Evolutionists Still Search In Vain for Roots of Cooperation

In the past, cooperation was a difficult thing to account for from an evolutionary standpoint. How could cooperation between organisms evolve if the primary operative machinery of evolution is individual survival? John Nash’s studies on the prisoner’s dilemma had already made it clear that, from a standpoint of math and probability, the best individual outcome in most cases was non-cooperation.

But a recent study is calling that into question … at least as it relates to evolution. According to the study:

. . . It is not sufficient for a strategy to outcompete another strategy in direct competition, that is, winning is not everything. Rather, a strategy must also play well against itself. The reason for this is that if a strategy plays well against an opponent but reaps less of a benefit competing against itself, then it will be able to invade a population but will quickly have to compete against its own offspring and its rate of expansion slows down. This is even more pronounced in populations with a spatial structure, where offspring are placed predominantly close to the progenitor. If the competing strategy in comparison plays very well against itself, then a strategy that only plays well against an opponent may not even be able to invade.

Natural selection is all about the ability of an organism to involuntarily and generationally adapt to a changing environment. That environment includes other organisms too. Which traits will be successful is not a matter of choice as much as it is circumstance. Being able to breathe underwater but not in the open air is not an “optimum” trait in itself. That all depends on the circumstance. In a desert? You and your genes are going to die. In a world covered in water? You and your genes will survive.

This study, looking backwards, sees a clear long-term survival advantage in cooperation (e.g., it is obvious that ants could not survive as individuals). But the real question is not whether cooperation is advantageous overall. The question for an undirected process (like evolution) is whether cooperation is advantageous right now—whether or not cooperation would provide an initial survival advantage to an individual organism. And the answer is no.

Part of the problem with this study, and with all evolutionary research actually, is that a materialist really can’t talk about a “best” outcome or an “evolutionary strategy.” Whose strategy are they talking about? Do the genes have a strategy? I saw an article titled, “Is DNA the smartest molecule in existence?” Evolutionists are not against intelligent design, in other words. They need some intelligent director of evolution. Otherwise, as the study proves, short-term advantages leading to long-term detriment would end in extinction for a population of selfish individualists.

The lead author of the new “anti-selfish” study, Christoph Adami, wrote, “Being mean can give you an advantage on a short timescale but certainly not in the long run—you would go extinct.” But we haven’t gone extinct, and the only evolution we have ever witnessed has been absolutely individualistic (after all, this study is based on logic games and speculation, not hard and present evidence). We have not watched the evolution of cooperation out of non-cooperation. Cooperation is already there and has been there ever since we started looking. And it works only because it is already there. Any explanation for its existence requires the inclusion of some intelligence—some ability to forego short-term advantages for long-term ones. And natural selection offers no mechanism for this.

The “short timescale” is all that any individual organism has to look at, and it is all that really matters in terms of natural selection. After all, the “orthogenesis” hypothesis was rejected years and years ago as a vestige of essentialism. Evolution is blind. Evolution is not creating the optimum organism. It is not progressing things from simple to complex, from worse to better, from mean to nice. Evolution doesn’t make progress. If stupidity becomes a survival advantage (which it surely has in the current scientific community), then stupidity will propagate. Evolution is not upward or onward. Evolution doesn’t make short-term sacrifices in order to achieve long-term goals. Evolution is not for the better. “Better” is a moral and ideological assessment. And only people make those. Evolution is not a person. I really wish that evolutionary scientists would stop projecting their longings for a personal god onto the blind mechanism of evolution.

Ultimately, this study is flawed. Evolutionists are in the habit of searching for material causes for moral qualities (e.g., Dawkins with his famous “selfish gene”). They can’t and won’t believe that perhaps cooperation is good because it is right. Loyalty, trust, honesty, dignity, honor, and compassion are not the ideological shadows of some material evolutionary advantage. Instances of these traits occur in creation because creation reflects the character of the person who designed it. Cooperation in nature, no matter how much scientists try to explain it macro-evolutionarily, is just another evidence for divine design.

101 responses

  1. If you don’t believe evolution because of any of the following reasons:evolution states that something comes from nothing.Evolution says that man just came from dirt, and you can’t prove that!Evolution can’t be true because there’s no evidence of a monkey giving birth to a human.I don’t believe in evolution because it states that all the monkeys became humans and monkeys exist today.Evolution can’t be true because there are no catdogs, birdfrogs, salmon-bucks, crockoducks, etc! If you are a creationist, I urge you to understand what the theory of evolution actually states before you attempt to argue against it. I implore you to read actual science books or articles by credible biologists on the subject. Don’t get your definition of evolution from a creationist or apologist website. If you choose to argue against a scientifically established claim, it’s your responsibility to understand what conclusion science has actually drawn on a matter and what evidence lead to it. Otherwise, you will be genuinely committing the first of the two fallacies that I was factitiously committing with my vampire raptor example, which is called a straw man. And frankly, my straw man was better than your actual “God did it instantly” version, because at least my straw man accounted for the discovery of generations of transitional human fossils.
    A straw man is committed when you argue a fabrication of what your opposition’s position, rather than addressing your opposition’s actual arguments. Now whether or not you do this because you don’t know any better, or because you know that’s not the actual claim of your opposition and you’re being deliberately dishonest doesn’t matter in terms of how fallacious the argument is. Again, you are responsible for knowing your opposition’s actual argument, claim, or general position on a topic before you argue against it.The second fallacy that I gave you in my example was the argument from ignorance. When I concluded that because one claim was demonstrably false, and the actual matter was unknown, that whatever solution I plugged into existence must be correct, I was committing an argument from ignorance. Even if I dismissed your actual argument, rather than a fabricated one, me claiming that any solution I propose must be true because it presents an alternative to fill a knowledge gap does not make me correct- not until I can provide satisfactory evidence for the claim I’m making. So, from now on, if you plan to continue using those same fallacious tactics to argue non-creationists

    • Mr. Minkoff, your ignorance of evolution is shocking. There are several biological explanations for cooperation in evolution, depending on the species and behavior.

      • Darwin’s Theory is Based on a Logical Fallacy
        The so-called “Theory of Evolution” has a logical self –contradiction. Darwin’s reason for an evolution process is that a species is evolving in order to survive the stresses in its environment. Because it already exists in the environment as a viable species, why would it change into another species and how could its genes know what to change into, and how to change into a species with different genes and chromosomes? Darwin’s theory assumes, without any evidence, that genes have prescience and will cause a species to evolve into a superior species better adapted to the environment. We can see by simple logic that Darwin’s theory is scientific nonsense, and at best it is pure science –fiction.

      • Steve O.:

        Good on ‘ya!

        I doubt that 5% of the commentators have ever really studied
        the (evolving) theory of evolution. Most have probably obtained all info from vociferous opponents.

      • Um, Steve? Cause you say? Wouldn’t it be educational for those of us who studied and practiced in other fields to get more than “There are several….” Your ignorance in proper commenting is shocking!

      • Ronald –

        It seems a futile hope that you and others would ever educate yourself about the content of a scientific theory before ranting ad nauseum as if you understand.

        If you ever took a high-school level biology course, one of the first things you would learn is that evolution should not be characterized as a goal-driven process. The phrase “evolving in order to […]” is a glaring misstatement of the matter at hand here – hardly a good pretext for your statements. More on that later.

        Environments change over time; you don’t have to be the brightest bulb in the pack to observe this, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see you try denying it anyway. Temperatures rise and fall; so too do humidity, water level, the presence or kinds of foods, and many multitudes of other factors that drive selective pressures (the pressure on a species to change or adapt to a changing environment). There is no need for “prescience” of genes here – it’s simple probability. There is pre-existing variability in a population. The individuals with superior traits for any given context have a better chance at survival, reproduction, and ultimately the spread of their genes; favorable traits accumulate, detrimental ones decline, and ultimately a change in a population comes about. NO conscious process is needed to drive this change; hence, “not goal-driven.”

        One more thing -:

        “We can see by simple logic that Darwin’s theory is scientific nonsense […]”

        Herein lies the problem with YOUR nonsense. There’s a difference between “simple logic” and ignorant “logic.” “Heaven pray” you’ll realize that one day.

    • Evolution does not specify that “states that all the monkeys became humans”. probably only one monkey had a human child.

    • Aaaah, in your second sentence you state that man came from dirt and you can’t prove that…..Of course man came from dirt. It says so right in the bible !

      • Well we DID come from dirt. And dirt was created in the same way. All the building blocks of the universe were created in the beginning (“The Big Bang”). For example, the very iron in our blood came from the iron of the stars. This doesn’t contradict anything scientific or religious. What science cannot answer is how non-life/inanimate became life. Science just gathers information on the “how.” But it cannot answer “why.” According to the Bible we became “human” and different from all the other animals because we ate from the “fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil.” So that is how humans “became/evolved/were created” different from animals. In the Bible it says that after we humans were created G0d blew his breath into us, meaning a type of soul or special ability more G0dlike. Understand the Bible as an allegory or as the Word, as you wish, but the story is a beautiful illustration and not really contradictory to science. It doesn’t attempt to replace science. Why folks get their panties in such a twist is beyond me. Genesis is poetically beautiful and astounding in its dept of understanding for such an ancient text if you read it with an open mind and with a really good interpretation and explanation (I recommend the Stone edition).

    • there are no “transitional human fossils’, they are all suppositions, assumptions and extrapolations. And I may ask WHY are there no “transitional fossils” in lower order vertebrates or invertebrates, yet they use higher order vertebrates, mainly what they suppose to be “humans” as their “proof”?
      There is no proof. And Materialism is utterly ridiculous and an impossibility.
      As far as a “scientifically established “claim”” goes, yes, it is a huge claim but it’s preposterous to suppose its been established “scientifically”!!! NO PROOF, NO OBSERVATION, no established scientific method used to come to the imagined suppositions and ASSUMPTIONS supported by ASSUMPTIONS supported by academic thuggery and intimidation to force it to work.
      What “science”, which is the Child of Christianity, is loathe to admit is that GOD IS.

      • What creationists cannot seem to understand is that even if evolution was somehow proved false (highly unlikely) that would STILL not make ID true! Creationists operate in the “god of the gaps” theory. If there is a gap in the knowledge of evolution they insert god & as the gaps get filled by science god becomes more & more distant. Creationists need to spend their time & energy trying to prove their theory true (good luck) & less time trying to prove evolution false (which will never happen)

    • Mr. Bob: I suggest (dare?) that you actually read S Meyer’s new book “Darwin’s Dilemna” with something that approaches an open mind. (If you are not at least minimally well versed in the consepts and terminology of cellular biology, you will need to keep a dictionary at hand.) In it, he carefully and factually describes most all of the pertinent modern research, both pro and con, by recognized scientists who have published their theories (hypotheses) relating to the subject. He discusses each with a high degree of scientific expertise. The book is not easy reading, but it does give (if you actually are open to such) a very instructive OBJRCTIVE overview of the whole subject.

      • So antiquated is the view of “Darwin’s Dilemna” that the screenplay for this film could have been written by teachers in 1954, or even by Mack Sennett at Keystone studios in 1912! I suggest (dare) you to pick up a 6th grade science book & educate yourself.

  2. Humans indeed are “the missing link”. We have free will. The doctrine of original sin belies the fact that men are naturally good and controlled by their environment. A perfectly supporting environment still has its share of sinners and the greedy. A lower nature would use cooperation to take advantage of others who are willing to cooperate. Only those with a “higher character” would be willing to reach out and cooperate. Evolution explains animalistic changes. Humans can also make choices which are beyond evolutionary controls. Red hair is dying out. However, there are plenty of lotions on the shelf which could make an entire population have artificial red hair.

    • Well Liberals/Progressives/Humanists can’t have it both ways. Either they “believe” in Darwinism (as a kind of religion) and they should not interfere in evolution by helping the least fit survive or they don’t. According to Darwin, Detroit would have died a long time ago but we insist interfering with “nature.” Why is that? Perhaps Liberalism as practiced by progressives here is counter-evolutionary. Which is it? Survival of the fittest? Who are the fittest? Why the survivors. (a tautology, I believe)

      • Your argument is nonsensical. Firstly people don’t follow Darwinism ‘as a kind of religion.’ It’s just a theory as to how nature works. Just because I think survival of the fittest is a logical way to look at nature, doesn’t mean I’m going to go around killing disabled people to strengthen the gene pool. Liberalism renders survival of the fittest partly defunct in modern society, as does technology and medical breakthrough. However people with defective genes will still probably die because of them, just much later. Your argument assumes that if I believe in Darwinism I’m going to go out fanatically killing people with inferior genes. That is stupidity, unlike Creationists, we can believe in something and NOT carry out horrendous acts to abide by it.

    • Missing link is a term used by non-biologists, especially by young Earth creationists who deny evolution, to refer to an alleged “gap” in the fossil record. The term is usually applied to an alleged gap in the fossil record between humans and other primates. As everybody who understands evolutionary biology knows, the metaphor of the ladder of being is grossly misleading because evolution has not worked by one species giving birth to another species and so on down the line from one-celled creatures to humans. This gross model of evolution is, however, one that many creationists have, as is evidenced by the kinds of questions they ask of evolutionary biologists. If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Where is the fossil for the crocoduck? Why don’t monkeys give birth to humans once in a while? Why aren’t humans (and other species) still evolving? (We are!)

  3. So according to evolutionists, nothing was created by God but everything
    evolved from nothing. Hmmmm…….???????

    • According to creationists (a) ALL intelligent design requires a creator (b) god has no creator. God could have created a universe & creatures absolutely unexplainable by science. especially since science is a major obstacle for many to believe. God could have created creatures without ANY connection whatsoever to each other. He could have created the earth as a flat disk with planets revolving counterclockwise in haphazard orbits allowing for no plausible explanation.

  4. It appears that some of you (including the author) need to hit the books. [The “short timescale” is all that any individual organism has to look at, and it is all that really matters in terms of natural selection.]. The organism isn’t looking at anything, in fact it carries on completely unaware of the genetic mutation which always occurs from generation to generation. Most mutations result in absolutely no change, some are detrimental, others useful. Detrimental ones die out, useful ones tend to accumulate into change over the long term. Very rarely does a single mutation create a new advantageous trait in a single generation.

    I enjoy this sites political and social criticism but do yourself a favor and leave science to the scientists. It appears that you know just enough about evolution and biology to make yourself look like a fool!

    • You state that evolution produces beneficial genetic mutations. Please point to ONE observed beneficial genetic mutation that has introduced NEW genetic material, instead of losing it. Evolutionary scientists point out genetic mutations (all of which the experiments ave gone badly), and then state emphatically (in their faith) that beneficial mutations are what drives evolution forward.

      There has never been observed a beneficial genetic mutation that has ADDED genetic material. It is the added genetic material that evolutionists require to go from non-life to life, then from single cell to multi-cell life.

      And this is only ONE of the issues facing the pseudo-scientific faith that is evolution…

      • Truth!!!The famous Nebraska Man was “evolved” from a pigs tooth and was almost used in the Scopes Monkey Trial, that CREATIONIST WON, but never used. This and others are still used as facts in SCIENCE BOOKS??? I believe it was Leaky who claim a missing link by putting a Gibbons skull on a child’s torso but latter ADMITTED it was a fake around 1925 BUT is still in the British Museum as FACT!!!! NEVER EVER let logic interfere with the secular ignorance and intolerance they push on Christians as ignorance! They can not back up their “facts” but our Faith backed by 3500 years of fulfilled prophecy is coincidence…RIGHT!??!!?

    • Before worshipping too much at the alter of science, be aware that much “scientific fact” is nothing more than theory widely accepted by scientists. Much of what is “scientific fact” was bought and paid for by some interest who wanted to claim that their agenda was “fact”. All too many “scientists” are willing to sell out for a juicy grant.

      Remember when scientists stated that cigarettes were not harmful? Just one example of many.

    • “Leave science to the scientists”…I have never heard a more dangerous statement. That’s like saying “Leave religion to the priests.” Hello, Middle Ages? Hello, Nazi Germany? So much for critical thinking, rational thought, etc., if we’re supposed to believe everything the scientists say. Then we’re no longer in charge of our destiny — they are.

    • Leaving “science to the scientists” seems kind of like leaving “politics to the politicians.” Scientists are not above corruption or self-interest, and their conclusions, true or false, affect millions of lives.

  5. From the way Evolutionist replied on this site, one could show them proof of intelligent design and they will still believe that every living organism evolved from pond scum.

    • Bahn, In fact I do believe in intelligent design, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. However, a belief in intelligent design does not entitle one to ignorance.

    • Since when did wishful thinking have anything to do with scientific reality? People can be dissatisfied with evolution all they want. So what? I’m dissatisfied that there is no Santa Claus but that’s no reason for me to start believing in him in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. It is inherent in religion that it freezes the scientific understanding of its time into superstitious dogma. When it starts to unpick its dogma, as it was forced, eventually, about the sun revolving round the earth, the whole edifice starts to crumble + successful religions make it a sin to question the fundamental beliefs on which they are based, so once inside the belief system the exits are sealed off. Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. It’s creationists that don’t accept facts. If ID (or anyone) had proof that would disprove evolution science would accept it, scientists do not BELIEVE in evolution. they ACCEPT it because of the enormous pile of data supporting it. Just like they accept that gravity follows an inverse square law, matter is composed of atoms, germs cause disease, and moving electrons constitute electricity. Scientific theories are not a faith.

    • The key there is CAN you show me proof of Intelligent Design? And no, proof does not constitute someone writing down ‘Lol intelligent design is real’ 2000 years ago.

  6. The level of understanding expressed both in the article and in the silly responses very clearly explains why the Republic is on the edge of the abyss. The lack of intelligence and basic understanding expressed here today is absolutely shocking.

    • I could not agree more. We need to pray that all low information Christians especially, receive from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realization of Him, the eyes of their heart having been enlightened (Ephesians 1:17-18).

  7. You know when you see a stegosaurus carved on a Cambodian Temple Pillar very succinctly or a large long neck dinosaur drawn on the side of a mountain at the Palpa Lines in Peru, you get the feeling that somebody saw a live one. Also Creation Evidence museum has some very nice human foot prints on top of dinosaur prints in in sandstone (Delk Tracts) in a safety deposit box to prevent evolutionists from destroying them since they used an MRI and xrays to confirm depression, pressure etc.You kind of get the feeling you can’t trust the Evolutionists especially since they never removed the evolutional fetus development pictures from middle school and high school text books since they were faked and the professor who faked them lost his job at his university. They are still in the textbooks and they are fake.

    • The evidence to show dinosaurs & humans did not coexist is sooooo overwhelming that only a true MORON would believe otherwise! As far as some carvings on temple, well, there are ancient cave drawings all over the planet of space men. Did they exist too?

  8. There are many who argue for and against evolution. I for one believe in intelligent design and my reasons for this is science has yet to prove that random chemicals organized themselves into living creatures and that these creatures then changed themselves into something else. Without intervention I believe this is not possible someone or something with the advanced knowledge of the genetic map with understanding of far more than what we know designed the creatures, or took them from a basic genetic stock and genetically re-engineered them to be what they are.

    A point in fact only now we are tinkering in genetics and splicing genes together to add properties to an existing species that they did not have before. It required the use of intelligence and knowledge to be able to do this, so in fact we changed and organism by genetic engineering on a small scale. Man has yet to find out exactly what every gene does there are a lot of gaps, we know what some of them do. If we really knew what we were doing we would have cured the common cold, the flu, Cancer and countless other genetic maladies. We may end up genetically engineering our extinction or worse use that knowledge to create a super virus with no cures. Man has messed so many things up by his lack of knowledge or in ill conceived theories on how things work. But for myself personally I believe there is a creator, and that the bible has it right. In the creation it was said six days but refer to Einstein’s work on relativity where mass affects the fabric of space around it and by doing so affects time itself. Time is not a constant. It is provable that time itself is a creation of our universe and is directly related to the curvature of space as caused by gravity ( a black hole for instance) but again we do not have enough information to speculate all the ramifications of that. We are here for but a short time and to worry over these things is pointless

  9. Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remains of the son of god. Evolution is a scientific THEORY. Theories are supported by MILLIONS of independently verifiable FACTS. To deny evolution is to deny all of those facts and the hundreds of scientific techniques used to observe them. Worse yet, to deny evolution is to deny reason and logic, the core of the scientific method. Creationists are willing to deny all of this for evolution, yet have no problem exploiting the fruits of science for their own benefit, i.e. cars, computers, modern medicine.Just like falling is a fact and gravity is a theory that describes why you fall, organisms evolving and speculating are facts and the theory of evolution explains why. If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too. Just like falling is a fact and gravity is a theory that describes why you fall, organisms evolving and speciating are facts and the theory of evolution explains why. If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too it’s the equivalent of denying the sky is blue yet refusing to look up.

    • Theories are just that – theories. In scientific usage it is a belief that a particular (unobserved) process is the explanation for the question at hand.

      Facts are observed and observable outcomes or evidence.

      The FACT that a dinosaur bone exists does not prove ANY theory about its origin. Please consider that words do have meaning, even if you don’t wan them to.

    • Just because creationists deny evolution as the conclusion, it doesn’t mean they deny any of the facts. Also, just as you argue that evolution destroys the christian faith, it can be easily argued that the lack thereof calls into serious question more agnostic/atheistic beliefs in the same manner. Without evolution, what do they have? I know many atheists who (ironically) believe in evolution religiously, and won’t even consider any arguments against it. Passing it off as “bible thumping” even if the argument contains not an ounce of religious theme or doctrine. Such as procreation being a necessary tool for evolution to take place (genetic changes over the generations), yet the ability to reproduce (either sexually or asexually) had to evolve somehow. How did the first organism evolve the ability to procreate without the ability to procreate? Was it simply an innate ability of the first organism, suggesting foreknowledge of its necessity (i.e. intelligent design.) Or should we just chalk it up to “random chance” and call it a day? Failing to consider the secular arguments against evolution would make one just as bad as failing to consider the secular arguments for evolution, and I see it way too often in many evolutionists today.

    • There is absolutely ZERO evidence for macro-evolution and abiogenesis. NONE. To say otherwise means you are a fool. There is NONE. They both fail the scientific method – it has never been observed, cannot be tested, and only exists in textbooks, period. Please do not think you win your case via semantics – when we say “Evolution” or “Darwinism”, we mean macro-evolution and abiogenesis, which have zero evidence, and not micro-evolution, which is short term variation with never a positive gain in information, ony a loss, and absolutely everyone agrees is a real scientific process (evolutionist, IDer and Creationist alike). “Evolutionists”, or better year “Atheistic Naturalists” believe and preach from their pulpits (secular humanist universities, mostly) that absolute nothingness created matter and life from non-matter and non-information, and non-life with zero evidence and no reasonable hypothesis other than rescue devices and adding “millions upon millions of years” plus “chance” to every problem presented. “Naturalistic Evolution” is believed via blind faith. Just like you say a Christian does.

      • Ok. The Last Resistance is officially trying to destroy our country. The spread of such ignorance is unforgiving! The author of this article should do research on the subject before writing this article. How dare us understand how life begins and changes over time! I don’t want to take the time to correct everyone here in this forum, it would be a total waste. I can look through a microscope and see how life begats life and until I see The Lord myself, I’m going to do everything I can to find out how Homo Sapien came about and how things work in the universe. To take it on blind faith would do a disservice to human kind! The Bible is a book that lays out a good moral ground to follow in life. You will go far by following most things that are printed, but if we didn’t have science to explain, for instance, why a particular fish has evolved to produce asexually or why one fish has developed appendages that catch plankton in order to survive extinction. This whole article goes against every science class taught in every non-theologian college, high school and even grade school. I don’t pretend to know everything, and don’t you either! As a race, we need to try and find out how the universe came to be. This, will in turn, bring us closer to a creator(if there is one divine being)! Don’t you have a library or access to some type of genetics book. If you do, please keep an open mind and read it. And if you can’t understand what they’re talking about, then find some one that can explain it to you, then you can debate them once you are educated on the subject. Give it a chance!! I did with the Bible! Remember, man has changed the text throughout history to explain things that they didn’t know or understand at the time that it happened. Maybe that will be the same in the future. I’m open to either mantra. I’m just searching for concrete proof and I’m seeing more with science than I am with a book that proclaimed at one time that Kings and Queens were decendants of the god and should rule by “divine right”. Please America, educate yourselves! Then make up your mind. Do not be ignorant of something you don’t understand. Seek the truth!

      • Are you retarded? The fossil record provides countless examples of macroevolution over large amounts of geologic time

    • Will you please name a species, any species, and identify with evidence the species from which it allegedly evolved? Then will you please explain how the sexes allegedly evolved? And, in that information always has an intelligent source, will you please explain how the programing information of DNA came into being?

      Your remarks are not truth-seeking or scientific. They are the product of Dark Age a priori atheist philosophy, unsupported generalizations, and empty seduction.

      If you go to themoronocracy dot com, you will find 30 examples of scientific incompetence relating to alleged evolution by the National Academy of Sciences.

    • “Science” is the offspring of Christianity. The History of what became science is the determined effort to learn and understand “the Mind of God”.
      A rather unappreciative bunch, wouldn’t you say??

    • “If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too it’s the equivalent of denying the sky is blue yet refusing to look up.”
      Ha ha, you’re too much!!! All these things can be observed, tested, and demonstrated EXCEPT FOR EVOLUTION.
      Evolution is NOT a THEORY, it is a tested and failed hypothesis.

      • Evolution is NOT a THEORY??? Another home schooled idiot? Go buy yourself a 6th grade science book & learn something

  10. Evolution IS God’s mechanism to bring life wherever it can arise, from hot sulfur vents at the bottom of the ocean to much more benign environments where biodiversity will be greater. It takes place at boundary layers – between hot and cold, light and dark, wet and dry, always trying something new. Most mutations never go anywhere – but big ones are like flash floods – what has been there for millenia changes in seconds. Einstein already gave a great explanation of the existence of God; if you have a better counter argument, I’d like to hear it. Based on the thousands of measurements I’ve made of physical phenomena over the years, spanning a multitude of technologies, the belief that we live in a random universe is puerile at best.

    • Staedto The perfect information to what happened, Genesis 1:1 In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth.
      Verses 2-31 tells what else happened, read that . The finishing of what HE told us:specifically concerning mankind is found in verses 26-27
      26. And GOD said, Let us make man in our own image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air; and over the cattle, and over all the earth and every creeping thing that creepest upon the earth.
      27. So GOD created man in HIS own image, in the image of GOD created HE him, male and female created HE them.

      The verses which finished all the information we will ever need:
      Matt.22: 35-40
      35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked HIM a question, tempting HIM, and saying,
      36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
      37. JESUS said unto him, Thou shalt love the LORD THY GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
      38. This is the first and great commandment.
      39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

  11. Awhile back i heard someone on tv say that Darwin’s theory of evolution was bunk and that humans are actually de- evolving.Has anyone else heard that and what are the opinions of the ppl leaving messages of that?

    • Part of this is very true, the ignorant believe in evolution, The only way man is “DE-involving is HOW we are treating The WORD (JESUS CHRIST), GOD and the HOLY GHOST. The WORD OF GOD tells us that this will occur in the end days and these end days are showing exactly, how true that is. The USA is another Sodom and Gomorrah except HE does have a few in comparison that are living for GOD, Sodom and Gomorrah had none.

      • Ok,thank you for your input into that question which included “The only way man is “DE-involving is HOW we are treating The WORD (JESUS CHRIST), GOD and the HOLY GHOST. The WORD OF GOD tells us that this will occur in the end days and these end days are showing exactly, how true that is” Does anyone else have anything they want to say about my post above? that person’s opinion? I wanted to get ppl’s opinions of that b/c when i first heard him say that humans were actually de- evolving i was quite surprised.do any of you think that’s true and why?, partially true and why?,or no truth to that at all and why? de-evolving spiritually?, physically? mentally? maybe just 1 of those, maybe 2, maybe all 3 or none of the above?

    • The many advances in technology and medicine in the last century have not only made it possible, but have actually encouraged people with severe mental and physical defects to reproduce: devolution in action, and more fodder for the burgeoning welfare state.

  12. Mr. Bob,
    You make unsustainable statements to support your assertions. You wrote: “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.” Your statement flies in the face of history! Most of our great scientists [those who have added significant discoveries or developments to our world’s knowledge–not just writings and debates] have been Christians or Jews. Evolution—not Christianity—fights against science! It is the evolutionists—not the Christians—who are constantly juggling the design of their theories to fit new scientific findings! Christians find that most research developments or discoveries provide additional support for what the Book of Genesis and other books of the Bible have been telling us for thousands of years.
    Evolution is simply a fairy tale started by Darwin and promulgated by others who are trying to convince themselves and others that the Bible is not true in its statement that “it is appointed to men once to die and then the judgment” because they know that they have refused to accept Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind which allows repentant sinners to live forever in Yahweh’s presence rather than the eternal torment prepared for Satan and all of his demons.
    Only those who have accepted the Truth by repenting of their sins and making Him Lord of their lives can live in the peace and confidence that His love will never forsake them to eternal destruction.
    Mr. Bob, I challenge you to lay all of our debate issues aside and take time each night as you go to bed to ask God to prove Himself to be real by revealing Himself to you in whatever way He knows best. (Do not pray this sincerely unless you are really interested in knowing whether God is real, because if you do not want Him to be real, you will be severely disappointed.)

    • Evolution is open for ANYONE to prove wrong & it’s stood the text of time. ONLY religious KOOKS deny it but that cannot produce ANY evidence to debunk it. Fame, fortune & a Nobel Prize awaits anyone that can

      • The proof of the CREATION of the universe can be found in Genesis 1. This is GOD given “pure” history. There is not one thread of proof that I was once a monkey and before that a tadpole before that………………
        OK science: If GOD had not created and put everything in it’s perfect place there would be no science. We have stolen so much from GOD and given it to Satan, but JESUS CHRIST will return and finish off HIS work before long.HE will remove HIS dead, in the graves, afterward HE will remove all of HIS people from the earth and HE will completely destroy everything with fire.
        1 Thess. 4:16 FOR THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL DESCEND FROM HEAVEN WITH A SHOUT, with the voice of the archangel, and with the TRUMP OF GOD: AND THE DEAD IN CHRIST shall rise first;
        17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the LORD in the air: and so shall we ever be with the lord

        2Peter 3:9-13
        9. The LORD is not slack concerning HIS promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
        10. But the day of the LORD will come as a thief in the night: in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
        11. Seeing then that ll these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all Holy conversation and godliness.
        12. Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of GOD wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.
        13. Nevertheless we according to HIS promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

  13. Today I would like to receive updates via email whenever the Phoenix tantra Therapy Examiner,
    Steve Ibach is a licensed massage therapist and is nationally certified in therapeutic massage.
    None of this puts me into an openhearted space, but
    we’d tantra love it even more if OS 3.

  14. For the godless left, evolution is no longer a theory, it is in fact a religion unto itself. Faith cannot be debated among the faithful. Since evolution (ie; the ultimate creation of the human self without God) with man AS his own god, anyone who would dare challenge their faith is by default an ignorant heretic to be reviled, ridiculed and marginalized.
    Come judgement day, someone is going to be in for a rather unpleasant surprise.

    • Before you keep spouting off your ignorance you may want to look up the meaning of the word “theory” in scientific terms.

    • The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree makes PERFECT sense to you MORONS, science, with MOUNTAINS of evidence to back up it’s claims AND open for ANYONE to prove wrong makes no sense at all!

      • Mr Bob, at first reading your comments I was intrigued, however it soon became apparent that you have major hatred towards religion issues and disinclined me to reading your numerous hatred rants. Brian Brown has posted a beautful post encouraging people to study both beliefs and feel free to debate in open and friendly manner as all debates should be. I myself have my own views which is that if evolution is true (it IS a valid theory still to this day though not as Darwin believed) then who is to say that is wasn’t God or some ID that guided it? Yes this seems as if I am undecided, but it makes me happy and I still have my faith. Still, everyone on both sides need to learn from Mr Browns example and try to teach in happy and friendly manner instead of strict bashing regardless of point of view. Religion has flaws same as evolution, but I find it interesting how they both support one another at the same time. Have fun and keep peace in your hearts!

  15. Evolution works on this principle: random mutations are selected by the environment, and the organisms with the good mutations survive. We have never seen this work in the real world. Let’s say organism A (male) has some beneficial mutation. He mates with organism B (female) without the mutation. Some of their children will have the mutation, others won’t. But the ones with the mutation are in the vast minority of the population, and as they continue to mate with others without the trait, the trait will either remain on the fringe, or eventually disappear.

    Apes evolving into humans is NOT advantageous in the natural environment. Exactly how did we lose our fur, so that we’d have to figure out how to make clothes? And why would nature select us?

    Is it really possible for one species to evolve into another? You’d have to add and delete chromosomes. As I explained above, that would not work in the long term in light of the general population.

    Evolutionists also can’t explain (and this is the big one!) how inorganic molecules arranged themselves into a) organic, carbon-based molecules, and b) a cell. Even the most primitive cells have to have several components already in place: plasma membrane (for protection and regulation of imports/exports), cytoplasm (for cellular respiration), ribosomes (to make protein), and DNA. All these structures have to be in place, and they’re all made from organic molecules — which can only come from photosynthesis, produced by other organic molecules. Have we ever seen anything make sugar that wasn’t already a functioning cell? So cells can’t exist without sugar, and sugar can’t exist without cells. Evolution is impossible, and the only remaining explanation is Creationism.

    • Why do people with (like you) that have ZERO education on the subject believe they somehow know more about the subject then the brightest most educated people on earth who have spent their entire life studying & have mountains of evidence to back up their claims?

      • Please learn the difference between “then” and “than” before disparaging others’ level of education.

  16. People who decry evolution are either ignorant, mentally unstable or simpletons. You do a disservice to your political causes with this nonsense. Most Christians can see that religion and science are compatible. If you can’t see that, it doesn’t mean you are a better Christian. It means you are a rube.

  17. What evolutionists need to realize is that evolution did not stop with the missing link. It is simply that the missing link has never proved evolution. For all of the evidence from the creativity of the human mind proving intelligent design, why would anyone want to speculate on the odds that “big bang” put it all together so logically? I love the idea of God loving me and only extreme hatred or ignorance would posit that a group of Jewish men got together years ago and wrote a bunch of books and letters to deceive the world. In the present, what can we know of the ancient past, except from what has been written about it? If men were more concerned about truth then than we are now, there is little benefit to falsehood and we will be rewarded in spirit for trusting in Truth and telling it.

  18. To Mr. Bob: please enlighten us with your educational background. I will tell you mine: I had a 4.0 GPA with double majors in biology and chemistry. I also have a medical doctor degree. First problem in these arguments is the definition of “evolution”. There is a plethora of tangible evidence for “natural selection” making a given species more “fit” and gradually changing over time, BUT, there is virtually NO convincing proof of any species ever changing into a different species. More definitions: a species can only successfully mate with its own kind (species) and produce an offspring that is fertile (horse + donkey can mate, but the resulting mule is not capable of reproducing). There have been no transitional fossils found between ape-like hominids and humans. Every one is either ape or is human. Neanderthals were human. “Lucy” was an ape.
    Read Darwin’s Black Box. Biochemistry proves beyond any reasonable doubt that life could never arise spontaneously. If life cannot arise without some kind of intelligent intervention, the “evolutionist” must, if honest, re-examine all of his/her preconceived notions. Science was largely responsible for leading me to a completely solid faith in God. At my university, 56 of 57 biology professors believed in God when polled. I came to faith kicking and screaming, but once all the facts were clearly revealed to me, God is the only rational conclusion.

  19. Mr. Minkoff, you are totally ignorant of the processes of natural selection, the evidence in the geological record, the most obvious evidence of the manufacture of species of plants, as well as bacteria, and the scientific method itself.

    As a Creationist, you seem to be looking for science to validate your opinion or belief.Science does not ask who created the universe, or why- those are theological or philosophical questions that are not pertinent to science. Science asks HOW, and shows relationships. Some things we have not yet determined, some things have been revised as we have developed better tools for measuring, isolating, and or manipulating smaller and smaller particles, parts of molecules, and even single atoms. A major example is the media you are using to communicate with. The evidence for evolution is irrefutable from the fields of biology, biochemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology, and anthropology to name just a few. Our medicine, agriculture, and even our pets are indicators that evolution is working, and that H. sapiens is becoming more and more adept at manipulating that process.

  20. I have a MBA from NYU. My guess is you went to some fake bible college like Jerry Falwell University. You have ZERO understanding of evolution & debunk ALL of science based upon a book written by anonymous bronze age goat headers in which snakes, donkeys & plants can talk! If you actually believe you have evidence that can debunk the theory of evolution why not bring it forward? Science is open for ANYONE to prove it wrong. Fame, fortune & a Nobel prize awaits anyone that can.

    • Mr Bob, you sucked me into this debate. Thanks for posting consistently. I get to see where you’re coming from. I would like to challenge your view of God and the Bible. You seem to think it stupid that animals can talk. I would like to say the Bible is no fairy tale. The recorded data of animals talking directly with humans is always with the caveate of angelic influence. The Bible cannot be proven wrong. Conversely, science & archeological discoveries consistently bring to light more “facts” in support. The existence of Moses, David, even DNA studies tracing human lineage. The Bible doesn’t lie. In fact God hates lying and loves truth, wisdom, science. He actually wants men to do things that lead to life and avoid death.

      Before, you go on & on about how Christians are ignorant I would argue your beef isn’t with Christians but with Jews. Then you’ll want to say what? There are no, or were no Jews. That’s silly. Maybe u could argue all Miracles by Moses are lies. Do so.

      Isn’t it incredible that th Bible mentions a person like Noah. His life story is so scientific it blows the mind. Scientists will Never agree to a universal flood because that would support th Bible’s account. Yet why does the Bible have this data in the first place? I believe God wants you to know that He can both create & destroy as He destroyed many unbelieving Jews who went and served ridiculous false gods. Yeah I’ll say it. God hates false Gods or us creating anything to worship besides Him.

      Did you know God loves wisdom and knowledge. This Goes against what Christians did in the Dark Ages. With that said, check out the Bibles view of wisdom. I personally like Solomon, who is said to be the wisest man who ever lived. Word search wisdom…”wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to no our, when thou dost embrace her” Proverbs 4:7,8.

      “Wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” Man, chew on that for a while and you’ll see how deep Gods love for wisdom And understanding is. God wants all people to be Educated and not just get a job! Wow. That’s hot stuff. Scientist should love God for He is all for us learning and finding out even the “deep things” of God.

      “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his…he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness…” Daniel 2:20-22.

      As In the case of Daniel, the Bible does what no sane scientist would do…predict the future. I dare anyone, try it. See how accurate your prediction will be 40, 200, or a1000 years into the future. God can and did, right?

  21. I am going to walk where even the “Christian Angels fear to tread”. If there is a God, as referred to in the Bible (or the Qur’an), he (she or it) does not get involved in the mundane day-to-day happenings on this planet. During The days of Christ and Muhammad, it is (was?) estimated there were three to five million people on this Earth and there were but a relative handful of reported and verifiable miracles. Now, with about eight billion people on the planet, the law of large numbers would dictate there would be hundreds, if not thousands of such miracles each day and now being in this modern world, where communications are almost instantaneous world-wide, the “system” would be overloaded. Also, an “all knowing god”, as viewed by all religions (except Buddhism), can do anything conceivable and by logic, also the inconceivable—surely such a god would have the capability of communicating with “the masses”. Also, a god would not make revelations that would later have to be changed, modified or expanded upon (abrogations), or that just applied to select people in equally select areas. Also, logic, deductive reason and plain common sense, dictates such a “AKG” would not select anyone but the proven “best” to serve as prophets. Also, the Muslims and their Qur’an state that the Christian God, and the Muslim God (Allah) are “one and the same”. Without taking sides, even a school kid can clearly see that there are two gods being referred to and they are as different as night and day. Finally, both the Bible and the Qur’an were “compiled” years after the passing of Christ and Muhammad, by mere mortals, with someone in each case being in charge (again, a mere mortal), dictating what would be included in the two Holy Books and what would not. That compiling and editing process alone, clearly refutes the statement that those Holy Books are the “exact spoken word” of a god. If my comments create a “void” in anyone’s life, I suggest they fall back on the “Natural Law of the Land”—The Perpetuation of the Rational Human Species—i.e., we don’t go around, “willy-nilly” killing each other. That law, presupposes; “Do no harm, except in self-defense and in defense of others who are in imminent danger”. That in turn presupposes, equality, peace, fairness, love, understanding and forgiveness (and each of you can surely add to that list!). Ciao

    • Jesus says, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24). Study the scriptures. As for the Muslims and Muhammed, their beef is with the Jews and Jesus is the King of the Jews. Do you really need to know more?

  22. Well now. Isn’t that nice–not. And you think 1. Jerry Falwell Univ. offers a medical school? 2. That an MBA understands science better than someone with my training? If you have the courage, again, I ask you to read “Darwin’s Black Box”. Science proves that could not arise spontaneously.

    • I can only assume that you’re aware that the theory of evolution has advanced since Darwin’s time. As for your training, it appears a common 6th grade student has a better understanding of science than you do.

      • Mr Bob – relax. If your going to get angry over every post you don’t agree with you will have a heart attack the way your going

  23. While personally I am inclined toward believing evolution, I understand it to be merely a theory and can be wrong. However, the article here does not prove it to be wrong, thus it is still a valid theory(still a theory thou).
    ID is not required to evolve, because survival of fittest among random mutations effectively achieve what you consider to be ID, that is to say the end result is “better” than the previous.
    Survival of the fittest does not ever state that those that are not fittest would die off quickly or at all. Complex evolution chains that carry “short-term sacrifices” and “long-term goal” can be achieved by the organisms simply toughing out and not go extinct during the “short-term” until they reach the “long-term”. While it might be hard(as evident by the fewer number of genus), there is no reason why it would be impossible.
    That said, the article and replies thereof does not disprove anything. Again, this does not make evolution theory automatically true, it’s just “still possible”.
    The same can be said about creation theory. I accept the possibility of an existence of (an) omnipotent being(s), at least omnipotent from our standpoint. And for all intend and purpose the big bang can be created by such being(s) and thus the scientific theories can be true alongside theology ones. Or he/it/she/they(whatever) could have created the world 5 seconds ago with all histories and records of the world(including memories) being fabrications. That said however, I don’t really believe in the bible or any other specific religion related items. One thing must be made certain, the bible and any other divine literary record, so to speak, are human creations. Even if it is created in the name of divine gift or intervention, it does not change the fact that is human creation and by all intend and purposes it can be misinterpreted by the ones who received the said intervention. Frankly, it is fool-hardy to say the least for mere humans to expect to fully understand and/or describe the actions of an omnipotent being. And it is nothing but egoistic maniac to proclaim human as the sole true children of an omnipotent being. Such being(s) can do more than create one race and there is no reason such being(s) won’t. And such being(s) can present him/her/it/themself to us in any form such being(s) likes, so what we take to be true, even if experienced truthfully, can very well not be the “full picture”.
    Neither science side nor religions side can really be denied. The article is a rather silly attempt at discrediting something by using faulty logic. It is writes like him that gives religions a bad name.

  24. I can understand what Mr Bob is trying to say.

    However, I must ask, there are so many examples of “mob mentality” or “Group Advancement Dynamics” that appear fairly commonplace. Right from the Family unit down to Bacterial Colony.

    Is it therefore Fundamental and utterly obvious that in the right circumstances Grouping and Cooperation are a valid and completely necessary notion.

    And yes, although in a perspective that follows the mutual benefits, all this is rather selfish.

    But doesn’t it make sense that the skills you may learn from others will supplement your own while alone, making you a far more competent individual…?

    Therefore is this not adding to the Natural selection process, where you can impart those skills to the family you create?

    I simply observe that there is not as much lateral thinking in your dialogue as I would anticipate from an educated source.

    • “Any explanation for its existence requires the inclusion of some intelligence—some ability to forego short-term advantages for long-term ones. And natural selection offers no mechanism for this.”

      Apparently this is the case because you say so? Umm? Yeah there is a reason to forgo short term advantages for long term gains, as you say yourself, a humanoid species that does this would (and did) go extinct leaving the ones carrying the cooperating genes behind, leading to a species that cooperates… I’m not quite sure how you specifically state this then just turn around and claim the opposite?

  25. To the people citing intelligent design, you do realize that one of the ways in which a theory is validated is if the results can be replicated. You are asking the evolutionists to prove their theories. Shouldn’t the onus also be on you to prove your own theories. Citing a single document is not proof. Show them an example outside the Bible- that is the only way you would be taken seriously. The idea that some schools have to teach stuff like this in science classes is preposterous. The silly thing is that the complaints primarily come from one religion.

    • I really think its funny how so many people are saying one monkey all of a sudden had a human child, no that would be impossible, evolution does not work that way in the slightest. it takes hundreds to thousands to make any drastic changes in a creatures design, also need to evolve to there surroundings to help them. us as human’s were way shorter in the 1800’s, the average height was around 5.4 to 5.6 feet tall, there is a huge difference now and then, and that’s called evolution, most of the time evolution won’t do much in the short run, but it will effect us in the long run. now wanna know the best part. I am 16, and we learn this in school when I was in grade 8

  26. Why is a social experiment that presumes cooperation from nonparticipants (in the form of the people that are to enforce the punishment of test subject A and/or test subject B, depending on their answers) the basis to evaluate if cooperation is “natural” (in the sense that it does not need to be guided by an unseen hand but can appear on its own)? Why is a social experiment that focus on punishments even relevant to whether cooperation is a natural occurrence or not?
    The whole thing is so artificial it has nothing to do with evolution. The years in prison (or four possible outcome scenario) has no natural counterpart. That form of punishment is a human concept born out of already widespread organized cooperation. The amount of years are also arbitrary and the outcome of the experiment changes drastically depending on the difference in time (outcome) between both confessing, both denying and selling the other out. The experiment itself assumes that selfish actions leads to the best outcome (because there would be no experiment otherwise), but fails to take into account all the times that cooperation yields the best outcome. It seems that the author of the text believes there are no such situations because the prisoners dilemma experiment does not encompass them?

    If it is about 2 individuals within the same species (or a school of fish, does not really matter how many work together to get the idea across) working together to evade a predator there won’t be any degrees of outcome. you either die or live. you don’t get sent 2 years rather than 3 years into the predators stomach if both of you “sell out”/”defect”.
    If it is about 2 predators hunting a prey together or separately they get a bigger chance of catching it together (but the trade off would be less to eat per prey caught) but there wouldn’t be any sure outcomes and you would have to start looking at percentage chances to kill the prey. For the predators there are not possibility to make an uninformed choice to work together while the other opts to hunt alone and somehow make the lone hunters reward greater. It does not translate well into the system of that experiment, an experiment that was made for human situations with human concepts in mind…

    The use of the prisoners dilemma in this text is a complete fallacy.
    The claim that there are no observed evidence that explains why cooperation came to be is either false or only true because no one (text author most likely) has bothered to look at/for what is assumed to self evident.

    PS: I’m also a bit dubious if the INDIVIDUALS survival is the “primary operative machinery” of evolution. I’m not entirely sure where the texts author got that from or how that could even work. As I understand it (macro) evolutionary theory requires the span of several generations. So that the singular individual is the “operative machinery” sounds a bit like a strawman fallacy to me. If someone could clear this particular bit up for me I’d appreciate it.

  27. Reading the wikipedia link to Prisoners Dilemma (PD) there is a section called “Real life examples” that states there are situations in nature that has the payout matrix described by PD and is therefor of interest in the field of evolutionary biology but fails to provide any such examples. Can someone explain to me how and where the unmodified PD experiment conclusions applies to evolution?
    At the end of the article in the section “Related games” the payout matrix is altered in “Friend or foe” and “iterated snowdrift”. It seems that when there was no difference for one of the players (in friend or foe) if the other player chose to defect, cooperation was “suprisingly high”.
    Presumably when defecting is the obviously better tactic in the long run, but yield no reward if both do it, players realize they have to cooperate or get nothing (and there is no punishment involved). Not because it is right but simply motivated through greed, something is better than nothing.

  28. Ok people…evolution is a FACT. I’m sorry if I offend anyone but this is true. There are multiple fossils that prove this. Fish with beginnings of legs and early hominids. Plus look at chimpanzees. To the creationists out there I ask you this. Why do we share 99% of our DNA with chimps? When we look at the fossil record why can we see fish beginning to walk on land? Why can we trace our origins (human) to homo habilis & even further back? I would like to hear your reasoning.

    • umm we don’t actually share 99% with chimps that is just a urban myth… however we do share 98% with (dum dum duuuuum) worms! not 100% sure which one it was and not wanting to guess and be incorrect but it was a study released last year that showed we are closer to worms then any other animal currently known to exist in the animal kingdom. chimps are about #3 or 4 on the list of what we share most DNA with. that being said, evolution is a theory based on an idea of what if…. same as creation theory. and who is to say that evolution is not also creation and that one is the other? personally i like to believe that there is some life after this existence or else what is the point of it all? if i am right then booyah! if wrong then i lose nothing and have led a decent life with no regrets! win win situation if u ask me. same if u r correct that u have lost nothing with your beliefs and have gained nothing either, while if u r wrong according to most creationist views there is an eternity to regret it in the afterlife. just saying, not judging at all

    • As much as I love the evolution THEORY, it is not a fact. It is just a theory.
      You have no way to disprove the extremely unlikely scenario that the world was created by some supreme being 5 seconds ago with all that record/fossil etc being directly created as opposed to actual event.
      You have no way to disprove the extremely unlikely scenario that we are living in a dream state(like matrix) where the real history in the “outside” is different from what we take to be true.
      You have no way to disprove any kind of possible origin story as long as it is logically sound in itself, no matter how unlikely it is and the completely lack of evidence thereof.
      I hold evolution as a high probability theory, that is all it can ever be. Always keep an open mind, there is no such thing as fact really, only extremely high probable state.

  29. That last paragraph… That is really the pot calling the kettle. Morality occurs in imaginary space – in the world of right and wrong, which is never real. Reality is the other world, and it is only real. It is not true and false – false never occurs in reality. And so, rather than to use Dawkins material reality imposed upon morality, the author imposes morality upon material reality. Between real and imaginary, never the twain shall meet. Truth is one of the things that can occur in the imaginary, but many falses also occur here. Truth simply occurs in reality and is therefore available to the imagination.

Leave a Reply