a more detailed explanation of mutation.

    Mutations are divided into three major types.
    Gene mutation is the sudden changes of the DNA sequence. Gene being the unit for heredity. Therefore, gene mutation occurs in the DNA -- the Arginine,Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine nitrogenous bases.
    An example of gene mutation is the point mutation.
    Point mutation occurs due to the substitution of one nucleotide base pair with another. It may become a missense mutation where a nucleotide base pair is incorrect however it still forms the required amino acid.
    Besides missense mutation, nonsense mutation could also occur due to point mutation. Instead of forming the correct codon, it forms the stop codon instead, resulting in the formation of smaller or shorter polypeptides.
    Another type of gene mutation is the frameshift mutation.
    The frameshift mutation occurs when a nucleotide base pair is deleted or a nucleotide base pair is inserted elsewhere in the chromosome, causing the whole chromosome to shift hence forming the incorrect polypeptides.

    Now this does not gives us the reason that these mutations occurr, as far as I know no one has determined that yet. But it does describe them as sudden changes in DNA, not the accumulated changes that preserve our physical diversity. If these types of sudden mutations did not occurr we would never develope another species. The differences you are explaining just do not add up to a real change in our structure, only variations in hair color, body shape (like tall and thin versus my unfortunate build short and thick) eye color, etc., etc.

  32. @prix

    On my way to "Judgment Day – Intelligent Design on Trial: Nova".
    But i've to say, i have the least biology background.. I am from pure computer background... :)

  33. sorry, I meant "parents to offspring" not "siblings".

  34. mutations happen because dna is copied each time a living thing is conceived through reproduction. the process of copying is never perfect. very minor changes (mutations) occur each time dna is copied from parents to siblings. these changes multiply over great lengths of time. if they result in changes that benefit the organism in some way, they give that organism an "edge" over its competitors that will, in most cases, allow that organism to live longer and reproduce more than its competitors. the "edge" is therefore passed on to subsequent generations more frequently, spreading over an increasingly wider section of the population with time. those individuals without the "edge" fair poorer and thus reproduce less. in time they disappear altogeher. in short : survival of the fittest and the best.

    1. If the changes are occurring exponentially, can you conclude that mutations are mistakes? My anthropology professor and I have discussed this same notion, as he proclaimed this too be the greatest catalyst for evolution...and the mutations were random.

      Exponential evolution strongly suggests that they aren't random mutations...and if they aren't random, than they aren't mistakes.

    2. The word "exponential" ("becoming more and more rapid") would only come into play if catalysts for "mistakes" were becoming more frequent in the environment. Is that your assumption? And what are you postulating would cause 'more and more rapid' mutations?

      The mutations themselves are "mistakes" in that they are not exact copies of the DNA they were copied from. That is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

      They are random, in that any given "mistake" is not made on purpose or through a conscious decision. The "mistake" can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental.

      If the "mistake" is beneficial to the organism's reproduction, any offspring also carrying the beneficial trait will have a slight advantage in reproducing, and eventually the advantage should spread throughout the population over generations.

      However, this is assuming other factors don't interfere with the particular advantage.

  35. @mvairavan

    haha, no I wouldn't call it stupid just that it leads nowhere except back to the questions without any answer. We all have you respect other peoples views at the same time as questioning them.

    Btw have you watched other evolution documentaries on this page? You can ask people here and they'll recommends pretty good documentaries that can answer your questions or even raise more questions. I would recommend "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial: Nova". There is one problem with it, they KIND OF seem like they're pushing a propaganda on you. But it's not like that, they're just explaining things in details.

  36. @ez2b12

    "In other words the concept is beautiful, but the execution is horrible."

    Yes - That sum's it up all!!!, But i've started admiring the biological execution (mutation).


    I agree. Saying there is some power behind it and leaving the topic is a stupidity. If everyone had believed on God simply then science wouldn't have grown this far. I take my word back, lets dig deep to find out for real.

    Thanks guys for all your kind explanations!!

  37. @mvairavan

    How that EXACT mutation happens? I don't know. But I do know is that mutations occur each time someone is born. No one is the same because of this. There are couple of documentaries explaining how the mutations happen but not why they occur.

    Also, yes you may believe that there is a power behind it all. But that's not going to give any one else including yourself any answers.

    Through out history people that didn't understand something simply implied it was God who did it. To presume something without any firm evidence is not acceptable in science. Many of us dislike to give this as an answer "I don't know", just because we want to show to others that we have knowledge that they don't.
    There is no shame in accepting something that we don't know. If we don't know now then we will know it in the future.

    But it's a great thing you ask questions. That's what moves us forward. Keep on asking questions, question everyone and their views, also question science. Without questions we cannot move forward.

  38. @Randy ;)

  39. @ Mvairavan

    You may be right, that thier is some power beyond the God we have been told of or anything in nature we understand yet that causes these mutations. Myself, I do not believe that it is any intelligence that has some certain outcome it is trying to reach. If you follow the evolutionary history of life it is to sporatic and too many species simply do not make it for me to believe some intelligence has a goal in mind.

    If it is some type of cosmic intelligence, that intelligence does not value the singular life of one creature at all. Evolution driven by natural selection is a horribly brutal and inhumane process that has not the slightest regard for the horror or physical pain of predation, starvation, desease, and of course ultimately death. It may in the end be the process that preserves biological diversity and a species survival, but it is not a process I would say a benevolent omnipotent intelligence should choose to utilize. In other words the concept is beautiful, but the execution is horrible.

  40. @ez2b12:

    Beauty!!! Thanks for your explanation.. Now i know that we dunno about the force behind it.. Not especially God, but i do believe that there's some power beyond all these to create such wonders...

  41. HAHAHA! %Jono! Did you see what he did back there?

    He called me a girl! Very clever with his emasculation of me!

    The thing is, boys and girls all taste the same to me... darling...

    (Seriously though, excellent come back! You are sharp as a tack!)

  42. @ mvairavan

    I do not think anyone knows why DNA mutates from one generation to the next, we simply know that it does. I have heard the hypothesis that it is caused by cosmic radiation, by some natural mechanism hidden within the DNA itself, and that some omnipotent all seing power, i.e. god, somehow manipulates DNA (laughable in my opinion) But no one has ever claimed to actually know for sure what causes it. For another point of view on this very topic you should check out Homofuturus, a doc right here on TDF.

    All we know is that it is not a choice we make or that some other power makes for us, which is why I find the whole "God did it" thing laughable. If God did it then every mutation would be the correct one for the survival of the organism mutating, right? Surely he wouldn't be like, "O.k. I'll make this one white and have a little fun before I change it to black, the actuall color that will help save them from predators." Most mutations result in the death of the organism that inherits it, in fact most are hiddeous and have no concievable practical use at all. Besides any omnipotent being would have been able to get it right the first time, not come back later and be like, "Oh yeah, I guess I should have made the rat black instead of tie-dye he does kind of stand out doesn't he."

    I think this documentary was trying to say that we now understand the mechanism by which these mutations are past on and able to be seen directly- DNA. In Darwin's time they had no idea what the natural mechanism for inheriting your parents features was, or where they could find the enternal mechanism that stored this information and therefore must be changed in order for a mutation to appear. Being able to examine DNA gives us an enormouse advantage when it comes to studying, understanding, and proving evolution. Here is an arguement about the number of paired chromosomes in humans versus that of apes that is only supportable by use of DNA comparrison.

    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes as opposed to apes having 24. This means one of two things must have occurred- either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of nature (due to common ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres. And of course we do see these exact things when we study human DNA versus ape.

    Now creationist would have us believe this to be evidence of a common designer and nothing more. But if that is the case why do we see these telomere structures in the center that are always at the ends of chromosomes, why do we see two centromere regions out toward the ends when there is always just one in the center of other chromosomes? Was god not capable of originality? Did he see the need for humans and say, "o.k just take these two chromosomes and jamm them together as such, now twist and pinch and viola- a human" If he did do this why does the bible describe it so differently and more simply, he just formed a dirt doll and blew in the nostrils in the bible. This is just one example of what we know now thanks to DNA that we didn't know when Darwin presented his theory of evolution.

    Its also another good example of how religiouse people tend to change thier views of the nuts and bolts of creation as science disovers more and more facts. The result being that through out the years God has become more and more impotent instead of omnipotent. Soon the hard liners will be the deists not the fundementalists, and eventually they will also cease to be. One by one we will make the religee sacrifice his magic for fact, and there will be no trade backs.

    1. "God" or the "first cause" is not an old man with a magic wand who corrects his mistakes through intervention in linear time. A better way to understand the nature of the first cause is understand that the "big bang" had sealed within its nature that which would produce everything that would ever exist and it is being released to our kind of narrow perspective consciousness through linear time by "causation".
      Causation drives all development including natural selection, the evolution of consciousness and even that which we perceive as "free will"
      Some organisms were successful and others were not because "causation" demanded it.
      In the evolution of consciousness there may be a shift or "mutation" in the dna brought about by stress produced by the changing "motovational enviorment". If this is true and the evolution of animal forms (physical) has the same structure, then it may be that the changing conditions to which animals must struggle to survive in is the "stress' which triggers the mutation in the dna which drives the evolutionary shift.
      But whatever is driving the process of change we can be sure that at the very bottom of it we will find "causation".

  43. @prix:

    "If a mutation is suitable for a species to survive then they do so. If it isn’t then they don’t."

    How that (exact) mutation happens, thats my question...

    Sorry if i am not as smart as u, but i am not here to argue..

  44. @ Randy

    Nope I have this effect on all the girls

  45. @Jono

    You and I have argued, even as we agree on almost everything.

    But, I am looking at your enormous brain...

    I gotta say... I want to eat it!

    Is that wrong?

  46. @canex

    Refresh, if that doesnt work update your flash player.

  47. @mvairavan

    Did you even watch the doc or read the replies to your question?

    If you aren't being obtuse then you prbably need to watch a simpler documentary on the basics of evolution.

  48. i am not seeing any video or link ???

  49. Exceptional, mind-blowing, amazing.. Add all other adjectives to this list. One of the finest documentaries made. I knew some of it and was educated in many others. I always try to teach evolution to creationists, this is the reason why I will do more. I have new material to talk about next time! All thanks to Darwin and other followers of him.

  50. @mvairavan

    I don't know a lot of biology but it just seems like with the comment of-

    "If i feel a need for a tough skin to live in antartic will my heredity automatically mutate to get one?? Need to explain how those switches decide to on and off themselve"

    Just makes you seem like you're way off. Nothing turns on or off, even if you have a NEED for something it doesn't mean you'll have it.

    It's not like the rocket rat wanted the change or needed it. Needing it for survival yes, but needing it for other things THAN survival? I don't think so, maybe there might be another explanation. But as far as I can see, no.

    Perfect mutation? No no no no...no...there is no such things as perfect mutation. There is nothing that is perfect.

    The pocket rat didn't match the color EXACTLY. It wasn't perfect, not even close to GOOD. Instead of being all that it was suitable for its survival. The information i've gather is that mutations aren't good or bad. Those are just words we use to describe something, in nature nothing is good or bad. It's just nature being nature. If a mutation is suitable for a species to survive then they do so. If it isn't then they don't. Adapt or be overthrown by superior species.

    And the force behind all of this...I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot clown-pole.

  51. @jono

    My question is how this happened?? What is the driving force behind it?? i don't think the pocket rat knows much to make its skin black.. Then how it does exactly that perfect mutation to make its skin black?? I meant to say that was not explained in this doc.. Just the pure physical forces cannot cause genetic mutation, or they can?? If you know about that, i would be more than happy to listen to you.


  52. @mvairavan

    I think the point is, not that an organism feels the need for tough skin, purely that in some genetic mutations this happened and that mutation prospered as "survival of the fittest" within that group.

    Saying "there is nothing new" in this doc, eg you are so abreast of this particular subject, it surprises me you didn't understand this fairly simple idea.

  53. Nothing new, not worth for such a long time!!!
    They just proved what Darwin said biological. It does not say how that biological change takes place.. If i feel a need for a tough skin to live in antartic will my heredity automatically mutate to get one?? Need to explain how those switches decide to on and off themselves.. Proving same old stuff in diff species is not worth spending money on..

  54. Just finished the documentary. It kept my interest the whole time and usually evolution bores me. Thanks TDF!!

    BTW - I'm still kind of confused about where the "switches" are located in the DNA. Are they the "round thingies" on the DNA strands?

  55. lol yeah ashbreakstuff that cracked me up too, darwin was probably laughng about how ugly it was when he wrote that but the guy makes it sound all angry and hateful

  56. If Tiktaalik went out of the water because it was hunted...so does it explain in any way the origin of life or of species? since other fishes hunted it !!!????.....

  57. "It's a hideous looking creature. Of a dirty black color. Stupid and sluggish in it's movements."

    The narrator read Darwin's description with such feeling. It made me laugh so hard. Poor iguana.

  58. Very interesting doc, any guesses as to how long it will be until one of these bright and shining stars attempt to insert a few letter sequences and turn on a few switches to increase the intellectual capacity of a Chimp??

    Now there is a prequel to an old movie....

  59. ^^^ please don't answer that, those are better left to "no intelligence allowed"

  60. Now, if all you had were apes, how long would it take you to make todays man by manipulation and how many variations would occure before you arrived at 'us'?

  61. This documentary was fascinating...

  62. Excellent (except for some of the obtrusive background "music.")

    Beats "Facts of Evolution" hands down, especially as a lot of thought was obviously given to the pacing and therefore the understanding.

  63. Absolutly outstanding doc.

  64. love, love, love NOVA and TDF!!!