Why Are There Millions Of These?

Someone drew this image to my attention on Facebook:

It led me to ask why there are millions of Christians who are so poorly informed about basic science, that they think that evolution is about our having evolved from modern-day monkeys. Why are there millions of Christians who are happy to take an adamant stance about a subject that they should have flunked in high school if they gave these sorts of erroneous answers, and to think themselves smarter than the world’s scientists despite their being badly misinformed?

Yet even if one talks about the actual common ancestor of modern chimpanzees and humans, it is not at all true that we do not have s0-called “missing links.” Why do so many Christians think otherwise? There is a great illustration on TalkOrigins of how young-earth creationists dupe the gullible into believing that sort of nonsense. When it comes to the actual fossil evidence, the creationists will arbitrarily insist that fossils fall neatly into the category of “ape” or “human.” Yet they can’t seem to agree which! Even so, because those who fall for young-earth creationist lies follow their cult leaders unquestioningly and never fact-check their claims, these contradictions never get noticed.

Imagine if someone called Old English and modern English different species – sorry, “kinds.” They could then insist that there are no intermediate forms and put every text between then and now arbitrarily into the “Old English” or “modern English” category. But an actual examination of the texts would show a gradation between the two, showing how the one evolved into the other. The fossil evidence shows the same thing – and the genetic evidence confirms it.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    That picture is an interesting variation on the old “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

    The problem seems to be that creationists can’t understand evolution, because they don’t want to understand evolution. They are afraid that it they understand it, that might threaten their creationist views.

    • John Clapton

      We didn’t evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

      • jen

        if we involved form a common ancestor where is genetic and sub atomic evidence of a progressive positive mutation codex written within those acids that make up all of the blueprints for mutations to happen. why has there never been a case in the controlled experiment of the fruitflies that has produce a positive mutation that has added new genetic code into the speices instead of deteriorating it? Where is your evidence for genetic matrix that has the predetermined capacity to mutate to a certian degree giving humans blue eyes but never a tail changed in your supposed millions and billions of years? Lets talk about eugenics why has not one experiment on the mutilation of animals resulted in the permanant creation of lasting new species that has the new compilation of genetic matrix to now include the process of transition mutation amongst its new kind? Then why has no human created rock babies or water babies from cleaning themselves? Your logic in base form is flawed beyond any credible science. Your common ancestor does not exist and you know it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Comparative genetic work provides exactly the sort of evidence that you are looking for, and so I can only assume that you have never actually read something on this topic. Why not start with something by a Christian biologist or geneticist – Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, or Francis Collins? Or just do some reading about human chromosome 2 and how it compares to those of other primates.

  • Brian P.

    I can’t speak for others, but for me I think it was mostly that before I understand evolution, I saw species as Platonic types. I believe it was less that my worldview was Biblical and more that it was unknowingly influenced by a modern form of ancient Greek thought. I believe this also was underneath my prior need to see Absolute Truth and to have a foundationalist understanding of Scripture. At the time, I didn’t know these things. It was just how I saw things, maybe was explicitly or implicitly taught to see things, and to see through other lenses or views or worldviews was a practical impossibility. For me, personally, the breakthrough was in reading Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale.

    • plectrophenax

      That’s an interesting point about Platonic types. I suppose the Platonic form is ideal and perhaps eternal, whereas speciation is about change over time. It’s a kind of clash between essentialism (a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit), and the Heraclitean fire (all is change). To quote Dawkins, ‘there is no permanent rabbitness’. Perhaps that horrifies some people, who want permanency and fixed landmarks and boundaries. Nature is fuzzy.

    • JenellYB

      I took a college Religious Studies course, “Science and Religion,” tat gave an excellent breakdown of just how Christianity arrived at its present anti-science state, and that most “Christian objection” to much in modern science, including evolution and creation, arose out of the Church having adopted Aristote’s models of thought about the nature of reality and the universe and the Earth, adapting it to biblical context. So that it is actually the Aristotelian cosmic view at odds with modern science, rather than modern science against religion. We read the major primary tests setting forth arguments for Creationism, and looked at much of the supposed supporting ‘evidence’ used to form the ideas and argue for it as a valid ‘scientific theory’ and it was outrageous stuff, many supposed resources for ‘evidence’ mere opinion works presented as if credible and authoritative, poorly done newspaper stories, many claiming to present ‘evidence’ long ago discredited and debunked. Also, looking at the “scientists” claimed to support Creationism, most have no education or degrees in any field of expertise in biology, geology, or other natural sciences. “Dr.” and “PhD” are heavily emphasized in connection to supposed “science experts” that when you look up WHAT their doctorate education was in, are such things as mechanical engineered, and one “Dr.” being cited was a podiatrist, a foot doctor! It was also pointed out that most of those supporting Creationism than engaged in actually getting an education in traditional natural sciences, whether geology, biology, or physics, had, by the time they completed their degrees, abandoned the whole “young Earth” Creationism idea, and swung over to traditional “old Earth” theories in the natural sciences.

  • Just Sayin’

    YE Creationists believe this sort of thing because the Great Deceiver, Ken Ham, tells them so.

  • Will

    This about sums it up!

  • Greg Dill

    As a creationist, I still have a hard time understanding macro-evolution because simply there seems to be very little evidence of it. There doesn’t seem to be much of the intermediate kinds that have been found. I don’t dismiss evolution altogether, after all, there is plenty evidence of micro-evolution occurring even in our own lifetime. But, macro-evolution seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.

    Just for the record, I’m not a militant creationist, young earth believer, Ken Ham follower. In fact, I don’t even follow the debate much. I believe there are bigger hills to be climbed. God is God no matter what, how, or where we came from.

    Cheers.

    • Michael Rigby

      The Bible says God created the Heavens, the Earth and all living creatures. It doesn’t say how. One mans evolution is another mans creation. If that makes sense. Let me put it this way. The Bible states life started in the sea (Genesis 1 v 20). So does Science. The Bible then says it moved onto land (Genesis 1 v 24). So does Science. So, in a way, science and the Bible agree. So, is evolution Gods way of creating Mankind? I believe this is commonly referred to as “intelligent design” and that’s what I’m putting my money on.

      • Greg Dill

        Theistic Evolution makes a pretty good case for this. One, that I myself have recently taken a closer look at. Just not there quite yet. Nevertheless, it gets you thinking.

      • Bob Black

        No, what you are describing is not Intelligent Design. It may best be described as “Theistic Evolution”. The theory of Intelligent Design is VERY different.

      • Tim

        I think you’re on the right track here, but while you’ve raised some good points, it’s best to avoid trying to make Genesis and evolution match up too neatly, because you will ultimately run into trouble on that route. I like the way Peter Enns treats the subject in his book, The Evolution of Adam (which is not at all about the literal biological evolution of adam). The upshot of the book is that, for a variety of reasons, Genesis is not intended to answer the question (at all) of “how”, but rather, “why”, particularly with regard to the nation of Israel. It’s a very informative and eye-opening read.

      • Bender

        Let me put it this way. The Bible states life started in the sea (Genesis 1 v 20). So does Science.

        The bible also says plants existed before the sun.

        So, is evolution Gods way of creating Mankind?

        No. If you think it is, you need to explain why he let the dinosaurs thrive for 160 million years before giving mammals a chance.

        • Michael Rigby

          Who knows? I’m not God. Maybe to give us oil or maybe because that is how it had to be. There are far more important issues than whether or not God created mankind exactly as the Bible says or if Genesis is just a poem to describe what we cannot know. I was merely pointing out some correlation between the Bible and Science. As to “intelligent design”, I just had a quick glance at what it was about and thought it was a best fit description. I’ve now studied it more and maybe it is not correct. “Theistic evolution” maybe more how I see it now I’ve had a look. Either way, there’s far more important matters than who’s correct, who’s wrong and who made who. It’s all just intellectual willy waving and bigging yourself up with who can come up with the best terminology to describe creation. God bless

    • JenellYB

      Greg, you express what seems to me a sensible, realistic view on the issues, in both your recognition that there are things about old Earth natural science, evolution in particular, that you don’t feel you know and understand enough about to stake a belief claim on it. And, you do recognize that one can certainly be a “creationist” without embracing “Creationism”, which is one specific set of claims about creation. Many people, on all side, are not aware of this, think “creationist” and embracing “Creationism” are one and the same. Having myself both raised my children in traditional schools and seeing what is presented to them in the way of science books, information, in any and all the natural sciences, and then, having studied biology at college level, I am acutely aware that what is presented up through high school level in any and all the sciences is shockingly shallow and leaves a lot completely untouched. I don’t think anyone could possibly make it through a college degree in a biology field, possible any other natural science field, and still reject old earth science, and evolutionary theory. Your comment having not seen much evidence of as you call it “macro-evolution” is understandable, not much is presented at lower education levels, by that I mean below college Biology for Majors, which is required for those majoring in a biological science of a pre-med track. Unfortunately, freshman college “Intro to Biology” or “Into to Earth Science,” sufficient for those with a non-science major, is awfully thin on it, as well, as that does not require getting down into deeper studies of evidence of evolution at such as the cellular level or DNA evidence. One of the easiest to understand forms in which evolution, both at macro and micro levels, for me, was study of classification in taxonomy, the breakdown of details that determine how plant and animal species are categorized as t relatedness. Examination in detail allowed me to ‘see’ how different genera and species “blended into one another,” through the accumulation of individual variations of traits and genetics, transitioning over many generations. But I also agree, there are bigger, and more important hills to climb, for any and all of us. What does it really matter to any of us, either way, in who and what and where we are now, and how we live our lives, or our faith?

    • Chiefley

      Greg,
      The fossil record has never been and it is not now the main body of evidence for macro-evolution. That has always come from evidence from living organisms and it still does today. Since the development of molecular biology, and specifically genetics, we now have evidence of macro evolution of all living species from a common ancestor, with a kind of mathematical precision.

      Fossilization is rare and finding fossils is even more rare. So the fossil record will always be incomplete as the main body of evidence for evolution. On the other hand, we do have dramatic fossil series that demonstrate all the things we would expect from evolution. And they are al consistent with the predictions made by the theory.

      If your reticence is based on the fossil record, then I can understand why you would have some doubts.

    • xyzzy

      Let me give you some things to think about:

      What do you think “macro-evolution” is, if it is not the cumulative effect of many events of what you call “micro-evolution”? Evolution happens in genes, and any minor change that does not kill the organism will survive. Over time, the changes pile up. Do you think the sum of many small changes cannot be a large change?

      Of course, sometimes changes in a single gene can be dramatic. I have white skin, rather than black/brown. One allele of a single gene has been identified that is responsible for something like 60% of that effect.

      I am about 8 inches taller than everybody else in my family. Other related symptoms suggest that I have a mutation in my FBN1 gene. I’ve never had it sequenced to confirm, but I have many of the other effects that are associated with that syndrome. What would happen if I pass on that gene? What would happen to my children if it became an advantage to be unusually tall?

      I find the “intermediate form” argument quite annoying because it just is not a valid argument. You can always ask for more “intermediate forms” no matter how many have been found.

      There have been numerous additional fossils found over the last 20 to 30 years. Many of them have clearly been intermediates. The typical creationist claim is that the intermediates are missing. This sets up a form of Zeno’s paradox: We have A and M, and they say “Where is the intermediate?”. We find J and they say “Where is the intermediate between A and J?”. We find C and they say “Where is the intermediate between C and J?”. They keep asking, and we keep finding intermediate forms, but they don’t acknowledge them.

      Think it all through and see where it leads you.

    • Bender

      As a creationist, I still have a hard time understanding macro-evolution
      because simply there seems to be very little evidence of it.

      Macro-evolution is but the cumulative effect of micro-evolution, and there are literally hundreds of fossils that illustrate it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

      One of the most famous is the Archaeopteryx, a transitional form between reptiles and birds:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

      It’s famous because it was discovered only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species, and its mixed characteristics are obvious even for the layman: It had wings and feathers like a bird, but also teeth and a long bony tail like a reptile.

  • charlesmaynes

    the thing that is great about science is that it has little fear of being proven wrong… Evolution is a pretty obvious process, as is entropy.

  • http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/ Rachel’s Hobbit Hole

    Funny you should ask that question. I just wrote about this very thing (from the perspective of someone who was raised to be a young earth creationist) on my blog. http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/2014/01/thoughts-on-pervasive-influence-of.html To make a long story short, I think creationism is pervasive because it completely misrepresents science and evolution in particular. It’s only strength is attacking lies — that it makes up.

  • L L Bennett

    I’m a self made man! End of discussion.

  • stuart32

    It’s very easy for confusion to arise here. All lineages alive today have been evolving for the same length of time, but some have changed more than others. We share a common ancestor with lobe-finned fish about 400 million years ago but during those 400 million years we have changed far more than they have.
    So we haven’t evolved from monkeys that are alive today, but the ancestor that we share with monkeys was much more like them than it is like us. Strictly speaking, we actually are monkeys, so it is wrong to say that they are monkeys and we aren’t. But, strictly speaking, we actually are lobe-finned fish. This is the problem with applying cladistics consistently. So on this occasion, I wouldn’t be too harsh on those who don’t completely understand the subject.

  • Gedeon

    just show people the fossils! as simple as that!

  • A B S

    for each step of micro evolution to macro evolution – there have to billions of intermediate species. And if we consider that macro evolution from the first vertebrate to all the present vertebrates – then this earth must have to FULL of BONES of the dead species.
    Evolution is a myth

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      You have been misinformed. You seem to believe that most organisms which die are fossilized, when in fact it is very rare. But even without the fossil evidence, we could still tell that all things on this planet are related thanks to the DNA evidence.

      • A B S

        when there are bones of T-Rex dating 55 million years… doubts arise why other bones have fossilized !!??
        I think evolutionists have a very hard time defending their myth with the jargon :)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Did you not understand my comment? Are you under the mistaken impression that we have fossils of all the T-Rexes that lived?!

          If you have an argument and evidence to offer that can overturn the abundance of research on evolution, please submit it to a science journal, and then in due course collect your Nobel prize. But since you have trouble understanding a simple blog comment on this topic, I am going to guess that you are not prepared to do the relevant scientific research, and that your prideful arrogance is simply an expression of your sinful human nature, rather than a genuine expression of comprehension.

          • A B S

            even if 0.0001% of the bones get fossilzed, then that should make 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bones as per evolution.

            • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              I take it that English is not your first language. Can you offer a peer-reviewed study that provides a scientifically-informed estimate on the number of fossils that we should expect, given what we know about the process of fossilization?

              A major problem, however, is that every organism is “transitional” when considered in comparison with its ancestors and descendants. And so I suspect that you may think that we are missing things that we are not missing. A fossil like Tiktaalik is an important find because it provides evidence of a particular evolutionary juncture. But to think that it is rare and that other organisms are not “transitional” reflects a profound misunderstanding of what biological evolution is and how it works.

              • A B S

                how many transitions does it take for each macro evolution ??

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  Again, you seem not to understand what biological evolution entails. Instead of spending so much time leaving inane comments on a blog, why not read a book about biology?

                  • A B S

                    could you pls answer my question, if you know,?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Your question does not make sense and does not pertain to biological evolution as scientists understand it. Hence my suggestion that you try to understand the topic by actually studying it first.

                  • A B S

                    how many intermediate species should die before one stable vertebrate becomes another stable vertebrate?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      That doesn’t make sense. What makes you think that there are unstable intermediates?

                  • A B S

                    name one man on earth that has made a DNA from inorganic atomic elements, plus science laws, plus sufficient time to produce the event of a creation. Most claims of taking a known DNA stem cell to synthesize a protein is cheating, it is not the creation of a new thing, from scratch. I have never seen a literal proof of Evolution theory, except the talking points compared to visual presentations of what appears to have happened long ago. But to produce a protein out of 20 amino acids that works and then use that as a building block to construct a biological machine, no man has done anything of the sort. There is nothing in Atomic Theory to support a Natural Selection construct of the Protein Molecule, as simply self application of Natural Laws. The mathematical code does not show up anywhere in Physical Sciences. sorry .?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Presumably if we made DNA that would be cited as evidence that it requires a designer – heads I win, tails you lose.

                      There are many things found in nature which we have eventually copied – flight, sight, solar power – but which initially we were unable to. You seem to be focused on abiogenesis, which is still mysterious and an open question. Here I was addressing evolution, i.e. the way that life, once it exists, develops and diversifies.

                    • A B S

                      if we evolved form a common ancestor where is genetic and sub atomic evidence of a progressive positive mutation codex written within those acids that make up all of the blueprints for mutations to happen. why has there never been a case in the controlled experiment of the fruit flies that has produce a positive mutation that has added new genetic code into the species instead of deteriorating it? Where is your evidence for genetic matrix that has the predetermined capacity to mutate to a certain degree giving humans blue eyes but never a tail changed in your supposed millions and billions of years? Lets talk about eugenics why has not one experiment on the mutilation of animals resulted in the permanent creation of lasting new species that has the new compilation of genetic matrix to now include the process of transition mutation amongst its new kind? Then why has no human created rock babies or water babies from cleaning themselves? Your logic in base form is flawed beyond any credible science. Your common ancestor does not exist and you know it. Evolution is just a myth with jargon.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Rock babies? Water babies? Again, you don’t understand what evolution entails. What you consider a myth is a myth, something that you and perhaps other anti-science creationists have made up because you don’t have the wisdom to learn about a subject before disputing it.

                      What do you make of the evidence of human chromosome 2 in comparison with other primates? You claim there is no evidence, and yet there are some well-known obvious examples that can be provided by anyone who knows anything about the subject, even if they are not a biologist.

                    • A B S

                      biology or carbon dating cannot prove Evolution.
                      a rock just formed from lava will be dated 10 million years.
                      Let us try to understand from philosophical point of view.
                      Is there a purpose for life ?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      If you knew even a little about C14 dating, you would know that it cannot be used to date things that old. Again, just about every comment of yours shows that you do not know the basics of the sciences that you are determined to reject without understanding them. Why do you do this? Why do you hate the Creator so that you would not care to study his handiwork, and would demean those who do study it?

                      Whether life has a purpose cannot be determined by making things up, pretending they are what scientists say, and then arguing against these enemies concocted by your own imagination.

                      Whether life has a purpose should not depend on what you are made of. If you think your life depends for its value on the chemicals that you consist of and the biological processes that led to you taking the human form that you do, you are badly mistaken.

                    • A B S

                      you seem to think every one is ignorant, and you are the Mr KnowItAll.
                      Ok, I agree that way for some time. Could you pls tell me how many intermediate (links or unstable) species should form before another stable organism forms.
                      Why don’t you just answer the question instead of calling people ignorant ?
                      and if you don’t know, why can’t you just admit that you don’t know ??

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I don’t think everyone is ignorant. Since you keep showing that you are, my impression concerning you is based on what you have written. For instance, you have said yet again that you think there are “stable species” with “unstable links” in between them. Where did you get this ludicrous idea from? Why should I not point out your ignorance when you are objecting to what you call “evolution” and you don’t even know what it is you are objecting to?

                    • A B S

                      i am surprised by the way the evolution has over taken (or hijacked) your brain and cut away all thinking capacities.
                      My question is simple. Let me put it in more simple terms. Suddenly one day, an ape did not give birth to a human, right ? So, according to evolution, an ape, one day, gave birth to a being which did not completely resemble the apes nor humans. This thing is the unstable species. Because it has a tail and partly monkey and partly human. After ‘how many generations’ that the tail totally disappeared and men are being born without a tail at all.
                      That is the question. Since you have read soooo much of biology, you should be able to answer it.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      No, you are mistaken. That is not what evolution says. Where did you get your mistaken notions about it from?

                    • A B S

                      if that is not what evolution says, then what does it say?
                      the single celled amoeba started giving birth to elephants, zebras and humans ???

                    • A B S

                      New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

                    • A B S

                      There is no evidence – scientific – that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible

  • A B S

    There is no evidence – scientific – that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible..

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      The evidence of human chromosome 2 refutes this claim.

  • A B S

    Regarding the chromosome argument, new research is indicating that we are actually more different than chimps than we originally thought we were. It was published in Nature in 2010, and focused on the differences in the Y chromosome. While not comprehensive, it shows us that the old mantra “We’re 99.8% similar to chimps” is not accurate.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Are you incapable of posting all your thoughts in a single comment? Stop spamming or you will be banned. There was no legitimate reason to post half a dozen comments in a row, when you could have simply written one.

  • A B S

    Anyway, even if you say that evolution really happens (which I don’t believe in), scientists still have to face the hard facts found in the complexity of DNA. Everyone who have honest eyes to see will admit that DNA is far too complex and intricate to be a product of evolution.

    In addition to this, evolution will never be able to explain what caused life here on earth. Even the big bang theory will not suffice.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      DNA is the underlying mechanism of evolution. To suggest that it is thought to be the “product of evolution” simply shows that, once again, you are confused about the most basic tenets of modern biology.

      Why would the Big Bang theory be appealed to as an explanation of what caused life on earth? Do you not know what the Big Bang theory is, either?

      I am starting to suspect that you are an atheist who is trying to make Christians look bad, and are deliberately posting things that are wrong and pretending to be a Christian to make Christians look ignorant. I cannot believe that you have genuinely been unable to make a single comment without botching the basics of at least one topic you refer to.

      • A B S

        LoL .. you think you are too smart or somebody told you so. Do you know how you are talking ??
        You are talking as though you have done several experiments in the laboratory and have witnessed with your own eyes while evolution is happening right in front of your eyes.
        DNA is way tooo complicated and offering an explanation such as evolution is the stupidest thing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          OK, I think you are joking around here as a prank. I refuse to believe that you are claiming that you are smarter than the world’s biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists combined, and then are complaining about how I sound when pointing out to you the evidence in your own comments that you are not the genius you think you are.

          Please take your poorly-informed spamming elsewhere. Goodbye.

      • A B S

        Let us come to the magical figures of evolution.
        Suppose giraffes evolved from horses. Straightaway a horse will not give birth to a giraffe, right?
        So, it is mutations again. And mutations are very slow, most of the time producing degenerating results. Say, 1 in a million is a useful, upgrading mutation.
        So, at least there must be 10^10 horse looking animals with 1 feet longer neck..
        then again another 10^10 animals with 2 feet neck (considering the greatest probability for positive mutations, let alone failed ones !!)
        then again 10^10 animals with 3 feet …. this process can go on until the present giraffes which have a length of 6 feet.
        WHERE ARE THOSE ANIMALS ?? OR THEIR BONES ??
        Instead of calling me stupid and pose like a mr.knowitall… could you give a straight forward answer ??
        You are always telling that i don’t know but never gave one ‘intelligent’ reply yet !!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Look into the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe. It is excellent evidence of evolution, as it makes no sense as the work of a direct creative act.

  • A B S

    funny thing is some people talk like they have seen what happened 400 million years ago. LoL.. that is such a blind faith !! ha haaa

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      If you do not believe that we can learn about the past using evidence from the present, then that will make it very hard for you to know about Jesus, solve crimes, or do anything else of the sort.

  • A B S

    Soft tissue surviving for 68 million years, eh? And meanwhile the sun shone all this enormous length of time remaining perfectly or quite closely the same size? And we find ornate objects such as bells and hammers and gold chain in dated 200 million year old coal beds? And we find dinosaur tracks and human tracks together in the same riverbed in Glen Rose Texas? And folklore legends of dragons and giants abound in societies everywhere.
    Evolutionists, now twist and spin their heads to offer a 140000000 million years ago story.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Even young-earth creationist websites now mostly accept that the alleged human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints are not that. Not only are you unwilling to read science, but you are apparently unwilling to read even the damage control by your own viewpoint’s propaganda-makers.

  • A B S

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist

    Is this article suggesting soft tissue survived for 68million years? I think it is…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      It is indicating that the soft tissue fossilized, not that the soft tissue survived. If you understood what fossilization involves, as per our earlier discussion, you would understand why this is something very rare.

  • A B S

    ha haa .. i discovered one more thing.. wherever the atheists are discussing, they are using the sentences .. “You don’t know anything, or you don’t understand the basics, or you know nothing about the subject.” LoL … Please observe discussions of evolutionists and you find these stereotypical comments .. !!!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I am not an atheist, I am a Christian, obviously. You, however, are spamming. I told you once that this needed to stop. Filling the comments section with a dozen of your comments where you could write everything in one is not acceptable. This is your last warning. If you are poorly educated about science, I would be delighted for you to stay here and learn something. But basic etiquette and politeness are essential.

  • A B S

    mutations have a high rate of damaging species, experiments with animals and bacteria proves that a fly stays a fly and bacteria bacteria

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Again, since you do not understand the rate at which evolution occurs, the mechanism, and the fact that all living things are transitional forms, you are obviously going to misunderstand the significance of any scientific research you encounter. Kindly begin at the beginning, learn the basics of biology, and when you have done so, you can apologize for your misplaced arrogant claims to be a genius, and we can begin again. Until then, as much as I would love to hope that you might learn something if you stayed around, your inability to observe basic internet etiquette means that you must be banned. I can tolerate ignorance – as an educator, I am eager to help someone learn. But sometimes a disruptive influence must be removed from the classroom to prevent it interfering with the experience that everyone else is having. Goodbye for now. If you decide that you are willing to follow rules and stop spamming, let me know and I will happily rescind the ban.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X