The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Greg, John, Razib, and Me
Fred in His Darkness Pleads for Help, Piteously
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A good bit more now than a decade ago I was a member of Steve Sailer’s HBD (Human Biodiversity) mailing list. This dealt with (who would have thought it’) human biodiversity, meaning such things as evolution, racial differences, evolutionary psychology, and genetics. It was a bright and usually congenial group, if doctrinaire, from which I was dropped for, I think, apostasy. My sin, as best I could tell, was expressing doubts about Darwinism. This is something that One Doesn’t Do.

Among the members were Greg Cochran, a physicist; John Derbyshire, a mathematician by training and political philosopher by preference; and Razib Khan, currently a brilliant geneticist. All seemed decent sorts. Of all it could be said that if self-assurance were oil, they could use Saudi Arabia as a doorstop.

The list tolerated my heterodoxy, barely, for a bit. Several said that I wanted to destroy science. I would have thought this beyond my powers, but perhaps I underestimate myself. Finally Razib exploded in fury at questions I asked, deleted everything by or about me on his website,, did not answer my questions, and threatened to banish from Gnxp all of what he called “Fred Reed clones.”

This seemed excessive in response to a negligible blogger expressing curiosity about evolution. However I was made to understand that I had done the Darwinian equivalent of questioning the tripartite nature of Christ. I was, Razib said, arrogant.

This in particular surprised me. I had asked questions. A question is an admission of ignorance. How is that arrogant? I had made, and make, no claims to authority in genetics or related fields. I have none and pretend to none. That is why I asked simple questions. They were the only kind I could ask.

Well, all right, I thought. The web is a dark and savage place, rather like a biker bar though with higher syllabic density. And Razib wasn’t unique. There are in fact others on the web who dislike me.I find incomprehensible as I am sure that I am a splendid fellow.

Well and good. Then, a few months back, I found on the Unz Review a piece by John Derbyshire, in which he denounced Intelligent Design. This–ID–is the view that life looks more designed than accidental. Seething Darwinians equate doubts about evolutionary mechanisms with ID, and then with Biblical Creationism, and then with snake-handling primitive Baptists with three teeth in North Carolina. This chain has more of polemical convenience than of logical connection, but never mind.

Derbyshire’s article was more a credo than an argument, amounting to a long exhalation of haughty disdain (John is British) approximating: “ah, well, you know, these poor fools, what can you expect from such benighted, oh, ‘tis sad,” and the like.

Since he is quite bright, it is possible that he knows a great deal of the biological bases of doubts about Le Grand Chuck, but if so, he keeps it to himself.

Razib, however, is another matter. He certainly has the intelligence and training to dispel simple doubts about aspects of evolution. If he can’t, it is likely that nobody can. He is said not to suffer fools gladly, but perhaps he would suffer this one shortly.

But first, an apology to readers. Some of this requires more familiarity with matters evolutionary than constitutes a reasonable allocation of time for those with good sense. Providing background would require tens of thousands of words. I beg indulgence. Anyway, questions, some of which got me consigned to HBD perdition.

First, from what simpler coding system did the three-nucleotides-per-codon system arise by gradual and beneficial steps? Two nucleotides and a maximum of sixteen aminos? This seems to me a straightforward question about a simple and well-understood coding mechanism which, lacking a clear answer, would seem irreducibly complex.

Second, male homosexuality seems evolutionarily mysterious. It is not clear how one passes along one’s genes by not passing them along, or at least not to women, which would seem an evolutionarily necessary part of the transference. Greg Cochran solved this apparently intractable puzzle by postulating that a virus caused homosexuality. Has this virus been found? If not, might one suspect its nonexistence?

Third, can the evolution of Behe’s flagellum by gradual beneficial steps from earlier structures be explained? An answer, to be an answer, will require a chain of specific events and an explanation of the benefits that would keep them in existence while awaiting the next step.

The only answers I have seen to the foregoing questions have been that although we do not know the answer now, we do not doubt that answers will eventually be found. Yet while the assertion that answers will one day be found cannot be refuted, it is equally consistent with the possibility that there are no answers.

Fourth, if I may, a question more philosophical than technical regarding the chance beginning of life:

Molecular biology has existed for a considerable time and is now a mature science. How many more years, decades, or centuries must pass without the mechanism of abiogenesis being found before it becomes permissible to ask whether it actually happened? The simpler we posit the first life to have been, the harder to explain why millions of scientists have not found it, and the more complex we posit it to have been, the less likely that it happened at all.

The question has no specific answer, but brings to mind the Philosopher’s Stone, perpetual motion, phlogiston, and the luminiferous ether.

Fifth, evolution is said to retain the beneficial and discard the neutral or deleterious. An almost unlimited list of traits that seem to violate this principle can be adduced.

For example,nerve tissue in the kidneys makes kidney stones agonizing to the point of paralysis. Yet there was nothing at all the victim could do about kidney stones until recent times. What is the survival benefit of such nerves? Similarly, what is the benefit to survival of migraines? The victim can do nothing, and curling up on the ground and screaming seems of limited value.

Sixth, more a comment than a question: Just as Cochran’s Virus, for which there is no evidence, seems a desperate attempt to explain the evolutionarily embarrassing matter of male homosexuality; and the Multiverse, for which there is no evidence, to explain the appearance of Anthropic Principle; and Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the absence of desired fossils, so RNA World, for which as far as I know there is no convincing, much less persuasive, evidence, seems an unsupported attempt to avoid the apparently inexplicable disinclination of abiogenesis to have happened.

En fin, since the aforementioned men seem to want to vanquish doubters, and a large public interests itself in these matters, there would seem a chance to put paid to the doubts above. I cannot imagine that a geneticist would need more than half an hour.


Nekkid in Austin

Amazon review: “Essays on America, life, politics, and just about everything. The author chronicles among other adventures an aging stripper in Austin, dressed in a paper-mache horse, who had with her a cobra and a tarantula like a yak-hair pillow with legs and alternately charmed and terrified a room full of cowboys sucking down Bud and…. Fred was an apostle of the long-haul thumb during the Sixties and saw…many things. He tells of standing by the big roads across the desert, rockin in the wind blast of the heavy rigs roaring by and the whine of tires and dropping into an arroyo at night with a bottle of cheap red and watching the stars and perhaps smoking things not approved by the government. He tells of…well, that’s what the book is for. Join him.”

Write Fred at [email protected]. Be sure to put the letter “pdq” somewhere in the subject line to prevent heartless deletion by anti-spam software

• Category: Science • Tags: Creationism, Political Correctness 
Hide 479 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Technomad says:

    I’m not sure what you’re on about here. Are you questioning Charles Darwin’s original writings, or the fact of evolution? Darwin was a pioneer and probably did get a lot of specific things wrong, but his basic idea was correct. There’s too much—much too much—evidence that life forms evolve and have always done so.

  2. Polymath says:

    The main problem with the irreducible complexity argument in the case of something like a flagellum is a backwards perspective. If you achieve some function by *any* evolutionary history, even a highly “reducible” one, evolution will tend to break unnecessary links until things can’t be broken any further, so you should EXPECT complexity to become “irreducible”. The failure of imagination is thinking that the system could only be successive obtained from SIMPLER parts, rather than allowing change in both directions.

    However, that doesn’t meet your argument about how the genetic code could have arisen. That one is a very deep puzzle which I will leave to Razib and Greg to tackle.

    Another strange puzzle I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to is the haploid number problem—closely related species have differing numbers of pairs of chromosomes and cannot produce fertile offspring, but whichever one had a different number of chromosomes from the common ancestor must have suffered an extraordinary evolutionary bottleneck at the time the haploid number changed. I’m not aware of any extant species whose haploid number is not fixed, and if there were one with a minority subgroup with a different number of chromosomes, wouldn’t it suffer reduced fertility as long as it remained part of the larger population that would overwhelm any benefit of the macromutation that changed the haploid number? How does the new population even get started?

  3. David says:

    Searching on “irreducibly complex,” this appears to be Fred’s 7th column using essentially the same idiosyncratic mystification as a launching point since mid-2016. He doesn’t appear to have used the phrase before that, going by the archive.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anonymous
  4. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > flagellum

    Fred, you’d do well to first research the PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) you bring up at’s Index of Creationist Claims. You have not a single original PRATT that isn’t listed and to which a response is given that you may peruse. Even your query about homosexuality is answered at CB403. Here is how neatly the index is organized, so it isn’t difficult to use and answer some of your own questions.

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Ken DeRosa
  5. One searches in vain in this haze for a substantive point to rebut. But some of the turns of phrase are colorful:

    The web is a dark and savage place, rather like a biker bar though with higher syllabic density.

    But by all means, all topics should be eternally open for questioning and debate, including Darwinism — but in the appropriate venues.

  6. Giuseppe says:

    “Molecular biology has existed for a considerable time and is now a mature science. How many more years, decades, or centuries must pass without the mechanism of abiogenesis being found before it becomes permissible to ask whether it actually happened?”

    “It was aliens.” —Richard Dawkins

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  7. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Creationists like Michael Behe have been using the term “irreducibly complex” since at least 1996, as best I can tell from a short search at’s Index of Creationist Claims. It’s just another PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times.) However, there is little chance a Creationist will accept scientific evidence when the reason they hold to Creationism is an emotional defense mechanism. Creationism gives hope of an afterlife, and such afterlife narratives ameliorate the believer’s mortality salience.

    • Replies: @allan weisbecker
  8. Tulip says:

    The kitchen has a back door that opens out onto the porch in back.

    Why? The owner likes to make coffee in the morning and then sit on the porch with his coffee and smoke a cigarette.

    Intelligent design. It suits the psychological preference of the owner.

    If you don’t know anything about the psychology of the “designer”, then you really have no basis for saying the design is intelligent or not. So you might as well say its an “unintelligent design” or better yet, a “random design”.

    Evolution is useful as a heuristic. ID is not. Just as you can come up with all kinds of arguments why hammers are bad tools, you can come up with arguments for why evolution is a bad tool. But you can’t win until you come up with a better hammer, and trying to psychoanalyze God is probably not the best place to embark.

    • Replies: @another fred
  9. Grumpy says:

    I love Fred’s stuff. Even when I don’t agree he makes me think and laugh in equal measure.
    In regard to creation vs evolution, maybe that is the wrong question/approach. Why can’t it be some of both? Oh my God, burn him, he’s a heretic to both “sides”. Sorry, couldn’t resist. Anyway, why couldn’t ID play out over “time” through trial and error? Or just for fun. Or if there is a Supreme Being, why would IT have to follow man’s timeline, or any timeline at all. Maybe IT exists outside of what we call “time”. I can see the heads spinning, so while you are good and pissed at me, go read some Alan Watts to really push you over the edge. Sorry again, couldn’t resits, again. 😉
    I find the entire evolution vs ID argument f’ing hilarious. Both sides are so sure of themselves and have as many crazy claims as both sides of the climate change clown world. My experience tells me that when I see and hear this type of hyperbole it means the speaker has no clue, just volume.
    But it does entertain me, so thanks, and keep the hysteria cranked up on high!

    • Replies: @Prester John
  10. Zinj says:

    Evolution of the flagellum is pretty well discussed here:

  11. “Greg Cochran solved this apparently intractable puzzle by postulating that a virus caused homosexuality. Has this virus been found? If not, might one suspect its nonexistence?”

    Has any funding ever been provided to look for it?

    After all, if it was found, homosexuality could be prevented, and we couldn’t have that.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    , @MontanaGuy
  12. @Anonymous

    Even a cursory look at, say, the biology section quickly reveals that most of these answers hardly refute anything and certainly don’t amount to a scientific proof under even the most loose of standards. These are just epicycles upon epicycles to save the theory or admit that we know much less than what many claim has been proven beyond a scientific doubt. Hopefully, these are not the best the theory has to offer. These don’t exactly inspire confidence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  13. Let’s face it, we are the product of biological experimentation by aliens from planet Zoltar. It would be hilarious if that will turn out to be true to a certain degree. As per multiverse–they predicted and found Higg’s Boson (or was it bosom) , they are suspecting now that multiverse is not such a crazy idea after all.

  14. You are entirely right to question the Darwin (man-made, not evolved) Golden Calf.
    Kudos for the cojones to do so.

    Yale Computer Scientist David Gelernter Abandons Darwinism:

    “Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” David Gelernter, Prof. Computer Science, Yale Univ.

  15. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ken DeRosa

    Your PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) has been indexed as CA201; please make a note of it. Thank you.

  16. Kouros says:

    I found Nick Lane’s attempts to popularize the inner workings of evolution and life itself quite compelling. His books make a very detailed yet approachable while fascinating story that beats any creationism myth:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. Dumbo says:

    There’s too much—much too much—evidence that life forms evolve and have always done so.

    That was known before Darwin, even if “evolve” is perhaps the wrong word. But what he did intend to prove was the “origin of the species” and that has not been conclusively proven, or, at least, it is being very much discussed nowadays.

    I think it is clear that species have more DNA than they need and can change some of their aspects according to changes in the environment, but the information they need for that is already there. But as for random mutations causing the birth of completely new species, or a monkey to become a man after a few hundreds of thousands of years, I am not sure. But I’m no biologist.

  18. Anon[980] • Disclaimer says:

    You are good enough a psychologist, Reed, to know that nearly every person needs a faith; that is, something that must not be subjected to questioning.
    The espoused faith becomes part of the identity: “ego investment”. To question it becomes to attack the ego.

    It’s all a waste of time. The thinker must do his thinking independently, and alone.

    • Replies: @Jake
  19. GavinCato says:

    I accept all of the evidence for the origin of sub-species (AKA race, breed, strain). The settled science of probability says that you can’t get any complex structure or biochemical system from the accumulation of random mutations in a population. The big deception of Darwinian evangelists is that they treat their theory as a hard science on the same level as thermodynamics, organic chemistry or quantum mechanics. Those things have rigorous theoretical predictions and precise experimental confirmation. Nothing of the kind exists for evolution.

  20. Bemildred says:

    To the extent that you are saying that science is not about being a snotty know-it-all pushing his preferred scientific dogma, I concur. Big Science is, unfortunately, full of monkey politics and status competitions (and Money!) and the like, and it corrupts everything when it gets going. Darwin was an amateur, and I give him some slack, he didn’t get it all, but he came up with critical insights.

  21. Tuco says:

    Classic Darwinism (the anti-religious proposition that Man evolved from lower primates) and Evolution (the process itself) are two separate issues.

    Fred refers to a geneticist who, unexplainably, seems to cling to Darwinism despite claiming to have some advanced knowledge and experience with the DNA molecule. As a geneticist myself, I find that baffling. To claim the opinion (faith) that Man has, eventually, evolved from some primal ooze doesn’t even begin to answer the question of origins — what poor Charles Darwin is incriminated with having explained once and for all.

    Having conducted advanced studies with DNA (chromosome karyotypes) and peered at gene loci under powerful microscopes, I am simply amazed at how anyone can call themselves a “scientist” at all if they are not thoroughly aghast at any claims that such a magnificent structure, that top scientists are only now starting to unravel and understand, could have been assembled by mere random chance.

    For what it’s worth, this scientist is not so arrogant as to deny that some unknown yet far superior intelligence made that thing. The fact that said maker incorporated the potential for mutation, hybridization and replication — all necessary elements for an evolutionary process — only renders the object all the more mind-blowingly brilliant in design and purpose.

    Ah, but of course, that specter terrifies spineless “scientists” who cling with amazing (and what should be embarrassing) faith to an unwritten doctrine that specifies that, NO, no such super intelligence (God) can possibly exist. From this geneticist’s perspective, that takes a stronger faith than the primitive holy-roller so conveniently dismissed.

    A brilliant design that is the key to all life that just happened without a designer? So claims the atheistic “scientist.” Such great faith.

  22. @Technomad

    I’ve never seen any such “evidence”. Maybe you regard making a statement to be the same as presenting proof, which is what the Darwin fans all seem to do.

    “Oh, there are simply billions of examples of evolution, all with tons of proof.”

    “So, name 10 of those and cite a single item of proof for each”.

    “Trust me. There are billions. Now please shut up and go away. You’re harshing my buzz.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. @Andrei Martyanov

    Stuff and nonsense. The aliens were from Nexnish. Everyone knows that.

  24. Third, can the evolution of Behe’s flagellum by gradual beneficial steps from earlier structures be explained?

    I don’t believe this is a requirement for evolution. It’s possible, and likely certain, that something much more “complex” and Rube Goldberg occurred first, and then was trimmed down and optimized to Behe’s flagellum. I call this overshoot “scaffolding”. Evolutionary streamlining of the organism is “discarding” this scaffolding.

    I view abiogenesis and evolution as separate items, although many people seem to argue the two together. Unless you assume life is an original primitive of the universe, abiogenesis must obviously have occurred because — it exists! It obviously could not have occurred (as we see life today) in a gradual linear manner. (Perhaps multiple) episodes of scaffolding must have occurred. Something grew gradually in complexity, built out of a more primitive substrate, which then facilitated the genesis of a more complex primitive substrate.

    My definition of life is – information that can copy (and/or edit/learn) itself in a natural environment. If humanity ever succeeds in creating von Neumann machines, e.g. space probes that can make copies of themselves from asteroid raw material, then these would be a form of “artificial” life. Nan0-assemblers would also. In these two cases human civilization would be the scaffolding, which the probes would no longer need after being set free.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  25. Peter Frost says: • Website

    “Greg Cochran solved this apparently intractable puzzle by postulating that a virus caused homosexuality. Has this virus been found? If not, might one suspect its nonexistence?”

    He postulated a pathogen, not necessarily a virus. There is circumstantial evidence for some kind of pathogen.

    – With the growing use of antiretroviral therapy to control HIV, there has been a decline in opportunistic infections in AIDS victims, but the decline hasn’t been the same for all pathogens. In particular, some brain infections have shown modest declines or no change at all.

    – An Italian study found that cognitive impairment in AIDS victims was ten times more strongly associated with homosexuality/bisexuality than with intravenous drug use. Why is HIV much more likely to cause cognitive impairment in the body of a gay man than in the body of an intravenous drug user? Do druggies take better care of their mental health? The evidence actually suggests the reverse: HIV-associated dementia seems to progress more rapidly in intravenous drug users

    An unknown pathogen may have been caught in the dragnet of AIDS studies. It would coexist with HIV only because it, too, is associated with the gay lifestyle. This unknown pathogen may target certain brain sites of its host early in life in order to change his sexual orientation and increase its chances of transmission to another host. It then remains in the background until its host has reached an age when he ceases to be useful. The pathogen is then no longer penalized if it causes damage to surrounding neural tissues. Various neurocognitive disorders could therefore develop in its host from late middle age onward.

    Not all pathogens are easy to find, especially if they develop slowly. In any case, this is a debate that will be resolved by scientific methods. There’s no need to conclude that AIDS is a form of divine punishment.

    • Replies: @Tulip
    , @Jake
  26. MEH 0910 says:

    Fred, did you draw the cover art?

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  27. @Andrei Martyanov

    they are suspecting now that multiverse is not such a crazy idea after all.

    Are you referring to multiverses or to many-worlds? The two are often confused, but they are quite distinct concepts.

    A multiverse refers to different regions of the one “overall” universe which can look and behave completely differently to each other (eg different particles, a differing number of dimensions).

    Many-worlds is a certain interpretation of quantum physics, in which each time a wave function “collapses” – you look at Schrodingers cat and force it to be either alive or dead – a new world branches off. Ceteris paribus, there’s one world in which the cat is alive, and another in which it is dead.

    I find many-worlds much more interesting than multiverses. If you think about how many things we observe every second, then the ceteris mentioned above is never really paribus. There must be zillions of new worlds created every second. A billion qubits computing for a billion years could describe but a billionth part of that reality.

    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
  28. KenH says:

    The theory of evolution is the most plausible explanation for life on planet earth. Sure, one can nitpick certain aspects of it like Fredrico is wont to do but you can blow bigger holes in organized religion’s explanation of life and the laws that govern it. To think that all life on earth was created by and exists at the whims of a tyrannical deity with a long white beard who nobody has ever seen is fantastical and superstitious.

  29. Joe Rogan recently interviewed Cmdr. David Fravor, the navy pilot who encountered the Tic Tac.

  30. @KenH

    I agree that evolution is the most plausible explanation, but my confidence in rests on no more than the successes of science in explaining other aspects of reality. I’m no biologist. The subject bores me to tears. The truth is, I accept evolution on authority.

    It seems to me that the creationists have succeeded in casting doubt on that authority. They never needed to prove creationism; they simply needed to make it plausible and let those naturally drawn to that position take it from there.

    I used to think this was a profoundly important debate. I no longer really care. Evolution gets “disproved”? Big effin deal. Changes nothing in my life, my values or my worldview.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  31. Fred’s argument sounds like a variation on the argument from personal incredulity which boils down to: If science cannot explain all parts of Theory X to my satisfaction then science must be wrong about X. Having sparred with Creationists on the old usenet list, I can understand the frustration.

    It is little like telling me that physics cannot yet explain the precise atomic vibration of cesium atoms, or the invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference, or the equivalence principle. AFAIK, all of those assertions are true. However, using Fredist logic the skeptic then concludes that GPS doesn’t work.

    I am pretty sure science hasn’t worked that way since Newton.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  32. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Ok, so you regard evolution as a religion, so let’s stipulate that it is. Who goes around critiquing the the beliefs of religions of their neighbors but Aspie neckbeard atheists sitting in their mother’s basement? Haw, haw, he’s got religion! Haw, haw, stupid believer!

    Can’t you just leave well enough alone and respect another’s faith like you expect yours to be respected?

    • Replies: @elysianfield
    , @Emslander
  33. @silviosilver

    There must be zillions of new worlds created every second.

    They are in superposition until the waveform collapses due to a consciousness-frustum culling algorithm.

  34. Finally Razib exploded in fury at questions I asked, deleted everything by or about me on his website,, did not answer my questions, and threatened to banish from Gnxp all of what he called “Fred Reed clones.”

    This seemed excessive in response to a negligible blogger expressing curiosity about evolution. However I was made to understand that I had done the Darwinian equivalent of questioning the tripartite nature of Christ. I was, Razib said, arrogant.

    Razib Khan is a censorious coward.

    I’m not surprised.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Creationists tout creationism for one reason: without the Jewish make-believe tale in Genesis that postulates a single breeding pair from which all inherited “original sin” flowed, there is absolutely no need for a mystical savior. Any Christian who believes in evolution takes this verse both figuratively and literally—Adam figuratively, Resurrection literally—a rather dishonest interpretation:

    For as in [figurative/literal]Adam all die, so also in [figurative/literal] Christ all will be made alive. ~1 Corinthians 15:22

    And geneticists have incontrovertibly proven that there never was a single “Adam and Eve” breeding pair.* Myself, clearly a descendant of humans other than Adam and Eve—being free of original sin and having never sinned in my entire life—have no need of salvation. I’ll accept no guilt not my own. Piss off, guilt-mongers.


    * The facts first. Sheehan et al., building on earlier work by Li and Durbin (references in margin), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other genetic parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed level and structure of genetic variation in our species.

    Note: 2,500 is larger than two.

    This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity. Normally, such a scientific trashing of scripture could be absorbed, at least by liberal theologians. They’d just reinterpret Adam and Eve as metaphors. But that causes big trouble on two counts…

    Jerry Coyne (2013) Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again. New Republic.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  36. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Since “Darwinism” is a pejorative concocted by Creationists, there is no such thing as “Classic Darwinism.” Lay off the pejoratives, you slimy little communist shit twinkle toed cocksucker. (Of course, if you apologize for using pejoratives, I will follow. Or we can get along your way too.)

    In the United States, creationists often use the term “Darwinism” as a pejorative term in reference to….

    • Troll: Stonehands
    • Replies: @Tuco
  37. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    When you place the term evidence in “scare quotes,” it indicates that scientific evidence causes you anxiety by threatening your worldview.

  38. MEH 0910 says:

    Then, a few months back, I found on the Unz Review a piece by John Derbyshire, in which he denounced Intelligent Design.

    Which piece? Missing link.

  39. This is the most lucid reconciliation of creationism and evolution I have ever come across:

    H/T Tom Weller for his brilliant Science Made Stupid.

  40. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Rerun article >>> rerun comment:

    He has a point, at least based on what I’ve read here of Mr. Derbyshire. But Mr. Reed squandered much of his credibility a while back with ad hominem, homogeneous smears of “conspiracy theorists,” whose good faith replies he 100% ignored. That makes me think that this, too, was written to generate a long thread of angry comments, and that he will hide from anyone challenging his assertions. Just as his new nemesis, Mr. Derbyshire, did several months ago after taking cheap shots at those of us who question the Russophobic Establishment line, or who criticized his dismissal of Ilhan Omar on the basis of her religion and heritage after her brave statements about the influence of lobbyists in national governance.

    Both are often trolls with bylines.

  41. @Tuco

    But you always end up with the root question- if there’s a designer, who created the designer, and who created the creator of the designer? Or did the designer simply appear out of a puff of smoke?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @SBaker
    , @Jagger
  42. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    So you have a blog the details of military equipment, then Antifa shows up and starts insinuating that all military personnel scum, and all wars bad, and blah, blah, blah, trolling, blah. What do you do? No surprises now!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  43. @Carroll Price

    You only run into that problem trying to explain the origin of all existence. It’s not a problem if you’re only trying to explain the origin of species.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  44. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    You’re conflating lucid with ludicrous. Anybody familiar with natural selection would find your diagram ludicrous, because there were never fewer than 1000 breeding pairs in the human population; see comment 35 for details. Not to mention there’s a huge epistemological difference between word-magic creationism and natural selection. And have you ever heard of the term teleology?

    source: Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions, Evolution: Education and Outreach, June 2009, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 156–175

  45. macilrae says:

    Fred is a pretty bright fellow with a creative, original and inquiring mind: he just can’t seem to swallow the origin of species by natural selection. However he can’t suggest an alternative theory. I think this is a totally valid position to hold and the more we discover in physics (which, after all is the basis of all science including biology) the stranger it becomes.

    Just as Newtonian mechanics is today seen to be simplistic, the time may well come when Darwin’s theory comes to be seen the same way – assuredly there are aspects of it that have been proven to hold (take the finches) – but as an overarching theory that explains all life, while it is the best so far (if not the only one), it is still a quite a logical stretch.

    I think all he’s saying is that he is agnostic on this matter – the people he mentions who have reacted with hostility diminish themselves.

  46. Ragno says:

    There’s probably a fascinating series of discussions waiting to be had on these subjects, but once you’ve been exposed to enough Fred, you catch on pretty quick that he’s putting on a show here.

    When a Fred column contains beauts like polemical convenience, syllabic density, evolutionarily mysterious, inexplicable disinclination and, of course, adduced, he’s not so much fiddling with his galluses as he is snapping them for effect – why, surely no simple hick would use such big book-l’arnin’ words! But it’s one thing to wink at the gallery, and another to scrunch your face up so that they can clearly see you winking two towns over.

    Fred must have been had this one on a very slow boil if he’s this eager to settle scores from an Internet feud going back ten years. I’d be far more sympathetic to his theme here – that a country boy can adduce same as a Limey, or even a high-handed curry-monger – if he weren’t a lead-pipe cinch to return in another week or two to once again scold us moron yanquis for preferring to keep Mexico on the other side of the Rio Grande, but what can you expect from the rubes who’d re-elect el espía ruso?

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • LOL: Bragadocious
  47. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Good diagram of the tree of life here:

  48. Tusk says:

    What a ridiculous presumption to believe that you can explain away the origin of species with a creator and leave it at that, as if it doesn’t create a vacuum in understanding. Imagine asking your child “how did the vase get broken?” and they reply “a bear broke it” a commonsense response would be “what bear?” If you live on an island with no bears it is reasonable to explore the impossibility that a bear somehow broke the vase, similarly if you live in a world, in as far as I can see, there is no ‘God’ besides written statements of his impact it is logical to question how such a God exists to create species. The proposition that the origin of species is from design opens you upto defending that premise, which relies on the necessary existance of a creator, otherwise you are just defining away the problem. The issue is that you are proposing the existance of one object as the necessary cause of another, but then not allowing anyone to explore your proposition and forcing them only to respond to your conclusion. As far as I’m concerned Kant already thoroughly dismantled intelligent design (though this is merely my opinion).

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  49. Second, male homosexuality seems evolutionarily mysterious. It is not clear how one passes along one’s genes by not passing them along, or at least not to women

    Most homos in most times and most places were expected to be fruitful and multiply, and thus did “pass them along to women”. Whether they liked it or not is immaterial– unless it inspired them to have more children, as pregnancy is an effective excuse for avoiding the sex act.

    This goes, whether the genetic component of the condition is 100% or 0%.

    Suicide is just as “evolutionarily mysterious”. It’s not going away either.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  50. tlz says:

    Allan Weisbecker’s recent posts offer a similar position as Fred.

    An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins
    Why Richard Dawkins Is Wrong (about… everything)

    Addendum: I add the parenthetical to the title because if Dawkins is wrong about random mutation/natural selection being the cause of macro-evolutionary change (as the formation of the eye), we might as well say he’s wrong about everything. Hang in and you will understand why this is true.

  51. @Dumbo

    Yes, spot on. I have no doubt as to natural selection (NS) as a primary cause of evolution.
    However, random mutation is the indispensable motive force of evolution.
    NS can only introduce novelty by rearranging & discarding existing genetic material. Alone, it can not create what does not yet exist. (unless it exists as potential, ie, in yet unformed, relations of genes)
    The problem with mutation is it’s randomness. Yes, if the eye is purely produced by NS reordering of genes then its evolution is imaginable.
    However, once random mutation is introduced, then the mathematic probabilities increase spectacularly. (remember, it’s RANDOM).
    Not that I am suggesting ID or creationism. My own feeling (yes, feeling) is that not only biology, but the universe itself provides that existence itself has a “nature”. Existence has patterns. Just as Chaos seems to obey laws. Nietzsche’s “will to power” is useful here.
    Thus random mutation is not
    entirely “random”.

  52. @parabarbarian

    Fred’s argument is more direct: Science can’t explain anything regarding Darwin’s nonsense. It isn’t even a little bit like your absurd comparison to the invented dismissal of GPS functionality.

  53. @Tusk

    The ‘Creator did it’ is the adult version of Santa Claus.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Reg Cæsar
  54. 1) The 3-base system is the simplest that works; the 1-666 ones are no longer with us. That´s evolution, baby. Seen any Ford Model Ts lately?

    2) Recent study on deer seemed to show effeminate bucks have fecunder female offspring (to paraphrase Lindgren, fery interesting – if trüe). Higher-order selectivity is by nature impossible to nail in humans (go try a 20-generation doubleblind someday), but you can bet your sweet ass they are right now looking for SNPs on the x-chromosome. Failing that, it´s back to the default hypothesis: Congenital defect during organogenesis rendering the brain more primitive err female-like.
    How exactly does adaptivity enter into that?

    3) Reduced endosymbiont, like loads of others. Probably. [Then again, maybe someone stuck it there. – W. of Ockham]

    4) First organic synthesis (urea) Wöhler 1828.
    First plausible amino acids, Miller&Urey 1951.
    Let´s be generous and say 10² years. If we accept those little iron oxide tubes from the Canadian part of the Greenland Archaean (4.1 Ga), Nature had 40M times longer; also, her lab was somewhat bigger. Current state of the art are cell-like structures that metabolize, grow and multiply but do not last more than 40 minutes.
    That we cannot (yet) “make them live” is no reason to go Lady Macbeth.
    From the other side the LUCA (“last universal common ancestor” model) is now down to 200 or so genes, all GC-heavy as predicted* and coding for high-temperature enzymes.
    Current knowledge points towards the hydrothermal vent hypothesis of origin: Highest disequilibrium, loads of ion exchangers and adsorbers, and said enzymes; periodic drying up is desirable.
    * The guanine-cytosine bond, with one hydrogen bridge more than adenine-thymine, is 40% stronger and should therefore be kinetically preferred in the first reproducing nucleic acid.

    5) You were not designed to get old enough for kidney stones but it pays to protect the organ, like the ´nads. Besides, what kind of Candide argument is this?
    – A fish´s circulation is elegant and coaxial, heart -> gill -> muscle; when your ancestors crept on land, nature had to replace the gills with whatever was handy, and that was unfortunately the intestine; as a result of the separate lung circuit we need a needlessly complicated and finicky heart, and so on. “Intelligent”?

    6) feci

    I would say only paleontologists (and not geneticists, biochemists and other assorted episciences) should pontificate on this, but then there´s Gould 😛

    But seriously, why is there a debate at all? All those who dispute the Darwinian framework seem to fall into three categories:

    a) “Classic” snake-handling, bucktoothed, inbred* hicks, fetally addled by bad moonshine, homeskooled and now on Oxy.
    b) Conpersons peddling variously flavoured snake oils to a)
    c) Pampered, bored halfwits who believe the purpose of science is to supply them with consumer-friendly and palatable edutainment. That´s what The Simpsons are for.

    Did I forget anyone?

    * Meta-studies of the Icelandic genealogic tables seem to indicate a biological optimum of separation somewhere around second cousin. Hi deplorables 😀

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  55. Well, Fred, just reading through the comments, it appears you’ve stepped in it again.

    Lots of noise and froth about the flagella, and apparently little understanding that this is just one of many different kinds of nano-machines operating within a cell. Apparently your detractors don’t do a lot of reading on these subjects.

    And as always, the tiresome notions that 1) you’re not permitted to rebut a false theory unless you are able to explain how the right model works, and 2) in the world of evolution, any theory that can be made to sound plausible must be accepted as true, which then circles back to 1).

    Well done, Fred, and thanks for dropping a few BBs into the transmission.

  56. As I’ve written in many comments, I don’t agree with Mr. Reed’s political arguments. He tends to complain about America’s problems from Mexico, while disparaging the very people who work to fix them. As I’ve also commented, I give credit to the man when it’s due. This is an interesting topic, and Fred seems very fair this time in his comments on his co-pundits and their views on ID/Evolution.

    This is only the 3rd article by Mr.Reed on the Intelligent Design theory(?) that I recall (so I must have missed 4, per a reader above). I am no biologist, but a science/engr. type, and, though I could have slogged through the paper in talkdesign on flagellum linked-to by Zinj above, I don’t have the background to have determined whether the conclusion is right or wrong. I got through the beginning summary, and I noted the main theory to prove the ability of an organism like this (amazing too, and I’d never heard of them) to evolve was “cooption”. The authors meant that some features that creatures had evolved with that were useful were eventually bred into creatures with other smaller favorable features, resulting in the final flagellum. Again, I don’t know.

    I will say that Mr. Reed is right to at least ask those that belittle anyone who can’t see pure evolution/natural selection resulting in the complex creatures of the world to at least try to explain things better in a Carl Sagan-like fashion (of course, Carl Sagan himself, unfortunately evolved from a Cosmologist to someone who was quite full of shit, sounding more like a Cosmotologist at the end there …)

    If they are out there, I’d really like to know of some papers written to prove that the complex nature of the organisms of the world could indeed result from evolution/natural selection, with probabilities and statistics backing them.

  57. @Polymath

    Another strange puzzle I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to is the haploid number problem—closely related species have differing numbers of pairs of chromosomes and cannot produce fertile offspring, but whichever one had a different number of chromosomes from the common ancestor must have suffered an extraordinary evolutionary bottleneck at the time the haploid number changed.

    That’s always bothered me, too. Take humans and chimps, for example. Chimps have 24 chromosome pairs, humans 23. I don’t know how many our most recent common ancestor species had, but let’s say 24. One day, by a random tweak to the DNA, a female of that species bore a mutant child with 23 chromosomes? Sure, that could happen. But for that mutant to propagate, another child of the opposite sex, with the same mutation, would have to be born and come to maturity within the reproductive lifetime of the first.

    It strains credulity (mine, anyway) that this could occur by random chance. I don’t for a moment believe in an omnipotent Creator who made it all happen by simply willing it (I don’t think Fred does either, BTW), but there has to be something going on which science hasn’t yet figured out.

  58. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Wrong. Your PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) originated in 1985 from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, as noted here. Fifteen years later, scientists found the “Solution to Darwin’s dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life” (June 20, 2000) Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) 97 (13) 6947-6953; Please catch up, or alternatively, we can play Creationist Bingo.

    • Replies: @RW
  59. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rex Little

    Yet another PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times.)

    Creationist Claim CB141: DNA and chromosome counts differ widely between different organisms.
    Response: Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary widely within a single genus or even a single species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993). Chromosome counts in the house mouse species (Mus domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman et al. 1994).

    • Replies: @Rex Little
  60. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    • Achmed, one minute: “those that belittle anyone”
    • Achmed, the next minute: “Carl Sagan…quite full of shit”

    Per usual, the grievance collectors (aka, wound collectors or injustice collectors) assign to others their own belittlement behavior. You’ll be healthier letting go of your grievances. Watching the late Carl Sagan sing via autotuner is your path to inner healing.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  61. RW says:

    Interesting. The Cambrian has been getting lots of attention of late.

    I’m not a creationist, I’m a curiousionist.

  62. You’re on an excellent track (though I think the nerves in kidney’s are probably a good warning system that you’re in trouble)!

    I do not recall where exactly, but this link may be it:

    anyhow, my Dad and others who are aware of computers, the soul, and genetics often tear into the theory of evolution and its flaws. While these more eminent minds dive into the genetics and nitty-gritty names and sequences and programming errors, it ultimately comes down to the fact that most mutations have a negative or neutral affect. The chance of random mutation being helpful is so low, that it would take (statistically) trillions upon trillions of years for things to work out “right.” Now, all of this becomes possible of course with intervention from a higher, and likely, “douchebaggy” life-form. Darwin called it “the guiding hand of evolution”, though most people in their day called it the Soul, or God, or for Buddhists like me “The Overself and a Hierarchy of beings.” On a more mortal level, we see hilarious examples of Japanese scientists trying to prove “evolution” through deliberate genetic modification of mice and then exposure to high levels of specific radiation frequency. All they proved to me was that, indeed, humanity could have been made from something by someone, because if the Japanese could make a mouse sing, whose to say God or some Ancient Alien couldn’t take some hapless thing and make it into a Man?

    Oh, I always enjoy reading your articles. I dream of a day when America abandons its Empire and peacefully unites with Mexico into a real Confederacion del Norte Americano. I think we can just annex Canada.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  63. @Anonymous

    There are more words after “those that belittle anyone …”, such as “… who can’t see pure evolution/natural selection resulting in the complex creatures of the world to at least try to explain things better in a Carl Sagan-like fashion …” I didn’t say not to belittle anyone.

    What I was referring to was Sagan’s “Nuclear Winter” and “Choose Life” BS. He had been a good scientist, but he let the publicity and money go to his head. He could try to scare the public as much as he wanted with the bogus “nuclear winter” and have people buying “choose life” T-shirts*, but that wasn’t gonna end the Cold War. It took Ronnie, Maggie, John Paul II, Lec, Konrad, Helmut, and millions of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and engineers and technicians to end the Cold War.

    Go ahead and listen to him sing on the autotuner. I choose Rush:


    * which resulted, of course, in the subsequent “choose beer” T-shirts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  64. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > computers…genetics

    Computers have a language; however, genes do not. “The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf’s Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).” [Source: CB180] But it is difficult to explain science without being teleological, i.e., a evolution’s guiding hand or being similar to a human language.

    > Confederacion del Norte Americano

    A unrealized dream since 1784; NAFTA has come closest.

    Jefferson looked forward to a United States that spread across the entire continent of North America.

    Thomas Jefferson: The West

    • Replies: @Curle
  65. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Bogus “nuclear winter”? Not hardly. Read the recent study by Alan Robock, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov (July 2007) “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 112, Issue D13. Are you still clutching your copy of Nuclear War Survival Skills with the forward by Edward Teller, while you’re under a desk, duck’n’cover style, with your homemade tin foil and fish line Kearny Fallout Meter?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  66. @RW

    The problem here is that the Cambrian Explosion, erm, WASN´T.
    We have reasonable Metazoan record for ~130Ma before that (Ediacara, among others).
    What makes it appear an explosion is the sudden and widespread occurrence of hard shells (and thereby reliable makrofossil record) caused by:
    – A novel enzyme allowing direct biomineralization of shells as opposed to the diffuse mineralization in, say, stromatoliths that had been around ~3Ga longer.
    – A rise in ocean pH in conjunction with the preceding Snowball Earth glaciation, the biggest on record (I just hope our little Guy Fawkes doesn´t go into a hen-and-egg diatribe over that).

    Parts of this are fairly new, but still Comrade Gelernter should live up to his name before he sounds off.

  67. The two foundational requirements of evolutionary theory are random variation and natural selection. In 2018, a Chinese scientist used CRISPR technology to edit the genomes of two human embryos. Subsequently, the embryos were implanted and the mother gave birth to healthy twin girls.

    We now have two human beings whose genomes did not arise from random variation and natural selection. The theory of evolution has no mechanism to account for the reality of these two genomes. The theory of evolution is a backwards looking theory that seeks to explain the past without any possibility of experimenting on the past.

    The future of the human race will be determined by gene editing, not by random variation and natural selection. If you want to study a dead theory, spend your time on evolution.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nokangaroos
  68. @Achmed E. Newman

    I dunno …
    Sagan inspired quite a lot of people – isn´t that the highest form of procreation?
    Lesch is losing it too as of late … maybe Man, in the long run,
    just istn´t built for the Big Picture? To be like God? 😛

  69. @Anonymous

    Can’t you just leave well enough alone and respect another’s faith like you expect yours to be respected?”

    Sooo…questioning a belief in a civil manner is a sign of disrespect?

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  70. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Homer Hinkley

    Your end-of-evolution endured as long as Francis Fukuyama’s end-of-history.

    …George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, thinks there is a far quicker way: let evolution do all the hard work for us. Instead of trying to design every aspect of the genetic circuitry involved in a particular trait down to the last DNA letter, his idea is to come up with a relatively rough design, create lots of variants on this design and select the ones that work best.

    Evolution machine: Genetic engineering on fast forward

    See also: Genetic engineering vs. evolution

  71. The real mechanism of evolution is epigenetics, and was known well before Darwin (see Lamarck and others).

    Fred – read “Lamarck’s Revenge” by Peter Ward and you’ll see the light …

  72. macilrae says:

    Did I forget anyone?

    Dunno why you shouldn’t be able to dispute Darwin without offering an alternative and yet still be classified as intelligent – hence (d).

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  73. @Anonymous

    We can now imagine the development of hybrid biological/machine entities, gifted with infinitely self-evolving autonomous artificial superintelligence, that are capable of limitless self-modification and self-improvement at ever-increasing rates of speed.

    Did Charles Darwin envision this scenario? Ray Kurzweil did.

  74. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    There is no contradiction between science and most religions on the question of Darwin’s theories. Buddhism was talking about the same things centuries earlier. And in Judaism the concensus is that the creation and The Book of Genesis is a metaphor.

    Strange how successful are the atheists in their use of religious allegories against religion. This shows that most people shouldn’t concern themselves with these questions in the first place. Some people will twist anything to make it fit their materialistic picture of the world.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  75. @SeekerofthePresence

    Thanks for the link. Their discussion is very instructive and Stephen Meyer has explained well what intelligent design means.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  76. @Anonymous


    Did you actually read the references you listed?

    Development of pesticide (and drug) resistance doesn’t create new species. It creates local adaptations within existing species. Western corn rootworms do not become monkeys.

    It’s the same story with the “evolution machine” in your second reference. It’s nothing more than a clever way for scientists to waste more time and money hunting for something useful in untold numbers of bacteria. In the end, they are still bacteria.

    Furthermore, you can’t do random mutagenesis on billions of human beings in a laboratory to select the ones you like.

    Human genes WILL be designed in the future, and humans will perform selective eugenics to eliminate bad genes.

    In fact, the Chinese are already performing selective eugenics to eliminate inherited human diseases. You take one cell from an early stage in vitro human embryo, isolate the DNA, put it on a gene chip with 10,000 markers for different human diseases, and determine if or how many inherited diseases the embryo has. Then you decide to implant the embryo or not. If the parents have conceived multiple in vitro embryos, they can eliminate the “bad” ones and choose the “best” one. It’s being done – right now.

    In the future, the selective eugenics approach also will be applied to personality traits and IQ. If there are, say, 10,000 snps across the human genome that contribute to IQ (and scientists are already in the process of identifying them), then you can use a gene chip to count the number of beneficial IQ snps in a particular embryo, and select the highest probabilty embryos for high IQ, and then implant them in mothers.

    In the future, scientists will become so good at this that they will begin editing genomes in vitro — in effect designing the future of the human species. It will NOT be done by random mutagenesis and natural selection in humans.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  77. @Carroll Price

    Not really. A basic, no-frills “creator” wouldn’t have to know if you are sleeping or if you’re awake, or if you’ve been good or bad. (Much less can I imagine any reason it’d have to create some place called “hell” to store its beloved children who didn’t make the grade.)

  78. A-Bax says:

    The use of the term “Darwinism” is a tell. Pat Buchanan does this too, and it’s super-irritating.

    I like (alot) of Fred’s writing and I like (most) of Pat’s writing. But they never seem to grasp that appeals to the supernatural have no place in science. Whether that’s general (the “self-caused cause” cop-out), or specific (Behe and his magical flagellum), the invocation of supernatural forces provides no additional explanatory or predictive power to a given scientific theory.

    If you’re comfortable invoking the supernatural within science, then you’re in no position to refute occasionalism (the idea that god connects every cause with every effect at every moment in all cases. Some strains of Islam embrace this, and it has not surprisingly left their intellectual advancement stuck in a late-medieval quagmire). Behe and ID’ers in general are on a slippery slope here, with animism at the bottom of the hill.

    If you are of the opinion that there are realms of truth/experience that are outside the bounds of science, you’ll get no argument from me. Just don’t pretend that what you’re doing is science.

    There’s more to life than what science can describe, IMHO. As anyone who’s fallen in love, raised a child, or dropped acid can attest. But, when you rail against “Darwinism”, you’re indicating to me that you don’t appreciate that the the domain of science is not the totality of all possible experience.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  79. @Homer Hinkley

    Not so ….. faaast 😀

    Some 85% of mutations are dominant lethal, and north of 99% of the rest are harmful
    (rather crude radiation experiments from the 50s).
    What makes you think editing will fare better? Our Chinese Herostratos got his wish –
    now what? We know enough to be able to replace a handful of damaged parts, but little more;
    quite a feat, sure. We cannot reliably clone sheep because the methylation is uncontrollable but we fuck (heh) with the human genome.

    There have been a handful of successful applications – penicillin I think was the first, the Green Revolution, lots of other biosynthesis – but these clones have their own problems; and we are talking about clones.

    And how do you propose to eliminate selection? There is nothing “random” about the movement of a quasispecies up a selective gradient – and e.g. antibiotic resistance IS an experiment.
    Oh, make it artificial?
    A hundred years ago this was called “eugenics” – good idea but not currently very sellable;
    with the caveat that at least they used a quasispecies, not some fickle clones.

    So a couple comes to you and wants a blond, good-looking and intelligent baby but the modern way, and you show them the catalogue, and …
    the National Organization for the Advancement of Yucky, Stupid and Otherwise People (NOAYSOP) tears you a new asshole.

    Don´t want to put a kink in your optimism – I just can´t share it 😀

  80. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Homer Hinkley

    Do you bother with reading the title? Evolution, it’s in there. 🙂 Wave your word-magic wand harder.

  81. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Dark Night

    The Book of Genesis is a metaphor, perhaps so. If so, then so is the Cross. That’s why Christians oppose evolution so much, it destroys the first premise of of 1 Corinthians 15:22, and thereby destroys the second premise. The literal Cross is invalid without a literal single breeding pair (Adam and Eve) to pass on a literal “original sin.” Evolution says there was not a single breeding pair, invalidating original sin and need for the Cross. (And you don’t rely on my understanding, that’s what the Creationists say.)

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @Vendetta
  82. @Anonymous

    The Cold War’s been over for 30 years, Rip.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  83. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:


    “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” This is a metaphor. Adam is for bodies, Christ is the souls. I see no connection to the topic.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  84. @Maria Elisa

    Glad you enjoyed the discussion.
    Kudos to the interviewer as well as the guests.

    Just ordered Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt.”
    I find the information systems approach to Darwin provides a compelling case against the evolution of species.

    He goes a step further and finds evidence of Mind in the birth of species. Very curious to Whom or What his research will lead.

  85. Vendetta says:

    Or perhaps there was more than a single breeding pair and all of them got tagged with the original sin anyway. Seems consistent enough, since the God of the Old Testament clearly favored collective punishments.

  86. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Dark Night

    If Adam’s original sin is a mythical metaphor, then Jesus died for a metaphor.

    If God did not create Adam supernaturally in the past, then it is inconsistent to think that he will raise the dead supernaturally in the future.

    Genesis and the Cross
    Creation Ministries International

    And evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne states the same thing.

    Second, if Adam and Eve were metaphors, and the source of original sin is mysterious, then we have no idea why Jesus died. After all, his death and Resurrection occurred precisely to save us sinful humans from the transgressions of Adam and Eve. If you have to turn that story into a metaphor, then Jesus died for that metaphor. That’s not too palatable to Christians.

    Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again.

    Genesis may have been figurative to the Jews who created the mythology, but Christians hung their salvic hat on a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve’s original sin.

  87. Evolution denial certainly isn’t a Big Brain take, but one thing I will agree with Fred on is that I never understood why certain people react so emotionally to it.

    I suppose perhaps it might get annoying if persistent, like some people on here who insist on discussing the JQ on every thread.

    My approach with creationists is thinking up plausible explanations as to how it might have happened, e.g. God placed ostensibly very old fossils, etc. to deceive people and make getting into heaven harder (important given the growth of the world population, you don’t want to overcrowd the place). The Irish creationist who was my interlocutor liked this idea very much and said he’d be using it in future arguments with atheists.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @anon
  88. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    There certainly isn’t anything firmly grounded in CB403. I find may, appears, probably, and could be. Those are tentative words. not words that say here is the answer.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. @Carroll Price

    The ‘Creator did it’ is the adult version of Santa Claus.

    Likewise, “There is no Creator” is the adult version of “Nyaah, nyaah, I don’t have to do anything you say!” Human nature is universal.

    Assuming there is such a thing as human nature, which in turn assumes a human mind. Which is just another form of intelligent design: the figures in The Last Supper are arranged that way by the intention of someone, or something, we call “Leonardo”.

    But they could also be where they are by random chance. Ocean’s razor, taken to its limit, tells us that if everything can be explained by mere chance, everything must be explained by mere chance. The Last Supper is no more than a roll of the dice.

    Materialists are like metric snobs, who tell us we should abandon tried-and-true systems for theirs because it better fits base 10– but never tell us why we shouldn’t abandon the clumsy base 10 as well.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  90. @Anonymous

    …but Christians hung their salvic hat on a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve’s original sin.

    To paraphrase Mencken, nobody ever went broke betting on original sin.

  91. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both. -Robert Heinlein

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  92. @Anonymous


    The only comments that should be removed are illegal content, doxing, commercial spam, and thread wrecking.

    There is no need to otherwise moderate or censor comments as some people strangely believe.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  93. Drab evolution is the devil’s pollution,
    Spiritual mush to the soul man’s constitution.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  94. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    > Likewise, “There is no Creator”

    Except the theory of natural selection does not make that claim. I suggest you peruse the Index to Creationist Claims, in the vicinity of CA600 or so. Enjoy!

  95. @Anonymous

    Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary widely within a single genus or even a single species.

    Chromosome counts in the house mouse species (Mus domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40

    Are you saying that animals with differing numbers of chromosomes can mate with each other and produce offspring? If so, that does refute my point. I was under the impression that this is impossible; I’d read somewhere that it’s the reason humans and chimps can’t interbreed.

    If not–if both parents must have the same number of chromosomes in order to breed–then what you quoted is irrelevant to my point.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Amon
  96. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > Drab evolution | You’re like the ugly old nag who thinks sex is dirty, Church Lady.

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -Charles Darwin

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  97. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > thread wrecking.

    Which is exactly what I described; thank you for the affirmation. Going into an HDB (human bio diversity)* discussing group and banging on endlessly about Creationist PRATTs like Fred Reed does is thread wrecking.

    * HBD (human bio diversity) definition: “The acknowledgement and study of how humans differ from each other on both the individuals and groups levels because of differences in individual genotypes as well as average differences in population (group) genotypes, the differences resulting due to evolution by natural selection.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  98. Dumbo says:

    I can’t discuss the evolution thing properly, but one thing for sure Fred got right: Razib, Derb and Greg seem to be all annoying, insufferable pricks.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @MEH 0910
  99. @Anonymous

    There is also grandeur at the roulette table when one keeps rolling sevens and elevens.

  100. @Tulip

    Evolution is useful as a heuristic. ID is not.

    Good point, well stated. Now if people would take heed, but I would not hold my breath. There seem to be motives other than arriving at a useful heuristic at play.

  101. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    “It is all decided by chance.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Problem? 🙂 But if you’re referring to the alleged “chance” with evolution, such a notion simply lets everybody know you haven’t the slightest clue about natural selection.

    Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  102. @nokangaroos

    Yes, you left out Dr James Tour, who makes your statements null.

    It is obvious to me you are jiving simian.

  103. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    Raising of the dead is a complete retardation. The idea is related to the End of Time, when the world will cease to exist. Then some cosmic events are expected. Such as resurrection of the dead. Taken in any other form but as a metaphor it makes religion look stupid.

    The original sin is the reason we are trapped in this world. And we are going from a life to a life, from a bug to an animal and so on until we are humans. Then we get the means that animals don’t get, and instead of going up we are going down, back to animals and so on.

    However Jesus didn’t die for a metaphor. He died for a sacrifice. He had it coming and he wanted it. He knew it was going to influence a lot of people. But was it a good idea? I think not.

    If some time he decided to visit the Christendom and saw all the terror and witch hunts and all that – imagine his surprise.

  104. I go with the Reprobates and Elect view. There are 2 classes of humans God created. The sheep and the goats, or the wheat and the tares. The Christians and non Christians. God can convert anyone at anytime. God made the heavens and the earth. The Elect will live with him for all eternity. The Reprobates will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire beginning on Judgment Day. Most churches are still false and correctly labeled as Churchianity and not Christianity. Gradually, eventually, over thousands of years, the Kingdom of God will continue to Grow, and pretty much everyone will be made Christians by God toward the end, there will then be a rebellion, that rebellion will be overthrown and Judgment Day will begin.

  105. Lin says:

    Fred, I also have a math degree(I took serious math courses like topology,measure theory, differential geometry…) and I once contemplated of becoming a church pastor. Regarding the origin of the human species, let me re-post the followings:



    Yahweh is the ‘Holy Father’ in heaven and Satan is the ‘Lord of the air’ (Ephesians 2:1-3).
    Yahweh is technically a superpowerful Extra-Terrestrial entity with ability we mortals can’t fathom. I’ve no intention to paint Yahweh as a green skin creature descended from a flying saucer. But sure ‘He’ is not of this world. If Yahweh is a biologist, then Earth is a petri dish and human are the micro-organism inside the petri dish sustained by the all powerful Yahweh. Praised be Yahweh
    Yahweh is omnipotent and can pick on multiple gender combos and its blasphemy to say He is ‘male’ only . He is technically a multi-gender/hermaphrodite extra-terrestrial entity with ability beyond human reach. (Early semite chieftains were so patriachal that they could only relate powerful entities to males)

    Part 1: PROJECT ADAM –Something went wrong…

    When Yahweh created non-human higher animals or mammals, both male and female genders were created; but when it came to creating human, Yahweh had a different scheme.
    Genesis 1:26-27–And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So the original plan is making a hermaphrodite human species capable of self-fertilisation or same gender sex.

    Genesis 2:7–And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    When Yahweh created human, Eve OBVIOUSLY was NOT part of the original plan.
    Now something went very wrong:
    Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    Apparently Adam was looking for a sex mate/’helper’ among the animals(male or female).
    The Original Sin of Man had nothing to do with that piece of apple(from the tree of knowing good and evil). Obviously the Original Sin WAS bestial lust if not the actual act of bestiality. What your pastors told you about the original sin is WRONG !!

    Part 2: RESCUE PLAN B or the cloning of Eve

    Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    Because the bio-engineering experiment of Yahweh the powerful extra-terrestrial went terribly wrong and Eve was created to salvage the project. The creation of Eve was likely delegated to Lucifer, an obvious female member of Yahweh’s pantheon. An alternative possibility was that Yahweh’s grand hermaphrodite plan(like Adam with bulging breasts capable of milking, phallus plus a posterior cavity doubled as both digestive exit and birth canal) was sabotaged by Lucifer the radical feminist.

    Project ADAM part C—JESUS the ‘Son’ of God

    Jesus, the Son of God and was obviously a result of cloning(or self-splitting from the entity of Yahweh)and growth inside the womb chamber of Virgin Mary without hetero interaction with the latter. There’s no confirmed heterosexual record of Jesus. Jesus was finally the ‘successful’ conclusion of Project ADAM

    Other evidences regarding the original intended biological attributes of man:
    — Males also have nipples(like all other mammals), ie according to Yahweh’s original grand plan, males should also be able to breast feed new borns
    — Male prostate glands enable male to male sex (otherwise why can’t the prostate gland be placed away from the rectum ?)
    — Roman Catholic priests are forbidden to engage in heterosex but a significant % are homos. Those priests are servant of Yahweh and thus act the way Yahweh intends for them.
    — There’s no anti-queer 11th Commandment that goes “Thou shalt not comfort thy staff with thy rod ”

    Final Conclusion:

    1)Homos are true (but unconscious) followers of Yahweh
    2)Heteros and (anti-trans)feminists are (unconscious) followers of Lucifer.
    (Lucifer is not an ugly male with horns as Christian preachers want you to believe; rather most likely a winged naked humanoid seductress belle )

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  106. TKK says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Do any mammals other than homo sapiens commit suicide?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  107. jamie b. says:

    I’m not aware of any extant species whose haploid number is not fixed

    Karyotype Variation, Evolution and Phylogeny in Borago (Boraginaceae), with Emphasis on Subgenus Buglossites in the Corso-Sardinian System

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences

    Unprecedented within-species chromosome number cline in the Wood White butterfly Leptidea sinapis and its significance for karyotype evolution and … – PubMed – NCBI

  108. Icy Blast says:

    Darwinism is just a materialist Creation Story. There is no scientific evidence for it. The primary argument of Darwinists is: “But it has to be true! There is no God! Darwinism is science!” Only the intellectually deficient still believe Darwinism is an established fact. As usual, too many Americans are watching too much TV. And Darwinism serves as a handy pretext for killing people in large numbers. Therefore politicians love it!

  109. ‘…The only answers I have seen to the foregoing questions have been that although we do not know the answer now, we do not doubt that answers will eventually be found. Yet while the assertion that answers will one day be found cannot be refuted, it is equally consistent with the possibility that there are no answers…’

    On the other hand, our success over the last few hundred years in unravelling successive mysteries suggests that we might well find the answers. I haven’t noticed any slowing in our rate of discovery, let alone any sign we’re about to come to a dead halt.

    I can understand why people used to be religious — which is what we’re talking about here.

    After all, a thousand years ago, very little was susceptible to rational explanation. No one could explain what held the stars up, or even what they were. How sex led to children wasn’t really very clear; we knew it did, but explaining why promptly required an explanation with a divine component to it.

    But we keep finding out how things work. It’s perfectly clear how the sun functions. In theory, we could make one ourselves some day. Dolly the sheep is living proof we can make perfectly good animals ourselves in some cases.

    So the difficulty with the arguments for Intelligent Design, etc, is that with each passing decade, there’s less need for them. We really are figuring out how things work, and nowhere in any of it is there a God. That’s not actually good news — I’d love it if there was some one I just had to make happy and in exchange I’d get to live forever — but it does appear to be the truth. All of this is just a vastly complex clockwork orange, humming along — to no apparent end, but humming along.

    We keep getting more of it diagrammed, and it’s all quite clear — or will be.

    We’ll work out your remaining uncertainties. That’s what we keep doing.

  110. ‘Fifth, evolution is said to retain the beneficial and discard the neutral or deleterious. An almost unlimited list of traits that seem to violate this principle can be adduced.

    ‘For example,nerve tissue in the kidneys makes kidney stones agonizing to the point of paralysis. Yet there was nothing at all the victim could do about kidney stones until recent times. What is the survival benefit of such nerves? Similarly, what is the benefit to survival of migraines? The victim can do nothing, and curling up on the ground and screaming seems of limited value…’

    That’s because nature is sloppy and callous. Anything at all can be there, and you can die in appalling pain as long as you manage to stay alive long enough to reproduce.

    Kidney stones are nothing. There was a whole neolithic culture in Britain where the staple was some coarse grain that left your teeth coated with gummy plaque until they rotted away. You’d develop painful abscesses and die of malnutrition somewhere around the age of thirty because it hurt too much to eat.

    But hey. You’d had kids. Mission accomplished. Now go die. See if the universe cares. Just so long as you have more kids than whoever’s trying Plan B.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  111. @Tuco

    ‘…Ah, but of course, that specter terrifies spineless “scientists” who cling with amazing (and what should be embarrassing) faith to an unwritten doctrine that specifies that, NO, no such super intelligence (God) can possibly exist. From this geneticist’s perspective, that takes a stronger faith than the primitive holy-roller so conveniently dismissed…’

    It’s perfectly possible ‘God’ exists. Why he should conform to our conceptions concerning him in any way, or even why he should care about us, escapes me.

    Let us assume there is some colony of some subterranean microbe in the dirt in my basement. There probably is, after all.

    And somewhat less probably, they may have become aware that some large being lives above them.

    Where they would be making their mistake is thinking that I care about them. I did, my response would probably be to eradicate them as utterly and ruthlessly as possible.

    If I could hear their prayers, I probably would eradicate them. I’m not interested in their prayers. That would be distracting and unsettling.

    So there — perfectly reasonably — may be your God. Do you still want him?

    • LOL: silviosilver
  112. mikemikev says:

    I have an idea that increased incidence of homosexuality is an outlying by-product of selection pressure for reduced intraspecies aggression. Humans live in dense groups relative to other apes.

  113. Maybe someone truly well qualified will have answered your objections to whatever you conceive of as the Darwnian standard version but because of 20 years or so of friendly conversation (without our ever having met) I want to give you my uncontaminated response.

    I am shocked at the idea that you could have been ejected from the H-bd egroup. Really? Young Razib could be cantankerous (as well as right) but surely our amiable friend Steve would not have countenaced it.

    Nonetheless I often did think you must be trolling because your objections seemed obtuse.

    Did I ever put the proposition too you that there really is no alternative to evolution by natural selection unless you believe in an idiosyncratic fidgetting creator deity which I am sure you would agree would be infinitely harder to eastablish by observation and reasoning? Actually I have just allowed imagination to introduce a succession of biopotent molecules turning up from space every now and again to produce great genetic leaps in existing life forms. Feel free to use it for scoence fiction which, of course, is all it could be.

    Setting aside the impossible deity I move on to your objections because I think you should acknowledge them to be misrepresentations which vitiate your repeated case to the point where I can understand Razib’s irritation.

    E.g. “Fifth, evolution is said to retain the beneficial and discard the neutral or deleterious”
    ,Sorry to be blunt but is to the best of my knowledge and understanding, rubbish. All that is required is that some of the millions of chance changes in the genome (and by no means always the most “beneficial” if that has a meaning in the natural world) happen to multiply more than others in the environment in which they crop up (hot, cold, aqueous, dry, packed with nutrients or what are usually toxins etc) and then survive till something else happens to favour the organism’s rapid reproduction in its early form or only when further modified.

    Mutatis mutandis the same criticism applies to your references to “gradual and beneficial change”. “Gradual” gets a pass in the loose sense tbat getting from earlier life forms to late ones takes a long time – like tens of thousands, even millions of years. But “beneficial” is anthropomorphic mumbo jumbo. And you can’t even say it is shorthand for “evolutionarily beneficial in the sense of productive of (the design of) future organisms” because evolution with or without the odd rock from outer space of solar system leftovers destroys – actually doesn’t prevent the destruction of – most of your “beneficially” evolved creatures.

    In short Fred you have, if not trolling to annoy the likes of Razib and Greg, shown yourself to be remarkably muddle headed on this issue, not really dealing with evolution by natural selection at all, if I may say so without bring patronising of someone who has a sharp sceptical mind. As ever 🙂

  114. Now that I have glanced through the Comments I am reminded of America’s still alive love affair with God. Once you see that there has never been a story of a Creator deity that makes sense today unless amongst primitive pre moderns you are forced to look for the first manifestations of life – even if Hawking and Mlodinov’s The Grand Design doesn’t convince you that you know the whole story from some sort of qantum imbalance to evolving life forms – and then follow the logic of survival without falling for the fallacy that an intelligent self-conscious being who would discover evolution would necessarily evolve.

  115. Willem says:

    ‘what is the benefit to survival of migraines?’

    Migraines are a side effect of thinking (too) hard. Migraines are a side effect of seeing a sixth sense (aura’s). Etc (

    Kidney stones are a side effect of wrong diet, drinking too little water, too much tea, or alcoholism.

    What the benefit to survival is for humankind by creating bullshitters like Fred Reed, John Derbyshire, etc, is a tough question though.

    One explanation is (but this is just conjecture) that the gullibility of humans to stick to bullshitters like Fred Reed shows that mankind isn’t ready yet to make a new leap into intelligence and for that reason sticks to war, racism, nepotism, sexism, whateverism.

    Btw, the least intelligent organisms are the most succesful in survival (plants, bacteria). Which made Ernst Mayr believe that ‘intelligence’ of humankind is based on a lethal mutation. If that is the case, then bullshitting surely explains why humankind is so good in believing it.

    But that still doesn’t explain why people bullshit. Well, there is always the mortgage, the fame, and the power one has to think of when he is writing a column. Man has to make choices in life: some take the wrong turn and end up bullshitting audiences for the money and fame and protection of ‘others’. And the ‘others’ need the bullshitters in order to keep audiences away from the things that are really going one: the robbing and stealing of the planet for their own benefit and at the cost of everyone else.

    What a job!

  116. anonymous[348] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rex Little

    , but there has to be something going on which science hasn’t yet figured out.

    Reed addresses that;

    Yet while the assertion that answers will one day be found cannot be refuted, it is equally consistent with the possibility that there are no answers.

    You will thus keep waiting for those answers in the scientific context, and what happens if the answers can be found only in the spiritual one… in God, our Creator.

    Where does that leave you as a denier? Will your excuse be that you were waiting for conclusive scientific proof, as clear as “E=mc^2”?

    I remember seeing an argument between a believer and an atheist. The atheist says he has nothing to fear, as upon our death, we just cease to exist. No judgement, nothing. He/she gets away with any ill they may have done in this world. Thus, as an atheist he is in a better position.

    The believer asks the question, okay, if indeed there is no God and we just cease to exist, no matter the degeneracies in our lives, then this applies to everyone, those that believe and those who do not believe. We can all get away with “murder.”

    But, what happens if indeed God does exist, and surely He will question the way we lead our lives. Since hardly anyone is truly sinless, who is in a better position, one who worships God and constantly seeks His forgiveness, or the one who has sinned without seeking forgiveness? Who do you think God will forgive?

    So, is an atheist truly in a better position, especially because he too does not have concrete proof that God does not exist, even after fully witnessing the many awesome wonders, which are so evident in this world.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  117. If life is access to choice (like a cell’s G1 restriction point where it chooses to replicate subject to internal and external conditions being met), then shows that there is no delineation where any part of the physical universe could be called ‘non-life’. Abiogenisis would then be the point at which such decision making materialised a closed system.

    Migraines and painful nerves may have had a function some time ago but does evolution tidy up that which is no longer useful instantly? If it did, would every life form then be ‘perfect’ for its environment?

    Not all homosexuals are golden boys, in fact few are. Say they turn 100%ers at some point – they could have made kids and moved the genes along. Also just because they are gay does not mean their drive to procreate has fallen to 0. Some may suffer a vagina for some offspring. (also perhaps they were evolutionary usefull by thinning out the level of male competition, meaning a less violent species?)

  118. Cognitive decline in the elderly takes many forms, as fast Freddie demonstrates herein. This is an example of reversion wherein he finds solace in the warm comforts of fairy tales told to him by his dear old mammy those many many decades ago. It’s also evidence of perseveration as a theme he’s unable to stop repeating.

    This is why we should never see our heroes grow old. Joe Sobran and Sam Francis, rabid irrational creationists both, departed before they could reach Freddie’s advanced age and cognitive collapse. In so doing, they spared their fans the sheer boredom Freddie inflicts on us here. Eventually I fear our once great Freddie will have his Mexican maiden type out columns extolling the brilliance of Noah and asking us to support Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis.

    This is why geezers need children to take away their car keys and install parental controls (or cut off entirely) on grandpappy’s internet access. Someone stop Freddie from destroying his own legacy of thoughtful and interesting commentary before he dictates a piece about Adam playing fetch with his pet triceratops six thousand years ago..

    • Troll: Twodees Partain
  119. StefanD says:

    Evolution could be boiled down to something like this: Start with a quantity of hydrogn gas. Wait long enough and eventually, without divine intervention of any sort, Intelligent Design or otherwise, it will transform into many things, including human beings, New York city + everything else. How this could ever happen is something that Fred is unable to fathom. Of course some people think it’s absurd to believe that 1 + 1 could ever equal a million, unable to make the leap in imagination that when 1 + 1 = 2 this can be followed by 2 + 1 = 3 and so on…

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  120. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dennis Gannon

    Converts to your religion are required to retard their intellect to a child-like credulity; furthermore, they are not the brightest bulbs to begin with. Although it wasn’t your intent, you have done well demonstrating how much science gets right, as follows:

    Abstract: A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity….

    The relation between intelligence and religiosity: a meta-analysis and some proposed explanations.
    Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2013 Nov;17(4):325-54.
    US National Library of Medicine | National Institutes of Health

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  121. @Achmed E. Newman

    Scholasticism over “could” and “probability” gets us nowhere (best known is the infamous Green Banks Formula; funny how it is always the astrophysicists who know most about intergalactic bacteria – really)
    The joke about the aircraft engineer proving bumblebees cannot fly – or, alternatively, that they fly wrong – is ancient but there´s a tiny moral:

    Mathematicians, chemists and even geneticists to the nearest lantern!

    What DID happen is what counts – and the go-to people are there 😉

  122. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    James Tour is a Messianic Jew who states, “I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.” How does his abject ignorance and inability to grasp science automatically make everybody else’s intelligence null? Furthermore, while he tries to deny it, he reveals himself to be a creationist by accepting the bogus creationist distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Lastly, he publicly challenges anybody to come explain it to him, with an offer to buy lunch, but he’s too much of a coward to have the conversation recorded, because he knows he’s going to get his hat handed to him. Color me not impressed.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  123. Antares says:

    Trying to understand the world is often a process in which old patterns are rebrandished into new theories. Take for example the Intelligent Design theory which fits perfectly with the already existing idea of a single Supreme God, or the evolution theory which was meant to disprove exactly the same preposition (which is actually the true goal of science: to prove that there is no god).

    The battle seems to be between a conscious development versus random events. But the conscious development is directly attributed to a single god, which is reason enough for sciencists to reject the idea as a whole. It works in the other direction to the same extent because the whole idea of randomness disproves the existence of a god and will be wholeheartedly rejected by creationists.

    We may have designed ourselves. It could be that our own consciousness was there long before we ‘started’ evolution.

    The real question is not whether there is either a Holy God or Scientific Randomness, or by whom the Creator was created, or whether we evolved from two or from more persons. The real question is: where did our consciousness originate?

    At this point it is important to note that not one computer, no matter how well programmed, will ever have any form of consciousness. I’m a coder myself and have often thought about it. It is my task to make the computer behave intelligently. It has however never done the slightest thing that I had not invented, and if it did it was completely useless. Consciousness is the part that sciencists has overlooked or conflated with their own single-mindedness. In other words: they don’t get it.

  124. @Anonymous

    Nothing is more odious than trying to argue by reason only to discover one is up against the Will. – Arthur Schopenhauer 😀

  125. Rob McX says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Whether they liked it or not is immaterial– unless it inspired them to have more children, as pregnancy is an effective excuse for avoiding the sex act.

    If Gore Vidal was right about Robert Kennedy being gay, then RFK was smart enough to spend most of his marriage avoiding the sex act, at least with his wife.

  126. Alfred says:

    Charles Darwin was a brilliant man with a great penchant for collecting data and basing his hypothesis on the data available. He was a true scientist and capable of lateral thinking.

    BTW, his house is not far from London and it is set in a beautiful park. Well-worth visiting.

    Home of Charles Darwin – Down House

    For the sake of argument, let us imagine that a perfect replica of Charles Darwin was present today and in full possession of his faculties. Does anyone here seriously believe that he would be an adherent of the theories of the real Darwin?

  127. I have read a couple of Behe books 10 + years ago. I find that origin of information code in DNA much more interesting as obviously origin of life itself.
    It is a very interesting topic but too complex for the guy without necessary background like me to understand.

    On the optimistic note we all shall have the answer to all pressing questions including flagellum and life origin one way or another once we kick the backet. In either case unfortunately we won’t be able to share what we shall find.

  128. Tulip says:
    @Peter Frost

    Not seeing the “intractable puzzle”. Just because you have a natural system that selects for pro-genetic survival behavior across generations doesn’t mean you aren’t going to have perverse behavior (from the standpoint of survival) in organisms. Putting aside homosexuality, you have a whole caste of people who castrate themselves in India. How does self-castration square with evolution?

    Why would perverse behavior in an organism require explanation? If you have random variation, then you are going to have pro-survival behaviors and anti-survival behaviors in organisms which are going to be subject to selection. It is the contrary view, that humans are designed toward some end (which would have to be pro-survival behaviors which will get selected), where the problem of “evil” emerges. Why would God design humans to be fruitful and multiply, and then humans turn around and go full Adam and Steve? [Free will, original sin, ad hoc yada yada. . .]

    The “intelligent design” would be retroactively to determine those behaviors which in general would promote collective survival over time, and then promote those behaviors and discourage contrary behaviors, so the collective ends up with a competitive advantage against its rivals. Not because nature has a purpose, but because it lacks one.

    What is not but must be can only be created by law.

  129. Tulip says:

    I think the bonsai tree is helpful to consider.

    The form the bonsai tree takes is extrinsic to the tree, it is driven by the gardener. Its not going to naturally grow into a true bonsai tree without a gardener.

    If humans had an intelligent designer, then they would from a biological and genetic perspective have an intrinsic tendency toward a particular form. It would be like genetically engineered bonsai tree.

    The fact that there is such an abundance of perverse behavior and collective stupidity, it is pretty clear that selection is coming from extrinsic pressures, not intrinsic design.

    Of course, humans are not tended by a gardener, they are simply subject to extrinsic pressure in the form of nature red in tooth and claw. Stupid people and stupid societies end up getting enslaved or exterminated. Which is why they create laws and societies to garden themselves, to fend off an ever present existential threat. If ID were true, the creation of law and society (and gods) would not be necessary.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  130. Jake says:

    There is proof that species ‘evolve’ – such as contemporary dog breeds, none of which existed in 1000 AD or 100 AD or 1000 BC or 3000 BC. But there is nothing that is iron clad prof that any species ever changed into another species.

    If you accept all the basic premises of Darwinism, then it makes sense to embrace the conclusions. Of course, if you accept all the basic premises of Marxism, then it also makes sense to embrace the conclusions. If you question any of the basic premises of either Darwinism or Marxism, the true believers will come for your head. To them, their faiths are axiomatic.

    And Darwinism, like Marxism, is full of gaping holes and gigantic leaps of faith. They are not only not merely areas of scholarly explanation and guidance toward deeper and fuller knowledge; rather, they are in actual practice little more than dressed up religious faiths that are at rock bottom just more opposition to the worldview of Christendom.

  131. Is Reed trying once again to prove that his beloved Mesicans are smarter than the IQ distributions would suggest… yet black IQ is accurate (for anyone who hasn’t read this guy, he loves Mesicans but HAATES blacks.)
    This column lacks a certain thing called coherence.

  132. Jake says:

    It is not possible for a person to think alone.

  133. Jake says:
    @Peter Frost

    By the same logic then, there is no reason to assume that AIDS is not a Divine punishment, much less is there a reason to punish those who make such assertions.

    Of course, from the beginning, the Brit WASP Victorian avant-garde sexual revolutionaries and drug culture revolutionaries jumped onto the Darwinian boat.

  134. @Anonymous

    No, that is not thread wrecking. I don’t understand how it’s the current year and people still do not understand how to use the internet.

    Thread wrecking is deliberately crashing the thread or otherwise rendering it unusable. For instance, you can post very large number of images so that the thread becomes impossible to load. The classic thread destruction technique was known as the “Dino Bomb” because it involved large numbers of animated dinosaurs.

    A less effective but still obnoxious technique is to post very large blocks of text so that scrolling through it takes several seconds. A sufficiently long block of text is somewhat effective because users usually far overshoot the wrecking post in an attempt to get past it quickly.

    Posts that you simply don’t like, including ones you dislike for perfectly valid reasons, can simply be ignored. And I mean ignore in a specific sense–you bypass them with your scroll wheel and/or the page down key. An integral ignore feature which permits the hiding of posts is also cowardly and unacceptable.

  135. The Scalpel says: • Website

    The Fundamental Question can never be answered.

    In the case of Intelligent Design, it is, how did the first designer come into existence?

    In the case of religion, it is, who made God?

    In the case of evolution, it is, why did the universe spring into existence? i.e. what caused the quantum fluctuation, the big bang, or whatever mechanism one proposes?

    Ultimately, for all three, it is how did something come from nothing, and, what caused THAT to occur?

    The answer is logically impossible to answer.

    As humans, we must find meaning or purpose in life or die. Attributing meaning to life by any means imaginable is a survival mechanism for the species. It doesn’t have to make sense, and ultimately, it cannot even be answered.

    • Agree: Sean McBride
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @Giuseppe
  136. carl says:

    1. Dont viruses evolve like so called superbugs

    2. As far as homosexuality is concerned, a spectrum of brain malformations from small to severe explains alot – autism, schizophenia, ocd, sexuality & a host of other mental conditions that dont appear until a decade or two from birth. When you factor in the % of those effected by all of these it explains alot.

  137. Wild Man says:

    Cloudswrest – Nice overview. that’s the way I see things as well. Part of the problem here, as I see it, is that there seems to be a lack of realization within the scientific community that science points to the contention (a contention that grows stronger with each milestone of scientific discovery) that reality is infinite. It seems that most every field of scientific inquiry has it’s own ‘singularity’, whereby the scientific methods used to point to said ‘singularity’, collapse (i.e. – the methods point to said singularity, yet these same methods cannot untangle the singularity conundrum so produced). To be poetic about it, one could say that it is precisely at these ‘singularities’, as loci of rationality, that the infinite creeps into our rational systems of thought. Rationality itself, is contingent upon the act of comparing one entity with another. But how do you compare the finite with the infinite? There is nothing to compare. Because, by way of rational operations, the unbounded is incomparable.

    These field-specific scientific singularities are aplenty. The Big Bang theory is a theory about such singularity. Ditto for quantum mechanics. And in any event we don’t really know what ‘time’ is. Abiogenesis (or alternatively, a panpsychism) is the singularity of Darwinism.

    Once reality is viewed as infinite (as in unbounded) …… well then, there is room for an infinity of emergent structures. Looked at that way, the question begging to be asked becomes – “how are these emergent structures related to each other, given said source of emergence, is the unboundedness of reality itself?”

    That is an extremely tough question to grapple with. My sense of it, grapple-wise, granting myself some poetic license, is that this human realm is akin to a finite precipitate of the infinite. A contradiction in terms to be sure, yet there it is,as plain as day, increasingly, for all to see.

    Look – to put this in better perspective, note that we cannot even answer the most basic question ‘why is there something instead of nothing?’. Science cannot address this question, and neither can any theology (at least as far as I am aware). We cannot even pose credible answers to this most basic of questions about reality. That is how deeply this reality is imbued with mystery – the mystery of the infinite.

  138. @Rex Little

    It’s not true that individuals with different chromosome # can’t be fertile.
    Happens all the time in plants (look up polyploidy) and anecdotally I was told
    of a man here in Boston with a chromosome fusion — married and with kids.
    His wife has the usual chromosome #. And in Gibbons the chromosome # is
    very variable. Nature is very robust.

  139. Homosexuality is just nature deleting useless, destructive and termite like genes from its system. It is a totally natural function that ensures the surviving people delete parasitic elements from society.

    It is the same sort of thing as suicide or warfare. It culls the useless elements of a society. You could call it a mental illness, a bit like religionists that use their warped ideology to kill other people. Eg Jews calling non Jews goyim…soulless cattle. Or Muslims shouting ‘my god is greater than your god’ after they have killed someone. Or Christians using ‘end times’ theory to justify murdering anyone they choose.

    These people are all mentally ill or deluded or misdirected by others who should know better. As the Koran says that you should not fight except to defend yourself, or Jesus suggested you should turn the other cheek, or as the Torah suggests that Jews should not use usury because it will only harm their communities…so they only use usury with goyim but not with other Jews…a mental illness if ever there was one.

    Nature has ways of cleansing itself of useless elements.

    Darwinism, like science, is used to justify corruption and oppress spirituality. Spirituality is the movement of the holy spiritual through the avenues of the common people. Religions try to suppress spirituality just as science manipulates facts to ensure political correctness. There is in essence no difference between Religion and Science. They are opposite ends of the same stick used to manipulate the people with threats and intimidations. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is fundamentally flawed and modern science uses these inaccuracies, just as it does with the fraudulent climate change scam, to screw extra funds out of government to fund their expensive, exclusive and comfortable lifestyles.

    If you want a peek at the truth read Ron Pearson’s Theory of Creativity.

  140. utu says:

    ” Razib, Derb and Greg seem to be all annoying, insufferable pricks.” – ABSOLUTELY!

  141. Gay is actually a race. It spreads via racial transmogrification. Hope this helps.

  142. @elysianfield

    These Anonyholes are trolls, all of them. I usually just skip over their comments, but you made a good point against one. The problem is that another anonyhole can simply repeat what the first one posted, in another string of words.

    Anonymous commenting really has no place here, IMO. Everyone posting here already enjoys anonymity simply by choosing a fictitious screen name if they like, so there’s no reason for anyone to avoid establishing a screen name, except the intent to troll.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  143. @A-Bax

    Don’t worry. With the implosion of Darwin’s ideas will come a new term. I think it should be “Darwinwasm”.

  144. @Anonymous

    I color you as a fraud. I have watched several of his videos, and read about him. This takes time and and an open mind. You are a nat that has already made his mind up, using jargon and confining yourself to the general. If you were serious, you would point to flaws in his methodology, his discoveries and his positions.

    This is an honest man, totally sincere, with deep religious beliefs. The latter he states, convincingly have nothing to do with his science. He patiently explains in clear and precise language the problems of synthetic organic chemistry. He is logical when he states there is a pre-biotic stage, and then a biotic stage when a cell is functioning.

    As an engineer, I look at evidence closely to see if it fits together and the basis of assertions. When you spend you entire adult life thinking methodically and precisely, judging the validity and truth or anything is much enhanced.

    I am trying not to be my acerbic normal person, and ask that you further your exploration into his symposia and read about who his is and what he has accomplished.

    Your statement of his being a coward is so far off the mark-and opposite of who he is- and why, that I know you invested nothing to include your statement with any significance. The effect here is not what you said about Dr. James Tour, but what an embarrassment and fool you revealed yourself to be.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Wizard of Oz
  145. @The Scalpel

    Just watch the videos I have posted here, which will calm your cosmic angst, at least as regards one fraudulent assertion cluster of Material Deterministic Darwinism. Then you can go on from there, streaming through Universe. Thinking is the best way to travel.

  146. Jano says:

    This is a tricky subject, and like most elements of the “science-based worldview” (for lack of a better term) that have passed into the popular discourse, tends to arouse strong emotions amongst its partisans for and against. It does not seem immediately clear to me why doubting evolution in part or in whole should be so terrible, but I suspect it’s part of a larger American culture war. On the right side of the spectrum, this tends to be an issue whereby the Darwinists can bring the whole body of scientific thought to bear as a cudgel against those who naively believe, on most issues, precisely as they do, but who are low-status, rural, religious etc.— thus coming down hard upon even mildly anti-Darwinian sentiment is an example, in this context, of the typical pathetic fallacy of the intellectual occidental Right: the desire to somehow “impress” the Left, supposedly with erudition, actually with a shared hatred of the Right’s base of popular support.

    I don’t feel strongly either way, but it is generally foolish to believe that any product of the scientific method, though it is marvelous as a mechanism for the furtherance of technology, is a permanent and unshakeable foundation for ideological as opposed to technical concerns, and leaves the very best and most workable political ideals totally vulnerable to real or imaginary (Boas, Gould etc.) counter-evidence.

    As an aside, I gather that the evolutionists have a particular animus against this idea of “irreducible complexity”, and I suggest that it is indeed a very weak argument against evolution compared to the dizzying levels of complexity present in all life, and in the very structure of the cosmos. If God exists, we are less likely to discover him in the twitching of an amoebic appendage than in the seamless working of the whole Universe, as perceived through the mind of Man, who would surely count as His highest creation.

  147. @SeekerofthePresence

    I would add my posted here videos of two symposia by Dr. James Tour on the incomprehensibility of Natural Selection on creating complex living organisms. His talks are comprehendible and comprehensive. The mathematics that he sites-from other researchers-are stupendous. Just the lipid layers on a single sell contain more complex information than DNA and RNA combined. There are so many combinations of this small part of the cell, that they amount to the 79th logarithmic power. The estimated number of particles in the entire universe is 90th logarithmic power.

    He is the real scientist, the Eureka Man.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  148. World-view cannot be “proved”. To me, it seems that all this squabble is a bit superficial.

    1. evolutionary dogmatists cling to some version of Darwin’s original ideas as if it were a religion, because, in their minds, the enemy is the traditional religious fanatic with all the medieval stuff they abhor, from obscurantism to witch-hunts. For them, simple questions like that Fred posed, are sinister sabotage of a potentially subversive enemy.

    Because, their whole world-view (never mind its ultimate pessimism & defeatism, people have a tendency to cling to something they are addicted to, whether healthy or not) is at stake, they feel threatened & become aggressive.

    2. Fred’s questions are OK, but I don’t see any sign of ID here. What we have, as functioning organisms, is sub-optimal re engineering. I don’t see that we, as human beings, are “well designed”.

    In my opinion, things are rather clear:

    3. creation myths from various sources are charming, frequently archetypal stories (Bible, Hindus, Islam, Greeks, …), but they are not to be taken literally. So, mostly Darwinian evolution is, generally- right. BUT:

    a) modern evolutionary synthesis is more akin to research program than to exact science. Popper, in his early position (which he modified), was right. Evolution is a magnificent research program, and ID is not anything similar. With ID- you can’t do anything. It’s a dead end.

    b) both evo & ID are limited to this, 3- dimensional (or 3+1, considering time) space-time. For them, the big question is how this, carbon based life on earth, has emerged. Just, if you take a wider position of old metaphysicians, including Lao-Tzu, Plato…to modern people- this is just a part of a more abundant life.

    You don’t have to subscribe to any religion. Einstein, for instance, frequently invoked Spinoza, but his world-view was closer to early Taoism: there is some inherent “Intelligence”, say Tao, which is co-natural with our, human intellect- yet, it surpasses it- an that Mind/Tao, which is not transcendent (therefore, not God in a traditional sense)- works by creating all the stuff. In short, physical laws are manifestation of supra-physical Something.

    So, big questions are reducible to, basically, two:

    1. is there Something which, in an infinitely narrower sense, is- metaphorically- reflected in human intelligence? Materialists would say- no; Einstein would say- probably yes; religionists & more subtle metaphysicians would say- yes. “Life” has more dimensions & forms than physical life.

    2. is there something in humans that transcends physical life &, possibly, survives death of the physical body? Materialists would say- no; Einstein would say- in all likelihood, no; early Taoists would say- no; many early religions would say- we don’t know/care; most religions now would say- yes; most serious metaphysicians, from Plato to Hegel and Heidegger would say- well, it depends ….

    In my opinion, both ID & modern evolution are limited because they, implicitly, insist on this, 3 +1 dimensional world. And I think there is much more. Am I wrong? Perhaps, and I don’t care. And- there is not anything wrong with that….

  149. @Dennis Gannon

    If God can do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, what is to stop me sitting on my arse in absolute inaction?!

  150. Calvin says:

    No wonder Razib was pissed, Christs nature is bipartite. C’mon man!

  151. Emslander says:

    Darwin never used the word “evolution” in his writings. His thesis is that species can be “originated” from a process of stressful “natural selection” by the breeding practices of a separate species further back in the chain of ancestry. That thesis has never been seen to occur in the scientific record. It’s an elegant theory. It doesn’t explain the creation of life and it is not opposed by thinking people of Faith.

    It does, however, appear to be highly questionable as we learn more about genetics and the structures of biology. Origin of life theories are undergoing similar challenges.

    I like the idea of a loving God who gave us this world to live in out of His abundant care for the species He created in “His own image and likeness”. I don’t handle snakes and I have a full set of teeth after 72 years of rough use.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  152. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    > Anonymous commenting really has no place here, IMO.

    Since you impolitely bellyache and do not respect the house rules at Unz, it is you who has no place here. Nobody is holding you here against your will. You should leave, if you don’t like the house rules. But before you do, I wish to thank you for demonstrating that Creationists are so desperate to save their Jewish mythology from scrutiny that they are forced to attempt an @Jack Twatter-style de-platforming.

    > the implosion of Darwin’s ideas

    What really pisses you off is that there are resources like the Index of Creationist Claims that is easily accessible to the public. The public is obviously considering such resources. A result is that your own Jewish creationism mythology found in Genesis is what is imploding.

    ‘Nones’ now as big as evangelicals, Catholics in the US
    Religion News Service | March 21, 2019

    Sadly, your comeback, if you attempt one, will likely be to toss-off another pejorative term, “atheist.” No, I’m not that either. The theory of evolution does not exclude a God. Especially the Spinozan God found in one of the most widely admired documents in the world, the Declaration of Independence, namely, Nature’s God. Every physicist and geologist and botanist and meteorologist and biologist and chemist and is a Theologian of the True God when one understands this: Deus, sive Natura.

  153. pyrrhus says:

    The substance of Fred’s argument is that while evolution explains minor changes in species, it cannot explain the sudden appearance of complex species without evolutionary predecessors, like the octopus, nor can it explain the sudden ‘evolution” of species like the long-necked giraffe, from the short necked version, where thousands of mutations, most of which would be lethal by themselves, are required.This simply can’t happen…This is called irreducible complexity…A third point is the slow nature of Darwinian evolution, due to the fact that (1)less than one mutation in 10,000 is even slightly beneficial, and (2) the length of time required to fix a gene in the population is lengthy.

    These points have nothing to do with creationism, and were familiar to atheists like Steven Jay Gould, who invented his own evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium to address these defects in Darwinian theory.

  154. wayfarer says:

    Law of One states that there is only one, and that one is the Infinite Creator, also known as “Infinite Intelligence” and “Intelligent Infinity.” It is impossible to describe the “one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole” but it can be activated or potentiated. Each portion of the creation contains, paradoxically, the whole.

  155. MEH 0910 says:

    I like reading Razib’s, Derb’s, and Greg’s written pieces.

  156. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    James Tour challenged anybody to a lunch to explain “macroevolution” (a Creationist term) to him, and then falsely claims, “Nobody has come forward.” But people have indeed come forward, for example Nick Matzke, the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, with the stipulation that the meeting be documented. James Tour accepted Nick Matzke’s offer to explain evolution to him. Then he realized he was outclassed, and his humiliation was going to be documented, and he started backpedaling and backed out of the meeting, pleading “privacy.” That’s sad. It’s all documented here at a pro-ID website, with several of Nick Matzke’s [NickMatzke_UD] insights in the comment section. If Nick Matzke didn’t insist on the video, James Tour would again falsely claim, “Nobody has come foreward.”

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  157. @Technomad

    There’s much too much lack of precision and overextended assertions and extrapolations, and lazy projections. As a scientist who is also an engineer, Dr. James Tour occupies an almost unique high ground in the world of accomplishment and knowledge of the molecular fields of study.

  158. @Emslander

    I don’t handle snakes

    You don’t know what you’re missing ….

    • LOL: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  159. Dumbo says:

    “Selection is the very opposite of chance. ”

    Semantics. If we’re talking about “random mutations”, we are talking about chance. Now I do believe that there is something as natural selection, but not that the changes in organisms are caused by “random mutations”, I think this part needs a better explanation.

  160. @Poupon Marx

    You believ in one of those impossible God creatures that a variety of imaginative peple have created, do you? Well I suppose I could still trust your methodical thinking to be up to certifying the safety of my avant house design. Not so much your philosophical thinking and loguc.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  161. Dumbo says:

    Start with a quantity of hydrogen gas. Wait long enough and eventually, without divine intervention of any sort, Intelligent Design or otherwise, it will transform into many things, including human beings, New York city + everything else.

    When you put it like that, it is really absurd. Try to reply that in a lab even if waiting ten million years.

    You need something to trigger some other thing. It just doesn’t make sense that things just “happen” and “appear” for no reason.

  162. @Icy Blast

    If you think Darwinism CAN serve as a pretext for killing people then you haven’t understood it or its philosophical status. Apparently you believe in a fidgetting creator deity. Which version? Why?

    • Replies: @utu
  163. @Colin Wright

    We really are figuring out how things work…

    We are figuring out how things works work because existence — all the stuff in which we are immersed — is pervaded and governed by regular patterns.

    What is the origin of these regular patterns and the natural order? (Another issue: from whence emerged all this stuff?)

    Regular patterns tend to imply intelligence and design.

    The entire field of AI is built on the mission of recognizing and understanding regular patterns in the universe. Are these patterns the product of a supreme intelligence? (Maybe or maybe not.)

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  164. @Rex Little

    Why did you ever suppose that interbreeding by creatures with different numbers of chromosomes was impossible? Even my amateur interest can bring to mind the YYX Syndtome.

  165. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Poor humans, the only known species in the animal kingdom to exhibit the need to ameliorate their mortality salience with afterlife narratives. Evolution is cruel.

  166. Baron says:

    For Polymath:

    Your idea that one should allow evolutionary changes in either direction is a fallacy. If the flagellum as it exists today were to be the result of an evolutionary reduction from something more complex how did the complex emerge in the first place? Orthodox Darwinism moves from less to more complex, you are trying to re-write it whilst defending it, are you?

    • Replies: @Billy Shears
  167. Che Guava says:
    @Anatoly Karlin


    On my own first encnunter with a young-Earth creatinist, I had a similar reaction, to paraphrase (very young at the time) ‘So you are saying that God was planting a false fossil record as some kind of test of faith? That is nonsense. Who is the father of lies?’

    My initial reaction was to just say ‘Anatoly, I was saying the same years ago’.

    However, your final step is very funny, since such people are sophists to start with, I do not doubt your account.

    Well said.

    I like Fred’s articles on this topic. Have a copy of Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale‘ next to my futon. Except for his bad conceits of writing style, very interesting. Even given geological time, it answers none of Fred’s or other commentors (or my) thoughts re. the implausability of many steps in ‘evolution’.

    Finally, if a commentator really wants a r reply from Fred (though he does comment here at times, usually not on his own articles), you may try his blog, Fred on Everything.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  168. Trying to approach the author of the article in a constructive and friendly spirit, what is his alternative hypothesis, which better explains the observed facts than whatever form of neo-Darwinism he is arguing against? Rather than natural selection, is the emergence of the giraffe (to take one of his examples) to be explained through a controlled selected breeding experiment performed by a nonhuman intelligence? Perhaps more invasively, through genetic engineering by some such intelligence, transforming it from its okapi-like ancestors to its now more familiar, long-necked form? Or is he promoting some other, more exotic mechanism of producing our tallest known ruminant?

    These questions are not asked in a spirit of sarcasm or malice; if it sounds otherwise, that is simply because, other than neo-Darwinian evolution, the alternative mechanisms of speciation that come most closely to mind are ones that sound (at best) vaguely incredible to most present-day readers. Nonetheless, I am here writing in good faith. I am honestly interested in hearing his views on the topic, not looking for a fight.

  169. I think we humans are very arrogant. Life is not what it seems and desire plays a part too. It’s not just about killed or killing and survival. Darwin was a great man so was the other naturalist who published a similar theory just 3 months later.
    I’m sure we have some limited control over our genetic makeup. And that includes virus, bacteria, earthworms and us humans.

  170. jhan says:

    Evolution is NOT ‘said to retain the beneficial and discard the neutral or deleterious’

    This is really total misunderstanding of the whole mechanism of natural selection.

    Balding fat morons with arthritis raise families all the same while the most fit able men tend to die by the millions in wars. There are simply a whole bunch of maladies and deviations that are mostly inconsequential to reproduction. You can survive with acne, but you won’t without a function heart.

    Most, if not all of the article is just based on a flawed understanding.

    • Replies: @Sean
  171. @Sean McBride

    ‘…What is the origin of these regular patterns and the natural order? (Another issue: from whence emerged all this stuff?)

    Regular patterns tend to imply intelligence and design…’

    So when rivers flow to the sea, and tend to consistently incorporate tributaries and
    form themselves into progressively larger streams as they move towards their goal, that’s not just water responding to gravity and the results of channels getting cut over time?

    Rather, it implies intelligent design.

    I think not. That there are indeed overarching forces and patterns in nature doesn’t imply anything. You would demand perfect chaos before you would admit there wasn’t necessarily a God.

    Note the word ‘necessarily.’ Whenever I reflect about this, I have to grant that I am not a doctrinaire atheist; rather, an agnostic. There could be a God; I just don’t see any necessity for Him. It’s rather like the sinking of the Titanic; it could have all been a plot, but I don’t see much in the way of evidence to support that.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  172. MEH 0910 says:
    @Che Guava

    you may try his blog, Fred on Everything.

    I believe Fred has retired his Fred on Everything website and now has all his writings appear at the Unz Review.

  173. @anonymous

    Can’t’you see what utter crap the believer’s argument is? What is you – or anyone – that is going to be judged when the brain that contains all our memorues and perception of self is blown to pieces, burned, or consumed by worms and microprganisms? Your argument, come to think of it, makes Alxheimer’s Disease an unjustified reward forthe wicked.

    • Replies: @anon
  174. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    The name Razib Khan leaves me cold. When I looked up his bio I see he’s another subcon who’s left his native Bangladesh because he wants to take a job away from a white man and drag the United States down another peg. How beautiful life would be if I never saw another subcon or any manifestations of their smelly culture!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  175. @The Alarmist

    Thank you. I was t he editor for Weller in his Science Made Stupid and I’ve always loved the work he did in that book. It has lasted much longer than the other 250 books I edited at Houghton Mifflin.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  176. I like Fred all right most days but this is one of his more crepuscular hobbyhorses and every time he jumps on the saddle horn my brain takes one glance and returns: “ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……”

  177. Sparkon says:
    @Rex Little

    I always look first (and last) for some physical agent before invoking deities or resorting to supernatural explanations. Science hasn’t figured it out because science is looking in all the wrong places while ignoring that blinding sphere of light in the sky.

    Your observation…

    One day, by a random tweak to the DNA, a female of that species bore a mutant child with 23 chromosomes? Sure, that could happen. But for that mutant to propagate, another child of the opposite sex, with the same mutation, would have to be born and come to maturity within the reproductive lifetime of the first.

    …begs the question: is there any possible agent in the Earthly realm that could cause widespread simultaneous mutations?

    What about the Sun? Has it been in a steady-state since its formation or has it evolved? Someday they say our Sun will bloom into a massive Red Giant whose swollen girth may engulf Earth’s orbit. From observation we know that many stars, perhaps most, are distinctly and intrinsically variable

    I suggest that just as the Sun drives Earth’s climate, so too does the Sun drive life on Earth. As the Sun evolves, so does life itself.

    Once towering beasts weighting more than 25,000 lbs. and armed with huge teeth had their day in the Sun on planet Earth, as did large flying reptiles like Quetzalcoatlus northropi with wings as big as a small airplane.

    Giganotosaurus carolinii

    There is still no clear explanation for exactly why these animals grew so much larger than the land predators that came before and after them.

    It’s the Sun.

    French missionaries and adventurers who lived with tribes of the Illini reported that some young braves were queer feminine from the beginning, and were groomed for pederasty, which one Frenchman reported as widespread and open sodomy, and these were the types who often became medicine men. The young women were of two dispositions: those who freely engaged in sex with the young men, and those who maintained their celibacy until married. Whether or not there were any Illini lesbians was not remarked by these reporters.

    It has been suggested I think that stress during pregnancy evokes secretion of hormones that impact the fetus and may later affect sexual orientation.

    Certainly just in my lifetime I’ve seen what is virtually a 180-degree turnabout in society’s expectations for expectant mothers, and women in general, no small number of whom are increasingly wannabe men who will eagerly climb in the ring and flail away, even kick some other bitch in the jaw, which may not be evolution per se, but it sure is something.

  178. @Anonymous

    You are lying here, deliberately. Dr. Tour’s only stipulation was that it not be recorded and that a third party would sit in and only be allowed to speak after by asking questions. Tour invited Matzke to stay at his home and discuss the issue over dinner with his children and wife.

    You are a vile, insecure, lying, agitprop, agenda driven to evil. It sounds to me that you are an insecure psychopath or a paid operative to discredit any kind of faith based mortality. You are sick and have destructive tendencies that produce sadistic satisfaction.

    You are also stupid. The article is on the Intelligent Design site, quotes Dr. Tour and Matzke directly.
    None of what you write can even be inferred. Perhaps, you little piece of forgotten gutter jetsam, feel small and stale compared to a man of Dr. Tour’s scientific, and moral stature.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  179. @Colin Wright

    But we keep finding out how things work. It’s perfectly clear how the sun functions. In theory, we could make one ourselves some day.

    Close to perfectly anyway. But as a matter of fact, it’s still unclear to scientists why the sun’s corona is so hot (or so much hotter than the sun’s surface).

    Not trying to posit any “God” as the reason, just felt like pointing it out.

  180. @Dennis Gannon

    Enfin, an evolutionary outlook not implying the immutability of species 😀

  181. @Poupon Marx

    Primate, yes. Jive, wrong species. So what?

    This clown is a definite b), no different from countless retired construction engineers trying to explain the pyramids. But if you prefer Däniken World …

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  182. @The Dark Night

    Raising of the dead is a complete retardation.

    Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, would beg to differ…

    21 Now when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great multitude gathered to Him; and He was by the sea. 22 And behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue came, Jairus by name. And when he saw Him, he fell at His feet 23 and begged Him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter lies at the point of death. Come and lay Your hands on her, that she may be healed, and she will live.” 24 So Jesus went with him, and a great multitude followed Him and thronged Him….

    35 While He was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?”

    36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, He said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not be afraid; only believe.” 37 And He permitted no one to follow Him except Peter, James, and John the brother of James. 38 Then He came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and saw [g]a tumult and those who wept and wailed loudly. 39 When He came in, He said to them, “Why make this commotion and weep? The child is not dead, but sleeping.”

    40 And they ridiculed Him. But when He had put them all outside, He took the father and the mother of the child, and those who were with Him, and entered where the child was lying. 41 Then He took the child by the hand, and said to her, “Talitha, cumi,” which is translated, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” 42 Immediately the girl arose and walked, for she was twelve years of age. And they were overcome with great amazement. 43 But He commanded them strictly that no one should know it, and said that something should be given her to eat. Mark 5:21-24, 35-43 NKJV

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  183. Mr. Reed, you do a good service of being a devil’s advocate*. This is even necessary in science. I have read much of Dawkins and some of Dennett (as regards evolution). These authors of course, are pro-Evolution. But Dawkins (I think it is) makes a good point: those who question the theory of evolution (which itself is evolving!) do a service: they find holes in the current theory which (hopefully) are eventually explained as knowledge grows. So no, you should not be burnt at the stake, so long as you are being an honest skeptic, and not pushing dogma [smile].

    *I think Dennett in one of his books brags that he was literally a devil’s advocate. He’d written a biography of Mother Teresa (unflattering, I assume) and the Catholic Church hired him to be at the Beautification (?) proceedings for Teresa. The Devil’s Advocate is the guy who argues against why she should be sainted.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  184. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” – Paul wrote in I Thes. 5, which I have tried to keep as my standard for ALL things.
    It certainly applies to Fred’s premise here. As I have discovered, especially in the last 10-15 years, most folks decide at some point in their lives that they have at that time reached a state of knowing ALL DaTruth and then spend the rest of their lives defending DaTruth – no more proof necessary!
    Personally, during those 10-15 years I have discovered that what I had known to be true – much or most of it wasn’t so – shocking to say the least! The history of the 20th century is an excellent example!

    Augustine wrote 1600 years ago: ”Faith comes from hearing – understanding comes from knowledge – and knowledge comes by sight.”
    That is not only confirmed biblically, but in all areas of life. If a theory in a lab cannot be replicated, science cannot claim it as fact – but many do just that. Is that science or faith?

    Who said that all conflicts ultimately are about theology?

    About 5-6 years ago, I was invited to participate in a men’s bible study – and asked to leave after 5-6 weeks – I asked too many questions! The other participants were all end timers and no questions were allowed.

    My point is that ALL of us see through the glass – darkly.

    Discovering truth for us mortals is a process, not an end state!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  185. My two cents:

    The confusion in our understanding of life is the mistaken belief that there is an objective world of space and time and we are contained within it like lizards in a terrarium.

    My belief, arrived at by my limited human experience (including reading philosophy, science, and religion) and my limited human reason, and not blind faith or trust in authority, is that we are spirits and our experiences of emotional feeling, thinking, physical sensations (touch, taste, smell), sound, and our visual field are all mind created experiences.

    This general theme has been discussed for the last 2500 years in philosophy and science. The first known expression of these ideas were from the Ancient Greek philosophers Parmenides (the world can be understood as unchanging, or as an appearance) and Plato (the Analogy of the Cave). The big questions of science and philosophy were discussed by Descartes, and continued with the rationalist-empiricist writings of Leibniz, Berkeley, Locke, and Hume. They reached their best reasoned culmination in the epistemology of Immanuel Kant (space, time, and causality are forms of our understanding).

    In modern physics, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al realized that the Newtonian concept of space, time, matter, and causality (cause and effect) was falling apart. Bohr and others noticed that even our reason and language assumed a cause and effect world of space-time. This is why we are puzzled by questions like “How did we get here in space-time”. Our mind, our way of thinking, allows (requires) the question.

    Our best comprehension of our visual experience of space-time is that it is a mind-created experience (god created, if you prefer), just like we accept that physical sensation and sound are mind-created. When you hit your thumb with a hammer, the pain is not in the hammer.When a tree falls in the forrest, the sound only exists in the minds that hear it.

    It is my belief that we our visual mind is perceiving the speed of light forces of inertia (1D time), gravity (1D space), magnetism (2D space), and light (3D space). From these forces which transcend time, our visual mind creates the 4D visual experience of space-time.

    We are life, spirit, and mind. The world of space-time is, as Parmenides would say, an appearance. Or we can “understand it” as a timeless, spaceless form without change.

    Both common sense and science are studies of observations. Their models of objects, events, and cause and effect are just that, models for prediction and engineering in a limited, focused area, for a particular purpose. There is no worldview implied in common sense or science.

    But a worldview which starts will life, spirit, and mind as the “cause” of everything is a worldview which is a better beginning for understanding life and the world we experience.

    In conclusion, as if this conversation could ever end, the cause of our life is spirit and we are spirits. There is no objective world of space and time. The ideas of evolution are models for prediction and engineering, and as such are useful. But they do not and never can explain life or the world we see.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  186. @Bardon Kaldian

    Nonono …. please ramble on 😀

    TIME is of the essence. All the race deniers, species nitpickers and mediocre designers live on a flat 3-dimensional surface, a horizontal cut through spacetime. Their terms themselves imply immutability, they are ahistorical.
    Once you add time, all you see is fuzzy world lines, pulsating, branching, radiating, sometimes rejoining – living things. “Species”, like “axis of evolution”(i.e. where the missing links dwell), lose all meaning – all that is real is the flow, veiled by a biological Heisenberg relation.
    There is no “cause”, just the nature of the quasistationary disequilibrium we call “life”.
    If only I could …

    (Disclaimer: I quit drinking quite a few years ago 😛 )

    But can´t you SEE how moot this discussion is?

  187. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    I was talking about the “universal resurrection” concept, which posits that all of the dead who have ever lived will be resurrected from the dead, to stand for a Last Judgment. I said I think that this is not to be understood in a bilogical sense. I think it’s a metaphore.

  188. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “…Darwinism CAN serve as a pretext for killing people…” – Not all people. Only the Darwinists.

  189. @Wizard of Oz

    I remember the coloratura diva Beverly Sills one time complaining about an opera critic or other performer about her interpretation and statements on Donizetti, I believe. She gave her reply and added with a sad note, that this individual simply did not have the depth and reach in artistic sensibility or even knowledge that she did in this part of opera. Sills, in addition to a gifted voice and artistic depth (as was Maria Callas), had trouble with presumptive fools who represented themselves as knowledgable.

    And that is the case here. A summary judgement of crowd pleasers and suck ups to the nomenklatura. History is full of small men, with small brains and small integrity. I doubt that even half of the commenters here can even comprehend what Dr. Tour is saying, or have an attention span long enough, or the curiosity and intellectual strength to consider the full evidence.

    Most people are mediocre in effort and drive to seek their own truth rather than go along to get a reward like someone’s bitch-a servile dog.

    For those who are truth seekers and have some intellectual sophistication, I encourage watching and following up. Plato said the Truth is Beauty. Obviously a lot of people like these trash fish are very ugly.

  190. @nokangaroos

    What cheek, you trying to opine on something you know nothing about, but is the fashion of the court. Never mind the Emperor, you have no brain. You’re too lame to even realize how transparent you are. I wonder if Pee Wee Reese has a website, where you would feel warm and snug, like a pile of cow plop in a stall.

    Don’t forget the Climate Change NOW! march tomorrow. I’ll bet the photos on different pages of the magazine containing Greta Thunberg are stuck together by your bedside.

  191. @Sparkon

    Hey, Sparkon,

    You might enjoy this article as it’s a bit of a follow-up to the Betty Ong material and also gets into Japanese names. (Even though I don’t really know any Japanese!)

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  192. @Anonymous

    As the Lord is my witness I tried to get through this without touching upon religion and intelligence.

    But there is something to the creationist “Darwinism is amorality” argument.
    In essence it is the deplorable version of Kant´s “God as moral postulate” i.e. without divine position there can be no normative ethics.
    Heinrich K. Erben (paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and philosopher, a kind of Dawkins without prophet complex) disputed that but noted the Law (he boiled it down to eleven commandments remarkably similar to the Ten without the first three) was remarkably conformable through ALL religions; everything but the Law, he concluded, was filler but nonetheless an extrasomatic adaptive trait.

    Translation (I take some liberties):

    There is no point in telling most people:
    “Well, … erm … our systems analysis department has concluded with better than 95% confidence that such-and-such behaviour is not conducive to civilized cohabitation and should therefore be refrained from.”,
    you have to tell them:
    “If you do such-and-such, Odhinn´s lightning will find you on the shitter.”

    Anthropo-pessimism? Go sue me.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  193. @SeekerofthePresence

    Um, perhaps My Lord meant the “craps table”? While my experience in the casino is admittedly scant, I do believe it is the pair of dice used in Craps, and a little ball used on the roulette wheel. Of course, you could bet on 7 and 11 on the roulette table…

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  194. Giuseppe says:
    @The Scalpel

    In the case of Intelligent Design, it is, how did the first designer come into existence? In the case of religion, it is, who made God?

    The answer is the same for both (unless you believe aliens are the intelligent designers): God is not a created being, God is self-existent.

    In the case of evolution, it is, why did the universe spring into existence? i.e. what caused the quantum fluctuation, the big bang, or whatever mechanism one proposes?

    God created it, and God is not constrained by space-time.

    Ultimately, for all three, it is how did something come from nothing, and, what caused THAT to occur?

    Something did not come from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), but was created in God and out of God (creatio in Deo et ex Deo).

  195. Kidney stones and migraines do not seem like conditions that would limit procreation and would not evolve out of existence.

  196. Sean says:

    Genes associated with male pattern baldness were found to be gay genes in the recent study. The MPB genes are supposed to have came from Neanderthals.

  197. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Anybody can go read the reference to see how your creationist hero “Dr.” Tour is too much a lily-livered coward to go on the record during a meeting to have “macroevolution” (a creationist shibboleth) explained to him. Your creationist hero has got something to hide. A real scientist doesn’t cower behind a veil of secrecy like he demands. He’s afraid of being humiliated when a real scientist hands his hat to him. Now call me more names! 😂

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  198. @Poupon Marx

    Thank you for the videos. Look forward to checking them out.

    Always enjoy your comments, which are well informed and considered.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  199. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crush Limbraw

    > If a theory in a lab cannot be replicated, science cannot claim it as fact

    Yeah, yeah. Yours is Creationist PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) CA220. Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself. Can you folks start looking up your PRATTs at the Index to Creationist Claims before you trot them out? Repeating them like an Aspie with Tourette Syndrome just make you look silly.

    • Replies: @Crush Limbraw
  200. @Colin Wright

    By regular patterns, one is referring, in part, to all those abstract and physical laws which have enabled our species to develop mathematics, science, technology and engineering. What is the origin and basis of those patterns and laws? Random chaos?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  201. aandrews says:

    “… they treat their theory as a hard science on the same level as thermodynamics, organic chemistry or quantum mechanics.”

    That’s the original indictment against biology, that it wasn’t a “proper” science.

  202. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > without divine position there can be no normative ethics

    Oh, come on, do you think your neighbor’s cat gets its ethics/morals by divine revelation? If you ask and it won’t even deign to answer, as cats are wont to do, science shows normative ethics are a branch of natural selection. Copy this list, and pick one that is easiest/cheapest to obtain.

    • The Moral Animal, Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (1994) Vintage
    • Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. (1996) Harvard University Press
    • Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. (2006) Princeton University Press
    • Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (2010) Chicago University Press
    • Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. (2012) Basic Books
    • Beastly Morality: Animals as Ethical Agents. (2015) Columbia University Press
    • The Evolution of Morality. (2016) Springer
    • The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics. (2017) Cambridge University Press

    As Robert Heinlein once wrote, But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: ‘Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.’ Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Poupon Marx
  203. As to these questions of life, and the search for answers to same may i suggest: till the soil, and enjoys God’s gifts until your allotted time is up.. We don’t need to understand everything. We may in fact be incapable of doing so. Live and let live.

  204. @Anonymous

    You are not paying attention 😛

    – I said religion is useful because people are stupid.

    – I may ever-so-mildly observe I heard the godfathers of the profession – Koenig, Lorenz,
    Eybl-Eibesfeldt – some time before ethology was a thing in your neck of the woods.

    – Did not some tired old dead White dude named Friedrich Nietzsche smoke it all in his
    hookah even before that?

    – Anyways, thanks for the nice intent 😀

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  205. @TKK

    No. Not only mammals. Animals are one with life, they don’t possess self-consciousness (as far as we can tell).

    They’re incapable of suicide. We should not apply our criteria to them.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  206. MEH 0910 says:
    @Ben the Layabout

    *I think Dennett in one of his books brags that he was literally a devil’s advocate. He’d written a biography of Mother Teresa (unflattering, I assume) and the Catholic Church hired him to be at the Beautification (?) proceedings for Teresa

    That was the late Christopher Hitchens:

    In 2001, Hitchens testified in opposition before the body of the Washington Archdiocese that was considering the cause of Mother Teresa’s sainthood. He described his role as that of the traditional devil’s advocate charged with casting doubt on the candidate’s sanctity.[11] Mother Teresa was beatified in October 2003.[12]

  207. @GavinCato

    Thew famous physicist Fred Hoyle once said that it is almost impossible for the chemistry of life to have formed by probability. There seem to be designed components.
    We probably wont know as finding a creationist ‘process’ will be impossible. The early physicists couldnt accept quantum mechanics, e.g. Einstein. We just dont understand the fine structure of the Universe. The chemistry of life is ‘due to’ quantum mechanics. I have a suspicion that DNA/RNA is synthesised by supernova.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  208. @Ben the Layabout

    Thank you. Talk about a mixed metaphor!

    Then again, sometimes better not to know too much about gambling.

  209. @BlackDragon

    Pleez. It is common knowledge that Hoyle&Wickramasinghe were ballaballa.
    Not only is everything from comets to interstellar gas nebulae bacteria, they also cause everything from the Black Death to the flu.
    Do you have new evidence? 😛
    (and PLEASE forget the supernovae; endergonic nuclei > Fe is not the same as nucleic acids)

  210. @Icy Blast

    “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”

    Did God feel satisfaction as his followers obeyed Him? As the Israelites stabbed and smashed toddlers and grannies. God has infinite power and could have chosen any number of ways grant land to Israel. But he didn’t.

    “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”

    A blessing for infanticide. Imagine what it would do to a man to kill babies. Did they suffer PTSD or did God intervene into their psyches so that they could smash fresh brains from little skulls without regret or terror?

    • Replies: @Icy Blast
  211. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Oh. Well, please extend my sincere apologies to the neighbor’s cat if you bothered it with my line of moral inquiry. 🐱

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  212. IvyMike says:

    Don’t know where Fred is coming from on this, but everything should be open to question, which is the foundation of science. But I have learned to my chagrin that the top people in the sciences are so much smarter than me and Fred and you that they get a little cross at some of our (to us) insightful questions.
    And why would anyone consider homosexuality to be a product of Evolution? Gender preference is just primitive thinking, just being a slave to culture. People who don’t like gay sex are like people who won’t eat anything that isn’t bland and overcooked.
    Gotta get that Fred book he plugs, though, like me some Fred…

  213. @anonymous

    You would be hardpressed to find any of their “smelly culture” adhering to Razib!! And he wouldn’t be taking any job that you could do. That blonde bombshell with a PhD that you fancied might however turn out to be his girlfriend.

  214. @Anonymous

    The context of my comment was not just about evolution – it was a general statement on science and I have no expertise or interest in getting involved in that kerfuffle.
    If you wish to do so, you’re welcome to read Vox Day – – and research his site at your convenience. You might also read his book – “The Irrational Atheist”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  215. FoSquare says:

    Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute discusses Darwin’s theory of evolution with three skeptics: David Galernter, David Berlinski, and Stephen Meyer.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  216. @SeekerofthePresence

    Thanks. I try to have facts behind me and a concrete basis before forming an opinion.

  217. @Anonymous

    They all seem as equally worthless and a grand waste of time. Panic publishing by some processor who needs tense, publish or perish, or some fakir and pretender/poseur like you.

    You need to use the toilet and take a bath, in all likelihood. Greater boredom hath no reader than an boorish bore bonehead boob baboon like you.

    What a pretentious featherweight! A wisp of breaking wind. Your mother overpraised you, I gather.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  218. @Anonymous

    Now call me more names! 😂

    As you wish: Know nothing, nabob, boob, monkey, churl, poltroon, ignore a mouse, stupid, offensive, odious, clownish, buffoon, laughingstock, too stupid to even notice the flashing marquis across the forehead: “Nobody’s Home”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Logan
  219. @The Dark Night

    What an enlightened bastard you are. You should start a consultancy for “religion”.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  220. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crush Limbraw

    I’m not an atheist, faggot. And since atheist is a pejorative term, you’re lying that you didn’t want to get into a kerfuffle. And not only do you misrepresent my beliefs, you misrepresent science in general, along these five characteristics of scientific denialism:

    1. Conspiracy theories
    2. Fake experts
    3. Cherry picking
    4. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
    5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies

    Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

    All five had been hit today, regularly, in this thread. Wouldn’t want to miss any, it’s like playing Bingo.

    • Replies: @Crush Limbraw
  221. @Bardon Kaldian

    I always suspected it, but now I have proof you’re an idiot. Thanks.

  222. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    What if God doesn’t read the same books as you? What if God never called them amino acids, or uttered the letters dna? Suppose the “aliens” didn’t use that terminology either, but rather a surprised look and oops?
    For that matter how does anyone know without having done any experimentation for themselves? All your science could all be bunk and fictitous like the Superheros, all of them Superman Venom Spiderman Batman Blankman included. I think your right to throw out Darwin and if they can’t stand that well they were never your friend to begin with. Actually I would probably throw out almost all science as it only seems to either kill or poison, causes huge explosions and almost none of it is beneficial to existace, some stuff is fun though. There is no benefit to understanding DNA or gene sequencing outside of trying to create mischief. More than anyone it would seem scientists and the left want to live forever as they are, while believers in God know where they are going and it will be better than here, so for now we endure the pain that life brings us, maybe we enjoy some of life too much and need a reminder of what it really is pain, or maybe it’s the other way, if we go over to science our pain will be relieved, all we have to do is forsake Christ.
    No I don’t believe in evolution and feel we haven’t evolved a bit.
    If you didn’t get the kidney pain you wouldn’t know to lay down grasshopper.

  223. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    I’d give your insults a 1/10, one point added for the effort put into three paragraphs of them, a sort of participation trophy. You’re trying really hard, and I’d suggest you step up you game and use the online Shakespearean Insult Generator, you dried neat’s-tongue, bull’s-pizzle. (Henry IV Part I, Act 2, Scene 4)

  224. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    The video has already been posted in comment #14. At any rate, biologist Jerry Coyne does a good job of pointing out the commonly repeated errors and misrepresentations of science in the video, here:

    David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin
    written by Jerry A. Coyne

  225. @Sean McBride

    ‘By regular patterns, one is referring, in part, to all those abstract and physical laws which have enabled our species to develop mathematics, science, technology and engineering. What is the origin and basis of those patterns and laws? Random chaos?’

    Those patterns just are. That they do exist doesn’t demonstrate that a sentient being made them.

    …at any rate, positing a sentient being doesn’t really improve matters. Who made the sentient being? Why should we think He exists and always has existed when we have no evidence that he does? Why not just accept that the patterns and laws have always existed?

    After all, those we can demonstrate to exist. On the other hand, if God is there, he clearly takes great delight in being elusive. All things being equal, why favor an invisible explanation over the visible one? If I come into the living room and the window is broken, and a rock is lying on the floor, it’s possible the glass was cracked by somebody suddenly heating it. On the other hand, given the evident rock, I’m inclined to favor thinking the glass was broken when somebody threw the rock through it.

    I’ll go with the laws being immutable, eternal, always present, etc. — not with there being some old dude with a beard having always been immutable, eternal, always present, etc. I see no reason to favor the latter over the former.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Sean McBride
  226. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Maybe God sees you before you die, when it’s all still fresh and not burnt yet?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  227. No, that’s alright. I prefer precision and direct meaning. Words-I feel quite sure-are all you have in life for accomplishment, in the past, present, and probably the future. Feel free to to spew forth abstractions and symbols from the fantasy turd stone you live on. I really don’t care. You are more trouble-like a mosquito-really, than I can spare. Nothing to learn from you, except an example of what the left side of the Bell Curve dwellers are like.

  228. Rad1 says:

    Since I read Mr. Reed’s first article, I have been a fan of his style and read everything he writes. Some disagreement here with his views (style still great, though). Fred brings up kidney stone pain, and migraine headaches as not being evolutionary valuable, so why do they exist. I can bring up a lot more: cancer, catastrophic childhood genetic diseases, heart attacks, flat feet… Surely he can’t be arguing that evolution by natural selection cannot explain these phenomena but intelligent design can. Some intelligence (H.L Mencken could not imagine a god creating the universe, but he could imagine a committee of gods doing so). Apparent lack of pity makes more sense with genetic heterogeneity, epigenetic/environmental factors, random mutations and non-random selection than with a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, “creator.”

  229. Major1 says:

    So much stupid in this column. Where to begin?
    Better question… why begin at all?

    Although I will point out that Fred seems to be inadvertently asserting that homosexuals are intelligently designed.

    As I get older, the list of things I never have to do again grows longer. Going to Disneyland, listening to Piano Man by Billy Joel, and, the newest addition to the list, reading Fred Reed.

  230. Fred,

    I’m a PhD physicist (elementary-particle physics, Stanford, 1983).

    You could give a similar list of questions about physics to which every honest physicist would have to say “I don’t know”:

    What is dark matter?

    What happened before the Big Bang?

    How can you make a consistent quantum theory of gravity?

    What determines how the Higgs particle (the so-called “God particle”) interacts with other particles and gives them mass (for fellow physicists: I’m asking about the value of the coupling constants)?

    What explains the weirdness of quantum mechanics?

    Exactly how do exoplanet solar systems form (some are pretty weird!)?

    And on and on and on and…

    The fact that we physicists cannot answer these questions does not in any way reflect on the fact that there are certain things we most assuredly do know:

    The Big Bang happened.

    There are lots of (often pretty weird) exoplanets.

    As strange as quantum theory is, it gives stunningly accurate experimental predictions.


    That’s how science is.

    Science is not like theology where we sit in an armchair and pretend we can answer every question by just making stuff up. In fact, whenever you run into a human being who is unable ever to say “I don’t know” you can be sure you have run into a con artist and a liar (or, perhaps, a mental case).

    Our knowledge of the natural world is painfully gained through making plausible hypotheses and then painstakingly gathering evidence that confirms or, more often, refutes our hypotheses.

    Not surprisingly, our knowledge is almost always only partial. That is what it means to be honest: when you don’t know, you have to say “I don’t know.”

    But the fact that we do not know everything does not mean that we know nothing.

    The earth really does move around the sun. Ordinary matter is composed of a few dozen different types of atoms. The universe is expanding.

    And humans are descended from fish.

    The ability to say “Well, how do you explain _______?” and get the answer “I don’t know” is just irrelevant.

    This is just common sense: I don’t know why so many people have a visceral hatred of Donald Trump, why some guys want to mutilate themselves and pretend they are women, or why the US foreign-policy elite has such a love for getting my country into military conflicts all around the world. But, I am, alas, quite certain all those things are true, as much as I doubt that I will ever fully understand why they are true.


  231. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    I collect rocks, I have them by the windows.
    Would you really want an all knowing God ruling your life? There goes your free will. God does allow for some mistakes. Maybe God doesn’t want to rule your life or have you bombard God with a billion questions or tasks you want performed to prove God is God. What if God as a man is a man while a man? What if God moves around from place to place and works on a smaller scale and isn’t always down on earth with us? Maybe God doesn’t want to make you all prosperous and that’s what most people would demand, fame power money, iphones, credit cards and cars, then you would turn from doing good because God denies all your requests. I would gather there are lots of reasons why God would be elusive. But you have free will and no one can make you believe anything, unlike the leftist population that wishes to force compliance in beliefs God doesn’t feel that way and so is not here.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  232. @Colin Wright

    I am not arguing for the existence of God in any conventional religious or theological sense. I am merely wondering about the signs of intelligent order and design we see all around us. It seems natural to be intensely curious about its origins, and what it says about the nature of existence in general.

  233. @Anonymous

    Anonymous[123] wrote:

    Creationists tout creationism for one reason: without the Jewish make-believe tale in Genesis that postulates a single breeding pair from which all inherited “original sin” flowed, there is absolutely no need for a mystical savior.

    Personally, I’ve never understood why all the people who are so willing to accept the silly stories of the Jerusalemite god Yahweh won’t also consider the possibility that the Moabite chief deity Chemosh was the real deal or maybe the Edomite head honcho Qos.

    One nasty, vengeful Iron-Age deity from one little ancient fringe Near Eastern princedom is as good as another!

    “Our father Chemosh who art in Heaven…”

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  234. @Bardon Kaldian

    BK wrote:

    1. is there Something which, in an infinitely narrower sense, is- metaphorically- reflected in human intelligence? Materialists would say- no; Einstein would say- probably yes; religionists & more subtle metaphysicians would say- yes. “Life” has more dimensions & forms than physical life.

    2. is there something in humans that transcends physical life &, possibly, survives death of the physical body? Materialists would say- no; Einstein would say- in all likelihood…

    BK, you are just making stuff up!

    Einstein often used the word “God” metaphorically, as almost everyone does (how many atheists have never said “God damn it!”?).

    But, he made quite clear he did not believe in any sort of personal God. And, if you can cite any quote by Einstein that showed he thought we somehow survive death… well, give the cite.

  235. I was a good student back in the Fifties. I could tell you all about evolution and how it worked, because the evolutionists told us all about it. I could talk about the fossil bird, and the fossil fish which proved evolution, and a lot more.

    As time passed, several things happened. First, that fossil fish was found for sale in Asian markets. Second, the know-it-all evolutionists admitted their solid proofs were not really proofs at all. But, they said, evolution is true, we just need to keep looking for the real proofs. Hahaha.

    They did eventually come out with new proofs which they also assured us were absolutely true, so true that only idiots or religious fanatics could doubt. Eventually, again, evolutionists admitted their new proofs were lacking, gotta’ keep digging and since evolution is absolutely true, we will find those proofs.

    Slowly, over time I realized they were smart-aleck bull-shitters who refused to believe in anything bigger and smarter than themselves.

    And, the difference between creationists and evolutionists is the former believe the universe and everything in it was created out of nothing by a divine creator. That is ignorance and superstition. The evolutionists believe the universe made itself and everything in it out of nothing, all by itself. That is the marvel of true science. [sarcasm]

    I also realized that Darwin, when he saw birds which were different on different islands, apparently assumed they added genetic material, because they simply didn’t now about DNA in those days. Actually those differences were a loss of DNA. So, his belief that DNA could be so much more complicated by addition of DNA was false.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  236. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Considering most of what you “know” is un-provable theories, isn’t using the word theory just another way of saying “I don’t know”? Science is always trying to explain away life for the humans so they’ll believe in them but most of what they say is “I don’t know”, but using the term “theory” to hide the “I don’t know” fact. it would seem “scientists” use a lot of imagination in their theories.

  237. dimples says:

    On my simple minded quest for evidence of evolution I found the marine mammals to be the most straightforward and easily understood examples. These are the seals, dugongs, dolphins and whales. These are clearly land mammals that have gone to sea, or else have been designed to look like they have. The fur and true seals for example are perfect examples of intermediate forms.

    As Reed suggests the posited evolution of DNA is a bit more complex. I believe the ‘consensus’, if that means anything, is moving towards panspermia, ie that DNA molecules arrived from space on a meteorite, or more colorfully perhaps a UFO landed and dumped a bucket of the stuff out the window at the appropriate time in Earth’s history.

    In my opinion the origin of life and the physical universe is far too complex a subject for the ‘science’ of this era. Rambling discussions between believers and atheists are a waste of space and time. We are a civilization that only discovered the electron about 150 years ago. I suggest give it maybe a few thousand years to figure out the really big stuff.

    Perhaps DNA and the entire universe we can observe were in fact designed by aliens and we are a created species. There is plenty of evidence that the Earth may be in some ways a created planet. What are the chances that the disks of the sun and moon are almost precisely the same size during an eclipse, in the exact era in Earth’s history that intelligent life is able to view it? Billions to one I am sure but ‘science’ regards it as nothing more than a coincidence. If it is not a coincidence it suggests that there are beings out there that are beyond our comprehension, so don’t even bother asking how ‘they’ were created. Really we don’t know anything much about the universe at all, since ‘science’ does not look at its most interesting and ephemeral phenomena.

    Discussions of homos are surely not restricted to genetic or socio-genetic causes. It could be a moral degeneracy carried over by reincarnation for example. There is plenty of evidence for reincarnation and numerous scientific works are devoted to the subject. This doesn’t mean it is true of course, but if it is then it is something that future generations may get a better grip on than us.

  238. @Sean McBride

    Given that there are far more “signs” of *unintelligent* order and design doesn’t that offset your enthusiasm for seeking non natural selection explanations?

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  239. @Anonymous age 77

    “A good student”? Morally good may we presume?

  240. Why do you question the orthodoxy? You need to have faith which the good book (any good science book) defines as the “evidence of things not seen”. Heretics always come up with awkward questions and they must be resisted because (as we all know) mankind is very clever (especially scientists). If not for science we would not know that 84% of the Universe is dark matter and 68% dark energy. Science also teaches us that the earth is undergoing global warming because of cow farts.

    How dare you challenge the orthodoxy. Begone you uneducated, unscientific person. Just believe. It will make you feel better.

    (P.s. Where can I can get an inoculation against the virus of which you speak? You have made me very afraid…..phobic almost)

  241. @PhysicistDave

    Brilliant. A real scientist. Please tell me what you think about the Dr. James Tour lectures (for an introduction) on Youtube. I have posted the links.

    And there is the letter he signed in 2001:

    This video is comprehensive. He is honest and comprehensive about who he is and what he believes. He divorces and separates his belief system completely from science, logic, facts, and the accepted methods of science, i.e., proofs, demonstrations, conclusions, induction, deduction, mathematics, etc.

    The letter signed by 700 other scientists, has caused him to be ostracized and ridiculed by weaker men who know a lot less. The letter is at the 30 minute mark:

    There are so many that are chasing evidence and correlation down fruitless paths, fooling others in some cases and fooling themselves. And some are serving the purposes of others whose motivation is based in the control of populations.

    I know analogous reasoning. Origin of Life, Evolution cannot be reasoned by analogies of other phenomena. Once you discover more and more AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL, then you can work on the mathematical probabilities of molecules building ever larger structures from elementals.

    Your comment, Dave, was worth the weight of Fred Reeds article. Please keep posting.

  242. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    There’s an opinion that Jesus was a bastard. I take it as a compliment. I like Jesus.

  243. @anon

    But does he love us as the 95 year old with Alzheimers or can’t he resist waving a magic wand and making us again one Epsteon’s cuties (sex to taste)?

  244. Tuco says:

    Apologize? Nah. Just kindly eat shit and die, libtard.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  245. @anon

    anon[414] asked me:

    Considering most of what you “know” is un-provable theories, isn’t using the word theory just another way of saying “I don’t know”?

    Scientists get this question all the time, and the answer is “No.”

    I know in contemporary colloquial English that the word “theory” is often used to mean “maybe (or probably) not true.” But that is not the longstanding use of the term in science.

    In science, we have the “special theory of relativity” or the “heliocentric theory.” We have the “fact” that light moves at 186,323 miles per second or the “fact” that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun. The “theory” that the earth moves around the sun was in fact established before the “fact” that the sun is 93 million miles away.

    A “theory” is a large connected structure that includes and explains a lot of facts: a “theory” can be as well established as the heliocentric theory and is still called a “theory” by scientists.

    It is too bad that colloquial usage has diverged from scientific usage on this, but scientists are not going to change long-established scientific terminology.

    Of course, all scientific “theories” and indeed all scientific “facts” could conceivably be wrong. We could all just be brains-in-a-vat living in the Matrix. For that matter, solipsism could be true, and you could just be an unfortunate figment of my imagination!

    Hopefully, you, like most of the rest of us, have found that solipsism is not a productive way of making sense of your experience. And, similarly, doubting the basic correctness of very well-established scientific theories — heliocentrism, the Big Bang, the atomic theory, and, yes, the theory of evolution — has proven not to be a good way to understand reality.

    It is, of course, a matter of degree. No one doubts that our current theories of the Big Bang or of evolution will be (and certainly have been) tweaked as science progresses.

    And, there are other theories, such as quantum mechanics and General Relativity, that almost certainly require rather big tweaks: QM and GR are logically inconsistent with each other — at least one of them has to be changed in fairly significant ways. And, yet, the new, better theory cannot simply throw away QM and GR: they work too well to just be complete nonsense.

    After all, Darwin’s theory was dramatically enhanced with Mendelian genetics and molecular biology. And, no one now thinks the sun is the center of the universe.

    But, still, the earth does mover around the sun.

    And humans are still descended from the fishes.

  246. @nokangaroos

    I will use this comment to pose my own answers to Fred’s questions. I am not a biologist, but I have spent much time with biologists.

    (1) “First, from what simpler coding system did the three-nucleotides-per-codon system arise by gradual and beneficial steps?”

    A possible explanation: from an “RNA world” of mutually catalytic RNA sequences (Eigen’s “hypercycles”), which started out having only very weak effects on each other’s probability of replication, but which were selected (i.e. the RNA sequences changed) to make the catalytic relations (whether positive or negative) stronger and more targeted.

    Now let me explain the explanation… One needs a primordial environment with two things: nucleotide bases that can assemble into RNA, and protocells – perhaps little more than droplets with a lipid membrane, similar to soap bubbles – containing different populations of RNA molecules.

    Thanks to the complementarity of nucleotide bases, a single RNA strand can serve as the substrate on which complementary sequences assemble. RNA strands will also form 3d shapes according to self-interaction, and will attract or repel each other similarly. One RNA may hold another one in place, stabilizing it and making it more suitable as a substrate on which assembly can occur. The strength with which it is held in place, etc, may vary if the RNA sequence is changed even at a single point – this is the RNA analogue of the ‘single nucleotide polymorphisms’ catalogued at SNPedia.

    For evolution to occur, the protocells need only ‘reproduce’, something which might initially be driven by natural turbulence, from storms or eruptions on the prebiotic earth. Anything that will break a soap-bubble-like protocell in two. So we have a population of protocells, each containing a different ‘genome’ of RNAs, some of which are ‘inherited’ by the descendant protocells.

    Some genomes provide protocells with extra stability, other genomes are more robustly inherited… So I posit a situation of primordial natural selection, which acts upon the RNA genome, and in particular evolves it to be evolvable. This means that if a network of relationships among RNAs arises, which itself facilitates the processes of inheritance and differential selection, then that entire lineage would be favored. The existing system of codons is to be regarded as the product of any number of such network-level genomic evolutionary events.

    This may sound vague and unbelievable to skeptics, but it should seem a lot more believable to anyone with knowledge of genetic algorithms.

    (2) “male homosexuality seems evolutionarily mysterious”

    I consider it a side effect of the way human sexuality works. As far as I can see, acquiring a sexual preference (and I don’t just mean male versus female, but e.g. a preference for Latinas over Nordics) is a matter of conditioning or imprinting, that occurs at crucial moments, such as first orgasms. It may be similar to the way that we acquire a language: we have a natural “language-shaped hole” in our minds, but the language that fills that hole, is the first language that we encounter.

    I believe, therefore, that part of Homo sapiens’ “business model” when it comes to sexual selection, is for sexuality to be something that is partly determined by experience. It is set in a direction by the powerful conditioning provided by first sexual experiences, and is reinforced if the same kind of experiences are repeated. That this sometimes results in human individuals acquiring sexual preferences that remove them from the reproductive cycle, is a “sunk cost” of our sexual business model, which is already premised on some males being far more reproductively successful than others.

    (3) “flagellum”

    All I have to say about this, is that the flagellum seems to be related to the microtubule, a kind of structural element which has many other uses. Evolution at the cellular level consists in part of reusing structures (often beginning with an accidental duplication of the genes coding for the structure, owing to an irregularity in the process of cellular division), the multiple copies of which can then acquire divergent characteristics and potentially divergent functions. Flopping around, and moving in other ways, is something that molecules naturally do; like the RNA hypercycles that are distilled by selection into a tightly knit genetic code, the functionally specialized flagellum can arise from membrane molecules that originally just have a slight bias to their otherwise random thrashing around, but a bias which if adaptive, will be enhanced by selection.

    (4) “the mechanism of abiogenesis”

    I already talked about one version of this – the RNA world of protocells.

    (5) “neutral or deleterious” traits that haven’t been discarded

    Some will be like homosexuality, which according to the model I provided before, is a built-in side effect of our sexual model, which relies on a kind of learning (imprinting) which lets us find new sexual characteristics adaptive. Others will be defects or inefficiencies which evolution hasn’t managed to eliminate yet.

    (6) Oh, I see RNA World mentioned here, but I don’t actually see an objection, except “no proof yet”. There may be no nanofossils from RNA World, but it is a fact that the specificity and strength with which one RNA acts upon another, does change as the RNA sequence changes.

    A final comment. Like Anatoly Karlin, I don’t mind Fred Reed being an evolution skeptic. Maybe the Raelians are right, and we’re the work of design; maybe there’s some force like Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” which, like Schopenhauer’s life force, just materializes new organisms in one go; maybe we’re living in Neo’s Matrix. But the world as revealed in natural science, and the facts of biology and geology and physics, are all certainly consistent with Darwin’s big idea.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  247. @PhysicistDave

    Praise Gawd. I was beginning to feel this discussion disproves BOTH evolution and intelligent design 😀

  248. @PhysicistDave

    T. E. Lawrence said something to the effect (I quote from memory)”the rim of the desert is littered with the ruins of failed religions”.

    But of course religions are species too 😛

    Might this – horribile dictu – extend to science?

  249. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m a Deplorable, who believes in God, and who voted for Trump, and who also accepts the scientific evidence of evolution, as do about half, as the graph below shows. Why are you acting like a two year old brat? Your parents did a poor job raising you.

  250. @anon

    For the umpteenth time:

    A “theory” is a hypothesis that has been tested and retested to everybody´s satisfaction – until further notice; it is the highest category of scientific knowledge, their way of saying “So it is.( Quite probably.)” Few things are as certain as a theory.

    A “hypothesis” is a recognition of pattern followed by a “model” (a tentative understanding how things work) to then be put to a test.

    In this scheme of things the Yahu does not even amount to a hypothesis (Laplace was uncharacteristically imprecise on that) – no pattern, no circumstantial evidence, no inconsistency in the standard model (what you call “natural explanation”), just a hodgepodge of rather sick and self-contradictory scribblings to be analyzed further.

    Creationists like to bring up Popper´s original disdain for paleontology (we roasted him on a spit for that 😛 ), but actually Smith is easy to refute: All you need is a T. rex with human remains in it. I understand several teams are hard at work to produce just that, but until such day the theory stands tall. This is the Way of the Method.

    Contrary to popular belief scientists are drawn to inconsistencies like flies to a cadaver – this makes sure every legitimate question (and a shitload of illegitimate ones) is addressed; as in biology, science progresses over the dead bodies of those found wanting, but continues building.

    If Aristoteles had left us nothing but the Method (and the female orgasm) it would be more than enough 😀

  251. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    You follow my orders to a “T,” as robotically as a “host” in Westworld. How do you feel playing your role like a marionette? I created you to feel the pain manifest in your name-calling, howling like a dog caught in a bear trap. You thought you had free will?

    “We can’t define consciousness because consciousness does not exist. Humans fancy that there’s something special about the way we perceive the world, and yet we live in loops as tight and as closed as the hosts do, seldom questioning our choices, content, for the most part, to be told what to do next.” -Dr. Ford (played by Anthony Hopkins)

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  252. @Wizard of Oz

    Doesn’t the fact that the universe is pervaded by regular patterns that serve as the basis of human mathematics, science, technology and engineering strike you as being quite amazing? How can this be? What is the foundation for this reality? From what did it originate?

    Does it make sense to you that this universal natural order is the product of random and chaotic collisions of matter and energy?

  253. @PhysicistDave

    Einstein was something similar to Deists (although not completely identical). Sure, he didn’t believe in a personal deity; just, he was, explicitly, not an atheist. It is wrong to consider him to be a theist simply because he used the word “God” frequently; also, it is wrong to think he was just metaphorically juggling with this word.

    His biographer states he was like 18th C US founding fathers. Personally, I don’t think it was an apt analogy. Einstein, as far as we can tell, was closer to Spinoza and -this is my observation- early, naturalist Taoism of Lao-Tzu.

    In short, according to him – there is an immanent Intelligence which “leads” (for wont of a better word) anything in this world. This Intelligence’s “ways” can be, to some degree, deciphered with our human intelligence (philosophy, science etc.). Just -and here his world-view differs from most theistic paradigms- this immanent Intelligence is not simultaneously transcendent- therefore, it is not God in our usual sense (no transcendence- no God).

    According to Einstein: there are no supra-physical worlds; no personal God who somehow is concerned with human life & destiny; no immortality of the “soul”. Just, that immanent Intelligence does exist – and here it is where Einstein parts ways with atheists. His central world-view was, as I’ve said, something like naturalist pantheism of Spinoza or Lao-Tzu (not panentheism, nor classical theism).


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  254. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Why ‘creator’ must be single omnipotent entity? Design of life on Earth(or other plantts) is possible only if space travel is possible. If space travel is possible we will in not so distant future colonize other planets and ‘create’ life on some lifeless planets, Mars is probably the first candidate. Future ‘martians’ will look in vain for origins of life on Mars if they somehow loose knowledge of real origin.

  255. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    > 18th C US founding fathers…closer to Spinoza

    The Founders were closer to Spinoza than you think.

    • “Deus, sive Natura” (God, or Nature) –Spinoza
    • “Nature’s God” –Declaration of Independence

    “The Declaration of Independence, that extraordinary document first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, softly echoes Spinoza. John Locke, Spinoza’s contemporary — both were born in 1632 — is a more obvious influence on Jefferson than Spinoza was. But Locke had himself been influenced by Spinoza’s ideas…Locke’s library not only included all of Spinoza’s important works…Spinoza’s collected works were also in Jefferson’s library, so Spinoza’s impact may not just have been by way of Locke.”

    Reasonable Doubt

    Jefferson’s pantheistic Nature’s God is good news!

    1. It’s Patriotic! 🇺🇸
    2. Zero conflict between natural selection and divine mandate! ☘
    3. Every evolutionary biologist 🌼 becomes a theologian! 😇
    4. Theodicy solved! (although Church Lady won’t be happy.) 👿
    5. And best of all for concerned Unz readers, no (((salvation from the Jews)))! ✡

    What’s not to love, folks? Bonus Feature! Fred can start concentrating on The Origins of the Tequila. 🍹

  256. Logan says:

    One standard tool of modern computer science is to set up a program to “evolve.” Evolutionary computing. Using this tool they come up with solutions that they could quite likely not have developed using the top-down designer method.

    Seems to me there are some parallels here to various levels of observed reality.

    1. Intelligent beings with free will. Not predictable or determined.
    2. Evolution of existing life forms. Not predictable or determined.
    3. Quantum mechanics – behavior of sub-atomic particles being by definition not predictable or determined.

    Darwinism, as such, does not address the original of life. Only its variation.

    My personal favorite is those who take the theory of evolution and expand it, quite without logic, to cover not only the origin of life, but even the origin of the Universe, thus disproving the existence of God.

    I’ve even had some claim that the Big Bang Theory proves there is no God. When the BBT is pretty much just a restatement of Genesis 1:1, just leaving out a description of Who caused the Big Bang.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  257. @Anonymous

    Your presumptuous presuppositions and blatherig indicates a serious reading comprehension problem and I wasn’t going to reply- but lo and behold – just this morning this shows up – – not that I expect you to read it since you’re already DaFinalAuthority on AllThings, but there are others who do read and learn. In addition, it shows the context of my original post.
    With Vox Day – ALWAYS read the comments.
    BTW – did I say you’re an atheist? I simply pointed out the related publishings available at Vox Day’s site. Some people learn by reading – others use it as triggers for their own bloviating.
    To assume that science is pure and pristine is delusional – \$hit happens!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  258. Logan says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Nabob is not exactly an insult.

    “a person of conspicuous wealth or high status.”

    Except perhaps for Marxists.

    “Ignore a mouse?”

  259. @anon

    ‘I collect rocks, I have them by the windows.
    Would you really want an all knowing God ruling your life? There goes your free will. God does allow for some mistakes. Maybe God doesn’t want to rule your life or have you bombard God with a billion questions or tasks you want performed to prove God is God. What if God as a man is a man while a man? What if God moves around from place to place and works on a smaller scale and isn’t always down on earth with us? Maybe God doesn’t want to make you all prosperous and that’s what most people would demand, fame power money, iphones, credit cards and cars, then you would turn from doing good because God denies all your requests. I would gather there are lots of reasons why God would be elusive. But you have free will and no one can make you believe anything, unlike the leftist population that wishes to force compliance in beliefs God doesn’t feel that way and so is not here.’

    I think the central points are that God could be anything at all — including not there.

    Secondly. even if he was there, I fail to see why he should care about me. I can certainly see why I should imagine that he does — but I can’t see any reason why he actually should.

  260. @Sean McBride

    ‘…I am merely wondering about the signs of intelligent order and design we see all around us…’

    But you see, I don’t see those signs. Rather, what I see is that every time we unravel anything, we discover a perfectly satisfactory explanation that doesn’t require the existence of a sentient being.

    People want there to be a god. It doesn’t follow that therefore there is one.

  261. @Anonymous

    Behe is not a creationist. He in fact believes in common ancestry and descent w modification. This is an ad hominem attack anyway. And irreducible complexity has NOT been PRATTED. (How about one actual example?) See my Open Letter to Richard Dawkins at

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  262. @Anonymous

    There is a possibility that Spinoza was misunderstood by many (most?) people. I don’t have an issue here because I don’t care for Spinoza’s world-view, which seems to me too scholastic & antiquated. But, let’s see (without much links pro & con, I just don’t care, anyone can search the Web..):

    1. the dominant position is that Spinoza was a pantheist, and that for him there was just this, empirical world, which was equal to “God”. Therefore, no supra-physical anything, no transcendence, no …

    2. but, newer investigations question that. They seem to aver that Spinoza was a panentheist, similar to Plotinus & Hegel, because Spinoza clearly differentiates between natura naturans (nature which creates) & natura naturata (the created nature). This is like a part of 4-fold panentheistic philosophy of John Scotus Erigena (, which is, basically, neo-Platonism with all its baggage of non-empirical worlds, souls, divine beings, eternal destiny etc.

    In Spinoza’s case, it may be anything. I don’t know, maybe he just got caught in scholastic & Cartesian terminologies; on the other hand, he could have been a speculative mystic-rationalist in disguise.

    As for 18th C deists, they too were a diverse bunch. For most of them, God was the cause of all & did not interfere in this, empirical world. Much like Aristotle’s God. For many of them, this led to almost non-theistic conclusions- there was no afterlife & all religious drama was no more than imagination. Just, for some of them – this was not necessarily so. Other types of deists thought that, although God did not interfere in this, physical world, there are non-physical worlds galore, as well as heaven, hell, immortality, divine punishment etc.

    So, these world-views are not that simple as many think they are …

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  263. @Logan

    ‘…I’ve even had some claim that the Big Bang Theory proves there is no God. When the BBT is pretty much just a restatement of Genesis 1:1, just leaving out a description of Who caused the Big Bang.’

    Yeah. I’ve read the Catholic Church was actually pretty pleased with the Big Bang theory.

    I do think, though, that one is driven inexorably to a point where God, even if He can’t be proven to not exist, becomes superfluous. That is to say, the explanation works just as well without God as with Him.

  264. Emslander says:

    Facts aren’t as easily disposed.

    It is a fact that there is life on earth and a lot of it is very complex. Not only that, it generally runs on very harmonically in a system that makes all species intricately interdependent. It is a beautiful product.

    It is a fact that Man was given an intellect and a desire for knowledge.

    It is a fact that Man is not in charge and was not the originator of all life or any species of life.

    Therefore, we want to have an explanation for these facts. There is only one explanation, despite there being numerous beliefs for the existence of these facts. Saying that I’ve got to respect your religion of Darwinism doesn’t get at the explanation any more than your respecting my belief that all this is the product of a loving God. Actually, I don’t care about your respect as much as I care about getting at an agreement on the explanation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  265. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @allan weisbecker

    He’s a creationist who is embarrassed by the label, but he’s still a creationist.

    Behe represented himself as a scientist persuaded by the evidence – not as a creationist with an agenda. To a question from host Melinda Penkava about how his ideas differ from creationism, Behe disingenuously answered, “Well, now to tell you the truth, I’m not real knowledgeable about creationism. I’m a Roman Catholic.” Behe used his “I am a Roman Catholic” mantra more than once to divest himself of the creationist label. Needless to say, this argument against an embarrassing label – while apparently convincing in Behe’s mind – is not really conclusive (since many Catholics are creationists –….

    Michael Behe and “Intelligent Design” on National Public Radio
    National Center for Science Education

    • Replies: @allan weisbecker
  266. @Reg Cæsar

    Does that mean that Homosexuals have been passing on their genes “out of Durex” with females through the ages?

  267. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crush Limbraw

    Funny how you retards always project and lie simultaneously: you beg me to read your fruitcaker “Voice of God” (Vox Dei), then falsely label me as claiming to be “DaFinalAuthority on AllThings.” Oh, the irony.

  268. anon[510] • Disclaimer says:

    well sad to say, it just shows how uneducated the author is.

    all these questions have been addressed.

    homsexuaity is largely an amniotic environement issue and a gut fauna issue, not a genetic issue and to the extent it is genetic, it has to to do with group altruism. i am not an epxert but i do read all the time and in – climbing mount improbable, that answers the one about flagelum, and in – The moral animal, it explains about how homosexaity could actually be selected for. kin altruism. and all the other things i saw in there. also the issue about coding was addressed in a book about – emergent complexity, i think it was called. also a book i just read – what darwin didnt know. a few of them are answered in that.

    i am a christian, but i realize evolution is a real thing, even if darwin didnt know th emechanism, and i think the anti intellectualism in american christianty is a huge disservice to us christians trying to get our parties into power in europe. like take the worst and hold that up to be an example of us all. terrible! not helping. i want my values to be repsetned in politcs i dont care if darwin was right or not. seems like american are somehow so propagandized they are insane. that website should not shut out ignorant people, it should explain to them what they havent been exposed to.

  269. @Polymath

    I’ll leave you’ll to dance on the pin head. Have fun.

  270. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You found good stuff there, buddy! It remains that a pantheistic Nature’s God is patriotic, while Fred can still be relieved of his arduous duties to work a Mexican labor of love, The Origins of the Tequila. I’m not letting panentheist particulars possibly held by that other rebellious Jew take precedence over Flag and Ethanol, dammit. MaRGA! 🇺🇸 🍹 (Make Religion Great Again!)

  271. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    The product of a loving God? That’s odd, since Genesis says Creation is the product of a consortium of multiple deities “Eloh-im,” the plural form of élôah. Why are you using the singular? Elohim isn’t singular.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Emslander
  272. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I’m a “middle-of-the-road” sort of guy, avoiding extremes at both ends, although when I’m doing 32 mph down the middle of the road in my pickup while gawking at my neighbors’ corn and soybeans, such a position can piss off some people, especially if they’re in an Audi. Probably extremist atheists in that faggoty vehicle, don’t you think?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  273. @Anonymous

    I feel that I have exposed a typical MO Jewish Deceptor, wholly dedicated to destruction and psychopathy. By your admission, you are manipulative, dishonest, and a poorly concealed bullshit artist. You obviously delight in dishonoring and provoking the worst in people. If you are not the photo-Jew, you are a surrogate Shabbos, the kind of trash that SJW, antifa, PC mediocrities populate, and INSULATE themselves from sincere inquiry, higher moral purpose of self correction and unstimulated and unforced honesty. You a common low breed sneering piece of inferior slattern material that deserves the Singapore cane.

    You have contributed nothing here, which is no doubt representative of your life: lazy, indolent, narcissistic fantasy of self importance, based on nil, and a perfect vacuum. Yours is unique, as nothing wants to rush in to fill it, except excrement.

    I would say you are a joke, but you are tragic, a parasite, and a waste of protoplasm. IOW, filth.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  274. @Anonymous

    All is true. Live with contradictions.

  275. @Jake

    You make some valid points. However, I think you are missing an important distinction. Darwinism and its successor theories are “supposed to” be what science does when it works properly…scientific method, hypothesis, gather evidence, test, revise hypothesis, independent confirmation, etc. Of course a domain of science is vulnerable to partially or totally fossilize into a dogma, which then achieves many of the aspects of a religion, especially its resistance to new evidence! A wiser man than me said (approximately): “Science is finding the answer that is there, not the answer that you want to be there.” Also, Darwin and “science done right” seeks to describe and predict natural phenomena. Marxism (I’m being generous) is a best political science, full of nebulous terms and squishy difficult-to-measure stuff. I’m no expert, but I think classical Marxists are still waiting for the revolution of the working class. It’s been what, 150 years? Meanwhile, Darwin and his intellectual descendants have greatly enlarged our understanding of life and its origins, at least if you can turn loose of the Bible long enough 🙂

  276. SBaker says:

    I commend your comments. I can tell you’ve looked through a microscope at a single cell, its parts, and thought to yourself, is that you God? I too spent a career of 4 decades in the life sciences. You scratched the complexity surface, but just barely. In order for transcription to occur, the messenger RNA, the tRNA, had to be present at the same time to generate those proteins and some force must move those proteins where they are needed; so need a protein shuttle of some sort too. There is also the DNA in mitochondria, a dozen organelles and enzymes, needed to produce energy into some useable currency, the enzymes necessary to catalyze the synthesis, the cellular membranes to contain and segregate their elements in packages for various functions facilitating cell survival, the intercellular constituents necessary to define the shape and function of organs, the homeostatic mechanisms for every organ and cell type to work in harmony for the primitive lifeform to survive. I’m only here to add one more scratch to the surface. Why is it that only humans think they are solely capable of creating complex systems? Is some inborn arrogance involved–where does this come from? Why is the earth, its moon, its orbit, the tilt of its axis, and its place in the universe the perfect petri dish for life? Keep scratching. Life is but a puff of smoke in the wind followed by the death of the planet and then. Did it all begin with dark matter and energy to, by chance events, evolve what we see today?

  277. SBaker says:
    @Carroll Price

    ‘But you always end up with the root question- if there’s a designer, who created the designer, and who created the creator of the designer? Or did the designer simply appear out of a puff of smoke?”

    Similarly, this question will never have an answer based on human understanding–if the universe began with energy and dark matter, where did these concepts originate? And from energy and dark matter, a series of chance events happened over time to give us human, plant, and animal life here on earth–it is really quite a simple explanation, isn’t it?

  278. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Out of three paragraphs of juvenile insults, crazy lies, and psychological projection, you got one thing right! I’ve dry-panned a gold speck from the barren desert of your mind! I’m excited. Get out your jeweler’s loupe and take a gander:

    > indolent

    Indeed! Indolent stems from Latin and means without pain, as Thomas Jefferson noted in his Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus, as follows:

    Pleasure active and In-dolent. In-do-lence is the absence of pain, the true felicity. […] The summum bonum is to be not pained in body, nor troubled in mind. i. e. In-do-lence of body, tranquillity of mind.

    From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819
    Founders Online, National Archives

    Of couse, the original Greek term Epicurus used was ataraxia [ἀταραξία], and that is the origin of the Epicurean term in the Declaration of Independence, the Pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson could have just as easily wrote “the pursuit of indolence,” but Happiness has better optics.

    And if you’re against indolence-tranquility-happiness-ataraxia, all similarly related terms, then you’re unAmerican. Welp, you’ve got problems now! But those are yours to solve. Get busy, and shovel another load of your dirt into my pan, and we’ll start classifying and panning for another flash of gold. Might not get so lucky next time, but it’s always fun, and sometimes profitable. Start shovelin’, boy!

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  279. @PhysicistDave

    Einstein, although a genius,
    Yet his mind was impoverished.
    For he knew not the God who loves;
    Without Him, only anguish.

  280. Evolution is natural selection
    Mixed with lucky chance: epoch fail sour potion.

  281. FLgeezer says:

    Bravo Tuco! You are a scientist indeed. I remember that some clever person said that atheists are persons who don’t believe anyone could be smarter than themselves.
    You are not among their rank and I salute you.

  282. Two reasons to reject fake science evolution:
    Math and time don’t support it, merits extinction.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  283. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    EVNONƎM? If you were rappin’ tunes a century ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial aftermath wouldn’t have turned out so humiliating to Eloh·im-worshiping, Torah-thumpin’ Goy·im! Maybe.

    p.s. why CCM is so awful

  284. AaronB says:

    It was always obvious Razib was just a thoroughly rotten person, even when he was on this site. He is also extremely intellectually dishonest, and he despises white people. Its amusing to see white racist types look up to him.

    Something about genetics just attracts the worst kind of people – Corchran is another wonderful specimen of this breed.

    No one takes these clowns seriously – but never trust anyone with a background in genetics. Odds are they are just rotten.

  285. Nature itself doesn’t pretend to have answers and doesn’t question anything. The rationality of asking ‘Why’s nature there in the first place?’ catapults us back to the origin of life itself and the raison d’être of the universe.

    The rest is just human gravy, ignorance and my own stupidity in enjoying life as it is.

  286. DFC says: • Website

    It is famous the pont of view of Karl Popper and others about the Darwin’s theory and if we can say it is a “scientific theory” or not. Karl Popper said:

    “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories”
    Karl Popper pointed out that Darwinism says that the living beings that survives are those best adapted to the ambient (survival of the fittest) but the only way to know how an organism is better adapted is…..because it survives. There are no descriptive mechanism, no way to know in advance if any specie will last or not. The theory, in essence is almost tautological, and that is the reason he names it a “metaphysical research program”. And IMHO that is right: Darwininsm is “metaphysics”.

    Karl Marx had an ambivalent view of the darwinian evolution because in one hand it eliminates any need of teleology (God), but on the other hand he “smelled” the origin of the Darwins’ theory, when he said in a letter to Engels (1862):

    “It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.”

    Darwin took, from Herbert Spencer, the term “survival of the fittest” which was a social, not biological term. In fact the darwinian theory is more a “Biological Spencerism” than the Herber Spencer theory is a “Social Darwinism”

    People think of Darwin as the first who “invent” the evolution of species, but there were evolutionists long before Darwin as Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Frederick Gerard, Heinrich Georg Bronn and of course Lamarck.

    If we look for example one of the first controversies around the evolution between the Lamarckism view and Darwinian view of evolution= the giraffe; the Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) view talk about small random mutations that are subject to the natural selection; and then starting from an animal with “short” neck, like an Okapi (frequently taken as similar to he giraffe ancestors’) we would end, small steps by small steps, to the existing giraffe…..
    Well, but the long neck of the giraffe does not came alone, it needs thousands above thousands of anatomical and functional changes, all very very “fine tuned” to give the giraffe the life they live now and survive.

    For example:

    “For rumination, semi-solid food [pulp, mash] must be forced over 3 m high from the reticulum stomach to the mouth!” (Bertelsmann Lexikon der Tiere 1992,p. 259.) For this, the giraffe is equipped with a special muscular esophagus. “The uniform circulation of blood to the different body parts makes several adaptations of the heart, arterial and venous systems necessary” (Marcon and Mongini: Die Grosse Encyclopedie der Tierwelt 1988, p. 303). To avoid bloodlessness by the movement of the head from drinking water at ground level to – seconds later – 5 m height, this animal is equipped with appropriate muscular arteries. Furthermore, it has a complicated system of valves in the veins, as well as a “wundernetz”, a rete mirabile, of blood-storing arteries at the brain base. Also, the lengths, powers/strengths and functions of the skeletal, muscle and nervous systems, etc. must be precisely in tune with each other, if the animal is to be capable of survival.”
    “When standing upright, its blood pressure must be extremely high to force blood up its long neck; this in turn requires a very strong heart. But when the giraffe lowers its head to eat or drink, the blood rushes down and could produce such high pressure in the head that the blood vessels would burst. To counter this effect, the giraffe is equipped with a coordinated system of blood pressure controls. Pressure sensors along the neck’s arteries monitor the blood pressure and activate contraction of the artery walls (along with other mechanisms) to counter the increase in pressure.”
    “The blood leaving the giraffe’s heart has to do more than just reach the level of the head, it has to be at a high enough pressure to pass through all the fine vessels, the capillaries, that supply the brain and other organs. To achieve this the blood leaves the heart at a pressure of 200-300 mm Hg [260-350 mm Hg according to Starck 1995, p. 206(2a)], which is probably the highest blood pressure of any living animal (Warren, 1974; Hargens et al., 1987). A giraffe’s blood pressure is so high that it would probably rupture the blood vessels of any other animal, but two mechanisms appear to prevent this. First, the arterial walls are much thicker than in other animals. Second, the fluid that bathes the cells of the body is maintained at a high pressure; this is largely achieved by the thick skin, which is tightly stretched over the body and which functions like the anti-gravity suit worn by pilots of fast aircraft.
    …Another problem posed by the possession of a long neck is the large volume of air in the trachea, the tube that connects the back of the throat with the lungs. This air is unavailable for respiration and the space it occupies is consequently referred to as the dead space. The dead space has a volume of about five pints (2,5 l) in the giraffe. Since this air has to be moved each time the animal breathes, the rate of ventilation has to be increased to compensate for the reduced air flow. A resting giraffe takes about twenty breaths per minute, compared with our twelve and an elephant’s ten; this is a very high respiration rate for such a large animal.”

    In rough numbers we are talking about some 25,000 protein-coding genes and due to alternative splicing 90,000 proteins, 200 joints, 300 bones associated with 1,000 ligaments and 4,000 tendons, 700 muscles, 100 billion neurons constituting the nervous system, 100,000 km of blood vessels etc. when we compare it with a “short neck giraffe” like the Okapi

    We are talking also about a very big animal, with a pregnancy period 15 months, normally have only 1 baby each time (two is quite rare) and they start to reproduce around 10 years old and the life expectancy is around 25 years, so the number of giraffes and probably of their ancestors, was not in the range of millions but in the hundred thousands, so they are not bacteria and they do not have too many chances to “play” with the genome to achieve the “right” result by progressive random proof-and-error…
    Some people have made some calculations to try to estimate the number of years to have such combination of “random” mutations converge all together in the same animal, and it is around zillions of zillions the age of the universe. Absurd

    There are literally thousands of other examples (living beings) in the same vein.

    The other problem, which is also a problem not only for the giraffe but the major part of other genera as well, is = where are the “intermediate state” fossils?, where are the giraffes with the “medium necks”?, we have not found anyone after centuries of search, and we should see very large numbers of them scattered all over Africa, because we are talking about “small steps” during a few millions of years….Nothing found. The same with countless examples.

    The evolution process is much more efficient than mere randomness, of course, it is completely goal-oriented, purposeful and “alive”, not random-mechanistic (Darwinian or Dawkinian) at all.

    And now somebody will show the PRATT bullshit that never has debunked anything

  287. @DFC

    Compelling statement.
    Devastating to evolutionary pretenses.

    • Agree: Poupon Marx
  288. Sparkon says:

    no way to know in advance if any specie will last or not.

    Please. The word is species for both singular and plural. The word “specie” refers to money in the form of coins.

  289. @Reg Cæsar

    To do the deed with dames, they close their eyes and fantasize – and thus the poopchute proclivity is passed along.

  290. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Popper himself refuted your PRATT bullshit. I doubt you’re curious or honest enough to find out how though. You’ll just keep being a PRATT.

    “And as luck would have it, Popper came to see the error of his ways just in time to combat the misuse of his views by Creationists.”

    The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper
    Biology and Philosophy
    October 1999, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 481–504

  291. @Sean McBride

    I see a lot of what my mund cinceives of as order as well as what I perceive as the random and chaotic. It is almost unimaginably vast so I have no problem conceiving of there being trillions of versions of it with different appearances of order, rules and chaos.

  292. RW says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    But even if social conventions coerced them into procreation they still would not be as likely to procreate as a heterosexual. What might explain the existence of a gay gene, is a gene or some combination of genes that confer a fitness advantage in most family members, but occasionally makes someone gay.

  293. @Martin Spencer

    Homosexuality is a problem that will solve itself. Sadly ignorance is a problem that perptuates itself.

  294. Curle says:

    “ Jefferson looked forward to a United States that spread across the entire continent of North America.”

    There isn’t a single nation at present in North America that even approximates Jefferson’s vision of the United States. You can blame Lincoln.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  295. Fred, you seem to have struck a nerve here.

  296. Sparkon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Still, your knowledge of Hanzi gives you a leg up when working with Kanji, where many Westerners, or Occidentals are too intimidated by the Han characters to attempt the kind of interesting work you’ve done on your blog with the two guys named Takuya Nakamura, or actually Nakamura Takuya.

    You did make a slight flub with your HTML in the section “More than you ever wanted to know about Japanese names…” where you linked to Google image results for 9/11 Taku’s name 中村匠也 twice, instead of the first link reading 中村琢耶, and pointing to Pretty Boy Taku’s images.

    Anyway as I say it is interesting work but entirely OT so I’ll leave it there for now.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  297. @Sean McBride

    Sean McBride asked the Wizard:

    Doesn’t the fact that the universe is pervaded by regular patterns that serve as the basis of human mathematics, science, technology and engineering strike you as being quite amazing? How can this be?

    Why would you expect the opposite? There is in fact plenty of chaos and randomness in the natural world — everything from the weather to giant interstellar gas clouds.

    You think that there is something suspicious about the fact that the universe is not 100 percent chaotic and random? What would that even mean? Try to imagine a universe in which there are no laws of nature whatsoever, no patterns whatsoever: it is surprisingly hard to even figure out what that would mean! (This, by the way, is a practical — and very difficult — problem in computer science: it is extremely hard, perhaps impossible, to produce a sequence of numbers that is “truly random.”)

    Sean also asked:

    Does it make sense to you that this universal natural order is the product of random and chaotic collisions of matter and energy?

    Well, by making that assumption, science has made enormous progress in everything from astrophysics to biochemistry!

    Please note: I am not claiming (and most scientists do not claim) that contemporary science gives a definitive answer to whether God exists or whether there is some sort of intelligent order in the universe. I am just pointing out that, so far, science has found no need for that hypothesis. I find your wonderment at this rather perplexing. You seem unaware that, so far at least, the assumption of some sort of higher order imposed by a cosmic intelligence actually has not been needed by science.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Dutch
  298. Al Lipton says:


    I love it when Fred stirs the pot of Darwinian religion a little.

    The reason number one, in fact the only reason, for a zealous religious support of Darwinism… drumroll…. MORAL RELATIVISM. It’s also a subconscious thing. The social engineers know it, that’s why they teach it unto the wee ones as “science.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  299. @flashlight joe

    The problem I see with this is that objective reality clearly does exist absent our perceptions.

    I can be walking under some scaffolding and a workman above me can drop a hammer.

    I may never realize the hammer is falling, but it can nevertheless hit me on the head and kill me.

  300. @Tuco

    This is, in effect, Augustine´s “rationes seminales” weasel maneuver to save theism.

    There is no profit under the sun 😛

    [ahem] Sorry 🙂 So far, so respectable. But do you seriosly assert the ten or so current species of Homo did NOT evolve from precursor primates?

  301. @Sparkon

    The sun is a G-2 normal of the 4th generation about midlife, which is indeed about perfect if you want life (used to explain the significance of each point to young chemists) but I´m not sure what you´re aiming at …

    IIRC Freud speculated Moses was a renegade Aton priest, and then there´s the term “Adonai” in parts of the tradition …

    All Hail Aton now?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  302. @Anonymous

    It has been argued there originally was a female companion (Il-Ilu, or the Lord and his Light, semitic creation archetype) and one reason for Yahweh´s character is he lost his better.

    The feminists are loving it 😀

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  303. @Anonymous

    Inhowfar is there being no salvation from the Jews something positive?

  304. @Anonymous

    You dryBLOW in a desert, “panning” doesn´t get you anywhere; though the use of a classifier is advised.

    Then again, maybe there´s a metaphor in here 😉

  305. JustJohn says:

    And… your rant is about what? Your point is? What a pompous, nonsensical waste of bits and bytes! Pathetic pseudo-intellectual masturbation!

  306. There’s a very interesting book that questions Darwinism as it relates to human beings, written by a philosopher, not a biologist: Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove.

  307. Emslander says:

    Oh, gee, thanks. That was very enlightening. I think I’ll give up all this “One God” stuff, seeing how brilliant you are. (NOT!)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  308. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @Al Lipton

    Your creationist PRATT is at the very top of the list, CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview. Fact is, you’re projecting your own moral relativism—the theory that moral standards vary from time to time—when you believe your Jewish deity keeps changing things up with different “covenants” with changing moral terms, like this Rabbi said: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” And that’s not the craziest example of moral relativism the Rabbi taught. Hey, buddy, don’t let the sun go down on your wrath there, or Kang Jewhovah is going to judge your thought crime as a murderer.

    And now, the Jews you just had to worship have recently introduced the Rabbi’s same concept of thought (hate) crime into our English Common Law system. (And no, English Common Law isn’t founded on your Jew-worship cult. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”)

    • Replies: @Al Lipton
  309. It has become fashionable among their lessers to ridicule
    – Aristoteles for finding women inferior because they have fewer teeth(!),
    – Chladni for listing “daemones” under “supernatural” and “flatulences” under “terrestrial” causes of earthquakes, and even
    – poor Bishop Ussher and his Oct.26, 4004 BC, 0900 GMT,
    but all that was cutting-edge SCIENCE.

    And all we see over time is those claiming to not really know a thing flatten one bastion after the other of the One revealed absolute and eternal Truth. My educated opinion as a Catholic, scientist and veteran is these positions are WRONG BECAUSE they are INDEFENSIBLE.

    The Behe flagellants are a nuisance; but even if they were onto something, so what?
    Scientists use “as-ifs”, placeholders and temporary props all the time. No need to invoke “dark matter”, “dark energy” or “dark flow”; just ask the resident physicists what an electron is.
    As it is with women we cannot understand, only grasp it.
    Quick! What does the KJV (annotated ed.) say about electrons? (OK, that was low 😀 )

    Keep the Faith, but get out of the way of science.
    And I really should not have to lecture you on con artists.

  310. @Technomad

    Darwin did not postulate man’s evolution from apes. His Theory of Natural Selection as it was termed whilst provably valid does not need to be the exclusive mechanism of evolution either.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  311. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re correct, perhaps the original Creation account included the godess Asherah mentioned in 2nd Kings; the details are covered well in the text by Mark Smith entitled, “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts,” (Oxford University Press, 2001.)

    Regarding your #311 comment: Outsourcing one’s most intimate and important needs to middle-eastern foreigners is always unwise, especially when they greedily claim we Goyim “owe \$it\$ to them” (it really says that!!!) for their alleged “spiritual blessings.” Biblical creationism is toxic to European society precisely because it outsources the moral and spiritual foundation of European society to foreigners. I wouldn’t be opposed to a homegrown, indigenous European creation mythology for those White folk who have a hard time grasping the White Man Darwin’s Cathedral of Science.

    Regarding your #312 comment: You’ll save yourself time and money prospecting for gold in desert country following these fellows’ dry panning and dry washing techniques. You are correct in your observation that the technique includes using air, either from your sweet lips that never told a lie or a leaf blower. 🙂

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  312. @Anonymous

    Your evidence that behe is a creationist is a quote from npr???? how about what behe himself says? you can believe whatever ad hominem crap you want, but his first book did Darwinism in. you’ll say irreducible complexity has been ‘debunked,’ but you will not provide a link. or if you do it will be garbage.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  313. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    Give it up? You already have, since your alleged single supernatural being includes a Pantheon of the following supernatural deities and sub-deities: El Shaddy, Jewhovah, Rabbi Jewsus, Holy Spirit, the Archangels, Gabriel, Michael etc., lesser angels, Mary, Satan/Lucifer, the Greater Demons, Beelzebub, Azrael etc., and lesser demons. Such a long list is not surprising, considering the pagan origins of the christ myth that Hellenized Jewish storytellers repackaged in their proto-Hollywood narrative placing Jews at the center of attention.

    You could be consistently monotheistic like me and T. Jefferson, and more patriotic too, believing in the Declaration of Independence’s deistic/pantheistic “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Deus, sive Natura. Unfortunately, most folks are as attached to Hebrew Demonism as a whore is to her crack pipe, as Jefferson also observed when he wrote, “I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.”

    When are you going to give up on your addiction to Ol’ Scratch?

  314. Sparkon says:

    The sun is a G-2 normal of the 4th generation about midlife, which is indeed about perfect if you want life (used to explain the significance of each point to young chemists) but I´m not sure what you´re aiming at …

    I thought my comment was fairly straightforward and easy to understand, but maybe not.

    Changes in the Sun result in changes in life on Earth.

    That’s it.

    The Sun has been evolving since it was formed, and does not nor will not operate in a steady state forever, nor do any stars we can observe. They are always changing, and have a beginning and an end. There are intermittent perhaps cyclical solar events such as Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) that bombard Earth with all sorts of energetic solar rays. The last big CME that hit Earth was in 1859, toward the end of the Little Ice Age.

    I have no problem thinking that these and other perhaps unknown solar events can and likely would result in widespread, simultaneous DNA mutations.

    Darwin was somewhat misled by his experiences on the Galapagos Islands, which is an isolated environment with a unique climate.

    Does anyone really think that Quetzalcoatlus northropi, weighing in at 500 lbs. with a 35 foot wingspan, could fly in today’s atmosphere on Earth, where the current heaviest flying bird weighs in at about 40 lbs. with a wingspan of 7 or 8 feet?

    Over the course of the last 600 million years, the Sun has evolved, conditions on Earth have changed, and life on Earth has changed and evolved correspondingly.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nokangaroos
  315. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @allan weisbecker

    If you’d actually read it, NPR quotes Behe himself, attempting to weasel out of the creationist label. The Creationist PRATTs dealing with so-called “irreducible complexity” are debunked at the Index to Creationist Claims, down in the CB200: Molecular Biology section, as show in this screen save:

    Enjoy perusing the several articles highlighting the creationist claims about “irreducible complexity.”

  316. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ll be contemplating our rapid return to the Triassicthe Sun was dimmer back then—on my family’s next Sun·day drive to the beach in our big SUV. Hopefully, it’s too late in the season for the three foot hail pile Fred observed earlier this summer in Guadalajara.

  317. @Anonymous

    So Yahweh was an usurper? It´s not my field but the parallels to Druze and Gnostic thought are striking …

    As for #311, sorry if I failed to convey the inflection 😀

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  318. @Sparkon

    AFAIK they are currently working on just that (known to us pukes as the “paradox of the initially weak sun”), doing isotopes and fission-track on hibonites (presolar high-T oxide that left them agape when it showed up in the Stardust samples) from the Murchison meteorite.
    But this gets a bit esoteric.
    My point was a G-2 normal at this stage does not change much and is not overly given to magnetic storms.
    Temperature? Oxygen? We´ll hear more soon … 😉

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  319. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    Indeed, as you have deduced, Yahweh was the usurper! I’ve included below a passage from page 141 of Mark Smith’s text “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts,” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that shows how Yahweh worship usurped El Shadday. It’s amazing how openly this theological coup is flaunted in Exodus, as follows:

    “[T]he priestly theological treatment of Israel’s early religious history in Exodus 6:2-3 identifies the old god El Shadday with Yahweh:

    And God said to Moses, “I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.”

    This passage shows that Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs. Rather, they are depicted as worshipers of El. In Israel El’s characteristics and epithets became part of the repertoire of descriptions of Yahweh. Like El in the Ugaritic texts, Yahweh is described as an aged, patriarchal god …, enthroned amidst the assembly of divine beings…” [pg. 141]

    Goodbye El·oh·imz, my old friendz! ♪ 🙂 Just like the multiple deities implied in the plural Elohim in the Genesis creation myth, Yahweh too is just another one of multiple gods from which to choose.

  320. Sbaker says:

    The lack of experimental evidence and the fact that complex living systems are not chance events will not dissuade any non-scientist. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

  321. Dutch says:

    Lots of fluff here that’s mostly hard to read, assuming I were even interested, which I’m not. So lets just get down to brass tacks:

    Do you or don’t you agree that:

    A whale gave birth to a cow
    A dog gave birth to a cat
    A monkey gave birth to a man

    Stop wasting everyone’s collective brainpower on the story of the bird with darker feathers who got laid more. Everything you call ‘evolution’, this bird included, is DEvolution, ie deviation from the original genome. Anyone calling this ‘evolution’ has everything 180 degrees wrong right out of the box. It is DEvolution. Period. Furthermore much of it is not even mutation as many have postulated for years, but epigenetics, a second order selection matrix triggered by environment and operating above the already super complex existing genetic code, carrying terrabytes of ordered information, that you can’t even begin to explain. Not that evolution theory has changed in light of this new evidence. Dogma seldom does. So let’s not waste any more time with these silly arguments, debunked countless times, but still copy/pasted frantically by the beholden. Just answer the questions. Because there’s no getting out of it. Backpedal from it with all the pseudo-scientism you can, but the fact remains. For any of it to be true it HAS TO BE that:

    A whale gave birth to a cow
    A dog gave birth to a cat
    A monkey gave birth to a man

    …and so much more. So did this happen? Did you see it? Did anyone see it? And what is your proof?

    These questions will remain unanswered pretty much forever. No self respecting ‘evolutionist’ wants to answer the first one, and nobody can answer the rest of them. So before you vomit the word ‘science’ yet again, grasp that the inescapable fact of all this is that evolution is not, nor cannot even be, a scientific theory at all. In any way. We’ve literally never observed ANY of its predictions happening. And random chance is NOT science. Your dark feathered, DEvolved bird might care to differ, but anyone with a brain any larger than his can’t deny it. Assuming they know what science is, or requires at all.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  322. @Sparkon

    Still, your knowledge of Hanzi gives you a leg up when working with Kanji, where many Westerners, or Occidentals are too intimidated by the Han characters

    Well, that’s true in this specific case of these two Japanese ciphers, but most of the 9/11 victims were Americans. Even of the ones who were foreigners, most of their names would not pose any particular difficulties, since they would be Europeans or Latin Americans. Or Canadians, for that matter. All these fake victims are kind of like this big secret hidden in plain sight. Same as the fake plane crashes, no?

    You did make a slight flub with your HTML

    Yes, I certainly did. Thanks for pointing that out. I see again that you tend to read things through carefully! That’s fixed now.

    Anyway, yes, it’s off-topic, but since there is no private messaging feature on this site, my only way of letting you know about it was to reply to you like this. If you are interested in making any further comment about all this, I have a discussion forum set up.

  323. Dutch says:

    I used to love my ’98 Honda Civic. Got me to work cheap and dependably, and cost little to maintain. So imagine my joy when it EVOLVED into a 2003 Honda Accord. While it still had the same logo, same steering wheel, radio knobs, wiper knobs, etc, it EVOLVED more displacement, more comfortable seats and way more trunk space. It was really amazing too. Even though it EVOLVED a totally different engine, this engine EVOLVED to such precise specifications that it gave more horsepower while consuming less fuel. I was just happy it worked at all. Same with the seats. They didn’t evolve into ladders, or a spiky hide (what else could you expect out of total randomness), but into slightly newer versions of the same seat, with more padding and more comfortable fabric. They were even the exact same Pantone color as the rest of the interior. What are the odds? Same thing with the trunk. Not only was it EVOLVED to carry much more cargo, but the rest of the cars trunk lid and body panels EVOLVED to match up to it, while the rear axle EVOLVED rearward to maintain the stability of the car. It also EVOLVED LED headlights from the old incandescent ones. I still can’t get my head around that one. But all in all it was a beautifully EVOLVED car. As if it knew my preferences, cultural preferences, advancements in materials and manufacturing, emissions standards, new safety regulations, new design requirements, new NHTSA tests, etc, and EVOLVED itself accordingly. Without actually having any of that information beforehand.

    Unbelievable right?

  324. Corbett says:

    While I agree that evolution leaves many questions unexplained, homosexuality MAY not be one of them. I read a book (I believe it was Sex on the Brain, by Deborah Blum) that suggested a non-genetic explanation for homosexuality. Blum believes that too much exposure to estrogen at a critical stage in the male fetus’s development leads to male homosexuality. Too much testosterone at the same stage of the female fetus’s development leads to lesbianism.

    I don’t know if it is true, but it certainly makes more sense than the homosexual gene or virus theory.

  325. @KenH

    The theory of evolution doesn’t even try to explain why life exists on earth.

    The primordial ooze theory, which never had any evidence and is wild hypothesis, is straight out of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Lightning does not actually work like that. It is basically the “Thor fucked Gaia with Lightning Bolt” theory of the origin of life.

    The origin of species does not even attempt to explain the origin of life itself.

    To wind up with something incoherent is inescapable with these questions, and deistic interpretations rightly or wrongly end up making the most human sense. The only goddamn way a lightning bolt could animate mineral ooze at the dawn of time and never again since, was if Thor himself chucked it divinely.

    Same with the Big Bang theory on the origin of the whole universe. A giant ball of nothing spontaneously blew up into everything. Giant balls of nothing don’t blow up into spontaneous things. It violates the 1st law of all known physics. Nothing doesn’t work like that.

    It can only be made to make sense if you invoke a deity. You have Deus ex Machina at least to resolve the comprehension plot holes. But without the Deus you have only Machina defying any explanation, basically you just have a giant hole in the plot that can never make any sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  326. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s unbelievable is that you missed the high school science lesson that clearly stated, “individuals do not evolve, populations do.” Care to start over with a less embarrassing PRATT?

  327. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    Random chance is NOT natural selection, true. At least you got one thing correct in your hare-brained diatribe. What you’ve found is the one thing upon which both Creationists and Scientists agree! Really!

    Creationist Claim: Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.

    Science Response: Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did NOT arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution.


    100% agreement, buddy! Can’t really tell if you’re an evolutionist or a creationist from that claim. Hehe!!! Confused now?

  328. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    • “Scientists love mysteries; they love not knowing.” -Lawrence Krauss
    • “I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things.” -Richard Feynman

    You’ll find both scientists speaking those statements here, at 1 minute, 11 seconds:

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
  329. @Anonymous

    So you’re agreeing with me that many scientists aren’t interested in providing coherent explanations for things?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  330. @Dutch

    This is pretty much what evolution looks like in the field, yes.

    Except that you way overrate your preferences 😛

  331. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Negative, Ghostrider; I’m just warning you that the retreating Deistic God of Biogenesis is just another nut for scientists to crack. Looks like this young whippersnapper is getting close…

    [T]he origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    A New Physics Theory of Life
    Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

    Earlier scientists have already done the heavy lifting in hypothesizing that life is merely a subset of physics, 4th law of Thermodynamics, a.k.a. Maximum Power Principle (Lotka, 1922; Odum, 1994).

    The pantheistic Nature’s God never retreats into a corner as science advances knowledge, nay, Nature’s God becomes more manifest with every published science journal article. Better switch over. 🙂

  332. DFC says: • Website

    And then Saint Richard Dawkins the High Priest of Darwininsm said:

    “Darwinism”, he tells us, “is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection”

    So Darwinism IS A THEORY OF RANDOM MUTATIONS and small incremental steps, where natural selection happens (select the trait), but in my comment before, about the evolution of giraffes, the “randomness” of the mutation cannot hold simply cause there is not enough time in the universe to make, at the same time, so many changes in the same species by chance.

    At the same time the Multiverse is also a theory of RANDOM MUTATIONS of zillions of universes “forming” in any nanosecond (in any quantic dice roll), and we strangely inhabit a very very strange and extremely unlikely one where the physical constants are “fine tuned”, and our mind could “develop”, but only in this “kind” of universe (natural selected in some universe, but in some zillions others the physical “laws” do not allow stars or planets or a conscious minds, so we are not “there”).

    Of course the Multiverses theory, as many other in modern science, is not a testable or falsable one, because, by definition, an universe is causally-isolated from another one (if not, it will be a region or a part of one universe, with the same physical laws, NOT another universe).

    Occam would be laughing with his razor.

    Someone in PRATT or other similar place should explain me under what mechanism all this luxury of universes are formed and how “scientific” this bullshit is.

    Multiverses theory belong to the same “set” of metaphysical theories like the Darwinio-Dawkinism theory of evolution

    Too much nonsense only to avoid the “old bearded”; I think Science can do it much better

  333. @Anonymous

    You have to plant the goalposts somewhere if you want me to play. How are quotes from scientists about being comfortable not knowing things meant to warn they are about to know everything?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  334. @Anonymous

    OK, you got me, this is too good. It’s a perfect example.

    “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

    You don’t need a god-head to make sense when you realize you simply don’t need to make sense in the first place.

    We can just pretend that shining a light on my shoe for a billion years, it’s turning into a pineapple plant is obvious and begs no real explanation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  335. anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    I think the problem is that everyone’s assuming “evolution == genetic mutation.” From what I understand, the current theory is that eukaryotes came about because somewhere, somehow, an archaeon ate a prokaryote in a way that the prokaryote was able to keep living.

    Is that evolution? Yes. Is it inheritance of genetic mutations? Nope. There’s probably lots of epigenetic stuff like that which probably fills replaces the God of the Gaps.

  336. As I understand this argument, it is thus:

    Since I don’t know HOW this occurred naturally, it did not occur naturally. This proves it was magic.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  337. @John Howard

    Erm, no.
    We know what happened and argue over the least stupid explanation,
    and the opposition tries to prove it couldn´t happen.
    Never the twain shall meet.

    This relationship – of forensic expert to defendant – is not one we sought.

  338. minty says:

    Second, male homosexuality seems evolutionarily mysterious. It is not clear how one passes along one’s genes by not passing them along, or at least not to women, which would seem an evolutionarily necessary part of the transference. Greg Cochran solved this apparently intractable puzzle by postulating that a virus caused homosexuality. Has this virus been found? If not, might one suspect its nonexistence?

    Mr. Cochran didn’t solve it, he made an unsubstantiated conjecture for which there is zero evidence. Is he right? There’s no evidence for it, but it’s possible! Time will tell.

    Now if you truly have an open mind on this subject, here is a line of thought for which there IS substantial evidence:

    How strong is the data on the greater fecundity of relatives of gay men?

    The trend has been replicated several times and I haven’t seen a single negative result. Still I would love to see a good meta-analysis

    Is the theory of homosexuality as a side effect of higher female fecundity correct, or partially correct? There is some evidence for it, which is more than one can say for the germ theory. So it’s possible! Time will tell.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  339. Paul C. says:

    Our knowledge of the natural world is painfully gained through making plausible hypotheses and then painstakingly gathering evidence that confirms or, more often, refutes our hypotheses.

    What is the best evidence of evolution? Can you share it?

    The earth really does move around the sun.

    What evidence do you have to support this?

    Do most evolutionists know that Darwin was a Freemason and comes from a long line of Freemasons? His grandfather was a 33 degree mason. Masons are anti-god, anti-Christ, luciferian’s. They lie. As is the nature of a secret society.

    NASA is another masonic entity. Do you believe NASA?

    Freemasonry is based on the Jewish Kabbalah.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @PhysicistDave
  340. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    And if you read the paragraph before, it states that he has “derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.”

    The Maths over your head? Usually, that’s the case.

  341. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

  342. @DFC

    From some comments in this thread it appears that evolution is a religion like any other. The only difference is that its priests, like Dawkins, do not merely represent God, they ARE God, having solved the mystery of life (in their own estimation). And its followers cling to it like tree sloths because as servants of the DawkGods, they are exalted to the status of Apostles, acolytes of the cosmic life mystery. Sadly, it does not offer true life or salvation, but only theory punctuated by gaping holes.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  343. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Your PRATT is classified as CA610, a tactic used since the early 1980’s to remove evolution from public school science classroom. The courts have rejected your poor argumentation. If something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion is a religion, then so is stamp collecting or NASCAR. And NASCAR even offers salvation. Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN!

  344. Tony B. says:

    Darwin, like his father before him and likely the whole Darwin tribe, was a high mason.
    Enough said, now you KNOW evolution is a crock of lies.

  345. @Dutch

    Dutch wrote to me:

    I used to love my ’98 Honda Civic. Got me to work cheap and dependably, and cost little to maintain. So imagine my joy when it EVOLVED into a 2003 Honda Accord.

    You’re just being silly.

    Cars do not have genes that mutate. Cars do not reproduce. The population genetics of cars is not subject to natural selection.

    Of course, if you look at the design of cars, then, yes, designs do in fact evolve. As customers choose one model over another, the manufacturers do choose to make more of that model, incorporate that model’s features into other models, etc. And, some car companies go extinct. So, in a sense, the population of cars does indeed evolve, without there being a single all-powerful Intelligence controlling that evolution.

    Except in Communist countries, of course. Maybe we can find you a Trabant from back in the Communist days. Teach you how well Centralized Design works.

    Creationists: the people who are the scientific equivalent of Communists.

  346. @minty

    Exhaustive and well argued. Thanks for the link 🙂

    – I never thought of feminazis as adaptive “single mothers against infanticide”, but this makes a load of things drop into place – in ONE place Mephisto would say 😛 -, from BLM to gun grabbing.

    Maybe Islam IS right …

  347. Al Lipton says:

    Science is always pristinely free from fanaticism and not “threatened” by opposing views. In fact, it welcomes a good challenge.

    The unusually high emotions and religious zealotry that precede, accompany and follow this one particular theory – of evolution – point to a heavy agenda taking a piggyback ride on it. And that agenda is none other than MORAL RELATIVISM. That is why totalitarian systems were the first to adopt the theory of evolution as “science” du jour: Hitler’s Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, US Democrat Party, etc… Evolution is the Trojan Horse of MORAL RELATIVISM, to the point that it does not matter to its peddlers that the horse is falling apart. The AGENDA is ALL that matters and it must have a ride.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nokangaroos
  348. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Al Lipton

    Speaking of MORAL RELATIVISM…

    Speaking of Hitler…

    Go on, go Full Godwin* and mention moral relativism or Hitler again.

    * “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”

  349. @DFC

    Quantum theory has done a bear job on precision of thought.
    Both the Copenhagen and the “Many Worlds” interpretation are speculation; this is what happens when the laity barge in on “exact” scientists brainstorming the objective reality of a freaking equation.
    As an illiterate listening in on the Council of Nicaea, what would you expect to take away?
    Yet this opened the floodgates, and POOF! here we are with Feyerabend and “anything goes”.

    The Darwinian framework, by contrast, is as self-evident as the sun; it surrounds us, warms and informs us. The reason you cannot see it is you are caught in a yellowed still of the film we are watching. You have no understanding of time – GEOLOGICAL time.
    It works miracles for self-importance 😀

    I would advise against using the Giraffe; if anything the number of neck vertebrae (as opposed to, say, sauropods) and the load of unintelligent additions strongly favor evolution. As for time, the Earth is roughly 6000 y.o. equating to 2-300 giraffe generations equating to a 0.1% selective advantage becoming dominant. Is a long neck a better than 0.1% selective advantage? Check.
    You can do that on a napkin 😀

  350. Zinj says:

    You’re only half right.
    “you can’t get any complex structure or biochemical system” SOLELY “from the accumulation of random mutations in a population”
    You also require a system of selectivity.
    Anything actively detrimental to the organism is immediately selected out. Anything that is neutral to the survival of the organism is retained until or unless randomly mutated out; except under extremely austere conditions where even a non-functional part not actively detrimental is still detrimental to maintain and therefore selected out.

  351. @Al Lipton

    To the Darwinian moral is what is adaptive, and what is adaptive depends on circumstance;
    this is neither “relativism” nor “laissez-faire” nor license. It is true the logical consequence is National Socialism (or Talmudism but that´s un-Kantian).

    So what exact kind of Moral Absolutism do you propose?

    Burn pooter pokers at the stake again? ON the stake?
    Behead those pissing in streams? (Mongols before Temujin – Greta would love it :P)
    Hammurabi? (the oft-copied original)
    Zarathustra? (the purest indogermanic-neolithic one)
    The Negative Confessional? (I admit to a certain faible for its exquisite refinement at the same time they had to threaten the Israelites with the pyre if they shag goats)
    Political Correctness? (unfair example as its essence is moving goalposts)

    Choose wisely, and explain why; and
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    But all this has got nothing to do with science, right?

    My guess is you feel like some Old Testament prophet – your religion has lost lost explanatory power, leaving the congregation in cognitve dissonance, abandoning a god that doesn´t work for others that are more fun – it is all so depressingly familiar. Meanwhile your daughters become ISIS brides because terrorists are manlier than Huckabee voters, and the carpet worshippers gear up to ream your flabby posterior because they are hungrier, hornier and religious-wackier (which is adaptive and therefore moral).

    To the Darwinian this is the normal course of events, and neither good nor bad.
    To you it is BLASPHEMY!!!!

    I think it is YOU who has a problem …

    • Replies: @Al Lipton
  352. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    I bet you spotted Darwin in a Sasquatch suit spraying Chem-Trails from a Black Helicopter too.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  353. Sparkon says:

    My point was a G-2 normal at this stage does not change much and is not overly given to magnetic storms.

    My current understanding is that CMEs from the Sun occur at regular, ongoing, and cyclical intervals:

    Near solar maxima, the Sun produces about three CMEs every day, whereas near solar minima, there is about one CME every five days.
    According to a report published in 2012 … the chance of Earth being hit by a Carrington-class storm between 2012 and 2022 is 12%.
    Compared to activity on the Sun, CME activity on other stars seems to be far less common.

    — Wikipedia

    In July 2012 there was a “massive” CME, but it missed Earth.

    That blinding disc of light in the sky is a huge energetic sphere about 93 million miles away that is hurling out blobs of plasma at regular intervals of varying intensity. Some of these hit Earth, and every so often, there’s a really big one.

    Don’t forget to back up your work.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  354. Al Lipton says:

    Aren’t you not supposed to attribute Intelligent Design to the Darwinian theory? Evolution is dumb by design. Darwin’s design that is.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  355. @Grumpy

    “Maybe IT exists outside of what we call ‘time’ ”

    Christians believe this. Can’t speak for Islam or Judaism but I suspect they too adhere to this principle–which would seem to suggest that what we call “creation” was a supernatural event and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry since the latter can only comment upon what happened “after”, not “before.”

    Which seems to suggest that in reality neither side has anything of substance to say to each other.

  356. @Sparkon

    With a chalk and blackboard I´m better 😀

    One of the nice things about science is it puts things into perspective;
    the sad fact is not even the fabled Carrington Event would have been noticed without instruments (apart from the corona, and you would´ve had to look for it) – funny what such a little magnetic field can do.
    And you get worked up over these hiccups?
    Get over your smartphone salience, learn to read a map and do not rely too much on wiki 😛

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  357. DFC says: • Website


    I think you are drenched in the Nicean (Darwinian) Creed, that’s the reason is so “self evident” to you “like the sun”, about faith, nothing can be argued

    Multiverses was a kind of “solution” to the called “Fine Tuning” problem of physical constants, where any very small changes in any of them produce a very “impossible” universe where you and me would not be exchanging messages. The “reason” for such shitty argument is “to get rid of the old bearded”, is not about some “cool mind” approach or interpretation of the quantum equations, but some metaphysical, Saint Anselmistic ontological argument against God. Because must be God of randomness…like in Darwinism

    I do not know what cause the speciation process, what kind of “forces” (a byassed word) or “mechanism” (another Munfordian word) or “cause” is behind, but it is much more efficient, goal-oriented and powerful than mere darwinian randomness, for sure.

    Dawkinio-Darwinistic people do not like to talk about giraffes, or anyother of thousands similar cases in biology, they are like the aristotelian inquisitors that when Galileo say “look with the telescope and you will see the Jupiter moons” and they say “We do not need to look through any artifact to know that there are no moons orbiting Jupiter”.

    For example:

    “So, how many intermediate forms should a hypothesis of gradual evolution lead us to expect?

    If we estimate only one intermediate form for each centimeter and if we take into account the variations within each species, we conclude that there were, say, about 200 missing intermediate forms (assuming only 2 m difference between “small giraffes” and large okapis). Since G. G. Simpson, one of the most renowned proponents and pioneers of the synthetic theory of evolution in paleontology, estimates a growth rate in horse teeth of about one millimeter per million years, and
    assumes that even this millimeter is gradually bridged by numerous intermediate forms (cf. Artbegriff 1993, p. 448), one can ask, to what extent this estimate could also be applied to the growth rate of the length of neck vertebrae and other bones. 4

    Using such calculations, there are even more intermediate forms required: According to the theory of gradual evolution at least 1000 intermediate links are missing between the okapioid ancestor and Giraffa, conservatively estimated! Yet, if one applies Simpson’s considerations to the growth rate of the 7 (8) neck vertebrae, etc. – more literally, i.e. with numerous links per millimeter – on can evenpostulate 10,000 or more transitional links.

    However, this still does not take into consideration the many other anatomical, physiological and ethological differences between Giraffa and Okapia, so that according to the theory of additive typogenesis numerous further links in other characters must be postulated between an okapi-like ancestor and the giraffe.

    For every one of these links, on the one hand, literally thousands of components (in rough numbers some 25,000 protein-coding genes and due to alternative splicing 90,000 proteins, 200 joints, 300 bones associated with 1,000 ligaments and 4,000 tendons, 700 muscles, 100 billion neurons constituting the nervous system, 100,000 km of blood vessels etc.) must remain so fine-tuned with each other that a functional and survivable organism is always guaranteed.

    On the other hand, every one of these almost unnoticable steps that is supposed to improve adaptation, must ‘fit’ into the existing framework, that is, be able to be fully integrated into the existing synorganized structures. We are expected to assume that, in this manner, by the addition of thousands upon thousands of small steps, new species, genera, families, etc., even new body plans could arise. And all of this, it is believed, happened by random mutations (non-directional by definition), independently of each other and at numerous different genetic loci!
    I have discussed the improbability of such a process in detail in my work on the eye (2nd edition 1989 –internet-edition 2003:; see also Wittlich 1991/2002: as well as my contribution of 1995/2003: The result of these investigations is that the theory of additive typogenesis does not function, neither mathematically nor experimentally. ”

    Another example about the “lost fossils that one day will appear”, the paleontologist Oskar Khun said:

    “The prejudice that the phylogenetic history of life could only be an accumulation of the smallest variational steps and that a more complete knowledge of the paleontological documents would prove [the assumed] gradual evolution, is deeply rooted and widely accepted. But the paleontological facts have long spoken against this prejudice! Especially German paleontologists such as B e u r l e n, D a c q u é and S c h i n d e w o l f have emphatically pointed out that in many animal groups such a rich, even overwhelming amount of fossil material exists (foraminifers, corals, brachiopods, bryozoans, cephalopods, ostracods, trilobites etc.), that the gaps between the types and subtypes must be viewed as real”.

    Oskar Khun said that in 1965, after more than 50 years it is even more true because the fossils are still strangely “missing”

    Ok but all of this is solved by you on a napkin

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nokangaroos
  358. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Al Lipton

    Where is evolution on your 1 to 10 Stupid Meter in comparison to cursing fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season?

  359. Sparkon says:

    I don’t use a smartphone except to make a rare call, so you’re wrong about that too.

    We are discussing evolution, and possible agents for that, remember? It’s not a a question of being worked up, merely pointing out facts that you obviously don’t like. I studied astronomy long ago as an undergrad. Earlier, back in 1962 as a high school sophomore, I scored at the 98th percentile in “Science Reading Comprehension” on the nationally administered NEDT tests, so take your chalk and write that on your blackboard.

    Learn to read a map? I was in the Air Force and worked with maps every day, but nice try at a cheap insult, slick.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  360. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    > Dawkinio-Darwinistic people do not like to talk about giraffes

    Sadly, you’re maliciously lying. It takes all of 3 seconds to find a video of Richard Dawkins dissects a giraffe on National Geographic TV in front of a theater of students. And he talks quite a bit about it.

  361. Paul C. says:

    I bet you spotted Darwin in a Sasquatch suit spraying Chem-Trails from a Black Helicopter too.

    The government has finally admitted to spraying our skies after many years of denying it and claiming the lines in the skies were “contrails” (condensation trails). Those with critical thinking skills know that condensation disappears within 60 seconds, as we’ve seen with our breath on a cold wintery day. Condensation doesn’t persist for hours and expand to cover most of the sky.

    The difference is the government doesn’t call it chemtrails. They call it Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM).

    But it’s no different in that they’re spraying chemicals and heavy metals (such as aerosolized aluminum, barium and strontium) which leave trails of lines in the sky which eventually spread out to form a white haze. Aluminum is a neuro-toxin found in those with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Strontium is a carcinogen. David Keith of Harvard University is one of the leading figures in the SAI and SRM programs. He’s stated on video that spraying this particulate matter can potentially lead to tens of thousands of deaths considering they haven’t tested for human safety. This government program is called “Global Dimming”. Their goal is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth. Which is evil. They claim it’s being done to counter “climate change”, which is a bogus boogeyman created in 1968 by the Club of Rome. The climate change narrative is a tool to scare the masses to force compliance as they move us to a One World Government (New World Order).

    If you believe sea levels are rising, I have a question for you. Where? If it were occurring, waterfront homes would have to be abandoned and banks would never lend to those building on the water and insurance companies wouldn’t insure. Yet none of this has happened. Did you notice the Obama’s just bought a home on the water in Nantucket?

    In short, we’ve been lied to. The lies promote agendas created by the establishment, who are the criminal and Satanist Central Bankers, who also control the secret societies. Most politicians are the Freemason flunkies of these bankers and are guilty of treason against their native countries by allowing mass immigration from the 3rd world and by participating in wars of conquest (among other things). Trump, Obama, Bush, May, Cameron, Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Boris Johnson, the list goes on and on.

    Getting back to Evolution. Science is largely funded by gov’t grants; thus, scientists have to toe the establishment line or risk getting their funding cut off. This is why it’s critical to review the evidence versus just believing the science consensus. BTW, although the MSM constantly touts 97% of scientists agree on climate change (lie), there are now 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition that there is no factual evidence of climate change.

    The only climate change that may be occurring is the result of the SAI and SRM programs previously mentioned. The gov’t is trying to cause climate change in order to further enslave us. What’s going on in California is a perfect example.

    Evolution proof. I ask anyone willing to respond, what is the best evidence that a species can evolve into another species, such as an ape becoming man? I don’t question that mutations can occur within a species, but to change species I submit is a lie. One would assume that those who believe in evolution have seen compelling evidence. I suspect the truth is they have not and nor does it exist. Let’s see the skulls and fossils of the species that have evolved. Where are they? Can you share pictures? Did evolution stop? If not, where are modern day examples of species undergoing evolutionary changes? As an example, if it took 2,000 years for a species to evolve into another, shouldn’t we today have examples at all the different phases, such as: 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 1500 years and very close to fully evolving at 1,900 years? If not, why not?

    I pointed out that Darwin is a Freemason. Freemasons worship Lucifer. They are anti-Christ, they hide knowledge and deceive. Naturally they are going to theorize and claim the reason our world works as it does, has nothing to do with God. Heliocentrism is another example of their unproven lies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nokangaroos
  362. @Sparkon

    Then there´s no harm done 😀
    (I assumed you were afraid of the EMP)

    What I meant is we have no reason to assume changes of solar activity played much of a role in mutation rate over the last billion years.
    The last burst of Sagittarius A* 6-3Ma ago is interesting but hard to evaluate – though the orientations of hourglass nebulae throughout the galaxy point to something big.
    And then there are the GRBs, with a few close-by candidates.

    We´ll hear more soon …

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  363. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    > I pointed out that Darwin is a Freemason.

    You did. He wasn’t. Why make up lies like that?

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  364. @DFC

    You have not even noticed that Khun said the diametral opposite of what you insinuate.
    You are messing with a school that has pondered these things since long before there was a Darwin.

    Go pee on your own leper “experts”.

    Horses are another inadvisable choice – a textbook example exceedingly well-documented from the Eocene onwards (with the usual caveats about land vertebrates and yes, the putative line is not in the strict sense unbroken). Unless we are to assume there was no Eocene, your god spent all that time IVFing horses (Däniken would love it), making unintelligent their useless pipis.
    Which is odd, as you spend half the Old Testament obsessing over said parts of donkeys and Egyptians (I refuse to go Freudian on that).

    In your effort to prove you are not descended from apes you have so far succeeded in making plausible you DEvolved from the Ooze.

    Do you wish to continue?

  365. @Paul C.

    Confucius say, one sucker ask more than ten sage can answer.

    Of course evolution has not stopped – that´s elementary Lyell. If you can´t see it, you are none-so-blind-as.

    (If it´s any consolation I´m not too sure about the Masons either but that´s a different story)

  366. On the fake religion of evolution:
    “Meyer, if you’re to succeed, you must learn to bluff…”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  367. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s funny how you claim your religious fables are as good as science, and sciences is as good as religion. Is everyday opposite day with you weirdos who believe in talking snakes? Is the Jungle Book both science and religion too?

  368. On heliocentrism* but à propos this entire topic, here´s Bernard de Fontenelle´s
    (“Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes”, 1686)
    Marquise de G.:

    “They should never have adopted the Kopernik´s system – it´s so DEMEANING to us.”

    I feel your pain 😛

    *Of course the Earth does not revolve around the sun – Newton did away with that stupid notion; it´s just what we tell the little ones.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  369. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Ol’ Copernicus left us sapient great apes screwed as a boar’s pizzle!


    Creationists are juveniles who have not yet matured enough to realize that God/Creator/Mother Earth isn’t a warm, loving parent wishing its progeny the best. Mother Medea doesn’t love and wish us luck; rather, the cranky Sky God would rather see us dead by a flood of death from the ocean. As I just wrote in another comment, “A wizened child admits a parent has flaws.” A loving Creator (or Dawkins’ too-happyfaced evolution), my ass. MotherEarth/FatherSky are specious parents.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
    , @nokangaroos
  370. Paul C. says:

    This whole thread is hot air. If there was proof of evolution they would lead with it. But there isn’t, thus the need to debate.

    Same with heliocentrism. If you had proof the earth moves, you would have cited it. There has never been an experiment showing that the earth is moveable. Period.

    Prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  371. Paul C. says:

    We can infer.

    His grandfather Erasmus a was 33 degree mason and it was he who outlined the theory of evolution. His father Robert was a mason. His friend Thomas Huxley who urged Charles to publish his theory was a mason. All the members of the Royal Society were masons and Charles was a member.

    Does it disappoint you to learn this?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  372. @Anonymous

    Come to think about it, De revolutionibus was just recycled (heh) stale Greek philosophy, and Kepler did the heavy lifting – just like Darwin getting all the groupies for the sweat of Wallace´s brow.

    I feel a Calimero moment coming …

    But seriously … it IS hard to swallow that evolution is, in the end, dieoff. I do not like Dawkins´s style but somebody has to sell it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  373. @Paul C.

    As you should remember from the countless Shaolin flicks (do not try to dispute that point), there is no shortcut into the inner sanctum.

    But to keep you motivated, the differential length of seasons cannot be explained by anything but Keplerian motion. I trust you know how to use a quadrant?

    Enter now into the First Chamber, where you will learn Steno´s Law, Lyell´s Actualism and Walter´s Rule – at any one point you shall be free to say “Ah blah, I refuse to believe dat!”.

    Once you have mastered that, come back and rephrase your question.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  374. The reason to reject evolution,
    Is not God.
    It is the science of combination
    Math unfolds.

  375. If you believe hoary evolution,
    You swallow poison.
    The elites want it for social control,
    To run you like a maze rat on petrol,
    Make you abandon
    Your beginning as child of Creation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  376. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    Oh, you can guess as well as Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for clearing that up. Let us know if you find any actual evidence.

  377. Paul C. says:

    Kepler and all those involved with heliocentrism were freemasons, therefore satanic liars.

    We’ve got to start de-programming ourselves and look at everything with a fresh set of eyes.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  378. Jagger says:
    @Carroll Price

    if there’s a designer, who created the designer, and who created the creator of the designer?

    The only logical answer which solves the need for an original cause is an eternal force which has always existed. No beginning nor end. Something outside of time which does not require an original cause or designer. That force would provide the initial cause to launch our universe.

    And of course, there has to be an answer to an original cause. So where does that need for an answer lead? Logically, it leads to something eternal which has always existed and does not require an initial cause. If there are other answers which solve the need for an original cause, I am unaware of them.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Anonymous
  379. Tarine says:

    Darwin was fortunate indeed to have come up with his idea before the Industrial Revolution. Since then, anyone who has ever unraveled a garden hose or extension cord would be utterly and simply incapable of dreaming up such a concept.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Anonymous
  380. @Paul C.

    If that´s too complicated, a measly quartz watch will do – the days are longer in winter.
    And Kepler only worked on the tables Tycho de Brahe gave his life for – heliocentrism was accepted not because the maff was bad but because 37th order epicycles became ridiculous. Enter William of Ockham.

    So how far are you willing to go back? Even the Masons have a history – though not the official one.

  381. @Jagger

    A physicist would argue Heisenberg did away with such primal need 😛

    But let´s not overdo it 😉

  382. @Tarine

    Brilliant 😀 😀 😀

    Darwin did not INVENT evolution, he merely proposed a viable mechanism (as opposed to Lamarck).

    Strata Smith was a lowly mining engineer but his idea of index fossils has never let us down.
    (Mojsisovic´famous mistake was caused by not looking closely)
    And Popper and every crétin after him call that “untestable”?

    Even before that evolution was unquestioned – it is indeed the basis of our understanding of geological time.

    – As we have seen neither scientists nor naysayers give a smoking shit whether Darwin was “right” – and it is a recent and American phenomenon.

    Maybe Darwin was wrong after all? 😛

  383. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    > something eternal which has always existed

    The earth abides forever. Eccl. 1:4

  384. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Says a representative of the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party who are as baffled by science as a pack of feral Negroes are baffled by standard English.

  385. Sparkon says:

    What I meant is we have no reason to assume changes of solar activity played much of a role in mutation rate over the last billion years.

    I know that’s what you mean, but in my view, there is no other viable agent in sight beyond the Sun. Perhaps it’s Dark Energy or aliens, but pending revelations in those realms, I’ll go with the elephant in the room.

    All life on Earth depends on the Sun, and all life on Earth dances to the Sun’s beat, which is mostly — but not entirely — regular, as with the CMEs, which nobody even knew about until 1859, including all the so-called prophets of religious yore.

    MIT Technology Revue: Cosmic Rays, Neutrons And The Mutation Rate In Evolution

    Physics Today: DNA mutation rate may be tied to cosmic rays

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Anonymous
  386. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    > Your beginning as child of Creation.

    Which creation? There are two different and contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis. Or do you prefer the Native American creation accounts of Turtle Island?

    In the first story, Creation takes six days and man (and woman) are created last after all the plants and animals are created. In the second story, Creation takes one day, man is created first, then all the plants and animals are created, and finally woman is created.

    The Two Biblical Stories of Creation

    If you can get back with us on which biblical creation account you find most compelling, that would be appreciated.

  387. @Sparkon

    The geological-term data on mutation rate are tentative, sort of a very crude “section control” or overall rate. The same for irradiation. I doubt we will ever be able to capture short-term events (short of a dieoff – there are a few suspect ones).
    I mean, the math of ionization density, relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of different energies and radiations and mutation rate is well established; actually they used it to estimate the size of genes before their nature was clear.
    But in normal times your biggest source of irradiation are the 5000 positrons per second from K-40, with all others orders of magnitude lower. Flying a lot about doubles the overall exposure.

    The short-term fluctuations in C-14 caused by solar activity are tangible – for as far back as we have trees and ice cores or the half-life permits or ~75ka, like no time 😀

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  388. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Bananas! 🙂

    A value of 9.82×10−8 sieverts or about 0.1 microsieverts (10 μrem) was suggested for a 150-gram (5.3 oz) banana.

    Also, the sun drives sparky bananas, banana plantations are a Masonic conspiracy, ionizing radiation is a Talmudic plot, and Chiquita Brand bananas in public schools are a Darwinist monkey-supremicist agenda driven by Marx, Pol Pot, Soros, and the evil heliocentric Copernicus, dontchaknow.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  389. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Sol Invictus! (“Unconquered Sun”)

    I’ll be contemplating ol’ Sol’s guiding hand in mutation rates next Sun·Day.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  390. @Anonymous

    I assumed a human of average build and composition – didn´t know there is such a thing as “banana equivalent dose”.
    What will they come up with next?

  391. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:

    Evolution is not a comforting narrative that so many prefer to assuage their mortality salience.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
    , @nokangaroos
  392. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Cold War may be over; however, the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear winter isn’t over, and could be triggered by a regional conflict between Pakistan and India.

    If India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150….Surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts. Recovery takes more than 10 years.

    Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe
    Science Advances 02 Oct 2019: Vol. 5, no. 10, eaay5478
    DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay5478

  393. Paul C. says:

    Darwinism is the religion of atheists. If you ask why they believe, and to share compelling evidence, you’ll be met with obfuscation, if not crickets. Same goes for heliocentrism. For 500 years society tells us we’re spinning, but yet not one scientific experiment exists to back it up. It’s mind-control coupled with herd mentality that begins in school and now resides in the mainstream academic and scientific community. They can talk bits and bytes but can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Question: Why is independent exploration of Antarctica not allowed? After his expeditions, Colonel Byrd shared Antarctica is abundant with natural resources. Why aren’t countries fighting over the riches? Why did 50+ nations agree to a treaty? Why is Antarctica cloaked in secrecy and no one is allowed past 60 degrees south latitude? What don’t they want you to find out?
    Here’s a clue: Look at the UN flag.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @a_german
  394. Anonymous[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    You’re flat-out lying again. About half of Republicans accept that humans have evolved over time. The only crickets you hear are echoing in your empty noggin. You’re a perfect example of the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party, who grasp science as well as a pack of feral Negroes in a nyc classroom grasp English literature. Next, you’ll be raving about Sasquatch.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  395. @Anonymous

    Problems with the ozone layer have been floated, but in any case would have been short-term; there has always been one – 0.1% PAL from Jeans Escape – and it is indeed the reason we are saddled with dopey things like proteins and nucleic acids (they have the same absorption bands).

  396. @Anonymous

    “Mortality salience” is sooo 19th century, Bergson an sheet. The psychotonic function of religion (and hence adaptivity) has never been in dispute.

    – I guess the reason I go anaphylactic on creationists is they make my God look stupid, and I hate to have to side with Dawkins.
    To the Christian, the only honorable way is the Marcionite heresy (without the literalist part 😛 ), i.e. to disown the Yahu
    (cf. the Woes of the Pharisees, Gal 3,28 , 1.Cor 9,20-23 and the Council of Jerusalem),
    combined with Augustine´s “rationes seminales”.

    Unfortunately this is beyond the “sola scriptura” Wahhabites.

    I would endorse Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as in the unique position of being eminent in both fields (which just-not-quite landed him on the Index), but of course he was a Jesuit (aren´t they all joos anyway?) and paleontologist (and therefore hated god).

  397. Paul C. says:

    I’ll repeat the questions.

    With regard to evolution: Why do you believe in Darwinism? What are the best proofs?
    With regard to heliocentrism: What scientific experiment proves the earth is moving?

    You can call names and leave a distasteful comment, but what you can’t do is explain the science. You’ve been indoctrinated.

    Prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  398. MEH 0910 says:

    Greg, John, Razib, and Me

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  399. Anonymous[102] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    What you can’t do is understand the evidence, for the same reason Tyrone can’t get calculus, or a horse fails to grasp algebra. Prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  400. DFC says: • Website

    Yes, the ineffable Dawkins talked about the evolution of giraffe in his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” where he said:

    “Giraffes have evolved from an ancestor rather like a modern okapi”

    Certainty without any single proof, nothing, and then again unscientifically he continues:
    “The giraffe’s neck has the same complicated arrangement of parts as the okapi (and presumably as the giraffe’s own short-necked ancestor). There is the same sequence of seven [eight in Giraffa — note byW.-E. L.] vertebrae, each with its associated blood vessels, nerves, ligaments and blocks of muscle. The difference is that each vertebra is a lot longer, and all its associated parts are stretched or spaced out in proportion”

    All the last paragraph is a bunch of (s**t) lies, the changes in all the neck and the rest of the muscular, circulation, nervous system of the giraffe to “sustain” living with such long neck are stunningly complex, I will say again some of the changes required:

    “For rumination, semi-solid food [pulp, mash] must be forced over 3 m high from the reticulum stomach to the mouth!” (Bertelsmann Lexikon der Tiere 1992, p. 259.) For this, the giraffe is equipped with a special muscular esophagus. “The uniform circulation of blood to the different body parts makes several adaptations of the heart, arterial and venous systems necessary” (Marcon and Mongini: Die Grosse Encyclopedie der Tierwelt 1988, p. 303). To avoid bloodlessness by the movement of the head from drinking water at ground level to – seconds later – 5 m height, this animal is equipped with appropriate muscular arteries. Furthermore, it has a complicated system of valves in the veins, as well as a “wundernetz”, a retemirabile, of blood-storing arteries at the brain base. Also, the lengths, powers/strengths and functions of the skeletal, muscle and nervous systems, etc. must be precisely in tune with each other, if the animal is to be capable of survival”

    Davis and Kenyon summarize the main points as follows (1993, p. 13):
    “When standing upright, its blood pressure must be extremely high to force blood up its long neck; this in turn requires a very strong heart. But when the giraffe lowers its head to eat or drink, the blood rushes down and could produce such high pressure in the head that the blood vessels would burst. To counter this effect, the giraffe is equipped with a coordinated system of blood pressure controls. Pressure sensors along the neck’s arteries monitor the blood pressure and activate contraction of the artery walls (along with other mechanisms) to counter the increase in pressure.”
    Correspondingly efficient and “big lungs” have the task of balancing respiration “through a 10 feet long tube; many muscles, tendons, and bones had to be modified harmoniuosly” (Wesson 1991, p. 226)

    All of these questions are completely ignored by Dawkins, and he continues:
    “The point is that you may only have to change one thing in the developing embryo in order to quadruple the length of the neck. Say you just have to change the rate at which the vertebral primordia grow, and everything else follows.”

    What kind of pseudoscientific s**t is that? Of course is a metaphysics explanation based on a kind of “logical” or “aristotelian” conclusions once you have an extraordinary blind faith in a metaphysical theory, this way of thinking, of course, do not take account of facts, he does not need them “to be sure of what happened”; it was a way of thinking discredited in the XVII century by modern science.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  401. DFC says: • Website

    @ nokangaroos

    C’mon kangaroo, you can do better; in the second decade of the XXI century and use the rotten argument of horse evolution as a proof of the gradual process of evolution of specie is childish.
    From the beginning of the XX century paleontologists know the “orthogenesis” of the horse is a falacy, it was an invention, a tale, of Thomas Huxley in 1870

    For example Protero and Shubir write:

    “There is no evidence of long-term changes within these well-defined species {of Mesohippus and
    Miohippus} through time. Instead, they are strikingly static through millions of years. Such stasis
    is apparent in most Neogene {later} horses as well, and in Hyracotherium. This is contrary to the
    widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real
    distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and
    static over millions of years”

    Stephen Jay Gould talked about this “tale”, Gould references the famous American paleontologist G. G. Simpson, who is credited with disproving the linear model of horse evolution in the 1950’s. Simpson argued that the entire lineage was one long series of three-toed browsers, with the one-toed grazer we know today representing an unusual side branch
    Gould talked about the supposed “ladder” of evolution of the horse from the Eohippus saying:
    “The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant”

    The mutations are not gradual, nor random, there is much more around it

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  402. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    > blood pressure…completely ignored

    No, you’re a lying sack of shit. Watch the Dawkins giraffe neck dissection video above, described here:

    The dissection goes on to show how the giraffe’s neck, despite its length, contains only seven vertebrae (the same as humans) and how in order to maintain its high blood pressure the giraffe has evolved a thick heart wall muscle and tight skin around its legs that act like pressure stockings.

    Inside Nature’s Giants: A gory attempt to disprove ‘intelligent design’ theories

    > extraordinary blind faith

    You’re projecting.

  403. Paul C. says:

    What you can’t do is understand the evidence

    Unfortunately, you’re not able to provide evidence. An admission that you don’t know why you believe what you believe.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  404. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    There’s plenty of evidence. You refuse to consider it, most likely because you can’t grasp it. May as well teach a horse algebra.

  405. “We are made of Star Stuff…”

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Anonymous
  406. The Frenetic State of Man Cracked on Evolution…

  407. Duh says:

    “Male homosexual” does not mean “completely incapable of normal sexual function.” Male homosexuals have sex with women frequently enough to have offspring. How is this even remotely complicated.

    • Replies: @a_german
  408. @SeekerofthePresence


    “We are the mould on the scum of an ashheap sputniking a third-rate starlet”
    sounds a lot less flattering 😀

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  409. @DFC

    I did say “not in the strict sense”, right?
    Now, lay down that Gould … slowly 😛

    Of course I can do better, but what for?
    Your self-defeating choices of examples (giraffe) and quotes (Schindewolf! Holy Saint Gambrinus.) show you are an amateur (sorry).

    You want to peddle NON-Darwinian evolution? Show me the beef.

    As “beef” shall be considered anything not easily explicable by:

    – Darwinian selection s.s.
    – Paleobiogeography to include plate tectonics and climate change.
    – Genetic drift (NOT mutation!) rate differential by population size.
    – Genetic drift differential by adaptation and selective pressure.
    – The occasional dieoff.

    – There is probably a prize written out somewhere for the first good answer 🙂

    Then again, my old-school professors used to gleefully recount THEIR professors put down especially idiotic ideas with “Why not go back to Cuvier all the way?”.
    Cuvier was, of course, right – Gould merely copied and pasted him (and Haeckel).

    But if you are just after the God of the Gaps – lasciate ogni speranza.

  410. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Beautiful videos. Thank you for sharing.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  411. a_german says:

    “Male homosexual” does not mean “completely incapable of normal sexual function.” Male homosexuals have sex with women frequently enough to have offspring. How is this even remotely complicated.

    There is nothing complicate with this. But there must be a line from homos that have childs which isn’t. Virus or anything other the same, no dispersion.

    Sexual preferences are no illness, no virus, no genetic attribute. Sorry guys, there in everyone. Options triggered by unknown factors (or not so unknown in jail etc.).

  412. a_german says:
    @Paul C.

    Darwinism is the religion of atheists.

    I don’t agree, Darwin himself was highly religious, which is no problem. If the almighty has made the world than he simply has made the rules of evolution too.

    Methink science has made fantastic success over the centuries, Biology too. Undoubtedly there are species, some are relatives and there is an evolution. Also ID enthusiast did not deny this, only the reason. The mechanisms how this all happened are under research, with fantastic results too.

    This is science, achieved with scientific methods. What has happened und the mechanism behind that.

    “Darwinism” an the other hand is not science. It is a more philosophical theory. A tryout to declare why things are happened. In general the only part the public (which at the end spend all the money) is interested in. So you have to deliver something everyone understand to continue research (and good living maybe too).

    If you approach Darwinism with scientific methods than there is an immediately K.O. Show me the remnants of all the mutations by coincidence needed just to make an Mosquito fly. Only fly, not navigate, victim smell and ID, blood sucking a.s.o. Only this part. It is impossible. You need more tries than molecules in the whole universe exist. Fred Reed explains this already with the ape and the typewriter allegory.

    This is no science, just a story for the crowd. Again, scientific results are independent of that.


    I’am not in science, gain nothing from right or wrong. just curious.
    Theories like that are wast of time.

  413. @nokangaroos

    “…we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.”

    “And that makes me smile.”

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  414. @Anonymous

    Glad you enjoyed them.

    RIP Carl Sagan.

  415. @a_german

    Very good comment.
    Although I believe theories can often generate the most wonderful results, like the discovery of the Higgs boson.

    The curious scientific thinker, I expect, is often in an excellent position to gauge the meaning of science.

    Which raises the question of the relationship among science, philosophy, and religion. To me it is the relationship of sky, earth, and man: symbiosis and celebration.

    Socrates’ motto was “Know thyself.”
    Mine is “Investigate oneself and the cosmos and Him who made it.”

    Einstein said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”
    Two cheers for the lover of Sophia.

  416. @SeekerofthePresence

    “Goethe died in 1832. As you know, Goethe was very active in science. In fact, he did some very good scientific work in plant morphology and mineralogy. But he was quite bitter at the way in which many scientists refused to grant him a hearing because he was a poet and therefore, they felt, he couldn’t be serious.”
    Stephen Jay Gould

    “Science arose from poetry… when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  417. Dennis Dale says: • Website

    Well, I guess I would be surprised to find anything like critical thought from Fred.
    Male homosexuality has persisted because for most of history it didn’t exist as we understand it: male homosexuals lived as bisexuals, often marrying and having children. The strictly homosexual man is a modern invention, borne out of opportunity created by material wealth and social “progress”.

    You might as well suggest furries contradict evolution.

    Male homosexuals are also groomed. You see that now being normalized–note “drag kids”, drag queen story hour, etc–perhaps not coincidental with homosexuality’s normalization. Gay men are no longer compelled to fake it, get married and have kids. So now you have the gay married couple, adopting or even conceiving in vitro.

    Wait, I forgot–none of this matters. All that matters is Fred striking a bullshit masculine pose as he goes on and on about his feelings being hurt like, an old crone.

  418. Paul C. says:

    I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate that he was highly religious. I’m sure there are varying accounts but this article puts him mostly in the agnostic camp. Darwin aside, many believe in God but not Christ. Freemasons are a perfect example as their God is Lucifer.

    My statement had more to do with those who strongly believe in Darwinism. If we surveyed them, my bet is most would be atheist or agnostic. Many use Darwinism to justify that God doesn’t exist.

    Your point that Darwin is really a philosopher, is well said. In a round-about way I was trying to make a similar point that Darwinism is not science. But even science itself needs to be critically challenged because much is pseudo-science and propaganda. We truly live in Babylon, where lies and corruption are all around us.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  419. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    > Freemasons are a perfect example as their God is Lucifer.

    Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, Morning Star/Lucifer, son of the dawn!”
    –same as–
    Revelation 22:16 “I Jesus…the bright and Morning Star/Lucifer.”

    To be sure, Lucifer is a Latin term meaning “bearer of light,” to which Jesus refers himself in John 8:12. That’s what you get when you worship a Rabbi, Paul. Hell, you even have a Jewish name. What can we infer from your Jewish name, hmm?

    At least “Darwin” isn’t a Jewish name like yours.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  420. @Paul C.

    Pual C wrote to me:

    [Dave]The earth really does move around the sun.

    [Paul]What evidence do you have to support this?

    I actually am a physicist, Paul, so, yes, I actually do know a lot of evidence that the earth goes around the sun. The simplest, most easily understood, and most direct evidence is stellar parallax, and of course there is also stellar aberration. The original evidence against Ptolemy and for Copernicus was more indirect: the fact that the strange coincidence that several epicycles had periods of 365 1/4 days was due to the fact that they were all just reflections of the one single orbit of the earth around the sun. And, more broadly, the heliocentric theory fits in with our theories of gravitation that explain much, much more than just the earth’s motion around the sun. And, even more broadly, all our successful theories in astronomy — from detection of exoplanets to theories of stellar formation — fit in with the heliocentric theory.

    If that is not enough for you, might I suggest that you adopt solipsism?

    Paul also asked:

    What is the best evidence of evolution? Can you share it?

    I’ll be brief: the fossil record, radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, modern comparative work on protein/DNA sequencing, vestigial organs, comparative embryology, and much, much more.

    Again, if you reject all that, I suspect you are a secret solipsist.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
    , @Paul C.
  421. @a_german

    a_german wrote:

    I don’t agree, Darwin himself was highly religious, which is no problem.

    In his mature years, he was not a believer. At all. This is very well known: google it.

    a_g also wrote:

    “Darwinism” an the other hand is not science. It is a more philosophical theory.

    There is really no such things as “Darwinism”: there is just modern biology. “Darwinism” is just a smear term used by nutjobs who wish to blame modern scientific knowledge on one evil guy instead of acknowledging the quite conclusive evidence for modern evolutionary biology (which, in fact, goes far beyond Darwin in many ways, even if he was the pioneer).

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  422. @Rabbitnexus

    Rabbitnexus wrote:

    Darwin did not postulate man’s evolution from apes.

    Ummm… actually he did. He wrote a book about it: see his The Descent of Man.

  423. @SeekerofthePresence

    Goethe´s misfortune was being judged on his magnum opus “Farbenlehre” that was proven wrong shortly, not on his other exploits poetic or otherwise.

    Darwin was an amateur too – among other things he discovered how atolls form.
    He was religious but was put down by the death of his wife.

    – And we all know what happened to the Hagia Sophia 😉

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  424. @SeekerofthePresence

    With science it is as with porn – there is no easy definition.
    We tolerate Popper because his is the best attempt to date – no more.
    The most glaring hole in Critical Rationalism is it doesn´t allow for induction (hence the dimwit “metaphysics” claims), strictly without which no science can function.
    Under considerable duress 😛 , Sir Karl at least allowed stochastics.

    And with science it is as with the incoming tide – each successive wave breaks a little higher …

    – First, we were not created.
    – Next, not the immovable center of the universe.
    – Not even the center of the solar system.
    – Let alone of the galaxy.
    – Then we descended from monkeys that in turn derived from shrews that … YUCK!
    – Lately, “somewhere near” the center of an expanding universe (or so) but it doesn´t matter.
    – Along came Dawkins and proposed not only our bodily fluids but ALL “human affairs” – our pride and glory – were subject to Darwinian rules.

    It´s the ultimate dethronement 😀

    “Gnôthi seauton”, BTW, was not Sokrates´motto –
    (he merely said he knew he didn´t know jack – he was a scientist – and took pride in not being a pederast which somehow amounted to an accomplishment),
    it was inscribed over the portal of the temple of Apollon in Delphi –
    the ultimate knowledge and final imperative 😀

  425. MEH 0910 says:

    Here’s evolution Fred can believe in:

  426. @SeekerofthePresence

    “Houston….We pride ourselves on being a power team…”

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  427. Paul C. says:

    This makes sense now. You’re a Freemason who worships Lucifer, and you’ve been told it’s noble. I hit the jackpot with you. Are you really willing to go to your grave as an anti-Christ and deceiver of humanity? All for what, a few more shekels? Freemasonry is based on the Kabbalah. Read it, and the Talmud, to understand whose side you’re on.

    Freemasons are traitors to their own people. Take the UK for example, which is heavily masonic. The people want out of the unelected Marxist dictatorship called the EU, controlled by the satanic, Zionist central bankers (Rothschild). But they’re not allowed out. Now their choice is: remain or accept a Brexit deal on EU terms, which is Brexit in name only. The 599-page bill takes away Britain’s sovereignty.

    Will the Government MP’s and the British media fight for their own country and declare the “new” agreement by freemason Boris Johnson to be treason or will those high-level freemasons within the government and media acquiesce and do as they’re told, for whatever personal benefits are gained as a part of this evil fraternity.

    Freemasons are the Gentile (goyim) lemmings and dupes who are working the apparatus that is leading to their own demise. Were the Gentile masons spared in the Bolshevik revolution after enabling it to occur? No, they were slaughtered in the end, just like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion tells us.

    Wake up and get out. It’s not too late.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Loren
  428. Paul C. says:

    most direct evidence is stellar parallax

    Mainstream science tells us the earth is spinning approximately 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, while at the same time orbiting the sun at approximately 67,000 miles per hour. All of this is happening as the sun, in turn, is supposed to be hurtling through the Milky Way galaxy at approximately 500,000 miles per hour. The Milky Way galaxy itself is alleged to be racing through space at a speed ranging from 300,000 to 1,340,000 miles per hour. This is what you believe?

    When you pick up a glass of water and walk across the room does the water not move as well within the glass? The answer is yes, 100% of the time. But when I observe a placid lake, one without even a ripple of movement, I’m to believe the earth is spinning 1,000 MPH while orbiting the sun at 67,000 MPH? Can you recreate this in a scientific experiment? While you’re at it, try spinning a ball 1,000 MPH and have it 70% covered by water that remains in place. Simpler yet, show me an experiment where a stationary ball is covered by 70% water. I’d like to test one of your many “theories”, gravity.

    Regarding stellar parallax, it has been scientifically confirmed by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gales, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor that it is the procession of the stars that is slowly “wobbling” and not the earth.

    What’s the best evidence of evolution?

    the fossil record

    What fossil records, care to share?

    If man evolved from an ape, why do we see no in-between species? Did evolution stop? Did ape’s go back to being ape’s without further evolving anymore?

    Assuming other species went from the original state (a) to an evolving state (b) into a new species (c), can you provide examples in real life today? Unless, again, evolution stopped. 🙂
    It’s so inconvenient when it stops.

    • LOL: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    , @PhysicistDave
  429. Paul C. says:

    “Darwinism” is just a smear term used by nutjobs

    “Nutjobs”, meaning those willing to apply critical thinking skills which many physicists are incapable of.

  430. @nokangaroos

    “Farbenlehre:” Goethe’s Theory of Color, the “Primordial Phenomenon…”

    Balance, peace, wholeness are the Goethean way.

  431. Evolution – Schmevolution

  432. Paul C. says:

    I actually do know a lot of evidence that the earth goes around the sun.

    Forget all the gobbledygook you learned. All the government’s are controlled by the Central Bankers who are hiding God and our reality.

  433. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul C.

    > You’re a Freemason who worships Lucifer

    You’re a liar. Are you psychologically projecting too? Funny how that quote really put a burr under your ass.

    • Replies: @James Forrrestal
  434. @Paul C.

    Paul C wrote to me:

    When you pick up a glass of water and walk across the room does the water not move as well within the glass? The answer is yes, 100% of the time. But when I observe a placid lake, one without even a ripple of movement, I’m to believe the earth is spinning 1,000 MPH while orbiting the sun at 67,000 MPH? Can you recreate this in a scientific experiment

    Okay, I get it: this is all an elaborate practical joke! You had me going for a while!

    After all, everyone knows that you can be in a plane moving at ~500 mph relative to the ground, and, if the flying is smooth, the glass of water is quieter than when you walk across the room.

    PC also wrote:

    Regarding stellar parallax, it has been scientifically confirmed by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gales, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor that it is the procession of the stars that is slowly “wobbling” and not the earth.

    I know a lot about Michelson-Morley, but, yeah, your joke is a bit funny.

    PC also wrote:

    If man evolved from an ape, why do we see no in-between species?

    You mean like Australopithecus?

    Do you do stand-up professionally?

    • Replies: @James Forrrestal
    , @Paul C.
  435. @macilrae

    Is it too late to withdraw my agreement?

    • Replies: @macilrae
  436. Ike says:

    Just a request for comment about the latest difficulty… Discussed by my group as the war for El Chapos’ kid.

  437. @Jake

    But there is nothing that is iron clad prof that any species ever changed into another species.

    Sometimes it’s helpful to have a basic understanding of the field that you’re attempting to critique before spewing your misconceptions of it.

    Start by doing a search for the word “clade,” and go from there.

  438. Very similar in form to Fred’s many rambling, incoherent, failed attempts to evade the JQ. I can see why the Paki — who, unlike Fred, is actually capable of logical, empirically-based reasoning — lost patience with him.

  439. @PhysicistDave

    If man evolved from an ape, why do we see no in-between species?

    You mean like Australopithecus?

    No, the theory of evolution clearly states that one currently extant species evolved directly into another current year species in a linear progression. I’m sure this is true, because Fred Reed said so.

  440. @Anonymous

    Dude, he’s just trolling you.

    Look at his responses to PhysicistDave.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  441. Paul C. says:

    What’s funny to me is that you believe everything you’re told. If science or the gov’t says it’s so, that’s good enough for you.

    We went to the moon even though there’s no telemetry data to prove it. Check.
    19 Saudi’s did 9/11 because the news told me so. Check
    We evolved from baboons and are meaningless because this is what the Godless elites want us to believe. Check.
    The earth is orbiting the sun at 67k mph, the sun is moving 500k mph and the galaxy itself is moving 300k – 1.3M mph. We’re just a spinning ball careening through space aimlessly and endlessly because this is what NASA tells me. Check.

    Here’s what CIA Director Bill Casey said: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”.

    They count on people like you.

  442. @Paul C.

    Paul C wrote to me:

    What’s funny to me is that you believe everything you’re told. If science or the gov’t says it’s so, that’s good enough for you.

    Ummm…. Paul, I really am a scientist: Ph.D. from Stanford, co-inventor on a number of patents, etc.

    I do not just believe what I am told about science: I have done lots of experiments, analyzed lots of data, done (often novel) calculations that have then been confirmed experimentally, etc. I actually know this stuff: unlike you, for example, I actually can and have done the calculations for Michelson-Morley under different hypotheses. Your bizarrely confused reference to Michelson-Morley shows that you have not.

    One thing I will admit is that I have strenuously eschewed the “critical thinking skills” to which you keep adverting.

    “Critical thinking skills” is a buzzword used by educrats to justify teaching propaganda instead of teaching actual knowledge. You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating “critical thinking skills.”

    But then I’d bet you yourself are a product of the schools run by those educrats, aren’t you?

    And it shows — a barrage of words but no knowledge at all behind those words. You yourself are a willing tool of the left-wing educrats. And, you do not even have the good grace to feel ashamed.

    You are what happens when we prioritize verbal learning over STEM. (And no matter how you lie, the fact that you fail to intuitively grasp the principle of relativity of motion does indeed prove that you are not educated in STEM.)

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  443. Paul C. says:

    You’ve been drinking knowledge from a poisoned well. In any case, I hope your thinking “evolves”.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  444. @Paul C.

    I see.

    The only way to make you feel “meaningful” is to persist in the ways of the Wicked (i.e. YKW) and worship the blood-and-smoke-craving genocidal Yahu.

    While this explains a lot it is not exactly, well, comforting.

    As an aside – before Dawkins the only rabid atheist in the profession was Haeckel, and that was a while ago; far less than philosophers, physicians and the like.

  445. @Paul C.

    Paul C wrote to me:

    You’ve been drinking knowledge from a poisoned well.

    I have designed and built stuff that works, using my knowledge of STEM.

    In your entire life, Paul, have you ever done anything in which knowledge of how the physical world works was actually required, as opposed to just following a manual and sucking up to people in power?

    Blowhards like you, who know absolutely nothing about the actual, physical, real world, are parasites upon us scientists and engineers who actually make civilization possible.

    You are the fitting product of the educrats whom we have allowed to destroy our children. You might once have had real potential, until you let your mind be destroyed by the educrats.

    Try to actually learn something, Paul, about the real, actual, physical world: it’s still not too late to save yourself from the hell the educrats have put you in.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  446. @Poupon Marx

    Thank you so much for the Tour videos. Eureka!

    His case against the self-assembly of amino and nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates into proto-cells is compelling.

    It is a pleasure to hear his insights into life and chemistry.

    Yet what really struck me is his testimony about Christ (second lecture), given in a separate presention…

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  447. @SeekerofthePresence

    Yes, he is impressive on several measures. His integrity, diligence, honesty, and intellect are rare and superlative. He is not afraid-fearless-to stand alone and tell what he believes is not only truth, but empirical reality.

    “There is NO conflict between any part of the Bible and modern science”. I felt this way and came to this conclusion years ago, and could not understand Fundametalist preachers who so declared. Creationism is NOT what Intelligent Design is about.

    See the following:

    I have absolutely no theistic interest in this issue. I am a Buddhist, thus I can look upon this issue in the widest and most candid way, unimpeded by texts, doctrine. Holy Writ, etc.

  448. macilrae says:

    Of course not – but please do a better job of refuting the point!

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  449. @PhysicistDave

    Creationists are as unnerving as the Greta zombie outbreak.

    But if then “pre-cultural needs” do have to be catered to, is not a Bible thumper´s posterior – as an established line of thought – preferrable to some pseudoscientist´s snake oil?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  450. @macilrae

    What point, pray tell?

    Gradualism, orthogenesis and entelechia have been laid to rest long before Darwin.
    Gould was a second-rate impostor when he wasn´t shilling for Boas.
    I already explained why Popper can go pound sand.
    The very approach of the Behe flagellants shows they have no idea what “reduction” and “irreversibility” are, i.e. they are no paleontologists.

    All these are straw(wo)men.

    If you want it philosophically pure, it´s back to the Law of large numbers, IOW
    antibiotic resistance – proof of Darwinian evolution s.s.
    It does not matter whether it is “chance”, xenoplasmid or virus vector (these things happen); you are, in this case, even free to assume some preadaptation (as the microbe chemical warfare arsenal is limited our little furry is bound to have encountered something similar).
    What you cannot debate away is that adaptive information has been constructively added.
    (This, BTW, also does away with the whole “probability” blather.)

    On “origin” I laid out current consensus of the Communion of the Saints.
    Arrhenius´Panspermia (in private we refer to these things as “Nobel Laureate Syndrome”) has been warmed over from time to time, but given we have life for about as long as the geological record we should have found something on Mars by now – or anywhere else for that matter.
    (but of course this is always checked first 😛 )

    – In the history of science there has always been the temptation to lean back and say: “Phew! At long last we know it all (at least potentially)”. Aristoteles, Ptolemaios, Kopernikus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck … and every time someone in the corner said “Wait! … maybe not quite”.
    But are you seriously trying to sell the Behe flagellants as the harbingers of the New Paradigm?

    (If my shorthand is TOO short, feel free to complain 😀 )

    • Replies: @macilrae
  451. @nokangaroos

    nokangaroos asked me:

    But if then “pre-cultural needs” do have to be catered to, is not a Bible thumper´s posterior – as an established line of thought – preferrable to some pseudoscientist´s snake oil?

    Yeah, I would rather have a crazy fundamentalist as a next-door neighbor than an SJW, for the simple reason that the SJWs now have power and the fundamentalists don’t.

    I grew up in a town in which the fundamentalists were at least more noticeable than the SJWs, way back in the middle of the twentieth century. But, nowadays… even on foreign policy, the Left is now crazier than the Right.

  452. Che Guava says:

    You are likely correct. It isn’t like Kersey’s blog, with Mr. Unz taking it under his wing, it is just the weekly or so article.

    OK, I was checking, the archive is now on this site. Mr. Unz is doing sterling work.

    Fred’s post was brhllant, it may have been from an old blog post, as a candidate for idint of the year.I would say nothing

  453. AnnieM says:

    One of the big arguments against Darwin’s theory is sleep. Why do most multi-celled organisms sleep? What benefits do they get from sleep that they couldn’t get some other way that didn’t involve leaving them vulnerable for so long?

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  454. Icy Blast says:
    @Feric Jaggar

    Your comment is one massive non sequitur. It has a disorienting effect. Maybe you could market that.

  455. nickels says:

    Evolution must always be mocked as the irredeemably assinine theory that it is.

  456. macilrae says:

    What point, pray tell?

    Just so – before galloping off on your horse it’s a good idea to know where you’re going …

    But are you seriously trying to sell the as the harbingers of the New Paradigm?

    I had to look them up.

  457. Proof of evolution!

    Orangutan Sandra Granted Person Rights.

    Moves up the Tree of Life from Argentine to Floridian zoo.

  458. Frizz says:

    Fred –

    All, or almost all, of your objections have the same flaw: argumentum ad ignorantiam incredulity/argument from incredulity. The best example is irreducible complexity.

    While I have long forgotten the details, keep in mind that there are examples of “eyes” ranging from light-sensitive cells all the way up to our true camera-like eyes. These are spread across many different and unrelated species, but they are in steps.

    Please see which shows how nerves and veins which “backtrack” in the giraffe. It gives the impression that the giraffe is descended from a creature with a shorter neck.

    As for male homosexuality, kidney stones, and migraines, evolution isn’t perfect. It is a mechanism which doesn’t think, so it cannot care. Compare it to erosion of mountains. Now that is a lot easier to grok!



  459. Amon says:
    @Rex Little

    humans and chimps can’t interbreed.

    Looks at Africans and all of their hybrid off springs…

    Nah, far as I hear it, the genetic code has be really, really similar for it to even work. Outside of that, I have zero idea how you would even go about getting a chimp or human pregnant with a hybrid given just how crazy one would be to mate with one of those animals and that the vast majority of humans are biologically driven to mate with someone that looks human. (Granted, there was that crazy Soviet jew scientist back in the 1920s who tried to do it via artificial insemination and failed.)

    Still, if you want proof there is the Zebroid which is a mix between a Zebra and a Horse with both species having different chromosomes.

  460. Loren says:

    Suicide is “evolutionarily mysterious”.
    / not if the dead is past the age of 40 [femme] or 60 [male].

    It’s not going away either.
    /people do lots of stupid and evil things.

  461. Loren says:
    @Paul C.

    if he is a freemason, that is his or her biz.

  462. Patricus says:

    Natural Selection is a bullet-proof theory. It makes intuitive sense. Longer beaked birds are able to reach more grubs within tree bark. For that reason they are better fed and therefore better able to mate. In time all the birds of that species develop longer beaks. Shorter beaked birds don’t mate very often. Who can argue with such a simple explanation? This theory can’t be proved wrong. It can’t be proved right. Just have to accept it on faith. To a secular person it makes more sense than Christ rising from the dead.

    The evolutionary biologists have to come up with something a little more specific. It has been about 160 years by now.

  463. @AnnieM

    One of the big arguments against Darwin’s theory is sleep. Why do most multi-celled organisms sleep? What benefits do they get from sleep that they couldn’t get some other way that didn’t involve leaving them vulnerable for so long?

    One of the big arguments against Darwin’s theory is oxygen. Why do most multi-celled organisms need oxygen? What benefits do they get from oxygen that they couldn’t get some other way that didn’t involve leaving them vulnerable for so long?</

  464. @Poupon Marx

    Put it in plain language and don’t try to weasel out by saying I’m stupid. Here is your assertion “one fraudulent assertion cluster of Material Deterministic Darwinism”. Now please explain it.

  465. @Baron

    I think his point is it might have evolved from something which was perhaps more complex but was not “irreducibly complex” so even in that more complex state you could still imagine how it evolved from something simpler. It has since lost parts and so now we can’t imagine a pathway back to tinker toys.

  466. @Poupon Marx

    Your’e being flushed down the lav for being evasive. Bye bye and wooosh.

  467. Fred says: “Second, male homosexuality seems evolutionarily mysterious. It is not clear how one passes along one’s genes by not passing them along, or at least not to women, which would seem an evolutionarily necessary part of the transference.”

    I have what I think is a reasonable idea about that… inasmuch as humanity seems determined to wage battles against itself (everything from small tribe against small tribe, up to World War Two), the mortality rate of ancient heterosexual vs the mortality rate of ancient homosexual may be an important factor. Imagine a world populated by small tribes. For any given tribe, there is a chance that at some point either all or most of the grown men will go off to battle and not come back. The women, children and grown homosexuals (happily hanging out with the women) will be left. For the tribe to survive long enough to raise a new crop of men they need to start making babies NOW. Any honest person will admit that humans have sexual preferences — but lacking access to one’s preferred partners, most will have sex with whomever is available. Homosexuals are like the small reserve of seed corn kept unused in the freezer just in case this year’s crop fails.

    Something similar happens with pedophiles. A couple dies, leaving their prepubescent child (either male or female) behind. The child is already a big investment of resources by the tribe. Maybe a grandparent or aunt will take care of the child. Maybe not, maybe they died from the plague. Pedophiles (more accurately, male pedophiles; women are more likely for other reasons to raise children not their own) are the last resort to keep the child around, clothed and fed until the child becomes old enough to take care of him or her self.

    It should be possible to learn something about ancient mankind by analyzing the ratio of homo to heterosexuals, and pedo to non-pedophiles. The higher the ratios, the more likely that the beneficial effects of such traits came into usage. High homosexual numbers indicate a more common episodic die off of adult males in ancient times. High pedophilia indicates a more common occurrence of orphan survival after die off of other family members.

    Some people may find these ideas disturbing — but they still make sense out of an otherwise unlikely evolutionary syndrome.

    However, in general, Fred makes sense on this subject. Darwinian evolution explains huge amounts of biological data. From just basic common sense it shows the now obvious effects of combining huge amounts of time, genetic variation and modified survival rates. What Darwinian evolution does NOT yet show, is where and how life started. Creationists and ID proponents (not the same thing) think it more reasonable to invoke reasoned purpose for the beginning and at least some of the traits of current life. Evolutionists find it more likely that chance mutations can ultimately someday explain the still unknown steps for complex biological processes. The hardcore members of both camps are the scientific equivalent of third graders yelling in the playground. “Did too!” “Did NOT!” They ought to both admit, “We don’t know yet. Let’s look some more. What do YOU think?”

  468. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910


Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave