More about penis evolution
March 10th, 2011
04:40 PM ET

More about penis evolution

By now you might've read about new research on the genes involved in  the evolution of the human penis. With more than 2,200 comments, our Wednesday story was a talker.

And it wasn't an excuse to say the p-word. Scientists have published a study in the esteemed, peer-reviewed journal Nature that happens to talk about penises. Specifically, they looked at DNA sequences among humans and primate relatives that basically serve as "switches" for other genes.

They focused on two switches that humans lack, but that chimpanzees have. One of these switches, the researchers believe, makes chimpanzees have whiskers and what they call "spines" on the penis. And the other relates to the brain - the absence of a particular DNA strand allowed the human brain to grow larger than the chimpanzee's, the researchers theorize.

But you didn't click on this headline, or the other one, to learn more about brains, now did you!

So, back to what you came here for. It turns out that there's some disagreement about the role of the primate male anatomy discussed in this research. As some of you noted in the comments, there are still many open questions when it comes to exactly how primates, including humans, evolved the way they did.

Yesterday, I had an e-mail chat with Christine Drea at Duke University, who studies mammalian social behavior and reproductive development. She sent me all kinds of detailed photos to illustrate differences in penis anatomy among primates. And there is a lot of variation.

In her view, the word "spines" may not be the right term for the small bumps that chimpanzees have. Other creatures such as cats have the more spike-like protrusions because the females of these species need appropriate stimulation from the male to ovulate. But primates ovulate spontaneously, so we wouldn't need spines for that purpose.

And, as I wrote yesterday, one idea about the function of the spines is that they can help the male pull out the sperm of another male that has previously mated with a female. But in chimpanzees and their relatives, their small bumps wouldn't be able to remove a competitor's semen in the same way, Drea said. In fact, chimps have unusually large testicles that produce large quantities of sperm, which do serve as a means of competition among males to get a female pregnant.

Also, in some primates, such as lemurs, sperm coagulates into "plugs" that can be pulled out with the spines; human semen does not do this, so we wouldn't be expected to have spines to remove it.

So, what are the bumps on chimp penises for? It's all speculation, but those of you (and there were many!) who joked about being "ribbed for her pleasure" may not be far off, as one explanation for the structures in chimps and other primates may be just that. They could be an "internal courtship device," Drea says.

soundoff (423 Responses)
  1. Mark

    Penis evolution indeed!!

    You'll find that every story, article, and research paper regarding evolution has many camps of detractors for many many differen't reasons. Simply put, evolution is an unprovable piece of fiction that will never be proven and any time you finish reading about some "amazing breakthrough" in evolutionary research you are getting about 1/200th of the story.
    Tomorrow another article will come out completely refuting todays news and taking everything in a completely differen't, and just as fantastical, direction.
    It's a science that can never be refuted because it doesn't exist in a tangible factual form and is constantly on the move!

    March 10, 2011 at 18:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Erik

      Evolution deniers are hilarious.

      March 10, 2011 at 18:20 | Report abuse |
    • jpo

      The uneducated, under educated and just plain ignorant will be the death of this country.

      March 10, 2011 at 18:40 | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      Evolution deniers really are hilarious. I find it amazing that they can stand at the pinnacle of ignorance, yet spout their nonsense with the same tone as a tenured professor addressing a hall full of freshmen. It's scary, but really quite fascinating.

      March 10, 2011 at 19:09 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      You don't get the other 199/200 part of the story cause you can't understand the 1/200.

      March 10, 2011 at 19:21 | Report abuse |
    • LEB

      Right, and the universe and earth and all living things just magically poofed out of nowhere exactly as they are today by way of a magical omnipotent architect... who conveniently can't be seen, heard felt, or observed in any way even though he's "everywhere." Yeah, like THAT makes more sense.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:56 | Report abuse |
    • twotired

      Let's say you don't believe in evolution or maybe most or some of it. Let's say you do believe in evolution or maybe most or some of it. What difference does it make in you life or how your life affects me? There's been a lot of debate and arguing about the subject but to what avail? There's been a lot of name calling; that's for sure. Hypothetically, don't teach math anywhere in the school system. What would the result be on the nation? Hypothetically, don't teach evolution theory. What would the result be on the nation?

      March 10, 2011 at 21:04 | Report abuse |
    • T3chsupport

      What more proof do you want?

      Here's something simple- we know that dogs descended from wolves, but wolves and dogs are different animals. It obviously wasn't instant, but we have seen how an animal, being selectively bred, can change sizes and shapes and temperaments and behaviors. Is it really so hard to fathom what a few thousand more years might turn them into? It's a game genetic 'telephone', over millions of generations.

      Why do whales and horses and other animals have finger bones very similar to ours, but no fingers? Why do wisdom teeth not form in all ethnicities- and why do we have different ethnicities anyway? What's up with our palmaris longus muscle? Why 'goose bumps' when we have no hackles to raise?

      Take a read through the cover story on the March 2011 National Geographic... or a textbook.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:21 | Report abuse |
    • Jamie

      Science always has an inherrent and inductive risk.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:05 | Report abuse |
    • carl

      People like Mark will witness an architect and an engineer arguing over the color of a door, and conclude that all of engineering and architecture are therefore false.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:34 | Report abuse |
    • Maty

      I think Mark is actually the chimp, and pee-ohed at us for leaving him in the dust. Sorry about the bumpy thingy!

      March 11, 2011 at 00:19 | Report abuse |
    • The_Mick

      Take a look at dogs and the fact they were wolves just 15,000 years ago. The same for cattle which were aurochs (the last died in Poland in 1829). We now have so many fossils it's clear plants and animals have changed over time. Even in college -and some advanced high school- biology labs, genetic lab experiments of fruit flies clearly prove that genes migrate and move in groups. We also know without question that mutations occur. Those are the bases for evolution. When an international board has to decide, months ahead of time, what three flu vaccines to grow to fight the three most likely strains the next year, they use evolutionary theories to predict them. Evol;ution DOES happen and it is observed and measured.

      March 11, 2011 at 00:24 | Report abuse |
    • Geeman

      Captain Caveman!

      March 11, 2011 at 01:20 | Report abuse |
    • josef

      @Erik – People gullible enough to believe unfound theories are truth are hilarious!

      March 11, 2011 at 04:17 | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      You've got to be kidding me...Please tell me you didn't waste your money on education and you still believe in simple-simon say's!.. Sigh, oh well....Did you see Elvis today?

      March 11, 2011 at 07:11 | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Because a book of "stories" said otherwise? I'm lead to believe that a person dreams are fact, when in a time they believed that the world was flat and we were the center of it all. Does simple-simon say's sound better?

      March 11, 2011 at 07:15 | Report abuse |
    • John

      A certain somebody *clearly* has penis envy...

      March 11, 2011 at 08:14 | Report abuse |
    • JPopNC

      Mark: I totally agree with your comments. The fact is that noone will ever be able to prove Creation or evolution 100%. That's where faith comes in, and whether they choose to believe it or not, evolution is a faith.

      To T3chsupport: wolves and dogs are different animals, but they're the same SPECIES. There can be adaptions in species over time, but there has NEVER been ANY support that shows ACTUAL evolution of ANY species. Plain and simple. And mutations NEVER improve anything, they always detract from the genome and are culled out at birth. Only the strongest eagles survive, the weakest is pushed from the nest. Mutations, such as two headed cows, snakes, etc survive only because man assist its survival, they would never survive in the wild.

      March 11, 2011 at 08:40 | Report abuse |
    • againstignorance

      Mark, you say, "It's a science that can never be refuted because it doesn't exist in a tangible factual form and is constantly on the move!"...........You are some what correct in your assumption. However, I do not think you understand what science is. Science is always "changing" how we think about things because science is a systemized thought process involving a method generally accepted by the larger scientific community. It is not dogma. There are no "facts" in science because a scientist understands the limits of his/her scope and attempts to remove bias by systematically and empirically analyzing something of interest. Hypotheses are constantly being disproven or FAILING TO BE DISPROVEN. It is very difficult to prove something beyond all doubt scientifically. However, you are incorrect in assuming that science is not refutable because that is THE POINT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. People are constantly testing and retesting (over and over and over) the same hypotheses to see if the assumptions produced in an experiment and replicable (and therefore likely generalizable). While this open system of thought is contrary to dogma, it is not in dispute of faith. Please educate yourself before you blindly dismiss science as being contrary to faith.

      March 11, 2011 at 09:23 | Report abuse |
    • JustObvious

      Idiocracy – not just a movie, it's our future

      March 11, 2011 at 10:22 | Report abuse |
    • Lora

      I didn't bother reading everything here because most of it's nonsense and a waste of the gift of time. I would just like to share an observation for your consideration. (That is still part of the scientific process, right?). Since we have become an "educated" people, and are therefore less dependent on an "omnipotent architect", we have also "evolved" into a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt and where our children go to school to be strip searched rather than to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. What is going to lead to the "death" of our nation again? Take it through the "scientific process" of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, blah, blah blah and then quantify the results. Then give props to your Creator before our nation dies, please.

      March 11, 2011 at 10:31 | Report abuse |
    • ceg3

      I think the very existence of a penis PROVES there is a God!

      March 11, 2011 at 11:23 | Report abuse |
    • Debbie338

      The problem with you history-deniers is that you won't accept proof when it jumps up and bites your butt. You should read Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution." But I know you won't, because you don't WANT to see proof.

      March 11, 2011 at 11:38 | Report abuse |
    • joe

      I I think Mark just proved the existence of the missing link between chimps and humans... looks human but remarkably as stupid as a chimp

      March 11, 2011 at 11:40 | Report abuse |
    • Leroy

      evolution unprovable? evolution is going on all around you – has been proven repeatedly – chimp DNA and human DNA are 97% the same – that means there is only 3% difference – in fact, chimps are less related to gorillas than humans – what does that mean to you?

      March 11, 2011 at 11:54 | Report abuse |
    • LG

      Mark, you're comment could not have been stated any better. Good post!

      March 11, 2011 at 12:19 | Report abuse |
    • LG

      Many scientists of the past have passionately created their own idea of how things were created and operate only to later be proven wrong by someone else with a greater passion and more so-called evidence to validify their claims. Many had devout followers who would go to the depths of the earth to prove that the "oh so wise one" was correct just like many of you who criticize those of us to laugh at evolution. Next, we might see revolutionary evidence from scientists as to why we have butts. Good grief! Give me a break! Before you begin to criticize me with uneducated remarks, you might want to know that I graduated with honors from an Ivy League school. So, the unedcated claims can go to you know where. Find something else to use!

      March 11, 2011 at 12:30 | Report abuse |
    • LG

      My initial comment should have read: "Mark, your comment could not have been stated any better!"

      March 11, 2011 at 12:33 | Report abuse |
    • Joe Orwell

      I hope this guy doesnt raise any kids! How can you deny evolution??? oh wait...you read the bible huh?

      March 11, 2011 at 13:03 | Report abuse |
    • Byron Jones

      So Mark,

      Evolution is a process operationally defined as the change in the frequency of alleles in populations. The null hypothesis is stated in the Hardy-Weinburg-Castle equation. Pray tell exactly how this is fantasy, fiction or nonsense.

      March 11, 2011 at 13:11 | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      I'm wondering where a thread troll falls in the evolutionary scale

      March 11, 2011 at 13:13 | Report abuse |
    • NoSpinesHere

      @JustObvious. Have you read the comments here? Idiocracy isn't our future; it's our present.

      March 11, 2011 at 14:37 | Report abuse |
  2. Josh

    Creationism is a more beautiful concept than evolution. Otherwise, wouldnt we have bumpier junk?

    March 10, 2011 at 18:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • T3chsupport

      People pay pretty good money for bumpier junk.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:23 | Report abuse |
    • JPopNC

      You're absolutely right Josh. Supposedly evolution provides/eliminates things needed or not, so apparently this article indicates it dissapated over time. But what triggered that? At what point in time did our bodies "decide" it wasn't necessary. See, that's where evolution breaks down for me, there are just so many dependecies that would have to happen for something else to happen. Like why don't we have thumbs on our feet? Apes have them, they're practical and useful and I could definitely use them, so why did they disappear?

      Evolutionists claim Creationist are gulliable, that we believe in an invisible God, but they simply take the word of people who theorize on how things came to pass, but have no basis of proof. Oh, they'll scream, insult, and spout how science has proven blah, blah, blah....but I'm from Missouri.............show me.

      March 11, 2011 at 08:51 | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      Humans didn't evolve from chimps, Josh. We share a common ancestor. What is beatiful about the long rich history of everything we see just "poofing" into existence (fossils already in the ground, evolutionary history written all over DNA etc.)?

      March 11, 2011 at 11:32 | Report abuse |
  3. Jack Sprout

    Didn't happen in my case.

    March 10, 2011 at 18:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Derek

    I think Mark feels threatened because he has been told repeatedly that his penis is not evolved.

    March 10, 2011 at 18:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • josef

      Mark shared his opinion, and all the people who feel threatened by it responded.

      March 11, 2011 at 04:19 | Report abuse |
    • JPopNC

      Typical evolutionist/atheist....insult first....wait, there's no second, they just insult.

      March 11, 2011 at 08:52 | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      @ Josef
      Since when is sharing an alternative opinion considered threatened? The ‘evil science people’ have evidence to support their theory. Where is yours? And if you post some nonsense from the Bible (a book written by man, translated and edited by man) I’m just going to laugh at you.

      “insult first....wait, there's no second” The post by Mark and all the ‘threatened’ responses, which you were part of pretty much shoots that idea out of the water. Not to mention being completely hypocritical. But I expect nothing less from your side of the isle.

      March 11, 2011 at 10:24 | Report abuse |
  5. Ian

    Ha Ha Ha, Evolution is fiction? mark please do a 5 minute search on nylon eating bacteria. Evolution has been proven and 99% of scientists accept it as fact. we have the fossils, we win.

    March 10, 2011 at 18:51 | Report abuse | Reply
    • D

      Probably way more than 99%.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:39 | Report abuse |
    • josef

      Darwin was hospitalized for a mental break down because he could not explain why water lilies disprove his theory of evolution. All of you laughing at Mark and people like him sure don't seem so confident in your own beliefs if you attack someone for not thinking like you.

      March 11, 2011 at 04:22 | Report abuse |
    • ExtraJesusWithThatPlease

      @ Josef – I guess you just explained why the gods of science are only 99% sure. LOL Personally though, evolution would explain why humans are such shameless poop flingers – our primate ancestors make us do it! I sure do look forward to seeing those fossils of primate human hybrids. Someone been keeping them secret obviously.

      March 11, 2011 at 04:27 | Report abuse |
    • JPopNC

      Ian....for once can one of you atheists comment without insulting? Just once. Please!

      As for your fossils...well, even your beloved scientists have "evolved" their thinking that the fossils were captured by a catastrophic event, not by sediment layering on top of it over generations of time. The fossils of the fish and other animals had a flash experience that caught them in the moment. Now somehow a tremendous amount of pressure had to have been applied in order to press them into that eternal scrapbook. You know, the global flood would answer both those criteria, a flash event and tremendous amount of pressure. Hey look.........WE WIN!

      March 11, 2011 at 08:57 | Report abuse |
    • againstignorance

      Science does not prove anything. It is a systematic way of approaching an issue to find the most accurate possible solution. However, a hypothesis that has failed to be disproven (different than being proven) is constantly under scrutiny to ensure it can be replicated many, many, many, times. Any "scientist" accepting something as 100% factual is no scientist at all. People who believe in evolution don't know any better than creationists. I, personally, feel that evolution is how we arrived at our current situation. However, I also understand that I may be wrong. Attempting to tell someone that you are 100% correct because that what was found using the scientific method is speaking in ignorance. That would make you no better than an extreme fundamentalist telling you he is right for whatever reason.

      March 11, 2011 at 09:41 | Report abuse |
    • joe

      @josef, we're not arguing because he has a different opinion, we're arguing because he's extremely irrational it's insulting to the human race

      March 11, 2011 at 11:43 | Report abuse |
    • donna

      "Any "scientist" accepting something as 100% factual is no scientist at all. People who believe in evolution don't know any better than creationists. I, personally, feel that evolution is how we arrived at our current situation."

      That's not so. Scientists, generally speaking, believe that there are facts, and that we know what many of them are. People who argue that it's possible we're all just someone else's dream are generally the philosophers, or kids experimenting with drugs.

      March 11, 2011 at 16:09 | Report abuse |
  6. DM

    Sounds like these chimps need to go to the doctor and get these "bumps" checked out. Don't mess around with that!

    March 10, 2011 at 19:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. kim

    I always laugh at these reports it just means someone with a small penis cant understand why his penis is so very small and he cant satisfy a mate. Some wants to know why they got a limp penis others just wish they had a dick yes these reports are just big dick envy its so funny. Small penis really are not that much of prize!

    March 10, 2011 at 19:22 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. Guapo

    My ball sack is more like a Billy Goat's with no spikes on the noodle maybe one of the educated experts out there can explain that. Since there is no God to create from scratch and there is no doubt I do have a Goat like sack what's up? You guys have me worried could it be that an indescretion occured in the past that no one in my family is talking about?

    March 10, 2011 at 19:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tuppencecat

      Oh great, I've been laughing so hard that now I have mascara running down my face!! Maybe you're the legendary Chupacabra!!

      March 10, 2011 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      Tuppencecat, I'm glad you are laughing. It's only my second time blogging and I can't beleive all the people who actually take themselves so seriously. It's as if they know everything that happend through the millennia yet can't offer a single reason for my ... lets say, abnormal feature. I guess playing everyday with millions in goverment funding for university reasurch has blurred their concept of – what is – working for a living and it becomes their reality. Such is the stressful life of a tenured professor.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:56 | Report abuse |
  9. Mark

    So you're saying the spines were to attract and keep a mate. Of course as humans evolved the men just basically took the women they wanted based on strength and later wealth. It became the size of the dowry that mattered as men essentially bought there wives. The of course had disappeared during the last century so I guess in another generation or two we should start to see spiny babies. Of course in a world vastly overpopulated with 7 Billion people it may not matter.

    March 10, 2011 at 19:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kit

      Uh....it was typically the reverse. The girl's family had to pay a large dowry in order to attract a good husband.

      March 11, 2011 at 00:49 | Report abuse |
    • donna

      Who said the spines would attract mates?

      March 11, 2011 at 16:12 | Report abuse |
  10. Guapo

    Ok then that one had no takers ... how about this. A gorilla recently stood up and walked ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrQf6cogMuI ) and you can see it on the Youtube link I provided. Does that mean the subject gorilla is evolving into a Human in front of our eyes? The experts say Lucy the monkey at the Smithsonian apparently walked up right therefore she was pre human is this Silver Back pre human also? Common guy's what's the answer? Your smarter than the average monkey are you not?

    March 10, 2011 at 20:05 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tommas

      Evolution typically occurs via genetics, and in animals takes millions of years. The gorillas skeleton is still the same (I am assuming, for all we know that individual could could in fact be a mutant). But why evolving into a human? if anything (just for fun) it could just as well be a planet of the apes type species. In the words of Carl Sagan "There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation."

      March 10, 2011 at 20:16 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      Guapo, and another point for fun.... My dog can stand up on its hind legs too. 🙂

      March 10, 2011 at 20:18 | Report abuse |
    • T3chsupport

      Um... no. That's not how evolution works. Sorry.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:26 | Report abuse |
    • Kit

      Individual organisms don't evolve. Species do. If you're going to argue about it, at least understand how it works. Geez.

      March 11, 2011 at 00:51 | Report abuse |
  11. Ann

    You most brilliant evolution supporters have the burden of showing me all of the fossil records of evolving species...which shouldn't take you long...as there are NONE. No evolving fossils have ever been found. You can deny the creator all you want...but, Darwin...the king of your cult...now is a a very staunch believer in the creator. You will be too...

    March 10, 2011 at 20:21 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tommas

      Relax, first off many evolutionary biologist are deists. Many can speculate on how life (the first cell originated) but we truly have very little evidence. Please, if you want to have the argument for god keep it there. After that first cell formed there is a great deal of evidence from the code in your dna to the actual structure of your cells the depicts evolution. Remember for the first 3billion years (out of 3.5billion) it was nothing but cells dividing and evolving VERY fast. It is only the last ~500million years that we have real fossils, because that is when organisms had hard parts in their bodies. But, the DNA evidence is much stronger than fossils so essentially most biologist have moved past that.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:26 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      Come on Ann you must have seen the miliion year old ape skulls in mother of all museums in DC looking like evolving Humans? It's amazing how smart modern day Humans were actually able to figure out what the missing flesh parts looked like, how much of the face covered with hair ... etc. Smart PhD's know alot and I hope get paid accordingly for sharing thier phenominal knowledge with us simple folk. I'm impressed aren't you?

      March 10, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      Great point. Evolutionists have no facts regarding how DNA came about. And yet, they believe that it just happened. And then they go on to tell us how simple cells became humans and since they all agree, it must be true. Where did real science go?

      March 10, 2011 at 20:38 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      First, I would not say they have no facts. There are many scientist who are working on this exact problem, showing that DNA can be put together in a small pool. This research is just at its early stages. Remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence. Also don't jump from this biochemical issue straight to cell science. We evolved from single cells, there is no doubting it. You can literally piece together the cell/genetic evidence from sponges to worms straight to us. We evolved from single cells, how this whole processes started is the real question.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      @Tommas "We evolved from single cells, there is no doubting it" Your zeal is amazing. Say it 100 times and you will believe it even more firmly. Just because there is the potential for something to occur, it does not mean that it did occur the way you think it did. I would trust mathematics more than your lab soups. What do probabilities say about your nice theory? Be honest, now. The probabilty that we came from the primordial soup is... drum roll please ... a big fat zero.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:55 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      Well, OK since there is overwhelming evidence pointing to that theory. What evidence to you have that has stronger support for a different one. Please remember parsimony

      March 10, 2011 at 20:58 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      And again, you are trying to confuse the origin of life with the evolution of life.... Natural selection takes care of "probabilities" once it began. You are the one deducing evolution to the origin of life, I guess it is the logical conclusion.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:01 | Report abuse |
    • LEB

      At least there ARE fossil records of previous permutations of various species and physical proof of how old the earth really is, as well as living examples of how speciation branched off. YOU have the burden of proving your magical sky father exists, which no creationist has done. You don't get an out just because it's a matter of "faith." Prove your creator exists in tangible, observable terms so that any rational person can agree that its existance is irrefutable, and THEN maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

      PS... The Bible is not proof. It's a book.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:02 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      @Tommas: "overwhelming evidence supporting that theory" You really must not be talking about evolution. There alternate explanations. Which one is right we will all find out a second after we breath our last. If there is nothing past chemistry, then we won't find out but it would not matter. If there is more than just chemistry, then we will truly find out.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:04 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      @LEB "YOU have the burden of proving your magical sky father exists, which no creationist has done." Sorry to burst your bubble but the existence of God cannot be proven with our scientific method. Why? Not because God does not exist but because the awsome scientific method (and I am not being sarcastic, it is a great method) is limited to space and time. God existed before space and time, so good luck with that. But that does not mean God does not exist. So ponder this, if God does exist, and he existed before space and time, how are we with our methods suppose to reduce him with our little labs.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:11 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      Tommas: Noone argues that natural selection leads to adaptaion. But it has not been proven that we came from the sponges. And no, natural selection does not take care of probabilities just because you say so. Here your are showing simply faith.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:16 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      "God existed before space and time" hahaha, and you ask me for evidence for things your think have low probabilities.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:27 | Report abuse |
    • Erogant2

      Show me your invisible man in the sky.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:59 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      Erogant2, He is in your every breath and with your last one you will call his name. It's amazing the transformation which happens in a individual when nothingness shows itself as all that is familiar .... sorry I can't finish this. Good luck and maybe a little faith won't hurt.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:22 | Report abuse |
    • FsithNotFossils

      Well said Ann. One day, all will know that evolution is just not true. Some believers will just be more comfortable than others, and others will just be really, really miserable.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:09 | Report abuse |
    • Ann

      Your scientists agree that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, if there ever was something, there had to be a creator. Call it faith, call it folly...all I know is a relationship with the God of the bible is a blessing and a gift. I see the world with different eyes...from nature, to my children, to suffering and death. I challenge you to find one true believer in the God of the Bible who will ever tell you that faith is worst thing that's ever happened to them. I would rather live my life everyday believing that I am a creation of the divine Creator only to find out in the end that I'm really just pond sludge...than to live my life as if I'm pond sludge only to find out that I am a creation of the divine Creator. And, whether you care to recognize him or not, he still loves you and when you truly want to know him, he'll show himself to you. Have a little faith.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:46 | Report abuse |
    • imbrium

      A couple points from a scientist's point of view. First one mentioned that something cannot come from nothing so therefore the creator had to exist. On a purely argumentative point then: where did the creator come from? One could argue that he always existed but then that begs the question why we have not always existed. Secondly another questioned how DNA can form spontaneously. They have performed experiments with ammonia and cyanide (I believe those were the relevant chemicals) that were present in early Earth. They have shown that through lightning strikes the beginnings of DNA can occur with those starters or when they are frozen in ice. The ice, as it freezes, compartmentalizes the chemicals and then the basics of DNA start to form within only a couple weeks. A third mentioned that wolves and dogs are the same species, they are not. Wolves or Canus Lupis are the progenitors of dogs (Canus familiarus). This much has been proven by genetic testing. As for the comment about failed mutants...99% (if not more) of all mutants fail. It is that 1% that survive to pass on their genes that create evolution. Lastly (and truly not the last point but the last I am going to comment on) is the presumption that we do not have fossils of evolution. The truth is that we do, we have various fossils from dinosaurs for example that show bird like appendages and even feathers. There is also a very famous 'walking whale' (I even know the person who discovered it) that bridges some aquatic species from land species. There are numerous other fossils that, when taken in the proper scheme of time, do show a definite progression.

      March 11, 2011 at 09:18 | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      I love the non-answers when it comes to proving your magical sky daddy. You argue ‘facts’ to disprove evolution. But when it comes to proving their theory they get all poetic. Lol

      Consider: Creationist tell us there is no proof of evolution or some other physical non-supernatural explanation. However when asked for proof of their own theory, we get quotes from a holy book. (One holy book among many I might add) or some warped sense of logic “we don’t know so it must be g0d”.

      In a court of law the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. Creationists demand this same standard of science. But claim exception for themselves.

      March 11, 2011 at 11:46 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      Sean – There are not many holy books, only one – it's called the Bible.

      P.S. I doubt you'll call Him "Sky Daddy" when you meet him.

      March 12, 2011 at 21:06 | Report abuse |
  12. Merlin

    Okay, I can see evolution occurring in many species, but if man evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? HMM? Anybody...Anybody?

    March 10, 2011 at 20:22 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tommas

      This is a very common miss conception. Apes did not turn into us, due to speciation we branched off from certain ape lineages. Think about branches in a tree. One keeps on going but another breaks off and goes in a different direction.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:29 | Report abuse |
    • LEB

      Uh, because the great apes as well as humans have a common ancestor... just like wolves and dogs are related, lions and house cats are related, emus and sparrows are related. We didn't evolve FROM chimps or gorillas or bonobos, they evolved into their contemporary forms in tandum with humans. I'd suggest learning the meaning of the term "speciation."

      March 10, 2011 at 21:06 | Report abuse |
    • T3chsupport

      Things don't just evolve for fun. They evolve when they have to, based on the demands of their environment, and only then IF they can- it's pretty much just chance if they do happen to have some sort of variation or mutation that actually benefits them enough to out compete those who weren't born with their particular traits.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:30 | Report abuse |
    • D

      Apes are our "cousins" not our "forefathers". There are common ancestors if you go back far enough. You know, how Obama is related to Dick Cheney.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:48 | Report abuse |
    • D

      I don't mean offense by the Obama comment, so don't take it the wrong way, people. I am just trying to make an analogy to how people can be related to other people if you go back far in enough in their family histories. Like I think the Bushes are related to King George III in England as another example. You hear these stories all the time in the news how famous people are related to other famous people if you go back far enough.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:55 | Report abuse |
    • donna

      Contrary to what many are saying, it is absolutely true that modern evolutionary theory claims that we evolved directly from apes- just not from *living* ape species. "Ape" isn't a formal, taxonomic term- it's like slang or a generalization. An ape is a large tailless primate. We are apes, and our line has been apes for millions of years- since we were small primates with tails.

      March 11, 2011 at 14:58 | Report abuse |
  13. Paramo

    @ Ian "Ha Ha Ha, Evolution is fiction? mark please do a 5 minute search on nylon eating bacteria. Evolution has been proven and 99% of scientists accept it as fact. we have the fossils, we win"
    No you don't. There are holes the size of the galaxy in the evolutionary theory. Any honest evolutionary biologist would tell you so.

    March 10, 2011 at 20:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tommas

      Please specify between the origin of life and actual evolution (change over time) of life. Because if you are trying to argue against the latter it would be quite difficult (as we can actually observe it as the nylon bacteria example shows)

      March 10, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse |
    • Paramo

      Tommas: since you have no solid evidence that macro evolution did not happen, then you assume that it did happen. But there is no solid evidence to support that macroevolution did happen. You will throw fossil records with times, which themselves rely on asssumptions.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:44 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      Paramo, Thomas is 100 percent correct I'm a little shy to say this but, since this blog is about the Spiny Penis Evolution I will. I actually saw my own penis evolve ... it got bigger on it's own granted it did shrink back but it obviously want's to evolve. Thomas you are and idiot like the rest of your know-it-all kind. Go read another book written by another idiot and repeat it on this blog like you actually discovered something yourself.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Tommas

      Here we go, creationists trying to get people to bend over backwards so they can try to get someone to bring them selves into a trap. Scientists have moved past macroevolution because it is just plainly obvious: comparitive anatomy/embryology (why do we have tails as embryos), vestigial organs (so god really gave us an appendix for a reason?), and yes the fossil records do prove at least this much. We now use molecular biology to fill in the more interesting details.

      March 10, 2011 at 20:56 | Report abuse |
    • Ian

      Paramo, sad as you are, a quick google search could enlighten you. Just type in human tranistionla fossils and you will see our ancestors, exhibiting the changes in the order we would expext them. We can see in our DNA our relation to chimps (we share 98% with them and our 2nd chromosome is a combination of ape genes) and the fossil record shops the gradual proccession from single celled organisms to our current species of today. And by the way do you really feel the that the fields of biology, antropology, geoglogy, cosmology, and physiology are out to prove you beliefs wrong because they disagree with your religion.

      By the wat Francis Collins, one of the leaders of the team that cracked the human genome is a Christian and an uncrompromins evolutionist. As am I, i believe in Evolution and am a pround Christian (Episcoplian to be exact). you can believ in God and evolution too. Come into the light my friend, it feels great!

      March 10, 2011 at 21:14 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      I thought we were discussing scientific based evolution who brought faith into this? Besides what human knows, for sure, how life itself is manifested and removed ... I certainly don't do you ? You can slice, dice and splice and use all the critcal thinking you want but in the end that cell has is this little thing called life that no one can figure out. Oh yes I have heared the god based one before but then we are back to creation and faith so let's hear something new. I'm open for ideas other then a single genesis. All biological activities have a self perpetuating cycle we call life what the heck is it and where does it come from?

      March 10, 2011 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
    • Guapo

      Sorry Ian you can't be a Christain and also beleive that Humans were at one time an ape of some sort. Maybe looked like an ape and evolved but never an ape my friend. The two just don't go together so you must pick one or the other ape / beast or god inspired human being. Sorry!

      March 10, 2011 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • A stoot observer

      Guapo – you are so full of cr@p. I was born into a Christian family and have long only known Jesus Christ as my savior, and am not ashamed of my faith. I was fascinated by science my entire life (I'm 62 now) and while I did not believe in evolution for a good while, when I went to college and took science course after science course, I could not deny the facts that God presented us in the physical world – evolution and our descent from common ancestors with the chimp are simply hard and cold facts for anyone who is halfway objective. Yet my faith in Christ is as firm as ever. Obviously, I am not a literalist when it comes to understanding the Bible. There are many people like me who are followers of Christ, yet who believe in a world that God created in a more simple state, and who allowed it AND US to evolve.

      March 10, 2011 at 22:45 | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      A stoot observer
      This folks is what we call a new age Christian. An intelligent, educated human being attempting to merge science and their desire to maintain a primitive yet comfortable belief system in the supernatural (often indoctrinated at birth). Ether your Bible (it’s only one of many) is the word of ‘g0d’ or it isn’t. Can you believe in both, most certainly. It’s just contradictive.

      I know it is popular among the more intelligent religious types to state: science and religion ARE compatible. However the definition of the scientific method and fundamental nature of religion (faith) suggests otherwise.

      Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:(source) World English Dictionary. Dictionary.com

      Faith: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence: a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason:(source) World English Dictionary. Dictionary.com

      March 11, 2011 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
  14. cwhatsnew

    This might be the only thing we are disappointed about how we evolved. Why did human lose the spines - larger the brain we have, the less pleasure we need?

    March 10, 2011 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • LEB

      Spines don't sound very pleasurable to me.

      March 10, 2011 at 21:06 | Report abuse |
  15. Josh

    Did you consider science as a gift? We wouldnt require such tools if God answered to us.

    March 10, 2011 at 21:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Josh

    The scientific method includes human error. Love is something without flaw, not science.

    March 10, 2011 at 21:17 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. BG

    Elizabeth Landau & researchers are just perverts for studying this stuff. Especially because it has nothing to do with evolution so it can teach us nothing.

    March 10, 2011 at 21:35 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Umm

    Was eating a sandwich. Read "spine penis" article. No longer eating dinner.

    March 10, 2011 at 21:54 | Report abuse | Reply
    • D

      What are you eating?

      March 10, 2011 at 23:56 | Report abuse |
  19. RoadRunner, Albuquerque, NM

    A better name for this particular article would be: "Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader?"

    March 10, 2011 at 22:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. brad1001

    I beg to differ Guapo, who's to say that the Creator didn't first create the heavens and such (as even a scientist will admit that you can't make something out of nothing), and them make the animals and such. You know how the story goes. He could have just as easily at some point bestowed humankind with a sense of self and a "soul", theyby creating mankind. I'm pretty certain sure that it didn'thappen in 7 days, and those who take the Book as literal as that are mistaken. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen in a creation / evolutional way. Just sayin ...

    March 10, 2011 at 23:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • cmm

      I agree...I am a Christian and believe in evolution (what's not to believe) and I don't see this as an "either or" proposition. What I don't understand is the hostility that some from both sides of this discussion are exhibiting. It would be nice to have no name calling or mean statements to make someone feel bad. It would certainly raise the quality of the debate.

      March 11, 2011 at 11:51 | Report abuse |
  21. Don

    If there were such a thing as "Evolution", which there isn't, Why didn't humans evolve into something more exotic?? And, as one comment said: why are the earlier species still here? Evolution – just someones' dream. God created it all "in the beginning" and there has been no change since then. And, the biggest thing to come is the return of the Lord to rule and reign over the earth that He created in the beginning. Think it over!!!

    March 10, 2011 at 23:24 | Report abuse | Reply
    • D

      The earlier species are NOT still here. We coevolved along with the modern day apes from common earlier ancestors. Such basic ignorance is deplorable.

      March 11, 2011 at 00:01 | Report abuse |
    • Janna

      Bravo, Don! Thanks for pointing that out. Take care.

      March 11, 2011 at 10:44 | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      Don, if you want to know anything about this subject you'll put in the work. What amazes me is how many people refuse to do this, and instead effectively stick their head in the sand. Biology, geology, physics, etc, have revealed such amazing things for us. There is a lifetime's worth of information sitting their ready to blow people's minds, but instead they act like scared children hiding behind their mother's leg.

      March 11, 2011 at 11:49 | Report abuse |
  22. FaithNotFossils

    You absolutely cannot be a true follower of Jesus Christ, believe in God the Father, yet give someone or something else credit for designing life. That is why He is called, "Maker of Heaven and Earth."
    Adam and Eve were created by God, they were fully formed humans who walked upright. They were never single cells nor were they neandertals.

    March 10, 2011 at 23:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • carl

      I am not a follower of Jesus Christ, so that isn't a problem for me.

      March 10, 2011 at 23:37 | Report abuse |
    • Geeman

      Who's Jesus Christ? And why do I care about him? If you need to be saved call 911, you might actually get some help this time.

      March 11, 2011 at 01:25 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      Oh, but you will be... just about the same time you find out evolution doesn't exist.

      March 12, 2011 at 19:41 | Report abuse |
  23. scientists Failedweatheforcasting

    I am so glad science has proved what happened millions of years ago, when nobody there to see it happen. Yes science can explain away millions of year but yet, how come they can't give me a half way decent weather forecast 3 weeks from now?
    There have been frauds time and time again in this fictional game of assumptions and wishful guessing. Lets take Pelt down man that was taught as fact to children across America, a glued together skull. Then there was Java man, Oklahoma the list of fraud goes on and on. I would like a professed evolutionist to explain where them molecules came from before the big bang. Please explain how you get molecules out of nothing and time from nothing. Like the song "nothing from nothin, leaves nothin." You got to have something if you are going to even pretend you can bring about a logical argument on evolution. Scientists are always changing there theories. To say that scientists have absolute wisdom on these matters is frivolous. Where is the scientific cure for Cancer, Diabetes, Heart disease, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson's, Aids, and Alzheimer's, ect? Did your all knowing scientists keep us all from catching the common cold or flu? Evolution is never been proven.

    March 10, 2011 at 23:47 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ScienceKeepsPushingTheLimit

      I'd like to answer the molecules from the big bang question. I am going to say that all mater that came from the big bang was compressed energy. Thus the whole universe is energy but then again this leads to another questions, "what is energy?" Don't know the answer to this because I am human and I have my limits. Science explains things everyday and there will always be answers. Just because science has not found the cure to all diseases does not mean it has not found the cure for others. Jenner found the vaccine (cow pox) for small pox. Now small pox has almost been eliminated from the world! Science has its limits but it has made a lot of progress.

      March 11, 2011 at 05:09 | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Oh it has a better "proven" track record than Simon-Says.

      March 11, 2011 at 09:31 | Report abuse |
    • imbrium

      I believe, as both a biologist and physicist, that I might be able to shed some light on this. The theory of the big bang to current is thus (condensed for obvious reasons). There was a point of infinite density and infinite energy. Though I personally disagree with the 'infinite' part I believe it can at least be considered to have all the energy of the known universe in it (and matter is simply a form of energy as I will speak on in a moment). In this singularity the laws of physics didn't really exist, at least not as we know them. At some point it then exploded, why is still up for grabs but it did, spreading energy all over the universe. At first that was all there was, energy, but energy can spontaneously create matter. This has been proven and witnessed in fact. Usually it creates matter and antimatter pairs but for whatever reason in this universe the matter was favored perhaps due simply to some twist of fate. While normally these pairs annihilate each other immediately (this has been recorded in experiments, both that they are created and destroyed back to energy) occasionally they are separated (look up hawking's radiation at the event horizon of black holes). These particles, nothing more than protons and electrons, eventually came together to form atoms due to complex factos which I won't go into. Hydrogen, being the simplist, was the first to form and the most prevalent in the universe. Gravitation eventually brought a large number of these into on place where the heat from the compression eventually caused fusion and a star was born. The star, in the course of it's life, fused hydrogen into helium and then quite possibly into heavier atoms depending on the size of the star. When that star eventually exploded into a nova/supernova/hypernova those bits were spread everywhere and eventually condensed to form planets in some cases and other stars in others when more hydrogen was added to the mix. When planets were formed the heat from the stars along with the heat from the planet itself being compressed gave energy to primordial mixtures that eventually caused them to form very simple molecules, still no life yet. Next some of these molecules might, for example, have been frozen which has been shown to create the basic building blocks of DNA and RNA within as little as a couple weeks. After that point there is still a great deal more to go with bits of RNA associating with each other and then with other complexes that formed such as lipids and proteins. This took ages, energized by sunlight, heat from the planet, and lightning strikes to fuel the reactions. At that point evolution selected for the species that could survive with occasional mutants that proved more efficient at surviving coming out on top.

      I could continue on but I think the point is made.

      As for why weather cannot be accurately predicted 3 weeks in advance is because weather is made up of so many variables that we do not possess the necessary computing power to analyze every single one accurately and in a timely manner. Weather is far more complicated whereas the past has left a record for us to analyze in echoes of radiation, fossils, and numerous other features that can be pieced together to form a coherent picture over the course of decades. One could probably analyze every bit of weather on the planet at one moment to predict the next week of weather but the way things stand you wouldn't get your answer until long after it had already come and gone.

      March 11, 2011 at 10:05 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      If you believe you have limits because you are human, then you believe there is a higher form that does not have limits? Who limited you?

      March 12, 2011 at 19:47 | Report abuse |
  24. CyberCMDR

    OK people, lets start with the basics. First, the thing that separates science from beliefs is that all scientific theories (as in evolutionary theory or atomic theory, etc.) are based on measurable, objectively quantifiable data. We know the sun will be in the sky tomorrow because of all the supporting data leading us to that prediction. Beliefs, on the other hand, have no obligation to correlate with objective reality. One believes what one wants to believe, usually because that person was raised to believe it. Raised somewhere else under different systems, and they would believe something else just as fervently. Second, science is based on the scientific method, i.e. observe, create a hypothesis, test experimentally or with more observations and repeat as necessary. Supernatural causations are excluded from science because THERE IS NO WAY TO TEST OR PROVE THEM. Finally, there is tremendous support for the theory of evolution, and NO CONCRETE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that contradicts it. No religion can say that, otherwise there would be just one religion.

    March 11, 2011 at 01:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ExtraJesusWithThatPlease

      Science disproves previous science all the time. At least I can admit my beliefs are based on my opinion. Which, like theory, is not fact.

      March 11, 2011 at 04:30 | Report abuse |
  25. katsrul

    What's the difference between Christianity, Osiris, Zeus, and the Loch Ness monster?

    NONE. They are all fairy tales that only the gullible and ignorant believes.

    March 11, 2011 at 07:41 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Guapo

      A resurrection as reported by eyes witnesses. Now for you ... what’s the difference between a village idiot and someone who bashes something they know nothing about?

      March 11, 2011 at 09:02 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      One day you will be gullible and ignorant like us but it might just be too late then. I sure hope not. Its eternal afterall.

      March 12, 2011 at 19:51 | Report abuse |
  26. Nutt Hunter

    Crazy religious jesus people are saying not only the evolution is false
    but May 21st in the last day on Earth for all of us.
    See you at the bar on May 22nd on Broadaway and 29th street.

    March 11, 2011 at 07:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • FaithNotFossils

      What ARE you talking about?

      March 12, 2011 at 19:52 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      Ok, so I took some time to find out just what you were referring to. Wow, I sure had forgotten all about those "End of Days" folks. By the way, I suspect you overheard that somewhere rather than learned anything about it. We'll all see you at the bar on the 22nd since that's not the last day on earth anyway (in their model of the rapture.)

      True Christians know, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36

      March 12, 2011 at 23:42 | Report abuse |
  27. cecil

    science is evolving adjusting and correcting it self over and over again. Modern day evolution is like reading portion of a book and not bothering to read the rest and assuming how it began and how it will end. No one can say that evolution is fact. it'sa lot of assuming involved. We may find that the modern day assuming will bring future fools. there are thing in evolution that I accept but the assumption of the entire theory that it play out a certain way and every one is foolish to assume other wise is close mindedness. we may never know in our life time so we put our faith in what make the most sense at the time and be at peace with that. I know I am are you?

    March 11, 2011 at 07:52 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Guapo

      That's right my friend you’re not going to find the life force under the microscope of science it exists in the realm of faith. But it is entertaining to be shown artistic renditions of flesh over pre-historic bones as being a truth. After years of scientists making hay with lizard skin dinosaurs now feathers will be coming in fashion. Which to me makes more sense because a featherless bird looks identical to a dinosaur albeit much smaller. As if it matters but, yes I do believe that evolution takes place but not at the exclusion of a creation that I am not able to fully understand.

      March 11, 2011 at 08:57 | Report abuse |
  28. Bob

    The real disappointment from this author is that in the previous article she said that our primate ancestors had a goal of reproducing. Since humans, and most certainly all other animals, evolved without knowledge of what the consequences of intercurse are, how in the world could our primate ancestors have a goal of reproducing? It is impossible. The goal is to have ses because it is enjoyable. Period. If you have more ses your characteristics will be more widespread in the future. So the mythology that needs to be corrected is this belief that man wants to spread his seed. No!!! Man wants enjoyment. Period.

    March 11, 2011 at 09:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      All misspellings were intentional.

      March 11, 2011 at 09:32 | Report abuse |
  29. JOQ

    This is a useless study and a waste of money.

    March 11, 2011 at 09:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. richunix

    Science has a far better proven track record other than what is was written is a book, based on the mythology’s of other religion during the same time period.

    1. Creation is based on : Someone made us. Ok using the Bible, based on a GOD (the word GOD is a 6th century Germanic language) called YAHWEH or HASHIEM, strange you have the very same stories with ZEUS / HERA etc. Of course it explain (and yet no has found any reference in the bible period about) the rather large fossil record of recorded history…Wait let me get some more plaster and I’ll make a few more bones, so to bury them in the back yard, because we all know they are fake.

    2. No one else but Moses see YAHWEH on a mountain (alone) and in the form of a burning bush (Would love to try that on in today’s society). Yet the Christian think The Church of Latter Day Saints are nuts, since they saw Jesus in a Top Hat.

    3. I love this one, The end of the world (Revelation) was recorded in a man’s dream. Boy, I could run for hours on that one. In fact a majority of the prophesies are/have been dream related. But somehow this has been treated as “fact”, let’s try it in court and see how far it will get you.

    4. BAR NONE, has ever parted any sea (Red or Blue), walked on water, cured by touch the dead, made the blind to see…period. These stories are fantasy and wishful thinking, or yet trying to make my deity better than yours. However modern Science has worked wonders in restoring eye sight, help those to walk and yes in some cases be able to cheat death.

    The bottom line is the those who believe that the Bible is extant (argumentum ad verecundiam) , for if they find one story that is not true, then the whole book becomes suspect.

    March 11, 2011 at 09:54 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ann

      How sad for you...life must suck if this is how you look at it. What about the moral code that only man has...my fish could care less about each other. Man is the only bit of God's creation with a sense of right and wrong. Can you explain that?

      March 11, 2011 at 10:49 | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      @ Ann,
      I'm not sad at all, I believe in life at its fullest, I see the beauty each and every day. I’m not so vain or plague with fears of the unknown, that I’m willing to believe anything. I will die (as those that have before me), it is part of life. I’m not afraid of death, nor do I fear the unknown. For I know life will continue, I see it each day in the eye’s of children. Religion was built and sadly still maintained with fear of the unknown. Stoic logic state concerning death: “When you die, you will know if there is a heaven or hell. For if there is not, you will not know nor will you care, therefore the fear of death is needless”. Ann enjoy life, however you wish.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:08 | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Ann, my dog loves me very much, thank you. She doesn't go around raping and pillaging like the Koch brothers. She doesn't lie like Glenn Beck. My dog has more morality than Eric Cantor. Or Mr. Dobson.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:34 | Report abuse |
  31. richunix

    I’m not into religion bashing as you would think. I believe religion gives those who wish to believe a sense of comfort and for some self-worth. I do not find folly for those who believe in whatever deity they choose. And like the previous comments Science does evolve, making new discoveries every day and disproving those claims made so long ago, but unlike religion is willing to admit “ I was “wrong” and prove it through scientific experimentation . But unfortunately religious dogma can’t, as it bound to writings of 2 thousand years ago, based on beliefs in a time when society was govern by many beliefs. There is only one constants in this universe and that is “Change”

    March 11, 2011 at 10:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. gsekse

    Hmmm... why couldn't a supreme being just "create" evolution? Oh, yeah, cause some book written by HUMANS doesn't happen to agree with that idea. Seems that a supreme being that wants to create a universe of self-determination, would do exactly that and more. This complex system was designed to self-run itself. "GOD" doesn't need to watch over it. That is a TRUE example of "all knowing" and "all seeing".

    March 11, 2011 at 10:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Steven

    I don't see people arguing the Theory of Gravity as much as they argue about the Theory of Evolution.

    March 11, 2011 at 10:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. naugyman

    Hmm – I wonder how it became possible for evolution to evolve? Something (or in my preference some higher force) must have invented the possibilty of evolution. I believe that evolution is just a scientific attempt to justify why the universe exists, instead of accepting that it was "caused".

    March 11, 2011 at 10:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. Janna

    Shucks, I saw this headline and thought maybe there was a new and improved model just released. LOL!!! Everyone have a good day.

    March 11, 2011 at 10:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. Name*Farv

    What a waste of time this article was

    March 11, 2011 at 10:48 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. Cindy

    For those of you who believe evolution is a scientific fact, I encourage you to seek out what proof exists. I believe you'll find none. It has been forced upon us as a proven fact, when it is just a theory. A theory – no proof. I encourage you to look into it for yourself; there are a lot of sources available. And believe it or not, many sources of information on the hoax of evolution are from scientists – scientists who do not believe in evolution because it has no basis in fact.

    March 11, 2011 at 11:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  38. Cindy

    And there are huge effects on how we live our life because of evolution. When seeking out what proof exists to support evolution, for which I believe you'll find none, please also seek out the effects it has had on the world we live in. Huge impacts in our school systems, legal system, views on life, views and impacts on governments, etc.. The impact has been large and devastating.

    March 11, 2011 at 11:12 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. The Next Level Please

    Why is it that when you talk to god you are praying
    but when god talks to you, you are crazy ??

    What some call god, actually are just more evolved beings
    that have been nurturing us humans for thousands of years.
    Many of your bible stories are about aliens in space ships
    but if you had never seen one, how would you describe it ?

    There is a lot of our past being kept hidden from us
    because we had not been ready to accept it.
    We will soon.

    March 11, 2011 at 11:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      May 11, right? Party at my house. We'll sit around watching Religilous.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:36 | Report abuse |
    • CH

      I love Ancient Aliens too. But, Im still not convinced the people from the sky weren't just superior Earth-born beings. Still thinking about that one.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:41 | Report abuse |
    • Atheist

      Bwahaha... yeah I love that show... BTW they're actually lizards and they're collecting us for food and taking all our water.

      March 11, 2011 at 13:10 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      Bible stories about aliens in spaceships? Chapter and verse please??? I must've missed that in my Bible. Which edition – King James? NIV?

      March 12, 2011 at 23:59 | Report abuse |
  40. garet821

    I thank the evolutionary adaptation to laugh every time someone pretends evolution doesn't exist. Why can't those of faith recognize that God doesn't work with magic. He's an all knowing being to which time makes know difference, relativity. Can anything be more elegant than creating everything from a point of energy, the big bang? Perfect knowledge of natural laws and infinite time makes more sense to me than magically creating everything over 6 days and placing mineralized stones that look strangely like dinosaurs just to confuse us. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. But if you don't believe in science, you're beyond ignorant.

    March 11, 2011 at 11:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. hmm...

    so..here's something shocking..people have different viewpoints! amazing! wow! how about a little something called respect? If someone else reading the article doesn't believe in evolution, then that is their choice! respect it. another person does believe in evolution? everyone can respect that also. you people have got a lot to learn if you truly believe YOUR viewpoint is the only correct one. get over yourselves. this is supposed to get friendly chatting going over controversial topics. I feel like the more defensive people get, the more insecure they are about their viewpoints. If you feel truly confident with your ideas, you shouldn't have to write hurtful things towards other people, you should know that one day the truth will come out.

    March 11, 2011 at 11:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      There is no choice. All people react to current environmental conditions based on past experience, which includes the genes passed on and modified through evolution. You did not choose your religion. Through learning experiences, provided by the environment you developed in, it was built into your brain circuits. You never had a choice in any of it.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:39 | Report abuse |
    • garet821

      Bob, you're talking about exclusive behaviorism which is rarely used to explain all facets of human behavior. Even most behaviorist psychologists recognize it's limits when dealing with humans. So don't speak matter-of-factly.

      March 11, 2011 at 13:19 | Report abuse |
  42. Rod

    The story indicated that chimps have penile spines while humans do not. It also indicated that there is alot of variability. The first assertion is false, while the second one is more the point. With further research you'll find that a certain percentage of human males also have penile spines. One theory for their purpose may be, that while the stimulation they provide may not be REQUIRED to bring about ovulation (and given that anatomical structures, common to multiple species, do tend to serve common purposes, at least to varying degrees), it is likely that IF human intercourse occurs as the female approaches the point of ovulation, the additional (and anatomical targeted) stimulation might trigger the spontaneous release of the egg, hours (or even days) in advance of when it might have otherwise occurred. It may well be that the female zone in cats, that serves as the receptor for this stimulation, may also exist in all mammals (including humans), but to a lesser and possibly unrecognized extent.

    March 11, 2011 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      Come to think of it, I have those very spines you are talking about. They are rather small, though.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:42 | Report abuse |
  43. Edwin

    I think evolution is likely true, but it is still called "the theory of evolution" because it is just that, a theory. Why some people believe it is OK to be insulting to others who hold a differing view does no credit to their argument.

    March 11, 2011 at 12:16 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      Actually, Pope John Paul declared it to be fact and it is in writing.

      March 11, 2011 at 12:40 | Report abuse |
    • donna

      What are you referring to when you say "The Theory of Evolution?" Natural selection? It's not a theory. It's an observable algorithm. Which part do you think hasn't been proven?

      March 11, 2011 at 14:51 | Report abuse |
    • FaithNotFossils

      @Bob – What exactly is your point about the Pope?

      March 13, 2011 at 00:23 | Report abuse |
  44. CH

    If god exists and did create me, then god created me to study evidence and come to conclusions. I've seen thousands of pieces of evidence to suggest that evolution of species has happened over and over on our planet. I've not seen one piece of evidence to suggest that a god created anything on Earth. Im agnostic. There may or may not be a god, but I've seen enough evidence to conclude that religion is a hoax.

    March 11, 2011 at 12:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. donna

    One of the greatest obstacles our society faces regarding our understanding of evolutionary theory is that people use the same term to talk about many different types of things. "Evolution" is used to refer to biological evolution, natural selection, the theory of common descent and the entire study of evolutionary processes.
    Biological evolution is an observable fact. There is no question that it occurs. Biological evolution=change in gene frequencies in a population over time. We can see it every time an animal is born or dies.
    The Theory of Natural Selection, is also an observable fact. "Theory" here is defined as a string of facts used to illustrate a process. Natural selection is an algorithm- a recipe- just like 1+1=2. And 1+1 ALWAYS = 2. And it simply means that when there is genetic variation, and differential reproduction, the animals that survive to reproduce will pass on their genes and the animals who don't reproduce, won't pass on their genes.
    "Evolutionary Theory" refers to the entire discipline of evolutionary research- that doesn't mean there are no facts involved.
    "The theory of common descent" is a theoretical model that predicts that all animals here come from a common ancestor. Most arguments against evolution I see on the boards are really focused on the theory of common descent. And as it describes past events, all we can do is gather evidence, but we can never know what happened in the past with 100% certainty.

    March 11, 2011 at 12:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • againstignorance

      You say that with the certainty of an evangelical preacher. Nothing in this world is 100% certain. That's the beauty of science. If you expect people to open their minds to your ideas, you should be willing to consider theirs.

      March 11, 2011 at 13:38 | Report abuse |
    • donna

      "You say that with the certainty of an evangelical preacher. Nothing in this world is 100% certain. That's the beauty of science. If you expect people to open their minds to your ideas, you should be willing to consider theirs."
      I am simply giving definitions. What is it that I said that you think is incorrect or subject to debate? That gene frequencies in a population change when the population changes? Or that when critters reproduce that they pass on their genes?

      March 11, 2011 at 14:47 | Report abuse |
  46. Brian

    Evolution does exist but not the way most people think. As things evolve they do not add or gain information. They only lose information.

    March 11, 2011 at 12:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. Dennis

    A lot of you people need to update your calendars, even if you're not smart enough to grasp the concepts. It was the Theory of Evolution in 1859. This is 2011. It's 152 years later and it has been the Science of Evolution for some time now. It was a theory when science was't exactly sure what had happened. But actual, real scientists looked very carefully at the theory from every which angle and wouldn't you know the theory turned out to be correct! So now we study, and write papers on, the science of evolution; and in fact, it is the exact same wonderful and glorious richly diverse forms of life that we now appreciate so much more because we know how they got here (if not so much why they took the form they did).

    March 11, 2011 at 12:50 | Report abuse | Reply
    • donna

      Actually, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was always intended as a description of a factual process, not as something 'theoretical.' The definition for "theory" in this case is 'a string of facts that describes a phenomenon."

      March 11, 2011 at 14:44 | Report abuse |
    • Dennis

      Donna, please do not confuse the arguments with reason and facts. What are you, intelligent or something?

      March 11, 2011 at 18:23 | Report abuse |
  48. Nadia

    Evolution! keep posting articals...amusing and educational 🙂

    March 11, 2011 at 13:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. Byron Jones

    Wow, in reading some of these posts, I don't know what did the worse job in making humans, the creator or evolution.

    March 11, 2011 at 13:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. Jenn



    March 11, 2011 at 13:51 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Atheist

      "we’re in the twenty-first century and because we are evolution is crumbling under the weight of evidence."

      hahaha... priceless... thank you for that. That just shows how people that have no knowledge of science, the scientific method, or critical writing/reading can't formulate real arguments.

      March 11, 2011 at 16:12 | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply to mrbones


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.