Comments on: Darwin’s theory of evolution: good science or faulty philosophy? Exploring life, spirituality, and contemporary cultural issues via "The Basket of Tolerance" and other guideposts Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: ray Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:53:26 +0000 hi BoT student. thank you for the kind reply. I agree with you that there is quite alot of evidence out there contradicting random evolution – I would even say overwhelming evidence. it just bothers me this genetic similarity between apes and humans at the chromosome level. I don’t see any other way to explain it except by common descent. the only other way to explain it is to come to the supernatural – i.e. to say God planted false information, which is strange.

By: BoT Student Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:49:49 +0000 Again, the way I look at this stuff is: “correlation does not imply causation”.

So the amount of chromosomal similarity between two different species does not tell us why the similarity is there or how it got that way, does it?

By: BoT Student Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:04:46 +0000 Hi Ray,

Yeah, I don’t know what to tell you. Many people say life on this planet is a miracle. Or at least a mystery. How could all these things happen by chance? Right?

Even the theory of evolution is based squaredly on miracle after miracle, as I found out while researching this article, but which I did not understand back when I was in school. Somehow when I was in school I don’t recall that side of the theory being discussed all that much.

Now, if you are suggesting that similar genetic structures implies a common genetic ancestor between apes and humans, yes! that is exactly how I have always thought. But if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Let’s say there are no humans and only apes, and we’re living long ago in earth’s shadowy past. One day, one of our buddies has a genetic mutation in his germ cells. When he goes to make love to his ape-wife, he gives her a defective sperm with which he impregnates her.

However, rather than a miscarriage or some other birth problem, the genetic damage passed on to the zygote, the embryo, results somehow in an entire new human gene that never existed before but has now sprung miraculously into existence, and which causes the offspring to begin forming an entire new race of creatures – humans.

This is one of the strangest theories I’ve ever heard. I don’t see how random genetic damage can create entire new functioning genes. It’s statistically improbable that this could ever happen, let alone happen again and again.

What do you think is the likelihood that a single incidence of unrepaired genetic damage can create a brand-new fully functioning gene?

So to sum up, yes, the genetic similarity between apes and humans is remarkable – it can’t be an accident. I agree with you there sir.

Life itself cannot be an accident, from a mathematical or scientific point of view, according to some biology researchers I quote in this article, including Francis Crick who allegedly discovered DNA, and Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology.

Therefore some people say God created all of this through miraculous processes that don’t rely on chance.

Other people don’t like using the word “God” but they still say all of this shows signs of “intelligent design”.

(Using the same DNA for both apes and humans could be said to simply be good design. Just as having four wheels is a good way to design a car.)

For me, it’s all a mystery. I don’t claim to have any answers about any of this. I really don’t. I just don’t believe in “evolution” anymore.

I now see “evolution” as a belief system that is not based on scientific logic or scientific evidence so much as it is based on training all of us when we are young to believe in it.

If this way of looking at it is foreign to you, and if you truly believe this article is great, then I’d encourage you to read through the article multiple times. It took a long time for this information to sink in for me, cause I was so steeped in my beliefs with regard to evolution.

best wishes to you sir.

By: ray Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:13:43 +0000 here’s a quote explaining more: “The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean ‘impossible’. One simply doesn’t see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing. But for every primate the relationship corresponds to humans the same way”

By: ray Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:11:11 +0000 Hi bot, great article. However, I have one question. I hope you can answer it. As you may know there is a tremendous amount of similarity in the DNA of apes and humans. This similarity is not only at the genetic level but even at the chromosome level. i.e. some chromosomes are nearly the same both in content and structure. the chances of that happening by chance are infinitely small. I look forward to your reply. thank you.

By: M Flow Mon, 09 Jun 2014 22:10:52 +0000 I have always been uncomfortable with the term “Fit” and the “Mechanism” model of “cause and effect” used in Darwin’s theory.

Our small Old-Brain core is much the same as a mouse that seeks to eat, shit, and reproduce. Over that is our big Neocortex or “Human Brain”. Our old core mouse-brain is still hard wired to control and direct the attention and agenda of the Human Neocortex. I note the term “Fit” is interpreted to satisfy the mouse-brain need to seek meals, reproduce, and dump waste while a surrounding ecosystem manages the recycling of biomass, energy, and information to support the mouse as an internal agent.

“Mechanism”, as a model, satisfies the Primate need to manipulate objects and ideas to adapt body and environment for the needs of the core mouse-brain. Indigenous cultures retain mutual-serving relationship to their surrounding ecology. However, Perception of Ambient Prior Unity is the baby thrown out with the bathwater of Scientific materialism. Fear of social-censure of self-serving, mouse and primate indulgence, is at the core of Scientific Materialism. Belief in Scientific Materialism justifies and prostitutes bad science.

External Prior Unity Processes and Internal Prior Unity Processes meet at an interface. Both add and subtract Process at that interface. Life patterns express that process-interference in fractal accumulation and sustained closed-circuits of biomass, energy, and information. Biologists can’t tell the circuits from the animals, trees, forest, and ecosystem. Each “Animated-Object” is incomplete and “Externally-Dying” without the others.

Systems manifest more characteristics than the sum of their components. there is a system energy and character gain that appears only when system components are assembled and energized into interdependent processes. Many biologists and scientists are “Uncomfortable” with the term “Emergent-Characteristic” because it is not a reduction-determined phenomena… that is, not a “Mechanical” built-up cause and effect. Nun the less, It is a phenomena “caused” or the “result-of” adding together all the External Prior-Unity Processes with all the Internal Prior Unity Processes. Nothing is separate from anything else except by illusion of perspective. This is the basis of my descriptive living system theory.

Pure Scientists have no trouble with this approach. But Materialists, with the limitations of their rigid viewpoint, must uncomfortably lose face to accept a “Prior-Unity” viewpoint. Existence is Non-Objective and it is pre-supposed Prior-Unity that supports the universal application of scientific theory.

Come-on frightened materialists; wake up, the universe is fluid unity … ! Oh well, I don’t think materialists know how to swim. Maybe we can teach them.

By: Edu Wed, 21 May 2014 04:01:36 +0000 You really may want to watch this ;-)

By: Paul Major Sat, 17 May 2014 06:18:48 +0000 Greetings

This is a point-by-point response to BOT Student’s response to my response to his original posting. I hope that’s clear enough. :-)

What I meant by “science” and “religion” being on opposing sides here was “science” and “religion” as social and cultural patterns in our modern Western (worldwide) culture. So some people would identify rather exclusively with “science” or “religion” and others might feel a conflict within themselves between these two traditions. And both those traditions have, in my opinion, become significantly “false”, identified with and clinging to patterns for social and cultural reasons – which is why they conflict. What I would consider “true science” – an open-minded consideration of what is going in the world – and “true religion” – an open-hearted response to the Mystery of our situation and a movement to participate in it appropriately – would not find themselves in conflict, in my opinion.

I do consider evolution to be plain old true. If we look at the evidence, and there has now been a vast repository of evidence accumulated, part of what we see is a very complex system of life here on planet Earth, constantly changing in many ways, while also maintaining many stable patterns. And looking at the long-term history of the planet, which evidence suggests is perhaps 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) old ( we see life appearing in very simple forms (prokaryotes) very early in this history, and then progressively more complex forms appearing. That’s evolution.

I definitely agree that a materialistic interpretation of evolution has a great deal of trouble in explaining the origin of life. My appeal to a “self-organizing” principle inherent in existence itself is a “way around that”, but I don’t think it is necessarily unscientific to propose this. We can study this phenomenon and how it works. The book Order Out of Chaos ( is a very scientific address by a Nobel-winning scientist to this matter.

We can clearly see the emergence of new orders of complexity in human history. There is an obvious progression from simpler to more complex forms of social organization. To give just one example, in so-called more “primitive” cultures, such as seem to have existed for thousands of years before there was writing and when technology was limited to a few hand-made tools, there is little social differentiation and people are very familiar with what everyone else does. Maybe the men hunt more and the women gather more, and maybe someone focuses on relations with the spirits, and someone else makes the arrows because he does it best, but others could fill in if they had to. Contrast that with modern society where there are a vast number of different roles, some of them requiring many years of specialized training, and most people have only the haziest ideas of what everyone else is doing. And clearly that trend has been going on for thousands of years (with some notable ups and downs) and HAD TO have been going on for a long time for us to get where we are now. A society such as ours can only be made sense of based on having a long history of progressive development. And someone coming from a more “primitive” culture cannot quickly and easily adapt to ours, while the reverse seems significantly easier. (NOTE: I am not saying that this kind progress is GOOD and more complex cultures are BETTER; I am just saying that this is an observable trend and that more complex cultures can only exist with such a history – and less complex cultures have plenty of complexity of their own.)

The point I am making here is that I think that the evolution of human culture is LIKE the evolution of biological organisms, i.e. that there are general principles in common. We can see new levels of organization emerging, but it generally takes a long time. Sudden dramatic changes are more likely to be regression or a change at the same level of organization.

That’ll do for now.

By: Terry Cafferty Fri, 16 May 2014 17:32:21 +0000 I appreciate your comments deeply, Tisch. All these words! Man is such a paradox, so replete with tools and so pitifully inadequate to the task of using them rightly. Trees behind my house are so much wiser. Preoccupation with security IS death.