What is the Evidence for Evolution?


Stated Clearly Presents: What is the evidence for evolution? The theory of Biological Evolution makes two
very bold claims about living creatures: First: All living things on earth are related.
They evolved from a common ancestor. Second: The evolution of living things is
powered by natural processes. Things which can be studied and understood. But is there really any evidence that these
two claims are true? Yes. There are so many observable facts from
so many different fields of study that the only way we can even begin to talk about them
is to group them into categories or lines of evidence. To keep things simple, here we’ll focus
on Evolution’s first claim that: All living things on Earth are related. We cannot tackle the entire tree of life at
once (after all there’s an estimated 8.7 Million species alive today), so instead we’ll
focus most of our attention on one fairly small but fascinating branch of the evolutionary
tree: Cetaceans. This branch includes whales, dolphins and porpoises. Biologist claim that all these creatures are
closely related, and that the entire group evolved from an ancient 4 legged land mammal. Instead of taking their word for it, let’s
look at the facts. We’ll start with a few from field of comparative anatomy: the study
of differences and similarities between living things. Whales live in water and from a distance,
they sort of look like giant fish. A close inspection of their anatomy however, tells
us a very different story. Whales, just like land mammals but unlike
fish: have placentas and give live birth They feed milk to their young They are warm blooded (which is extremely
rare for a fish) and whales do not have gills, instead, just
like us, they breath air with 2, fully developed lungs. Whales don’t seem to have noses like mammals
do. Instead they breathe through blowholes coming out the tops of their heads. Some whales
have two blowholes that almost look like nostrils, but dolphins and porpoises only have one.
Surprisingly, if you look at their skulls, you find that the blowhole splits into 2 nasal
passages inside the head. Could it be that the blowhole is actually a highly modified
mammal nose? It looks that way but we’ll need more evidence to be sure. Many whales have hair, just like land mammals.
In this photograph, you can actually see the whiskers of this baby gray whale as he rests
his chin on mama’s back. Strangely, whales have arm, wrist, hand, and
finger bones inside their front flippers. Here’s a photo of these bones, the same
bones that bats, hippos and people have in their front appendages: One bone, two bones,
wrist bones and finger bones. Modern whales do not have back legs but they
do have a pair of strange tiny bones where the hips and hind legs should be. Here’s
a picture of these bones from a bowhead whale. They almost look like shriveled hip, thigh,
and shin bones. This one even has what looks like a deformed ball and socket joint between
the hip and thigh bone, just like the ball and socket joint in your own hip. Is this
resemblance a mere coincidence or are these real leg bones? Perhaps leftovers from the
whales evolutionary history? Before we draw any bold conclusions, let’s
see if a completely separate line of evidence will confirm our suspicions. Embryology is the study of how creatures develop
before being born or hatching from an egg. Here we see a dolphin and a human embryo,
side by side, at similar stages of development. Notice that they both have what look like
arm buds, and leg buds. In humans, the leg buds grow to become legs. In whales, they
grow for a while, but then stop, effectively fading away as the rest of the whale continues
to grow. These are all photographs of a common dolphin
at different stages of development. Notice that early on, we see two nostril grooves
on the front of the face, just like you’d expect in a puppy or a human. As the dolphin continues to grow, the nostril
groves migrate to the top of the head and fuse together becoming the dolphin’s blowhole. So far we have multiple facts from two independent
lines of evidence, comparative anatomy, and embryology, both telling us the exact same
story: The ancestors of whales were once 4 legged land creatures! Will the fossil record
act as a third witness confirming this idea? These are two species of extinct basilosaurid
whales! These creatures are known from multiple well
preserved skeletons. They appear to have lived side by side roughly 34 to 40 million years
ago. In this photo we are looking down at the top
of a basilosaurid skull. This is not a model or a cast, these are the actual bones which
were pulled from the ground. Notice that the nasal opening is not on the top of the head
like those of modern whales, and not at the end of the snout like those of most land mammals.
Instead their nostrils sit right in the middle, this is an intermediate species, exactly what
the theory of evolution tells us we should find! At the back-end of a basilosaurid’s body,
there are small, yet fully developed hips, legs, ankle, feet and we suspect they had
at least 3 toes though we’ve only found the bones for one. These legs are far too small for walking on
land, but may have been useful for mating or scratching away parasites and itchy skin. Evolutionary theory tells us that the further
we go back in time, the harder it will be to distinguish whales from regular land mammals. Meet Maiacetus. Scientists have found multiple
well preserved skeletons of this species, one of which appears to be a pregnant mother. The hip bones of Maiacetus do seem sturdy
enough to walk on land, but this animal is considered to be a whale for many reasons:
Their skeletons have all been found among fossils of sea-creatures Their short legs combined with long flat fingers
and toes, suggest they were strong swimmers with webbed hands and feet. Here we see the bottom side of a maiacetus
jaw and skull as it looked at the dig site. Her teeth match those of the basilosaurid
whales we saw earlier. And unique structures of her middle ear bones,
the bulbs behind her jaw, match those of basilosaurid whales and modern whales. Maiacetus appears to be, a walking whale! The fossils of many ancient whale-like mammals
have been found, and people continue to find more. Together, these fossils blur the line
between 4 legged land mammals and fully aquatic whales, solidifying the idea that whales indeed,
evolved from land creatures. Now lets look at a 4th line of evidence: DNA? DNA molecules contain chemical codes which
act like recipes for living things. Without ever looking at bones, embryos, or
anatomy, researchers can compare the DNA code of different living creatures to find out
who is most closely related to who. Whale DNA has been compared to all kinds of
other animals: fish, sea lions, you name it, and so far, the closest genetic match, is
to the pudgy, water-loving hippopotamus. This does not mean that whales evolved from
hippos, but if this genetic finding is correct, whales and hippos both evolved from a common
ancestor which lived roughly 54 million years ago. At first the link between whales and hippos
surprised researchers. Whales are mainly carnivores – they eat things like fish and small crustaceans,
while hippos are mostly vegetarian. A closer look however, reveals that hippos
and whales, actually share many strange features, some of which may have come from their common
ancestor. Ancient walking whales have specially shaped
ankle bones, found only in hippos and the close relatives of hippos, hippos, just like
whales, often give birth and even nurse their young underwater, they both have multi chambered
stomachs (which is common for herbivores but unheard of in fish-eating mammals), they are
both missing a coat of fur, and here’s a fun fact – whales and hippos are some of the
only mammals on earth that have internal testicles. So there you have it, dozens of facts from
4 independent lines of evidence, all tell us the exact same story, whales evolved from
4 legged land mammals, but the history of whales isn’t the only evolutionary history
that we’ve been able to work out. We know from fossils, DNA, embryology and
many other lines of evidence that bird wings are actually modified arms and claws! Birds
evolved from dinosaur-like ancestors. We can also clearly see that bat wings evolved
from 5 fingered hands, similar to those of monkeys and shrews. We’ve found that humans share a fairly recent
common ancestor with chimpanzees, that mammals evolved from reptile-like creatures, those
reptile-like creatures evolved from amphibian-like creatures, those amphibian-like creatures
evolved from fish-like creatures, and fish if you go back far enough, share a common
ancestor with segmented worms. So to sum things up, thousands of observable
facts from completely independent fields of study, are coming together to tell us the
exact same story. All living things on earth are related. I’m Jon Perry and that’s a basic overview
of the evidence for evolution, Stated Clearly. Thanks for watching our show, if you enjoyed
it, be sure to share it with your friends on facebook and twitter. If you want to learn more about whale fossils,
and who doesn’t, we have links in the description of this video which take you to articles on
our website. Special thanks to Tyler Proctor, Zaid Ghasib,
Anthony Danzl, Leon Z Newman, Rosemary Mosco, and Jordan Collver. All of these folks volunteered
their time and talents to make this animation happen. Special thanks to Dr. Philip D. Gingerich
and Dr. Hans Thewissen. They both volunteered hours of their time advising us, and preparing
images of fossils and embryos. I’m proud to announce that for the first time
in Stated Clearly’s history, this animation was completely paid for with contributions
from our viewers. If you are able to help support our please visit us at statedclearly.com
and click “contribute” So long for now, stay curious.

Comments 100

  • Some are asking if whale hips still have any sort of function. Yes they partially do. In normal land mammals, hip bones serve 3 main functions:
    1) attaching the legs,
    2) supporting internal organs
    3) anchoring muscles of the sex organs.

    Whales have lost the first two functions but maintain the third.

  • Creationists have no arguments, so they just spam links in comment sections instead, hoping that someone as dumb as them will click them and be convinced to join their crusade of stupidity.

  • Today's Creation Moment
    Remarkable Hummingbirds
    Matthew 10:31

    “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

    One of the delights of living in the Pacific Northwest of the United States is being able to watch the hummingbirds. As soon as we saw these remarkable little birds for ourselves, my wife and I knew we had to attract them to our yard. So we invested in feeders and kept them topped up with sugar solution through the summer months. Two species seemed to predominate in our garden – the orange-bellied Rufous and the beautiful, iridescent green Anna’s hummingbird.

    Of course, nothing previously seen on the TV screen could prepare me for the delight of watching the little creatures fly backwards as they finished feeding. They rarely landed, so we had no view of their wings, which move so fast that they are just a blur.

    Normally, when a bird’s wings upstroke, this is simply to get the wings back in position for another downstroke. Hummingbirds are different. Both strokes have power. The amazing way in which hummingbirds beat their wings uses a huge amount of energy for such a tiny bird. In fact, it has been estimated that hummingbirds need an energy input, which, if scaled up to human dimensions, would be the equivalent of us eating 1,300 hamburgers a day! So much energy would be produced that we would actually catch fire!

    It should be obvious that the mechanisms required to cope with such energy changes could not have evolved by chance. The little hummingbird is a wonderful example of God’s design. p. f. t.

    When we consider the way these birds were designed, we thank You, Lord, that You care about us more than these wonderful creatures. Amen.

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – The Evolution of Whales
    Whales have been described as iconic examples of evolution. It is for that reason they are under continual attack from creationists.

    Many creationists ask why would a land animal return to the sea, If you think about it, many species have returned to the sea, from the giant marine reptiles of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, to Sea Turtles, Seals, Sea Lions, Penguins, et al, there was even a Marine Sloth (now extinct) on the coast of Chile. Each of them had to adapt (evolve) the means to cope with a new environment. In many cases the adaptations were remarkably similar, in other cases they evolved in unique ways. Whales and manatees evolved powerful tails for propulsion, losing their hind limbs in the process. In seals, evolution resulted in fused hind limbs that function much like a tail for propulsion, and use their forelimbs for steering. Sea lions on the other hand use their front limbs for propulsion and steer with hind limbs.There is abundant fossil evidence for the evolution of all of those marine species. Evolution of Manatees, Dugongs and Sea Cows paralleled that of whales, except they shared common ancestry with elephants

    Even though the ancient whale Basilosaurus was known in Darwin's time from discoveries in the southeastern United States, It was not known that Basilosuarids had hind limbs until more complete fossils were discovered in Egypt's Wadi Al Hitan (Valley of the Whales). Until then it was therefore difficult to establish a connection between fully aquatic whalees and quadrupedal land mammals.

    Land animals have many skeletal structures in common. Hind limbs are supported by a pelvis consisting of 3 fused bones, ilium, ishium and pubis to which various muscles are attached. There are 5 fused vertebrae, the sacral vertebrae, to which the pelves is also fused, giving firm support for internal organs, and hind limbs. Those structural elememts are even seen in the 375 mya fossil Tiktaalik

    With our greater understanding of whale evolution, we see a succession of fossils through time with shared characteristics that start with land animals that used hind legs for propulsion while swimming. That whale is Pakicetus. Fossils of it and other early whales have beeen discovered in India and Pakistan.in the area of the ancient Tethys Sea. As their adaptations to ocean life developed, they started ranging further afield. https://slideplayer.com/slide/4483336/14/images/6/Areas+in+red+indicate+sites+where+fossil+whales+have.jpg
    Note that fossil sites correspond to the ancient shores of the Tethys Sea prior to impact of the Indian Sub Continent. Also note that many of them are in areas of potential political conflict, not ideal places to hunt for fossils.

    Successive early cetacean fossils show increased use of the tail for propulsion, placing a premium on spinal flexibility. Freeing the pelvis from the spine provided that flexibility, and took place in steps.

    The latest fossil whale discovery is Peregocetus pacificus, found on the coast of Peru;
    This 43 mya fossil had fully functional powerful legs that enabled it to get around on land, plus a powerful tail with a pelvis still fused to saccral vertebrae.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47822228

    The next step in basilosauroides (Basilosuarus and Dorodon) was complete separation of the pelvis from the vertebrae while still retaining hind limbs of limited use. While spinal flexibility was further improved, it gave no support for hind limbs on land at which point they would have been fully aquatic. Basilosaurus and Dorodon hind limbs had fully articulated pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, metacarpals and phalanges, all the normal parts of a quadrupedal leg. That pelvis however, was no longer fused to the vertebrae. An 18 inch hind limb was of little use for propelling a 50 foot Basilosaurus and the same applied to the smaller Dorodon. Since their value for propulsion was negligible and had the effect of increasing drag, evolutionary pressure favored further reduction in size and eventual elimination which took place in more recent cetaceans. It appears that Basilosaurus was an evolutionary dead end and that modern whales all descend from Dorodon.

    However, vestigial hind limbs are still present in other even later whale fossils such as the also recently discovered 36.4 mya whale fossil in Peru named Mystacodon selenensis. It is the oldest known cousin of modern baleen whales. This suggests that toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti) lost their hind limbs independently. smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/missing-link-whale-evolution-discovered-180963287/

    Not only was the vestigial pelvis retained in later species along with their role of muscular support, but many of today's whales retain the femur articulated with ball and socket joint to the remnant pelves. The Northern Right Whale retains not only those bones, but an articulated tibia as well. The genes for those hind limbs are still present in the cetacean genome. Hind limb buds appear in early embryos to be turned off by control sequences in later development. The control sequence on rare occasions have malfunctioned, resulting in a whale or dolphin with hind limbs.

    The progressive reduction and eventual elimination of hind limbs occurred in the separate convergent evolution of Sireneans (manatees, dugongs and sea cows) from their Proboscidian ancestors, also well documented in the fossil record.

    References:
    The evolution of whales – Understanding Evolution
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

    Lesson: Whale Evolution – Indiana University Bloomington
    www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html

    How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/

    Functional Morphology of the Vertebral Column in Remingtonocetus ..(pdf)
    https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/86333

    Whale Evolution | Australia Maritime Museum
    stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/

    When Whales Walked (PBS Eons)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OSRKtT_9vw&feature=em-comments

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus#/media/File:Gidley-1913-Basilosaurus-skeleton-reconstruction.JPEG

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus#/media/File:Basilosaurus_isis_hindlimb.JPG

  • SCIENCE PROVIDES THE ONLY RELIABLE WAY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. It has not yet answered all the questions, but is the only methodology that has the capacity to do so. There are gaps in scientific knowledge and questions remain; What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?, How did life begin? Why do socks disappear? Science proceeds from evidence to conclusion and does not make a determination where there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science has no problem saying "We don't know…YET." However, that doesn't mean that science is clueless, we know more today than we did yesterday and every tomorrow takes us another step closer. As Richard Feynman said "Science is the joy of finding things out."

    Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Any scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as "only a theory" because A THEORY IN SCIENCE IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE.

  • creationists be like ."thats not evolution thats adaptation" hahaha

  • A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait, such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment.

    Millions of years ago, when forests covered much of Africa, those forestd harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among apes apecies increased and many went extinct.

    One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.

    The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage.

    We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.

    So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans.

    See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 – 872 (22 Aug 2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html
    ——————
    "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article.

    But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period.
    Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains
    By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
    https://www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html

  • HOW EVOLUTION WORKS It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species.

    Those mutations are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of natural experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride without producing immediate benefit (Genetic Drift).

    The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup).

    What should be understood is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process and it is anything BUT random.

    Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb.

    Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there.

    As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done.

    While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates.

    Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish.

    Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool,

    The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal. Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation.

    Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction.

    When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift).

    To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.
    http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

  • Why evolution is bull.
    https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

  • DOES THE BIBLE PRESENT A FACTUAL VIEW OF HISTORY? THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO.
    Legitimate scientists do studies, write up their findings, then submit them to peer review and publication in recognized scientific journals. A real scholar is a seeker of truth, a detective. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Those words from Sherlock Holmes are just as true of science as it is indeed detective work. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science, or a good detective, proceeds from evidence to a conclusion, not the other way around. Some biblical scholars actively seek evidence that would support their preconceived opinion, namely that what is written in the bible is correct.

    A true detective however, seeks and follows evidence wherever it leads. A young Frenchman, Jean-François Champollion, discovered the keys to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics in the early 1800's and lead an archeological expedition to Egypt. Ever since that time, biblical scholars and archaeologists have combed through Egyptian writings looking for anything that would confirm biblical accounts. There is NOTHING, absolutely zero evidence that would support the existence of either Moses or the biblical Exodus.

    What they did find was that the Egyptians had recorded virtually every aspect of daily life; cattle sales, marriage contracts, magical incantations and curses, work details, grocery lists, all the details of daily life. What they eagerly sought but never found was any reference to event is the bible. Nor has anything been found to this day. Nothing about mass slavery. No mention about Israelites (until much, much later). No mention of the deaths of every first born son. No mention of a mass exodus of people. No signs of economic disruption that would have resulted from such a population loss. No mention of the loss of an entire army, let alone the loss of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:7).

    No mention of anyone named Moses or anyone like him. Nothing about a baby in reed boat who grew up to be an official in Pharoah's court. (That baby story was obviously plagiarized from a Mesopotamian legend about Sargon the Great, who was in fact , a real person, the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, who conquered Sumerian city-states in the 24th to 23rd centuries BCE.)

    So, no supporting evidence from Egyptian writing. How about physical archaeological evidence?
    According to the bible (Numbers 1:46) the numbers of males capable of bearing arms was 603,550, meaning that, with their wives and children, the Israelites would have numbered over two million people. Yet, this huge number of people—who would have overwhelmed the Egyptians in Egypt by sheer weight of numbers—left no trace of their passage through the Sinai Desert. Nor is there any evidence from either history or archaeology of the plagues that ravaged Egypt in the story of the Exodus or of the loss of an entire Egyptian army, including 600 chariots (Exodus 14:7).

    For almost 200 years, biblical scholars and archaeologists have combed the Sinai for any evidence a sizable population had ever been there, and there is nothing to show for their effort. Two million Israelites supposedly spent 38 years at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea leaving not a trace of their having been there. No fragments of pottery, no bones of the numbers of animals that would have been required to feed such a population, no hearths, not a single tent stake, NOTHING.

    There is also no evidence that Joshua was a real person. Many of the cities he is claimed to have conquered did not even exist at the time he was supposedly rampaging through the 'Holy Land'. Joshua is supposed to have fought a major battle at Jericho where "the walls came tumbling down". Now Jericho was one of the earliest agricultural settlements in the "Fertile Crescent". The springs in the area had attracted people since paleolithic times, when hunter gatherers congregated there. Neolithic peoples built a town there and, since it was on an earthquake fault, the walls came tumbling down on several occasions. Archaeological evidence indicates that the town had been abandoned for some time prior to about 1200 BCE when Joshua supposedly attacked it. Nor has archaeology found the sort of evidence that would indicate an attack by hostile forces, i.e. arrowheads or other weapons of the sort found at the ruins of Troy.

    What DNA and archaeological evidence tells us is that there was no large influx of peoples into the Levant, no cultural changes, no pottery style changes, nothing to indicate a change in lifestyles that would indicate a significant change in the makeup of the population. What the evidence tells us is that the culture and population of the Levant had been Canaanite since the third millennium BCE and remained so during the biblical period. The 'Israelite' or Jewish identity arose from within the Canaanite population, not from outside. Even among today's Jewish peoples, despite mixing with othere ethnicites, their DNA is mostly Canaanite, the highest percentage of which is among those whose ancestors remained in the Middle East; the Mizrahi Jews.The Hebrew language and writing both derived from earlier Canaanite forms.

    What the evidence shows is that the Old Testament was written during and shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. The The story of Moses and the Exodus was pure fabrication meant to unify a diverse illiterate population. The supposed Egyptian Captivity was the founding myth of the Jewish religion and was a simile for the Babylonian Captivity.

    Now fundamentalist practitioners of the Abrahamic religions start with the premise that the biblical stories are correct and that any evidence to the contrary must be false. To do this, they (insensibly) begin to twist facts to suit theories. That is the antithesis of science and is very dishonest.

  • WHY CREATIONISM FAILS – Creationists are those who categorically reject evolution as an explanation for the vast diversity of life on this planet. This is exemplified by the creationist website Answers in Genesis in their Statement of Faith:
    "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

    This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. It wouldn't matter if someone's name was Albert Einstein or Stephan Hawking, if they could not support their ideas with evidence, they had NOTHING. They knew that, as should every scientist. In science, pretending to know something you do not is a severe liability. Religions unfortunately, have no such limitation and each is free to engage in whatever pretense suits their purposes.

    Most Christians however, do not regard the bible as the infallible word of God, but the words of fallible men inspired by God. The Episcopalian, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others, have all issued statements endorsing evolution as fact and consistent with Christian doctrine. Thousands of Christian ministers have signed the Christian Clergy Letter http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

    Dr. Francis Collins (PhD and MD) formerly director of the Human Genome Project and currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a devout Evangelist, has this to say: "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. 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 to deny that." AND…. "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."

    See: Statements from Religious Organizations https://ncse.com/media/voices/religion

    It is the fundamentalist fringe that tries to characterize the conflict they alone have created, as one between Christianity and Atheism when one's religious or philosophical views have nothing to do with science. In their narrow view, anyone not following their rigid thinking is an atheist and an enemy to be attacked. In so doing, they have created divisions within the religion they claim to be the exclusive arbiters thereof. They serve neither their religion nor science.

  • https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU. Dr. David Woods, testimony

  • “What will make you believe the other side?”

    CREATIONISTS : “No evidence at all”

    EVOLUTIONISTS : “ANY evidence at all”

  • Science NEVER claims something from nothing. That claim is exclusive to religions and magicians. That "something from nothing" claim is often cited by creationists with regards to the "Big Bang" Theory or the origin of life. They are wrong in both cases. The name "Big Bang" is deceptive and was applied derisively by astronomer Fred Hoyle who held to a "steady state universe" hypothesis. There was no "explosion" and the theory was an explanation for the initially hypothesized and later observed expansion of the universe. As ever more powerful telescopes made it possible to observe the universe at more distant times, it confirmed predictions by physicists. The theory postulates the universe expanded from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago.

    With regards to the origin of life, science at present has no conclusive evidence, and the only honest response is "We don't know…YET." Evidence does suggest that it came about by natural chemical combinations and that magic was not involved. In any case, the concept of life originating from natural molecular combinations it called Abiogenesis. There is insufficient evidence to refer to it as a Scientific Theory, so it for now exists in the realm of Hypotheses.

    The Theory of Evolution on the other hand, is indeed a Scientific Theory backed by massive evidence and the widely accepted explanation for the Biological Process that has produced the vast diversity of life on this planet.

    What creationists demonstrate is that they have no concept at all of what evolution is and how it works, and not the slightest inclination to learn. As a result, they fabricate nonsense. That is exactly what our primitive ancestors did. It is quite possible that Homo erectus invented the concept of a god as a way to explain thunder.

    It is fallacious to compare manufactured items to living organisms. Living organisms have DNA which is both heritable and mutable. The copy errors that occur during cell division and replication are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Those variations that provide an advantage get perpetuated due to the simple fact that an advantage increases the likelihood that that organism will live long enough to reproduce and thus contribute its genes to the population gene pool. Thus, evolution proceeds by incremental modification to what is already there.

  • LIES CREATIONISTS TELL- "All mutations are harmful."
    RESPONSE – PARTIAL LIST OF KNOWN BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS IN HUMANS:
    Lactose tolerance Adults of our species are normally lactose intolerant as are those of all mammals. The lactose (milk sugar) molecule is too large to pass to the blood stream from the intestine where it ferments causing bloating, diarrhea and stomach aches. An enzyme called lactase present in infants breaks down lactose to sucrose and fructose which do pass to the blood stream. In recent times, mutations have arisen independently in at least 3 pastoral populations providing lactase persistence to digest milk. Milk provided a rich food source which sustained populations when harvests failed. One particular mutation, Lactase Persistence T-13910 Alleles are the version of lactase persistence found in Europe and has come to predominate in northern Europe.

    Apolipoprotein AI- significantly reduces the chances of heart attacks and strokes. People with this mutation have virtually no plaque in the arteries despite whatever they eat.

    PCSK9- reduces heart disease by 88%.

    LRP5V171- Provides increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different mutation, LRP5V171 can amplify its function. People with this mutation have nearly unbreakable bones. Drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases

    HbS- a hemoglobin mutation that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. Those with one copy of this mutation are immune or highly resistant to malaria. Those with two copies, one from each parent, develop Sickle Cell Anemia. Its beneficial effect is that in malaria infested areas a couple has a 25% chance a child will have no mutation and potentially die of malaria, a 25% chance that a child will have Sickle Cell Anemia and quite possibly die of it, but 50% of their children will be protected from malaria. Had it not been for that effect, Natural Selection would have eliminated that gene.

    HbC- Another hemoglobin mutation similar to HbS discovered in Burkino Faso. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk but only produces mild sickle cell problems at its worst.

    CCR5- immunity to the HIV virus. Loss of function in a gene can also be beneficial. The CCR5 gene codes for a receptor on white blood cells that HIV can use to infect them. People with two broken copies of the CCR5 gene are completely immune to HIV (the first person ever cured of HIV happened to get a bone marrow transplant from such an individual) and their immune systems get by just fine without the receptor.

    ZnT8-The mutation destroys a gene used by pancreas cells where insulin is made. Those with the mutation seem to make slightly more insulin and have slightly lower blood glucose levels for their entire lives. This mutation, like many on this list is being used by drug companies to create prescription drugs. In this case, protection against type 2 diabetes.

    EPAS1- A mutation in this gene occurs in 87% of Tibetans and gives them increased fitness and endurance in very high altitudes. Tibetans with this mutation seem to have less blood cells than people at sea level yet suffer no altitude sickness. They apparently have the same oxygen carrying ability as everyone else. Scientists are currently unsure how the mutation achieves this.

    Tetrachromats- Some woman are born with the ability to see far more colors than those without the mutation. Humans have 3 different cones in their eyes. These woman have a mutation that gives them a 4th cone in their eyes. There is a trade off however since a hereditary mutation imparting this ability in the girls of the family will in some cases cause color blindness in the males of the family.

    Populations relying on starchy foodstuffs (i.e. grains, potatoes) have acquired multiple copies of the AMY1 gene which codes for the amylase enzyme in saliva that is responsible for the breakdown of starch into more easily digested monosaccharides.

    References:
    – Gerbault P, Liebert A, Itan Y, et al. Evolution of lactase persistence: an example of human niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011;366(1566):863-877. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0268

  • What is evidence for evolution? 1:https://youtu.be/VbPWe9U4uPU
    2: Faith
    3: Taxes
    4: Ignorance
    5: Imagination

  • https://youtu.be/meIg-TyDm-g. These comments are great.

  • Talking to a creatnist is like trying to debate Malibu Stacy. All they ever do is repeat "but show me the evidence" – even when you're standing in a museum full of it.

  • Today's Creation Moment

    Magical Mutations

    Genesis 1:24

    “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

    According to evolutionary theories, the onward progress of organisms from the simplest single cell to the highest forms of life is achieved by mutations. Evolutionists refer to natural selection as the driving force that causes evolution. Natural selection does appear to occur, but the selection of traits is only possible from those represented by the existing genetic information. The idea behind evolution is that new information is provided by mutations, and this new information, if it assists survival better than what already exists, could be duly selected, thereby causing the onward march of evolution. Karin Viet describes this as evolution appearing to behave “like a white-haired tinkerer, fiddling around with components in his shop until a workable innovation is rolled out. This personification imagines mutations having a creative power that they do not possess, even with the pixie dust of millions of years.”

    Viet goes on to show that mutations are usually either harmful or neutral. She shows that beneficial mutations only occur in very restrictive environments where normal conditions do not apply and that such mutations still involve losing or corrupting information. One famous example is that of eyeless fish in caves with no light, where eyes are of no advantage to the fish and can be a disadvantage if the fish injures them. Fish with no eyes cannot get such injuries. God designed the creatures, their genetics and the environments in which they must live back in Genesis 1. p. f. t.

    Lord, we know that all creatures were designed by You to live in ways that You designed for them. Thank You for Your wonderful work. Amen.

  • This is the conspirency theory that Bible is not correct. But very creative one! It seems that God was not that creative since animals are similar.

  • There is the difference between micro and macro evolution. These are two different ideologies.

  • Godless people are mocking people for believing in God which they do not see. They beleive in Big Bang and macroevolution which is not observable.

  • No vestigial anatomy or DNA has been suggested and confirmed. Most if not all has been shown to be functional.

  • This video is a horrendous lie. The similarities point to creation, not some random, spontaneous thing called evolution.

  • If u wanna give example of the hale than just do while don’t bring dolphins

  • LOL. Clearly you have been indoctrinated in pseudo science.

  • Wow very scientificale. Why can't creationist see that dinosaur had 4 legs, tail, neck and have now evolved to cats and dogs. Born structure have similarities .

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Vestigial Human Traits Vestigial refers to an organ or part which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. They are not necessarily useless as some people assume.

    Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn't do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent nictitating membrane or "third eyelid" that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ov43g1g8g0rjpg/original.jpg
    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ov445ovzc4mpng/ku-medium.png

    You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is still sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.

    Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss
    of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.

    That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent. At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth.

    In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother's fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child's weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.

    All Great Apes, including humans have an appendix. In other apes, the appendix is quite large and a repository for bacteria which help to digest the leaves that make up a large part of their diet. In humans it is called the vermiform (worm shaped) appendix and is minuscule. While some hypothesize that our appendix is a repository for good bacteria to replenish out gut biota following diarrhea, the fact is that a 'hot' appendix can kill you, whereas those who have had it removed go on to lead normal lives.
    http://custom-car.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/vestigial-tail-removal-5019.png
    http://slideplayer.com/slide/7628305/25/images/9/Vestigial+Structures+Examples:+wings+on+flightless+birds,+human+coccyx+and+appendix..jpg

    The vomeronasal organ (VNO), is an organ located at the base of the dividing wall between right and left nostrils (nasal septum). It is present in most amphibia, reptiles and mammals but absent in birds and adult Old World (catarrhine) monkeys which include apes and humans. It enables the detection of pheromones via pheromone receptor (VR) genes that produce proteins sensitive to certain biochemical signals.

    The VNO is clearly present in the human fetus but appears to be atrophied or absent in adults and is thus vestigial. The VR genes, plentiful in other species, while present in the human genome are all or almost all disabled by mutations making them pseudo-genes, again vestigial remnants.

    Evolution makes incremental alterations to what is already there. It may help to think of evolution as a robot gardener, dragging a garden hose around various obstacles until it can go no further. Now, an intelligent gardener would need only to retrace its steps, unwinding the hose before plotting a new path to where it needs to go. The robotic gardener cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, all it can do is add more hose.

    An example of that is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box) present in most vertebrates. In the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods the nerve's route would have been direct from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution land vertebrates developed longer necks, making heart and brain ever further apart. As a result the RLN became incrementally longer, but still needed to loop around the aorta, thus the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed. Were there such a thing as an "intelligent designer", it would have been possible at any point to simply reroute that nerve by a couple centimeters. That did not happen. In humans, that means a detour of about 18 inches:
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-009e54974f9a0940a49d01163533eaba
    In the case of the giraffe, that amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose":
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jMjV5J_lotU/VQ2RzF8X44I/AAAAAAAABZs/Q-qu9DBBzwM/s1600/giraffe_nerve.jpg

    Pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are some 20,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry.

    We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

  • To all creationists: plz do some research before commenting on this video. Thanks!

  • Creationists, flat earthers and climate deniers. 3 groups of people who clearly all share the same ‘science’ teacher.

  • 8 – 8 -19 Oh my goodness..

    How did that Mueller investigation go for the Democrats !

    137 Democrats in the Democrat Controlled Congress sided with the GOP and decided NOT to IMPEACH the President of the United States Donald Trump

    #1 NO Racism
    #2 NO Senile aberrations
    #3 NO Russian Collusion delusion

    Oops….sorry….to all those
    Liberals
    Atheists
    Muslims
    Democrats
    Darwinists
    Evolutionists
    Biblically illiterate

  • Crashed Israeli spacecraft puts living tardigrades on the moon
    Jewish panspermia strikes again!!

  • I HAVE READ AND REVIEWED HIGH SCHOOL GRAD'S NOVEL-SIZED COMMENT (TOOK ME ABOUT 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THIS POST). MY COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD. LET ME START BY REVEALING HYPOCRISY. "My experience with creationists is that they do not debate, as that requires presentation of actual evidence. They do however, argue and argue ad nauseum in support of their supernatural entity or mythology… I take that to mean you cannot refute what I wrote." – Randall Wilks… MY EXPERIENCE WITH YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ENOUGH ACTUAL EVIDENCE. YOU ARE JUST ARGUING, AS I POINT OUT BELOW. I CAN EASILY REFUTE WHAT YOU WROTE, HIGH-SCHOOL GRAD.

    A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait, such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment. (I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS INSERTION – basic introductory zoology class stuff over how evolution works)

    Millions of years ago (I DISAGREE WITH MILLIONS OF YEARS, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM), when forests covered much of Africa, those forestd harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. (YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE AGAIN)

    Competition among apes apecies increased and many went extinct (I AGREE THAT MANY APE SPECIES WENT EXTINCT A LONG TIME AGO). One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us (AGAIN, YOU ARE JUST STORY-TELLING PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS). The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas (EVIDENCE?).

    The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption (I AGREE ABOUT THE BRAIN). I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset (I AGREE). It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother (I AGREE). Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904 MACAQUES USE TOOLS TOO BITCH), however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells (I AGREE). In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage (I AGREE).

    We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role (THIS IS WHERE YOU TRY TO TWIST THE STORY TO FIT YOUR NARRATIVE, BUT FAIL UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION – YOU IMPLY THAT THE THREE TIMES LARGER BRAIN VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH HUMANS AND CHIMPS SOMEHOW RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOOL USE DURING HUMAN’S EVOLUTIONARY PAST – YET YOU COMPARE THE CHIMP AND HUMAN BRAINS TO MACAQUES, BUT MACQUES USE TOOLS https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904 … CHECK AND MATE, MOTHERFUCKER… YOUR LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD IN THESE PAST TWO PARAGRAPHS, DUMB-ASS).

    The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe (WHAT IF STATEMENTS AND HYPOTHETICALS…. SMH…. BUT SURE, I AGREE WITH THIS ONE HYPOTHETICAL: THAT LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY TO AVOID REINVENTING THE WHEEL). Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor (OR MAYBE NEANDERTHALS ARE ALSO HUMANS). Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged. So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans (SO WHAT? THIS IS THE NARRATIVE THAT IS FALSE, AS PUNY SIZE BRAINED MACAQUES USE TOOLS AS WELL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904). It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans. See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 – 872 (22 Aug 2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html —————— "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," (SEE THIS IS YOUR BIGGEST EVIDENCE YET MACAQUES USE TOOLS NEGATING YOUR IMPLICATION THAT LARGER BRAINS/LARGER BRAIN VOLUME GROWTH DURING INFANCY SOMEHOW LED TO TOOL USAGE) the researchers wrote in the journal article. But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period. Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm https://www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html

  • I am so amazed how you greatly organized the evidences of evolution and support it with informative examples.

  • Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, asked his audience of evolution experts a most telling question. He later posed the same question to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and again to The Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. All evolution experts. Here was his question:

    "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, ANY ONE THING. . . that is TRUE?"

    All he got was silence!

  • TO RANDALL WILKS,
    Provide the evidence, so that we can continue this discussion… or else I'm done replying to your fucking dumb-ass. I thought you were smarter when we first engaged. Now, I realize that you just want to play a game of semantics and say "nu-huh, that's… (stutters) that's not a refutation, ya… ya… i got him… refutation, man, uhhh you are just saying 'nu-huh'." That is how you fucking appear to me. DROP THE RED HERRING, you illogical fuck. You would fail ANY science class trying to submit that bullshit comment. Actually, you would be in trouble for plagiarism.

  • WOOOOW! I actually just took a look at Randall's picture and twitter. I have seen this before in other old, creepy men. They live a lonely, broken life. As they hit about their 50's, they start to hold onto an ideology so hard (much more than in their younger years when sexual pressures prevented them from being as weird). The ideology can be religious or not (in Randall's case, it is the story of evolution). The story of evolution came along for him and was an answer to EVERYTHING. His doubts and fears about the afterlife, about guilt and relationships, were seemingly dissolved. His parents were probably Christians though. The only way for him to resolve this cognitive dissonance was to fully let himself go – theories on evolution became his religion.

    He lives and breathes it, even though he is a fraud in the field. He does not have any type of degree related to it. However, the man LITERALLY dresses up like Darwin or the handler from Curious George. No picture of any family member or anyone else. JUST HIM! He ONLY posts on his twitter about EVOLUTION. He checks YouTube everyday to argue about it. Yet, he does not seek a degree in it – even though he supposedly claims he can afford one. He does have an electronics degree from a community college XD (he tried biology once and, as the gamers say, got REKT!). I find it very strange he does not seek a degree in it today. However, he acts like he has a doctorate. To be so consumed in one ideology all day everyday and to dress it, I mean… THAT is extremely unbalanced. There is more to this short life than just arguing about evolution – and you don't even have an educational background in it. FRAUD! Your parents are rolling in their graves. You still have time to change though 🙂

  • HUMAN GROUP EVOLVING TO BE AQUATIC HUNTERS The Bajau people, or Sea Nomads, have engaged in breath-hold diving for thousands of years. Selection has increased Bajau spleen size, providing an oxygen reservoir for diving, just like in other sea-going mammals like otters, seals and whales. They can stay underwater for 13 MINUTES, which is even longer than a dolphin can do it for! Most of humans us can only handle less than TWO. We would drown at 13. Oh yeah, and the Bajau people are also capable of seeing clearly underwater. They are able to make their pupils smaller and change their lens shape. Seals and dolphins have a similar adaptation. This has been proven in underwater visual testing, the Bajau see TWICE as well as other humans. EVOLUTION AT WORK!
    www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/04/bajau-sea-nomads-free-diving-spleen-science/
    bigthink.com/culture-religion/sea-nomads

  • Randall Wilkes, Sir Marvin Manistar, gcmgome, Richard Gregory
    SORCSHOTS

    We have been discussing science (biology/evolution) for more than a year now. Many exchanges have increased our knowledge as we kept each other aware of the latest findings and discoveries just for the pure intellectual joy of it. Then every now and then an ugly gadfly injects himself into the conversation. The latest being "SORCSHOTS" whose repertoire consists of profanity and personal insults. This guy claims to be a National Tutor for more than a dozen subjects (including genetics, which requires advanced degrees).

    With his credibility gone (if he ever had one to begin with), he masquerades as a "master debater" (ha ha) and thinks he can refute the simplest facts and evidence. His attempts are childish and display his none-education, and lack of basic decency. All he demonstrates is that he can sit in the basement, throw rocks at others, curse a lot and play video games. No job, no brains, no education, no future. A pathetic "human" being; I suggest that we ignore him.

  • I HAVE READ AND REVIEWED 'SORCSHOTS' SUPPOSED REFUTATION OF MY ESSAY TITLED *"A COMMON MISCONCEPTION'*. WHAT IS NOTEWORTHY IS THAT WHILE I USE MY REAL NAME, PUTTING MY PERSONAL INTEGRITY ON THE LINE, I AM BEING ATTACKED BY SOMEONE WHO HIDES BEHIND A PSEUDONYM TO HURL INSULTS AS DEMONSTRATION OF HIS 'INTELLECT'.

    That person claims to be smart, but his use of insults demonstrates anything but. In his lame attempt to refute what I wrote in the above essay, he cites one article that, for some unknown reason, he thinks contradicts what I wrote. He senses this is a weak argument so he repeats it three times. So sorry 'Sorcshots', but it does not gain relevance in repetition.

    That article Analysis of wild macaque stone tools used to crack oil palm nuts, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904
    points out that such behavior was noted in 19th century accounts, so it is not 'breaking news'. nor did it contradict what I wrote; which was " Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques…"

    To demonstrate his intellect, 'Sorcshots' responds with "MACAQUES USE TOOLS TOO BITCH" as if that had anything to do with what I wrote.

    Then, in response to my statement "We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role."

    To which 'Sorcshots' interjects:
    -"(THIS IS WHERE YOU TRY TO TWIST THE STORY TO FIT YOUR NARRATIVE, BUT FAIL UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION – YOU IMPLY THAT THE THREE TIMES LARGER BRAIN VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH HUMANS AND CHIMPS SOMEHOW RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOOL USE DURING HUMAN’S EVOLUTIONARY PAST – YET YOU COMPARE THE CHIMP AND HUMAN BRAINS TO MACAQUES, BUT MACQUES USE TOOLS https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904 … CHECK AND MATE, MOTHERFUCKER… YOUR LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD IN THESE PAST TWO PARAGRAPHS, DUMB-ASS)."_ Again reflecting his intellectual capacity and repeating the same empty assertion.

    He has constructed this straw man argument because he could find no factual errors in my essay. The article he cited states:

    "Habitual stone tool use is rare among non-human primates (hereafter, primates), and to date only three species are known to use stones to access encased food in the wild: West African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) [4,5], bearded capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus) in Brazil [6,7] and long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in Thailand and Myanmar [8]."
    Tool use is one possible indicator of intelligence, but as the article suggests, there is no direct correlation between tool use and brain size. It has been observed in other species as well. https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html
     It is interesting that other species engage in tool use, but their ability to manufacture them is limited. that has nothing to do with my discussion of the environmental factors leading to evolution of the human brain.

    The strange thing in what amounts to his diatribe and personal attack on me, is that he agreed with the better part of my essay. He did point out a couple of places where I could have provided citation, and I would have done so at his request, but I stated what I believe to be common knowledge, at least among educated people.

    Just to be clear 'Sorcshots', we are done. You do not exhibit sufficient intelligence for meaningful communication. I will continue to write and post informational essays, and you may continue to be an ass with such stupid responses but I see no need to counter baseless accusations by someone who demonstrates his 'intellect' with insults.
    But in parting, let me point out that your entire claim is based on one article that was never in dispute and was in no way contradictory. This argument was so weak you had to repeat it THREE TIMES. It did not gain relevance by your doing so.

  • A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait, such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment.

    Millions of years ago, when forests covered much of Africa, those forestd harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among apes apecies increased and many went extinct.

    One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.

    The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage.

    We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.

    So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans.

    See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 – 872 (22 Aug 2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html
    ——————
    "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article.

    But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period.
    Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains
    By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
    https://www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html

  • You're a delusional nutjob who should be lacked up in mental institution

  • 5:19 showing a skull to prove that it's a basilosaurid. What abour rest of the body
    Cmmon you have to be kidding me.

  • RANDALL WILKS POSTED THIS EXACT COMMENT ON YOUTUBE, THEN REMOVED IT AFTER I POINTED OUT THE FLAWS AND LACK OF EVIDENCE. LUCKILY, HE ALSO POSTED THIS TO QUORA, WHERE I SCREEN-SHOT IT (SHOWING HIM AS THE AUTHOR). I HAVE RE-UPLOADED THE POST FOR THE PEOPLE TO JUDGE. I ALSO HAVE REMOVED ALL CURSE WORDS FROM MY ORIGINAL REVIEW, IN ORDER TO PREVENT THIS COMMENT FROM BEING REMOVED. I STILL CANNOT BELIEVE THAT HE REMOVED THIS COMMENT! HE ALSO HAD MY COMMENTS REMOVED, LOL!

    MY COMMENTS ARE IN UPPER-CASE LETTERING.

    A common misconception is that evolution has a goal or should lead to some particular trait, such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment (I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS INSERTION. IT IS BASIC INTRODUCTORY ZOOLOGY STUFF).

    Apes that stayed in the forest became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas (YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE HERE). They are very well suited for their environments. One that opted for the savanna faced different evolutionary pressures that set it on a different evolutionary trajectory (EVIDENCE?).

    The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption (I AGREE). I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset (I AGREE). It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother (I AGREE).

    Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells [THIS IS WHERE HE TRIES TO TWIST THE STORY TO FIT THE NARRATIVE – THE IMPLICATION IS THAT A LARGER BRAIN VOLUME GROWTH RATE (AS SEEN IN CHIMPS/HUMANS AND NOT IN TINY-BRAIN MACAQUES) IS SOMEHOW CORRELATED WITH TOOL USE/MANUFACTURE AND LANGUAGE-DEVELOPMENT IN HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY. HOWEVER, MY CITATION SHOWS THAT TINY-BRAIN MACAQUES USE TOOLS AS WELL… HE DID NOT KNOW THAT WHEN HE MADE THIS POST ORIGINALLY IN 2017, AS THIS RESEARCH WAS FROM 2018 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171904 CHECKMATE!!! YOUR LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD AND I ONLY USED THE MATERIAL YOU PROVIDED – MACAQUES/CHIMPS/HUMANS. THAT IS SKILL!]. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. The human brain develops very slowly, necessitating a long childhood. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage. We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role.

    The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe (WHAT IF STATEMENTS AND HYPOTHETICALS, BUT… SURE, I’LL GIVE YOU THIS ONE: THAT LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT REINVENTING THE WHEEL). Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor (OR MAYBE NEANDERTHALS WERE HUMANS TOO). Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.

    So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feinman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans.

    See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano,

    Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 – 872 (22 Aug 2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/jou...

  • Stated Clearly Why did you block the replies to your pinned post, sweetie? Are you afraid of the truth?

  • How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Point Mutations
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlhpvcgK_28
    How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Gene Duplications
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4VINRUe_o4

  • Creation is an indubitable fact. Delete your YT accounts, atheists.
    https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=47

  • When you see a book, you see its author. When you see a man, you see his Maker. It is basic common sense. Evolutionists are liars, one and all.

  • I suppose I should be flattered that pseudonymous "Sorcshots" showers me with so much attention. He has after all copied and posted one of my essays, not once, but twice; albeit he clutters them up with his own irrelevant comments. I suppose I should also thank him for pointing out that some of my writing appears on Quora.com. I had forgotten that the essay he is assailing was posted as an answer to a question I was requested to answer on that site, the question being
    "Why hasn’t one species “won” evolution? Why hasn’t one super-species out competed all competitors?" My response can be found at: https://qr.ae/TWr8xl

  • If evil has no value to God then why did he create it, as he admitted? According to Bible-humpers, evil is necessary in order to give us all the free will to NOT choose it. I know, FUNNY STUFF!!! The ultimate in twisted 'reasoning' to support an untenable idea.

  • Big Bang created the Universe,Big Bang created Earth and perfect conditions for life on it and Big Bang itself created life.You are very close Evolutionist,just instead of Big Bang put the Word God.But maybe you are religious and consider Big Bang a living Being,because life can only come from life as a scientific Fact states 😉

  • 'There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.'
    –Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

  • Look at this watch! It has some tiny wheels inside! look at these bicycles! They have wheels too! So the bicycles evolved from watches because they have bigger wheels! Oh, no, the watches evolved from bicycles because they have more wheels! Oh no, the bicycles evolved from watches because they have less wheels so they are a vestigial reminiscence from the time when bicycles were just watches…..

  • Nothing in nature is created, it forms naturally you ignorant cretinist
    worms. We can see this in nature a thousand times every day. Or do you
    think your god is so pathetic and ineffiicient that he sits up there on
    his cloud, painstakingly hand-crafting every blade of grass, raindrop,
    snowflake, grain of sand and animal embryo all day and night? Well, no
    wonder he doesn't have time to stop all the disease, violence and famine
    in the world.

  • 'Just stop feeding the troll, guys? Isn;t it obvous from the ludicrous stuff about bicycles and watches (and, incidentally, they are both evolutions of the wheel lol). Why even debate with someone who claims there's no evidence for evolution? In fact evolution is one of the most evidence supported of all scientific theories – much more so than the theory of gravity for example. We know evolution is true, because not only is there a mountain of evidence for it, it has been directly observed on the large and small scales, it is predictive and it is even reproducible in the laboratory. Arguing there's no evidence for evolution is like saying there's no evidence for a heliocentic solar system. And yes, speciation has been observed.'
    If your claims are true (which they are not), you should be able to produce an example of something that evolved. Just one example.

  • This still isn''t concrete evidence for me.. All the video states are the similarities between species.

  • Well done. I'm recommending this to my science class.

  • Fallacy of composition and evolution
    Receipt: you imagine a concept, you define for it 98 assumptions and you add 2 true assertions.
    How you "validate" it:  you check that the 2 assertions are true and this way you say (or think)  that the 2 assertions
     and the 98 assumptions are true. In the subsequent comment I show how it applies to evolution:

  • Owwwww yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  • HOW EVOLUTION WORKS It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species.

    Those mutations are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of natural experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride without producing immediate benefit (Genetic Drift).

    The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup).

    What should be understood is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process and it is anything BUT random.

    Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb.

    Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there.

    As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done.

    While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates.

    Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish.

    Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool,

    The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal. Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation.

    Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction.

    When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift).

    To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.
    http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Diversification and Geographic Distribution of Species. As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian continental landmass that included New Guinea and Tasmania as the ancient continent called Sahul were quite different from those elsewhere in the world. Prior to ancient man's arrival, the mammals populating that landmass were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world. So too, were the egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of humans that brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass since placental mammals diverged from their non-placental forebears in the Early Cretaceous or Late Jurassic. It remained isolated from all other eutherian (placental) mammal migrations.

    The almost universal absence of both native land mammals and amphibians on isolated islands argues against a creation event and those islands tell of a different evolutionary history. Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently arrived at the same conclusion as Charles Darwin regarding natural selection being the engine of evolution, spent many years collecting biological specimens in the Amazon and later on the Indonesian archipelago and New Guinea. What he discovered was sometimes tremendous differences in the fauna of neighboring islands and he discovered a pattern to the distribution of species; those on the western side of a hypothetical dividing line were identical or similar to, mainland Asian species. Those on the eastern side of the divide were more similar to those of Australasia, Australia and New Guinea. This line, now known as the Wallace Line denotes an area of deep water channels that would have prevented migration when sea levels were lower as during Ice Ages, while other areas would have had dry land connections. The islands Bali and Lompok, separated by a mere 20 miles, have quite different fauna. Wallace's studies of species distribution and barriers to their migration has earned him the title "father of biogeography".

    Birds can fly from island to island, reptiles can swim or float on driftwood, plant seeds can be carried to different islands by wind, water or birds, but amphibians cannot survive in saltwater and most land mammals are limited by the distances they can swim. Those deep water channels restricted them to one side of that dividing line.

    New Zealand is another prime example. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. (There's that "half a wing" creationists talk about.) 😉 https://i.imgur.com/OU30E2N.jpg?1

    Other isolated islands also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Galapagos and the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 13 or so species of Galapagos Finches, sometimes called "Darwin's Finches", are all relatively drab in color, varying in beak morphology and physical size. Despite their physical and genetic differences, creationists typically respond with "They are all still finches"; perpetuating their straw man version of evolution as "one animal turning into another." What they ignore is that the Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations; it can only produce changes in existing body parts. Genetic changes (Genotype) take place constantly, Physiological changes (Phenotype) take place incrementally over thousands of generations, and not due to single mutations but accumulations of diverse mutations.
    On the Hawaiian Islands, the indigenous population came up with imaginative names for the colorful bird population. On the Galapagos however, there were no indigenous peoples to name these birds and they were given very prosaic names by the scientists studying them. Giving them names like Small Ground Finch, Medium Ground Finch and Large Ground Finch were descriptive but glossed over their genetic differences and gave credence to the creationist claim "They are still finches".
    https://biogilde.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tentilhoes2.jpg
    https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Geospiza_beaks.jpg
    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EX6N0C/adaptive-radiation-in-galapagos-finches-EX6N0C.jpg

    On the Hawaiian Islands, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch, the Laysan Finch, underwent adaptive radiation into the at one time 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. Unlike the Galapagos Finches that were similarly drab in coloration, the various Honeycreepers exhibit wide differences in plumage coloration and had widely varying bill shapes. Some of the nectar feeders have co-evolved with a specific plant species.
    https://slideplayer.com/slide/6644481/23/images/44/Adaptive+Radiation+in+honeycreepers.jpg
    https://images.slideplayer.com/24/7380275/slides/slide_15.jpg
    http://www.hokulea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/slide_47.jpg

    The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=cus&q=Hawaiian+Silver+Sword+Alliance
    http://bio1151.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch25/25_18-SilverswordRadia-L.jpg

    Mauritania had the Elephant Bird and the Dodo, neither one of which flew there, and they sure as hell didn't swim. Perhaps Noah dropped them off there while trying to find his way back to the Middle East, you think?

    Madagascar, the world's fourth largest island, was separated from other landmasses for 88 million years. During that time plants and animals on the island evolved in isolation; 80% of which exist nowhere else in the world. In each of these areas, evolution took separate paths that refute the creationist concept of a creation event.

    Since birds can fly and establish new and distant populations, they can establish diverse populations where genetic drift alone could result in new species and be further shaped by environmental and ecological factors. The fossil record shows that once birds were able to take to the air and migrate, there was rapid diversification. Again, when the asteroid impact that wiped out all the non-avian dinosaurs, it also resulted in the extinction of most avian dinosaur (bird) species. The plethora of new environmental niches again allowed birds to diversify rapidly. That expansion and diversification had been duplicated whenever the opportunity has presented itself.

    Yet birds are not the only examples of rapid diversification. Cichlid fishes in Africa's Rift valley have exhibited the same diversification whenever new lakes were formed and founder populations made their way into them. The same has occurred with Anole lizards on Caribbean Islands.

    Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.
    Explaining General Patterns in Species Abundance and Distributions https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/explaining-general-patterns-in-species-abundance-and-23162842

    Anole lizard evolution
    New Lizard Shows Evolution’s Predictability https://www.quantamagazine.org/anole-lizard-discovery-confirms-that-evolution-is-predictable-20160629/
    The Rapid-Fire Evolution of Green Anoles https://scitechdaily.com/rapid-fire-evolution-green-anoles/
    Cichlid fishes evolution
    Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution, Stanford scientists say https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/fish-genome-fernald-092214.html
    The Extraordinary Evolution of Cichlid Fishes https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-extraordinary-evolution-of-cichlid-fishes/
    Video: Evolution, Speciation, and Adaptation of Cichlid Fish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Gm62x6NWg

  • SCIENCE PROVIDES THE ONLY RELIABLE WAY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. It has not yet answered all the questions, but is the only methodology that has the capacity to do so. There are gaps in scientific knowledge and questions remain; What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?, How did life begin? Why do socks disappear? Science proceeds from evidence to conclusion and does not make a determination where there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science has no problem saying "We don't know…YET." However, that doesn't mean that science is clueless, we know more today than we did yesterday and every tomorrow takes us another step closer. As Richard Feynman said "Science is the joy of finding things out."

    Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Any scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as "only a theory" because A THEORY IN SCIENCE IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE.

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Vestigial Human Traits Vestigial refers to an organ or part which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. They are not necessarily useless as some people assume.

    Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn't do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent nictitating membrane or "third eyelid" that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ov43g1g8g0rjpg/original.jpg
    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ov445ovzc4mpng/ku-medium.png

    You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is still sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.

    Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss
    of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.

    That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent. At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth.

    In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother's fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child's weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.

    All Great Apes, including humans have an appendix. In other apes, the appendix is quite large and a repository for bacteria which help to digest the leaves that make up a large part of their diet. In humans it is called the vermiform (worm shaped) appendix and is minuscule. While some hypothesize that our appendix is a repository for good bacteria to replenish out gut biota following diarrhea, the fact is that a 'hot' appendix can kill you, whereas those who have had it removed go on to lead normal lives.
    http://custom-car.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/vestigial-tail-removal-5019.png
    http://slideplayer.com/slide/7628305/25/images/9/Vestigial+Structures+Examples:+wings+on+flightless+birds,+human+coccyx+and+appendix..jpg

    The vomeronasal organ (VNO), is an organ located at the base of the dividing wall between right and left nostrils (nasal septum). It is present in most amphibia, reptiles and mammals but absent in birds and adult Old World (catarrhine) monkeys which include apes and humans. It enables the detection of pheromones via pheromone receptor (VR) genes that produce proteins sensitive to certain biochemical signals.

    The VNO is clearly present in the human fetus but appears to be atrophied or absent in adults and is thus vestigial. The VR genes, plentiful in other species, while present in the human genome are all or almost all disabled by mutations making them pseudo-genes, again vestigial remnants.

    Evolution makes incremental alterations to what is already there. It may help to think of evolution as a robot gardener, dragging a garden hose around various obstacles until it can go no further. Now, an intelligent gardener would need only to retrace its steps, unwinding the hose before plotting a new path to where it needs to go. The robotic gardener cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, all it can do is add more hose.

    An example of that is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box) present in most vertebrates. In the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods the nerve's route would have been direct from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution land vertebrates developed longer necks, making heart and brain ever further apart. As a result the RLN became incrementally longer, but still needed to loop around the aorta, thus the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed. Were there such a thing as an "intelligent designer", it would have been possible at any point to simply reroute that nerve by a couple centimeters. That did not happen. In humans, that means a detour of about 18 inches:
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-009e54974f9a0940a49d01163533eaba
    In the case of the giraffe, that amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose":
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jMjV5J_lotU/VQ2RzF8X44I/AAAAAAAABZs/Q-qu9DBBzwM/s1600/giraffe_nerve.jpg

    Pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are some 20,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry.

    We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

  • The greatest scientists of all times were theists. Newton, Kepler, Einstein …and the funny thing is that even Darwin, the maker of this bullshit theory of evolution, firmly believed in God. And remember that at that time the ultimate evidence for a creator (the information in the living cell) was not yet acknowledged. In the past century it started some kind of movement of some idiots that called themselves atheists, which had great success in the Sovietic Union and in the other communist countries, because absence of a divinity and supremacy of the mankind was fitting very much with their absurd ideology (that led to many crimes). So Darwinism started to be preached ferociously in these countries (many hours weekly) of course altered a little bit so that to exclude the existence of a creator (Darwin never did that!!!) and the idiots got the feeling that their creator really doesn't exist. Later on, this movement spread over the world,  like a plague, the idiots (I can call them Satanists, haters of their creator to whom they owe everything) managed to infiltrate on the upper, influential levels of society, starting to promote their sick and false ideas and theories everywhere, monopolizing the scientific communities and in the same time elaborating a system that was ferociously censoring anything and anyone that didn't agree with their false "views".

  • Einstein: 'the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.'

  • A message from Isaac Newton toward that poor soul Randal Wilks, who had a touching post here, on the birthday of Newton:
    "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice.Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors" (Isaac Newton)"

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Our Common Ancestry with chimps is based on more than physical or genetic similarity. although those are pieces of evidence. Just as you have in your genome a defective gene you inherited from your parents who inherited it from their ancestors.That gene, named GULO, is what allows most other animals to produce vitamin C which is essential for good health. That gene has a specific mutation which prevents it from completing the final stage of vitamin C production and it is now a pseudo gene. Humans who do not get vitamin C in their diet (from fresh fruits and vegetables) get Scurvy, a disease that decimated the crews of sailing ships.

    It turns out that chimps have that same defective gene, disabled by exactly the same mutation. That fact does not bother chimpanzees in the least, because their diet of mostly leaves and fruit provide all the vitamin C they need. Living chimps today of course got that defective gene from their parents who got it from their ancestors who happen to be our ancestors as well. Not only does every ape have that same pseudo gene with the same disabling mutation so in fact does every other primate in the sub order Haplorhini. That is Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, even Tarsiers, which are close to basal primates but not ancestral to the Strepsirrhini sub order (Lemurs, Lorises et al). That places the origin of that mutation to be about 63 million years ago and underscores their common ancestry.

    And that is just one of the many pseudo genes passed from generation to generation from ancestors to present day organisms that are evidence for common ancestry. But those are just part of the problem for creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Evolution explains pseudo genes very well. Explaining why some "creative entity" would leave such things "on the cutting room floor" is quite another matter.

    And as if that were not enough, there is the matter of Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's), the genetic 'fossils' of ancient retroviral infections. The thing about retroviruses is that when they enter a host organism's cell, they always insert DNA copies of their RNA into a random location of that host's genome. When that cell divides and replicates, the viral DNA will be replicated at that same location. If that cell is a germ cell, that DNA sequence will be replicated and passed through millions of generations and found in present day species. Again, that is also evidence of common ancestry. As always, the creationist/'intelligent design' people have no good explanation for them.

    Those ERV's make up 8% of the human genome which is an awful lot of DNA compared to just 2% that code for proteins. That expanse of DNA may be something of a 'Scrap Pile' of disabled viruses, but that doesn't mean that certain useful snippets can't be found and put to use. They certainly have. One such snippet is a segment of Human Endogenous Retrovirus W (HERV-W), named Synctin 1 which in humans aids the formation of the placenta.
    See: "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809 Now, other placental mammals use other versions of synctins for placental development, but they are derived from different ERV's. The one utilized by the human genome is the same one used by the other apes and Old World monkeys, but not New World monkeys, which places common ancestry of those species (Catarrhini) more than 25 million years ago.
    https://academy.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/endogenous-retroviruses.jpg

    http://slideplayer.com/slide/5684143/18/images/63/endogenous+retroviruses.jpg

  • After the idiot giantstupidscorpion was arguing so ferociously that DNA has nothing to do with the information in a computer, it was enough for me to give to him a statement of Bill Gates that destroyed him (and his silly beliefs) in no time (the idiot quickly deleted his own thread immediately after that, he couldn't bear the public humiliation):  DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created (Bill Gates)

  • 3% of $1 isn't the same as 3% of $1,000,000,000. Rejecting the null hypothesis. Lol

  • I saw that Newton is seen as an idol on this comments section, I was just thinking to re-publish his thoughts: Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice.Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors

  • Evolution of the Gaps :
    Convergent evo
    Divergent evo
    Parallel evo
    Gradual evo
    Quantal evo
    Punctuated evo
    Macromutational evo
    Saltational evo
    Extended evo
    Co-evo
    Evo devo
    …….

    every time evolution contradicts itself you close the gap with new evolution.

  • evolution fakeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  • +randal willks HOW EVOLUTION WORKS in simple steps: the target of this manipulation should have poor intellectual abilities. He/she should have no real education (he/she should hate real school, real education), his only "educational" activity should be not more than watching some videos on youtube or reading the titles from some well established sites like talkorigin. He/she should be indoctrinated that scientific evidence is not more than a guess, an assumption or a hypothesis. He/she should be brainwashed that in science a theory is definitely true, basically a fact. And finally he should be taught that there is huge amount of evidence for evolution, no matter how weak or false are the arguments for that. And of course he/she should never dare to think by his/her own.

  • While the creation vs evolution debate is important, it’s not the most important. The most paramount debate is whether Jesus is the Christ or not. Even people like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort admit this.

    Believing in creation won’t save anyone. The only way to be saved is by trusting Jesus Christ(John 3:16, Romans 5:8).

  • I like how God found it necessary to create an arch nemesis for himself…

  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:
    "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."

    Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie.

  • And this from the National Academy of Sciences: “The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution’.”

  • The Biology Department at conservative Baptist Baylor University has issued this statement:
    "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously." https://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368

  • The Department of Geosciences at conservative Baptist Baylor University has issued this statement:
    "The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

    Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.

    The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists."
    https://www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340

    That site also has a link to download above referenced "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by Pojeta and Springer. (1 MB PDF file). It also provides links to the position statements from other scientific organizations.

  • Albert Einstein's Historic 1954 “I don’t believe in God Letter"
    This is a genuine handwritten letter by Albert Einstein, that sold for
    $3 million in 2012. Clear scans of the letter, written in German, can
    be viewed online, you sneering scumbags.
    Some key excerpts:
    *“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
    human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of … primitive legends which
    are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
    can change this.”*
    *“For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation
    of the most childish superstitions. For me the Jewish religion like all
    other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
    And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I
    have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other
    people.”*
    "I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "
    Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a
    rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.
    AND THIS:
    *"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human
    fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their
    will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the
    phenomenal world."*
    – Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught
    There you go , the EXACT OPPOSITE for what you've just been farting on
    about. ALSO:
    *"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy,
    education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
    Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
    punishment and hope of reward after death."*
    — Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9
    November 1930

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Evolution Makes Testable Predictions. The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. In the 1950's when it was discovered that humans had 23 pairs of chromosomes (one from each parent), whereas the other great apes, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans had 24 pairs, creationists were ecstatic, thinking they finally had evidence to counter common ancestry.

    [Chromosomes are packages of DNA that form during mitosis and meiosis.There are two sets, one inherited from each parent. Other Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) (1n=24, 2n=48) whereas humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) (1n=23, 2n=46)]

    Evolution made a testable prediction; That somewhere in the human genome we should find evidence of cromosomal fusion. In other words, we should be able to find a human chromosome with the remnants of extra telomeres and centomeres.

    Since the loss of all the genes in a chromosome would have been fatal to any species, scientists reasoned that IF the Theory of Evolution was correct about common ancestry, one of two things must have occurred. Either two chromosomes had fused in human's evolutionary past, OR chromosomes had split in the other apes. Using 'Occam's Razor' or the "law of parsimony" which states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (Simply put, it means that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one), the most likely event was chromosome fusion in humans.

    Normal chromosomes have a centromere and ends capped with telomeres. It was reasoned that IF two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centromeres and teleomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2 (chromosomes are numbered by length). It was subsequently discovered that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 (for comparative purposes designated as 2A and 2B or 2p and 2q) contained the same genes as human chromosome 2 and if placed end to end the positions of those genes matched those of the human chromosome. Those chromosomes in the other apes also lined up in a similar fashion. The fusion event has been confirmed. https://bhavanajagat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/chromosome-fusion-chromosome-2a2b.jpg

    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure/image?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010056.g001&size=large
    This illustration shows the amazing convergence of human (Homo sapiens – Hs) and chimp (Pan troglodites – Pt) chromosomal alignment. Chromosomes are traditionally numbered by length with number one being the longest. Note here that Chromosome 1 of both species contain essentially the same genes despite some being offset or sequence inverted. Chromosomal rearrangements are evident in other apes as well. Of most significance here is that Human Chromosome 2 (Hs2) lines up almost exactly with chimp chromosomes 12 and 13 (Pt12, Pt13). DNA sequences called telomeres are normally found at either end of chromosomes, yet on Hs2 they are found flanking the centromere. Additionally there is a second, albeit disabled centromere (a pseudo centromere). All of which is evidence for ancestral chomosomal fusion.

    Chromosomal rearrangements (translocations) occur in nature and are not always detrimental, but they can be. This chromosomal fusion occurred by means of a Robertsonian Translocation which is the most common form in humans (about 1 in 900 births). A balanced Robertsonian translocation takes the place of two acrocentric chromosomes and results in no problems for the person carrying it. There is a case of a healthy 44 chromosome man in China and a family in Finland with chromosomal fusions. Although normal in other respects, they may have fertility problems. Chromosome rearrangements may perhaps reduce fertility but do not constitute an immediate barrier to interbreeding. Unbalanced translocations do result in developmental problems.
    Understanding Chromosomal Translocation – Robertsonian Translocation v1.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGw4VanNjk
    Robertsonian Translocation Explained in Plain Language https://www.healthline.com/health/robertsonian-translocation

    In just the last few years science has gained largely complete genomes of two other human species, those of Neanderthal and Denisovans. We see that same chromosome fusion in their genomes as well, indication that the fusion event took place in a common ancestor.

    Underlining the fact that chromosome fusion need not result in loss of genetic information, two teams of scientists have recently managed to reduce the normal 16 chromosomes of single celled Brewer's yeast to one or two chromosomes with no loss of function. 'Entire yeast genome squeezed into one lone chromosome' nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05857-9

    As previously stated, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The greatest test of ANY scientific theory is in its usefulness as a predictive tool. In this case, as with others, the Theory of Evolution has performed beautifully. Instead of it being the evidence against common ancestry creationists had hoped for, it has established very firm evidence in support of that ancestry.

    References:
    http://uswest.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Location/Synteny?db=core;otherspecies=Pan_troglodytes;r=2:242193529-242193529
    https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2
    www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf
    https://biologos.org/blogs/…to…/denisovans-humans-and-the-chromosome-2-fusion
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

  • EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – The Predictive Ability of the Theory – Part I The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. Perhaps the greatest tests for any theory is their use as a predictive tool, and the Theory of Evolution does that beautifully. The first fossils were discovered quite by accident, incidental to some other human activity. There are still fossils discovered that way, but no paleontologist will count on accidental discoveries. Expeditions seeking particular fossils are planned meticulously. Fifty years ago, creationists could derisively point to the fact that science had no transitional whale fossils. But then with the aid of geologic maps funded in part by oil and mineral companies and the Theory of Evolution predicting when in geologic time such fossils were likely to be found, paleontologists were able to locate where in the world the proper marine sediments were exposed at the earth's surface.

    As each new discovery came to light, they each showed a range of features from inherited to derived. Each was consistent with what would be expected if the theory was correct. There was no evidence of a derived feature returning to a more primitive form. No derived feature occurring out of place in the geologic record.

    When Neil Shubin and his team sought a fossil with transitional features between fish and tetrapod, they knew that the earliest tetrapod fossils were found in fresh water sediments dated about 370 million years ago. It was reasonable to assume that a transitional fossil, if such existed, would most likely be found in similar sediments somewhat older, perhaps those dated at about 375 mya. Geologic maps indicated that there are few places in the world where such layers are exposed at the earth's surface, but one they deemed to have the greatest probability of success was on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. Not exactly ones ideal summer vacation spot.

    It took four expeditions in the very short Arctic summers, but they returned in 2004 with nine fossil specimens of a fish they named Tiktaalik. It was a fish, but a fish like no other. It had scales, gills and a swimming tail, but it also had lungs, a sturdy rib cage and muscular fins ideal for pushing through weedy shallow marshes. Those fins had the same arrangement of bones found in land based animals; One bone: humerus (forelimb), or femur (hind limb); Two bones: ulna and radius (forelimb) or tibia and fibula (hind limb), followed by metacarpals and phalanges. Even more interesting was the flattened head with eyes on top whose focus would have been at or above the water's surface, and a neck that allowed it to move its head without having to move its whole body. Here was a Devonian fish, capable of breathing air, watching at the water's surface, most likely for the insects and other arthropods that millions of years earlier had followed plants in colonizing the land.

    Recent research has revealed that eyes are very expensive tissue in terms of calorie consumption. That is why cave dwelling organisms are quite often blind. The limited food sources in those caves are the environmental pressure for the elimination of superfluous tissue. Experiments have shown that larger eyes only marginally improve underwater vision, but can increase air vision 100 fold. While we cannot for certain determine the eye size of extinct organisms, the size of the eye socket provides a pretty good approximation. Tiktaalik's eye sockets were quite large, indicating it was most likely searching for prey above the water's surface.

    This is a fish at the margin of land and water with many features that would have suited it on land. We cannot be certain that this fish or its progeny was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but if not, it was something very similar to it.

    As previously stated, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The Theory of Evolution pointed to where such a fossil would be found, and indeed it was.

    References:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-fossil-is-transi/

  • But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble (Einstein)

  • There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus (Blaise Pascal)

  • I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace (Johannes Kepler)

  • When we would think of God, how many things we find which turn us away from Him, and tempt us to think otherwise. All this is evil, yet it is innate (Blaise Pascal)

  • Science brings men nearer to God (Louis Pasteur)

  • It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed  (James Prescott Joule)

  • Conclusion of the day: while the atheists make an absurd separation between the science of mankind and God and while they think in their heads that they are the "voice" of science, the reality is (as usual) opposite to their perception: the greatest scientists of this world understood that behind the laws of the universe there is an intelligent creator and the science of man is only about deciphering a very little part of God's great work. Sorry, atheists, you are deluded!

  • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages … has been a persistent and nagging problem for … evolution". Stephen J. Gould, Marxist Professor at Harvard,

  • DOES THE BIBLE PRESENT A FACTUAL VIEW OF HISTORY? THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO.
    Legitimate scientists do studies, write up their findings, then submit them to peer review and publication in recognized scientific journals. A real scholar is a seeker of truth, a detective. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Those words from Sherlock Holmes are just as true of science as it is indeed detective work. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science, or a good detective, proceeds from evidence to a conclusion, not the other way around. Some biblical scholars actively seek evidence that would support their preconceived opinion, namely that what is written in the bible is correct.

    A true detective however, seeks and follows evidence wherever it leads. A young Frenchman, Jean-François Champollion, discovered the keys to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics in the early 1800's and lead an archeological expedition to Egypt. Ever since that time, biblical scholars and archaeologists have combed through Egyptian writings looking for anything that would confirm biblical accounts. There is NOTHING, absolutely zero evidence that would support the existence of either Moses or the biblical Exodus.

    What they did find was that the Egyptians had recorded virtually every aspect of daily life; cattle sales, marriage contracts, magical incantations and curses, work details, grocery lists, all the details of daily life. What they eagerly sought but never found was any reference to event is the bible. Nor has anything been found to this day. Nothing about mass slavery. No mention about Israelites (until much, much later). No mention of the deaths of every first born son. No mention of a mass exodus of people. No signs of economic disruption that would have resulted from such a population loss. No mention of the loss of an entire army, let alone the loss of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:7).

    No mention of anyone named Moses or anyone like him. Nothing about a baby in reed boat who grew up to be an official in Pharoah's court. (That baby story was obviously plagiarized from a Mesopotamian legend about Sargon the Great, who was in fact , a real person, the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, who conquered Sumerian city-states in the 24th to 23rd centuries BCE.)

    So, no supporting evidence from Egyptian writing. How about physical archaeological evidence?
    According to the bible (Numbers 1:46) the numbers of males capable of bearing arms was 603,550, meaning that, with their wives and children, the Israelites would have numbered over two million people. Yet, this huge number of people—who would have overwhelmed the Egyptians in Egypt by sheer weight of numbers—left no trace of their passage through the Sinai Desert. Nor is there any evidence from either history or archaeology of the plagues that ravaged Egypt in the story of the Exodus or of the loss of an entire Egyptian army, including 600 chariots (Exodus 14:7).

    For almost 200 years, biblical scholars and archaeologists have combed the Sinai for any evidence a sizable population had ever been there, and there is nothing to show for their effort. Two million Israelites supposedly spent 38 years at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea leaving not a trace of their having been there. No fragments of pottery, no bones of the numbers of animals that would have been required to feed such a population, no hearths, not a single tent stake, NOTHING.

    There is also no evidence that Joshua was a real person. Many of the cities he is claimed to have conquered did not even exist at the time he was supposedly rampaging through the 'Holy Land'. Joshua is supposed to have fought a major battle at Jericho where "the walls came tumbling down". Now Jericho was one of the earliest agricultural settlements in the "Fertile Crescent". The springs in the area had attracted people since paleolithic times, when hunter gatherers congregated there. Neolithic peoples built a town there and, since it was on an earthquake fault, the walls came tumbling down on several occasions. Archaeological evidence indicates that the town had been abandoned for some time prior to about 1200 BCE when Joshua supposedly attacked it. Nor has archaeology found the sort of evidence that would indicate an attack by hostile forces, i.e. arrowheads or other weapons of the sort found at the ruins of Troy.

    During the 15th century BCE, the entire Levant, including the area of Canaan, was firmly under Egyptian control.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Egypt_1450_BC.svg/666px-Egypt_1450_BC.svg.png
    Egypt had been trading with the northern empires of Syria, Anatolia and Mesopotamia since the early bronze age. Those trade routes were a surce of inome for those controlling them and that was a source of conflict in the region. Levantine trade routes, ca. 1300 BCE https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Ancient_Levant_routes.png
    The unexplained collapse of many Mediterranian civilizations lead to regional instability and the rise of the "Sea Peoples", one of which were the Philistines who conquered 5 coastal cities sometime around 1150 BCE.

    What DNA and archaeological evidence tells us is that there was no large influx of peoples into the Levant, no cultural changes, no pottery style changes, nothing to indicate a change in lifestyles that would indicate a significant change in the makeup of the population. What the evidence tells us is that the culture and population of the Levant had been Canaanite since the third millennium BCE and remained so during the biblical period. The 'Israelite' or Jewish identity arose from within the Canaanite population, not from outside. Even among today's Jewish peoples, despite mixing with othere ethnicites, their DNA is mostly Canaanite, the highest percentage of which is among those whose ancestors remained in the Middle East; the Mizrahi Jews.The Hebrew language and writing both derived from earlier Canaanite forms.

    What the evidence shows is that the Old Testament was written during and shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. The The story of Moses and the Exodus was pure fabrication meant to unify a diverse illiterate population. The supposed Egyptian Captivity was the founding myth of the Jewish religion and was a simile for the Babylonian Captivity.

    Now, fundamentalist practitioners of the Abrahamic religions start with the premise that the biblical stories are correct and that any evidence to the contrary must be false. To do this, they (insensibly) begin to twist facts to suit theories. That is the antithesis of science and is very dishonest.

    It seems many Christians deeply resent any questioning of biblical accounts, yet there are Jewish theologians who reluctantly accept archeological and genetic evidence: articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/news/mn-50481
    https://medium.com/@mattsamberg/what-if-we-weren-t-slaves-8f92dd6eac01

  • If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God. (Lord Kelvin)

  • 53 Bible People Confirmed in Authentic Inscriptions
    Name

    Who was he?

    When he reigned or flourished B.C.E.

    Where in the Bible?

    Egypt
    1

    Shishak (= Sheshonq I)

    pharaoh

    945–924

    1 Kings 11:40, etc.

    2

    So (= Osorkon IV)

    pharaoh

    730–715

    2 Kings 17:4

    3

    Tirhakah (= Taharqa)

    pharaoh

    690–664

    2 Kings 19:9, etc.

    4

    Necho II (= Neco II)

    pharaoh

    610–595

    2 Chronicles 35:20, etc.

    5

    Hophra (= Apries)

    pharaoh

    589–570

    Jeremiah 44:30

    Moab
    6

    Mesha

    king

    early to mid-ninth century

    2 Kings 3:4–27

    Aram-Damascus
    7

    Hadadezer

    king

    early ninth century to 844/842

    1 Kings 11:23, etc.

    8

    Ben-hadad, son of Hadadezer

    king

    844/842

    2 Kings 6:24, etc.

    9

    Hazael

    king

    844/842–c. 800

    1 Kings 19:15, etc.

    10

    Ben-hadad, son of Hazael

    king

    early eighth century

    2 Kings 13:3, etc.

    11

    Rezin

    king

    mid-eighth century to 732

    2 Kings 15:37, etc.

    Northern Kingdom of Israel
    12

    Omri

    king

    884–873

    1 Kings 16:16, etc.

    13

    Ahab

    king

    873–852

    1 Kings 16:28, etc.

    14

    Jehu

    king

    842/841–815/814

    1 Kings 19:16, etc.

    15

    Joash (= Jehoash)

    king

    805–790

    2 Kings 13:9, etc.

    16

    Jeroboam II

    king

    790–750/749

    2 Kings 13:13, etc.

    17

    Menahem

    king

    749–738

    2 Kings 15:14, etc.

    18

    Pekah

    king

    750(?)–732/731

    2 Kings 15:25, etc.

    19

    Hoshea

    king

    732/731–722

    2 Kings 15:30, etc.

    20

    Sanballat “I”

    governor of Samaria under Persian rule

    c. mid-fifth century

    Nehemiah 2:10, etc.

    Southern Kingdom of Judah
    21

    David

    king

    c. 1010–970

    1 Samuel 16:13, etc.

    22

    Uzziah (= Azariah)

    king

    788/787–736/735

    2 Kings 14:21, etc.

    23

    Ahaz (= Jehoahaz)

    king

    742/741–726

    2 Kings 15:38, etc.

    24

    Hezekiah

    king

    726–697/696

    2 Kings 16:20, etc.

    25

    Manasseh

    king

    697/696–642/641

    2 Kings 20:21, etc.

    26

    Hilkiah

    high priest during Josiah’s reign

    within 640/639–609

    2 Kings 22:4, etc.

    27

    Shaphan

    scribe during Josiah’s reign

    within 640/639–609

    2 Kings 22:3, etc.

    28

    Azariah

    high priest during Josiah’s reign

    within 640/639–609

    1 Chronicles 5:39, etc.

    29

    Gemariah

    official during Jehoiakim’s reign

    within 609–598

    Jeremiah 36:10, etc.

    30

    Jehoiachin (= Jeconiah = Coniah)

    king

    598–597

    2 Kings 24:6, etc.

    31

    Shelemiah

    father of Jehucal the royal official

    late seventh century

    Jeremiah 37:3, etc.

    32

    Jehucal (= Jucal)

    official during Zedekiah’s reign

    within 597–586

    Jeremiah 37:3, etc.

    33

    Pashhur

    father of Gedaliah the royal official

    late seventh century

    Jeremiah 38:1

    34

    Gedaliah

    official during Zedekiah’s reign

    within 597–586

    Jeremiah 38:1

    Assyria
    35

    Tiglath-pileser III (= Pul)

    king

    744–727

    2 Kings 15:19, etc.

    36

    Shalmaneser V

    king

    726–722

    2 Kings 17:3, etc.

    37

    Sargon II

    king

    721–705

    Isaiah 20:1

    38

    Sennacherib

    king

    704–681

    2 Kings 18:13, etc.

    39

    Adrammelech (= Ardamullissu = Arad-mullissu)

    son and assassin of Sennacherib

    early seventh century

    2 Kings 19:37, etc.

    40

    Esarhaddon

    king

    680–669

    2 Kings 19:37, etc.

    Babylonia
    41

    Merodach-baladan II

    king

    721–710 and 703

    2 Kings 20:12, etc.

    42

    Nebuchadnezzar II

    king

    604–562

    2 Kings 24:1, etc.

    43

    Nebo-sarsekim

    official of Nebuchadnezzar II

    early sixth century

    Jeremiah 39:3

    44

    Nergal-sharezer

    officer of Nebuchadnezzar II

    early sixth century

    Jeremiah 39:3

    45

    Nebuzaradan

    a chief officer of Nebuchadnezzar II

    early sixth century

    2 Kings 25:8, etc. & Jeremiah 39:9, etc.

    46

    Evil-merodach (= Awel Marduk = Amel Marduk)

    king

    561–560

    2 Kings 25:27, etc.

    47

    Belshazzar

    son and co-regent of Nabonidus

    c. 543?–540

    Daniel 5:1, etc.

    Persia
    48

    Cyrus II (= Cyrus the Great)

    king

    559–530

    2 Chronicles 36:22, etc.

    49

    Darius I (= Darius the Great)

    king

    520–486

    Ezra 4:5, etc.

    50

    Tattenai

    provincial governor of Trans-Euphrates

    late sixth to early fifth century

    Ezra 5:3, etc.

    51

    Xerxes I (= Ahasuerus)

    king

    486–465

    Esther 1:1, etc.

    52

    Artaxerxes I Longimanus

    king

    465-425/424

    Ezra 4:7, etc.

    53

    Darius II Nothus

    king

    425/424-405/404

    Nehemiah 12:22

  • 53 Figures: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence
     

    EGYPT

    1. Shishak (= Sheshonq I), pharaoh, r. 945–924, 1 Kings 11:40 and 14:25, in his inscriptions, including the record of his military campaign in Palestine in his 924 B.C.E. inscription on the exterior south wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes. See OROT, pp. 10, 31–32, 502 note 1; many references to him in Third, indexed on p. 520; Kenneth A. Kitchen, review of IBP, SEE-J Hiphil 2 (2005), www.see-j.net/index.php/hiphil/article/viewFile/19/17, bottom of p. 3, which is briefly mentioned in “Sixteen,” p. 43 n. 22. (Note: The name of this pharaoh can be spelled Sheshonq or Shoshenq.)

    Sheshonq is also referred to in a fragment of his victory stele discovered at Megiddo containing his cartouche. See Robert S. Lamon and Geoffrey M. Shipton, Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V. (Oriental Institute Publications no. 42; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), pp. 60–61, fig. 70; Graham I. Davies, Megiddo(Cities of the Biblical World; Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1986), pp. 89 fig. 18, 90; OROT, p. 508 n. 68; IBP, p. 137 n. 119. (Note: The name of this pharaoh can be spelled Sheshonq or Shoshenq.)

    Egyptian pharaohs had several names, including a throne name. It is known that the throne name of Sheshonq I, when translated into English, means, “Bright is the manifestation of Re, chosen of Amun/Re.” Sheshonq I’s inscription on the wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes (mentioned above) celebrates the victories of his military campaign in the Levant, thus presenting the possibility of his presence in that region. A small Egyptian scarab containing his exact throne name, discovered as a surface find at Khirbat Hamra Ifdan, now documents his presence at or near that location. This site is located along the Wadi Fidan, in the region of Faynan in southern Jordan.

    As for the time period, disruption of copper production at Khirbet en-Nahas, also in the southern Levant, can be attributed to Sheshonq’s army, as determined by stratigraphy, high-precision radiocarbon dating, and an assemblage of Egyptian amulets dating to Sheshonq’s time. His army seems to have intentionally disrupted copper production, as is evident both at Khirbet en-Nahas and also at Khirbat Hamra Ifdan, where the scarab was discovered.

    As for the singularity of this name in this remote locale, it would have been notable to find any Egyptian scarab there, much less one containing the throne name of this conquering Pharaoh; this unique discovery admits no confusion with another person. See Thomas E. Levy, Stefan Münger, and Mohammad Najjar, “A Newly Discovered Scarab of Sheshonq I: Recent Iron Age Explorations in Southern Jordan. Antiquity Project Gallery,” Antiquity (2014); online: http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/levy341.

    2. So (= Osorkon IV), pharaoh, r. 730–715, 2 Kings 17:4 only, which calls him “So, king of Egypt” (OROT, pp. 15–16). K. A. Kitchen makes a detailed case for So being Osorkon IV in Third, pp. 372–375. See Raging Torrent, p. 106 under “Shilkanni.”

    3. Tirhakah (= Taharqa), pharaoh, r. 690–664, 2 Kings 19:9, etc. in many Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions; Third, pp. 387–395. For mention of Tirhakah in Assyrian inscriptions, see those of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in Raging Torrent, pp. 138–143, 145, 150–153, 155, 156; ABC, p. 247 under “Terhaqah.” The Babylonian chronicle also refers to him (Raging Torrent, p. 187). On Tirhakah as prince, see OROT, p. 24.

    4. Necho II (= Neco II), pharaoh, r. 610–595, 2 Chronicles 35:20, etc., in inscriptions of the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (ANET, pp. 294–297) and the Esarhaddon Chronicle (ANET, p. 303). See also Raging Torrent, pp. 189–199, esp. 198; OROT, p. 504 n. 26; Third, p. 407; ABC, p. 232.

    5. Hophra (= Apries = Wahibre), pharaoh, r. 589–570, Jeremiah 44:30, in Egyptian inscriptions, such as the one describing his being buried by his successor, Aḥmose II (= Amasis II) (Third, p. 333 n. 498), with reflections in Babylonian inscriptions regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Hophra in 572 and replacing him on the throne of Egypt with a general, Aḥmes (= Amasis), who later rebelled against Babylonia and was suppressed (Raging Torrent, p. 222). See OROT, pp. 9, 16, 24; Third, p. 373 n. 747, 407 and 407 n. 969; ANET, p. 308; D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), pp. 94-95. Cf. ANEHST, p. 402. (The index of Third, p. 525, distinguishes between an earlier “Wahibre i” [Third, p. 98] and the 26th Dynasty’s “Wahibre ii” [= Apries], r. 589–570.)

     

    MOAB

    6. Mesha, king, r. early to mid-9th century, 2 Kings 3:4–27, in the Mesha Inscription, which he caused to be written, lines 1–2; Dearman, Studies, pp. 97, 100–101; IBP, pp. 95–108, 238; “Sixteen,” p. 43.

     

    ARAM-DAMASCUS

    7. Hadadezer, king, r. early 9th century to 844/842, 1 Kings 22:3, etc., in Assyrian inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and also, I am convinced, in the Melqart stele. The Hebrew Bible does not name him, referring to him only as “the King of Aram” in 1 Kings 22:3, 31; 2 Kings chapter 5, 6:8–23. We find out this king’s full name in some contemporaneous inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (r. 858–824), such as the Black Obelisk (Raging Torrent, pp. 22–24). At Kurkh, a monolith by Shalmaneser III states that at the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.E.), he defeated “Adad-idri [the Assyrian way of saying Hadadezer] the Damascene,” along with “Ahab the Israelite” and other kings (Raging Torrent, p. 14; RIMA 3, p. 23, A.0.102.2, col. ii, lines 89b–92). “Hadadezer the Damascene” is also mentioned in an engraving on a statue of Shalmaneser III at Aššur (RIMA 3, p. 118, A.0.102.40, col. i, line 14). The same statue engraving later mentions both Hadadezer and Hazael together (RIMA 3, p. 118, col. i, lines 25–26) in a topical arrangement of worst enemies defeated that is not necessarily chronological.

    On the long-disputed readings of the Melqart stele, which was discovered in Syria in 1939, see “Corrections,” pp. 69–85, which follows the closely allied readings of Frank Moore Cross and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold. Those readings, later included in “Sixteen,” pp. 47–48, correct the earlier absence of this Hadadezer in IBP (notably on p. 237, where he is not to be confused with the tenth-century Hadadezer, son of Rehob and king of Zobah).

    8. Ben-hadad, son of Hadadezer, r. or served as co-regent 844/842, 2 Kings 6:24, etc., in the Melqart stele, following the readings of Frank Moore Cross and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold and Cross’s 2003 criticisms of a different reading that now appears in COS, vol. 2, pp. 152–153 (“Corrections,” pp. 69–85). Several kings of Damascus bore the name Bar-hadad (in their native Aramaic, which is translated as Ben-hadad in the Hebrew Bible), which suggests adoption as “son” by the patron deity Hadad. This designation might indicate that he was the crown prince and/or co-regent with his father Hadadezer. It seems likely that Bar-hadad/Ben-hadad was his father’s immediate successor as king, as seems to be implied by the military policy reversal between 2 Kings 6:3–23 and 6:24. It was this Ben-Hadad, the son of Hadadezer, whom Hazael assassinated in 2 Kings 8:7–15 (quoted in Raging Torrent, p. 25). The mistaken disqualification of this biblical identification in the Melqart stele in IBP, p. 237, is revised to a strong identification in that stele in “Corrections,” pp. 69–85; “Sixteen,” p. 47.

    9. Hazael, king, r. 844/842–ca. 800, 1 Kings 19:15, 2 Kings 8:8, etc., is documented in four kinds of inscriptions: 1) The inscriptions of Shalmaneser III call him “Hazael of Damascus” (Raging Torrent, pp. 23–26, 28), for example the inscription on the Kurbail Statue (RIMA 3, p. 60, line 21). He is also referred to in 2) the Zakkur stele from near Aleppo, in what is now Syria, and in 3) bridle inscriptions, i.e., two inscribed horse blinders and a horse frontlet discovered on Greek islands, and in 4) inscribed ivories seized as Assyrian war booty (Raging Torrent, p. 35). All are treated in IBP, pp. 238–239, and listed in “Sixteen,” p. 44. Cf. “Corrections,” pp. 101–103.

    10. Ben-hadad, son of Hazael, king, r. early 8th century, 2 Kings 13:3, etc., in the Zakkur stele from near Aleppo. In lines 4–5, it calls him “Bar-hadad, son of Hazael, the king of Aram” (IBP, p. 240; “Sixteen,” p. 44; Raging Torrent, p. 38; ANET, p. 655: COS, vol. 2, p. 155). On the possibility of Ben-hadad, son of Hazael, being the “Mari” in Assyrian inscriptions, see Raging Torrent, pp. 35–36.

    11. Rezin (= Raḥianu), king, r. mid-8th century to 732, 2 Kings 15:37, etc., in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria (in these inscriptions, Raging Torrentrecords frequent mention of Rezin in  pp. 51–78); OROT, p. 14. Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III refer to “Rezin” several times, “Rezin of Damascus” in Annal 13, line 10 (ITP, pp. 68–69), and “the dynasty of Rezin of Damascus” in Annal 23, line 13 (ITP, pp. 80–81). Tiglath-pileser III’s stele from Iran contains an explicit reference to Rezin as king of Damascus in column III, the right side, A: “[line 1] The kings of the land of Hatti (and of) the Aramaeans of the western seashore . . .  [line 4] Rezin of Damascus”  (ITP, pp. 106–107).

  • NORTHERN KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

    12. Omri, king, r. 884–873, 1 Kings 16:16, etc., in Assyrian inscriptions and in the Mesha Inscription. Because he founded a famous dynasty which ruled the northern kingdom of Israel, the Assyrians refer not only to him as a king of Israel (ANET, pp. 280, 281), but also to the later rulers of that territory as kings of “the house of Omri” and that territory itself literally as “the house of Omri” (Raging Torrent, pp. 34, 35; ANET, pp. 284, 285). Many a later king of Israel who was not his descendant, beginning with Jehu, was called “the son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 18). The Mesha Inscription also refers to Omri as “the king of Israel” in lines 4–5, 7 (Dearman, Studies, pp. 97, 100–101; COS, vol. 2, p. 137; IBP, pp. 108–110, 216; “Sixteen,” p. 43.

    13. Ahab, king, r. 873–852, 1 Kings 16:28, etc., in the Kurkh Monolith by his enemy, Shalmaneser III of Assyria. There, referring to the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.E.), Shalmaneser calls him “Ahab the Israelite” (Raging Torrent, pp. 14, 18–19; RIMA 3, p. 23, A.0.102.2, col. 2, lines 91–92; ANET, p. 279; COS, vol. 2, p. 263).

    14. Jehu, king, r. 842/841–815/814, 1 Kings 19:16, etc., in inscriptions of Shalmaneser III. In these, “son” means nothing more than that he is the successor, in this instance, of Omri (Raging Torrent, p. 20 under “Ba’asha . . . ” and p. 26). A long version of Shalmaneser III’s annals on a stone tablet in the outer wall of the city of Aššur refers to Jehu in col. 4, line 11, as “Jehu, son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 28; RIMA 3, p. 54, A.0.102.10, col. 4, line 11; cf. ANET, p. 280, the parallel “fragment of an annalistic text”). Also, on the Kurba’il Statue, lines 29–30 refer to “Jehu, son of Omri” (RIMA 3, p. 60, A.0.102.12, lines 29–30).

    In Shalmaneser III’s Black Obelisk, current scholarship regards the notation over relief B, depicting payment of tribute from Israel, as referring to “Jehu, son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 23; RIMA 3, p. 149, A.0. 102.88), but cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “‘Yaw, Son of ‘Omri’: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216 (1974): pp. 5–7.

    15. Joash (= Jehoash), king, r. 805–790, 2 Kings 13:9, etc., in the Tell al-Rimaḥ inscription of Adad-Nirari III, king of Assyria (r. 810–783), which mentions “the tribute of Joash [= Iu’asu] the Samarian” (Stephanie Page, “A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell Al Rimaḥ,” Iraq 30 [1968]: pp. 142–145, line 8, Pl. 38–41; RIMA 3,p. 211, line 8 of A.0.104.7; Raging Torrent, pp. 39–41).

    16. Jeroboam II, king, r. 790–750/749, 2 Kings 13:13, etc., in the seal of his royal servant Shema, discovered at Megiddo (WSS, p. 49 no. 2;  IBP, pp. 133–139, 217; “Sixteen,” p. 46).

    17. Menahem, king, r. 749–738, 2 Kings 15:14, etc., in the Calah Annals of Tiglath-pileser III. Annal 13, line 10 refers to “Menahem of Samaria” in a list of kings who paid tribute (ITP, pp. 68–69, Pl. IX). Tiglath-pileser III’s stele from Iran, his only known stele, refers explicitly to Menahem as king of Samaria in column III, the right side, A: “[line 1] The kings of the land of Hatti (and of) the Aramaeans of the western seashore . . .  [line 5] Menahem of Samaria.”  (ITP, pp. 106–107). See also Raging Torrent, pp. 51, 52, 54, 55, 59; ANET, p. 283.

    18. Pekah, king, r. 750(?)–732/731, 2 Kings 15:25, etc., in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. Among various references to “Pekah,” the most explicit concerns the replacement of Pekah in Summary Inscription 4, lines 15–17: “[line 15] . . . The land of Bit-Humria . . . . [line 17] Peqah, their king [I/they killed] and I installed Hoshea [line 18] [as king] over them” (ITP, pp. 140–141; Raging Torrent, pp. 66–67).

    19. Hoshea, king, r. 732/731–722, 2 Kings 15:30, etc., in Tiglath-pileser’s Summary Inscription 4, described in preceding note 18, where Hoshea is mentioned as Pekah’s immediate successor.

    20. Sanballat “I”, governor of Samaria under Persian rule, ca. mid-fifth century, Nehemiah 2:10, etc., in a letter among the papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt (A. E. Cowley, ed., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.(Oxford: Clarendon, 1923; reprinted Osnabrück, Germany: Zeller, 1967), p. 114 English translation of line 29, and p. 118 note regarding line 29; ANET, p. 492.

    Also, the reference to “[  ]ballat,” most likely Sanballat, in Wadi Daliyeh bulla WD 22 appears to refer to the biblical Sanballat as the father of a governor of Samaria who succeeded him in the first half of the fourth century. As Jan Dušek shows, it cannot be demonstrated that any Sanballat II and III existed, which is the reason for the present article’s quotation marks around the “I” in Sanballat “I”; see Jan Dušek, “Archaeology and Texts in the Persian Period: Focus on Sanballat,” in Martti Nissinen, ed., Congress Volume: Helsinki 2010 (Boston: Brill. 2012), pp. 117–132.

  • ASSYRIA

    35. Tiglath-pileser III (= Pul), king, r. 744–727, 2 Kings 15:19, etc., in his many inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 46–79; COS, vol. 2, pp. 284–292; ITP; Mikko Lukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria, no. 19; Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013); ABC, pp. 248–249. On Pul as referring to Tiglath-pileser III, which is implicit in ABC, p. 333 under “Pulu,” see ITP, p. 280 n. 5 for discussion and bibliography.

    On the identification of Tiglath-pileser III in the Aramaic monumental inscription honoring Panamu II, in Aramaic monumental inscriptions 1 and 8 of Bar-Rekub (now in Istanbul and Berlin, respectively), and in the Ashur Ostracon, see IBP, p. 240; COS, pp. 158–161.

    36. Shalmaneser V (= Ululaya), king, r. 726–722, 2 Kings 17:2, etc., in chronicles, in king-lists, and in rare remaining inscriptions of his own (ABC, p. 242; COS, vol. 2, p. 325). Most notable is the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series, Chronicle 1, i, lines 24–32.  In those lines, year 2 of the Chronicle mentions his plundering the city of Samaria (Raging Torrent, pp. 178, 182; ANEHST, p. 408). (“Shalman” in Hosea 10:14 is likely a historical allusion, but modern lack of information makes it difficult to assign it to a particular historical situation or ruler, Assyrian or otherwise. See below for the endnotes to the box at the top of p. 50.)

    37. Sargon II, king, r. 721–705, Isaiah 20:1, in many inscriptions, including his own. See Raging Torrent, pp. 80–109, 176–179, 182; COS, vol. 2, pp. 293–300; Mikko Lukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria, no. 19; Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013); ABC, pp. 236–238; IBP, pp. 240–241 no. (74).

    38. Sennacherib, king, r. 704–681, 2 Kings 18:13, etc., in many inscriptions, including his own. See Raging Torrent, pp. 110–129; COS, vol. 2, pp. 300–305; ABC, pp. 238–240; ANEHST, pp. 407–411, esp. 410; IBP, pp. 241–242.

    39. Adrammelech (= Ardamullissu = Arad-mullissu), son and assassin of Sennacherib, fl. early 7th century, 2 Kings 19:37, etc., in a letter sent to Esarhaddon, who succeeded Sennacherib on the throne of Assyria. See Raging Torrent, pp. 111, 184, and COS, vol. 3, p. 244, both of which describe and cite with approval Simo Parpola, “The Murderer of Sennacherib,” in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVie Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), pp. 171–182. See also ABC, p. 240.

    An upcoming scholarly challenge is the identification of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon, as a more likely assassin in Andrew Knapp’s paper, “The Murderer of Sennacherib, Yet Again,” to be read in a February 2014 Midwest regional conference in Bourbonnais, Ill. (SBL/AOS/ASOR).

    On various renderings of the neo-Assyrian name of the assassin, see RlA s.v. “Ninlil,” vol. 9, pp. 452–453 (in German). On the mode of execution of those thought to have been  conspirators in the assassination, see the selection from Ashurbanipal’s Rassam cylinder in ANET, p. 288.

    40. Esarhaddon, king, r. 680–669, 2 Kings 19:37, etc., in his many inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 130–147; COS, vol. 2, p. 306; ABC, pp. 217–219. Esarhaddon’s name appears in many cuneiform inscriptions (ANET, pp. 272–274, 288–290, 292–294, 296, 297, 301–303, 426–428, 449, 450, 531, 533–541, 605, 606), including his Succession Treaty (ANEHST, p. 355).

  • BABYLONIA

    41. Merodach-baladan II (=Marduk-apla-idinna II), king, r. 721–710 and 703, 2 Kings 20:12, etc., in the inscriptions of Sennacherib and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles (Raging Torrent, pp. 111, 174, 178–179, 182–183. For Sennacherib’s account of his first campaign, which was against Merodach-baladan II, see COS, vol. 2, pp. 300-302. For the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series, Chronicle 1, i, 33–42, see ANEHST, pp. 408–409. This king is also included in the Babylonian King List A (ANET, p. 271), and the latter part of his name remains in the reference to him in the Synchronistic King List (ANET, pp. 271–272), on which see ABC, pp. 226, 237.

    42. Nebuchadnezzar II, king, r. 604–562, 2 Kings 24:1, etc., in many cuneiform tablets, including his own inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 220–223; COS, vol. 2, pp. 308–310; ANET, pp. 221, 307–311; ABC, p. 232. The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series refers to him in Chronicles 4 and 5 (ANEHST, pp. 415, 416–417, respectively). Chronicle 5, reverse, lines 11–13, briefly refers to his conquest of Jerusalem (“the city of Judah”) in 597 by defeating “its king” (Jehoiachin), as well as his appointment of “a king of his own choosing” (Zedekiah) as king of Judah.

    43. Nebo-sarsekim, chief official of Nebuchadnezzar II, fl. early 6th century, Jeremiah 39:3, in a cuneiform inscription on Babylonian clay tablet BM 114789 (1920-12-13, 81), dated to 595 B.C.E. The time reference in Jeremiah 39:3 is very close, to the year 586. Since it is extremely unlikely that two individuals having precisely the same personal name would have been, in turn, the sole holders of precisely this unique position within a decade of each other, it is safe to assume that the inscription and the book of Jeremiah refer to the same person in different years of his time in office. In July 2007 in the British Museum, Austrian researcher Michael Jursa discovered this Babylonian reference to the biblical “Nebo-sarsekim, the Rab-saris” (rab ša-rēši, meaning “chief official”) of Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 604–562). Jursa identified this official in his article, “Nabu-šarrūssu-ukīn, rab ša-rēši, und ‘Nebusarsekim’ (Jer. 39:3),” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires2008/1 (March): pp. 9–10 (in German). See also Bob Becking, “Identity of Nabusharrussu-ukin, the Chamberlain: An Epigraphic Note on Jeremiah 39,3. With an Appendix on the Nebu(!)sarsekim Tablet by Henry Stadhouders,” Biblische Notizen NF 140 (2009): pp. 35–46; “Corrections,” pp. 121–124; “Sixteen,” p. 47 n. 31. On the correct translation of ráb ša-rēši (and three older, published instances of it having been incorrect translated as rab šaqê), see ITP, p. 171 n. 16.

    44. Nergal-sharezer (= Nergal-sharuṣur the Sin-magir = Nergal-šarru-uṣur the simmagir), officer of Nebuchadnezzar II, early sixth century, Jeremiah 39:3, in a Babylonian cuneiform inscription known as Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (column 3 of prism EŞ 7834, in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum). See ANET, pp. 307‒308; Rocio Da Riva, “Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EŞ 7834): A New Edition,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, vol. 103, no. 2 (2013): 204, Group 3.

    45. Nebuzaradan (= Nabuzeriddinam = Nabû-zēr-iddin), a chief officer of Nebuchadnezzar II, early sixth century, 2 Kings 25:8, etc. & Jeremiah 39:9, etc., in a Babylonian cuneiform inscription known as Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (column 3, line 36 of prism EŞ 7834, in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum). See ANET, p. 307; Rocio Da Riva, “Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EŞ 7834): A New Edition,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, vol. 103, no. 2 (2013): 202, Group 1.

    46. Evil-merodach (= Awel Marduk, = Amel Marduk), king, r. 561–560, 2 Kings 25:27, etc., in various inscriptions (ANET, p. 309; OROT, pp. 15, 504 n. 23). See especially Ronald H. Sack, Amel-Marduk: 562-560 B.C.; A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, no. 4; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, and Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1972).

    47. Belshazzar, son and co-regent of Nabonidus, fl. ca. 543?–540, Daniel 5:1, etc., in Babylonian administrative documents and the “Verse Account” (Muhammed A. Dandamayev, “Nabonid, A,” RlA, vol. 9, p. 10; Raging Torrent, pp. 215–216; OROT, pp. 73–74). A neo-Babylonian text refers to him as “Belshazzar the crown prince” (ANET, pp. 309–310 n. 5).

  • PERSIA

    48. Cyrus II (=Cyrus the great), king, r. 559–530, 2 Chronicles 36:22, etc., in various inscriptions (including his own), for which and on which see ANEHST, pp. 418–426, ABC, p. 214. For Cyrus’ cylinder inscription, see Raging Torrent, pp. 224–230; ANET, pp. 315–316; COS, vol. 2, pp. 314–316; ANEHST, pp. 426–430; P&B, pp. 87–92. For larger context and implications in the biblical text, see OROT, pp. 70-76.

    49. Darius I (=Darius the Great), king, r. 520–486, Ezra 4:5, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own trilingual cliff inscription at Behistun, on which see P&B, pp. 131–134. See also COS, vol. 2, p. 407, vol. 3, p. 130; ANET, pp. 221, 316, 492; ABC, p. 214; ANEHST, pp. 407, 411. On the setting, see OROT, pp. 70–75.

    50. Tattenai (=Tatnai), provincial governor of Trans-Euphrates, late sixth to early fifth century, Ezra 5:3, etc., in a tablet of Darius I the Great, king of Persia, which can be dated to exactly June 5, 502 B.C.E. See David E. Suiter, “Tattenai,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 6, p. 336; A. T. Olmstead, “Tattenai, Governor of ‘Beyond the River,’” Journal of Near Eastern Studies3 (1944): p. 46. A drawing of the cuneiform text appears in Arthur Ungnad, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler Der Königlichen Museen Zu Berlin (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907), vol. IV, p. 48, no. 152 (VAT 43560). VAT is the abbreviation for the series Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafel, published by the Berlin Museum. The author of the BAR article wishes to acknowledge the query regarding Tattenai from Mr. Nathan Yadon of Houston, Texas, private correspondence, 8 September 2015.

    51. Xerxes I (=Ahasuerus), king, r. 486–465, Esther 1:1, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own (P&B, p. 301; ANET, pp. 316–317), and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (COS, vol. 2, p. 188, vol. 3, pp. 142, 145. On the setting, see OROT, pp. 70–75.

    52. Artaxerxes I Longimanus, king, r. 465-425/424, Ezra 4:6, 7, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own (P&B, pp. 242–243), and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (COS, vol. 2, p. 163, vol. 3, p. 145; ANET, p. 548).

    53. Darius II Nothus, king, r. 425/424-405/404, Nehemiah 12:22, in various inscriptions, including his own (for example, P&B, pp. 158–159) and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (ANET, p. 548; COS, vol. 3, pp. 116–117).

  • Cyril Patterson Good job! I use to compare the scripture with external, historical sources and I just notice that more and more such sources confirm events/characters/places found in the scriptures. You probably posted your stuff as a reply to the post of that creature, Randal Wilks. He is a loss for humanity, his farts shouldn't bother you so much….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *