More proof of Charles Darwin’s theories
If you are a Biblical literalist or a creationist, you probably want to skip this post. I’m neither, and I’m fascinated by news from the word of anthropology: Scientists digging in Ethiopia have discovered fragments of a primate who lived 4.4 million years ago and may shed light on the Lost Common Ancestor from whom modern chimpanzees and modern humans evolved.
“This is huge. This is the biggest discovery really since the ‘Lucy’ skeleton of the 1970s,” said Carol Ward, a University of Missouri paleoanthropologist, according to The Washington Post.
The more of these discoveries that are made, the more evidence there is that confirms Charles Darwin’s basic thesis. Perhaps one day all public school biology teachers will be able (and capable) to teach that without controversy.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
52 comments Add your comment
Cloyd J. Bukoski
October 1st, 2009
12:21 pm
What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Sitting on the Marta bus, trying to find his way home, no direction all alone….
joe matarotz
October 1st, 2009
12:48 pm
Cynthia, this is the second time you’ve been right in two days! I do believe that’s a record for you.
pd
October 1st, 2009
12:49 pm
We really don’t need any more evidence. Its pretty much accepted, except by a small fringe group, that the variety of species on Earth is due to millions of years of adaptions, mutation, and natural selection.
It is unfortunate that some people find this fact to threaten their belief system.
Darwiniana » New human fossil
October 1st, 2009
12:55 pm
[...] More proof of Charles Darwin’s theories 12:13 pm October 1, 2009, by ctucker [...]
Rant
October 1st, 2009
12:58 pm
“Perhaps one day all public school biology teachers will be able (and capable) to teach that without controversy.”
And perhaps we will also have global elimination of nuclear weapons, world peace, the Olympics in Chicago, no crime, equal pay for equal work, universal health care, no low-middle-high class, no haves and have-nots, no individual ambition or drive, no capitalism, no success no failures, no grades in class….it all just brings on a tingle…
Back on topic, the key limiting term and factor in your blog is “capable”. This term and concept does not seem to exist in the public school system (in Atlanta anyway)…
pd
October 1st, 2009
1:06 pm
How many Biology teachers are actually effected by this small group of wierdos anyway? It seems to me it was just some individual nut in Cobb county and maybe one other place in the country where you have people actually objecting to evolution being taught in school.
Joey
October 1st, 2009
1:25 pm
Is there really a big controversy over teaching evolution? I don’t think so.
I went to Georgia public schools in the 1950s Back then we prayed, recited the Pledge and sang either “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” or “America the Beautiful” every morning. I was taught evolution and don’t recall a teacher or parent ever expressing doubt.
So if there is evolution controversy in today’s schools, maybe we need to bring prayer and the Pledge back to quell the unrest.
jt
October 1st, 2009
1:29 pm
To blindly believe in creationism with no imagination is no more silly than to blindly believe ,with ALOT of imagination, a few spokesmen from YALE, HARVARD, and the U.of BERKLEY concerning the origin of our speciecs.
Theories are being shattered daily.
NetBanker
October 1st, 2009
1:31 pm
I’ve never understood why creation and evolution are not seen as mutually exclusive. Darwin’s Theory wasn’t intended to frame how life began; it’s intention is to explain the diversity of life forms (even within the same species) AFTER life started. Seems logical enough to me that evolution is part of God’s plan for survival…let alone that it’s the entire basis of the biological sciences which includes medecine.
jconservative
October 1st, 2009
1:32 pm
pd – 12:49 pm – I agree – please read on
Nice article & important topic Cynthia. The writer, Joel Achenbachis, is a really good science writer.
Please note that he does not use the word “theory” in his article. For this article he correctly uses the word “hypothesis”. Big difference.
Hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. It has yet to be tested & the test has not been verified. A theory is a statement that satisfies all available, compiled & verified evidence, with no exceptions. The search for the last common ancestor is still in the hypothesis stage. The statement that “the variety of species on Earth is due to millions of years of adaptions, mutation, and natural selection” (your words pd) is a theory that does satisfy all available, compiled & verified evidence, with no exceptions.
But people believe what they want to believe.
Joey
October 1st, 2009
1:33 pm
Referencing your earlier post, 2 back, regarding wasteful spending:
If the dig that made this discovery is benefitting from federal, US, dollars, that is a waste that could be eliminated. Particularly given our present economic condition.
Shaneneeee Faneneeeeeee
October 1st, 2009
1:34 pm
Obama is just another corrupt politician in Washington.
Peadawg
October 1st, 2009
1:59 pm
Cynthia, I remember you saying plenty of times on here that you do go to church and you are a Christian. hhhmmmm…….
Chip Davis
October 1st, 2009
2:22 pm
As a priviliged person with her own opinion article I expect Ms Tucker to give us an insight and a prespective to current affiars through her own lence.
In turn – this article looks like a 12 yearls old homework that he/she put together between bites on an early afternoon Penut Butter and Jelly sandwitch.
If I am the teacher she got an F for very shallow. and I am not a Biblical literalist or a creationist.
ctucker
October 1st, 2009
2:25 pm
Peadawg writes: Cynthia, I remember you saying plenty of times on here that you do go to church and you are a Christian. hhhmmmm…….
Peadawg, I see no conflict between accepting the theory of evolution and believing in God. In 2002, I wrote: “For those on the Christian left — and I count myself a member of that steadfast, if small, group — it does not matter one whit whether God created the universe in seven days or several billion years. Nor does it matter whether she started all life in a primordial soup and set a system in motion wherein species evolved over time. Her glory is not diminished.”
Peadawg
October 1st, 2009
2:30 pm
“Peadawg, I see no conflict between accepting the theory of evolution and believing in God”
I don’t think if I’ve ever met someone that believes in God AND evolution. You’re like someone who roots for both UGA and Florida..very very very confused.
pd
October 1st, 2009
2:47 pm
Peadawg, you can count me on that too. I believe in God and that the variety of species on the planet are accountable to millions of years of adaptation, mututation, genetic drift, and natural selection.
But for me, as a Christian, I simply believe that God is love.
i am i am
October 1st, 2009
3:05 pm
the fringe religious freaks are really fringe. i am catholic and pope john paul II agree that we must keep an open mind about evolution, as “it appears that there is something there.” unfortunately, its only the nutbags that get the press and make the rest of us that are strong in faith yet have open minds look bad.
i am i am
October 1st, 2009
3:07 pm
and btw, i regularly attack cynthia for her blind devotion to the the world messiah now in office, but i would never go after her religious conviction. despite the fact that she is utterly inept in policy, she has shown time and time again her devotion.
JF McNamara
October 1st, 2009
3:52 pm
I’ve met plenty of people who believe in creationism and evolution. Evolution explains the gradual progression of species, but it does not explain what caused the first life form. At some point, nothing had to become something and how that happened is beyond the capacity of humans to understand.
That leads to belief in God. They may not be able to rationalize the stories of Jesus or believe much of the Bible, but the belief in God is there.
Mother Tucker
October 1st, 2009
3:53 pm
ctucker
October 1st, 2009
2:25 pm
You said “Nor does it matter whether she started all life…”. I think you’re in a smaller group than even you imagined.
Look, Helen Reddy, I know you are woman, hear you roar… and all that, but please refer me to one passage in the bible where is refers, even remotely, that God is a “she”.
Mother Tucker
October 1st, 2009
3:54 pm
JF McNamara
October 1st, 2009
3:52 pm
How does this indicate that we “may not be able to rationalize the stories of Jesus or believe much of the Bible…”?
SorryJohnny
October 1st, 2009
4:16 pm
Peadawg
October 1st, 2009
2:30 pm
“Peadawg, I see no conflict between accepting the theory of evolution and believing in God”
I don’t think if I’ve ever met someone that believes in God AND evolution.
- It’s obvious that Peadawg needs to get out more.
jconservative
October 1st, 2009
4:16 pm
Peadawg October 1st, 2009 2:30 pm
“I don’t think if I’ve ever met someone that believes in God AND evolution.”
You probably need to get out more & meet more people. I know a lot of people who believe just that. You have heard from some today.
What we are saying is that God created evolution.
SorryJohnny
October 1st, 2009
4:19 pm
Mother Tucker
October 1st, 2009
3:54 pm
— what would you expect when the good book was translated by men primarily.
Women were just recently granted the right to vote in this great country, but it doesn’t mean we didn’t contribute to the greatness before hand.
i am i am
October 1st, 2009
4:21 pm
NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, “POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION”, by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.
“In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is ‘more than just a hypothesis’ and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin … “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge’, the pope said in his message Wednesday. ‘The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory…”
“If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin’s scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution’s process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists …”
“The Pope’s message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. ‘If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God’, the Pope said.”
Ben
October 1st, 2009
4:37 pm
What do you mean? Everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old. You atheists and infidels have got your facts turned around.
———————————————————————————————————————–
But people believe what they want to believe.
You are so right!!
Mother Tucker
October 1st, 2009
4:52 pm
SorryJohnny
October 1st, 2009
4:19 pm
The Bible was primarily translated by men? Wow, what a revelation. God spoke to men (unless you hold that Moses, Paul, etc were women) and they translated his word.
“Women were just recently granted the right to vote in this great country..”. Wow, again. Women received the right to vote decades before I was even born.
RealityKing
October 1st, 2009
5:05 pm
The earth was not created in 7 days, or without divine intervention. Seems pretty obvious to me…
God
October 1st, 2009
5:16 pm
Your all wrong, I was eating a burrito and burped up the World when a jalapeno went down the wrong hole….
Proud American
October 1st, 2009
7:16 pm
BURN BURN BURN.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
9:40 pm
Or it could just be a monkey.
duh
joe matarotz
October 1st, 2009
10:12 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that people who believe God created the universe in 7 days seem to think that God is incapable of creating the universe in 15 billion years. They seem comfortable with the notion of creation as some sort of cosmic parlor trick but cannot reconcile the current state of the universe (or more probably, multiverse) as part of the Creator’s grand plan. Just because YOU don’t understand math and physics does not mean that God doesn’t. After all, He created them, along with everything else. Vaya con Dios.
godless heathen
October 1st, 2009
11:12 pm
Seems pretty obvious to me that no divine intervention is necessary.
Science can’t explain everything – but we are working on it.
hyphenate
October 2nd, 2009
12:57 am
While I no longer myself believe in a god, I mostly respect those who do, providing their opinion is more solid than those members of the lunatic fringe–aka creationists, fundamentalists and dominionists.
A basic understanding of science, even within an elementary school education, knows that plants, and all flora, for that matter, live because of the process of photosynthesis, which means they draw from the sun certain chemicals which help them grow and live. And by Genesis, the “God” depicted there created all flora on the “third” day. Which would have been a miracle in and of itself, since according to the current bible, the god there didn’t invent or produce the Sun until the fourth day.
The bible was never intended to be taken literally–it was written over the course of many centuries, by many different people, and the books included in it were chosen by even more men, and those books with which they didn’t agree were deliberately left out. The allegories in the bible were meant to be instead a way to keep the peasants happy–happy peasants meant good work, great crops or other production, and no revolts. If the peasants believed they would go to heaven after years of toiling in their master’s fields, they would not be petitioning for more wages, shorter hours and every weekend off.
Eugene G. Windchy
October 2nd, 2009
1:42 am
Enter your comments here
This newly announced hominid does not prove Charles Darwin’s theory. It is another indication that human beings reached their present form through many different stages of anatomical change. Such anatomical changes were known before Darwin was born. What we call “Darwin’s theory” purports to explain why and how the changes have occurred. His theory of gradual evolution by natural selection might explain different kinds of bird beak in the Galapagos, but as shown in The End of Darwinism, it does not explain major evolutionry changes such as the appearance of this 4 million year old hominid.
Ous.Ism Dr.
October 2nd, 2009
2:06 am
Well, the man said that * God is dead*, this was 100 years ago.
They say that science will prove that Darwin is just a SOB, and they never ask themselves why.
Why should God make cat eat mouse?!!! simply.
Jen
October 2nd, 2009
2:36 am
Peadawg,
It was said earlier, someone posted the newest Pope’s opinion on this…
But, the Catholic Church has, for decades now, accepted evolution as the actual story of creation, with the biblical story being a metaphor or a fable for it. But then again Catholics don’t take the bible as the literal word of God.
So, all those Catholics you’ve know SHOULD be Christians who believe in both creation and evolution.
But this is Georiga and there ain’t a lot of Catlicks here…
Including myself. I am a former Catholic. Former believer in God.
Rascal
October 2nd, 2009
7:38 am
Urgent News Flash – Shocker in Copenhagen – Liberal/Socialists President and First Lady use EMOTION as the basis for their plea to bring Olympics to Chicago! Imagine that, a liberal politician thinking that all that matters is emotion
2D
October 2nd, 2009
8:01 am
Peadawg…
I am a Christian (and not a Catholic), that believes God created the world AND accept Darwin’s hypothesis about species origin.
What is a day to God? A million years? A billion years? The main thrusts of the creation story are two fold. First that God created everything and… Second that God created humans to be different than the other creatures.
Darwin, evolution, even the “Big Bang Theory” do not diminish those two ideas from the creation story. They merely provide possible explanations as to how God did what God did.
Michael H. Smith
October 2nd, 2009
8:20 am
Christian left? Christian right? ahem… Comrade Cynthia, a Christian can be only one thing: A Christ-like being.
The word Christian came into existence at the Church of Antioch according to Acts chapter 11 where the word “Christian” first appears. No use of the terms left or right was used or applied to describe these first designated Christians.
To all those who just love to tout this “so-called Christian” malarkey: A Christian never has to tell anyone they are a Christian. No different than as it was at Antioch, where the disciples did not choose to call themselves a Christian: They didn’t have to, all who seen them knew they were watching people who lived the very life of Jesus Christ in both word and deed.
If you ever do see a Christian, they will not have to tell you that they are a Christian. You will know them when you see them and YOU will call them a Christian.
They will not be wearing a little bracelet that ask, what would Jesus do? They already know the answer to that question and they act accordingly to the Spirit and spiritual knowledge that possesses and leads them.
This should clear up the constant errata appearing on these blogs about what is a Christian. There are many disciples-followers-afar in the Christian faith but only a few them will ever rise to the level of a Christian.
Okay, end of theology class. Back to purveying heresy.
rod
October 2nd, 2009
11:47 am
Response to HYPHENATE:
What a conclusion of religion you have. Your conclusion has many problems. First, if we are just “evolved” animals, where did we get morality? Secondly, how do you dismiss a man named Jesus? He lived, died on a cross, and rose again. It is fact, there were eyewitness accounts by hundreds of people. The facts were recorded shortly after his death. I don’t need a Bible to tell me right or wrong, I don’t need a book to motivate me to work hard. All these things are innate, hence a God.
ROGER
October 2nd, 2009
6:04 pm
Enter your comments here
How refreshing to read your article about this incredible find in Ethiopia. Just one more piece of evidence to prove that Mr. Darwin’s “theory” was right all along. Now what I want to read is proof of the “theory”, as told in the bible, that a 600 year old man and his family of about 8 went out and collected 2 (or was it 7 – the bible seems a little confused on this issue) of every species in the entire world – just remember that without evolution this old guy had to collect the whole darned lot of ‘em, from elephants to Komodo dragons and kangaroos, from polar bears to 3 different species of giraffes, and 5 different species of rhinoceros’s, at latest count over 4,500 species of mammals alone, and then cram them, along with enough food supplies, into a wooden ark measuring, what was it, 50 cubits (is that about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide), AND keep then separate to avoid them eating each other! Now if you want a real “theory” with not an ounce of proof – vote for Noah and his amazing ark! To put it bluntly – if the theory of Noah is untrue then the credibility of the bible is on shaky ground, so let’s have the proof.
Roger
Gen Neyland
October 3rd, 2009
8:37 am
The critter found is another example of a species gone extinct. Probably due to global warming some 3-4 million years ago. Raises the question of how humans could have evolved from a critter that perished. Well, if it didn’t perish, besides an artist renering of ‘How We May Have Evolved’, let’s see the bones of fact leading to we’uns of today. There seems to be 3-4 million year gap in human development. Hmm. Anyway, if I evolved from that, it’s no wonder I have a tendancy to scratch my groin or pick my nose in public…
David
October 3rd, 2009
1:38 pm
Speciation- the formation of a new species- is an event that follows reproductive isolation, a period where two species can interbreed but produce only infertile offspring. Thanks to genetic shuffling and mutations, some of these products of interbreeding are born fertile, find a product like themselves and proliferate. It is with this generation that the new species takes off, increasing their numbers as they gain a foothold in their environment.This entire process takes a great many years and DOES explain and suuport Darwinian evolution.
David
October 3rd, 2009
1:39 pm
support
William
October 5th, 2009
2:03 pm
To evolve into a socialist system you must first take away all religious rights and condemn it to the fullest.
So if a man lives in the desert he would not wearing bear clothing. Ok, I accept that. If he lived along the seashore, man would learn to fish. Ok, I get darwin’s theory now. It makes sense, man adjusts to his environments. I do not think you can prove I came from some primordal soup. To suggest such an idea is just supposition and promoting an athiest agenda.
frustrated biology student
October 5th, 2009
10:24 pm
Question for evolutionists:
As a believer in evolution you believe in natural selection, correct? So any trait in an organism that proves to lead to survival and reproductive success will be passed on from parent to offspring, according to the theory of evolution. Also, as a supporter of evolution, you choose to believe that all organisms are continually transforming, or evolving, right?
OK, now a few questions for you….
#1. When in the continual forward progress of time do scientists give an organism a scientific name? How can an organism have a name if its always evolving into some modified creature?
#2. In reference to homologies…you would believe that a human, a cat, a bat, and a whale’s upper limb, all came from the same common ancestor, because of the similar bone structure (ulna, radius, humerus, carpals, phalanges, etc.) Describe to me why radial pronation is a movement completed only by humans and no other organism?
#3. As a believer in evolution can you sit in your chair, and say to yourself that you believe a giraffe and a goldfish came from the same common ancestor?
Just to let you know what we are learning in America’s top universities as college students. In my biology course a student asked a question based on vestigal structures (structures that were used previously by ancestors, are no longer in use, but are still there). My professor answered the question, “If given enough time, and proved to show reproductive and survival success humans would evolve to have no lower limbs.” What are your thoughts on that?
God is the intelligent designer of this beautiful, amazing creation. You cannot learn about how organisms work on the molecular level with thousands of intricate details and tell me that it randomly happened over millions of years.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation.
There are so many holes in the theory of evolution, to make up for it scientists generalize everything! Well, over some unknown amount of time, 450 million years ago, this just happened to fall into place. Open your Bible to Genesis 1, and read about how God designed his work of art.
Question: What’s the definition of a theory?
Answer: A hypothesis that has stood the test of time.
Question: What is the number one selling book of all time?
Answer: The Bible with over 6 BILLION copies sold.
I say that the theory of creationism has stood the test of time, year after year.
frustrated biology student
October 5th, 2009
10:29 pm
Answer to your post Mr. Roger Sharratt,
Do you know where the Ark of Noah was to have landed after the great flood?
-On Mount Ararat. What is the significance of this? Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything. So all of the animals on the ark could migrate North, East, South, or West to disperse and procreate. It’s just another sign of how incredible God’s plan was.
ROGER
October 7th, 2009
2:22 pm
Enter your comments here
How disappointing to read the answer to my post from “frustrated biology student” who failed completely to address any of the issues I raised about the “theory” of Noah’s Ark. He dismisses any question regarding the ark by explaining that it conveniently landed on Mount Ararat which is “centrally located in the middle of everything” so all the animals could male their way home. Oh really! Not if you happen to be a creature from Australia, New Zealand, Galapagos, Japan, Madagascar, or any one of thousands of islands with their own indigenous animal populations (all of which have evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.) Maybe they were all good swimmers. And how about the animals from South America – what a trek they would have had to get home!
He completely failed to address the issue of how a 600 year old man with a small group of relatives could conceivably have gone out into the world and collected literally every species on earth – and not just one, but two (or is it seven according to which passage of the bible one reads). Let’s just take as one simple example, travelling all the way down to southern Africa to find a pair of white rhinoceros’s, capturing them (doesn’t look all that easy on National Geographic without tranquilizers) and then transporting them all the way back home – in what? – a wooden cart pulled by oxen, or horses, or camels. Quite a job, but that’s just one type of rhino! Never mind catching all the species of big cats, or the kangaroos and komodo dragons in really far off places!
And how about feeding all these creatures once they are packed on board the ark and have to be kept in separate cages to avoid the foxes eating the chickens, and the lions eating the zebras. I guess Noah’s helpers would have instinctively known that those pandas they picked up in China have rather specialized diets, and so do most other creatures. Sorry, but this particular fairy story strains incredulity beyond all reasonable limits.
As you are a biology student FBS could I recommend that you and your class take the time out to read about the findings of Professors Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton who made an in depth study of the rapid evolution of Galapagos finches. This is just one of myriads of studies showing how evolution continues unabated as we write these posts. And ask your teacher or professor to explain in detail how the influenza virus mutates and evolves.
Contrary to your repeated statements, the “theory” of creationism doesn’t even begin to stand the test of time. It is nonsensical – hence the reason it is not allowed to be taught in American schools. In most other countries it is not even an issue – it has been completely debunked. As for the theory of evolution, Mr. Darwin would be quite astonished to hear how his theory has been proved over and over countless times in countless ways. Rather like Einstein’s theory of relatively it has stood the test of time – and continues to do so. Darwin just got the ball rolling as it were.
FBS – I do sincerely hope that you were just kidding when you stated that “Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything”. I have heard absurd statements in support of the literal interpretation of the tale of Noah’s Ark but that one truly takes the cake. That is like saying that the earth is located in the centre of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth – Oh, but wait a minute; that’s what the world, and the church, believed until Mr. Galileo proved them all wrong. Or was he also guilty of creating a false theory!
Henry HIbbert
October 7th, 2009
2:27 pm
Hey Cynthia: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is like universal acid: nothing can hold it and it eats through everything. Check out Dennett’s book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. You will thoroughly enjoy it.
Kudos to you!
Henry Hibbert
ROGER
October 16th, 2009
9:46 pm
Hi Cynthia,
What on earth happened to “frustrated biology student”? He came up with all sorts of pseudo scientific questions questioning the theory of evolution, but has suddenly fallen completely silent when asked to provide any sort of scientific support for the Noah’s Ark biblical fairy tale. I had hoped that he would subject it to the same sort of “scientific” analysis that he tried so unsuccessfully to use in debunking Mr. Darwin. But no, his only answer is that Noah’s Ark was to have landed on Mount Ararat “in the middle of everything” so that all the animals could disperse and multiply. Try as I might, I don’t feel that this is very scientific in any sense of the word.
Yet he makes the statement that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.
I’m willing to listen to any reasonable, cogent, explanation for just about anything, including any scientific proof of the theory of creationism. But at the end of the day, I believe there are just two simple choices here. Either the theory of Noah’s Ark is accurate and true, that is, that all of the world’s animal species – and I mean literally ALL of them were collected by Noah and his family (it HAS to be all if evolution does not occur otherwise those not taken on board would now be extinct), or the only other choice is that we have all, and I mean ALL, evolved over thousands and millions of years.
I know this is a tough one, but I sincerely hoped that FBS could, just for a moment, subject the so far totally and completely unsupported theory of Noah and his Ark to the same critical examination that he is so keen to apply to the theory of evolution. The bible is replete with wonderful stories, most of which make great reading, but so are the works of Will Shakespeare. That does not make them true. Surely, we can subject them to exactly the same scrutiny that the creationists apply to evolution.
We are living in the 21st century, and we know a whole lot more about our planet and the universe around us than did those folks who lived several thousand years ago. Yet some of us choose to go on believing ancient mythical tales even though we know in our own hearts that that is what they are – mythical tales.