The Most High vs Evolution

First, I’ll give a hat tip to this nicely succicnt post by @Kevin_Levites, which neatly summarises the various canards we see from the usual suspects. However, I think it useful to elaborate upon each section, and provide resources that back up the sections in question. Starting with (emphases mine):

Ah, yes, the duplicity of “design” apologetics, which apart from being covered as Canard #20 in my grand list of creationist canards, is elaborated upon in more detail in this extended exposition on the subject, which I suspect many here will find useful.

Ah, this particularly noxious piece of apologetic mendacity is the centrepiece of Canard #7. A canard I treat with particular scorn and derision.

The pedlars of this nonsense also need to learn that there are two scientific papers destroying this myth. These papers are:

[1] Stars In Other Universes: Stellar Structure With Different Fundamental Constants by Fred C. Adams, Journal of Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics (August 2008) DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010 [Full paper downloadable from here]

[2] A Universe Without Weak Interactions by Roni Harnik, Graham D. Kribs and Gilad Perez, Physical Review Letters D, 74(3): (1st August 2006) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006 [Full paper downloadable from here]

The first of these papers establishes that stellar nucleosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if key physical constants varied by as much as five orders of magnitude. The second paper establishes that the same would be the case, even if we deleted the weak nuclear force wholesale from the universe.

So much for “fine tuning”.

And indeed, I’ve devoted voluminous amounts of posts here to the matter of prebiotic chemistry. This false dichotomy between “chance” and “design” also features as part of Canards #10 and #30 (among others).

And once again, I’ll point everyone to my voluminous expositions on prebiotic chemistry. Along with the fact that said research has now moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells. But mythology fanboys are always at least 50 years behind the curve, so to speak.

This, of course, forms the subject matter of Canard #28, which includes detailed exposition of several scientific papers on the matter that destroy this piece of ex recto apologetic fabrication.

Again, been there, done that (is anyone really surprised at this? :smiley: ). Apart from an earlier post in this thread dealing with eye evolution, there’s also this grand exposition on the subject, including detailed exposition on the genes involved. As for the bacterial flagellum, I deal both with Behe’s canards about “irreducible complexity” and the scientific papers covering the bacterial flagellum and its evolution in this detailed exposition.

Again, as noted above, this canard is a flat out lie. Even though my knowledge of the tetrapod lineage is incomplete, i’m aware of numerous organisms that clearly form a well-defined lineage exhibiting the relevant anatomical transitions, from Eusthenopteron to Panderichthys and Ventastega, through Tiktaalik to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Which, if you examine them, exhibit another feature that I’ve only recently realised - namely, that the morphological changes constitute topological transformations of shape that are well within the remit of mechanisms such as Turing morphogenesis - a topic I cover in some detail with respect to Papilio dardanus wing patterns in this detailed exposition. Then of course there’s my exposition on the genes involved in major morphological changes in domesticated Goldfish, and I suspect that those genes will turn out to be either homologues of, or related to, HOX genes, which have been known to be implicated in the bauplans of living organisms for decades.

Indeed, I’m reminded here that no less a person than Linnaeus, the father of modern biological taxonomy, regarded humans and chimpanzees to be sufficiently closely related, on the basis of comparative anatomy, to warrant their placement in the same taxonomic Genus.

Linnaeus even wrote a letter discussing this topic to fellow taxonomist Johann Georg Gmelin, the original (and transcription thereof) being available here. It’s apposite to reproduce the relevant section - first, the original Latin:

This translates to:

Note that Linnaeus wrote this SIXTY TWO YEARS BEFORE DARWIN WAS BORN.

Of course, we also have a wealth of modern data, both from palaeontology and molecular phylogeny, which establishes overewhelmingly that, as you’ve stated above, humans are apes. I’m also reminded of the data from direct genome comparisons, including the data involving endogenous retroviral insertions, which are practially the smoking gun for this.

Finally …

To which my retort would be, of course, that it’s monumentally arrogant to believe that these people know better than the world’s cosmological physicists, just because they treat uncritically as fact, the vacuous assertions of pre-scientific mythologies. See among other resources, my exposition on Steinhardt & Turok’s braneworld cosmology, which includes within it a testable prediction, unlike the assertions of mythologies.

And, on this note …

Fat chance. The ex recto apologetic fabrications you’ve highlighted have been doing the rounds for decades (and in the caase of Paley’s gibberish, the best part of 200 years). Idiot mythology fanboys still think that the garbage in question constitutes some sort of ineffable “wisdom” with which they’re going the hand-wave away 350 years of scientific progress, instead of being collapsed intellectual soufflés of a particularly sloppy constitution.

If anyone wishes to bookmark this, feel free. :slight_smile:


Common ancestry was proven when we discovered humans and chimps share identically damaged genes caused by ancient viruses that accidentally embedded a portion of their genome into a common ancestor and became a hereditary fossil in all future offspring. We share even older damaged genes with older primate cousins - nested in a hierarchy showing the actual order of divergence.
ERV Chart


Your points here are new to me, so I appreciate this post.

When we talk about damaged genes from ancient viruses, is this similar to the idea that certain viruses (like the papilloma viruses or Hepatitis B) cause cancer by damaging DNA? I assume (from your post) that a virus can damage DNA in a similar way, and this damage can be passed down to the offspring?

Do I understand this idea correctly?

1 Like

Or is it like the idea that sickle cell anemia is more prevalent today because genetically they were more resistant to the diseases of the day? Sickle cell is a detrimental genetic disorder normally but from what I had read it offered the benefit to the host of limiting virus or bacterial infections spread through the blood stream at the time. Which in turn is the theory of why sickle cell is still so common today. At least that’s what I had heard, someone correct me if I’m wildly wrong here.


Sickle cell specifically protects against malaria.

The degree of protection depends upon how badly the patient expresses sickle cell disease.

I have been wondering if sickle cell protects against babesiosis, as the two diseases are similar in many ways . . . but I haven’t been able to get an answer for this.


From memory doesn’t it make a person more resistant to malaria? I’ll check on that:

Yeah it seems so…“Sickle cell trait (AS) confers partial protection against lethal Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Multiple mechanisms for this have been proposed, with a recent focus on aberrant cytoadherence of parasite-infected red blood cells (RBCs).” So it would make sense for this to have evolved in people who lived in countries where malaria was common.

Ah I should have scrolled down.


So, does anyone know if sickle cell protects against babesiosis?

Just for clarity, according to you what did we evolve from?

1 Like

Just for clarity, what do you say humans evolved from?

1 Like

Humans evolved from apes, which evolved from lower animals . . . all the way back to the primordial ooze.

If you doubt this, then just consider the average attorney . . . as lawyers are living proof that humans evolved from slime.


Just for clarity, What are the core beliefs atheists have about the creation of the universe and the creation of mankind?

Homo sapien sapiens have many ancestors. How far back do you want to go?

1 Like

I would like to know what you believe was the beginning of mankind

No one speaks for all people identified as atheist. Atheism has no core beliefs. It is only a response to one assertion (that god/s exist).

1 Like

Which species of mankind?


You seem to see atheism as something akin to a religion, and it isn’t.

We just deny believing in God.

To help you see our side, I assume that you don’t believe in Apollo, Hera, or Zeus from classical times. I also assume that you don’t believe in the Egyptian gods Horus, Amen-Ra, Thoth, or Osiris. I also assume that you don’t believe in the Norse god Thor.

All we do is take this one god further . . . and include Yahweh (or Jehova) on this list. We see Yahweh in the same way that you might see Osiris or Apollo.

As for the creation of the Universe, I have a lot to say about that as well.

If God created the Universe, then where did God come from? If God has always existed, then why not skip a step and say that the Universe has always existed? If we decide that the origin of God is an unanswerable question, then why not skip a step and assume that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? (Carl Sagan)

Religious people claim that Big Bang cosmologists believe that the Big Band happened from nothing . . . and this isn’t true.

The Big Bang is the beginning of the current presentation of the Universe, which is vastly different than claiming that the Universe appeared out of nothing. In fact, there are reasons to believe that the Universe may be cyclical, and stretches infinitely into the past will exist infinitely into the future. When religious people say that scientists claim that the Big Bang happened from nothing, we have a “straw man” fallacy. Please see below:

There are many unanswered questions about the Big Bang, and that is fine. We should not automatically invoke God just because we’re unhappy that we don’t know everything. To claim that only God can understand things that we don’t know seems very arrogant to me.

The idea that the Universe can exist without God may go against common sense . . . but common sense is not the holy grail of absolute wisdom.

It was considered common sense that a cardiac patient should remain in bed, as all of the patient’s strength and energy should go toward healing. Also, if the patient is active, then this could “strain the heart” by making work harder, which would make a heart condition worse.

This sounds very reasonable, and it makes perfect sense.

Yet it is wrong!

If someone had a heart attack 6 hours ago, they actually benefit from getting up and walking around. No aerobics or marathon running, mind you, but physical activity improves their recovery tremendously. Lying in bed can actually be very destructive to a person’s health.

I include this as an example of where common sense is wrong.

It is similar when people try to appeal to common sense when bringing God into a discussion about the formation of the Universe.

1 Like

We don’t fucking care. We don’t have any “core” beliefs, we don’t believe in your bullshit god.

1 Like

According to me? I evolved from my parents. This is true of every species on the planet. No species has ever given birth to a different species. I evolved from humans that were very much like me. How have I evolved? I am fatter, taller, and in better health than any of my ancestors. Now these changes are largely due to food distribution, health care and hygiene practices. They have not resulted in genetic change, that I am aware of.

" “A big take-home point of all current studies of human evolution is that culture, particularly in the form of medicine, but also in the form of urbanization and technological support, clean air and clean water, is changing selection pressures on humans,” Stearns told Live Science."


LOL… There were only 8… or is it 9 now? ‘Great Question!’

1 Like

I wanted to know where you think humans came from?