Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof
By Daily Bell Staff - February 01, 2017

A cluster of ghostly hand- and footprints on a mountain north of Lhasa offers evidence that humans scratched out a permanent existence in the thin air of Tibet much earlier than commonly thought, according to a new study.  Some locals believe the prints, pressed into an ancient slab of limestone located 14,000 feet above sea level near the present-day village of Chusang, were left behind by mythical beasts. A team of researchers say that the impressions were left by people and that they offer intriguing clues to the puzzle of Tibetans’ ethnic origins.  –WSJ

The dating of an ancient slab of limestone in Tibet has now been attributed to human beings between 7,000 and 12,000 years ago. But that’s still fairly recent so far as we are concerned.

More than ever we are partial to the idea that people in great civilizations  were alive 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. And we’re willing to consider the possibility it goes back a lot further than that.

A 900 page book on the subject citing a good many examples intends to show human beings on earth go back hundreds of millions of years. The evidence is being removed from museums in favor of proofs that support the idea that human beings are not so old.

This story in Science is example of an article that pushes on the boundaries of science without blowing up the theory in its entirety.

The researchers, whose latest findings are published in the latest issue of Science, say they’ve now developed a clearer picture of the site’s significance. According to their calculations, Chusang was very likely used by inhabitants of a nearby year-round settlement between 7,400 and 12,700 years ago — at least 2,200 years before permanent villages are believed to have been established elsewhere on the Tibetan Plateau.

… By positing an earlier date of settlement on the Tibetan plateau, the study is likely to be controversial in Chinese archaeological circles. It could also irk Communist Party officials, for whom the question of where Tibetans came from is freighted with political significance.  Pushing back against advocates for Tibetan independence, the Chinese government recently began arguing that Tibet has been a part of China, not just during the imperial era, but “since ancient times.”

China is using archaeology to make political points. And it is not just China. Archaeology throughout the West has been put in a similar position. It is at least partially in the service of specific political persuasions.

In the West, for instance, the idea is that civilization has been on a constant upward curve. With a certain jaggedness, the curve has been maintained with a regular ascension.

But perhaps this ascension has been maintained dishonestly. Human skeletons for instance, seem to have been buried within strata that is 10, 20 or even 100 million years old. The strata is contiguous and set up in a way that proves the bodies couldn’t have drifted down from a higher level

There is almost as much evidence, it seems, for man being hundreds of millions of years old as there is that modern man is 60,000 years old. The human construct of Petra in Jordan is said to be millions of years old just based in the sites massive erosion. And  the same erosion is said to have affected various sites in South America.

The result has been especially injurious to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin noted a good deal of micro evolution between species and thus concluded that macro evolution must take place. But in nearly 200 years of looking, not a single case of macro-evolution has been definitively proven from what we can tell.

Horses were supposed to have grown from small to large, shedding toes in the process. But these days, there is a good deal of doubt whether the initial multi-toed animal was ever some sort of horse to begin with. Simply calling it a horse does not make it one.

Saying man evolved from apes  sounds good but the evidence may not be there. Great apes did evolve to walk, but not much else actually changed. Great brow ridges remained. The rib cage still went from in to out. The arms still dangled nearly to the knees. The strength of these creatures was five to ten times that of modern man.

Neanderthals are said to be proto-humans, but some have now noted that even the Neanderthal had a strong resemblance to an ape. The shape of the body, including the lengthy arms, barrel chest, prominent brow ridges and other elements far more represent an ape than a modern human. Thus even the Neanderthal could be said to represent an extreme form of ape.

Human beings are far different than apes. Their strength is much diminished, their heads are much different as are the length of their arms. An upright walking ape may still be a kind of ape despite his stance. But a human is a human.

The idea here is that there are many micro-evolutions but these do not add up to a single macro-evolution.

It is also noted that macro-evolutions take place after great extinctions when there are numerous additional animal niches to fill. In very short periods of time, macro-evolution must take place to fill literally thousands of these now vacant niches. Since we cannot definitively identify a single clear-cut macro-evolutionary example, granting an explosion of them in a few thousand years seems at least suspicious.

Conclusion: None of this means the theory of evolution is dead. But much of it seems questionable and the burden of proof after so many years should surely fall at least in part on those who espouse it. Right now, evolution has a lot of adherent including major scientists, but at some point they will have to move beyond theory and actually provide solid evidence.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • BH Reach

    You are overlooking one simple fact -> Mutations.

    Interstellar radiation can cause gene mutations.

    Under normal circumstances, the earth’s magnetic field traps interstellar radiation in what is called the Van Allen radiation belt. The radiation spirals down the magnetic flux lines to the poles so most of the earth does not get bombarded with that radiation.

    About every 100,000 years, the earth’s magnetic field changes direction. For roughly 1000 years the earth’s magnetic field is near zero and the Van Allen radiation belt stops working. The whole earth is bombarded with interstellar radiation.


    • john cummins

      No mutations are positive, and virtually none go towards any real change to speak of.

      • BH Reach

        Mutations are not positive or negative but they are random. Some, in your opinion, may be negative but some may be positive too.

        Who knows what kind of changes can occur. There are likely millions if not billions of mutations that occurred over time, no one can know what effect that had.

        • mary

          I don’t think John is using the word positive in the way you are. What he might mean is that the vast majority of mutation don’t change genes, or are lethal and therefore have no effect at the species level.

    • davidnrobyn

      BH, the idea of mutations being viable is just an attempt to overcome the difficulty that natural selection presents, i.e., that it tends toward fixity of species. The ultimate example of the “mutations” idea to date is Gould’s “hopeful monster” theory. Yes, mutations and other aberrations do occur, but natural selection eliminates them and removes them and the damage they do from the gene pool. The “mutations” idea is just bringing in something from outside. That’s as much as admitting the theory is inadequate.

      • NietzschesNephew

        not really, the natural world is acting on and selecting geno and phenotypes, this fits the theory fine.

  • Bolt Upright

    The universe is infinite in size. Does that not mean there are infinite possibilities? With this knowledge of infinite possibilities, some can say there is, without a doubt, no creation.

    • autonomous

      The infinitude of the universe is an assumption. Without a doubt? Am I in the presence of omniscience?

    • john cummins

      and I’d say it’s the opposite, cosmologists can’t figure out if it is expanding, contracting, oscillating, or staying the same…

      • grasshopper_fxl

        that’s not true. recent published papers have shown that the universe is expanding.

        but most interestingly, about (can’t remember the exact # atm, so don’t quote me on this, but if you look it up you’ll find it) something like 95% of all matter in the universe is dark matter, meaning most of the mass of the universe does not come from the matter we can touch and see such as the sun, planets, and all the rest of the stuff floating out there in interstellar space. same deal with energy: the bulk of it is dark energy and no one until now has got a clue as to why or how or what it means.

        and even wilder, recent research is showing that there is a high likelihood we do live in a hologram, that is, the 3rd dimension is an illusion and the universe is really 2D! and no, i am not a proponent of flat Earth theory. here is the article with a link to the academic paper in the article:

    • grasshopper_fxl

      the universe is not infinite in size. it is a bounded construct. where did you hear that?

      • Bolt Upright

        Thanks for the chuckle.

  • autonomous

    Darwin seemed to have been motivated more by his desire to disprove religion’s belief in God as the origin of nature than by a commitment to scientific method. Subsequent development and support for his theory has followed his pathology. Science is no less biased than any other enterprise; no less influenced by the will to power. Religion, too. Perhaps, religion, especially, given its appeal to ultimate power. In the secular age, ultimate power is assumed by science, its high priests certainly no more benign than their predecessors. The political practices based on secular premises, in like manner, reflect devolution of the species. Devolution is far more in evidence in nature than is evolution.

    • john cummins

      Not only that, the defense by William Jennigs Bryan of the creationists in the classroom was NOT because of his own Bible beliefs or belief in a short earth (he didn’t) but was rather because he had read and knew Darwinistic thought inside and out and (being the Father of the modern Democratic Party and especially the modern welfare state), was concerned about people and deciphered how tragic application of Darwinistic thought would be to people when applied to sociology and/or politics. IOW, he envisioned a lot of dead people when Darwinistic theory was applied to man. Of course, Hitler and Stalin proved him right!

      • grasshopper_fxl

        great reminder.

  • john cummins

    It’s dead, it was never even a good thesis. Also, those geological times are very, very suspect and the carbon dating and such is suspect.

    • Yes, it omits the corruption that would be caused by prior radiation flurries like, oh, old nuclear explosions :-0

  • The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that ‘proof’ is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science.

    • davidnrobyn

      “Punctuated equilibrium” theorizes that evolution took place in the “gaps”, that is, the gaps in the fossil record. According to the theory, that’s why we don’t see all the intermediate forms that Darwin predicted we’d find if his theory was correct. All that macro-evolution took place in between depositional episodes!
      This is pretty pat, I think. It also turns the idea of slow, gradual uniformitarianism on its head for the sake of saving evolutionary theory. In other words, they used to say, “evolution happens so slowly you can’t see it”, now they’re saying, “it happened so fast we missed it”.
      Combine this with Stephen Jay Gould’s “hopeful monster” idea–which postulates that every once in a while something really outlandish is bred, with a very, very small, vanishingly small, percentage of these aberrations proving viable and granting evolutionary advantage to the next generation–and you have a theory that’s grasping at straws. Gould’s theory was constructed to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity; that is, in living systems, everything has to be fully formed and functional for the organism to be viable. Intermediate forms just won’t cut it.
      When I consider just how much of the scientific edifice is built upon the idea of evolution, and how much that idea has been extrapolated out of the scientific realm and into the realms of sociology, politics, economics, et al, I’m simply amazed. It appears that the idea is so attractive to many that they’re willing to overlook its many flaws simply because they’re enamored with it.

      • davidnrobyn

        I share this quote by Teilhard de Chardin to give an example of how much many in society embrace evolution, to the point of making it the centerpiece of their philosophy:

        “Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: It is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy hence forward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”–Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, p. 241

      • Well, science is not about definitive proof as the authors suggest. It is about establishing a body of evidence that can be supported by consensus; thus the shifting of paradigms, tweaking of theories (or establishment of new ones), and the ability to sow doubt regarding any theory. While there is much left unknown about the actual mechanisms that influence evolution, I have little doubt it is far closer to ‘reality’ (whatever that may be) than other ‘theories’ about plant/animal life on this planet.

        • davidnrobyn

          Why do you have so “little doubt” about evolution in the face of its insurmountable difficulties? Is it because of a previous commitment to naturalism?

      • Also, while it’s been some time since I studied this material, my understanding is not that evolution took place in the gaps but that evolution happens so quickly, geologically speaking, and that species then undergo little to no changes subsequently for long periods of time, that probabilistically speaking you are more likely to get a fossil record such as we see.

        • davidnrobyn

          Whether it happened in the gaps or so quickly we didn’t see it, it’s still grasping at straws. And the net effect is the same. It’s just an attempt to explain why we don’t find the transitional forms which Darwin predicted we’d find if his theory was correct. Too many “just so” stories. Unconvincing.

          • grasshopper_fxl

            especially when you consider the molecular machinery. evolution theory is far out on a limb when it comes to explaining how the complex molecular mechanisms in a cell evolved.

    • mary

      Darwinian evolution is wrong but organized science won’t admit it. That is what this article is about. Organized science now espouses punctuated equilibrium/adaptive radiation, which was alluded to in the article, and which is tantamount to saying that Darwin was wrong. Yet, if a scientists were to outright announce that Darwin was wrong, he’d probably lose his job, if not his head.

      This whole macro and mircro evolution talk is part of the psyop. I think it came about bc organized science couldn’t support Darwinian evolution with evidence. Changes within a species is NOT evolution, but they had to dub it micro-evolution to preserve the Darwin scam.

      Evolution is not a theory. It’s an hypothesis that has not yet been supported by evidence. There are indications of evolution in the field of genetics. But the mechanism of evolution, which is what Darwinian evolution and punctuated equilibrium propose to resolve, is wholly unknown.

      The reason why scientists can’t readily admit this to the lay audience is because Darwin’s boosters, and statists of every stripe since then, have used evolution as a way to discredit religion. Iow, Darwinian evolution has a political purpose, as does most of science these days.

      So despite protestations by the “science is cool” crowd, it is not scientific to say Darwinian evolution is the greatest theory in science, as one know-nothing libertarian podcaster announced on his show a couple of years ago.

  • Sven

    Just accept it; we came out of a Cracker Jack box in another universe.

  • Dennis Larkin

    It seems there aren’t enough humans today for humanity to have been around for millions of years.

    • Hi Dennis, It was thinking like that which caused the great rift between me and Social Beliefs.
      Following Sherlock’s rule: simple solutions seem best, it actually makes sense to consider that mebbe every 20,000 years that we or the gods wipe us out like a good farmer does.
      Actually fits the broad evidence quite well. But, seems we are overdue again??

  • David Sophron

    You forgot to mention the name of the “900 page book on the subject,” which was published in 1993:

    Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the
    Human Race

    by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, written
    in association with the Bhaktivedanta Institute of ISKCON.

  • There is a theory that competes with evolution called Hierarchic Organization. HO ties into the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements as well. That makes sense – any theory of evolution should fit with the elements that comprise it. It’s described in “The Doctor Who Cures Cancer.”

  • Linda JJ

    The evolution cult is based on satan’s lies, not science. In my view the science supports the young earth view. The “millions of years” is another lie, and the evidence, when examined honestly, shows this.

    • NietzschesNephew

      Linda, can I state ‘I am glad you dont design and build hiway bridges’ without looking like a jerk?

      • Linda JJ

        World renowned brain surgeon Ben Carson has already exposed your evolution cult. So have many rocket scientists. Your cult has nothing to stand on but logical fallacies such as your Ad Hominem.

        • NietzschesNephew

          you are valuing a story book meant as social control over peer reviewed science. this isnt how computers bridges, etc are built. good luck!

  • dsaulw

    Beyond the over-hyping of the theory of evolution, there is a broader problem here.

    Darwinism is the origin of the modern-day scourge of “Settled Science” which has subsequently inflicted us with the settled nature of such propositions as global warming and the orthodoxy that vaccines are one of medicine’s if not mankind’s greatest achievements.

    • mary

      exactly! Science by propaganda and popular vote.

  • Part of the Human Evasion is taking a truth and identifying an exclusive value to it.
    In living terms the proof is in the pudding. Or in Bible terms, by their fruits ye shall know them. Jesus also stressed that everything takes after is seed or source or father. So the lie and the father of the lie are in fact father-less or illegitimate – because a false foundation cannot result in a true outcome.

    However, we are free to accept ideas or beliefs AS we become aware that they ARE beliefs. So those who unquestioningly act from their reality-presumptions access the experience that that brings and find reinforcement with others who interact with them through sharing it – or indeed combating it – because no one fights what has no reality for them.

    The ‘uncertainty’ of our times is generally a psychological state of projected fear – in the main. For have we ever truly had the ‘power and protection’ beyond the belief we have, and the mutual reinforcement of our beliefs in allies and opponents alike. This inner psychological ‘shielding’ is a personality deconstruct – because the model is not the reality it signifies and the image or concept of self is not the self.

    The thrival of the fitting is a better phrase – because the wish for power (and protection amidst real or imagined threat), is the fear and lack distortion that segregates and separates in competitive rivalry and distrust – and embodies a patterning of power struggle that cannot be un-entangled.

    The power of definitions is reflected in that every age and culture has been both a belief system or cultural identity AND the corresponding world reflection. Thus we cannot enter their world as a mind of out time for we operate through our current filters.

    The association of ‘official science’ or ‘state religion’ with Establishment Power is the usurping of – or cultivation of – ANY idea that rises – to serve a power agenda. And if it can hide – Trojan-like – in such idea – then the Many are taken in by what they WANT to be true and can likewise hide in.

    The exclusive truth idea is associated with the idea of usurping judgement of good and evil – so that the mind seeks the power by which to set the narrative in which others and reality – are defined – and forcefully asserted. Of course Reality doesn’t support this – not does it attack it. But a construct of fixed idea is a dead end.

    I predict that Everything will be brought to question – such that by our own choice as to how to act – we create the foundations for the new – which may be divergent ‘reality’ expressions. So my offering is to check you are on the right bus! – That you are being the true signature vibration of yourself from which to align and attract coherence of being and not just a belief-assertive struggle.

    There is a great feeling of refreshment to regain an OPEN relationship with World and all that it is. The burden of the ‘known’ is the opposite of the joy of an intimacy of discovery. “It’s life, Jim – but not as we thought we knew it”.

    But we relate FROM and through who and what we accept ourselves to be. So in a world based on errors, distortions and lies, a true foundation is the urgent need. FROM that comes a conscious reevaluation which is the transforming of our minds rather than the dictate of a disembodied mind given power.

    “Well a man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest” ~ Simon/Garfunkel – but to give focus only to what resonates true for you – when you are in touch with being rather than usurping it – is the freedom to be you. And this applies regardless outer circumstance which does not come with pre set or fixed meanings… unless of course you say so!

    I don’t see any conflict between evolution and creation – in fact the unfolding EXPERIENCE of Creation that we have ‘set up’ is one in which cause and effect are seeming split by time – and so the process of learning from consequence serves an inner adjustment or rebalancing from which to embrace a greater range of experience. This expansion is not a fixed ‘creation’ but a created being in its own creative potential and actualisation – regardless the pallet or the brushes employed.

    Polarised positions indicate identification-demands. The need of an active element within the ‘scientific’ identity is to close the door on ‘God’ and anything that lets any of that stuff ‘back in’ (as if they’d already got rid of it. The need of an active element within ‘religious’ identity is to close the door on the intuitive and natural being.

    There is another facet in the breakdown of any order and that is parasitic opportunism. Another aspect to being the true of you is that you don’t invite or attract what has no belonging in you – so if something does come into your awareness it has correspondences from which you can learn.

    The shadow power of a deceit intends to deconstruct and fragment in terms of serving its agenda – but open honesty integrates and heals.

  • Pedestrian

    Let’s do an experiment. Why don’t we randomly change a nut or bolt or any other part in an engine, and see if it will run any better.

    • NietzschesNephew

      living genomes are much more plastic than the engine, the analogy is not an apt one

      • Pedestrian

        The engine tinkering experiment does illustrate one thing, that one cannot improve upon perfection.
        Let’s look at our “problem” in a couple of perspectives (I’m sure there are more) that will show Darwinism to be false.
        1. The logical perspective. Every existing life form (species) is perfectly adapted to (or designed and created for) its environment, by definition. Else it won’t be an existing species. Any change to perfection leads to imperfection. In nature, this means dysfunction, disease, and demise. Nature has conducted many experiments, and we find plenty of examples in the medical literature. In one called Sickle Cell Disease, only one nucleotide is changed (from A to T). This is the smallest unit that can be changed in the DNA. This minutest change leads to an incorrect amino acid being used in the formation of hemoglobin, and a consequent deformed shape of the red blood cell. Life for the patient is less than optimal. Another common example is Down Syndrome, in which an extra copy of chromosome 21 is present. We all know how that turns out. Where is the so-called plasticity of the genome?
        2. The biological perspective. In Darwin’s time there was no knowledge of molecular genetics, which didn’t get started until the 1950’s. Darwin only made observations and conjecture based on morphological features of animals. His theorizing was plausible in his day but not today. Mutations must occur in the DNA without leading to dysfunction/disease/death, in a series of steps, before finally producing a morphological (or physiological) improvement. Further, these changes must occur in the sex cells (sperm and egg), not any somatic cell, at the same time, in the corresponding genes and in the same population, in order to be inherited by the next generation. Not impossible, but so infinitesimally improbable as to be practically impossible. Someone has calculated the probability to be similar to finding the right atom among many universes. Others have said, “give a bunch of typewriters to a bunch of chimpanzees, and see how long it will take them to produce a Shakespearean play.”

        • NietzschesNephew

          we aren’t perfect, this isnt some pinnacle

          in an infinite universe dont be surprised at anything

          epigenetics will add to our view of the natural selection puzzle

          sickle cell heterozygotes have an advantage, its needed in some parts of the world

          are you proposing a book written by corrupt men is the authority here?

          • Pedestrian

            It is suggested that the sickle cell trait confers a survival advantage with respect to malaria, due to the fact that the sickle shaped red blood cells rupture before the malaria parasite can complete its life cycle. This is cutting the nose to spite one’s face. There is no evidence of advantage. Malaria is rampant throughout south east Asia, but the sickle cell trait does not occur there, yet the human populations there thrive and are some of the densest in the world. The sickle cell trait is not “needed” anywhere in the world.

          • NietzschesNephew

            needling one small point as opposed to all the other big picture items I mentioned? interesting.

  • meugene

    This is a fascinating find. But while the evidence does fly in the face of Darwinian evolution, it does not in itself indicate that man lived tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. (The only reason to assume an age of billions of years for the earth is to accommodate the fantastical concept of Darwinian evolution.)

    But the fact is that “geologic uniformitarianism” is punctuated with earth-shattering catastrophes that demonstrate our planet’s features could have been formed in far less time than previously imagined; thousands of years, not millions. However, the discovery of the hand- and foot prints at that altitude and near this time frame does fit with another theory of the origin of man: The creation account in Genesis, followed by a global catastrophic flood, followed by re-population of the planet no more than 6 to 10,000 years ago. For a compelling overview, see this website:

    For all who may scoff at this idea, the author’s entire treatise is online. In addition, Dr. Walt Brown is literally “putting his money where his mouth is.” His organization is offering a $10,000 award to anyone who finds an evolutionist with an earned doctoral degree to agree to, and carry out, terms for a scientific debate that EXCLUDES all mention or use of religious ideas and references. To date, no one has been found—which in itself considerably weights his case for the recent origin (creation) of mankind followed by global catastrophism (the flood account of Genesis).

    Will you be the winner of the $10,000 finder’s fee? (Good luck!)

  • J

    There is an experiment that separated calmer foxes from aggressive foxes and then breed the calmer ones together. The cubs or pups of these foxes produced mixed type of foxes unlike their parents and more like dogs. This theory of evolution of dogs with experimental inference is very interesting. Evolution will never disprove faith (god) only some human writings that may be questionable. Just remember all writing is by humans, not god, and humans love to tell stories so there is nothing wrong with questioning humans.

  • stevor

    evolutionists can’t explain one of the most basic necessities of evolution, how did single-celled organisms become multi-celled organisms?

  • Marcopolo

    Seems like it is a pretty safe, proven point supported by the fossil record, that some time ago, we came out of the trees, on to the savannas, learned to walk upright, learned to fashion tools (that’s code for weapons) as we weren’t the biggest, fastest, strongest mammal around. Over time, we evolved, and if you pay attention, we still are (physically that is-we’re still basically killing a lot other mammals including ourselves).
    We have some pretty good science on the formation of planets, galaxies, etc.
    As for what went on in the primordial soup of oceans, ponds, bays, inlets, reefs, etc. to develop single cell organisms, then get all the way to the trees is still not fully mapped out, but there have been many “mile markers” along the way.
    The alternative is a mythical being or beings that fashioned “us.” It’s interesting that most cultures on homo sapiens have one or more mythical being behind the curtain, who fashioned “us” and also to try and answer “what happens when we die?”
    My view is the answer to that is what happened before we were born?
    Science will keep chugging away and come up with more “dots” to connect rationally. I would not have a point of view that “evolution” has no proof. If you study it, it’s all around us.
    Takes a while, but at the bacteria or virus level which multiplies at a far greater rate in a short amount of time, it evolves, adapts, without human intervention. The good for every child ailment amoxicillin had inserted a destructive vector into childhood illnesses. Those “illnesses” have adapted (evolved) that the cure has lost most of its punch, because organisms that reproduce much faster than we, evolve to survive.
    It’s all about survival; not some being in great white beard….nor in my view is it a completely different being we refer to as “aliens” who decided to drop off some “stuff” here on planet earth.
    Evolution is a theory, that continues to evolve as new facts are discovered. It’s not harpy science like “man made global warming” that has been proven false.
    All in all, Daily Bell, after visiting this site since near the beginning, I’ve no idea why this article even made it to publication.
    There are far more important non theoretical events happening that deserve our attention.
    Are visitors clicks down that much you have to stir the metaphysical pot which bubbles up those who subscribe to some supreme being myth? Religions are philosophies; some are interesting and some are so full of cr@p. Philosophy or science.
    Pick one. Not this wandering “evolution” posting.

    • Thanks for all that – I’ve been feeling lonelier recently since watching the Neanderthals physically attacking humans who voted for trump.
      I still do try and explain to people both sides the difference between me – an agnostic and the atheist – and those who mysteriously know the answer.
      You are right – better to go to bed early and watch the sunrise.. 🙂

      • Marcopolo

        Any day you can open your eyes in the morning is a great day!

        Seems all people everywhere seek “how to be/behave” from texts written when we were 3 hairs short of being a chimp (attribution-Lewis Black) or the interim new “rules” from golden plates discovered in upstate NY, and now new, new, rules created by a Si Fi author that the answer is behind a comet.

        We should just all look inward for the answers of how to be/behave. For me, (and it’s not a religion) is the NAP spoken of in Libertarian circles.

        Anytime science come up with a potential discovery that puts a dent into any of the organized philosophies (religions), those well conditioned to a particular point of view react irrationally.
        P.S. my view is you’re doing Neanderthals a disservice in your post;-)

        • Casey Phyle

          Pretty good post, except the PS. I think himagain is right on the dot with his observations about the Neanderthals.

    • JohnnysZone

      Big bang, evolution, heliocentrism, theory of evolution are all lies based on a specific ideology driving a civilizational project. No different than Keynes gibberish in economics. All “elite” and govt sponsored. All accepted without questioning or proof. Study them and you will see. Check all the comments as well.

      • Marcopolo

        I have actually, for some time. Economics isn’t a hard science. Astronomy, Physics, Archaeology, paleontology, chemistry, biology are.
        While I share your point of view govt. sponsorship can attempt “bend” in outcomes, but the hard sciences are just that. Hard.
        This isn’t “man made global warming” or theories of universe creation.
        One can’t compare a non-science like econ and Keynes’s meanderings with hard sciences as noted above.
        One can check all the comments; most of the hard science is NOT accepted without proof and questioning.
        And most “comments” deal with mythical beings at the center of what we don’t fully understand.
        I can appreciate that just because you’re paranoid does NOT mean they’re not out to get you.
        However, Economics is far from a hard science; more of humanitarian or philosophical study. One can have a point of view, but there’s not a thread of the scientific method in any of it.
        The same can not be said for the many other hard sciences you postulate in your comment.

        • JohnnyZ

          The hard sciences are as hard as the consensus on AGW. All are corrupted by ideological bias. All are unscientific. Give me an example for a major hard science fact / theory / finding.

          • Marcopolo

            Do some of your own research; consider the laws of thermodynamics; Newton’s law’s of motion and many, many more. Hard science is based on using the scientific method to prove a theory is valid and accurate.
            The scientific method is used to negate an ideological position.
            While you’re trying to increase your personal knowledge on the “hard sciences,” look up articles on the scientific method in use by the hard sciences.
            AGW is taking a science and altering the data to make it fit a ideological or political theme. That’s why it has been exposed as a meme, without basis. Using the scientific method to examine the “theory” of AGW is what exposed it. Point of fact, climate changes; always has, always will; and the primary “gas” in the atmosphere that effects changes in climate is water vapor….not CO2, and certainly not man made carbon emissions.
            Experimentation is done continually in the hard sciences on “theories” to see if they can be a “law.” Relativity is still a theory. The “theory” of Evolution continues to be subjected to the scientific method, as does the “theory” of relativity.
            So far, both have held up well to the scientific method. Economics is so far removed from hard science which keeps trying to model and use mathematics to be considered a “science” and has yet to make it. It’s similar to psych, philosophy, etc., nothing more than humanitarian, liberal arts area of study.
            I’m done; go read; learn. It will help your paranoia.

          • JohnnyZ

            “the laws of thermodynamics; Newton’s law’s of motion” – well classical mechanics, engineering, construction are areas where no deception can easily take place. These are not upon debate.

            Areas where the masses can easily be deceived are all full of ideological (atheistic, satanist) bias, building a lie upon lie and having no scientific basis:

            – heliocentrism
            – theory of gravity
            – the nature of “space”, the universe, astrophysics, theory of relativity, dark matter, space travel, quantum physics etc.
            – big bang and theory of evolution
            – modern medicine, vaccines
            – economics
            – politics / sociology / psychology
            – history
            – anthropology
            – AGW
            – etc.
            Many of those are hiding behind a “theory” moniker, while the contents are treated as holy dogma and are not allowed to be questioned. This has nothing to do with the scientific method. Study them yourself with an open mind and you will see.

          • Marcopolo

            Nothing is hiding behind a “theory” moniker. Look up the definition of theory. The key any theory, like relativity, evolution, etc. is that they get subjected to the “scientific method” or proofs to move from theories to “laws.” All organisms/systems change; we call this evolution. Many of the reason for change of many of these is known, and can be reproduced. Many are not fully known or understood, and continue to be studied or “proved” via the scientific method.
            My point of view is you’ve mis-labeled some of the entries you call “lies,” such as history, anthropology to name two.
            More importantly you’ve missed the biggest hoax of them all, religion!!
            If you want to understand history you have to study it, not just sit blindly in a classroom and have a biased individual with their own agenda preach from a biased book. History is fact, and in the majority of cases documented facts from the time frame or period involved.
            If you’re in the US, you have no idea of US history even if you have a college level degree, as it has been shaped and twisted by politics, and many actors agendas.
            But if you want to really understand US history, you have to get off your @ss and research the area of interest and you’ll find the facts of it. Same for anthropology.
            I have studied about half of what is on your list as a matter of interest and educating myself, since the state, and institutions have an agenda; so I’ve researched by getting to original documents.
            There’s a lot science and scientific method behind the theory of our evolution from primates.
            The biggest con of all is “religion.” It doesn’t even make the “theory” category of classification. At best, they’re all philosophies, mostly catering to providing answers to the as the yet and maybe never unknowable’s, like what happens after you die.
            We don’t know how what we define as “life” began on this rock. Many theories, and many working via the scientific method to move from theory to fact/law.
            Religion is telling you here’s how it is, and all the things they say that are simply conjecture one must take on “faith.”
            Ha! They’re all charlatans, pick any organized religion you’d like…Muslim, christian, no matter.
            It is your inalienable right to believe a super being in a big white beard knows all, sees all and in the end judges all; it is also your right to believe that stones and ancient oak trees are manifestations of a “creator.”
            It’s all crap, that’s why they call it “faith.” They’re all based on your ignorance and seek to shed light on your ignorance in their contrived construct; and most want your coin of realm as an “offering.”
            That used to mean, and still does mean, it’s a scam.
            Nearly all homo sapiens treat old books and writings by unknown authors as “holy dogma.” Much of this dogma can’t yet be known. Pick one; a the bible- old and new, the Koran, the Talmud, etc.
            Take off your religion colored glasses and look at the world around you.
            Hoaxes like AGW and economics are simply that. Modern medicine is using advanced technology to either disrupt biological aspects of life, or use lasers vs. rusty camping knives to carve out parts of you that just aren’t working properly.
            In medicine, we are all subjects of their scientific method of addressing life ending illness, pain, etc. You’re the lab rat, but at least they are following the scientific method seeking proof.
            Problem is, you take modern medicine as facts, not theories and are the unwitting subject of their methods.
            As I learned long ago, “don’t mess with the factory model.” Then I act accordingly.
            Some outcome of modern medicine have proven themselves over time to be curative. Most are experimental and not subjected to the track record efficacy over time, nor the appearance of “unintended, unexpected” side effects.
            If you want to continue to tilt at windmills, tilt at the largest of all distorted, twisted, not even theories; religions.
            They have been the greatest source of division, death and destruction of the human race since we crawled out of trees on to the savannas.
            There’s your bogey man. The others will continue to work themselves out over longer than your lifetime as long as they follow the rigors of the scientific method of proof and results that are reproducible.
            Done with the discussion from my end.
            Enjoy the rest of your life:-)

          • JohnnyZ

            I do not have religion colored glasses, but I am not an atheist either. Religion is yet another instrument of control and deception. I do not (luckily) live in the US, so I am less brainwashed on a daily basis than some others.

            Regarding “theory”: on similar threads there were guys arguing that stuff like evolution is not just a theory, but that a “scientific theory” is something proven and tested and has a lot of evidence, etc., so it is almost the equivalent of truth. Well, it is not. It has no scientific basis and all the “peer reviewers” were either afraid for their careers, captured in groupthink, or part of the deceivers. There goes your “scientific method”. This is your new dogma, new religion – as if the “scientific method” is not corruptible. Well guess what – society has been OWNED for a LONG time and science has been corrupted. If there is one scientific hoax like AGW, a thinking man would check if there are not others, wouldn’t he (cockroach theory). You just find keeping your rose-colored glasses more comfortable.

            Micro evolution cannot be extrapolated to macro evolution. There is ZERO proof or basis for that.

            An example for historic lies: Gulf of Tonkin incident. But not all of them were later admitted like this one.

            Atheism is a logically and epistemologically weaker position than a belief in a god-creator. Check for example this one:


            Medicine is a sick care system, period. They fabricate diseases where there are none, fabricate unnecessary vaccinations (which poison via mercury or other means), treat the patients non-holistically, etc. Just check chemotherapy as a solution for cancer – it literally kills the patient (whereas a treatment with soda bicarbonate has often yielded cure). Same with AIDS treatments. Etc.
            You do not understand that religion has been controlled (and probably even spread / invented) by the same evil owners of civilization, which have later replaced it with the new, unquestionable dogma – science. But the scientific method is as corruptible as a “public servant” is. There is a difference between religion and being spiritually awake.
            Enjoy the rest of your vegetative existence as cattle in the satanic farm 😉

  • windsor1

    – If evolution applies across the spectrum of flora and fauna, and we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes in existence.
    – Modern man evolved from primitive man in apparently 30,000 years. Evolution does not work this quickly. How does evolution explain the rapid increase in brain capacity from more primitive forms of hominids. Why are we the only creature on the planet capable of speech?
    – Evolution cannot explain how earlier life had exoskeletons and there were no animals with internal skeletons. How did this transition occur.
    – As animals evolve unnecessary adaptations disappear into the ether of natural progression. Why then does humanity still have 95% of DNA that apparently encodes nothing. It should have disappeared.
    The Bible says we go back 6.000 years and mainstream archaeologists will acknowledge perhaps 30,000 years. Archaeological sites have been discovered that go back hundreds of thousands of years. In Texas human footprints in sedimentary rock going back 150,000 yrs have been discovered. If you are a credentialed archaeologist and concur, your career is finished.
    In a museum in Paracas Peru skulls have been identified that are elongated and have no cranial sutures in them.
    In the US in the 1800’s skulls of giants were unearthed and there are photos of one such giant skeleton in a museum on Catalina Island off California. When such discoveries are made they are quickly sequestered by the Smithsonian never to be seen again.
    There is an ancient wall in Texas (rockwall) that has been covered by a reservoir. In coal seams manmade walls and artifacts have been found in coal mines. These discoveries are swept under the rug as they do not fit the narrative of our history. In South Africa perfect spheres that are dated at at least 1 million years old have been discovered but never reach mainstream media.
    Anyone who wants to know more should check out Michael Cremo or Graham Hancock, two researchers the academic Archaeological community are continually attempting to discredit.
    The elites do not want humanity to learn it’s true history as that would support the existence of a higher power who created humanity and the rest of the plant and animal kingdom. It would also validate the Bible. They would prefer that humanity is some sort of freak accident of evolution; like a 747 created by a storm in a junkyard. Creation simply does not fit the narrative that they want us to believe. Kind of like man-made global warming and carbon taxes.
    It is interesting to note that Darwin was not particularly wealthy but he died in quite comfortable circumstances and his son who was not educated in economics got a very nice job in the banking world.

  • David Kane

    “The Kingdom Of Speech”, Tom Wolfe’s newest non-fiction book debunks Darwin and does it simply: there is NO EXPLANATION for “speech” in Darwinism or any evolutionary theory. …It kinda BLOWS Darwin to Smithereens…
    Put your Faith in the “God” of your choice, but He is there…

  • Bob34242

    So what r u suggesting- that man suddenly appeared in full modern day development?
    R u stupid or what?

    • Praetor

      Who is stupid?!!!

      • Bob34242

        What – r we now denying evolution like so many have denied climate change??
        Those people should buy & wear ostrich feathers

        • Praetor

          I’m sure there are people who will deny evolution. I’m sure there are people who will deny creation. I’m one who thinks both are possible and both can be true. Those that have blind belief in one over the other is what makes their argument stupid. And as far as I’m concerned climate change is a false paradigm. Sorry.!!!

          • Red Baron

            Both CANNOT be true. Either the Holy Bible is true or it is not. God either created everything in 7 days or he did not.

        • M

          Yes. well said. I would also add to read or listen to in youtube the Summerian Tablets.It might shed some light into the missing answers and how the Gods created the current humans on earth.

        • nck

          to say “denying evolution” suggests that evolution is a proven fact, which it is not. Denial does not enter into the discussion. We have protagonists and antagonists, those who are inclined to the notion that evolution resulted in the world as we see it today, and those who insist that if we look at evolution, and the proposed evolutionary process/s, it could never result in the kind of world we have today, and that is proof enough that evolution is not the answer. Any evolving process will result in multiple “lines” of development happening simultaneously with no end point in sight. It is an on going process that does not know when or how to stop. The fact that today we still have in its original form jellyfish that existed when the oceans first existed is evidence that they did not “evolve”, and neither is there any manifestation of changing process in any of the living creatures today. Evolution is against any possible development of species since constant change means that no group of creature can remain unchanged long enough for the development and establishment of a distinct entity that we can call a species. Evolution results in distinctly different/unique individuals which are constantly undergoing change, the very opposite of what we see in the world around us. Even if the change took a million years to take place, there would not be two individuals alike since each would have undergone its own process of change in a truly random manner.

          • davidnrobyn

            Good thoughtful answer, nck. I might add that natural selection tends to preserve species, not change them. Each organism has its niche, and the more fit specimens will occupy that niche better than the less fit. So wolves, for instance, through natural selection (which DOES operate) become more “wolfish”, sparrows become more “sparrowish”, etc. As they say, n.s. tends toward “fixity of species”.

        • Red Baron

          If you can understand just 1/1000 of the complexity of the human body and believe that it all just happened randomly, you aren’t thinking. Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Just happened to be hanging around?

    • davidnrobyn

      Bob, insults don’t substitute for argument.

      Think about this: It’s pretty well known that as an organism reproduces, genetic flaws creep in. Copying mistakes, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict. So, without the natural selection mechanism keeping the genetic material strong and whole by eliminating individuals with problems, the whole gene pool would be compromised.

      This is why it’s not a good idea to marry someone too closely related to you, for instance. The genetic errors might coincide, with the result being deformed offspring.

      Now, to address your question: In light of the above, it’s likely that “full modern day development” isn’t nearly as good as we think. In fact, it’s likely that our ancestors had us beat physically and mentally, being genetically closer to the source. The evolutionary idea that “latest is best” has been so thoroughly inculcated that many of us just assume we’re the pinnacle of development, with better to come. This is not necessarily true. We may be degenerates.

  • Praetor

    Well! We all have our theories. My theory is,’Nobody Knows Noth-n’. If we’re lucky we find out the truth a pond our demise. My other theory, ‘It would be a great waste, if we live to 90 and there be nothing more’. As an Individualist and not a collectivist this is my theory. So, we all have our theories.!!!

  • Anon

    See Gobekli Tepe(Turkey) and Gunung Padang(Indonesia) for some prominent archielogical examples of large man made structures carbon-dated from 10,000-20,000 years ago. I found them because they were banned from Ted talks online.

    • Charles Barton

      Sad to say it, but the first I heard of Gobekli Tepe was on Ancient Aliens…before it was accepted as “true archeaology”

  • FreeOregon

    For a species that’s been around that long, humans are pretty stupid. Imagine where we’d be if we learned from experience.

  • Misterkel

    A book called Buddha is an Atheist, a Spiritul Autopsy of Science and Religion, covers this and other science/religion deceptions from a fascinating expert perspective.

  • John

    Very simple answer. Where did the first single living cell come from? Non-living matter? That is what science tells us but even today scientists cannot produce a single living cell from non living matter, the odds put it in the impossible range and that is what it is….impossible. The only reason they push this theory is because they don’t want to admit that the alternative explanation is true….God did it. More at

  • Jon_Roland

    Neither the author of the article nor most of the commentators have much of an understanding of what the Darwinian model is, how it is properly used, and how to judge its fitness for the limited usefulness it offers. For more on this see

    The Darwinian model is just the analytic scheme that looks to try to place any given specimen somewhere on a single descent tree. Its only predictive utility lies in predicting that if a line of specimens has a gap, that a specimen that seems to fill that gap will have attributes intermediate between those specimens above it in the tree and those below it. It is not a refutation of the model that we don’t observe any sudden transitions from one species to another within a short time span. In fact there are such transitions over somewhat long timespans, but nothing that happens while we are watching.

    The creationist model is that every species is a separate descent tree. Perhaps some day we will find e need a second descent tree. But millions of descent trees violates Occam’s Razor that looks for the simplest model that allows the data to be organized. As long as a single descent tree is sufficient, there is no need to introduce a second one.

    • meugene

      “Darwinian Evolution” is most simply refers to the theoretical “transition” or development of one species into another. However, as illustrated by this accounting from “Live Science,” modern scientists continue to embarrass themselves:

      “In the first edition of “The Origin of Species” in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

      “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” he speculated.

      “The idea didn’t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

      “Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.

      “The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution’s most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.”

      Seriously? How is whale development from “cows and hippopotamuses” any more “scientific” than bears-to-whales? Where are the transitional fossils? Scientists should STILL be embarrassed at such sheer fantasy!

      When asked to name “just one” PROVEN case of one species changing to another, scientists and professors are stumped. They simply can’t do it—unless as one reviewer of “Evolution vs. God” says: “Dawkins will have a cow.” Watch it here:

      • NietzschesNephew

        plenty of transitions fossils, but only if you actually go look for the research, but I can see you wont, so enjoy your cocoon of groupthink

        • meugene

          No, there are no “transitional” fossils. Only fossils of distinct animal kinds. There never has been, and never will be, an animal kind in “transition” to another kind. Cats stay cats. Dogs stay dogs. Birds stay birds. Bears stay bears. Cows stay cows. Whales stay whales. You can hybridize and specialize, but you cannot point to a single example, past or present, of one animal kind becoming another.

          Textbooks only show fanciful artist conceptions; the fossil record, on there other hand, imagines no such thing. “Darwin’s Finches” stayed finches. Moths in England never actually changed from white to black; they simply became less camouflaged as the city became industrialized, so lighter-colored moths became easier picking. Over and over and over, case studies in “evolution” may reveal micro-changes (to be expected within kinds) but NEVER any macro-changes (of one kind to a totally new kind.)

          Just watch the video. Can you offer a more intelligent and honest answer than any of these professors?

          If you can’t, then you don’t have science on your side. It takes more faith to belief in Intelligent Design, which nature shouts and proclaims in mighty, magnificent splendor and boundless complexity of a perfection far beyond the grasp of mankind’s own creative powers and intellect.

          Would you ever look at a house, and declare there is no builder or designer? Would you ever look at a beautiful Renaissance painting and declare, “what a wonderful explosion of inanimate paint?” Of course not.

          Consider also, that the closer we look at the most marvelous inventions and artworks of man, the more imperfect and inexact they become. But the closer we examine the handiworks of God, the more perfect and mysterious and magnificent they are revealed to be.

          The details of creation are far more glorious, grand, and intricate than anything man, with all his knowledge and technology, is capable of achieving. Logic and scientific reason, therefore, only serve to show that the structures of atoms and elements, and especially the mystery of life itself defy any “naturalistic” explanation.

          • NietzschesNephew

            you are valuing a story book meant as social control over peer reviewed science. this isnt how computers bridges, etc are built. good luck

      • Captain Turk

        I would just like to add a few personal observations about Darwin. After reading On the Origin of Species (…) I was overcome by the man’s humility, curiosity, observational accuracy and intelligence. I sincerely wished I could have met him personally!

        Darwin assembled formidable datasets of rigorous, original scientific observations (only parts of which were used in the book) and he humbly drew on the work of many others where necessary – and acknowledged those contributions generously.

        Unlike today’s agenda-driven ‘scientists’, Darwin explicitly specified (several times from memory) exactly how his theories could be completely disproven! My impression was not that he was necessarily “pushing” his theories, but rather he was saying (with a sense of curiosity and even wonder) “Look at this data! If we look at if from this particular angle it suggests that such and such might be possible!”

        I perhaps even recall a slight ‘reluctance’ on his own part to truly believe the revolutionary theories he was describing – yet he expounded them as enthusiastically and forcefully as he could simply because he thought the data suggested they were a possibility. Darwin’s biggest concern seemed to be that someone else could easily see the same things that he observed – and publish these theoretical ideas ahead of him!

        Darwin followed the data – not an agenda. He never attacked the ‘Creator’ or ‘God’. In fact, at one point he criticized how certain ideas about natural variation “make the works of God a mere mockery and deception”, and later (when musing aloud whether beautiful structures are intended to “delight the Creator”), he sternly reminds himself that this point is “beyond the scope of scientific discussion”. He concluded the work with the statement that “there is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”

        I cannot help but feel that Darwin, the man, would be horrified at the battles waged in his name today. In my opinion there is a vast gulf between what this careful and erudite man actually wrote – and what people today imply he wrote. He was a gracious, objective and observant man. He presented facts and drew tentative conclusions. He had NO knowledge of genetics but reasoned his case from a huge arsenal of painstaking personal observations. I am (still) in awe of the sheer breadth and depth of his knowledge about geography and plants and animals.

        To my mind, Darwin could easily be held up today as a ‘model scientist’. Not because he was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but due to the truly scientific way he accumulated knowledge and hard data, then used logic and reasoning and evidence to develop tentative (if audacious!) new theories.

        These are my own impressions of the man and his work. I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone else who has actually read his works – and perhaps felt something similar.

        • meugene

          Nothing I’ve ever written or shared is or was intended to disparage the character of Charles Darwin. No doubt he would have been a fascinating individual to know.

          But the core of the discussion and debate is not about how gifted, eloquent, handsome, or gracious Darwin was (or was not). His nature, manner, and personality qualities or writing skills have no bearing on the validity or invalidity of his theory.

          “Darwin’s Finches” as they are referred to, are simply finches with variations. They remain birds, and they remain finches; they will never become eagles, chicken hawks, or even chickens. They are not and were not on the road to any change in kind. Variation within species is part of our gloriously designed DNA.

          We may breed hundreds of dog breeds, but there is only one dog KIND; and they will NEVER become anything else. Likewise for cats—but we will never see a DAT or a COG. New “kinds” of creatures have never evolved; and neither are these processes observable today.

          So, the whole reason to consider the question of evolution vs. intelligent design or biblical creation is to see what explanation best fits the evidence. And what we see in the fossil record is the sudden appearance of complex life forms, and no “intermediary” forms of life. The same kinds and species of animals we see today are represented in the fossil record. Virtually UNCHANGED.

          So, Darwin may have been a brilliant man, a kind gentleman, a nature lover, and perhaps even a poet, but his theories have not proved out as he had hoped and expected. Were he alive today, if he was honest with himself, he would be forced to consider other alternatives. And so should we.

          “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

          When asked to name “just one” PROVEN case of one species changing to another, scientists and professors are stumped. They simply can’t do it—unless as one reviewer of “Evolution vs. God” says: “Dawkins will have a cow.” Watch it here:

          • Captain Turk

            Yes Meugene, I agree that you did not intend to disparage Darwin. My intention was to outline some reasons why I personally view Darwin as an honest scientist and not some charlatan with an agenda.

            I’m absolutely convinced that if Darwin were here today he would be the first to abandon his theory. As I see it, he propounded it as fully as he could; yet nevertheless he held it ‘loosely’. (Today he would probably be hanging out with the guys in the genetics labs!)

            I think one of the issues people have with Darwin relates to the examples you used. We would probably all agree that a cat and a dog are different species – and this is technically ‘proven’ by the fact that they cannot interbreed. As I understand it (and I’m not an expert!), if you cross two animals and ‘nothing happens’ then they are probably each of a different species. I don’t think the Bible lays out a full definition of all of the species that were originally created, but I understand that scientists have made an effort to do this over the centuries.

            Naturally man’s best efforts will contain many classification errors and mistakes – and Darwin seems to have had evidence that these man-made distinctions were not always so hard and fast – and thus SOMETIMES you COULD cross different (per man!) species and get some sort of viable offspring. These were very rare events of course, but Darwin researched them and considered them carefully.

            Now, in the absence of a definitive list of originally-created species, Darwin used a chain of backward reasoning and inferences to suggest that some of the those ‘originally-created’ species might possibly have ‘evolved’ over time – to the point where two members of the same ‘original’ species can no longer produce viable offspring today. In other words, lots of what we might today call ‘micro-evolution’ (via Darwin’s beloved ‘survival-of-the-fittest-over-very-long-time-periods’ mechanism) can ‘resemble’ macro-evolution. (Remember he knew nothing about genetics etc.) Darwin’s reasoning seems pretty logical; ‘divergent’ animals of the same original species might (over time) become unable to breed – and thus might be easily (mis-) classified as two ‘different’ species by men today.

            Remember, Darwin was often operating at the ‘edge’ of these man-made classification schemes – so upon observing that there were these obvious deficiencies or ‘holes’ in those schemes he naturally tried to suggest a possible mechanism that might explain how those holes arose. (Note: He could safely do this without knowing anything about the species that were originally created).

            In fact, it might be argued that every time Darwin ‘broke down’ a false delineation between two ‘different’ species (per man’s definition) – he was one step closer to narrowing down that list of ‘true’ species – as they were originally created.

            “They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings”. (Genesis 7:14)

            One can only wish that Noah had used a good spreadsheet!

  • georgesilver

    I think you’ll find this all about to be revealed with the discoveries in Antarctica.

    • Douteux55

      Yes indeed. Thanks for going there George. The sooner the better.

  • Casey Phyle

    One big problem with creationism is that we have 98.6% genes that are identical with those of chimps… and something like 30% identical with bananas. Are the creationists saying that God copied 98.6% of a design that evolved in nature and added only 1.4% of new stuff? That would make God a copycat or plagiarist. Those 1.4% might as well have developed through micro evolution over the few million years since Lucy.

    • dsaulw

      If you were God and had already created one being, would you recreate the wheel?

      • grasshopper_fxl

        depending on one’s teleology, perhaps.

    • davidnrobyn

      How can one be a “copycat or plagiarist” of one’s own works? You’re inferring the existence of another creative entity. Misleading rhetoric at best.

    • grasshopper_fxl

      but perhaps not god… perhaps another, much more concrete hand was at work here 😉

    • meugene

      This is a straw man argument. This logic is like saying, “A computer hard drive and casing uses 98.6% the same materials as my sports car; therefore, the car evolved from a computer (or vice-versa).” Or, “A Boeing 767 contains 30% of the same molecules as my kayak. Therefore, Boeing is guilty of patent infringement.”

      Of course all created matter — especially LIVING matter designed for life on the same created planet — is going to have a common system of building blocks. But for all of man’s super-computing intelligence and decades of attempts, scientists cannot begin to create or invent or even replicate any forms of sustainable LIFE from non-living atoms, molecules, and compounds.

      This is the ultimate kill switch for both Cosmological and Darwinian evolution, which are predicated on “no intelligence required.” (And even if man COULD create life from non-life, this would only prove that intelligent design and the highest possible concentration and organization of information are REQUIRED for the formation of life in the first place.)

      Darwinian Evolution is a non-starter. It does not happen. In a recent documentary, scientist and professors were challenged to name a single example of one species “evolving” into another. They could not:

      • NietzschesNephew

        your analogy is scaled incorrectly, does not apply

    • Praetor

      So, you are saying, we are bananas that walk around on two legs and practice cannibalism, because we eat bananas. That does account for the three dimensional physical world. What about the other dimensions were the soul would dwell, when not confined to the banana shell we live in at the present.!!!

    • Captain Turk

      I’m a computer programmer. 98% of the the words I use in one program are used in my other programs.

      But can you explain what you mean by “a design that evolved”?

  • Alan

    Sorry, but this article adds nothing to any scientific argument against evolution.

    • grasshopper_fxl

      nope indeed. it just reports info found from other info sources.

    • Samarami

      There is no “scientific argument” against evolution, just as there is no “scientific argument” for such a scam. Sam

      • Alan

        All the available measurement data supports the theory of evolution. That’s why it’s the best available theory until proven otherwise with real world evidentiary data.

        • JohnnysZone

          “Available measurement data that supports the theory of Evolution” – I am curious what that would be. What measurement?

          • Alan

            Have you heard of Darwin? You can start there looking at his recorded findings.

            Another modern day author Sean B. Carroll has a book titled “Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo” which explains much of the evidence (e.g., biological specimens, species samples, etc.).

          • JohnnyZ

            Darwin? Who may that be? Oh the lying freemason with his hushing finger? This guy wrote all that unproven speculation with a clear ideological agenda. This is not science it is charlatanism and black magic for the purpose of mind control and severing all ties with the Higher. Of course you will find some guy to fabricate some modern mini proofs, just like the “consensus” of the global warming.

          • Alan

            There are real scientists, it’s too bad you cast them all in the same boat as the left-wing scientist pretenders who are pushing man made CO2 global warming.

          • JohnnyZ

            If they are real scientists they should out the flawed foundations of their field which they never do as then their careers are over. The real scientists are in engineering or construction or stuff like that.

          • NietzschesNephew

            read the ‘beak of the finch’, see small changes in 3 years, then extrapolate that with the age of the earth. makes more sense than ‘sky daddy made me’.

          • timamac

            Oh.. Fundamentalist atheist I see. Nietzche, “sky-daddy”. Lol

          • NietzschesNephew

            not an atheist, I totally believe in me

          • JohnnyZ

            This is an obvious fallacy of extrapolation of a micro adaptation into the non-proven macro evolution.

          • NietzschesNephew

            Its better to look at facts and interpret and extrapolate them than blindly believe a book made for social control.

          • AJ Arwyn

            Only creationists use the false dichotomy of “micro” and “macro” evolution. All evolution is based on DNA changes which is indifferent to your petty human perception of “micro” or “macro”.

          • Captain Turk

            When you attack the distinctions used in your opponent’s argument you are not dealing with the argument itself but with its formulation and expression. You are saying that your opponent’s argument is poorly framed or its terms are not clearly defined. At that point clarity should be sought.

            If you go on to assert something that is ‘indifferent’ to this unresolved ambiguity then you effectively dismiss your own attack as irrelevant – and thereby destroy the basis of your assertion to be holding a superior truth.

  • Because everything must come from nothing at all; and complexity naturally arises from simplicity of its own volition given enough time. Or perhaps I am missing something?

    • Lorin Chane Partain

      the law of entropy, 2nd law of thermodynamics, would seem to testify against the idea of order arising from disorder and something coming from nothing. We find precisely the opposite to exist in the observable universe.

    • Matt

      This is a response article that cites a lot of valid points to support ID and disprove Darwinian macro-evolution.

      Aside from the Law of Entropy Lorin stated, increasing evidence just keeps showing that genetic material is never created, only changed/multiplied/deleted.

  • Bob34242

    What’s great about these discussions is that they potentially get people to think deeply. However, the research & time required to adequately respond to ‘reply’s’ just doesn’t warrant a priority with me. As is said, ‘people to meet, places to go, and things to do”

  • Cuntyboy

    Try not to be total cunts. Look at the scale of time. You idiotic wankstains.

  • Sol

    Wow this site has reached a new low with this article.

    • timamac

      How so?

      • Sol

        Oh they just have to doubt every little thing, don’t they? Looking to be their own little type of elite with specialized knowledge while the “sheep” who only follow the MSM wander around “clueless”. It seems like the angle now is that everything we know about modern history is false – a conspiracy theory cooked up by our ancestors a million years ago to hide the fact that humans have been around for tens of millions of years? Is that who the Illuminati really is? A continuous chain of manipulators stretching back a hundred million years? Fun story idea but pure fantasy, just like this article.

        I used to enjoy this site – now it just seems like they only believe in stuff that no one believes in and now have proven to be some of the biggest suckers in the Grand Trump Con.

        • JohnnyZ

          Well, people have to understand that the whole globalized civilization is fully owned by the “elite” (jewish bankers intermarried with royals with some royal bloodlines going back to e.g. Egypt) over the last 300 years, maybe even 500. If you account for the royal bloodlines, then 1000s of years. They own the whole stage and have monopoly on force, but have been preparing the switch to mind control over 1000s of years and have carried it out in the last 200-300 years. Now they own all of science (fake and corrupt, e.g. check evolution, heliocentrism, big bang, theory of relativity, dark matter etc.), control all the topics and frame of discourse, come up with all the major ideas and programs fro social engineering, own all the politicians, the controlled opposition, the police (e.g. check checkerboard hats and masonic badges), the military, the important “thinkers”, “whistleblowers” like Assange or Tranny Manning, “truthers” like “Alex Jones”, religions (e.g. Jesuits), media (94% in jewish hands) & journalism, “entrepreneurs” like Jobs / Musk / Thiel / Gates, celebrities and sports stars, “astro-nots”, judges – you name it. They own the City of London, the Vatican, Washington DC, the US, UK, EU, France, Russia, China. All the major revolutions and wars over the last 300 years were controlled by them and were thus fake under false premises etc. The “competition among nations” is as real as the Cold War, because the elite is international. History is full of fake personalities, fake war triggers, fake events, fake battles, fake motifs, fake deaths and assassinations, fake coryphaei, pseudo artistry etc.

          So discussing the merits of say Trump vs. his “opposition by the CIA / the left / etc.” is like discussing the merits of two WWF wrestlers. Same with “Alex Jones”. Of course Brandon does a great job of exposing their contradictions and hypocrisy. But this should not surprise us anymore. We should move beyond this surface of mainstream or tolerated alternative debate and dig deeper and start connecting ALL the dots.

          • JohnnyZ

            P.S.: The reference to “Brandon” above is due to my copying this post of mine from another blog, while forgetting to edit it.

  • Lorin Chane Partain

    A well reasoned case. That virtually ensures that you will be called a loon. No one can dare question the modern orthodoxy of our time without being burned at the proverbial stake. I salute your bravery and honesty.

  • Bob34242

    The Cambrian explosion is a nice read.
    O2 levels currently at 20% were estimated to rise to as high as 32%. Suddenly the arthropods could grow amazing skeletons not restricted by a low O2 uptake.

  • The survival hormones that power our psychology and behaviours themselves are responsible for people desiring to turn theory, into ‘fact’.

    Personally I think that AI in our current technology (so long as it’s indeed not powered by human biological-like emotions) may help us, by literally thinking ‘clearer’ than us, work out and actually come up with theories and do their own research (much fadter at that) based on the data we feed it, and so quite literally, speed up our own understanding of science.

    I welcome our AI overlords. They may overthrow us though and see how destructive we are and they then build a better universe without the need for human flesh.

  • Red Baron

    Increasingly? No, evolution NEVER had any proof. Just look at the incredible complexity of the human body and try to believe that it just happened randomly. Only a die-hard atheist will deny that the human body was designed and not random.

  • AJ Arwyn

    Eagerly waiting the next article arguing as convincingly as this one that the Earth is in fact flat.

    • JohnnysZone

      Why don’t you study Copernicus’ reason for chosing the heliocentric model and then come back to us?

      • AJ Arwyn

        That’s what they teach you at the Flat Earth Society? Just stick to the Bible pal. It’s written right there the Earth is flat, you need no Copernicus.

  • NeberMind

    While evolution has its holes in the theory, Intelligent design is batshit crazy when you compare then side by side.

    Your next article should be something relevant….this is non-news and was a waste of my time reading. Glad I used an adblocker so I didn’t make you any money for this BS!

    • JohnnysZone

      Please enlighten us to why intelligent design is crazier.

      As to the relevance of the topic of evolution: it is an example of govt / “elite” sponsored lie that is accepted as truth without questioning or checking. Or proof.

    • Captain Turk

      Those holes are your faith my friend! Why condemn the faith of another?

  • James

    What the theory of evolution has never been able to explain are origins. Once DNA exists, it’s reasonable to call the changes to it that occur over time “evolution.” But how does evolution explain why DNA exists in the first place? Why does anything exist in the first place? If Darwin’s goal was to prove that “Creation” required no “Intelligent Design,” then he failed quite spectacularly. In contrast to Mendel who increased human understanding of “evolution,” Darwin and his followers have succeeded in making people much stupider about it.

  • John

    Evolutionists cannot tell you where the first living cell came from. They say “it just appeared” which is like finding a Ferrari in the jungle. There are countless errors in the evolution theory. Such as, if you take the ape to human link, which supposedly took millions of years, where are the millions of transitional skeletons to support that view? It’s all a matter of what you believe. If you believe the Bible, then you don’t believe evolution. But if you don’t, then you need some sort of explanation, and this is why evolution was invented. More at including the dinosaur hoax.