News24

Evolution debate 'will soon be history'

2012-05-26 21:28

New York - Noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey says scientific discoveries may soon make the debate over evolution a part of history.

The Kenyan-born scientist serves as a professor at Stony Brook University on New York's Long Island. He just spent a month in New York raising funds for his Turkana Basin Institute.

He also helped promote a National Geographic documentary about his work at Turkana Basin in Kenya.

A fundraiser for the institute collected $2m. His friend Paul Simon was the guest performer.

Leakey says the institute welcomes scientists to Turkana to help unearth the origins of mankind.

He says he has no patience for those who deny the existence of evolution. He insists that within 15 to 30 years, sceptics will have to concede the evidence is overwhelming.

Comments
  • Crracker - 2012-05-26 22:25

    The god who spoke through Leviticus and Deuteronomy was not the god who created this universe. The god there was human created and any assumption supporting that god as per any other prophet in any New or Old Testament scriptures must be regarded as false and unreliable.

      OzzyIn - 2012-05-26 22:39

      Your point in relation to this article?

      Johan - 2012-05-27 00:34

      You can talk about God as if He's not in the room and try to proof he doesn't exist, but that changes nothing. If you don't want to get to know Him, he will become more and more foreign to you. He's not going to force you to have a relationship with Him. And you cannot have relationship with God through science either. How much does science really know,5% of all truth? 10%? let make it 50%. What if God is in the other 50% of the unknown. He is reality to millions of people, beyond tradition and rituals. I studied natural science and realized all the more that for some science proofs the greatness of God end for others it proofs the greatness of man.

      David - 2012-05-27 03:01

      You religious ccrackers just never give up with this ridiculous made up old testament garbage.Do you actually wake up in the morning having these thoughts?

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:27

      @Johan You studied natural science did you. At which University and for what doctorate may I ask. Or are you just lying for Jesus. A real educated scientist would write "prove" not "proof". SO I think you are lying. The more you question faith, the weaker it looks. The more you question science, the stronger is looks. If you doubt this, try it. You have the internet at your fingertips to resolve most questions. Use it! The burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive claim. A positive claim is one where an assertion is made, such as claiming that a god exists as you are attempting to do. If a UFO nut claims that alien spacecraft have visited the earth, and a skeptic says “I don’t think so,” the UFO nut can not demand that the skeptic “prove him wrong.” It just doesn’t work that way.

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 05:06

      @Johan "He is reality to millions of people, beyond tradition and rituals." Yes, and by far the mainstream Christian religions, a huge majority of all Christians, accept evolution as a fact. Only the American Jesus inspired fringe cults, Bible Belt Baptists, Jehovah's Witlesses, Mor(m)ons, etc., push the tired Genesis claptrap. When Galileo demonstrated that the earth wasn't the center of the universe the Christian traditionalists freaked out and did everything they could to keep the theory silent, but they eventually figured out that they could accept that the earth revolved around the sun and still be Christian. The same thing will happen with the theory of evolution. Both will survive and the fringe cults like yours will also have to adapt to reality or disappear.

      sean.bezuidenhout - 2012-05-27 11:10

      The Mathematical possibility that life formed randomly from the primordial soup is one in 10100,000,000,000. To illustrate how unlikely the possibility is of these odds it can be related to you winning the state lottery every week for a million years and by purchasing a new ticket each week! The evolution debate will never be solved as its mathematically impossible for it to work. Those who do not believe in a Creation theory believe in something far more ridiculous than those who support a God. I will take my bets with a Creator.

      rudi.debeer.5 - 2012-05-27 16:22

      It has nothing to do with religion.

      Grant - 2012-05-27 16:47

      Not sure wherte Sloppy got his stats from, but if you want to see some stats look at http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Abiogenesis-a-myth-20120523 - these stats are given by evolutionists themsleves. Actually if you read comments below this article, you will notice not a single proper comment refuting my anti abiogenesis article (plenty of drivel and attacks, but not one proper argument). You can also read http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Why-Creationism-20120423 and http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/What-is-evolution-20120418 Basically Leakey has to say what he said, he needs the funding, so does not matter what he believes, he has to talk the talk. What he said here is nothing new and any old geezer could say what he said!!!

      Grant - 2012-05-27 16:57

      @Delusionbuster - before blowing your horn, go read my article; give one proper hypothesis (that is internationally accepted peer review article) of ho abiogenesis occurred; there is none - go read up wikipedia on abiogenesis, why are there over 2o different different models, because no-one can figure out how it happened. Any model is acceptable, no matter how wacky and far fetched, the only unaccepteable model is "God created". Just ask yourself why when all the other models do not even have a starting chance, why do you reject the "God created"?

      Gany - 2012-05-27 22:05

      @johan you are a poor indoctrinated sod. Love the capitalization on the h. I I find it quite hilarious.

      Fredster - 2012-05-28 09:03

      Finally they will see that God created everything, its about time

  • Crracker - 2012-05-26 22:31

    Left out the obvious. If the god projected in the bible is false and man-made it means that the opponents to evolution who base their beliefs on the bible have absolutely no reliable ground to stand on.

      Rachell - 2012-05-26 22:33

      Gravity IS the big boss of EVERYTHING ! It alone is responsible for every single thing in the universe, EVERYTHING !

      OzzyIn - 2012-05-26 22:41

      Crracker, there are more opponents to the evolution theory than those that believe in the Bible. There are even scientists themselves. When evolution is proved to be false and man-made, what then for the Atheists and those that do not believe in God?

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:20

      @Ozzy the Precherman So there is a god because there are more Christians than scientists in the world? Great point. The uneducated deluded millions who go the Maria every Easter prove the the world's scientists wrong! PAH! "When evolution is proved to be false and man-made." So you admit you cannot. You admit you have no evidence to support any alternative hypotheses. Creationists like Ozzy understand evolution but deliberately carry on with your own version. You can't blame him really as keeping the ignorant tithing sheep in the flock is their meal ticket. Appearing monumentally stupid to educated folks is a small price to pay to collect all those donations from the ignorant tithers.

      Stephen - 2012-05-28 10:47

      15 to 30 years from now the debate will be over, because all the people who understand the theory will have been murdered by religious fanatics, and we will be right back to the dark ages, quite possible.

  • Bharath - 2012-05-26 22:44

    It's not April 1. Yet this article is a joke. Digging up humanoid bones will NEVER prove evolution. It only proves apeshyte - all kinds and all varieties. This idiot will take the 2mill and promise the world, other idiots will give the 2mil and be bluffed like the intellectuals infants they are. He he he... Evolution can only be proved in a laboratory of science, not in a pit of mud.

      zane.zeiler - 2012-05-27 01:45

      So you refuse to recognize the existence of homo-habilis, homo-gauntengenis, homo-rudolfensis, homo-ergaster, homo-erectus, homo-antecessor, homo-heidelbergensis etc... etc... etc...

      David - 2012-05-27 03:04

      Bharath,what are you on?you could make a fortune selling it.

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:08

      If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious hypothesis and is prejudged to be consistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own “scientific” tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists. http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

      Zion - 2012-05-27 08:41

      what did you say your qualification was?

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 17:33

      Sorry, may I see your credentials?

      Gawie - 2012-05-27 19:36

      Barath, why on earth would you recon that "evolution can only be proved in a laboratory of science, not in a pit of mud"? The evidence occur in the natural world and it certainly makes sense to look for it there. Also, evidence to refute the theory may occur in nature and any real scientist will happily accept these, if found, and look further for the truth. This exploration to understand the universe is what excites us.

      Gawie - 2012-05-27 21:30

      DelusionBuster, should I take your comment about Bharath's laboratory as sarcasm? BTW, continental drift was the precursor to plate tectonics and is now understood (revealed) as one of the manifestations of the latter. Proudly heathen...

      Gawie - 2012-05-27 22:06

      Kapeesh;)

  • OzzyIn - 2012-05-26 22:45

    So now the "origin" of humankind is in Kenya. I thought it was in the "Cradle of Humankind" in Magaliesburg. Now we have to wait 15 to 30 years for more evidence? No proof, mind you, just more evidence. This evidence will lead to more arguments between scientists and as more fossils are found more-and-more will the theory of evolution be discredited. In the meantime, archaeological digs will keep uncovering more and more evidence proving the Bible record to be accurate.

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:14

      And you contained you doctorate in .........? Oh, I forgot, you are a professional preacherman. Which of the following scientific methods which confirm the fact of evolution do you not find compelling? Cell theory? Maybe it’s germ theory. Have a problem with atomic theory? Plate tectonics? Electromagnetic theory? Quantum theory?

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:31

      Want to name just ONE scientific FACT that 'point[s] to a Creator'? What? You can't? Is that because such a thing doesn't exist? It is, isn't it! Creatards like Ozzy would howl it from the roof tops if they had anything that gave their wishful thinking a foot hold in reality, the fact that they don't is a sure fire sign that they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their delusions.

      Herman - 2012-05-27 09:22

      @Zaatheist. I would like to mention that whether evolution is true or not is not relevant. The real question is whether random processes can generate the diversity of life we see today. From practical experience it is highly improbable, since the information encoded in DNA and therefore life, is far to complex to be generated by purely random processes. Secondly the second law of thermodynamics also will ensure that anything that happens by pure change will soon degenerate to its lowest state of information. For anything to encode information, some intelligent entity has to interact with a system (whether closed or not), to encode information that can lead to life or even evolution. From engineering, process control or any scientific discipline, this has always be the case. You have to work to make things work, it does not happen by itself. That is what practical experience should teach anyone. The only conclusion i can draw therefore, is that there must be a God and hence a Creator. Now Zaatheist, it is your turn to prove me wrong?

      Herman - 2012-05-27 11:45

      Dear delutionbuster 1. Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems. It all depends how you define your system. I can't see your point in this statement of your's, but if this was so, so much more of an argument against the probablity of life by chance. 2. I have nothing against evolution, so please read my mail again before you try to typify me. 3. Please argue the facts, don't shoot the messenger.

      Herman - 2012-05-27 12:40

      Hi Delution Let us look at your statements. 1. A copying error does not create new information, it destroys it. 2. I am not arguing natural selection at all. 3. Sexual selection deals with information that is already there. 4. I don't argue evolution, only the mechanism thereof. So, let me rephrase my argument. What you said has no bearing on my argument. I argue that information that may be decoded or encoded (as in DNA), cannot spontaneously appear. It always needs a mind or some intelligent entity. The onus is on you to illustrate of present something that by blind random change can generate something that can lead to life as we know it today. Now, you should also show/demonstrate how biogenesis may arise out of your mechanism. If you cannot, you also cannot prove that God does not exist. It is easy as that. And please stop making that outrageous assumptions about Jesus or my education

      Herman - 2012-05-27 16:11

      MemeMan Please make a point, instead of insulting others. Be kind, don't treat others the way you do.

      rudi.debeer.5 - 2012-05-27 16:25

      There is no proof that evolution does not happen.

      Herman - 2012-05-28 06:22

      Delusionbuster my answers. 1. Well, lets test your hypothesis that copying errors can create new information. Take any file, introduce an error in it, and see if you can get new information out of it. Now repeat this for multiple times and see what happens. What you will see is that the program or file becomes completely un-usable..ie information is destroyed. The same principle applies with DNA as well. This destruction of usable data with the introduction errors as a matter of fact completely agrees with the second law of thermodynamics. I would like to mention that DNA has a error correcting mechanism that will not allow copying errors anyways. 2. Well, that is what the scientific community believe of entropy. If you can prove the opposite with an empirical example, you are free to do it. 3. It seems that this statement more agrees with your viewpoint. You have yet to submit a proof of what i have been asking. In fact, most of what you are saying, seems more to be stuff you heard from others.

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 12:07

      // In the meantime, archaeological digs will keep uncovering more and more evidence proving the Bible record to be accurate. // Noah's Flood, for example, is believed to have happened but only around the Mediterranean (where the Dead Sea now lies it's believed (through geographical evidence) it was once fertile plains), not the whole world whereas Noah himself is nothing more than fiction. But so what if it parts of the Bible of true (I have no doubt that some are)? It still doesn't prove god exists.

      CaptainGaza - 2012-05-28 12:18

      Why do these chistian folk always want to state the 2nd law of thermodynamics in their arguments when it has absolutely no relevance to evolution? What did this 2nd law ever do you to you peeps that it now has to be abused like this. This is shameful. Shame on you peeps.

      Herman - 2012-05-28 16:25

      DelusionBuster Considering your references, I'd like to point out that mutations and copying errors are different things altogether. Mutations can easily be seen in how virusses become resistant to certain drugs. This mechanism only allow certain changes, but not all, but more importantly, no new information has been generated that was not there before. So, it really has no bearing on our argument.

      Herman - 2012-05-28 17:59

      DelusionBuster Like i said before, DNA has a mechanism that prevent errors, but it will allow certain mutations. That means therefore, that it was anticipated that certain mutations will happen sometimes in the future. It is therefore not an error, but a feature of DNA. It was designed, unless you can demonstrate some mechanism that will demonstrate how an entity by random chance will also generate a selfchecking feature.

      Herman - 2012-05-28 21:48

      DelusionBuster I think i have made my point. I still can say a lot of things, but i don't think it will do any good. Thanks anyway for the references, i enjoyed reading them, and thanks for all the arguments, it did give me some food for thought. From me, i also would like to suggest that you continue searching for the truth, no matter how mundane or foolish it may appear. I wish you all the best.

  • lydonmcg - 2012-05-26 23:10

    If only all this money were used to change the course of where we're going instead of trying to determine - perhaps in vain - where it is we came from.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-05-27 12:34

      If you do not know where you came from, it is impossible to tell where you are going!

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 12:03

      Did you know that we are able to make better and more effective medicine by studying where we came from on a genetic level, even now at an atomic level? I guess you didn't.

  • CharlesDumbwin - 2012-05-26 23:26

    WHAT AN ABSOLUTE LOAD OF RUBBISH !!! I can just as easily say, 'those who do not concede defeat knowing that God created the heavens and the earth, are complete fools !!!' So called 'scientists', what a joke ...

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 12:01

      Dumbwin: Please provide evidence of your qualifications that enables you make such assumptions? Please provide contactable references and certificate numbers so we can verify your claims. If you have none, what then gives you the right to insult people who know more about a subject than you do?

      CaptainGaza - 2012-05-28 12:21

      Check out the caps abuse from ol Charlie Boy!!! We hear you brother but we ain't picking up what you laying down.

  • Roland - 2012-05-27 01:29

    [sung to a famous hymn's tune] We didn't come from the apes...because the bible tells me so...yes we didn't come from the apes...yes we didn't come from the apes...yes we didn't come from the apes...We are created...because the bible tells me so [even though it was written by humans - evolved from apes - and didn't come down to earth on a sunbeam...]

  • David - 2012-05-27 02:25

    The theory of evolution will remain a theory until Christ the engineer , architect , physicist , biologist , artist , etc , designer , in other , words the creator of intelligence itself ( which we long so much to emulate ourselves ) put this universe together with Jehovah and the Holy Spirit many millions of years ago ( I will leave Leakey et al to establish when ) . I would be happy to put Adam and Eve at 30,000 or 40,000 years ago but nobody really knows when God created them , because of the paintings ( sophisticated paintings ) in those caves in Southern France . Scientists are people with God given gifts as are we all similarly gifted but as for trying to supplant the God of the Bible with your scientific myths I say to you dream on dear brothers and sisters , dream on !!! When Christ returns it will all make sense .

      David - 2012-05-27 03:07

      Great article,I just remembered the earth was only 10000 yrs old,what a numpty.

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:29

      When the facts aren’t on your side, you have no choice but to make appeals to authority, emotion, and special pleading when presenting your case; the encyclopaedia of logical fallacies suddenly becomes your best friend and play-book, and you will run through every last fallacy in it just to avoid offering anything tangible. For something to qualify as evidence it must first be objective, that is it must be totally independent of the observer. It must be possible for anyone to be able to examine whatever is, to measure it, to test it, and for it to be the same for everyone; opinions, emotions, and beliefs are all worthless in this regard, being utterly subjective and, therefore, beyond quantifying in a sense that can be in any way meaningful to anyone but the person who holds them. COnt

      zaatheist - 2012-05-27 04:30

      There is a million miles of difference between accepting the word of the world’s foremost particle physicists, geologist, botanists, biologists, paleontologists, etc., when it comes to dealing with evidence, and taking as gospel (pun intended) the claims of a book, cobbled together by multiple authors (many of whom history has verified as having social or political agendas), translated, mistranslated, edited, interpreted, re-edited, translated again, misinterpreted, and dishonestly misrepresented when it comes to any of the claims that it has ever made. The bible has proven sweet Fanny Adams but its cheerleaders’ ability to perform the most extraordinary logical gymnastics in a desperate effort to spin the words of desert-dwelling ignorants so that allegory and fable could be falsely presented as scientific or historical fact. At the end of the day, if you’ve got evidence, bring it

      chadjason.wilson - 2012-05-27 04:55

      David, when will Christ return..... Are you a doomsday sayer. Have I got 15 to 30 years left.... I won't even get to see retirement. No, I'm a bit of an optimist, please take your soap box and placard and rally in times square.......

      Grant Howard - 2012-05-27 06:53

      Hang on, I thought Jesus was a carpenter? Hang on, let me email him for confirmation.

  • Andy Venter - 2012-05-27 05:17

    zaaetheist, why are you so hung up on it that others believe i God? if u dont, thats ur business. are you trying to con vince others that He doesnt exist or urself? seriously dude get urself underwear that dont ride up on you so tightly

  • Koos - 2012-05-27 05:22

    When I look around in Africa it seems that evolution went horribly wrong. And we thought the Nigerians were scammers.

      Zing - 2012-05-27 13:00

      What are you saying Koos? If you're hinting at the lack of development, you should go read up what devastation slavery left across Africa.

  • Andy Venter - 2012-05-27 05:22

    if you choose not believe, dont, but someday your words and theories will hold no water when you stare at the one who created and formed you.

      Bob - 2012-05-27 08:00

      That really doesn't scare non-believers, also, right back at you, because someday you will stare at the flying spaghetti monster, and your words and theories will hold no water.

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 17:43

      Ah yes, threats of eternal damnation always get the masses cowering andy! So(and this, coming from an old dominee): Because our ancient ancestors stole some fruit and got chased out of a garden, we are now all eternally damned

  • Grant Howard - 2012-05-27 06:41

    Science is full of questions that are unanswered however religion is full of answers that are unquestioned.

  • Grant Howard - 2012-05-27 06:49

    People always talk about "one day you'll see." Religion had an unfair advantage. If they are right, when they die they will be able to say, "I told you so!" If atheists are right, when they die there will be no opportunity for, "I told you so." That's just not fair.

      Zing - 2012-05-27 13:02

      But if they had the chance (hypothetically speaking), atheists would say: "I enjoyed my life to the full. What religion did you waste your time on?"

  • James - 2012-05-27 07:05

    15 to 30 years? The evidence is already overwhelming. Anyone who denies it is simply ignorant or a deluded psychotic.

      Zing - 2012-05-27 13:03

      What James said ^^

  • Frank - 2012-05-27 07:12

    I wonder what I would say I could prove to get a $ 2,000,000 grant. Makes you think.

      James - 2012-05-27 07:33

      If you give me 10% of your salary, I will tell you that there is a supernatural sky daddy who looks after you better than your mommy did, and you are never going to die! How awesome is that?

  • Kevin - 2012-05-27 08:38

    the 11th commandment: THY SHOULD KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!

      Matthew Patrick - 2012-05-27 08:47

      Hear hear!

  • Zion - 2012-05-27 08:39

    Seems the knot around the necks of the Gods are becoming tighter and tighter.

  • Frank - 2012-05-27 08:46

    James here is the thing you see I do and am living evidence of God,s provision .

      Thys - 2012-05-27 13:03

      Oh dear, another of his f-ups?

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:14

      No Frank, you're not. If humans WERE evidence of god .. then he REALLY screwed up, didn't he? In my view, the fact that humans are imperfect proves that there is no god. You'd think an all powerful, all knowing god would create a perfect creation, wouldn't you?

  • Ronald Swanson - 2012-05-27 09:15

    Evolution and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are many Christians that believe that the earth was not made in seven literal days... Rather that days = eras or eons. Actually that's what the Hebrew indicates. So... Another interpretation may be that the days that God created were billions of years.

      Wilbur Smith - 2012-05-27 13:18

      Another example of how, instead of accepting the truth, people would rather change and mould religion to fit into their belief system. The evidence is obviously overwhelming this guy but still he cant let go of the lies he's been fed his whole life.

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:20

      Ronald: How can a religion claim to be "THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH" when even it's own can't agree on the message from their creator (33,000 denominations of Christianity)? How can a religion BE a religion if it keeps changing it's doctrine whenever science comes along and provides a factually proven explanation to something that religion originally (and for centuries) claimed as truth? How can religion coincide with evolution when a fundamental pillar of many religions is the belief that their creator-being created mankind and evolution says humanity is a process of unintelligent trial and error through natural selection?

  • Lauden Kirk - 2012-05-27 11:26

    YouTube: dmt, ego,

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 17:46

      Just youtube DMT period

  • Eben - 2012-05-27 12:18

    Blablabla!stop digging in the mudpits, we all by now know about humanoids been dugged up and mrs pless and this and that, rather spend that money on killing a simple cold or stop cancer/ malaria this is something of benefit to humanity, old bones will get you nowhere and your thoughts or proves will only change those that want to believe you sucker!

      Wilbur Smith - 2012-05-27 13:14

      Dumb ass. First of all learn some grammar. Secondly, its people like you that's keeping society from progressing and moving forward. At least try to educate yourself. Its sad but true that you are what the majority of our population is made up of.

      Marius Bloemhof - 2012-05-28 06:08

      Chop. And where do you think the advancements in the medical science fields in the last few decades originates from? Say it slowly with me: genetics and evolutionary biology

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:35

      Eben: Many medicines are derived from nature such as plants, microbial metabolites and marine invertebrates; by, "digging in the mudpits" scientists hope to discover thousands more cures of modern ailments; likewise, many thousands of people are fasinated with the past. Incidentally, do you know much it costs to fashion (research and development of) a new medicine? About 1.8 billion USD. Think about that. Understanding our history is important; for hundreds of reasons. Don't be a chop because you're not interested in the past. Since the past doesn't matter to you; what do you care if your great-x grandfather was Augustus Caeser and you are entitled to his entire Ancient Roman wealth, it doesn't matter right? You'd give it up right? Because people shouldn't be "digging in the mudpits" because "old bones will get you nowhere". Right? You need to do a little research, your ignorance is utterly unacceptable in today's day and age.

  • Johan - 2012-05-27 13:08

    @zaatheist English is my second language and that's unimportant. The very essence of exact science is to form a hypothesis, test your hypothesis by repeatedly trying to disprove it and if you can't find anything to disprove it you accept it with a relative degree of certainty. Evolution falls it the category of historical science. Here you find evidence of something the happened in the past. You formulate a theory and make assumptions. You can't repeat history in a lab. All you can do is find more evidence to support your theory. But it remains a theory because it can't be repeated. I'm not against science, I love science. I just question some of the assumptions made with historical science. Some theories require more faith than believing God to be the Creator. I was a complete evolutionist but I lost all faith in evolution when I saw how real God is and that He is completely capable of creating whatever He pleases. Let's leave the name calling because both of us have made up our minds.

      Mark - 2012-05-27 19:59

      Johan, I'm certainly no scientist. Say your side of the argument is correct. Would you not concede, that, for example, the successful contamination of annual flu due to evolutionary concepts, kind of proves the theory - at least to some extend?

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:45

      Interesting Johan, I'm sure Professor Richard Lenksi* would be VERY interested to hear your expert opinion that evolution is a theory; I mean, it's not like his entire 20 year experiment (E. coli long-term evolution experiment**) proves anything.. right? It's not like the gradual genetic shifting and adaptation of bacteria cultures (which can happen virtually over night) proves evolution or anything, hey? * Professor Lenski, incidentally, has a BA and a PhD in evolutionary biology, was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and was elected to the United States National Academy of Science - which begs the question, what qualifications do YOU have? ** http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

  • Grant - 2012-05-27 16:50

    Basically Leakey has to say what he said, he needs the funding, so does not matter what he believes, he has to talk the talk. What he said here is nothing new and any old geezer could say what he said!!! The evolutionary myth has less to stand on today that 100 years ago; every day the foundations of evolutionary thought are being eroded. See http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Abiogenesis-a-myth-20120523 and http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/What-is-evolution-20120418 and http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Why-Creationism-20120423. It is just a matter of time and the evolutionary myth will be known for what it is!!

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 17:56

      It is just a matter of time and the myth of your intelligence will be known for what it is!!

      Grant - 2012-05-27 20:33

      @arne - Amazingly, I attack a belief system; it obviously affects you, because you attack the person. Are you afraid you might be wrong? I have given a scientific attack on the evolutionary theory (go read the articles) - go read and see that there are viable theories out there, and that evolution is not all it is cut out to be.

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 20:46

      NoChimp, you try to argue your beliefs with unsubstantiated 'facts', with emotion, and (my personal pet peeve), with subjective, opinionated articles, written by delusional bigots, flaunting them in my face as if they are extensions of your holy book, the unequivocal truth. Please Sher, don't waste my time with taunts and petty "you are offended because you know its right" hogwash, when you back it up with that.

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:46

      Evolution is a myth!!!!! MyNews24 says so! \>:O/ Really noChimp? Really?!

  • arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 17:32

    Once again the religious see this as an attack on their faith... Like teflon, barbies, tampons and divorce used to be...

      Grant - 2012-05-27 20:31

      @arne - why do you see this as an attack on your belief system? Are you afraid you might be wrong?

  • Johan - 2012-05-27 22:09

    @ theMark There is different kinds of evolution. I support genetic adaptions or different phenotypical expressions of DNA within a species called micro evolution. This is the only type of evolution that have been observed. All the genetic information is already available and so the organism can adapt within those boundaries. With higher species, mutations mostly leads to malfunction of the organism because the organism is dependent on a trillion more different kinds of cells that must work together. Viruses an bacteria are a lot less complicated then higher animals so they can mutate and replicate successfully. But micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution(the changing of one species to another like a tree becoming a animal) stellar evolution (the origin stars and planets) , cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter) chemical evolution (the origin of higher elements from hydrogen) or organic evolution (the origin of life).

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-27 22:39

      Johan, micro-evolution directly implies macro-evolution. I have often heard of the above argument, and feel it is actually very clever people who use it, but they use it in a sense of denial. By your statement of "macro evolution(the changing of one species to another like a tree becoming a animal)" I can see you are not really fluent in evolutionary facts. I suggest you read up somewhat on evolutionary theory, as well as speciation(a complex, but very interesting field). Don't however, be influenced by the comments on here(subjectivity from any side is the death of truth)

      TheMark - 2012-05-28 07:57

      Johan, For quite a while, I was a victim of the same untruth. 'Micro-evolution' is not a recognised term in the scientific field of evolution. Also. consider the following: You believe micro-evolution to be true. So let's 'run' this micro-evolution for a few hundred years as a test. At some stage, speciation ('macro-evolution') will occur. Don' you agree? DB, zaathesit, and all the other experts: Please don't crucify me for my layman's terms...lol

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:55

      // tree becoming a animal // I wish you'd put this at the beginning, would have saved me a lot of brain hurt. This simple statement highlights your ignorance of evolution; animals don't become plants and plants don't become animals. Animal A will gain genetic shift due to some environmental cause and become Animal B; Plant A will adapt to a new environment until it is no longer recognizable as Plant A and is classified as Plant B. Apes giving birth to humans, plants becoming animals .. this is not evolution, this is typical creationist ignorance which they latch onto as evidence against evolution.

      Johan - 2012-05-28 12:30

      To all the tree becoming a animal skeptics. I did 2 modules on evolution and this one of the theories I heard from my evolutionist professor. All cells evolved from the same first simple prokaryotic cells. One of the theories how that cells eventually got out of the sea was that plants first evolved and out of that "living cells". There is still a difference between micro an macro evolution. With Macro evolution Billions and billions of new DNA needs to evolve just to get a working functional new species. Micro evolution is just adaption within the existing information comprised within the DNA, and with lower species like viruses and bacteria you can get information added with mutations. But as soon as the organism becomes too big you have millions of cells that needs to work together, and function together. How are all the trillions of cells going to know Hey! we are evolving a new leg here! It's not functional if the trillions of cells doesn't work together. And don't give me examples of adaption because that is still examples of the animal adapting within the boundaries of the genes that he already contain. Its not new information created. Did you know part of white blood cells functions is to seek out and destroy mutated cells. And with mitosis there is a stage where all new cells DNA is re-read and if mutations is picked up the cells are marked to be destroyed. Why would higher animals have functions like this if it was advantages to evolve?

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 13:01

      "Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendants of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis." - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_03 Plant becoming an animal (which is what you said) is one thing ... A prokaryotic cell (which is not a plant or animal) evolving into another cell, such as a eukaryotes (which all life (plant and animal) belongs to), is another thing entirely and is not only plausible, but accepted as well. I don't think I understand your argument though, it sounds as if you are saying "macro-evolution" hasn't been proven because you can't see it happening with your own eyes? I apologize if I've misunderstood.

      Johan - 2012-05-28 14:31

      I read up about the ring species and totally agree with it. But it is still not an example of higher species where new DNA have been added. It actually shows where genes were lost out of the gene pool and separate gene pools formed. Inside the gene pool of the "original" species there were enough diversity within it to adapt or "select" for certain phenotipical traits but no "new" genes (that wasn't previously in the gene pool" were created. Why do you reach a plateau whenever you start selecting for specific genes within a population? Because that is the limit of the genes available withing the gene pool.

      Johan - 2012-05-28 18:54

      @DelusionBuster Yes I know copy errors add new information and this is all great on single cell organisms with this they can evolve. in complex organisms like let's say humans it in all cases lead to abnormalities, more often then not fatal or even premature death at birth. Cancer is also an example of copy errors in cells. I don't see this as the mechanism that drives evolution in higher animals. If you read my previous post you would see that I already made the distinction between simple cells and complex organism's. I had evolutionist professor for my population genetic classes and even he said: "Statistically it is impossible for copy errors cant drive evolution."

  • christog3 - 2012-05-28 05:18

    How did it all start? What exactly happened in the begining? A very long long long time ago in a country very far far away or is it a galaxy or space where did evolution begin? What type of reaction took place to form amino acids. How was a cell created with all the componants to devide? Stop trying to find the missing link and tell me how it all started. Each and every plant and animal functions optimally in an environment without human interferance. NO humans needed in nature. What is the role and function of the human in nature? Do we have a role to play in nature?

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:50

      "our place in the eco system is that require plant life and animals nutrients to survive and so we consume these in turn we produce waste that can help to fertilise plants for us and other animals to consume also consumption of animals can hep to keep their numbers in check we need oxygen to survive we in turn breathe out carbon dioxide which is needed by plants" source: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090102083414AAIk9cH Just one dudes view, give it some thought. No creature is NEEDED per say in nature as nature will simply adapt to fill the void that a species left behind; either with the gradual rise of a new species or a population boom of another existing species.

  • Christopher Zoony De Croes - 2012-05-28 08:27

    Q- if god created adam & eve as the 1st humans, and they could talk ect... how did cavemen get on earth??? they couldnt speak and dinosaurs ect dont get mentioned in the bible???

      skootzie - 2012-05-28 11:52

      One the one hand: Satan put the drawings (and dino bones) there to mislead Christians and draw them from the light of God. On the other: They were there BEFORE this so called "creation", thereby nullifying the creation hypothesis.

  • Christopher Zoony De Croes - 2012-05-28 08:29

    Q- if god created adam & eve as the 1st humans, and they could talk ect... how did cavemen get on earth??? they couldnt speak and dinosaurs ect dont get mentioned in the bible???

      Stephen - 2012-05-28 11:38

      A-Man created god, to account for everything he didn't understand, and is still using him to fill in the blanks.

  • Stephen - 2012-05-28 10:39

    15 to 30 years from now the debate will be over, because all the people who understand the theory will have been murdered by religious fanatics, and we will be right back to the dark ages, quite possibly.

  • Horst - 2012-05-28 11:34

    You will be disappointed Mr.Leaky, that will not happen. Because believers in general don't listen to and accept reason, their mind is closed.

      Jason - 2012-05-28 13:48

      If they proved gods excistance would you believe? No, Atheists and Christians throw rocks at eachother all day long but actualy you are the exact same.

  • Jason - 2012-05-28 13:46

    You realise that if they disprove God people will still believe? Same as if they disprove evolotion people will still doubt? Double standards, people should be entitled to believe what they wnat to without being persicuted for it whether atheist christian muslim.

  • patriciamaxion - 2012-05-28 15:29

    in the begginingGod created aman in his image,its not animals then amn.

      arne.verhoef - 2012-05-28 16:39

      Well... Looking at that profile photo...

  • Preshen - 2012-05-29 08:58

    Some of us did not fully evolve

  • pages:
  • 1