TRUTHFUL ORIGINS EVO

Updated: Sep 5 Modern whales and dolphins are mammals (giving their young milk) and mammals are four limbed (tetrapods) and usually terrestrial (land dwelling). "The “problem”, of course, is that modern whales are emphatically not terrestrial, nor do they have four limbs–they have two front flippers and a tail, with no hind limbs in sight. Yet they are mammals, which forces evolution’s hand as it were. Evolution thus is dragged, under protest, to the prediction that modern whales, as mammals, are descended, with modification, from ancestral terrestrial, tetrapod ancestors... And yet, these difficulties are the stuff of science. If indeed our “educated guess” of terrestrial, tetrapod ancestry for whales is correct, the evidence will show that these transitions, challenging though they may seem, did indeed occur on the road to becoming “truly cetacean.” ~ Venema, Dennis. Whale Evolution: theory, predication and converging lines of evidence. 2017. Biologos Part 1: Living (Extant) Whales Part 2: Whale Fossils (Extinct Whales) Part 3: DNA and Whale Evolution What About Objections? Most objections seem to fall into just a few categories. Many unfortunately contain so many errors and misunderstandings about evolution and biology that it would be very difficult to begin to address the writings without attempting to correct all the misunderstandings first. Many quotes against whale evolution are decades old and disproven or taken out of context. Most in my experience will basically list all the adaptations and appeal to the reader with, “how could all this have happened?” without addressing the evidence we DO have. Mechanisms of “how” are important but can’t negate the evidence of “what” we have. In addition, we do know in many cases how it happened by studying their genomes. Please see the blog about "How vs. What" , this site. See also some of the applicable articles in the References section below. The evidence for whale evolution is truly overwhelming as is the various scientific fields that all contribute to this huge body of supporting evidence: 1. Paleontological evidence 2. Morphological evidence 3. Molecular biological evidence 4. Vestigial evidence 5. Embryological evidence 6. Geochemical evidence 7. Paleoenvironmental evidence 8. Paleobiogeographic evidence 9. Chronological evidence (see: https://ncse.ngo/origin-whales-and-power-independent-evidence ) See also other sources listed in the Reference section. To dismiss the mountain peaks of whale evidence amounts to dismissing a mountain range of robust and sound evidence. To deny whale evolution from what has been scientifically discovered is now perverse. For example, whales have many dead genes for smelling on land: " The macroevolutionary transition of whales (cetaceans) from a terrestrial quadruped to an obligate aquatic form involved major changes in sensory abilities. Compared to terrestrial mammals, the olfactory system of baleen whales is dramatically reduced, and in toothed whales is completely absent. We sampled the olfactory receptor (OR) subgenomes of eight cetacean species from four families. A multigene tree of 115 newly characterized OR sequences from these eight species and published data for Bos taurus revealed a diverse array of class II OR paralogues in Cetacea... Phylogenetic analyses of OR pseudogenes using both gene-tree reconciliation and supermatrix methods yielded fully resolved, consistently supported relationships among members of four delphinid subfamilies." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18686195/ An analogy is someone traveling to their vacation home only to find it completely destroyed. Pieces in front of them are on the ground, or more accurately what remains in this example. But what if we don’t know or are unsure how it was destroyed? Fire, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, angry neighbor, or gas leak? The fact of the event is independent of the “how” or mechanism. Would we really deny the fact of the home destruction until we knew exactly how it occurred, to our satisfaction, while dismissing the input from experts and the observations before our very eyes? So it is with whale evolution. We know it occurred because of the overwhelming evidence. It’s a great example of evolution and indeed “macroevolution”. One does not need to “be there”. One does not need to have every step worked out. Our courts certainly operate on the “what” even if the “how” is incomplete or even unknown. See “The Teacher’s Pet” case. When it comes to evolution we even have an idea of the hows. I write here why putting "how" before the "what" is wrong and an avoidance mechanism so as to not address the evidence for whale evolution. https://biologos.org/articles/whale-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence Why would a deer like creature venture into the water? https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/ancient-deer-like-creatures-returned-to-the-ocean-to-become-whales-paleontologists-say/ Nice summary of whale evolution - podcast. If interested in just the main fossil discussion, start at 1:00:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR_FnKu-VPA&list=PLfdiT8Klm_YPa0lNVa9ygwAjy_1Lpz9_S Why whale origins pose an incredible problem for Young Earth Creationism when viewing geology and paleontology: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2017/10/05/walking-whales-on-board-noahs-ark-the-inevitable-end-point-of-creationists-post-flood-hyper-speciation-belief/ Ten fossil whale species that walked on land https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/before-whales-took-to-the-sea-these-ten-species-walked-on-land-180987160/?lctg=92912229&fbclid=IwY2xjawM0FEVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvsfw3a8AaQZZDSRDqFAeT5ZNMYCRKhBkYApejLeaMkOVDrYy1JFrWUFxBjh_aem_cEGAhm28MkyiBu0_QpJEXw From: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-whale-fossil-helps-detail-how-mammals-went-walking-land-swimming-seas-180973758/?itm_source=related-content&itm_medium=parsely-api Summary I assert that the evidence for whale evolution is so broad and numerous that any person not committed to a previous position against it would agree that whales evolved as science has discovered. The evidence comes from at least three broad areas. Other evidence such as continental drift and the late Tethys Sea that was present at the time all impact on why whale evolution occurred when it did; it’s an amazing true story that brings in many areas of science and history all to a single conclusion. Objections rarely if ever address the copious evidence but instead attempt to throw doubt by appealing to intuition and mechanisms as the sole arbitrators regarding whale origins. From: Ancient Archeology Secret Resources What is the Evidence for Evolution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg Whale Evolution https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/whale-evolution.html Prothero, Donald. 2017. Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. 2nd ed. Columbia University Press. When Whales Walked. PBS Eons https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=_OSRKtT_9vw The Evolution of Whales https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/ Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence https://biologos.org/articles/whale-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence The Origin of Whales and The Power of Independent Evidence https://ncse.ngo/origin-whales-and-power-independent-evidence The Evolution of Whales From Land to Sea https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2022/evolution-whales-land-to-sea#aoh=16695035475710&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s How Whale Genes Evolved to Produce Huge Sized Whale bodies https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24529-3 How Whales Evolved From Land to Water, Gene by Gene [85 pseudogenes] https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/whale-evolution-genetics/ How Paleontologists Pieced Together the Strange Story of Whale Evolution https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/whale-evolution-india-pakistan-fossils-indohyus-pakicetus-remingtonocetus-basilosaurus/ The Origin and Early Evolution of Whales: Macroevolution Documented on the Indian Subcontinent. 2009. Bajpai, S., JGM Thewissen, and A.. Sahni. J. Biosci. 34(5). Indian Academy of Sciences. 678-686. Ancient Whales Were the Biggest and Smallest of Their Kind to Ever Roam the Oceans. New discoveries show how whale diversity exploded after the dinosaurs disappeared. 2023. The Smithsonian. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-first-whales-to-rule-the-seas-were-giganticand-tiny-180983202/

"DNA breaks are random and potentially catastrophic. The molecular details... are yielding to stringent molecular analysis, which have revealed that the telltale messiness of the repair patch is inherent to the repair system. Random breaks are fixed by the desperate co-option of any available DNA... Such patches are sufficient evidence of great ape monophylicity." ~ Graeme Finlay. Introduction As many people know, DNA is the molecule of life that holds instructions for maintaining, growing and starting new life. Some forms like occasional viruses use RNA instead of DNA, so perhaps it is more accurate to say strings of nucleic acids are responsible for life. Most organisms we are interested in use DNA however. DNA is not actually like a blueprint because it is constantly changed and modified through recombination, deletions, insertions, and mutations. Many of these modifications can cause damage and they need to be repaired as quickly as possible to keep the instructions and directions for life intact. DNA is actually fragile. Fortunately, cells have various mechanisms for detecting and repairing double stranded breaks in DNA. As Finlay discusses in his book (see full citation and acknowledgment at the end of this article), broken DNA ends are often stitched back together using whatever pieces of DNA that are close at hand, more like a Band-Aid patch. This “repair-or-die” as he calls it sets up an emergency repair that is unique because not only is the break random but so is the repair patch, producing a unique signature or DNA scar. It leaves a unique mark on that section of DNA where it was repaired with a section of DNA that will vary by unique ATCG letter sequences. These patch fixes represent types of repaired errors or scars. Scientists studying genomes have found many of these previous scars and we can compare them between species. If these DNA repair scars are found between species in the same chromosomal locations with the same piece of DNA that was grabbed and inserted to glue the broken DNA ends together, we can be certain that the only rational explanation is the two species at one time shared a common ancestor. It is as if an authentic artist's signature is found on two paintings, we can be sure they had the same person painting them. These repair scars then are powerful evidence for common ancestry. This results in a test of evolution because the pattern of inheritance of the same random damaged and randomly repaired DNA sections across species should reveal shared ancestry and common descent. Phylogenetic trees result showing evolution and conclusive common ancestry. And the tree from DNA repairs can be compared to phylogenetic trees from other independent fields of science. NHEJ Repairs The acronym NHEJ stands for non-homologous end-joining . If the break and repair occurs in a sex cell it will be passed down through the generations. Scientists can find these repairs by noting sections of matching DNA copied from one site to another with losses and gains of DNA bases at the recipient site. According to the cell biologist and cancer researcher Finlay, hundreds of such emergency repair jobs have been found in genomes of various apes, including humans. See Figure 1 below of an actual DNA repair patch. "Non-templated" refers to bases added but not copied from a DNA strand. Figure 1. DNA repair. From: Finlay, Graeme. 2013. Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies . p 140. Figure 3.3. Cambridge University Press. Social sharing and Fair dealing applied per publisher's web instructions. Finlay's explanation: “ The original, undisturbed sequence in the macaque genome is shown. However, in humans and chimps this sequence is disrupted, and an extensive length of foreign DNA (starting ATCTT …) has been imported to join the ends. Six randomly inserted filler bases ( GCTTCC ) are present on the left-hand side of the break, and two bases (GC) have been deleted from the right-hand side. This example provides compelling evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Moreover, 36 other examples of shared repair patches linking humans to chimps to a common ancestor have also been found.” [p. 140]. See above diagram of the DNA findings. As Finlay points out, hundreds of DNA repair scars have been found. Some are shared between only some species. For example, 142 are shared by orangutans, humans and chimps only. Others are shared by all great apes, old world monkeys, and new world monkeys (389). Some even are shared across large groups (22). Thus, just by tabulating which repairs are shared and which are not, evolution is demonstrated. “These represent a relatively well-preserved selection of sites that have survived vast tracts of time since the Euarchontoglires and Boreoeutheria ancestors lived… The distribution of shared repair patches generates a phylogenetic tree that is congruent with that generated from ERV and retrotransposon insertions. NEHEJ and retrotransposition are wholly independent processes…” .(Finlay) See Figure 2 below of shared DNA findings producing an evolutionary phylogenetic tree. Figure 2. Identical DNA repairs compared between species. They nest in a hierarchal pattern demonstrating shared ancestry. OWM = Old World Monkeys. NWM = New World Monkeys. From: Finlay, Graeme. 2013. Human Evolution: genes, genealogies and phylogenies . p 140. Figure 3.3. Cambridge University Press. Social sharing and Fair dealing applied per publisher's web instructions. Numts Repairs As has been discussed, these DNA breaks are random and the repairs involve grabbing random DNA copies or pieces nearby for the repair. Sometimes that is a section of native DNA that is copied. Other times random nucleotides are inserted (what are called “non-templated” DNA in Figure 1 above). Still other times the cell will even grab old parasitic fossilized viral DNA from transposons such as LINE-1s. An additional surprising source even has been found to be mitochondrial DNA. As you may remember mitochondria were originally free living bacteria that evolved into our ATP power generating organelles through endosymbiotic capture and they have their own bacterial DNA. ( see Moms and Mitochondria, this site ) It turns out that sections of mitochondrial DNA are found in nuclear genomes of nearly all organisms from fungi to animals according to Finlay. How did mitochondrial DNA get into host cell nuclear DNA? Because when some cellular DNA was repaired the repair involved grabbing DNA as a patch and the DNA close by was from mitochondrial DNA. These repair patches have their own designation, nuclear sequences of mitochondrial origin or numts , also called mitochondrial pseudogenes because they are non-coding mitochondrial genes that have been inserted into host nuclear DNA. (Finlay) The number of human numts found averages about 600, depending on the criteria used. Some are found in only humans. Others have been shown to date from early ape-monkey history (Finlay). If grouped by shared occurrence this produces a phylogenetic tree that matches those phylogenic trees independently produced by shared ERVs, LTRs, and fossils ( see Shared ERVs and evolution, this site ), and of course the NHEJ repair scars discussed in Figure 2. See Table from Finlay: Table 1. Listing of some numts shared by various groups and also across species. Numts refers to random DNA patches/repairs using nearby pieces of mitochondrial DNA. From: Finlay, Graeme. 2013. Human Evolution: genes, genealogies and phylogenies . p 141. Table 3.1. Cambridge University Press. Social sharing and Fair dealing applied per publisher's web instructions. As Finlay writes, “Whole-genome surveys have indicated that most of the numts in our genome, 502 (that is over 80%) are present also in the chimp genome… But analysis of the presence and absence of individual numts in multiple primate genomes…. have shown that humans, chimps and gorillas are monophyletic [we and they share a common ancestor] . So are the great apes (incorporating the orangutans) and further back in time, the apes (incorporating the lesser apes and gibbons). It appears the majority of numts in our genome are shared with old world monkeys”. “Are numts functional today? Quite possibly - but functionality is irrelevant to the issue whether numts constitute markers of descent. It is the complex molecular pathway by which numts arose that makes them such compelling signatures of our shared ancestry with other primates.” Conclusion The DNA molecule is fragile and easily broken. Because of its importance to heredity and the function of the cell, breaks must be repaired quickly. This repair produces a DNA patch or scar that can be identified and studied across species. The breaks are random and also is the DNA patch material. Thus, when we find the same breaks in some species with the same patch material we can be certain the only rational explanation is common descent or evolution from common ancestors. To further solidify this conclusion different repaired patches can be grouped across species into a phylogenetic tree that not only confirms evolution but replicates the same evolutionary conclusion using other independent lines of scientific inquiry and phylogenic trees. Newer DNA evidence such as the same DNA repair scars across species points to the same conclusion - evolution is true. This is another example, as is shared ERVs discussed on this site, that specific DNA findings support evolution in a spectacular way. The approach with DNA scars is similar to how we can use random retroviral inserts to show common ancestry via shared endogenous retroviral (ERV) findings. Acknowledgement I am grateful for the effort and time Dr. Finlay took to write an excellent review of newer DNA findings that dramatically confirm human evolution. His writing style is clear to the non-scientist and his conclusions supported by copious examples. As a theist, he should also be regarded as above reproach in terms of motivations. Highly recommended. The subject of DNA scars and the writing in this article are based solely on his book and not original to this author. Finlay, Graeme. 2013. Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies . Cambridge University Press. 359 pp. 283 pp. not including References and Index. Paperback edition. 2021 - ISBN 978-1-009-00525-8 Social sharing and Fair dealing applied per publisher's web instructions.

“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. On The Origin of Species A. How to use this section When interacting in dialog about evolution, there are major topics which deserve significant discussion. Many other topics are minor however and can probably be addressed with a short entry. This section is for those; a collection of items that often still make an appearance in debates by anti-evolutionists but can be addressed without needing a lengthy explanation. Many even are asked not to be used by a major Young Earth Creationist site. The best way to use this section is to just enter a topic of interest into the   Search Function  in the upper right. There is no particular order to the entries. B. Index By Title  11. Atheism & Communism Atheism not a religion       Cambrian Explosion (see blog here )  6. Coelacanth Fish       De Novo Genes  2. Dinosaur blood and soft tissue fossils 28 DNA is not a "code" 19. Earth at the center of the universe by cosmology? 18. Edward Blyth       ENCODE (see blog here ) Evolution - atheistic? 10. Evolution - just a theory 20. Evolution - not a religion 24. Evolution - not science? 19. Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning..." translated correctly?  9. Genomic Entropy 14. Incomplete Linkage Sorting 28. Information only from Intelligence      Junk DNA (see blog here ) 13. Love Explained Naturally? 17. Human-Chimp DNA Similarities  4. Human & Apes?  5. Humans Did Not Evolve From Monkeys     Orphan Genes (see blog here )      New Genes, New Information (see blog here ) 26. Human Population Growth and the Bible 25. Human Y chromosome not a problem for evolution 27. Mutations random?  8. Polonium Halos 16. "Polystrate" Fossil Trees  7. Punctuated Equilibrium  1. Second Law of Thermodynamics 15. Stegosaurus carving? "Third Way" - Shapiro, Noble, et al  3. Transitional Fossils C. Topics to Avoid   From the Young Earth Creationist   organization Answers In Genesis , is a page where they have determined that some topics should no longer be used by those advocating against evolution. https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/ Second Law of Thermodynamics The Fall Darwin’s Supposed Conversion If Humans evolved from apes, why do apes exist today? Have NASA computers proved Joshua’s long day? Was there no rain before the Flood?  God created things to “look old”. Didn’t Darwin call the evolution of the eye absurd? Didn’t a fishing boat find a dead plesiosaur? Women have more ribs than men Darwin’s deathbed conversion - a legend? Were giant skeletons found in the desert? That boat-shaped rock…is it Noah’s Ark? The “moondust” argument D. Anti-evolutionary Musings It is expected that this section may keep growing as more minor topics become aware to the site's author (often ones that were refuted years ago), where the main blogs and entries once written will not be significantly changed in the future. 1.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Claim:   The 2nd Law describes increasing disorder & entropy at every energy exchange. Evolution is fundamentally an increase in order and complexity. Thus it violates the Second Law. Response:  The 2nd Law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. The earth is not closed but is bathed in energy from the sun. For the same reason that a developing fetus is not violating the 2nd Law as it increases from a single celled zygote to a complex organism with trillions of specialized cells. The net energy/heat must be evaluated and evolution in no way violates that. Eventually the sun will die out and then evolution will stop on earth (yes, I know there won’t be an earth because of the way our star will die). If there could be a planet here after our sun’s death, the ultimate satisfaction of the 2nd Law and entropy increase will happen at this location. https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-thermodynamics-disprove-evolution 2. Dinosaur blood Claim:  Soft tissue has been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 60+ millions of years old. It is impossible that soft tissue would be preserved for that long, thus dinosaur fossils must only be a few thousands of years old. Response:  Scientists never imagined that any organic material could last millions of years in fossil specimens. One researcher decided to test that in 2005 and Mary Schweitzer shocked the scientific world with the finding of collagen in an intact T. rex specimen she reported in 2006. Fourteen years later scientists finally revealed what probably was occurring. An iron oxyhydroxide mineral was probably cross linking with the proteins producing a very stable organic compound which was protected by the dense mineralized bone around it. Evolution is not threatened at all by this finding. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748035/dinosaur-fossil-blood-proteins   https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11637   A 2023 published study looked at the two major hypotheses that explain how soft tissue could be fossilized for millions of years and determines that rather than being exclusionary, they both are probably part of the same process: " This review posits a chemical framework describing the persistence of biological “soft" tissues into deep time. The prior iron-mediated radical crosslinking and AGE/ALE mechanisms are re-described in context of established chemistry from a diversity of scientific fields. Significantly, this framework demonstrates the hypotheses presented by Schweitzer et al. (2014)  and Wiemann et al. (2018)  are, in many cases, subsequent steps of a single, unified reaction mechanism, and not separate hypotheses. Knowledge of the chemical mechanisms underlying vertebrate soft tissue preservation has direct implications for molecular archaeology and paleontology, including efforts at molecular sequence recovery within the ancient DNA and palaeoproteomic communities." A chemical framework for the preservation of fossil vertebrate cells and soft tissues. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223000569?via%3Dihub Dinosaur blood and so much more! 2019. Buchanan, Scott. More: Mary Schweitzer, PhD on creation. Radiometric dating. Great Review. https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/?fbclid=IwAR2r9A1n8DpdwXJXOWqYooCiDRYGOaR7rKiFww-MbgPMAW_KXeZtvOf0J3A Why radiocarbon gives erroneous dates on dinosaur bones https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-abstract/84/6/336/189896/Radiocarbon-in-Dinosaur-Bones-RevisitedProblems?redirectedFrom=fulltext More troubling is when a leading anti-evolutionist and apologist makes what should be a very embarrassing video about the discovery. Please watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9bo9tyTmC8   Soft tissues in fossil bones.  Extensive answer to creationists misconceptions. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2022/3739-soft-tissues-in-fossil-bone 3. Transitional Fossils Claim:  There are no transitional fossils. Because to an anti-evolutionist evolution cannot be true and thus there can’t be any. Response: There are scores of transitional fossils. Some like Tiktaalik  were first predicted and then found by looking in the appropriate aged rocks. These fossils show an intermediate state and characteristics between an ancestral trait and those of its later descendants. Indeed the 200+ whale fossil species can all be considered transitional. See part 2 of the evolution of the whale and fossils   presented here that actually shows hind limbs shrinking, blow holes migrating, intermediate whale fossils with teeth and baleen, etc. It is simply not true that there are no transitional fossils. There are plenty. Transitional Fossils: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm   Transitional Fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transitional_fossils   Darwin's fear of an incomplete fossil record was unjustified: "Now, a team of sedimentologists and stratigraphers from the Netherlands and the UK have examined how this incompleteness influences the reconstruction of evolutionary history . To their surprise, they found that the incompleteness itself is actually not such a big issue... The regularity of the gaps, rather than the incompleteness itself, is what determines the reconstruction of evolutionary history," explains Niklas Hohmann of Utrecht University's Faculty of Geosciences, who led the study. "If a lot of data is missing, but the gaps are regular, we could still reconstruct evolutionary history without major problems, but if the gaps get too long and irregular, results are strongly biased." https://phys.org/news/2024-08-darwin-unjustified-fossil-gaps-major.html "A common misconception of evolutionary biology is that it involves a search for “missing links” in the history of life. Relying on this misconception, antievolutionists present the supposed absence of transitional forms from the fossil record as evidence against evolution. Students of biology need to understand that evolution is a branching process, paleontologists do not expect to find “missing links,” and evolutionary research uses independent lines of evidence to test hypotheses and make conclusions about the history of life." https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0126-3 4. Humans & Apes Claim : Humans are not apes. Response : Sure they are. We are not plants, rocks or fungi; we are animals. And when looking at comparative DNA, anatomy, and physiology we resemble the great apes and are placed with them in taxonomy and classification. K. Animalia>:P. Chordata>C. Mammalia>O. Primates>F. Hominidae (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimps & Bonobos, and Humans). This generally has been the classification used in some form by science as early as 1758 by Linnaeus and especially by Gray in 1825. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy   5. Humans did not evolve from Monkeys Claim : We did not evolve from monkeys. If we did, why are there still monkeys? Response : Correct. We did not evolve from present day monkeys, but rather from a shared ancestor with them. The last ancestor we shared with chimps was about 6 million years ago as determined by DNA molecular clocks and fossils, although no fossil of this species has been found to date. The tropics rarely produce good fossilization due to the warm temperatures and degradation. In addition, we have human chromosome 2 fusion  which shows why we have 46 chromosomes and the other great apes 48. We were derived from Adam who was created from dust? Why is there still dust?  Matthew Bonnan, Malcomb Il. Middle school student evolution contestant. Florida. http://www.flascience.org/ss2010top10.html   6. Coelacanth fish Claim : Science claimed that this fish was extinct. It has been found and now is called a "living fossil". It did not evolve, which disproves evolution Response:   The coelacanth's deep sea habitat has been stable over millions of years, there was little predation and there probably were few evolutionary pressures to change. Scientists thought it was extinct since until that time only fossils had been found. In 2013 it was announced that its genome had been sequenced and it was indeed evolving, although slowly. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12027   https://phys.org/news/2021-02-fossil-coelacanth-evolved-dozens-genes.html?fbclid=IwAR2OOyDf5-A6kZPw6IRawCHNfsZ79cEGBo27uXrAyvOjog4aIHOwYJTLTHk   7. Punctuated Equilibrium Claim:   There are large gaps in the fossil record. Two famous paleontologists coined the term to describe this because the gaps are persisting. The gaps are there because evolution is not true. Response: In 1972 Eldridge and Gould suggested that the pattern often in the fossil record was not gradual change but long periods of stasis followed by relatively quick evolution, producing more of a step pattern and happening so quickly in geological time that gaps were normal. Since their publication many transitional fossils have been found. Most change in the fossil record is a mixture of stasis and gradualism. PE does not negate evolution at all. Even Darwin noted that rates of change would not be constant and probably varied between species. PE coexists with gradualism. https://www.quora.com/Is-punctuated-equilibrium-the-most-widely-accepted-plausible-theory-of-evolution   Hancock discusses why punctured equilibrium was eventually abandoned as a mechanism for explaining fossil record stasis. " Few concepts in the history of evolutionary biology are as misunderstood and misapplied as Gould and Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium. In this video, I explain what it meant originally, the claims that it made, and ultimately why it's rejected today." 8. Polonium Haloes Claim:  Discolorations sometimes occur in rocks due to radioactive decay of alpha particles producing a dark radioactive halo looking like tiny bathtub rings on cross section. Robert Gentry spent years studying them and since polonium decays with a short half life (1380 days), these decay haloes are evidence of a young earth that was created only thousands of years ago and the basement layer is Precambrian. Response:  Although it may still be incompletely explained, enough is known that Gentry's hypothesis of a young earth creation has been refuted by Thomas A Baillieul, and others. It's basically a God of the Gaps argument. "Gentry’s polonium halo hypothesis for a young earth fails, or is inconclusive for all tests. His samples are not from “primordial” pieces of the earth’s original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric halos in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. Finally, his hypothesis cannot contend with the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the earth. In the end, Gentry’s young-earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration halos, fails to generate a scientific model that is either internally consistent or consistent with generally accepted scientific understanding of geophysical processes and earth history."  [Polonium Halos Refuted] http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/baillieul.pdf   "First of all, the samples of biotite that contain Gentry's polonium halos came from pegmatite dikes and calcite vein dikes which cross-cut metamorphosed volcanic, sedimentary, and igneous rock units. The dikes are clearly the last to have formed, not the first. Second, these dikes are not the vast, extensive granite gneisses which Gentry claims are the backbone of the mountains and continents; they are relatively small features. Third, two of Gentry's sites are not even granites but calcite vein dikes, most likely of hydrothermal origin. The biotite was formed in the solid matrix by metamorphosis. And fourth, crystal size in igneous, vein, and metamorphic rocks ranges from microscopic to very large, is primarily due to cooling rates, and cannot be used to identify "created" rocks. So, the "basement rocks" in which Gentry found his halos turn out not to be "basement rocks" at all. In fact, they appear in rocks that formed much later than Earth's oldest rocks. This fact alone tells us that the rocks bearing Gentry's halos, even if instantly created, have no bearing on the origin and age of Earth.... Still, we must give Gentry his due. Nothing in geology fully explains the apparent occurrence of the polonium halos as described by Gentry. They do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. But this does not mean that no explanations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invoke the "god of the gaps." [Gentry's Tiny Mystery Unsupported by Geology] https://ncse.ngo/gentrys-tiny-mystery-unsupported-geology   9. "Genomic Entropy" . This is an argument developed by the creationist John C. Sanford PhD, a retired plant geneticist from Cornell University. A former atheist, he moved through Theistic Evolution to Old World Creationism eventually landing on Young Earth Creationism, a belief that rests on absurd claims like the universe and earth are less than 100,000 years old (his words), there was a global Noachian flood, an ark, a historical Adam/Eve and a "Fall", etc. He is a strong advocate of Intelligent Design, which is basically a religion and has been debunked, and even I list some examples in one of my blogs; Why not Intelligent Design?  . I think it fair to see what other beliefs people hold also. What other views accompany certain assertions that they make and how does this not impact on our ability to trust their claims? Disclaimer: I have not read his book, newest edition in 2014 at the time of this writing. The critical comments on Amazon regarding his book are telling. His basic argument is derived from population genetics modeling which is actually not his area of expertise. His background is in plant genetics as an applied geneticist, an inventor, and a good one. His basic premise is that the human genome collects so many mutations that are not removed by natural selection that if evolution were true we and other species would have degenerated into extinction long ago. He asserts that there have been no new functional genes since Adam and The Fall. Like Behe, he claims only degeneration in life in terms of structures and genomes. He dismisses beneficial mutations because they are too rare. He cites Kimera's Curve as a prediction for his conclusions. But Kimera himself disagrees with Sanford, claiming that any beneficial mutations would have a greater  effect rather than none ( Kimera, 1979 ). I don't know if Sanford is just looking at point mutations (it seems so) rather than segmental duplications and gene duplications which is how new genes are produced and has been documented - pointed out in this blog  - to the level that they basically prove evolution. Population geneticists working in the field don't find Sanford's claims or other similar creationist writings for genetic entropy convincing at all. For example: "If we, as a species, were simply constantly accumulating new mutations, then one would predict the gradual degradation of every aspect of fitness over time, not just intelligence. Indeed, life could simply not be sustained over evolutionary time in the face of such genetic entropy. Fortunately (for the species, although not for all individual members), natural selection is an attentive minder. Analyses of whole-genome sequences from large numbers of individuals demonstrate an ‘excess’ of rare or very rare mutations. That is, mutations that might otherwise be expected to be at higher frequency are observed only at low frequency. The strong inference is that selection is acting, extremely efficiently, on many mutations in the population to keep them at a very low frequency. One of the key misconceptions in the Crabtree articles is that mutations happen to ‘us’, as a species. His back-of-the-envelope calculations lead him to the following conclusions: ‘Every 20–50 generations we should sustain a mutation in one copy of one of our many ID [intellectual deficiency] genes. In the past 3000 years then (∼120 generations), each of us should have accumulated at the very least 2.5–6 mutations in ID genes’. The loose phrasing of these sentences reveals a fundamental underlying fallacy. ‘We’ have not sustained mutations in ‘our’ intellectual deficiency (ID) genes, and ‘each of us’ has not accumulated anything over the past 3000 years, having only existed for a fraction of that time. Mutations arise in individuals, not populations. Neither does it matter that there are many thousands of genes involved in the developmental systems that generate a well-functioning human brain; selection can very effectively act, in individuals, on new mutations that impair these systems." https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(12)00194-1   It also appears that if there is a lot of junk DNA in our genome, the mathematical modeling he uses breaks down if that is true. How we know our genome is mostly Junk DNA  is discussed here. To fully evaluate his assertions one needs to know about nearly neutral theory  and how it can avoid purifying natural selection to fix genes in a population via genetic drift. This approach emerges from molecular population genetics and mathematical modeling. Needless to say, we know evolution is true because of all the DNA evidence we have (see the blogs on this site). Since we and large animals have not all gone extinct, his modeling must be producing conclusions in error. No, the universe and earth are not 6,000 to 100,000 years old and there was no ark or global Flood a few thousand years ago. Women don't die every 2 minutes in childbirth around the world due to a curse brought on by a single woman eating a forbidden fruit offered by a talking snake plucked from a magical tree planted in a middle of a fantasy garden so she would not miss it a few thousand years ago. They die and suffer because of the evolution of bipedalism and a delayed developmental process especially in infants. Genetic Entropy is a real concept in population genetics and it's unfortunate that those writing opposing creationist claims conflate it with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy as used in physics. Unfortunately many biologists may not be knowledgeable in nearly neutral theory in population genetics. I certainly am not qualified to discuss it. What we need is an evolutionary molecular geneticist who can actually speak to Sanford's book and this highly mathematically and specialized topic. And there is one on the Internet. No, evolution is in no way threatened by genetic entropy. It is just another creationist fail, but this one is more complicated than most and is much more "sciencey". Genetic Entropy (Again) . Mutational load paradox and more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoVOXeuBzg   The Fatal Flaws of Genetic Entropy . Comment section instructive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2o_KC7sc98&t=1032s   10. Evolution is just a theory. When one reads this there are at least two issues. The first is that the person does not know what a scientific theory is and secondly there is an emphasis by the claimant of "just". Evolution is defined as the change in heritable characteristics (alleles at the DNA level) of a population through successive generations. This definition has been used in many branches of biology since the 1940s. Of course this is true - we can see it in lab experiments and also in the field directly. Evolution as it is used and studied by scientists and medical researchers is a fact. Yes,  evolutionary theory is critical to modern medicine. Secondly, the  Theory of Evolution  is just as well supported as the scientific theories of Germ, Cell, Gravity and Relativity. We speak of the fact of gravity and also Gravitational Theory. A scientific theory is a coherent group of tested general propositions and facts shown to be correct that can be used as principles of explanation and predictions for a class of observations. It explains "how"  we know the observations of evolution are true - the facts of evolution. Evolution has withstood 150 years of testing and  predictions. It can be falsified. In contrast, a scientific hypothesis is an educated guess  that needs testing. If we were to see smoke coming out of a internal combustion car, we could guess that it was a water leak (head gasket?) and not an oil leak by the color. Looking for the problem will confirm or rule out our  educated (we know something about car engines) guess. Saying I have "theory" about the cause is not using the term as scientists use "theory", a scientific theory. At best guessing the problem causing thick smoke to come out of a car is equivalent to a hypothesis and not a theory, even though that is how we may speak commonly. Who says evolution is both fact and a scientific theory?  Lots of qualified people! "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." ~ Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981   " Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." ~ Theodosius Dobzhansky. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology , 1983. " Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution." ~ Campbell, Biology  2nd ed. 1990. " A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." ~ Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology , 2nd Ed. 1986. Also - what is the difference between scientific facts, theories, laws and hypotheses in the context of evolution? https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z The Theory of Evolution is not "just" a theory . It is arguably the most important discovery made by humans. I argue for that assertion here because it affects so much of our lives - The Greatest Discovery. 11.  Atheism and Communism Claim: The official position of communist countries about religion is state sponsored atheism. Their ideology is inherently evil and thus atheism is evil and produces immoral and dysfunctional societies. Response: There are multiple errors with this claim. First, correlation does not equal causation. It's true that in communist countries state sponsored atheism is often supported. That however is often a means of the communistic leaders to control religious beliefs and all other aspects of its citizen's lives. Because Hitler wore a certain type of mustache, does every man who wears a mustache believe as Hitler did? Secondly, the problem with communist countries is not atheism but rather communism. Many of its leaders are despots and have a history of torture and killing (Stalin, Pol Pot). They did not kill in the name of atheism but rather for communism and themselves. They erected statues of themselves and basically forced worship of their leaders - which resembles a religion more than a secular society. There are no parades showing large "A" flags, no statures erected for Atheism alone. Thirdly, this confuses atheism with a worldview. It is not. Nor is it a religion. How do we know? Because different atheists have different worldviews. If atheism was a worldview that would not be possible. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God due to a lack of convincing evidence for the claim. It is not the belief that there is no God; that is a positive statement. A lack of belief can't be a belief. Compare the life of a compassionate scientist like Sagan and the evil immoral Stalin and Pol Pot. All are atheists. Does one really want to say they have the same worldview? Some atheists even have founded charities to help in disasters. Fourth, we can test the least religious and most atheistic societies in terms of human well being and flourishing. What do we see? The best places to live year after year are the most atheistic societies, countries and in America the least religious states. See the evidence here.  If one wished to compare a religious worldview with atheism, we need apples to apples and the worldview most adopted by atheists is secular humanism; that far outperforms religious worldviews - we have the evidence for that conclusion. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in theistic claims (God) due to a lack of good evidence for God assertions. It is provisional and subject to change if sound evidence is ever provided. A lack of belief can't be a belief no more than bald a hair color. 12. Evolution is atheistic Claim: If you accept evolution, macroevolution, that means you are an atheist. Evolution always leads to atheism. Response: Absolutely not. Evolution is a fact and theory that explains the origin of species. It makes no direct assertions about religions. In fact evolution is accepted by many believers. And this includes the Catholic Church and the Pope, leader of 1.2 billion Christians. Christian apologist evangelicals and scientists like Dennis Venema, Francis Collins, Joshua Swamidass, Denis Lamoureux and many, many others accept evolution because they realize how overwhelming the evidence is. This is called theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism (TE/EC). It is true that some religions and creationisms make assertions to history, science and reality that conflicts with evolution. For those working in cancer research, evolution for these believers is necessary for their oncology work . The main issue here in my opinion is that evolution appears to be naturalistic and materialistic. There appears to be no goals or planning. Natural selection sacrifices incredible numbers of offspring to get just a few replacement individuals into the next generation. Mutations to produce new genes are random. There have been 5 huge mass extinctions and over 99.9% of all species that have existed have gone extinct, some by rocks from space. Truthfully, what major creationist organizations attack is the apparent conclusion of many people looking at evolution, macroevolution, that it is all naturalistic and materialistic. No room for God. In addition, a close look at biology without cherry picking reveals no intelligent design . 13. What about love? Claim : Science can't explain love Response: Not only can science explain and study it, but also marvel in the joy of it and not diminish it. "Understanding how chocolate tastes good doesn't diminish how good it tastes." https://www.facebook.com/reel/1747651992368587 14. Incomplete Linkage Sorting (ILS) It turns out that when comparing genomes there are many exceptions to the clustering of random DNA changes from ERVs , segmental duplications , DNA repairs , transposon elements  (TEs) and pseudogenes . Normally thousands of these random DNA changes fit nicely into predicted phylogenetic evolutionary trees. As an example, TEs have been found to be inserted into gorillas and humans but not chimps. Doesn’t this invalidate using these markers for evolution? Not at all. What is going on is called  incomplete linkage sorting (ILS). Our genomes are made up of many different alleles, which are possible genes at a given location or locus. As an example, with the major blood group ABO, one can be OO, AO, BO, AB, AA or BB. Because we normally get one chromosome from each parent there are only two possible places for these specific multiple alleles. With the immune system for example there is an MHC complex where hundreds of possible alleles for a gene are available. Genes that have multiple possible alleles are called polymorphic. If speciation occurs rapidly relative to the time required for it to become fixed in a population (where all members have it), a new species may randomly lose particular genes just by chance and genetic drift when it splits off from the ancestor species. Anti-evolutionists made a big deal in 2012   after the gorilla genome was sequenced and it was found that up to 30% of the chimp, human and gorilla genomes showed incomplete linkage sorting (5). Considering that a particular critic of evolution is perhaps the leading creationist geneticist the attempt at obscuration and misrepresenting the findings was breathtaking. We’ve met Dr. Tomkins before in several other blogs on this site. See human chromosome 2 fusion   , pseudogenes , and especially comments by Dr. Zach Hancock.   Dr. Tomkins is arguably the most prolific Young Earth Creationist writer in terms of genetics. It seems lost on anti-evolutionists that ILS is expected, noted and actually was predicted from population genetics by Kingman in 1982 (*). Instead of bad news for evolution this apparent anomaly in phylogenetic analysis actually supports evolution due to calculations, and the real apparent problem is why a top creationist apologist in genetics seems to have left his PhD back at his granting institution. For an explanation of ISL - it’s not easy to understand - see an article at The Panda’s Thumb  and Freethought Blogs   (7). One of the best insights possible into erroneous anti-evolution claims is drilling down on their arguments to expose fallacies, often committed by omission. * - see also discussion here:   Understanding Incomplete Linkage Sorting. https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/2w42at/understanding_incomplete_lineage_sorting/# 15 . A Stegosaurus carving? Young Earth Creationist claim. "Atheists say that Christians are the ones who deny evidence. But time and time again, atheists will deny this excellent and absolutely solid piece of evidence against their dogmatic religion of atheism. They have to have millions of years because without it, their worldview will collapse. They don't want the Bible to be true, so they go with humans and dinosaurs being separate by millions of years. However, we have this archeological discovery where ancient people carved a Stegosaurus. Don't tell me how the anatomy is wrong, because what if it's just the artist's interpretation?" FB: Evolution and Creationism Open Debate. 11/29/2023 "This time it’s the silly “ Stegosaurus at Ta Prohm ” rumor. This myth has been popularized by young earth creationists*, who’ve argued that one particular small carving on a doorway at Ta Prohm depicts a Stegosaurus. Never mind that the entire temple is covered with carvings of fantastic and mythical creatures, this one carving is evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. The carving is found within a series of other carvings depicting non-mythological creatures, such as monkeys, deer, birds, and water buffalo, and other scenes... So, what we would have in this doorway is a series of carvings of wild animals (with the exception of a domesticated water buffalo) that are frequently found in the forests of Cambodia. Maybe it’s a lizard, or a rhino, or a pangolin. But it is not a dinosaur." https://alisonincambodia.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/that-is-not-a-stegosaurus/?fbclid=IwAR3PvW-XKJl4S-0oxcJYI7j92gqiqkGjreiLDSfGxmwTHwQHtxcEgZQnZW0   More like the local rhinos with added decorations. This confirmation bias and motivated reasoning overload is common among YECs. 16. "Polystrate" Trees To the anti-evolutionist, this is a "gotcha" for evolution. Fossil trees that supposedly span millions of years, thus completely disproving evolution in their view. Note that this is an argument put forward mainly by Young Earth Creationists. A simple Google of "polystrate" trees will show how popular these are in YEC circles, and YouTubes will demonstrate how gleeful they are that these findings supposedly are perfectly explained by a global flood and supposedly disprove evolution. Ancient in situ   lycopsid , probably Sigillaria , with attached stigmarian roots . Specimen is from the Joggins Formation ( Pennsylvanian ), Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia. From: Michael C. Rygel via Wikimedia Commons These fossil upright trees have been found in several places around the world. The term polystrate is not a recognized term in geology; it's a term coined by Young Earth Creationists. They explain them as a product of a global catastrophic Flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago. What is the truth about them, and more importantly how do we know? What are the creationist PhDs not telling us? Lying by omission is still lying. These are actually formed by rare and infrequent localized flooding. The fact that they only occur in certain areas is a clue to what really happened. An 11 minute video by Erika details the main points that disprove this creationist claim. Below is her summary. 1. Polystrate is not an accepted geological term  because they don't span millions of years of strata 2. The fossils show root growth  after partial burial. Impossible for the creationist explanation in seawater but perfectly understandable by geology 3. Some of the upright fossil trees show regenerative growth  - they were growing after their partial repeated burials as the trees tried to recover 4. We can see this type of repeated local flooding and partial burial of trees today  in certain areas. The areas in the fossils and today show repeated sedimentary flooding partially burying the trees. The trees respond by growth until the next flooding and that continues through cycles. 5. Thus, when examining ALL the applicable evidence, these upright tree fossils actually disprove young earth creationism and are wonderfully explained by evolution and geology. Please watch this 11 minute video because she SHOWS the evidence that fits evolution and actually disproves them supporting a global flood. And she's entertaining! Perhaps the best 11 minutes you could spend today. A good summary from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil 17 . Human and chimp genomic similarities How similar are chimp and human genomes? Well, it depends on what one is comparing and how. Recall that we have 25,000 genes. The protein coding genes make up about 20,000 and there are another possible 5,000 genes that code for RNA products that have functions with regulation for example but do not directly produce protein products. Enzymes that control just about everything are the main proteins produced. The genes that don’t produce proteins are called “non-coding”. Our genome contains about 3 billion pairs of ATCG letters but only a few million of those compose genes. For example, when a gene sequence is read to make a messenger RNA, many areas of the initial mRNA sections are cut out and thrown away and the active parts of the mRNA are then fused together for the final instructions to go to the ribosomal protein “factories”. The initial mRNA needs to be processed and refined before being sent to the ribosomes. The active areas in the mRNA are called exons and the sections that are nearly always thrown away and degraded are called introns . About 30% of our genome is made up of these introns which are a type of junk DNA. So, what we include in our chimp - human comparison matters. Do we just include the active genes which tend to be conserved in evolution (little changed over time and between species) or do we include introns or even parts of the chromosomes that have been inserted and deleted, called indels ? It turns out that if we compare those 20,000 protein coding genes between humans and chimps the ATCG exact base sequences are 99% identical between us and chimps. If we include all the insertions and deletions, changes in the genome due to movements of genetic material and that no longer align between the two species, we are still 96% exactly the same as chimpanzees (1, 2). What then makes us different from chimps? We think it’s largely how and when those genes are turned on and off. And those regulatory genes are in the other parts of the genome. For example, if you want to make a bigger more complex brain, you keep those shared genes between chimps and humans active in embryological and fetal development turned on longer. That is an oversimplification but that is the general idea of how we can have 99% the same exact protein coding genes and yet have important phenotypic differences between humans and chimps. In April, 2025 a research study was published that showed humans and chimps on the DNA level are 85% identical (6). Why the lower amount? One of the challenges with sequencing some genomes is the abundant repeats. The basic method is to break the DNA apart and compare segments to look for alignments. Earlier machines would use some fragments that were often about 300 base pairs. The problem is that some areas of the genome have long stretches of DNA that are repeated with hundreds or thousands of repeats, and so using short segments won't work. This is especially found in telomeres at the tips of chromosomes and in the centromeres that serve as attachment points for when cells are duplicating and pulling apart. It's not widely known that the earlier press announcements that the human genome had "finally" been sequenced were really drafts. In 2003 the sequencing was only 92% complete. In 2022 scientists announced a T2T (telomere to telomere) final sequencing; it had taken 20 years to sequence that final 8%. The 2025 group used segments for alignment that were hundreds of thousands of segments long allowing them to sequence and compare the large repeat areas of the two species. They completed a nucleotide - nucleotide comparison. But in segments that long, there will be many repeats, deletions and insertions that are minor issues producing non-alignments. If one counts alignments, how do you handle repeats for example? With humans and chimps the identical alignment in the 2025 study showed 90% identical for the whole genome. But should you count repeats as one alignment or more? For example, is ATTACG counted as one and ATTACGATTACG... counted as one or more than one? If you count the ATTACG only once and ignore all the repeats this is called an Identical 1:1 alignment and the percentage comparison between humans and chimps drops to 85% depending on how you count insertions, deletions and repeats. The telomere repeat is TTAGGG. The centromere repeat is called an alpha-satellite DNA and is 171 base pairs long. There are also higher order repeats (HORs) of multiple monomers and other repeats. How you count repeats, deletions and insertions will change your final number when calculating genome comparisons. But humans don't have the same number of repeats. For example, some people have more copies of the amylase gene making them more efficient at digesting carbohydrates and probably have more resistance to diabetes. The repeated areas of the telomeres for example don't match between persons. Neither do the centromeres. Indeed, two human genomes compared on an 1:1 identical sequence in the 2025 Yoo et. al study showed that humans were about 87% identical between individuals using their technique and data. Recall that the H-C comparison using the CHM13 genome was 85%. The GRCh38 human genome compared to the T2T-CHM13 human genome was 87% identical. (86.96%). Thus, the fact that H-C genome similarity using a nucleotide-nucleotide alignment produces an 85% match and that a H-H genome comparisons produces an 87% identical alignment should put the numbers in perspective. Chimps are as closely aligned to humans as humans are to other humans. This is best explained by evolution. From:   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08816-3 Anti-evolutionist attacks on the percentages Since these similarities are best explained by evolution and evolution deniers presuppose and assert that humans were created separately from all the other great apes, there has been a concerted effort to lower the observed DNA similarity percentages between us and chimps/bonobos. For example, Tomkins in 2013 wrote an article claiming that the real similarity between chimps and humans was only 70%; all the other scientists except his small fringe group that thinks the universe is only about 6,000 years old are purposely misleading with the findings (3). Notice that Tomkins did not publish in an established peer reviewed scientific journal where his assumptions could be evaluated. Novella showed in 2015 that Tomkins’ attempt was not credible: " So how does Tomkins come up with 70% . Well, he is not comparing point mutations of aligned segments. He is comparing chromosomes to see how many segments line up to some arbitrary amount.  As many others have already pointed out , this result is not wrong, it’s just irrelevant. Well, it might also be wrong. Others have found it  difficult to reproduce his results . But even if his analysis is accurate, it is simply the wrong analysis to apply to dating the last common ancestor.  To explain the problem further, he is applying mutation rates for point mutations (changing a single base pair) to other types of mutations, like gene duplications or insertions, that might change thousands or millions of base pairs with a single mutation. He is essentially treating a single mutation that results in the insertion of 10,000 base pairs into the genome as if it were 10,000 separate mutations of single base pairs.” (4) Another creationist article cited Luskin in an attempt to throw doubts on the figures scientists have produced and confirmed. They also attempt to mock scientific findings that show common descent and human evolution (5). Humans and chimps are 99% or 96% or 85% exactly the same depending on which parts of the genome are compared. These figures are sound, confirmed and most consistent with evolution.  Brief summary: 1. Humans and chimps/bonobos are 99% the same in the protein coding genes 2. H-C are 96% the same if SNPs and indels are included for the whole genomes. Tigers and house cats are 95% the same using the same method. One can't claim a "cat kind" based on DNA and then turn around and say humans and chimps by DNA are not the same "kind". 3. H-C are 85% the same for nucleotide-nucleotide alignments due to repeats and mutations. H-H are 87% the same when raw whole genomes nucleotide-nucleotide are aligned. Basically the same as H-C using the same methodology. 4. No matter what method is used, when all the ape genomes (humans are apes) are compared it always produces a phylogenetic tree that confirms the fossil record of nested human evolution. Also using millions of shared random DNA changes to original genomes that match to exact homologous chromosomal location and ATCG letter sequences also confirms the same human evolutionary tree. See The Demise of Evolutionary Objections  by newer DNA findings Literature Cited. 1. https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level 2.   https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128 3.  https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol7/iss1/33/ 4. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/chimp-and-human-dna/ 5.   https://breakpoint.org/of-primates-and-percentages-no-humans-arent-99-chimp/ 6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08816-3 https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2025/07/human_and_chimpanzee.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawLjYiVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHnlaI3XJ5i_9ekuOh1ed8aQBpESj1fCv_ey75dZTQrJjKk44lNkdukusCfZC_aem_wuU4lQ5cJ9jM1WaZMHMpew 18. What about Edward Blyth? "One of the tactics that creationists use to cast doubt on evolution is to suggest that Darwin undeservedly received the credit for the theory of natural selection and misappropriated the idea from the work of other scientists (see for example http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ ). This claim is as false as the “science” of creationism itself.As  any student of science and history knows, new discoveries in science seldom emerge from a single source. Many of the advancements of science occur when new knowledge, derived from a variety of sources, is blended together to form new theories. Credit for scientific discovery is often a messy business and this was certainly the case with Darwin. Contrary to Looy’s claim, natural selection was first described not by Blyth (or Darwin for that matter), but by the ancient Greek philosophers Empedocles and Aristotle in the third and fourth centuries BCE. Many scientists and philosophers in the centuries that followed contributed to the understanding of the adaptation of species due to environmental and competition pressures: al-Jahith, Harvey, Paley, Linnaeus, Buffon, Mathus, Lamarck, and Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, to name a few (see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_index_01 ). Blyth contributed to the pool of knowledge with his insightful observations of bird species (specifically the birds of India) and his analysis of selective breeding practices of domesticated animals in a series of articles in The Magazine of Natural History  from 1835 to 1837." https://ncse.ngo/edward-blyth-creationist-or-just-another-misinterpreted-scientist Even the biologist and creationist Dr. Todd Wood notes in his article that Darwin did not plagiarize natural selection. There is no Darwin Conspiracy: https://answersresearchjournal.org/no-darwin-conspiracy/ 19. Is Earth really at the Center of the Universe? Claim: Cosmological observations (Cosmic Background Radiation, for example) indicates we are at the center of the universe. This supports a Biblical worldview of Genesis 1:1 Response : First, yes it does appear that way. But it’s an illusion because anywhere in the universe will look to an observer that they are the center of the universe. Most creationists who think they have a Genesis gotcha appeal to two sources. The most common referenced quote is from Lawrence Krauss in 2006: “That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.” The Energy of Empty Space That is Not Zero Another quote often put forward is from Hubble in his 1937 book: “…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position Here of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” No, we are not the center of the universe. There are many sources that will clarify that the creationist is not understanding what the science is nor what the context of their quotes are. A quick Google search will turn up many: “ This does not mean, however, that we are at the centre of the Universe; it just means that we are at the centre of our observable Universe. A fundamental principle in our understanding of the Universe itself, called the Cosmological Principle, states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scales. That means that on the whole, the Universe as seen from any vantage point (even one that is 15 billion light-years away from us!) will measure a spherical observable Universe with a radius of 15 billion light-years.” https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/z8ukqg/the_earth_appears_to_be_the_center_of_the_universe/ And: “In summary, the data received by WMAP and Planck shows that we are the center of the universe. However, there is no evidence to suggest that we are literally at the center of the universe. Multiple other stellar systems and galaxies are seen to be aligned around us, but there is no apparent pattern that suggests we are at the center.”“We are the exact center of the OBSERVABLE universe. That's purely because we observe things with light, we can see in all directions at most 13.6 billion years because time started then and light didn't exist before it. So we exist in one location, what does one location extruded in all directions the same distance produce? A perfect sphere with the original point at the center. It makes no difference what's beyond that, you are by definition the center of the observable universe because observation in local.” https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-cmb-data-showing-that-we-are-the-center-of-the-universe.829178/ Krauss has also made comments about how his quotes have been taken out of context and used in a film promoting of all things - geocentrism!: https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/lawrence-krauss-on-ending-up-in-the-geocentrism-documentary-the-principle.html In summary to the first point, the creationists are quoting these scientists out of context. Of course they don’t believe there is any evidence that we are at the center of the universe. Just like it appears that the earth is flat, immobile and the sun is rotating around us is not true. It  only appears that way. This link also has a good short discussion of how to property interpret the CMB findings instead of projecting a religious presupposition onto the data: https://www.quora.com/Since-we-have-the-distance-in-light-years-to-the-CMB-can-we-find-the-center-of-the-universe No, Genesis 1:1 does not say the universe was created from nothing Now to the second point. The Hebrew interpretation of Genesis 1:1 has been most commonly translated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” . This would indicate an ex nihilo creation from nothing at a single point in time. But Hebrew scholars the past decades have noted that Gen 1:1 can’t be taken by itself but must be understood in the context of all three first verses, and if properly interpreted Genesis is not talking about creation out of nothing. “First, as many modern Hebraists have noted, Genesis 1:1 opens with a temporal clause. The precise meaning of its first word, bere’shît, is literally “in the beginning of.” This is a complex grammatical topic, but simplified, the way in which the first word has come to be vocalized, indeed the first letter, bet, implies that grammatically the word is in the construct state, that is a noun which is followed by another noun. A literal translation is “in the beginning of.” And this is exactly what we find as the proper understanding of bere’shît when this same word appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. So, for example, the Hebrew of Jeremiah 27:1, bere’shît mamelekhet yihôyaqim, is properly rendered: “In the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim.” But the grammatical problem in Genesis 1:1 is that bere’shît is not followed by a noun but rather a verb-subject pair: bere’shît bara’ ’elohîm. Thus a literal rendering of the first three words of Genesis 1:1 is impossible: “In the beginning of God created.” Thus many modern translations have sought to capture the temporal aspect in the opening word of the book of Genesis by rendering the Hebrew: “In the beginning of God’s creating…” or “In the beginning when God created…” or even “When God began to create…” “Despite strong traditional and often authoritative interpretative claims that were formed centuries after this ancient text was written and devoid of knowledge about its historical and literary context, the opening of Genesis 1 does not depict a creatio ex nihilo, that is a creation out of nothing. The Hebrew text is clear on this point… Rather, what the text of Genesis 1:2 informs us is that when God began to create, earth in some manner of speaking already existed as a desolate, formless, empty waste—tohû wabohû in Hebrew, literally “desolation and waste”—in the midst of a dark surging watery abyss (tehôm). https://contradictionsinthebible.com/genesis-1-not-a-creatio-ex-nihilo/ A Hebrew Scholar in this 10 min video demonstrates the best interpretation: https://fb.watch/rSAGA6fC9s/ 20. No, Evolution is not a Religion First, what do we mean most of the time by religion ?  One can apply a literary device of the term that may be clever but loses it’s main meaning, such as saying golf or football are someone’s “religion”. But that is not how people view what it means to be religious most of the time.  Some definitions of religion include: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion”.  ~ Oxford Dictionary “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices” “the service and worship of God or the supernatural” “commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” ~ Merriam-Webster "By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life"    ~ James George Frazer, (The Golden Bough). "[Religion is] the belief in Spiritual Beings"  (Edward B Tylor, Primitive Culture) Secondly, what do scientists mean when they use the term evolution, especially since the 1940s?  It is the change in allele (gene) frequencies in a population through generations. As mutations occur and natural selection and other mechanisms filter out some genes over others, in successive populations the proportion of certain genes in successive populations will change. This is discussed in more detail  here: evolution  . We thus see evolution every day - in the field, the lab, and even in the hospital through for example antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations. Third and perhaps most important because it falsifies this claim that evolution can be a religion is the fact that evolution is accepted by thousands of scientists who do  have different religious views. There are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist scientists who accept evolution due to the overwhelming evidence for it. Most have mutually exclusive religious beliefs or they lack belief. Lastly, religion forms the foundation of many worldviews. One way to know evolution is neither a religion nor a worldview is to note how easy it is to find scientists with totally opposed worldviews who share an affirmation that evolution is true. From the Pope to Richard Dawkins. To the evangelical debater and philosopher William Lane Craig to the late Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris. For example the atheists Stalin and Pol Pot killed and murdered for the ideology of communism (see more # 11 this blog page) and not atheism. There are many atheists that are kind and compassionate, even some that have founded charities to help those struggling in life. Evolution is just the finding of how, from where, what and when species arose on our planet. It can’t be a religion because it is the study of the natural, not the supernatural and people who have mutually exclusive religious beliefs can agree,. accept, and work together with this grand scientific theory.  21. No, Atheism is not a religion First, what is   atheism ? The word gives us an important clue. The prefix “a” in English means “not or without” . Properly defined by scholars of atheism and the word itself, atheism is simply the lack of belief in God due to a lack of evidence. It is not a positive assertion that there are no Gods anymore than bald is a hair color. There are no creeds, no systematic practices that all atheists share, no atheist bible or sacred book, no centralized beliefs. A lack of belief can’t be a belief. Secondly, what do we mean most of the time by religion ? One can apply a literary device of the term that may be clever but loses it’s main meaning, such as saying golf or football are someone’s “religion”. But that’s not how people view what it means to be religious most of the time.  Some definitions of religion include: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. ideas about the relationship between science and religion”.  ~ Oxford Dictionary “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”“the service and worship of God or the supernatural”“commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” ~ Merriam-Webster "By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life"   ~ James George Frazer, (The Golden Bough). "[Religion is] the belief in Spiritual Beings"  (Edward B Tylor, Primitive Culture) Atheism does not fit any of the common definitions for a religion that involves the supernatural and the practices of a religion.  Third, religion forms the foundation of many worldviews. One way to know atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview is to note how easy it is to find atheists with totally opposite worldviews. For example the atheists Stalin and Pol Pot killed and murdered for the ideology of communism and yet there are many atheists that are kind and compassionate, even some that have founded charities to help those struggling in life. They killed in the name of communism not atheism. See # 11, the blog page you are on currently. Worldviews are a way of living one’s life, deriving purpose, meaning and ethics. Therefore, atheism can’t be a religion. It does not fit the most common definitions of a religion. There is no central creed or beliefs that atheists practice. There is no belief in the supernatural. Lastly, different atheists follow different ethics and behaviors; there is no foundational or central assertions, just the lack of belief in a deity due to a lack of convincing evidence for the theistic claim.  23. Shapiro, Noble Show That Darwinism Is In Deep Trouble? ("Third Way") Claim:  Many secular biologists are showing that Darwinian evolution is in trouble. There was a meeting and symposium in England even that was held to detail many of the problems and inadequacies. Response: No, Neo-Darwinism is alive and well. First, note that Shapiro, Noble and few others are supporters of evolution fully. They don't think the mechanism of Dawin is sufficient. Please understand that the Theory of Evolution is not Darwinism. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution per his book title: "On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection..."  Are there other mechanisms? Sure, such as Lateral Gene Transfer, Endosymbiosis, Genetic Drift and Nearly Neutral Theory especially important at the DNA level. Natural Selection is alive and well and stronger than ever but even IF it was discarded we'd still have all the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Evolution is a fact (see above number 10). Now what is telling is despite these Third Way scientists', as they call themselves, books and publications no scientists besides themselves, creationists and Intelligent Design believers take them seriously. For those who think the scientists of the Third Way are onto something special about evolutionary theory, to be fair they must read critical specific reviews about their assertions from well respected evolutionary biologists and biochemists also. A. Denis Noble: The illusions of Denis Noble https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-illusions-of-denis-noble.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1n5lUWCDxhcjXhdunxkPd00OHHplhFpmNqk3-fnoG70G2OAsW2wtdhMVA_aem_h7EYdHJgdVkPvNEdZrAGNg Famous physiologist embarasses himself https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/08/25/famous-physiologist-embarrasses-himself-by-claiming-that-the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0749R_AtsJChC3tOmrWAKbjnaxIVGmpabpBHSzG_7lPFozQYWiQxbptDk_aem_V-HrJYgyeRtKZoLCVbFrfg B. James Shapiro The illusions of James Shapiro https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-illusions-of-james-shapiro.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mjYVDrIfZuSE7-9aYmLSG89z3avMwDMiHElLJtxp_wb73NYMHTDH01AA_aem_ZSgjawGNKJuDZCL3Liky3Q James Shapiro gets evolution wrong again https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/12/02/james-shapiro-gets-evolution-wrong-again/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR37uFPAekLxKjM9ngQh0cU-RqyPXAzUunHxBO0bg6GrGknoZ7ZPWVx8Yns_aem_LcZnEvtBdWUYYvQNGYD8MA C. The illusions of both https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2021/05/more-illusionsdelusions-of-james.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2HpeS39tTNc7E7POdZvBpFxV-M-mFQoEcO5CbxCMmGz4ZvhTPHh-TKQKE_aem_SWf7Vsj28SqO5WLBv4eIVQ " " The title [of the book Moran is reviewing] is ridiculous since no respectable scientist ever equated selfish DNA with junk DNA... The Modern Synthesis (MS) was not based on a "gene-centric" view. For the past 50 years, no respectable scientist, and no knowledgeable expert in molecular evolution, has restricted the definition of "gene" to just protein-coding genes. For the past 50 years, no expert in molecular evolution has ever thought that the genome is just a collection of protein-coding genes. For the past 50 years, experts in molecular biology have known about transposons and have considered the view that some of them might be "controlling elements." They have concluded that most transposon-related sequences are just fragments of defective transposons with no biological function. Nobody cares whether mobile genetic elements fit within the narrow confines of the Modern Synthesis as described by Huxley and other in the 1940s because no expert in molecular evolution has believed in that view of evolution since the late 1960s. The Britten and Kohne paper established that the genomes of most multicellular eukaryotes contain large amounts of repetitive DNA. This was an attempt to resolve the C-value paradox. Britten and Kohne didn't like the idea that this could be junk DNA so they offered some speculation about function. However, further data established that most of this repetitive DNA is, indeed, junk and Britten and Kohn's speculations have been discredited. Britten and Kohn were attempting to interpret their result within the context of the adaptationist views that characterized the the Modern Synthesis back then. The correct interpretation of their results came with the overthrow of the Modern Synthesis and the adoption of a new view of evolutionary theory that focused on Neutral Theory, Nearly-Neural Theory, and the importance of random genetic drift. Shapiro and Noble missed that revolution so they continue to attack an old-fashioned strawman version of evolutionary theory." 24. Evolution is not science (not) Claim:  Evolution is not science, it is a belief most often supported by atheists who treat it like a religion Response:  Of course evolution is science. One of the key aspects of scientific theories is falsifiability, that a theory or hypothesis can be falsified and the theory of evolution makes predictions for testing and could easily be falsified.  An important distinction needs to be made between the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution has been defined in different ways but one common definition has been in use since at least the 1940s. It is the change in allele frequency of a population through generations. Alleles are different possible genes that can exist at a specific location on the DNA. And we can see this every day in the lab, field and hospital - for example with antibiotic resistance. Therefore, evolution by definition in science is a fact. How and why that occurs is the Theory of Evolution which explains these changes. The Theory of Evolution is open to updates and modification but the fact of evolution will never be negated. Thus, evolution and the Theory of Evolution are similar to gravity and the Theory of Gravity, germs and Germ Theory, cells and Cell theory, and relativity and Relativity Theory. For more discussion about evolution defined see the blog here. Since the Theory of Evolution is definitely scientific, what are some ways it could be falsified and rejected? A Google AI generated answer lists a few falsifiable tests: Fossil record inconsistency: If fossils showed no progression of species from simple to complex, or if species appeared suddenly without evolutionary ancestors, it would significantly challenge the theory of evolution. [anti-evolutionists are left with trying to show cave art supposedly showing dinosaurs, dinosaur footprints that they falsely claim are found alongside human footprints but can never show actual true fossils out of place, etc. See “polystrate trees” this blog   Number 16 . ] Mutation limitations: If scientists discovered a mechanism that consistently prevents beneficial mutations from being passed onto future generations, it would undermine the foundation of evolutionary change. [many anti-evolutionists claim there are no mutations that are beneficial or that species formation only occurs through degradation of existing genes (Behe e.g.). See New genes here  and note that most of your genome is Junk, and a discussion of ENCODE ] Spontaneous Generation: Observing the creation of a complex life form directly from non-living matter would contradict the current understanding of evolution. [rather than gradual changes or abiogenesis involving a stepwise formation of complexity] Jerry Coyne listed his favorite ways to falsify the Theory of Evolution: "1. Fossils in the wrong place  (e.g., mammals in the Devonian). If the fossil record were all out of order like this (a single anomalous fossil might not overturn everything, of course, since it could be in the wrong place for other reasons), we’d have to seriously question the occurrence of evolution. 2. Adaptations in one species good  only  for a second species.   There are plenty of adaptations in species that are good for other species, but also help members of the first species: these are the basis of mutualisms. (Cleaner fish, for example, remove parasites and dead tissue from other marine fish, but thereby gain a meal.) But we don’t expect to see—and don’t see—adaptations in one species that evolved solely for the benefit of another species. 3. A general lack of genetic variation in species.   Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn’t evolve.  However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I’m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species. 4. Adaptations that could not have evolved by a step-by-step process of ever-increasing fitness. This is of course the contention of advocates of Intelligent Design like Michael Behe. But adaptations like the flagellum, which Behe and other IDers cite as features that couldn’t have arisen by a step-by-step process of increasing adaptation, have been shown to plausibly arise by just that process.  We don’t need to completely reconstruct the evolution of things like flagella, but simply show that their evolution by a stepwise adaptive process was plausible. 5. The observation that most adaptations of individuals are inimical for individuals  or their genes but good for populations/species.  Such adaptations aren’t expected to evolve often because they would require the inefficient process of group or species selection rather than genic, individual, or kin selection.  And indeed, we see very few features of organisms that seem inimical to organisms or their genes but useful for the population or species. One possible exception is sexual reproduction.  6. Evolved “true” altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals.  What I mean by “true” altruistic behavior is the observation of an individual sacrificing its reproductive output for the benefit of individuals to which it is either unrelated or from whom it does not expect to receive return benefits.  In this “true” altruism your genes give benefits to others and get nothing back, and this shouldn’t evolve under natural selection. And, indeed, we don’t see such altruism in nature. There are reports that vampire bats regurgitate blood to other individuals in the colony to whom they’re unrelated, but those need confirmation, and there may also be reciprocal altruism, so that individuals regurgitate blood to those from whom, one day, they expect a return meal. Such cooperation can evolve by normal natural selection. 7. Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA . While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer—rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon.  So, for example, if we sequenced the genome of a blue whale and found that on the whole the species was more closely related to fish than to mammals, we’d have a serious problem for the theory of evolution. We don’t see any of these anomalies, and so the theory of evolution is on solid ground. As I say in my book, “Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That’s as close to a scientific truth as we can get.” https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/ Summary Evolution, as defined in science is a fact. Even creationists and anti-evolutionists must admit to “microevolution” producing billions of species. “Macroevolution” is mostly a forensics science; we know it is true because of the overwhelming evidence from geology, paleontology, biogeography, DNA (see ERVs this site  e.g.), population genetics, and so many other independent scientific fields. Equally important it has passed 150 years of testing and is Popperian falsifiable. Unlike the fact of evolution, how and why it happened constitutes the Theory of Evolution. Indeed because it affects so many parts of our lives it is perhaps the greatest discovery by mankind. As Dennett has stated: "Let me lay my cards on the table. If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of even Newton or Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. It is not just a wonderful idea. It is a dangerous idea. ”  ~ Daniel Dennett, PhD Philosophy. In:  Darwin's Dangerous Idea I agree also and write that in my opinion the  Theory of Evolution is the greatest discovery . 25. The Human Y chromosome disproves evolution, specifically human evolution ( not) Claim  - evolution states that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. The fact that the chimp Y chromosome markedly differs from the human Y disproves evolution. Response  - the male chimp, our very close relative, has a Y chromosome that is indeed markedly different from the human male Y. This initially confused evolutionary biologists and the answer was not uncovered for many years. This is no longer an issue and has been resolved. Humans and chimps share 99% of the exact same DNA in the protein coding genes. Even when all the DNA is compared with junk DNA, insertions and deletions, the total only drops to 96%. See number 17,  in the blog here . So it was unexpected that when the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans were compared they were extremely different. A 2010 Nature article stated: “As the earlier studies had suggested, many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human. Page's team found that the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. The remainder of the chimp and human genomes are thought to differ in gene number by less than 1%. Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome. Even the portions that do line up have undergone erratic relocation.”  https://www.nature.com/articles/463149a Rather than a problem for evolution, after the human Y chromosome was more closely evaluated and the other great ape Y chromosomes were compared to chimps the reasons why human and chimp Y chromosomes were so divergent compared to the rest of their genomes became apparent. For example, chimp females mate with many males whereas humans usually mate with one or a few females. In addition, the Y chromosome of humans and gorillas are more similar than between humans and chimps. Something therefore was unique about chimp Y chromosomes. Does this not disprove human evolution? No, the answer then was revealed as sperm competition in the genus  Pan (chimps and bonobos). Cechova et al wrote in 2020: Analyzing this dataset, we found that the genus Pan, which includes chimpanzee and bonobo, experienced accelerated substitution rates. Pan also exhibited elevated gene death rates. These observations are consistent with high levels of sperm competition in Pan. Furthermore, we inferred that the great ape common ancestor already possessed multicopy sequences homologous to most human and chimpanzee palindromes. Nonetheless, each species also acquired distinct ampliconic sequences. We also detected increased chromatin contacts between and within palindromes (from Hi-C data), likely facilitating gene conversion and structural rearrangements. Our results highlight the dynamic mode of Y chromosome evolution and open avenues for studies of male-specific dispersal in endangered great ape species.” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001749117 In addition to sperm competition, the Y chromosome cannot undergo genetic recombination with the X chromosome so any beneficial mutations are passed on directly, contributing to rapid evolution. The chimp Y chromosome has lost many genes present in the human Y chromosome, suggesting that the human Y chromosome is closer to the ancestral form. Lastly, the structure of the Y chromosomes differ between chimps and humans besides gene content suggesting significant evolutionary changes (Google AI). Gutsick Gibbon discusses the Y chromosome early controversy and how anti-evolutionists have evidently not kept up with the science. In addition how could an argument of the male Y chromosome disproving evolution stand up to the question of human males not evolving but human females without a Y chromosome evolving by their chromosomes matching with chimps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLTl5KjESA The Y chromosome differences between human and Pan are fully explained and support evolution rather produce a problem for evolution. Does human population growth prove/fit the Bible? YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbJPfrXFOUo FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1106296540919430 27. Are Mutations Random? What does random mean? Mutation Bias? Random but uneven distribution. Mutational bias, although present, do not hinder the fundamental understanding of evolution. More:Mutation Rates slow in a plant - essential genes (Stated Casually) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLGam7Lx1Z4 Are mutations really random? (Stated Casually) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXXH71rQRKo&t=0s Information only comes from Intelligence? DNA is a code? A short video looking at the claim that information can't arise without an intelligent agent. Also: " In modern biology, we tend to think of information as flowing from genes to the world, Crick’s ‘Central Dogma’: DNA as a kind of internal map or software that gets executed. But early replicators didn’t begin as messengers—they were more like imprints. Their structure, behaviour, and persistence were dictated by the external conditions they were embedded in. In this light, the earliest biological ‘information’ flowed from the environment to the replicator. The environment didn’t just “influence” replicators—it effectively sculpted them. Replicators that matched the energy landscape persisted; those that didn’t fell apart. What we call “genetic information” may be better understood as a condensed memory of successful interactions with the environment. That memory isn’t symbolic—it’s thermodynamic. Replicators that persisted were those that could harness energy gradients in stable, reproducible ways. In this sense, DNA is less like software and more like a fossilised energy pattern. Jeremy England’s  demonstration that systems evolve toward states that dissipate energy more effectively seems to me to be a good indicator that early replicators were following this constraint. The Code Metaphor Isn’t useless, but It’s Limiting. Although the order of bases functions as a kind of mapping system—A means “this,” T means “that",this interpretive layer depends on a complex translation apparatus (tRNAs, ribosomes, enzymes) that didn’t exist at life’s origin. The code isn’t inherent to DNA—it’s context-dependent, shaped by co-evolved molecular machinery. Without the cell, DNA is inert. The code is in the system, not the strand. Instead of thinking of early replicators as codes or blueprints, we might think of them as thermodynamic witnesses—molecular forms that managed to persist in a sea of chaos, not because they “knew” how, but because they fit the flow of energy in their surroundings. They didn’t store information so much as embody it. Of course 4 billion years on we are confronted with a complicated enclosed molecular system that from our perspective looks like a set of instructions akin to a program. But essentially it’s still chemicals doing what chemicals do in thermodynamic systems that are maintained far from equilibrium. The string of bases in DNA is still meaningless until something inherent in the environment is relevant. If life began not with instructions but with interactions—if information emerged from the way matter flowed and settled under energy constraints—then maybe the metaphor we need isn’t “code,” but "resonance". The genome isn’t a script—it’s a survivor of a thermodynamic past." From: The Misleading Power of the "Genetic Code" Metaphor https:// stevebowen58.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-misleading-power-of-genetic-code.html?sc=1745254904979#c66165529229159133 "Dennis Becker. FB 09/14/2025 DNA differs from a computer program because it is a physical chemical molecule, not abstract information; its "code" is not binary but a four-letter alphabet (A, T, G, C) that forms non-binary "codons"; its evolution is driven by random mutations and natural selection, unlike the designed changes in software; it lacks a singular, purpose-driven blueprint, instead containing instructions that interact with a dynamic environment and the cell's machinery to produce proteins, which are not depicted in the DNA sequence itself; and it is far more complex and volatile, with only a fraction of its material used for making proteins, unlike the vast majority of a computer program's structure". To be continued, most likely as I become familiar with further popular anti-evolutionist arguments.

"Thus we have seen that the "Cambrian explosion" is a myth. It is better described as the Cambrian slow fuse. It takes from 600 to 520 million years ago before the typical Cambrian fauna of large shelly organisms (especially trilobites) finally develops." Donald Prothero, Part II. Evolution? The Fossils Say Yes! From:  Evolution - what the fossils say and why it matters.  2nd ed. 2017. The Anti-evolutionist Claim : Complex forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian layer with few or no precursors. This is not predicted by evolution and fits best with a creation event. For most Young Earth Creationists, it represents the basal layer of a Global Flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago. Answers In Genesis gives an exact year: “Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.” (3).    For Progressive Creationism ( Reasons To Believe , an Old Earth Creationism group) it is interpreted as an early creation event millions of years ago to be followed by many cycles of extinctions and new creation events through thousands of feet of sedimentary rock. In addition, anti-evolutionists note many of the Cambrian fossils are unique and do not persist above the Cambrian.  A senior member of the Intelligent Design Discovery Institute , Stephen Meyer, has practically made a career of promoting the Cambrian Explosion as supposedly disproving evolution. Since creationists believe the only alternative to evolution is some type of creationism, many creationists don’t feel the need to propose, discuss, or test a specific and falsifiable alternative to evolution. For Meyer and others, it’s a one and done paleontological rug pulled out from evolution if the Cambrian indicates flora and fauna suddenly appearing. But does complex life suddenly appear in the Cambrian with no evidence of precursors? Introduction The geological record around the Cambrian is noted below. The Cambrian Period is the first and oldest layer of the Paleozoic Era as one ascends towards our time. Logically enough, the Era before the Paleozoic is called the Precambrian and is composed especially for this discussion of a Period immediately before the Cambrian called the Ediacaran.  From: https://www.fossilicious.com/blog/geologic-time-reference-chart/ Used by permission. Fair use educational purpose Persons exposed to anti-evolutionist material about the Cambrian may get the impression that life and certainly complex life just appeared suddenly in the Cambrian. That is not the case. The Cambrian Period spans a period of about 538 mya to 495 mya but fossils are known to science that show life going back to 3.5 billion years in the form of cyanobacteria from the Archaea rocks of western Australia. These are microfossils (1).  So life did not appear in the Cambrian. The oldest rocks on the planet are 3.8 billion years old; the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Life did not wait too long to get started but for about 2 billion years life on earth consisted only of single celled organisms, called prokaryotes. “ There are hundreds of microfossil sites around the world. Everywhere we look in rocks between 3.5 billion years old and about 1.75 billion years old, we see nothing more complicated than prokaryotes and stromatolites. The first fossil cells that are large enough to have been eukaryotes do not appear until 1.75 billion years ago, and multicellular life does not appear until 600 million years ago (2)”. We know we can even trace our eukaryotic lineage into deep time due to our mitochondria, a result of endosymbiosis (see short blog on  mothers and mitochondria ). So life did not first appear in the Cambrian.  The Cambrian is now divided into Early, Middle and Late. Traditionally, the Cambrian was marked by the appearance of the trilobites, but now we know these forms occur at the end of the Early time and other fossils preceded them in the Cambrian. The Cambrian “explosion” was a fast evolutionary diversification event that occurred over about 20 million years in the last part of the Early section of the Cambrian. As will be discussed later, other relatively fast evolution examples have been noted before in the fossil record - times of quick diversification geologically. The Ediacaran Period  This is the time just before the Cambrian and it contains a weird assortment of flora and fauna. Nearly all are soft bodied organisms without skeletons. “ These impressions have reminded some paleontologists of the impressions made by sea jellies, worms, soft corals, and other nonskeletonized organisms. Over 2,000 specimens are known, usually placed in about 30 - 40 genera and about 50 - 70 species, so they were relatively diverse.”  (2). Some are very different from today’s species. Other paleontologists suggest they are unique because they lack modern patterns and may represent early failed experiments in multicellularity. The Ediacaran fossils are known from soft sea floor bottoms only and few important features are present. Thus, where they fit into classifications is controversial. They are definitely multicellular but paleontologists are not sure even what kingdom to place them into or even if they represent a new kingdom (2).  Scientists have calculated molecular clock estimates for the divergence times of the major invertebrate groups and these figures indicate that major branching points go back as far as 800 - 900 million years ago well into the pre-Cambrian times (4, 2). This means that advanced multicellular life (without fossilizable skeletons) were present on the earth 600 million and even 900 million years ago - at least 50 million years before the Cambrian. The Ediacaran fauna represents the next logical stage bridging single celled life to the appearance of soft bodied life.  Early Cambrian Stages The fossil record indicates it took 3 billion years for life to develop the ability to mineralize shells which is what we finally see in the early Cambrian stages. When they did develop mineralization it was calcium phosphate, the mineral that makes up bones, and not calcium carbonate that most of today’s marine invertebrates utilize. Prothero writes about what followed after the Ediacaran: for almost 25 million years many tiny phosphorous fossil shells (a few millimeters only) were abundant in the earliest stages of the Cambrian. The Nemakit-Daldynian and Tommotian stages from 520 - 545 mya. revealed that some looked like coiled mollusks, some like primitive clams, and others like tubular forms or even like miniature jacks. The earliest sponges had already appeared in the Ediacaran, and sponges have always been considered to be the most primitive animals we have today. By the Tommotian stage 530 million years ago larger fossil invertebrates appear such as the brachiopods. Abundant burrowing can now be seen indicating a true internal cavity or coelom. Thus, the earliest Cambrian shows evidence of a gradual increase in diversity from the Vendian, but no “explosion”  (2). Another author notes:  “…the Cambrian explosion does not document the “sudden appearance” of all animal phyla. A significant number of animal phyla are already present prior to the explosion. It is simply that we remain unsure of their exact classification precisely because they are so different from living animals.” (4) Later Cambrian Stages The third stage is known as the Atdabanian stage and there is a significant development of diversity found. Much of it is the genera of trilobites. “Most of the other animal phyla had already appeared by this time (including mollusks, sponges, corals, echinoderms) or would appear later in the Cambrian (vertebrates) or even in the Ordovician Period that followed (e.g., the “moss animals or bryozoans)… Then in the Middle Cambrian we have the extraordinary soft-bodied preservation of fossils…Some are still complete mysteries to zoologists, not fitting into any living phylum. Others are apparently soft-shelled arthropods.” (2) Summary 1. What “exploded” in the Cambrian? When fossils were first found in this period it was mostly just the hard shelled trilobites - lots of them. They and other mineralized fossils seemed to appear suddenly without precursors. They were fairly complex multicellular organisms. But that is an old and early observation. The early Cambrian has 25 million years of small shelled animals before the arrival of the larger forms. The fossils of the Ediacara have since been discovered and it’s obvious that there was a gradual increase in diversity from the Ediacaran stages to and through the Cambrian.  Many feel that the appearance of so many new forms in the Cambrian was more a function of an “End-Ediacaran" mass extinction that happened before the Cambrian. “This implies that the "explosion" did not represent animals "replacing" the incumbent organisms, and pushing them gradually to extinction; rather, the data are more consistent with a radiation of animals to fill in vacant niches, left empty as an extinction cleared out the pre-existing fauna” (8) 2. The Cambrian “Explosion” was just a fast diversification event, an adaptive radiation period. We know that this has happened in other parts of the fossil record such as the 10 - 15 million years of whale evolution, (see the actual overwhelming evidence for whale evolution  in 3 relatively short videos here) and the mere 10 million years from the Cretaceous-Paleocene extinction that produced all our different orders of birds. The “explosion” is basically a myth and hold-over from early observations and catchy titles. As in the Big Bang; it was really not an explosion either.  3. Although the Cambrian diversification event (“explosion”) is normally stated to have occurred over a 10 - 20 million span, if we include the precursors in the Ediacaran to the large shelly organisms in the Tommotian, like the trilobites, we are really looking at 80 million years (2). In addition it follows a series of logical stages from simple and small to larger and more complex mineralized forms. The development of more complex life from 600 to 540 mya is hardly an “explosion”.  “The theory of evolution has no issue with the Cambrian explosion, as the explosion spans such an extraordinary long period of time.” (5) 4. The tiny fossils found in the early stages of the Cambrian and span 25 million years are nicknamed the “little shellies” because they are so small and so abundant. Their shells are calcium phosphate instead of calcium carbonate like our marine invertebrates today. This is not a killer argument against evolution. Some scientists think this could have resulted from an environmental condition such as low oxygen at the time. This is a gap in our knowledge and gaps are by definition lacking information - which is different than finding actual evidence that disproves something. Despite the denial by Intelligent Design advocates, the movement is centered around a well known logical fallacy involving trying to use gaps which by definition are lacking in evidence as evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 5. What about all the Cambrian forms that are extinct? Is not that a problem for evolution since many did not end up being precursors to the later fossils and today’s species? This is probably a misunderstanding of classification. “Many of these ‘extinct phyla’ from the Cambrian were really part of the arthropod phylum. Some are clearly brachiopods, and some were mollusks. Although these animals are anomalous when compared to today's SPECIES, they really are not anomalous when compared to today’s PHYLA.” (6)  6. All major life groups did not appear at the Cambrian. It was not a “creation” event for life on earth.  Biologos notes: “The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record. The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong. For example, vertebrates are part of the Chordata group. The chordates are characterized by a nerve cord, gill pouches and a support rod called the notochord. In the Cambrian fauna, we first see fossils of soft-bodied creatures with these characteristics. However, the living groups of vertebrates appeared much later. It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans.” (7) Conclusion Thus, the Cambrian did not represent the sudden appearance of many major groups that are present today. It does not support Young Earth Creationist and Intelligent Design claims that life as we know it appeared suddenly in the Cambrian, but rather a proper examination of what came before, during, and after the Cambrian supports instead evolution. A very thorough evaluation of the amazing discoveries in the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossils including challenges in interpreting them can be found in Budd's 2013 review (9). Nothing in the Cambrian discounts evolution at all: "Together with a remarkable growth in knowledge about the environments that these early animals lived in, these discoveries have long exerted a fascination and strong influence on views on the origins of animals, and indeed, the nature of evolution itself. Attention is now shifting to the period of time just before animals become common, at the base of the Cambrian and in the preceding Ediacaran Period. Remarkable though the Burgess Shale deposits have been, a substantial gap still exists in our knowledge of the earliest animals. Nevertheless, the fossils from this most remarkable period of evolutionary history continue to exert a strong influence on many aspects of animal evolution, not least recent theories about developmental evolution." (9) An early simile for Intelligent Design was that finding a watch implied a watchmaker. The Cambrian explosion has been thought by anti-evolutionists as a good example against evolution. However, a close review demonstrates that it instead fully supports evolution albeit with much that remains unknown. As if often the case when discussing anti-evolution claims, it is vital to ask what is being withheld from the conversation. Note below the Cambrian in context. From: https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-explosion .  Cambrian Explosion; paleontology. Fair use claimed; educational purpose. This article is a good brief review of the Cambrian. Research is revealing some of the environmental changes that drove diversification in the Cambrian. Mobility evolved which encouraged predation and defensive evolution. https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2024/sea-level-changes-shaped-early-life-on-earth-fossi https://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2024/08/refuting-creationism-what-caused.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawEbHBBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWGjiZv4SpfzOhyIU1Lyi2t-X7-nBOt_GCkcYZTzrhhdj5FJG-X-C9EWdA_aem_zgCwhlL11DFMFZcuqhq0CA Literature Cited 1.Cyanobacteria Fossil Record. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html#:~:text=The%20oldest%20known%20fossils%2C%20in,the%20easiest%20microfossils%20to%20recognize . 2. Prothero, Donald R. 2017. Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press. 2nd ed. New York. 427 pp. 3. Timeline for the Flood https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ 4. Why “Sudden Appearance” Is Not as It Appears https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0165-9 5. Doesn't the sudden appearance of all the "modern groups" of animals during the Cambrian explosion prove creationism? (Hassan Lahiri)  https://www.quora.com/Doesnt-the-sudden-appearance-of-all-the-modern-groups-of-animals-during-the-Cambrian-explosion-prove-creationism 6. How Would You Explain the Cambrian Explosion? (David Rosen) https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Cambrian-Explosion 7. Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-the-cambrian-explosion-pose-a-challenge-to-evolution 8. Doesn’t the sudden appearance of all the “modern groups” of animals during the Cambrian explosion prove creationism? (Paul Lucas) https://www.quora.com/Doesnt-the-sudden-appearance-of-all-the-modern-groups-of-animals-during-the-Cambrian-explosion-prove-creationism 9. At the Origin of Animals: The Revolutionary Cambrian Fossil Record https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3861885/

“Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things” ~ Francis Collins, MD, PhD. 4/6/2007, CNN "The new DNA evidence has a very important role beyond illuminating the process of evolution. It could be decisive in the ongoing struggle over the teaching of evolution in schools and the acceptance of evolution in society at large. It is beyond ironic to ask juries to rely on human genetic variation and DNA evidence in determining the life and liberty of suspects, but to neglect or to undermine the teaching of the basic principles upon which such evidence, and all of biology, is founded." ~ Sean B Carroll, PhD. "The Making Of The Fittest: DNA And The Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution". Introduction What if I told you that there have been some DNA discoveries that will end any further rational objections to evolution from evolution deniers or doubters? What if this DNA evidence is so sound and robust that it is just what people have wanted who have difficulty accepting evolution? That it involves human evolution and bypasses discussions and moves us to "macroevolution" since it involves humans and the other great apes? What if I told you that when I have presented this to people they have in general failed to understand it because most get lost in the terminology and miss a very simple common theme that underlies all the major categories that address these DNA findings and observations? And that failure may fall to me. Once understood, evolution critics have been unable to discount this evidence supporting evolution. Objections are dismissed when examined closely. Before the DNA findings are introduced by including links below to the blogs, I want to hammer home the central simple concept of all the DNA findings discussed. I will assume that people understand that evolution occurs in populations and not individuals and is change over time ( what is evolution? ). How this happens is through various mechanisms like natural selection, endosymbiosis, horizontal gene transfer and others and the how is not vital for knowing that evolution did happen due to fantastic DNA findings (see why "what" is first and "how" is often optional ). What will be presented is DNA evidence that rises to the level of proof for "macroevolution", which in most cases is a forensic science and of course is accepted in courts of law to be definitive. DNA paternity testing for example. Yes, "proof" technically is reserved for areas of mathematics and philosophy but in science sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming and sound that to deny a conclusion is perverse. Though technically science deals only in provisional conclusions, some scientific theories like Gravity and Evolution are so well supported and tested with predictions that they can be revised but will never be overturned. Origins: common design vs. common ancestry You are a detective at a crime scene involving a shooting and there is a bullet recovered. If you want to connect it to another crime involving a shooting and think it's from someone using the same rifle you can compare the bullets side by side from different crime scenes. A rifle will scratch them exiting the rifle and if the scratches match you KNOW the origin is the same rifle. Forensic ballistics science tried and true. This one rifle thus must be a common source for the bullets found at different sites. Intel purposely puts error code in its chips (personal communication, B.D). If someone steals its design and claims it's just due to similar design restraints and functions they will loose in court to Intel because no one would find and use the same random errors. The competitor chip maker must have copied Intel's. They have a common origin - at Intel. Textbook publishers purposely put errors in for the same reason Intel purposely puts error code in its chips. And in the case of textbooks there is case law that plagiarism took place and the competitor was found guilty. The identical wording in the two textbooks were not developed independently due to similar research and writing but rather due to plagiarism. If independent origins were true they would not contain the same errors. They both share the same origin because they both have the same errors. The copy is not original. How good is DNA evidence? Fantastically good! Paternity testing is nearly 100% accurate. It basically settles cases. We did not need to observe the conception. What about forensics? Same here also. DNA evidence is so important in the courts that they rely on it extensively if available. Even if a crime was not witnessed or recorded , if in context a person's DNA places them at the scene and they claim that they never met the person and was never there, they are usually in deep trouble in the investigation. DNA testing can tell us the genealogy of Egyptian mummies ( were you there? - didn't need to be ), the identity of crime victims, and of course DNA testing was definitive in solving the Russian Romanov Czar family death controversy. Many crime victims have been found guilty involving erroneous eyewitness testimony and are now having their sentences reversed based on DNA evidence. Chapters of the Innocence Project are widespread in the USA working to get innocent people out of prison. It is disingenuous for evolution deniers to accept the DNA methods and evidence important for solving crimes and for accurate truth searching while rejecting the same source of evidence for species origins just because it disproves and exposes their presuppositions. The Concept When the genomes of different species have been sequenced we can compare the letters that make up the DNA - the ATCG sequences - often billions of letters long. It turns out that most genomes are very active and have been changed often in the past. They end up having parts duplicated, some sections deleted, and some sections spliced out and then inverted when put back in. Breaks are frequent and quickly repaired. Viral parasitic infections in our ancestors repeatedly have inserted their viral DNA into ours (how often are you ill with "viruses" per year, although most of those don't insert into your DNA?). Some genes get mutated and no longer work and are called pseudogenes. These changes are by far random. If we find the same random marks or changes to DNA that are SHARED between species we know that these random changes MUST have occurred before the species split. The odds of having the same random changes occur at thousands of the same homologous locations between species with the same DNA fingerprint base changes independently is mathematically impossible. There is no other rational explanation. Just like the same marks on two bullets means they came from the same rifle and must point to a common origin (rifle), the shared DNA changes must prove a common origin (ancestor) for our analysis. That's the basic observation and conclusion that must be reached. Notice this line of evidence is independent of how similar the bases are, how much DNA the species have in common, how complicated DNA is, where the DNA originally came from, or how the first cell evolved, etc. The DNA from two species or more are just compared for shared random DNA changes . These changes are not original to the DNA. We know this especially because this is how cancer develops starting with one random mutation (two people with the same leukemia type for example have different random mutations) after another producing a nested Russian doll type pattern we can follow backwards to tell accurately the history of the cancer. Two Christians cancer researchers are strong supporters of common ancestry because of their cancer work (Finlay and Swamidass; and of course Collins although his research was not directly in cancer). Structure of the DNA blog entries 1. Discussion and unpacking of the issue 2. A few examples of the hundreds possible 3. Most often how these shared changes nest in evolutionary phylogenetic trees adding another level of proof of common ancestry and evolution 4. Most blogs also have a section on common evolution objections and why they fail and can be dismissed. This often makes the blog longer than it may need be if someone is just interested in how the DNA findings rise to the level of proof of macroevolution. But many reading this will be interested in finding answers to family or friends who are challenging evolution. I really have nearly all objections discussed and dismissed. Really! The advantage of reviewing objections and why they fail is because this will often produce a great window into how purposeful omissions and motivated reasoning reveals their presuppositional beliefs. Scientists in the hundreds of thousands in multiple independent scientific and medical fields accept and work successfully with evolution daily. 5. Multiple links or other embedded teaching items are important to understand the concepts and are included to help with the concepts and details. I have tried to keep them to a minimum. Links can also point the reader to original sources to fact check the blog. And of course those arguing against the DNA discoveries for evolution may wish to spend extra time on the information I provide. We are in another Galileo Moment for anti-evolutionists when it comes to these amazing DNA discoveries supporting evolution. The blogs are best viewed on a computer and not on a cell phone. Here they are; the major DNA findings that rise to proof of evolution The easiest one to read is probably #1 DNA repairs. The most in depth because of the need to address many objections by evolution deniers is #4, ERVs. The blogs will also discuss how we know what we assert for evolution evidence is true. 1. Shared DNA breaks and repairs . DNA breaks frequently in random locations. The repair system grabs whatever DNA is nearby to patch them. This results in random breaks and unique patches/repairs producing a type of one-of-a-kind DNA "scar" by location and uniqueness. If you find hundreds of these exact same numerous scars between two species it must be common ancestry. In addition, comparing the "scar repairs" across many species that are closely related allows us to use DNA to confirm what the paleontologists have asserted. These patterns produce evolutionary trees adding yet another level of proof of evolution. Only a few of hundreds of examples detailed in Finlay's book are presented. 2. Shared segmental duplications . Whole chunks of chromosomes/DNA are often duplicated. This happens in plants where they have even duplicated their entire genomes. If we find these same random duplications of the DNA in the same homologous locations between two or more species we know it had to have happened before the species split. In addition, comparing these same shared duplicated DNA segments and genes across many species that are closely related allows us to use DNA to confirm and test what paleontologists have asserted. These patterns produce evolutionary trees adding yet another level of proof of evolution. 3. Pseudogenes and shared pseudogenes . Our genome contains thousands of disabled genes, knocked out by mutations. They are molecular fossils. When we find thousands of disabled genes that are shared between species and often have the identical mutations it is only rationally explained by the gene being mutated before the species split. In addition, comparing these same shared dead genes across many species often with the same disabling mutations that are closely related allow us to use DNA to confirm what paleontologists have asserted. These patterns produce evolutionary trees adding yet another level of proof of evolution. 4. Shared ERVs between species . This is probably the most in-depth discussion, primarily because so much has been written by evolution deniers to try and dismiss it. Therefore there is more discussion supplied to show why these objections are negated. Basically, there is a group of viruses that insert their DNA into host DNA and use the host machinery to make new parasitic viruses. The most recognizable example is HIV, the cause of AIDS if not treated. We know this retrovirus well and all retroviruses have the same gene types, life cycle, and footprint. They insert randomly to locus. After a retrovirus collects mutations it becomes unable to reproduce and is called an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) because it's inert and fixed in the host population. Most of the ERVs are so degraded only a part is left, called an LTR. These LTRs are still functional however and the host uses them to promote replication of it's own DNA products. Sort of like using old wood from a barn to decorate in a new home. We find many ERVs in the same locations between closely related species and many even have the same mutations that disabled them. Between chimps and humans alone there are 200,000 shared ERVs. They originally came from parasitic retroviruses; we know this for many reasons discussed in the blog. The only rational explanation since they insert randomly and are found in the same locations between species is they had to have inserted before the species split and thus shared a common ancestor between the species. In addition, comparing these same shared ERVs across many species at the same locations that are related allows us to use DNA to confirm what the paleontologists have asserted through fossil evidence. These patterns produce evolutionary trees adding yet another level of proof of evolution. 5. Shared transposable elements between species . Our genome and those of many other species contain thousands of genes that are mobile. These are called transposons or jumping genes. One type, the retrotransposon Alu  element is only found in primates. TEs have jumped around genomes for millions of years and insert randomly into genomes. Thus, we can compare genomes from different species and if we find hundreds of the same TEs that match not only in location but also in length and mutations we can be certain that they must have inserted into a common ancestor before the species split. There is no other rational conclusion. In addition, like other DNA findings that rise to the level of evolutionary proof, these also can be nested into phylogenetic evolutionary trees confirming common ancestry, often going into the deep past. Other DNA findings for evolution These are not as strong evolution evidence because they technically can still be accommodated by anti-evolutionists, although they are better explained by evolution. 1. Human Chromosome 2 Fusion . Humans have 46 chromosomes (DNA condensed into small packets like luggage so they can be moved around easily when the cell divides). The other great apes have 48. Since we evolved from shared ancestors with them where did the "extra" DNA go? It wasn't lost, it just got repackaged. Turns out we shared an ancestor with chimps about 6 - 7 million years ago and after breaking off from them what were ancestral chromosomes 12 and 13 got stuck end to end to form our longer #2 chromosome. This is called a Robertsonian Translocation and is not uncommon. Even now 1:1,000 people have 45 instead of 46 chromosomes because of fusions of other chromosomes. All the DNA is there; the only problem is when they want to have children. The 45 and 46 chromosomes can't line up properly. We have fantastic evidence that this fusion happened and it's not the first time in our history that there were chromosomal fissions and fusions. One could still argue that a Great Designer after making chimps, gorillas and orangutans created humans that way for some reason. Possible, but that does not fit well with all the other DNA findings. It's definitely a fusion. 2. Junk DNA. This is controversial even with evolutionary biologists and molecular biochemists. Although a minority position currently, the evidence that most of our genome is junk DNA is so strong that it can't be ignored. To many scientists and especially creationists there is predicted to be little or no junk DNA. But we find 50% - 90% is junk, consistent with millions of years of evolution involving mutations that knock out genes, parasitic viral infections and DNA that jumps around and makes copies of itself (ALUs for example). Also important will be to address and understand why an influential study called ENCODE has conclusions that are wrong or misleading. Conclusion This blog introduces the reader to the major categories of comparative DNA findings between closely related species showing shared changes that rises to the level of proof of evolution, "macroevolution." Several examples are discussed as analogies for how common origins can be determined and common design ruled out. This is how the DNA findings can be viewed also. They are shared random changes to the DNA of species, and different types are discussed including shared ERVs, pseudogenes, segmental duplications, and DNA emergency repairs with unique patches. In all cases the DNA marks are random. Since we find thousands shared DNA marks between certain species the only rational explanation is that these random shared changes must have occurred in a common ancestor before the species split. Equally important, the various shared DNA changes can be nested in hundreds of evolutionary phylogenetic trees confirming paleontology. If evolution were not true, this could not be constructed. In addition to discussing the major categories of DNA evidence for evolution, much discussion in most of the blogs involves addressing potential objections and why they are disproven. This also can be very revealing to establish motivated reasoning and omission of important facts possibly by intent that would falsify the objections.

What do women have in common with termites? "We are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts. We are shared, rented, occupied. At the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria, and in a strict sense they are not ours." ~ Lewis Thomas "Over the long term, symbiosis is more useful than parasitism. More fun, too. Ask any mitochondria." ~ Larry Wall Introduction When examining how we know that evolution is true many people may not realize that evidence is abundant within us. It’s not just evidence from the fossil record. Several examples were detailed in my post on unintelligent design , and how our DNA also greatly supports human evolution is discussed in the sections on shared ERVs and human chromosome 2 fusion . As you may remember from biology, we need to replace millions of cells per day. When a cell divides it produces a new cell and passes its instructions to the daughter cell by duplicating the DNA instructions in its nucleus before dividing. These instructions will be used to make the organelles in the new cell such as the Gogli apparatus, cell membrane, vacuoles, nucleus, lysosomes, etc. There is one organelle however that is not made this way. It actually has it’s own DNA, different from the nuclear DNA. These are the mitochondria of nearly all eukaryotic cells. Also known as the powerhouses of the cells, they produce the ATP that is used to supply the energy currency to just about everything the cell does. Some cells, like red blood cells, do not have any to save space for carrying oxygen by hemoglobin whereas other cells like muscle cells have thousands per cell. A few eukaryotes are lacking mitochondria. They obtain their energy through anaerobic pathways - reactions that don’t use oxygen. Examples include intestinal parasites such as Giardia lambda , Entamoeba histolytica and Trichomans tenax. It is unclear if they lost their mitochondria or if they are descendants before mitochondria were acquired (1). More on this in the next section. How We Know Mitochondria Previously Were Bacteria As biologists studied these organelles, they noted that unlike all the other cellular organelles, they were unique. > They were about the size of bacteria. > They have two distinct membranes. > The deep folds on the inner mitochondrial membrane resemble the folds called mesosomes found in prokaryotic cells like bacteria. > Mitochondria have their own DNA, only 37 genes, and the DNA is in a circular form like bacteria, unlike the cell’s DNA in the nucleus (2). > The mitochondrial genes are very similar to bacterial genes like those found in Rickettsia.   > Of their 1,000 proteins, 40% of the mitochondria are bacterial. > When they reproduce they do so by fission end to end like bacteria do instead of being made by the cell through mitosis. > They have unique ribosomes, the structures that assemble amino acids to make proteins. Theirs resemble bacterial ones, 70S rather than eukaryotic ones > They have a phospholipid in their inner membrane called cardiolipin found in no other part of the cell but common in bacteria > Genome comparisons show mitochondria are closely related to the alphaproteobacteria > Their transport proteins in their outer membranes, porins, are found also in bacterial cell membranes > Lastly, they can be affected by antibiotics, which are used to control or eliminate bacterial infections. All of these characteristics and the DNA findings especially eventually convinced scientists that mitochondria were once free living bacteria that were captured somehow by our very distant past ancestors. How scientists were finally convinced involves a researcher named Lynn Margulis and that is also an interesting story itself. This theory, that mitochondria were once free living bacteria that came to set up shop and become adapted in eukaryotic cells, is called the endosymbiotic or symbiogenesis theory and is credited to her. Fossil evidence supports that this swallowing of a bacteria by another prokaryote without killing it probably happened about 2.4 billion years, giving rise eventually to the present condition of mitochondria powering eukaryotic cells (3). A similar capture probably occurred with chloroplasts in plants since they have the same bacterial characteristics discussed above and closely match cyanobacteria. Termites, Moms, and Mitochondria It turns out termites that eat wood for food ( xylophagia ) actually cannot digest wood themselves (4). Although there is one group of termite species that do have the ability to make cellulase, many cannot. These species must use gut bacteria to do it for them. Just like we can’t make vitamin K but rely on our gut bacteria to do it for us since our diets don’t supply enough. In the case of these wood eating insects, the adults pass the needed bacteria orally to newborn offspring to establish the gut bacteria they will need to digest and live off wood as food. In humans, we only inherit mitochondria from our mothers. She passes on all the mitochondria we will inherit and must do this since we depend on mitochondria to reproduce themselves. Any paternal mitochondria that the sperm carries into the egg at fertilization is destroyed by the maternal egg enzymes, and some studies show the paternal mitochondria of the sperm may also auto-destruct after the sperm enters the egg (6). So like termites, we are dependent on our mothers (or sisters with termites) when it comes to having bacteria in order to live. Our mothers must “seed” our original zygote cell with former bacteria in order for us to survive. How could it have happened? A recent study shows how phagocytosis (engulfing to eat) in one or more single celled organisms experienced eventually may have led to endosymbiosis. https://www.quantamagazine.org/ancient-genes-for-symbiosis-hint-at-mitochondrias-origins-20220426/ Conclusion The origin of mitochondria is another story that is best understood from evolution (5). This theory is most commonly known as the endosymbiotic theory for mitochondria and chloroplast origins. This is another example of how understanding evolution gives us a “why” of life. Evolution is vital even to medicine since we can now understand why mitochondrial diseases are only passed from mother to child and not from the father. Evolution is vital for a complete understanding in medicine. This topic is discussed further at my blog on Evolutionary Medicine. Addendum (4/2023) - New forms of cellular symbiosis found consistent with endosymbiosis. A new form of symbiosis has been discovered. A bacterium supplies unicellular ciliates with energy, but from nitrogen. The bacterium has not co-evolved long enough to loose its independence like what happened with mitochondria. https://www.mpg.de/16524858/new-form-of-symbiosis-discovered Single celled alga found with evidence of seven different organisms living inside it. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2371017-evolutionary-oddball-has-seven-genomes-inside-a-single-cell/ Citations 1. https://sciencing.com/characteristics-mitochondria-12765.html 2. https://www.britannica.com/science/mitochondrion 3. https://www.pbs.org/video/how-two-microbes-changed-history-mnwo8g/ 4. https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/termites-digest-wood-thanks-microbes 5. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origin-of-mitochondria-14232356/ 6. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/science/mitochondrial-dna-mothers.html

With a review first of Creationism Types "Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated." ~ Charles Townes, Physicist Creationisms Creationism refers to those who believe God had a hand somehow in the formation of species. Of course it also aligns with other topics such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life (see my posts about the https://www.truthfuloriginsevo.info/post/big-bang-multiverse  and also abiogenesis ) which do not directly connect with evolution. If we never discover what came before inflation or how the first cell came about that would still not impact the evidence for evolution. I will argue that with what science has discovered even the creationism that seems to accommodate evolution with God using or guiding it called theistic evolution , or as some prefer to rebrand it evolutionary creationism,  also fails to fully accommodate science. I will refer to this creationism with it’s older, better known term theistic evolution (TE) but acknowledge the advantages of the new term for them. I will also assert that although this is the only creationism that appears to accommodate science, it suffers from other mortal flaws, leaving all forms of creationism ultimately unable to form a foundation for religious and agnostic views. Lastly I will further posit that all forms of creationism will be unable to ever have a viable origin narrative that is both scientifically sound and  also not suffering from other refutations. These will be detailed. Abrahamic believers number about 4.2 billion of the 8 billion humans alive today. I am not addressing the 1.2 billion Hindus and 500 million Buddhists (1) but plan to write about major religious beliefs in the future. The major types of Biblical creationisms today in my opinion are Gap, Day-Age, Figurative, Young Earth (AIG, ICR, CMI organizations), Progressive (RTB organization), and Theistic Evolution (TE) . Young Earth Creationism (YEC) claims the universe and earth are less than 10,000 years old, that there was a global Noachian Flood, an Ark and other literal interpretations of Genesis. All the others are various Old Earth Creationisms (OECs). Gap   creationism proposes that there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Day-Age  Creationism suggests that each day of the creation week can be millions or billions of years based on 2 Peter 3:8 (a day to the Lord is as a thousand years). This attempt to accommodate Genesis with science along with Gap addressed mainly the geological findings and radiometric dating but did not adequately deal with evolution well and so are not popular today. A Figurative  approach basically assigns Genesis to metaphor, analogy, hyperbole, or other more liberal interpretations. It is rejected by the conservative Abrahamic religions as sacrificing too much of the scriptures to literature and mythology and so is usually not acceptable to them. Progressive   creationism, championed by Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (RTB) , accepts an old universe and earth but further explains the geological column as successive whole extinction events and repeated complete new creations by God. This idea of repeated cycles of mass extinctions by God so unique species could be de novo  created each time without evolution is not new. Thus the denial of transitional fossils existing (for example to prepare the earth for humankind's need for fossil fuels) traces back to Cuvier (d. 1832). He postulated the same solution to explain all the fossils he was identifying. He called these episodic mass extinctions and complete reboots of life "revolutions". Before Cuvier most people rejected fossils and extinctions because that idea did not fit with their concept of Biblical creation, as God declared everything good at the end of the creation week. For them, having millions of species go extinct did not seem consistent with Genesis and all "good" species. Reasons To Believe  also holds tightly to a historical Adam and Eve and denies human evolution. YECs   are the most scientifically radical. In order to hold to this interpretation of Genesis, they must redefine or reject laws of physics (radiometric decay and red shift, for example), redefine geology and anthropology (glaciation, plate tectonics, the geological column, etc.), reject all of evolution and it’s evidence including DNA findings and paleontology, and insert a global year long flood, an Ark, a Tower of Babel to explain languages, belief in a talking snake and donkey, and belief that people once lived to nearly 1,000 years. To them women have extreme pain and sometimes die in childbirth because two people ate fruit suggested by a talking snake from the wrong tree God specifically put in the middle of a special garden so they would not miss it. They reject the evolution of bipedalism and changes to the female pelvis documented in the fossil record that makes giving birth to a large headed primate difficult. They are also prodigious in their publications and probably account for 95% or more of the creationism articles and videos on the Internet. I will be writing in the future about how YECism basically must thus wrap themselves with a cloak of conspiracy thinking at this level of denial and rejection of settled science. The other consideration is that many people construct a personal and unique creationism (and also worldview) of their own, often combining many different aspects of an origin narrative, thus producing a mosaic or mash-up of ideas. This may be very true of the “nones” in America, that although not religious, often are spiritual or agnostic towards theology in some way. So it is vital that when discussing origin narratives, assumptions are not made about what the person believes; ask them for specifics. Unfortunately, many people may not be aware of inconsistencies in their species origin narratives. Their simple answer may just be an insufficient “Goddidit”. Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism Types I have demonstrated on this site with just two examples - whale evolution and DNA discoveries that rise to the level of proof of human evolution (see ERVs ; also see Human Chromosome 2 fusion , DNA repair patches , pseudogenes  and transposons ) - that evolution is true. Evolution is settled science (see Evolution.   Also see "How We Found Out Evolution Is True,"  a wonderful short TEDx presentation by John van Wyhe ). Mechanisms for how it occurred are still debated but not that it did occur. Given that evolution is no longer debated in science, I assert that all creationisms including TE suffer in some way from rejecting evolution as we find it . If a creationism rejects human evolution considering the overwhelming evidence we have for it, we are more than justified in dismissing it out of hand as a viable explanation for species origins. Figurative creationism is generally rejected by Abrahamic believers themselves since it sacrifices too much in their view of the original scriptural meaning. It makes a mockery of their core beliefs by assigning too much to mythology. That leaves only TE to address. Do any of the various forms of TE/EC really accommodate evolution as science has found it? There appear to be several TE variations. One form especially common among Catholics accepts "molecules to man" but proposes supernatural intervention at various times in history. These TE advocates may feel the need to have God tinker with the evolutionary process at some points. For example, by causing certain mutations or de novo genes to occur at certain stages in evolution despite that fact that in 400 years of intense research science has found no evidence for this. I think Behe of the Discovery Institute uses this type of God directed evolution in his TE beliefs. Adam & Eve are usually just metaphors. A second type of TE accepts scientific evolution but still must have a historical Adam to try and accommodate Genesis.  Recall that genomics has demonstrated that humans never went through a bottleneck of 2, or 8 off a boat; we never went below 3,000 - 10,000 individuals. The evangelical William Lane Craig, one of the most prodigious debaters for conservative Christianity, now publicly accepts human evolution in his writings but has a modern Adam being created by God at the time of Homo heidelbergensis  and then somehow replacing that hominin population with the new, modern guy on the block who is injected into earth's history from above . Joshua Swamidass accepts human evolution but has God creating a garden and Adam 6,000 years ago only to see Adam’s DNA spreading around the world  and completing its journey just in time for Jesus to arrive and save the world 2,000 years ago. All of these variations of TE contain unproven religious presuppositions injected into the theory of evolution, hoping again to save their interpretation of Genesis in the face of robust evidence for evolution, and especially human evolution. They are absurd and are ad hoc even if they can't be disproven. The above variations of TE are not evolution as science has found and described it. Evolution relies on random mutations, brutal natural selection plus other naturalistic mechanisms, and there is no evidence of a historical Adam/Eve. As I've written, genomics indicates the human population never went below 3,000 - 10,000 and certainly not all the way down to 2, or 8 off an ark with a brutal and cruel genocidal reboot by drowning. Nor has science revealed a God reaching down and tinkering with the process of evolution at just the right moments. The "solutions" by Craig and Swamidass indicate desperation to hold onto Genesis at any intellectual cost and stretch credibility to where it breaks. A third type of TE/EC is probably best described by the scientists and academic Christians at Biologos (2), the site founded by Francis Collins in 2007 with a Templeton grant to showcase especially the DNA evidence for evolution. They posit that God used evolution as science has found it to create life on earth. They also interpret Genesis as more mythology or figuratively/symbolically, including the Biblical Flood as a local event for example. They fully argue for an all naturalistic approach to evolution as God's method for the origin of species. YEC literature bemoans the growth of TE in churches but I have not seen that. Perhaps it's in the younger generations and the "nones", and I am just not aware of it. In evangelical circles and other conservative religion writings I have not seen the message of Biologos changing theist minds to any great significance. Why TE Fails "And after millions of years of mutations, mass extinctions, devastating diseases, and violent death, God saw all that He had evolved and behold it was very good!" ~ Dan Lietha (Young Earth Creationist) There are many reasons why TE/EC fails as an attempt to accommodate Genesis with science, evolution. 1. At best, this form of creationism would be superficially consistent only with deism. A personal theistic God that interacts with His creation frequently and answers prayers is not supported. A theist still has a mountain of evidence and logic to provide. 2. I assert that if God used evolution to create or allowed it, then this God is not worth worshipping. He would then be   incompetent, indifferent  to the waste and suffering or malevolent  having enjoyed all the waste, death and suffering. Let me explain by looking at how natural selection and evolution actually work. As I wrote in the Introduction to Evolution ,  evolution is when a population genetically changes from a previous one. Specifically, more individuals happen to inherit certain genes that code for certain characteristics. This occurs because natural selection selected which offspring variants are best fitted for the current conditions and live long enough to produce more viable offspring than other variants in the population. In order for this system to work, nature produces lots of offspring. Given time, adaptations will arise and spread throughout the species. For example, populations tend to be stable from generation to generation. Despite thousands of eggs laid by a fish, only one or two will survive into the next generation to reproduce. Dogs have many puppies and cats kittens but on average if a population is stable, over the life of the parents only two on average in sexual species of all those offspring will survive to reproduce. An oak tree will produce millions of acorns each year and billions over its life only to have one replace itself in a stable forest. What about humans? From the time of fertilization until a child grows to a reproductive age there is nearly an 80% death rate before modern medicine and societies. Many fertilizations don’t implant. Some of those that implant miscarry (a spontaneous abortion in medicine). Some offspring die at birth and more later before reaching reproductive age. Around the world a woman dies every 2 minutes during pregnancy or giving birth. Human parents needed to have many children even a hundred years ago because so many died before adulthood. The waste and suffering is incredible to just get a few offspring into the next generation in nearly all the species that live or have ever lived. In a theistic world, this God either designed this system that includes so much death or allowed it. People want to worship this horrible architect? When we look at the history of life on earth, 99.9% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. There have been at least five huge mass extinctions. Sometimes it's a rock from space. Another time huge lava flows in Siberia cover the planet for millions of years and poison the air. Some species can’t compete against other species, especially if a new species is introduced. This can happen due to continental drift or a pregnant founder species onto an island for example. A system of creation that depends on evolution is one that is incredibly wasteful. Children die of starvation, infection or cancer by the thousands for example. This is why I assert that although TE/EC appeals to all natural mechanisms it paints this God as incompetent because this method is hardly worth embracing by anyone. One can’t hold up awesome redwoods and beautiful butterflies without also mentioning childhood cancer, malaria, and Ebola. Or, this deity is indifferent to all the waste and suffering and offers nothing better. A “Fall” as an excuse if offered means all those innocent children and animals are just collateral sacrifices? Lastly, perhaps God likes the suffering and waste and is really malevolent. In contrast to this theistic way of looking at nature via a God designed creative evolution, the way we find the world and universe is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true and there was no Engineer and Designer at the wheel of the evolution bus. 3. There is no evidence of God the Tinkerer. Mutations for producing new genes to form new species are overwhelmingly random. Mutations are often neutral or deleterious.   No evidence for any supernatural intervention has been found during intense evolutionary research. 4. Our genome is 80 -90% junk DNA. Please see how we know this by reading the blog on  Junk DNA . It's difficult to imagine worshipping a God that ends up creating humans and other organisms like this. God the DNA junk hoarder? 5. A theist must still argue for a "soul" that persists after death. What kind of entity or force or energy this would be is not specified. Well respected physicists now argue that physics demonstrates that people can't have a "soul" . 6. When we look at the history of life as revealed in the fossil record and in the DNA of species we see no planning or goals . Every theist arguing for TE/EC posits the assumption that God used evolution to evolve humans; we are the end result of a grand plan. But the record of life reveals 99.9% species failures, horrible mass extinctions, and genomes consisting of massive amounts of junk DNA. We are the product of billions of years of evolution and contingencies and not the end goal for evolution. We are fortunate to be here; several times we almost went extinct  and here . This does not speak to some kind of grand plan with evolution as the method; just the opposite.Some like Conway Morris have argued that since we note convergent evolution frequently that there appears to be constraints on evolution. As a challenge to Gould who wrote that if the tape of life was rewound and restarted that the same species would not appear, he counters that they would still originate despite contingencies and what appears to be random events. Thus, teleology still has a place in TE/EC according to these theistic evolutionists (4). However, just focusing on convergent evolution without considering other factors such as junk DNA, massive extinctions, and the waste and suffering baked into evolution just reveals motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. 7. In order to hold to TE/EC huge amounts of the various scriptures need to be interpreted as mythology, literature or rationalized to the point they lose divine meaning. For example, Noah's Flood is local despite Genesis having birds taken on board and the verses specifying  high mountains  were flooded. A bible's supernatural narratives dismissed to accommodate science dismisses its claims to divinity also. The malevolent Designer? Is God Good? "I go into a lab and create a unicellular eukaryotic organism that will kill millions I infect flying insects to serve as the delivery system If I release it, would I be evil? Without exception every theist I asked replied 'yes' I then ask them to explain malaria." ~ Author unknown. Attempting to explain malaria with "The Fall", and absolve God won't work. Who created the very complex parasitic Plasmodium  species? We are told by some creationists that nature can't increase complexity or add new information. If not God, who or what? Did it "de-evolve"? How? Did God then at least allow it? What happened? From what? What are the steps we can reconstruct in its DNA to show this? Thus, if God used or allowed evolution to create, this means He/She/Them/It is not worth worshipping. This is the best He could do? He doesn’t care or can’t do anything about the waste and suffering? TE/EC fails as a viable creation narrative option in my view because it not only sacrifices too much of its scriptures to mythology, but is irrational. Thus, Christians and other theists are left with no choices for an origin narrative that is believable and accommodates science. Origin narratives serve as foundations to our worldviews. In my opinion, theists will never be able to formulate an origin narrative that will stand up to science, not compromise their scriptures with too much mythology, and withstand a rational evaluation. It’s not the fault of science that religion keeps making claims that are falsifiable, and trespassing into areas that science and philosophy study. One of the most comprehensive reviews of the multiple failed attempts by Christian apologists to accommodate Genesis with Evolution and science is the book “Evolving out of Eden”  by Price and Suominen. (3) It should be noted that some atheist/agnostic scientists such as Lents are very willing to support theistic evolution because in their view believers endorsing evolution means at least science will no longer be under ongoing attacks from religious fundamentalists. That is a pragmatic approach to take when considering the long struggle for evolutionary theory acceptance, especially in America. But the form of TE/EC that is being accepted is often not the Theory of Evolution as it is taught and practiced in science. It remains to be seen if short term goals met in this scenario brings only long term confusion and problems later. This may be just kicking the Evolution can down the road. A good collection of articles in favor of theistic evolution defended by Catholic scholars can be found here, especially the article by Austriaco in "The Fittingness of Evolutionary Creation ". However, it fails to address my claims. Evolution is not a  "most efficient way for divine providence" as I detailed above in point number 2.   Using random asteroid strikes for example to open up niches via whole species slaughter rather smacks of planetary near genocide. Calling extinct species just "necessary left-overs from the creative evolutionary process"  and ignoring that at least 80% of our genome is junk DNA is incredibly fanciful. Rather, this speaks of evolution without goals or planning let alone any method a wise, compassionate deity would use to create species. Conclusion Major forms of creationism are reviewed. Most are Old Earth Creationisms which accommodate a universe and earth billions of years old but usually deny evolution and especially human evolution. Young Earth Creationism rejects nearly every significant finding of science in regards to origins; it is the one type that clutches its beliefs mainly through denial. All the major forms of creationism reject large scale evolution, "macroevolution", and human evolution except for Theistic Evolution or its newer name, Evolutionary Creationism. Thus, the agnostic or theist who wishes to ascribe the origin of extinct and living (extant) species to a creator and be consistent with science will often turn to TE/EC as an answer to species origins thinking that this is a viable solution. The problems with TE/EC as a viable option to explain species origins for Abrahamic creationists are numerous and include painting the divine Designer or Engineer with incompetent, indifferent, or malevolent colors and injecting the unsupported goal of producing humans as an ultimate divine plan. That many of the "nones" may be adopting TE without a sound knowledge of how evolution really operates and how TE is thus not a viable option, is troubling. In addition, so much of the theist scriptures need to be compromised with analogy, metaphor and appeals to mythology that the Abrahamic God fades into history to join Norse, Greek, and Roman stories as literature and mythology only. For "nones" this latter problem may not be an issue. "We cannot escape our origins, however hard we try"  ~ James Baldwin Citations 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations   2. https://biologos.org/ 3. https://www.amazon.com/Evolving-out-Eden-Christian-Responses/dp/0985136243   4. https://capturingchristianity.com/btw-evolution-is-teleological/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEhzeNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTIjFdHGBWoNsV6fhCO5kIVz9lUyH_psuDOXOhLa5tEnwveho_JTE2ezZg_aem_km269S4179FpMrV5Smwj2A

“Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.” ~ Theodosius G. Dobzhansky “What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” ~ Carl Sagan “The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try and deny that.” ~ Francis Collins, MD, PhD. Former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Former Leader of the Human Genome Project (HGP). Aug. 2006, BeliefNet.com Evangelical Christian, Founder of Biologos I am usually surprised when people tell me they have no problems accepting Evolution - the theory that all life on this planet has evolved from very simple forms, it’s all related (we share genes with yeast) and probably life emerged from non living precursors. Life is so complicated and the more we learn the more unimaginably complex it is. How could all of this life have arrived through natural processes only? Is it no wonder that even the non-religious will often view life as intelligently designed, usually because they don’t know of all the unintelligent designs that can only best be explained by evolution and work-arounds by natural selection? I find that the above quote by Sagan also applies to Evolution. This scientific theory is so extraordinary, so radical, so counter intuitive for most, and touches so many aspects of our lives that we should demand robust and incredible evidence for it. That evidence is available and comes from fossils, genetics, biogeography, anthropology, comparative anatomy, paleobiology, developmental biology, and so much more. Equally important, the evidence is often the result of confirmed predictions, the evidence that would disprove evolution such as fossils out of sequence never occurs, the theory has been rigorously tested for over 150 years (want to get 1 million dollars and a Nobel? Show that it is wrong) and the evidence comes from independent fields of science demonstrating consilience. I assert that evolution is not intuitive for most. A pilot must be taught to accept their instruments when flying in poor visibility instead of what they may feel but is dangerously wrong. We must reject our feeling that we are not moving in spite of knowing the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph and going around our sun at 67,000 mph. Science is our instrument into the past and present life on this planet; evolution is that theory that ties it all together and we must accept it even though it seems counter intuitive. Whales really did evolve from a terrestrial animal the size of a raccoon. We really do share a common ancestor with chimps that lived about 6 million years ago. Evolution is true for all species, past and present. All life is connected through shared ancestry. Shared ERVs For brevity I have chosen only two examples that demonstrate evolution, macroevolution, is true. The DNA evidence of shared ERVs among the great apes which includes humans, is very sound and has withstood many years of attempts to discount it. Other DNA evidence discussed specifically include chromosomal fusions see here , and shared DNA repairs but not LTR divergent ratios, shared chromosomal inversions, shared synonymous mutations, shared pseudogenes and their mutations and comparative indel mutations (insertion/deletion). Of interest, at least 50% of human genomes are derived from viruses and repetitive sequences (Shubin even says 75%). What a strange way to construct humans, by using parasitic viruses that leave a trail of their attacks on ape genomes demonstrating evolution? From Reece et al. 2013. Campbell’s Biology . No copyright infringement intended. Fair use permitted. [Exons are the coding parts of DNA. Although Introns are non-coding they often have several functions. Transposons and repetitive DNA are often functionless and much is junk left over from evolution.] A look at where some of the retroelements come from. Note especially the retrotransposons and LINEs and how they relate to viral derivatives. From: http://flax.nzdl.org/greenstone3/flax;jsessionid=72A45BE2DD4B64EDEBE293D0976BC668?a=d&c=virology1&d=HASH01b21adcf515d44c441c5798&dt=simple&p.a=b&p.s=ClassifierBrowse Virology - Retroviral Derivations Vincent Racaniello, Lecture #9 , 2013. Columbia University. Course: Virology No copyright infringement intended. Fair Use Permitted Whale Evolution. The evidence for whale evolution seems to me to be very convincing to an objective person. More than 220 fossil whale species have been found and described. The legs shrinking and vestigial pelvis is there for all to see. All those olfactory pseudogenes. A blowhole that starts at the nose and migrates to the top in embryos, and a migrating blow hole is demonstrated in the fossil record among so many other facts that point overwhelmingly to evolution. Sir Harold Kroto, PhD. Nobel Prize Winner : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Kroto Treat Science Right and It Could Help Save the World https://www.sciencenews.org/article/treat-science-right-and-it-could-help-save-world If Not Evolution, Then What? In addition to whale evolution, other items to examine might include the Hawaiian Islands and the Emperor Seamounts. Those islands are about 2,500 miles away from any major land. One needs to explain without evolution how all those unique species got there, when, and why they resemble continental forms. Why some species are not found in the islands and only those that could float or get blown there became founder species, and then new species radiated out onto other islands from an ancestral species. Darwin’s Finches is an example on the Galapagos. How the hot spot of magma that is producing the Hawaiian islands as the plate moves over it did that without millions of years and also produced the worn down Emperor Seamounts that extend eastward thousands of miles without evolution seems like wishful thinking. And if one is going to move a plate that much in a year as some anti-evolutionists propose, the physics of heat production tell you that's impossible. See the Heat Problem immediately below for addressing groups that claim the earth is only a few thousands of years old. Begins at 7:00. Darwin of course derived much of his theory of Natural Selection from island biogeography. Even more basic to try and explain without evolution is the fossil record itself. About 15,000 feet of sedimentary rock in layers like a cake with fossils not mixing, going from simple to complex over 500 million years and with many transitional fossils where they should be if evolution were true. Wish to use a Global Flood as an explanation? Then why are the pterodactyls only found in one layer? If all the marine animals that ever lived were swimming at the same time, why are their fossils in sequence? Why do the plants also separate out by layers going from simple to complex? Why are fossil animals also found with fossil plants and pollen only found in certain layers? In a cataclysmic global Flood the best one could hope for are transitions of fossils between layers with some mixing. That’s exactly what we don’t find. As one person wrote, the DNA findings alone should result in a second Galileo Moment and the death of common design as an argument. I have presented shared ERVs as fantastic evidence for human evolution, but there are also many other DNA findings such as human chromosome 2 fusion and shared pseudogenes. Evolution explains that the human population never went below 10,000. Modern humans evolved over millions of years in populations in Africa and then moved out finally successfully to colonize the globe about 70,000 years ago after several outings did not “take”. Women have excruciating pain in childbirth, sometimes resulting in the death of one or both of them, because of the evolution of bipedalism. Any low back or sinus problems you have is also probably due to evolution since natural selection can only work with what it’s got. You must have vitamin C in your diet or you develop a disease called scurvy (and why British sailors were called “Limeys” because they took them on board limes to avoid it), yet your cat and dog have plenty in their blood naturally because of evolution. You carry a dead gene, a pseudogene, for making egg yolk because of your ancestors and it matches the same homologous location in chickens. Because - evolution. Even Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute and the champion of the Intelligent Design Irreducible Argument accepts macroevolution with mutations occurring when necessary. Of course the Pope speaking for billions accepts evolution but with ensoulment at some time. Where the Rubber Meets the Road After the Site Conclusion, I will take a candid examination of a few of the many consequences and ramifications to our world views if evolution is true. If our origin is millions of years in the making what does that mean for us living today? What does it mean if we are connected to all life? If we are here because of evolution that adapted humans to situations that often now are nonexistent, how do we respond to urges like tribalism or its larger cousin nationalism that now threatens our societies? Are people morally responsible for bad behavior? What does it mean to have morals in a world view on evolution? We Can Still See these 5 Traces of Ancestor Species in All Human Bodies Today https://theconversation.com/we-can-still-see-these-5-traces-of-ancestor-species-in-all-human-bodies-today-197011#Echobox=1674422517 Many people are especially interested in human evolution. This is a very good presenation of the fossil evidence of our last 7 million years of evolution. Well worth your time:

“The evolution of life, and the evolutionary origin of mankind, are scientifically established as firmly and completely as any historical event not witnessed by human observers. Any concession to anti-evolutionists, suggesting that there are scientific reasons to doubt the facticity of evolution, would be propagating a plain untruth.” ~ Theodosius Dobzhansky (Christian) "Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality... But I had gradually come by this time, i.e., 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred book of the Hindoos..." ~ Charles Darwin. From Charles Darwin: His Life Told in an Autobiographical Chapter, and in a Selected Series of his Published Letters (1902), edited by his son Francis Darwin. Secondary source: Tom Siegfried in Sciencenews.org January 31, 2009 "Darwin's natural selection redefined the idea of design”. The Theory of Evolution is the foundation for biology and many other scientific and medical fields. As the famous biologist Dobzhansky, a Christian, wrote in 1973, “ Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” Like the scientific theories of Gravity, Cell, Germ, and Relativity, Evolution is both fact and theory and will not be going away. It is that well supported by overwhelming evidence. Even modern medicine is based on it. When I began medical school after teaching biology at the college level, I was surprised that the professors often referred to evolution more often than my biology textbooks! Why would several of the best medical schools in the world use a famous fish paleontologist (Shubin: Your Inner Fish. University of Chicago) and a cetacean paleontologist (Thewissen - Duke, Northeast Ohio Medical University) to teach human anatomy to medical students? Because we can’t fully understand human anatomy, genetics, disease, and physiology without evolution. Examples of human clues to our evolutionary past include our recurrent laryngeal nerve that is positioned because we have fish ancestors. We have numerous vestigial ear muscles to hold our pinna - our outer ears - to our heads (see post on unintelligent design, this site) We have thousands of olfactory pseudogenes left over from our much better smelling ancestors. We inherited some of our immune genes from Neanderthals. Tibetans are adapted for high altitude living in part because of a gene called EPAS1 that their ancestors inherited from interbreeding with Denisovans. So much of what makes a human can’t be understood without evolution (including psychology) that books have been authored detailing it. Our unintelligent designs only make sense under the lens of evolution. For example see books by Lents, Lieberman, Shubin, and Hafer. Of course, that’s just detailing with one species - us. All other animals, plants and fungi also have their evolutionary stories to tell. The evidence for evolution comes from so many areas of science it would take a small book just to list and discuss all the contributory fields to this grand scientific theory. Instead, I chose to ask what would be my top two best examples for someone that was interested, had limited time, and perhaps little to no biology background. This section will discuss in detail those two examples; whale evolution and shared ERVs among the great apes, which includes us. First, there needs to be some definitional discussion regarding several important terms. What is Evolution? The most common definition since the 1940s when Darwin’s idea and genetics merged to form Neo-Darwinism is a change in gene frequency (alleles) in a population over time. Notice that individuals don’t evolve, populations do and if occurring over long periods a new species may arise. Let’s say for example that genes for lighter skin color were advantageous for people living in cold and dark regions (vitamin D is made in our skin from sunlight). Those people who just happen to have lighter skin would do better and have more successful offspring. They would pass their genes on to the next generation at a higher percentage than others. If we were measuring skin color through many generations, the population would develop lighter skinned individuals as a percentage of the population. Forrest Valkai of Internet fame defines evolution simply as a change in heritable characteristics of a population through successive generations . That leaves out the reference to alleles, which of course are what is changing to produce the heritable characteristics. But it's an excellent definition. The individuals who just happened to inherit better genes for this particular environment would be more “fit” if they produced more successful offspring. Notice that there is no planning - what if the environment happens to change? Then the population characteristics would be under different selection pressures. But what is really changing through generations is the gene frequencies in the population that are producing the physical or behavioral characteristics of individuals. Of course there could be pressures for darker skin also depending on the amount of sunlight or other factors in this example. People who oppose evolution accept that this can be shown in the lab and in the field but claim these changes are limited. One mouse species evolving into another mouse species is “ microevolution ” in most lay literature. They are the same “kind” and we never see “ macroevolution ” they claim - a reptile evolving into a mammal or a fish evolving into an amphibian for example. I am using the terms here as they are commonly used in public discussions and not necessarily how they are actually defined in biology. Macroevolution is mostly a forensic or historical science, involving changes above the species level. We can accumulate so much evidence in science regarding a conclusion that to deny it would be perverse even if it was not directly observed. Science rarely proves; that’s for some areas of philosophy or mathematics. A good tracker can tell from prints what the species was, which direction it was moving, maybe it’s sex by weight and age, if it was injured, how fast it was moving, when it passed by, etc. without ever seeing the animal. The same occurs in court cases where a person can be convicted even if the murder weapon (the “how”) is not found. The “what” is not in question. See why that is important: How vs. What . With evolution, we can know it happened without necessarily seeing all the macro changes. The evidence for evolution is now so overwhelming that to not accept it is perverse. Macroevolution involves more than micro over large time scales. It includes many independent scientific fields and also must include contingencies and random processes (like a rock coming from outer space and ending the reign of the dinosaurs). Macroevolution is the history of life. Laurence Moran has written about his views on micro/macro evolution in his biochemist Sandwalk Blog: https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/10/macroevolution.html "... evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered" ~ Stephen Jay Gould in Discover Magazine, May 1981. An interesting study in marine snails that went from reproducing using eggs to live births has shown that the genes involved indicated gradual steps as Darwin proposed:  " Scientists were able to identify 50 genes that are perfectly associated with reproductive mode, as well as estimate the time of their origin. The results showed they accumulated gradually, spreading at different times in the past. This demonstrates that innovation can evolve progressively, rather than in a single evolutionary step." https://scitechdaily.com/there-is-no-monster-mutation-biologists-uncover-the-secrets-of-evolutionary-change/?fbclid=IwAR0LA2XDm11hjiac3VjlCsbLfZFY351Q0MFBXxYnfCMiuzQTR5M8tTK1y0g Also - what is the difference between scientific facts, theories, laws and hypotheses in the context of evolution? https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z What is Natural Selection? This has commonly been defined as the differential reproductive success of individuals within a population. We can demonstrate NS in the lab and in the field. Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance is an example. A bacterial population changing to be more resistant is due to the antibiotic killing off most but leaving some behind to reproduce that just happened to be resistant. In future generations more and more bacteria in this strain will be resistant to that antibiotic. The change in the bacterial population over time is evolution. Again, Forrest Valkai defines natural selection as simply the nonrandom selection of random mutations . Opponents of evolution by NS claim that NS is not powerful enough no matter how much time to produce significant changes in populations. For example they agree again to microevolution but deny that this mechanism is powerful enough to drive the changes from a shared chimp ancestor to us. Note that NS is just one mechanism - there are others such as genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis. For NS to work it needs variation in the population and anti-evolutionists reject known methods to produce significant variation. Notice that they are arguing against the “how” and not the “what” - the observations and facts that are only explained well by evolution. Mechanisms for evolution are debated all the time in science; the fact of evolution is not. If your house is destroyed and this is not witnessed, one can argue if it was by hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire, or an angry neighbor but the fact that your house is destroyed is not open to debate. We have so much evidence for evolution that its occurrence is no longer up for debate. There is no controversy about the fact of evolution in science now, just about other issues related to it such as mechanisms (how), abiogenesis, rates, etc. How We Found That Evolution Is True. Darwin was not the first person to figure out that evolution explained the rich diversity of species, both in the present and past. Many before him had the idea but could not figure out how it may have happened. Watch this short presentation as the idea of evolution unfolded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YwBwIK_no Darwin and Wallace In 1837, a year after Darwin returned from his five year voyage on the Beagle, he drew his famous stick figure “ I think - transmutation diagram ” in his Notebook B that species were not fixed. Darwin had read Lyell’s book about a better way to understand geology while on his voyage (Darwin was primarily trained in geology) and in 1838 read Malthus’s ideas about population growth and why species don’t overpopulate. The parts for his theory had now all come together. He already knew by then that species could and had changed over time, explaining why many were extinct, fossils and why we see so many that appear related. Mostly because of his wanting to write a book that would be so well documented for his proposed mechanism that his theory could not be dismissed and probably fears about religious backlash, he did not publish his natural selection idea for 20 years but kept doing research. Before marrying Emma in 1839, who was religious, he wrote to her about what his theory would mean: “As soon you realize that one species could evolve into another, the whole structure [foundations of a society established on the some religious beliefs] wobbles and collapses” . Later in 1844 Darwin would write to Hooker regarding his ideas, “ I have read heaps of agricultural & horticultural books, & have never ceased collecting facts— At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” “At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” ~ Charles Darwin Darwin’s reasons for delaying publishing his theory of natural selection are debated to this day but his delay was challenged when another scientist, Wallace, discovered natural selection also decades later and shook Darwin to his core when Wallace sent him a draft of natural selection to review for possible publication. Darwin thought he had been “scooped” since he had yet to publish. Wallace had sent a draft in 1858 to Darwin to review and true to Darwin’s good character instead of demanding that he had the idea long before Wallace - which was true and documented - it was decided that both would present the concept of natural selection together. The joint presentation to the Linnean Society in London of their papers occurred on July 1, 1858. Now Darwin could wait no longer to publish his book, but there was not enough time to write all that he wanted so instead he quickly wrote an “abstract”, what we know as “On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” and published it in 1859. See two excellent movie titles about his life in the section Resources. In Victorian times “races” did not mean what we associate that word with now. Note from the title Darwin’s idea is not about the origin of life and it’s also really not about evolution directly but a mechanism, natural selection, to explain how life unfolded in the past and how to account for the species we see today. At its core only natural processes could explain nature. Of course many religious people including Francis Collins, and the Pope who speaks for over a billion Catholics, have accepted evolution through adopting theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. Denying evolution is not rational with all the overwhelming experimental and observational evidence available. Two Examples of Evolution, Including "Macroevolution" I would like to offer only two examples as evidence of evolution. And both of these should satisfy the desire for “macroevolution” evidence. The second is an example of both human evolution and macroevolution. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution from many scientific fields, but let’s just concentrate on these two and drill down on specifics when needed. If you wish to look at some of the many other independent scientific areas that together provide overwhelming evidence for evolution, the University of Berkley has a nice, easy introduction on their site: Lines of Evidence. Part 1: Whale evolution - The first is whale evolution , because evolving over about 15 million years from an ancestor the size of a raccoon walking around to a toothless baleen blue whale should satisfy as “macroevolution”. If you’ve wondered how scientists know whales evolved I don’t want to tell you, I want to show you the overwhelming evidence so you can see for yourself. The slides usually have citations included so if desired you can go to the original sources. I’ve compiled the material by producing a 3 part series that looks at modern cetaceans, fossil whale ancestors, and DNA evidence with each about 25 minutes in length. Take a look. It will be 90 minutes well spent for all three parts. If you disagree after watching all 3 parts that whales evolved, please write to me as to why. In the comments section of Part 3 I’ve also linked some objections to whale evolution. In most cases critics fail to address the evidence presented but instead put forward a focus only on how all the adaptations arose - how could this have happened? Or what about this instead of addressing the overwhelming evidence we do have. See the discussion on why "what" comes before "how" and how is not necessarily critical to the fact of an occurrence. Part 2: Shared ERVs - shared ERVs is the best evidence for evolution I’ve seen in decades. It’s more technical to explain but well worth your time. I hope you will examine this topic. Others have noticed how powerful it is also and I will be linking sites and short videos for you to evaluate. Also I’ll discuss the common objections put forward and why in my opinion they fail. Many people are especially interested in human evolution. This is a wonderful summary presentation with a close look at fossil evidence. (2025) Conclusion If I can convince you that whale evolution must be true (no matter how it happened) then accepting other evolutionary changes should not be overly difficult to accept. If you can understand that 200,000 broken down, randomly inserted retroviral remnants that are found in the exact same locations between chimps and humans can only be explained rationally by a common ancestor then we’ve got our human evolution, and macroevolution evidence in another example. “Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.” ― Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky References The Human Story https://www.sciencenews.org/century/human-evolution-origins-fossils-paleoanthropology#seeking-our-origins Genetics Provide Powerful Evidence of evolution https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/02/28/genetics-provide-powerful-evidence-of-evolution/ Whales and Viruses: The Light of Evolution - Episode 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMBXc4ocss

The claim from science: the vertebrate eye is poorly "designed'. Without additional adaptations to the original structure  it would have severe functional limitations Introduction The vertebrate eye  is poorly "engineered". The retina is inverted due to evolution compared to eyes that are not inverted. The vertebrate eye on the left has the light sensing cells not only pointing away from the incoming light but light needs to go through multiple layers of tissue before it even reaches  the photoreceptors (see eye comparison diagrams below). This would be like placing a radio antenna or TV dish pointing away from the incoming signals, in the basement with all kinds of obstructions, and needing to run electricity down there because it needs extra support. There's a reason we put antennas on roofs with unobstructed views of the sky and pointed towards a satellite or tall source antenna. The octopus eye on the right does not have this limitation; the rods and cones are logically placed so they receive light (photons) directly and don't produce a blind spot where there are no receptors; all the nerves leave the retina to begin their path to the brain to form an image without producing a blind spot. See Figure 1. Figure 1. "In vertebrate eyes (left), the nerve fibers route before  the retina, blocking some light and creating a blind spot where the fibers pass through the retina. In cephalopod eyes (right; no blind spot), the nerve fibers route behind  the retina and do not block light or disrupt the retina. 1  is the retina and 2  the nerve fibers. 3  is the optic nerve. 4  is the vertebrate blind spot." Wikimedia Commons: From Wikimedia Commons: Caerbannog  - Own Work, based on Image: Evolution_eye.png  created by Jerry Crimson Mann 07:07, 2 August 2005 UTC (itself under GFDL). From: https://www.brainkart.com/article/Retina_26069/ Fair Use Attribution In Figure 2, notice that the photoreceptors in the diagram not only are on the far side away  from light entering the eye, but their orientation points away  from the light photons, and there is a tremendous number of support cells and wiring required that the light must  pass through  to reach its final destination, the photoreceptors. Thus there are three major "design" issues from the beginning. Not shown in this figure is a fourth issue; as the nerves gather to exit the eye, that produces a blind spot where there can be no photoreceptors. Only nerves are shown. There is also a dense network of blood vessels and support cells that interfere with light transmission. This is not present in the cephalopod eye structure which evolved separately from the vertebrate eye. In addition the cephalopod eye has no need for an RPE. Figure 2. From: https://www.brainkart.com/article/Retina_26069/ Fair Use Attribution Various adaptations to lessen the vertebrate eye deficits Comparative anatomy can help us conclude that the vertebrate eye is not only poorly constructed in its original form but that evolution has on numerous occasions applied "fixes" or workarounds to mitigate the deficits inherit to the vertebrate eye. A. Pecten oculi in birds Bird eyes are well known to provide them with better vision than other non-avian vertebrate species. The Retinal Pigment Epithelium  (#10 in Figure 2) in vertebrates is a layer of support cells below the retina that provides nutrition and support to the photoreceptors. Due to their high visual demands birds have an added structure to supplement their vision needs, called the pecten oculi.  It serves at least two functions. First, it provides extra nutrients and oxygen to the eyes and second this allows fewer retinal support vessels that would normally obstruct light passing through to the photoreceptors. This structure is present because it helps a problem with the vertebrate eye and its basic structure. See Figure 3. Figure 3. From: Jfbleak. 2008. Updated 2013. Fair use attribution. Bird eye. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pecten_oculi#Media/File:Birdeye.jpg   B. Conus Papillaris in some reptiles Similar to the pecten oculi in birds, reptiles also have a structure to help their eyes function better called the conus papillaris. As in birds it lessens the thickness of the tissues interfering with light traveling to the photoreceptors and also provides extra nutrition and oxygen, supplementing the RPE. See Figure 4. Figure 4. A - Reptile, lizard Conus papillaris. B - Pecten oculi, bird.From: Ringvold, Amund. 2022.  The Function of Pecten Oculi. Conus Papillaris in Reptiles and it's Analog Pectin Oculi in Birds Evolved in Tandem with increasing Uric Acid in Serum . https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/the-function-of-pecten-oculi-conus-papillaris-in-reptiles-and-its-analogue-pecten-oculi-in-birds-evolved-in-tandem-with-.pdf For educational use only. Fair use attribution. C. Tapetum Lucidum Nocturnal animals are hampered by very low levels of light compared to diurnal animals. Evolution has provided a structure for many of these species to amplify what light that is available for night vision. These species have a structure in the RPE called the tapetum lucidum. When we shine a night light at animals who have this layer, the eyes reflect light back to us and appear iridescent. The light that has passed through the retina is reflected back to the photoreceptors as a secondary stimulation to the photoreceptors. See Figure 5. Figure 5. Tapetum lucidum reflecting light back from under the retinaFrom: https://www.reddit.com/r/Awwducational/comments/100uxki/the_reason_for_your_cats_reflective_eyes_in/ For educational use only. Fair use attribution In July of 2023 Nathan Lents wrote in his blog* about the tapeta found in various species and that all indications point to attempts at minimizing the loss of available light in the vertebrate eyes who have it. A confirmation of this occurs in jumping spiders who have two types of eyes. The primary eyes have cephalopod like retinas but the smaller secondary eyes are wired like vertebrate eyes. Sure enough, only the secondary eyes have the need of a tapetum lucidum to improve light sensitivity! As Lents writes, "tapeta is a compensatory co-adaptation for the sub-optimal nature of the inverted retinas" . I would assert that it is only one such compensatory structure and joins several others as discussed in this blog. From: Wikimedia Commons. Lukas Jonaitis * https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2023/07/11/is-nocturnal-eye-shine-an-adaptation-for-the-backwards-retina/ D. Fiber Optic Cable System In Michael Behe's book, Darwin Devolves, he mentions that the human eye is beautifully designed because it also has some cells that act as a "fiber-optic cable system" to channel light to the photoreceptors of the cell that are deep in the retina from the surface of the retina receiving light. He includes as photograph. Rather, that the retina has this is just more evidence that there are problems to the inverted retina that have been confronted by evolution. There is significant obstruction from all the support structures in front of the photoreceptors (see Figure 2) and natural selection has produced another compensatory work-around. Rather than a "neat" design, this is another example of a poor adaptation (inverted photoreceptors buried in the retina and pointing in the wrong direction) that needs help to function efficiently. Anti-evolution objections The attempts to claim that the vertebrate eye is wonderfully designed by most creationists tend to discuss cabling systems, the RPE, etc. as advantages and aspects of good "design". The blind spot is dismissed as not an issue. The RPE is said to supply nutrients and cooling and if we had a retina that was not inverted, the RPE would be in front of the photoreceptors. This is an error because cephalopods don't have or need an RPE. The vertebrate eye has it only because of the evolutionary constraints on the original "design" Similar to the evolutionary constraints of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. See here on this blog A not uncommon anti-evolutionist response to counter the claim of the vertebrate eye being a poor design is to cite the 2022 article by Baden in Nilsson where they note in the evolution of both the vertebrate eye and cephalopod eye they both work very well. The authors note advantages to the inverted retina. In the 7th paragraph after Figure 4 the authors write, and the anti-evolutionist will often produce this quote: " In terms of performance, vertebrate eyes come close to perfect." However just above this sentence which is usually never quoted is this: " So, in general, the apparent challenges with an inverted retina seem to have been practically abolished by persistent evolutionary tweaking. In addition, opportunities that come with the inverted retina have been efficiently seized." The authors are not only saying that the vertebrate eye evolved and functions well but they confirm that the vertebrate eye only performs well because of evolutionary "tweaking" or workarounds that make it perform better, and not due to the original inverted retina 'design'. They also note that some species of fish, reptiles and bird cell bodies contain oil droplets in their photoreceptors to improve color vision and to help focus light. Thus, this is an example of dishonest or sloppy quote mining by the creationist. There are multiple structural compensations to the vertebrate eye necessary for improved vision not needed with the cephalopod eye. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00335-9?fbclid=IwY2xjawFdhVxleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHQuYeEIeRXxsmtDRGALfODvoNOcYoizdIrh2xNvH9GgXLxkmgjZHGj2SSw_aem_tb7aKF4RhXFQVceV-F31ew Creationists and the eye; Creationist "Contraductions" on display In 2024 Dan Barker published a small book titled "Contraduction" with the intent to establish a new word for an apologist and creationist error he repeatedly encountered during his debates*. Several well known authors have praised the word and concept: "An ingenious word for an invaluable concept. Sharp, clear, and timely" ~ Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology, Harvard "Both a delightful read and a penetrating argument: Barker has invented an invaluable new concept, and puts it to work with clarity, wit, and above all conclusiveness." ~ A.C. Grayling, Philosopher "I am completely down with the concept of contraduction. It fills a need. False pattern recognitions pose a real danger to our survival. Well done!" ~ Ann Druyan What Barker had recognized and Druyan labelled are false pattern recognitions that completely and erroneously invert the conclusion to a set of observations. As Barker points out, an example would be if you are sitting in a train and you falsely note for a moment that you are pulling out of the station only to correctly understand a moment later that the train outside is what is moving and not you; you briefly had been the victim of a contraduction . He mentions other contraductions. Noses were created for glasses. The daily crowing of a rooster causes the sun to rise. Obviously, one of the most famous contraductions is that the sun revolves around the earth because it does appear that way until that conclusion is effectively tested. Contraduction   thus is defined by Barker as an informal fallacy that occurs before reasoning begins. It is a hidden fallacy, flipping and inverting the truth.   The truth is opposite to what the person is thinking or asserting. "The verb 'contraduce' means simply to flip around" he notes. The debates between scientists and apologists regarding the vertebrate eye are extensive on the Internet and are wonderful examples of creationist contraductions. The creationists will list the RPE, cabling systems, oil droplets in some photoreceptor cells, etc. as wonderful designs without realizing that a closer look at vertebrate eyes indicates it's just the opposite. They have inverted the truth; as in cosmology it is we who orbit the sun and not the other way around. In nature the vertebrate eye has had to undergo several "tweaks", "patches", workarounds, or compensatory changes to make it work well. When you come across a car with it's back tail light broken, the red duct tape someone put on it is not an original "great design" of the car. Four compensatory adaptations through evolution have been discussed in the previous sections showing that the vertebrate eye is not well "designed"; rather, it has needed fixes and changes to make it work well. Creationists who list these adaptations and claim them as wonderful designs have tripped and fallen into a hole of contraductions. These co-adaptations really represent profound evidence of evolution attempting to lessen the evolutionary constraints  of the vertebrate eye with its inverted retina. * Barker, Dan. 2024. Contraduction. Hypatia Press, UK. 111pgs. Analogies for the eye and Intelligent Design advocates. DISH TV . Arguing that all the needed compensatory adaptations necessary to make the vertebrate eye work well are original and good is like hiring a DISH TV installation. The technician arrives at your house. Instead of putting the antenna on the roof pointed at the satellite, they go to the basement and install it there (retina), point the antenna away from the signal (photoreceptors direction), place it so it will try and grab signals through several walls and floors (the support vessels and cells blocking the retina), run a long electrical cord down to the basement because there's not a wall socket for electricity (the RPE for support), adding a second antenna to make up for poor signal strength (the oil droplets), then punching holes in the walls and floors to try and get more signal in (the cabling system). You assert this is a great design? You'd recommend this tech person to your family and friends? Meanwhile your neighbor with their DISH antenna on their roof pointed at the satellite is wondering if you've lost your mind (cephalopod eye). Broken tail light.  The car you just purchased has a broken tail light. Someone has not replaced it but compensated only and patched it with red duct tape. You think this is a great original design to the car rather than use a better solution - replace the light (the cephalopod eye works without all those vertebrate eye "fixes") Eyeglasses.  Focusing on eyeglasses for vision instead of why they are needed for an eye with vision problems is like creationists declaring all the workarounds and compensatory structures for the vertebrate eye to have good vision wonderful designs instead of noting the fundamental eye problems requiring the eyeglasses to begin with. Contraduction - inverting the real reason for the observations. Other Problems with an Inverted Retina Novella has noted the inverted retina also causes problems for the vertebrate eye not mentioned discussed above. The retina is prone to detachment . Novella notes, " the cephalopod eye does not suffer from retinal detachment because the axons from the photoreceptors anchor them to the layers beneath." A second issue is that the vertebrate eye is prone to macular degeneration.   " The macula is that part of the retina that has the densest concentration of rods and cones for detailed vision. Within the macula is a smaller area called the fovea which contains only cones and has the highest density of these receptors. The very existence of the macula, however, is a partial fix for the “backward” arrangement of retinal layers with the nerve and blood vessels between the receptors and the direction of light. This limits the density of rods and cones, and so the partial fix is to have one small area cleared of nerves and blood vessels where rods and cones can be denser. However, if the human retina were designed like that of the squid and other cephalopods, this would not be necessary. "The dependence of the human eye on the macular for sharp vision creates a vulnerability, for any problem with that small area will have a dramatic effect on visual acuity. The rest of the retina will not be able to adequately compensate for the loss or compromise of the macula because the density of rods and cones is just too diffuse. " Third, the human eye is prone to glaucoma.  This occurs because there is a narrow space between the iris and cornea called the anterior chamber which can become blocked and disrupt the flow of fluid through this chamber, producing narrow angle glaucoma. The eye configuration makes the eye more prone to this problem. " The most susceptible populations are Asians and Inuit. There is speculation that the narrow angle may have been a thermoregulatory adaptation to colder climates—a compromise exacerbating an already existing design weakness." https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0092-1 ? Other Problems with an Inverted Retina Novella has noted the inverted retina also causes problems for the vertebrate eye not mentioned discussed above. The retina is prone to detachment . Novella notes, " the cephalopod eye does not suffer from retinal detachment because the axons from the photoreceptors anchor them to the layers beneath." A second issue is that the vertebrate eye is prone to macular degeneration.   " The macula is that part of the retina that has the densest concentration of rods and cones for detailed vision. Within the macula is a smaller area called the fovea which contains only cones and has the highest density of these receptors. The very existence of the macula, however, is a partial fix for the “backward” arrangement of retinal layers with the nerve and blood vessels between the receptors and the direction of light. This limits the density of rods and cones, and so the partial fix is to have one small area cleared of nerves and blood vessels where rods and cones can be denser. However, if the human retina were designed like that of the squid and other cephalopods, this would not be necessary. "The dependence of the human eye on the macular for sharp vision creates a vulnerability, for any problem with that small area will have a dramatic effect on visual acuity. The rest of the retina will not be able to adequately compensate for the loss or compromise of the macula because the density of rods and cones is just too diffuse. " Third, the human eye is prone to glaucoma.  This occurs because there is a narrow space between the iris and cornea called the anterior chamber which can become blocked and disrupt the flow of fluid through this chamber, producing narrow angle glaucoma. The eye configuration makes the eye more prone to this problem. " The most susceptible populations are Asians and Inuit. There is speculation that the narrow angle may have been a thermoregulatory adaptation to colder climates—a compromise exacerbating an already existing design weakness." https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0092-1 ? The evolution of the vertebrate eye - a few comments Why then did the vertebrate eye evolve like this?  One reason could be that early eyes were in a water environment and an inverted retina has space saving advantages. Kroger and Biehlmaier discuss how studies support this view: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909003162#fig2 A key protein needed for vertebrate eye function has been found to be of bacterial origin, acquired by horizontal gene transfer in the distant past. At least 45% of our genome is derived from viruses or duplicated viral products and genes. All of this is consistent with evolutionary explanations and best explained through evolution: "Here, we describe the essential contribution of bacteria to the evolution of the vertebrate eye, via interdomain horizontal gene transfer (iHGT), of a bacterial gene that gave rise to the vertebrate-specific interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP). We demonstrate that IRBP, a highly conserved and essential retinoid shuttling protein, arose from a bacterial gene that was acquired, duplicated, and neofunctionalized coincident with the development of the vertebrate-type eye >500 Mya." https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214815120    [paper] https://phys.org/news/2023-04-evidence-interdomain-horizontal-gene-eye.html   [additional discussion and explanation] Conclusion Debates surrounding the vertebrate eye as an example of poor design over the years have produced many competing articles from both sides. The case of the vertebrate eye being poorly structured for vision is a strong one because when comparing various vertebrate eyes we find compensatory adaptations to lessen the vertebrate eye deficits. These include the RPE  which an eye with an everted retina does not need, the pecten oculi  in birds, the conus papillaris  in many reptiles, the tapetum  in many vertebrates for night vision, a cabling system  to shuttle photons more cleanly to the photoreceptors, and oil droplets  in some vertebrate eye photoreceptors. Instead of realizing these vertebrate eye structures are a result of evolution diminishing and attenuating problems with the eye, creationists and apologists have inverted their true meaning, falling victim to contraductions . The problems with the vertebrate eye are a result of the evolutionary inverted retina constraint imposed upon it. The irony is that what they think will defend their views, actually represents powerful evidence for evolution. In addition, an example of creationist quote-mining is discussed that is often encountered in debates with creationists regarding the inadequacy of the vertebrate eye. Without tweaks and patches to make it work efficiently the vertebrate eye is hardly intelligently and wonderfully "designed".

"The current understanding of science holds that spacetime began to exist when the universe began to exist. It is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang, in the same sense that it is meaningless to ask what is south of the South Pole." ~ Dave Muscato “More than half of our neighbors believe that the entire universe was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue.” ~ Sam Harris [less than half by now] This discussion will briefly address why anti-evolutionists are so excited about the Big Bang as evidence for a Designer and why they often believe that the multiverse concept is just an attempt by many scientists to avoid the contention that the Big Bang logically points to a Designer. A disclaimer - I have no educational background in cosmology but have been following this aspect of cosmology for many years and hope that I at least understand the main issues. A. The Big Bang Most physicists and cosmologists in the 19th and 20th centuries, including Einstein, viewed the universe in a static state or steady state condition. Although it had been observed since 1912 that galaxies (at that time called nebula because telescopes were not strong enough to reveal they were really galaxies and not globs of gas/dust) were receding from earth, the importance of this observation was not appreciated. In 1924 Hubble observed that these nebula were actually other galaxies outside our own and by 1927 he had formulated a law to describe how fast they were moving away from us. A Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist, Georges Lemaître, working with mathematical equations showed that the universe was actually expanding. Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the steady state model, described during a BBC interview in 1949 this expansion theory as “The Big Bang” and the name stuck. Gradually over the decades observations such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) in 1964 , galaxy formations, and mathematical models supporting the Big Bang all coalesced into convincing support for the theory. It is now accepted that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. A major advancement was the development of inflation by Guth from theoretical mathematics that solved some problems with the Big Bang Theory(1). There are several major misconceptions about the Big Bang. First, it was not an explosion like we experience explosions on earth. Rather, the observable universe is expanding and carrying galaxies with it. This very brief expansion period is known as inflation and is integral to the Big Bang Theory but also as we will see is critical to the Multiverse idea. This is also why the galaxies are not only moving away from us but counterintuitively, accelerating. Another misconception is that the Big Bang explains the origin of the universe. However, it does not explain the origin of energy, space and time. Current calculations place the observable universe with a diameter of 93 billion light years and age of 13.8 billion years. Note this is not what we can observe but rather what is the physical limit the speed of light produces for the theory (2). The reason many love the Big Bang is they think it points to a beginning, not an infinite state, and that this confirms many views. This expectation is summarized in the Cosmological Argument but more specifically the Kalam Cosmological Argument where since everything is said to have a cause the universe must have been caused. My simplified rendition: Things are always caused by something The Universe began at the Big Bang The Universe was thus caused by something The best explanation must be an Intelligent Agent But as I will now show, it’s not at all clear that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. An infinite universe is also possible. Questions then arise. What is the universe expanding into ? Furthermore, what caused inflation? Well, it turns out that it is entirely possible that our universe could be infinite and the Cosmological Arguments must now be suspended. “Our current cosmological model does an excellent job describing the universe down to the first fraction of a second. It is only a tiny fraction of a second where our theoretical models break down: physics becomes very different from anything we could build an experiment for here on earth and we also struggle to look back this far since our view is obscured by things like the Cosmic Microwave Background. But just because a tiny fraction of a second seems small on a human timescale that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room for a lot to have happened back then that we don't yet know about: maybe our universe started from nothing, maybe it bounced back from a previous universe or started from within another. We don't even know if our universe is a finite size or infinite. All we are pretty confident about so far is that our universe has been expanding for many billions of years. When we extrapolate backward the entire part of the universe that we can observe today was converged to a single point around 14 billion years ago. Time is a concept that works great in our daily life but there are limits to it… So when we say before the big bang, we can not just assume that something like "a second before the big bang happened" has to make sense. For example, the future can be infinite, a clock ticking forever, I don't need to imagine anything beyond that. In the same way in the early universe density diverges and the concept of time can stop existing as we reach time zero, there does not have to be a before.” (4) From Karen Masters: “ We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it. Another definition for the universe is the observable universe - which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can't observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe. We actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever, even though we can only see a finite part of it. We can speculate in meta-physics or in religion about what was before the Big Bang, but again, we cannot use science to tell anything about it as physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.” (5). As Pandian writes, things in theoretical physics can become very strange and as the video below by Physics Girl also explains: “ As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all… Such [quantum] vacuum fluctuations cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real… In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin proposed an extension of Tyron's idea and suggested that the Universe was created by quantum processes starting from "literally nothing", meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well.” “Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time… In Hawking's words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE”… So, the origin of mass in the Universe and the Universe itself is quite speculative at this point.” (6) Important short fun 10 min. video to update us on cosmological understandings - and misunderstandings. Please watch! And you may never look at raisin bread the same way again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9q-7GPQr1Y Very probably no singularity - https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/ Why not singularity and how inflation is supported: The start of our universe - 2 interpretations Either the Big Bang was the start of the universe or it was not but was preceded by a period of inflation. It turns out there is a way to test which origin explanation is true. "As you can clearly see, there can be no doubt that there truly are super-horizon fluctuations within the Universe, as the significance of this signal is overwhelming. The fact that we see super-horizon fluctuations, and that we see them not merely from reionization but as they are predicted to exist from inflation, is a slam dunk: the non-inflationary, singular Big Bang model does not match up with the Universe we observe. Instead, we learn that we can only extrapolate the Universe back to a certain cutoff point in the context of the hot Big Bang, and that prior to that, an inflationary state must have preceded the hot Big Bang." https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/evidence-universe-before-big-bang/ There was a universe before the Big Bang. And has been noted above, an infinite universe cannot be ruled out. The Cosmological Argument for God thus rests on an unproven premise and should be discarded at this time. Ethan Siegel - What is our universe expanding into? https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-universe-expanding-into/ How vs. What and Einstein? Scientist : Einstein's theory of general relativity has been validated and corroborated by evidence. Critic : Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be valid until you explain the origin of space-time. Scientist : Listen, there is evidence for this theory, let's talk about that. Critic : If you cannot explain the origin of space-time, your theory is false, because where did the space-time needed by general relativity come from ? It's a religion because you can't explain the origin of space-time ~Adeleke Emmanuel Oluwasegun Brian Cox Explains that the universe can be eternal.  He then discusses his confusion how this upsets some people: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1272367077542530 Summary My point is that we don’t know if the universe is finite or infinite. We don’t know what came before the Big Bang other than inflation and neither do the theologians nor philosophers. And to suggest that it must be an Intelligent Designer is just another example of a God of the Gaps Argument (logical fallacy) which has a terrible track record with science, forever shrinking in the face of ongoing scientific research and discoveries. Anti-evolutionists are no longer justified in making this inference. If they were honest the Cosmological Argument and it’s offspring the Kalam Cosmological Argument should be put in a box to be discussed later if an infinite universe is someday ruled out. If it is finite there still may be natural explanations. Citations for section A 1. Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-penzias-78 2. Misconceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe 3. What was there before the Big Bang? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/1098-but-seriously-what-was-there-before-the-big-bang-beginner 4. What was there before the Big Bang? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/585-what-was-there-before-the-big-bang-and-what-is-there-outside-of-our-universe-beginner 5. Where did the universe come from? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/572-where-did-the-universe-come-from-intermediate 6. How small was the universe at the start of the Big Bang? [never was a singularity] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/25/how-small-was-the-universe-at-the-start-of-the-big-bang/?sh=35a8618e5f79 7. Yes, the universe is really 100% reductionist in nature. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-reductionist/#Echobox=1690577002 B. The Multiverse The anti-evolutionists I have interacted with often think that scientists desire to never admit the possibility of a universe beginning and that the multiverse is a way for science to deny that the universe had a beginning; the multiverse then amounts to an excuse for scientists to supposedly move past the Cosmological Argument. Never mind that in America at least, a significant percentage of scientists are theists. My limited reading however is that the multiverse falls out of equations for inflation, which was briefly detailed in part A of this posting, and is supported and integral to the Big Bang Theory. It is not just something science imagined to avoid the Big Bang as an origin to the universe. As Ethan Siegel writes : “ One of the most successful theories of 20th century science is cosmic inflation, which preceded and set up the hot Big Bang. We also know how quantum fields generally work, and if inflation is a quantum field (which we strongly suspect it is), then there will always be more "still-inflating" space out there. Whenever and wherever inflation ends, you get a hot Big Bang. If inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, a Multiverse is a must.” “That’s what the multiverse is, and why scientists accept its existence as the default position. We have overwhelming evidence for the hot Big Bang, and also that the Big Bang began with a set of conditions that don’t come with a de facto explanation. If we add in an explanation for it — cosmic inflation — then that inflating spacetime that set up and gave rise to the Big Bang makes its own set of novel predictions. Many of those predictions are borne out by observation, but other predictions also arise as consequences of inflation.” (7) “ This picture, of huge Universes, far bigger than the meager part that's observable to us, constantly being created across this exponentially inflating space, is what the Multiverse is all about. It's important to recognize that the Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. It makes no predictions for any observable phenomena that we can access from within our own pocket of existence. Rather, the Multiverse is a theoretical prediction that comes out of the laws of physics as they’re best understood today. It’s perhaps even an inevitable consequence of those laws: if you have an inflationary Universe governed by quantum physics, this is something you’re pretty much destined to wind up with.” “It's possible that our understanding of the state before the hot Big Bang is incorrect, and that our ideas about inflation are completely wrong for this application. If that's the case, then the existence of a Multiverse isn't a foregone conclusion. But the prediction of an eternally inflating state, where an uncountably large number of pocket Universes are continuously born and driven inextricably apart from one another, is a direct consequence of our best current theories, if they're correct.” (8) Brian Cox discusses the Big Bang and the Multiverse concept here: Conclusion Our universe may indeed by infinite or finite. If infinite, the Cosmological Argument fails. The Big Bang is strongly supported by science but says nothing about what came before or why it started. These unknowns negate alternative arguments through logical inferences because the premises are not established as claimed, or are falsified. The Big Bang does not by default support only a universe that had a beginning. If the Multiverse is true, then again the Big Bang Theory may indicate infinite universes. An important observation from Sabine Hossenfelder is that the Multiverse is not a scientific theory and it’s also not even a scientific hypothesis because to date there is no way to test it. It is a theoretical prediction from inflation where inflation is integral to the Big Bang Theory. It is beyond irony that some embrace the Big Bang which depends on inflation while trying to diminish the multiverse idea which is a direct consequence of that same inflation. Citations for section B 7. Why the multiverse is suspected https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-multiverse-exists/ 8. The Multiverse is Inevitable https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/12/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it/?sh=55fc36f016c9

"The 'hairy quadruped furnished with a tail, and pointed ears, probably arboreal in his habits', this good fellow carried hidden in his nature, apparently, something destined to develop into a necessity for humane letters." ~ Matthew Arnold, 1885. Introduction Our ears are divided into three major sections. The visible part includes our outer ear, also called the pinna, and the ear canal that leads to the eardrum.  Going deeper, the next section is the middle ear that contains the three small bones called the incus, malleus, and stapes. The last section is the inner ear located in the temporal bone of the skull and contains the organs for balance, the semicircular canals and the organ for hearing, the cochlea.  Science has revealed how each of these three main auditory sections evolved. A look especially at our outer ear alone provides important clues to our evolutionary past. 1. Our visible ears - clues to our evolutionary ancestry.   A. Darwin’s Tubercle   - Some people have a small thickened area on their outer ear that scientists and medical researchers have named Darwin’s Tubercle. It matches an ear prominence found in many monkeys.  Left: For educational purposes only. Fair use attribution. https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/20343/74434_CE%5BRa1%5D_F(SHU)_QC(SD_IS)_PF1(VD_SHU)_PFA(KM)_PN(IS).pdf Right: For educational purposes only. Fair use attribution. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin-s-tubercle.jpg B. Vestigial Pinna Muscles   - It takes at least 6 vestigial muscles to hold the human outer ears to our skull. Although some of us can move our ears slightly, our ability to do so pales in comparison to that of other some other animals. Those vestigial muscles, where simple connective tissue would have sufficed, attest to distant human ancestors who could move their ears in many directions. The best and most harmonious explanation is evolution because we evolved from ancestors that could move their ears in many directions. For educational purposes only. Fair use attribution https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musculushelicismajor.png A deer demonstrates how it can move its ears 180 degrees with muscles From: https://x.com/faintsun/status/1275538865512755206 C. Preauricular Sinus Tracts   -  Below is a typical sinus tract that can occur in human ears. They are not uncommon and represent congenital abnormalities. How do they point us to human evolution? In human and vertebrate embryogenesis, tissue arches form next to the developing throat or pharynx. They are called pharyngeal or branchial arches. In fish they are called gill arches because they develop into gills. In tetrapods (four legged animals) the first and second arches develop several tissue thickenings that give rise to the external ear (pinna) after fusion. If they fail to fuse they can form small tunnels or sinus tracts and these are called preauricular (before the auricle, or outer ear) sinus tracts showing us our common ancestry with fish. Further evidence of our connection with fish ancestors can be demonstrated in at least two ways. First, with the rare condition of Otocephaly  which occurs due to disruption of the 1st branchial arch. The external ears then form and fuse below the chin. The mandible is missing because it arises also from the 1st branchial cleft. The fetus is stillborn or a miscarriage occurs; the disorder arises from a mutation of the PRRX1 gene on chromosome 1. For educational purposes only. Fair use attribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otocephaly Second, in 2025 researchers published a study showing a genetic connection between gill development in fish and the tetrapod external ear. The abstract: "... Here we show that the outer ear shares gene regulatory programs with the gills of fishes and amphibians for both its initial outgrowth and later development of elastic cartilage. Comparative single-nuclei multiomics of the human outer ear and zebrafish gills reveals conserved gene expression and putative enhancers enriched for common transcription factor binding motifs. This is reflected by transgenic activity of human outer ear enhancers in gills, and fish gill enhancers in the outer ear. Further, single-cell multiomics of the cartilaginous book gills of horseshoe crabs reveal a shared DLX-mediated gill program with vertebrates, with a book gill distalless enhancer driving expression in zebrafish gills. We propose that elements of an invertebrate gill program were reutilized in vertebrates to generate first gills and then the outer ear." For educational purposes only. Fair use attribution https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08577-5 Furthermore, a summary of the above cited regulatory gene confirms the repurposing of a fish gene for vertebrate outer ear formation. " Fish gills and human ears share the same genetic blueprint. Gills and mammalian ears bear little resemblance, yet examination of gene regulation reveals that key supportive cartilage tissue arises from similar embryonic cells guided by an evolutionarily conserved genetic program." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00342-6?fbclid=IwY2xjawITEytleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbg9vZRZEbCgBWtYQB3KD9968urAaLxRbw1OHOS9QoNE87tAjI9gUXmF3Q_aem_GP_lEoE3E0zis45OJYvLwA *** See footnote end of this blog article about a similar issue that happened when a nerve (the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in all tetrapods) that travels to our larynx or voice box was trapped under a branchial arch in fishes as the neck evolved and how it now must travel a crazy course because of it. 2. Evolution of the middle ear  The middle ear of mammals contains three bones - the incus, malleus, and stapes (“hammer, anvil, and stirrup”) that connect to the tympanic membrane (ear drum). Scientists have discovered in detail how all these bones evolved.  When paleontologists classify mammalian fossils, they can’t use common defining characteristics of mammals such as fur and milk production since these don’t normally fossilize. They instead look for the auditory bulla, a bony structure that encases these three bones.  In reptiles, amphibians, and birds the eardrum is connected to the middle ear by a single bone called the columella. This corresponds to the mammalian stapes. During evolution a bone from the upper jaw (quadrate) migrated to form the incus and a bone from the lower jaw (the articular) migrated to from the malleus. The details of how this happened and when is a triumph of science contributed by many diverse and independent fields of research. The columella became the stapes.  How do we know this happened? The fossils tell a wonderful story of   gradual evolution . But there are several other lines of evidence that also tell the story of this amazing gradual evolution. These are best discussed by Anthwal, et al. in their 2012 article. “ Having three ossicles in the middle ear is one of the defining features of mammals. All reptiles and birds have only one middle ear ossicle, the stapes or columella. How these two additional ossicles came to reside and function in the middle ear of mammals has been studied for the last 200 years and represents one of the classic example of how structures can change during evolution to function in new and novel ways. From fossil data, comparative anatomy and developmental biology it is now clear that the two new bones in the mammalian middle ear, the malleus and incus, are homologous to the quadrate and articular, which form the articulation for the upper and lower jaws in non-mammalian jawed vertebrates. The incorporation of the primary jaw joint into the mammalian middle ear was only possible due to the evolution of a new way to articulate the upper and lower jaws, with the formation of the dentary-squamosal joint, or TMJ in humans. The evolution of the three-ossicle ear in mammals is thus intricately connected with the evolution of a novel jaw joint, the two structures evolving together to create the distinctive mammalian skull… Although the fossil record provides clues to the transition it is often incomplete and relies on a few isolated specimens. The ideal solution would be to be able to follow the transition from primary to novel articulation in a living animal. This is indeed possible in marsupials ( Maier, 1987 ). In marsupials the neonate must be able to suckle at an early developmental stage, prior to the formation of the bones that will make up the normal mammalian jaw joint. Marsupials, therefore utilise the joint between the incus and malleus as their primary jaw joint for the first few weeks after birth ( Muller, 1968 ) ( Fig. 5 ). A clear synovial joint between the malleus and incus has been reported at postnatal day (P) 3 in the opossum Monodelphis ( Filan, 1991 )."In conclusion, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw joint were pivotal steps in the evolution of mammals. It is also a great example of how classical comparative anatomy, paleontology and developmental biology have come together to piece together how this remarkable transformation of jaw joint to ear ossicles was able to come about. The homologies of the malleus, incus and stapes to the articular, quadrate and columella, and tympanic ring and gonial to the angular and prearticular suggested by comparative anatomy 175 years ago have been recently confirmed by molecular and developmental biology. The recent discovery of new mammaliform fossils has allowed careful documentation of the shift from primary to secondary jaw articulation, creating an opportunity to follow the transformation of the post-dentary skeletal elements. This fossil data has been complemented by the study of marsupial development, providing insight into the changing role of the malleus and incus, and the relationship of the primary and secondary jaw joints.” From: Evolution of the mammalian ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3552421/ For educational purposes only. Fair attribution. From: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2 Other references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles https://carnegiemnh.org/press/researchers-announce-surprising-clue-in-the-evolution-of-mammalian-middle-ear/ 3. Evolution of the cochlea The cochlea (Latin for "snail or screw") is the coiled structure in the inner ear of mammals that converts vibrations into nerve impulses. These vibrations come from the middle ear bones that are eventually in contact with the eardrum, thus vibrating as air pressure waves. The middle ear bones transfer their vibrations to fluid waves that move hair cells of the Organ of Corti inside the cochlea. By studying the fossil record especially with micro-CT and present comparative anatomy, scientists have been able to show basically how this organ evolved although the exact evolutionary steps are still under investigation. Lizards and snakes, birds and crocodilians have a basilar papilla for hearing. The Organ of Corti evolved from this probably about 120 million years ago. Manley notes: " Evolution of the cochlea and high-frequency hearing (>20 kHz; ultrasonic to humans) in mammals has been a subject of research for many years. Recent advances in paleontological techniques, especially the use of micro-CT scans, now provide important new insights that are here reviewed. True mammals arose more than 200 million years (Ma) ago. Of these, three lineages survived into recent geological times. These animals uniquely developed three middle ear ossicles, but these ossicles were not initially freely suspended as in modern mammals. The earliest mammalian cochleae were only about 2 mm long and contained a lagena macula. In the multituberculate and monotreme mammalian lineages, the cochlea remained relatively short and did not coil, even in modern representatives. In the lineage leading to modern therians (placental and marsupial mammals), cochlear coiling did develop, but only after a period of at least 60 Ma. Even Late Jurassic mammals show only a 270 ° cochlear coil and a cochlear canal length of merely 3 mm. Comparisons of modern organisms, mammalian ancestors, and the state of the middle ear strongly suggest that high-frequency hearing (>20 kHz) was not realized until the early Cretaceous (~125 Ma). At that time, therian mammals arose and possessed a fully coiled cochlea. The evolution of modern features of the middle ear and cochlea in the many later lineages of therians was, however, a mosaic and different features arose at different times... " Obviously, no old fossil provides remnants of soft tissues except as far as they influence or are shaped by bone. It is, however, possible to use the cladistical outgroup analysis method to investigate comparative structural questions regarding the soft tissues of the hearing organ. If we compare the structure of the cochleae of modern therian mammals with that of modern monotreme mammals and these again to the structures in nonmammals, we come to the conclusion that all modern mammals have similar and unique structural features (synapomorphies) and all their hearing organs deserve to be called “organs of Corti.” No nonmammals have anything similar." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3505590/ A more complete examination of the evolution of the inner ear including components of the vestibular system for balance can be referenced in the article by Koppl and Manley: " This review summarizes paleontological data as well as studies on the morphology, function, and molecular evolution of the cochlea of living mammals (monotremes, marsupials, and placentals). The most parsimonious scenario is an early evolution of the characteristic organ of Corti, with inner and outer hair cells and nascent electromotility. Most remaining unique features, such as loss of the lagenar macula, coiling of the cochlea, and bony laminae supporting the basilar membrane, arose later, after the separation of the monotreme lineage, but before marsupial and placental mammals diverged. The question of when hearing sensitivity first extended into the ultrasonic range (defined here as >20 kHz) remains speculative, not least because of the late appearance of the definitive mammalian middle ear. The last significant change was optimizing the operating voltage range of prestin, and thus the efficiency of the outer hair cells’ amplifying action, in the placental lineage only." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6546037/#s3 Conclusion The evolution of the mammalian ear is evident in all three basic ear sections. These are the outer ear or pinna, the middle ear consisting of three bones, and the inner ear containing the auditory structures and vestibular apparatus. The evolution of the mammalian outer ear and its connections to fish anatomy was discussed along with how a genetic abnormality can help support these connections. The middle ear bones are perhaps one of the best documented evolutionary examples of gradual evolution. The history of ear evolution with scientists detailing their gradual formation from jaw bones through the fossil record is introduced. Lastly, the evolution of the inner ear structures involved in auditory nerve processing have been discussed in the literature and several references were provided for readers wanting to know further details. What would seem to be a near impossible task for science to reveal how a complex organ such as the mammalian ear could have evolved through natural processes and gradually has indeed yielded to careful study, driving curiosity, and new technologies. [ Note: just as our outer ear can be traced to the gill arches in fish, so also the long course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve can be explained by evolution and our ancestry with fish. In some dinosaurs it would have been ridiculously long. Instead of branching off the vagus nerve at the level of the larynx as the superior nerves do, the RLN is forced to travel all the way to the heart before coming back up to where it was originally at the level of the voicebox to finally innervate the lower side of the larynx. It became trapped by the 6th gill arch in fish as the neck evolved. For a discussion of this bizarre adaptation route and why evolution explains it, see the first section of Why Not Intelligent Design . ] "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" ~ Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973. Evolutionary Biologist, Christian