Islands: Exquisite Labs of Evolution

Reader Comments
Back to article

Because of humanity's innate sense of right and wrong that is universally throughout the world and time, evolution can not be correct. Or do atheists expect us to believe dinosaurs had laws and codes of ethics?
A third reason, everyone on earth has the ability to recognize the need for a higher being, including atheists. Atheists need a God to deny for their beliefs to be relevant. When disasters and catastrophes happen, people do not turn to science. They turn to a faith in a divine being because they are not willing to believe there is nothing after death. Everyone on this planet knows that is a dismall fate and is not worth accepting. Life is too beautiful and too precious for that kind of fate. But the life evolutionists offer is too cold to be sympathetic to any kind of life. Only a personal deity can offer that kind of sympathy.
But why the Christian God? The Christian religion is the only one with historical evidence backing it up. The resurrection could have been disproven, but it wasn't because it is true. If Christ was just a good teacher, then His claims to be God were lies and He was not a good teacher. Also, how could a mad man or a liar fool so many people with the miracles that were performed out in the open? Therefore, He must have been Lord to be able to perform miracles, rise from the dead, and forgiving the sins of people that were not committed against Him. And because He is Lord, His words are true. And since they are true, He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life by which we may be saved and come to God face to face.

Dr. Shade of NC 9:57PM May 24, 2009

prof. grip, while desparately trying to defend evolution, proved what I had posted earlier: Yoder's work proves absolutely nothing other than some similarities and differences among the primates in Madagascar and mankind. The "objective" proof he claims Yoder and others have provided, really isn't objective at all since it can also be used to support the Creationist view that God loves variety, no matter how drastic or slight.
Also, note that scientists have yet to test Ms. Yoder's "theories." That is because they have no DNA samples of lemurs a million or even a thousand years ago to prove her assumptions. Since they are unable to proceed with an experiment with DNA, Yoder's and other scientists' "theories" are really just hypotheses (a.k.a. educated guesses). In fact, the theory of evolution is just a hypothesis, based on the observations of Darwin and his followers. They have an interesting idea, yet they can not give credible, "objective" proof that it is more than just an educated guess.
Now, prof grip has asked me to provide proof for humanity coming from Adam and Eve. Of course, prof grip knows darn good and well that there was no such thing as birth certificates during ancient times. As for Eve coming from Adam's rib, doesn't he (I am guessing prof grip is a he) know God did not invite future surgeons into His operating room? Seriously though, prof grip knows I can not provide proof for what he asks and believes he has trapped me. Yet such is not the case. If there is an omnipotent God who created the natural world by the spoken word, it is reasonable to believe He could create the human race with just two people and create a woman from a man's rib. Also, only one woman was created by a man's rib. Not multiple women as prof grip suggests.
Of course my belief is based on a pretty large if. So how can I prove that there is an omnipotent God? First, I point to creation as it is too magnificent and complex to be a result of random chance. If there was any more oxygen in our atmosphere, we would burn up. If we were any closer or farther away from the sun, the earth would be too hot or cold for life. The human eye is so complex that even Darwin admitted it couldn't be explained away by evolution. If one part of a bacteria's flagellum was not in its proper place, it would hinder the life of an evolving organism rather than helping it. Because life on this planet is so complicated and complex by design, there is no possible way for it to have happened without an intelligent being causing it into existence. Second, I point to morality. Evolution offers no reason for there to be a sense of right and wrong. How? Well, if evolution is correct, then humanity will eventually evolve beyond this point of being concerned with right and wrong. Tell any parent who has just learned that his/her daughter has been raped or child was brutally murderd this idea and expect them and others to accept it, you are nuts.

Dr. Shade of NC 9:04PM May 24, 2009

You have got to be kidding, right? I really don't have time to respond in point to your misguided opinions, but I will say one brief thing about role of genetics.
Genetic testing and calculation is but one way that Yoder can be confident and thus provide "proof" for her theories. Comparative analysis of primate genomes have provided a wealth of information on specific species development and evolutionary geneology. Conversely, the Creationist view is not supported by any objective "proof" at all. Nada, zip, nothing. Instead of discounting Yoder I would like you to respond with one point of objective proof that human beings are a product of the biblical Adam and Eve. And that females were created from the rib of a man. So, for you to believe the Adam and Eve story and in turn question Yoder's theory on lemur evolution is patently ridculous.

prof grip of KS 12:44PM May 24, 2009

I believe that this information is false. Based on this paint can label you are a liar.

OOGY of IA 11:43AM May 15, 2009

All I have read are "may haves", "most likelies", "probablies", and "possiblies." Yes, I know these are not real words. But the point is just the same, everything that is being said here is just a guess.
When a Creationist says that the reason there are so many varieties within different animals its because God made them that way, people start crying bloody murder asking, "Do you have proof? Hmm? Hmm? Where's your scientific proof for this? Hmm? Hmm?!?"
But this article does the same thing. Though Anne Yoder's work is admirable, she has only stated the obvious: that there are genetic similarities and differences among the lemurs themselves and us. Okay, so what? There are similarities and differences between us and bananas.
Again, Yoder's research does appear to be amazing, but it doesn't prove that genetics could replace a fossil record. If it truly took sixty-two million years ago for the lemur ancestors to begin their primitive life on Madagascar, where are the fossils? Surely during all that time, there would be at least a few thousand fossils to prove a genetic change occurred.
Darwin noticed the same genetic similarities and differences with the finches on the Galapogos Islands. He mayed a reasonable hypothesis, but couldn't back it up. He thought as time went on more fossils would be found. Well its been over a century since he made his hypothesis, and we have yet to find enough fossils to prove that he was right.
But what do I know? I am just some "Creationist-nut" who's surrounded by "scientists" and "scholars" can't even prove their own theory!

Dr. Shade of NC 9:20PM May 01, 2009