« Show Chiefs fans the cheerleaders | Main | Cockfighting in Kansas »

February 20, 2009

Evidence of evolution

We would like to address the scientific misconceptions presented by Brian Merrell (2/8, Letters, “Questioning evolution”). The scientific definition of “theory” is a body of rigorously tested ideas that constitute our current understanding of physical phenomena. The theory of evolution describes the unity of life through what Charles Darwin termed “descent with modification” — what we now understand as changes in gene frequencies in populations over generations.

Evolution thus does not address how life got here; it addresses the diversity of life that’s here now and how that diversity arose. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming, testable and can be seen everywhere, including in the development of bacterial antibiotic resistance.

Moreover, questioning evolution is absolutely tolerated. Questioning is the first step of the scientific method. Additionally, time is key in evolution: One substance does not suddenly produce another. Present-day biodiversity is the consequence of billions of years of progressive change. Further, cells are not inorganic (incidentally, organic compounds have formed from inorganic molecules).

Each time you jump into the air, you “celebrate” the theory of gravity. Circular logic does not substantiate this theory; only extensive and repeated testing has done so.

Assistant biology professor Mindy Walker’s Evolution class
Rockhurst University
Kansas City


bud 25

I know this is month later and will probably go unread, that being said. Dan your anology have evolution to a computer is a horrible one sense a computer and it's software is not a living organism. Your argument is no different then a tornado going through a junkyard assembling a 747. Further evolution takes billions of year, not a split second.

Dan Beyer

Here's something that is far, far less complex than DNA, but is symbolic of how utterly intricate DNA is.
Imagine the best, most advanced laptop computer with the latest software. It pales in comparisin to DNA but we'll use it anyway. Can that laptop evolve on it's own? How about we give it an unlimited amount of time. Will it evolve on it's own with the available materials in the ground? Will it evolve from a Windows 98 to a Windows Vista on it's own, let alone evolving to a laptop from dirt?
Anyway what completely kills Darwin's pre-discovery of DNA jump to conclusion is the final realizing, the mind-blowing comprehension of how absolutely detailed and complex and how much it's computer code-like DNA is!!!
Once you understand, comprehend how incredibly complex with it's own alphabet, it's own language it's many series of detailed instructions, it's complexity that can only work by working all together in unison immediately, you see that it didn't happen by luck! A random lightening bolt didn't hit a puddle of mud and Windows 98 didn't come to existence! But we're supposed to believe or else that DNA popped intact fully ready to go from an electrified mud pie???
Yeah, a sucker is born every minute, but I ain't one of them!!!


A very interesting Link that, admittedly, presented evidence with which I am unfamiliar. The story line sounds logical and I would accept it as a step forward. However, here remains the "experiment" problem.


"No, claims that Darwin made are irrelevant."

... then why do we celebrate the man's birthday? Without looking at nature through a Darwinian perspective, no logical person would support an evolutionary belief.

... here's an excerpt from tomw's "proof" of multicellular evolution:

"The evolution of multicellular organisms is a major evolutionary step. In our history (the history of animals), how that step happened is lost somewhere in deep history."

... the step is "lost somewhere" - but we know it happened because Darwin (who is apparently irrelevant) said so.


Humans were created and seeded on Earth by an alien race as a future source of nourishment for themselves.

We're only like cattle, as once wandered free range on the Texas plains.

When the faithful are finally raptured, won't they be surprised when salt or Tobasco is added before they're flung skyward?


"There is no real explanation of how unicellular life evolved to multicellular."

Yes there is.


One must subscribe to see the U of A article in it's entirety.

"The alternative is that some kind of higher intelligence designed us."

Who was (is) the higher intelligence? How was it done? When was it done?

"ALL the proof we need(even though their is infinitely more evidence out there!)lies in the unimaginably super complex computer code-like language/instruction of DNA!'

Hardly proof of anything. "It's too complex, so it can't be evolution."

"even though their is infinitely more evidence out there!)"

Let's see some.

Dan Beyer

The alternative is that some kind of higher intelligence designed us. ALL the proof we need(even though their is infinitely more evidence out there!)lies in the unimaginably super complex computer code-like language/instruction of DNA! That the whole universe all the way down to smallest atom shows a finely tuned series of mechanisms that are too complex not to have been intelligently designed to work and to work together!!!


"whatever I believe is irrelevant. The fact is that science doesn't back up the claims that Darwin made."

Posted by: JUNGLE JACK | Feb 21, 2009 6:13:13 PM

No, claims that Darwin made are irrelevant. Do we discuss rocket technology in terms of Goddard? Dismissing widely accepted Scientific Theory without providing an alternative is disingenuous.

Dan Beyer

First off gravity is a given. That's why it's not a theory but a Law like in the "Law of Gravity".
Darwin's theory or supposition is that by witnessing MICRO-evolution which we see all the time, jumps to the conclusion with no evidence nor testable way that MACRO-evolution must then exist. Their has never been any clear cut evidence that species completely turn into other species which is what Darwin supposed when he came up with his MACRO-evolution theory. Darwin said himself that the fossil evidence would prove his theory by the discovery of the "numerous" missing links(transitional forms)between species that would have to be found. In all these years the best the myopic Darwinists have come up with besides the frauds, are a couple of laughable attempts that even they say still are not clear cut because of the problems associated with them!
And questioning Darwin's theory is absolutely tolerated??? Which universe do you live in? Here in this real world if you don't tow the line of this dogma you are castigated by the Darwinist Priesthood that for now dominates the fields of science and academia! But more and more in science and academia are rejecting this junk science and the witch hunts that goes hand and hand with this new religion.


..."there is no real explanation"....Engineer

This hits the nail on the head. From God to evolution, from creation to Big Bang, we really can't explain anything.


tomw - whatever I believe is irrelevant. The fact is that science doesn't back up the claims that Darwin made.


There is no real explanation of how unicellular life evolved to multicellular. Nor is there any explanation of how invertebrates evolved to vertebrates. To that extent the "Theory of Evolution" fails the basic scientific test for a "theory". No experiment can be set up whose success or failure would prove or disprove the theory.


"We find overwhelming evidence of adaptation and natural selection and mass extinction - but not evolution."JJ

So am I to assume that your theory is life on earth is essentially the same as it was at the time of earth's creation? If so, What is your evidence of that? If not, what is your theory?


Ah yes, another succint, inane comment from the ammo humper....


Hmmm, 'intelligent design boneheads' -- I wonder sometimes.

If you expand your belief in God beyond religion to that of an unimaginable concentration of energy that split itself into an unimaginable collection of physical, mental and metaphysical components (Big Bang) and set the whole process of evolution, natural selection, free will, weather patterns and auto-company bailouts in motion, that kind of fits with the idea of Intelligent Design. Although given the whole free-will thing, the term "intelligent" doesn't always fit very well.

I have always bought into evolution theory, and I've never had a hard time squaring it with any belief in God.

Stifled Freedom

Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact.


Congratulations, class. You've argued politely and succinctly for the belief in natural selection - a process that is universally accepted even by "intelligent design boneheads". This is not the type of wholesale genetic mutation that Darwin expected to be evident in the fossil record.

Where are the organisms that defy definition? Where are the rudimentary feathers that were surely the norm for millions of years before the first birds took flight?

We find overwhelming evidence of adaptation and natural selection and mass extinction - but not evolution.


I'm glad you folks wrote this letter, but if you think rational thought will sway the intelligent design boneheads, then you are sadly mistaken.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright