Comments on: Evolution: Only a Theory

By: carls_crew

carls_crew — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:14:13 +0000

I don’t believe “in” evolution. I see all of the evidence and indication of it, how it works in medicine, how we use it in agriculture. I believe “in” evolution like I believe in trees and automobiles. It’s obvious and evident to me all the time in so many ways. I believe there is no god, and I also believe there are no demons, angels, spirits, or any other disembodied intelligences. I do not know how the universe began, assuming it had a beginning. Maybe it always existed, as some people believe God always existed. I don’t know. But to say that God always existed and then made everything explains nothing to me, and seems implausible to say the least. And the world is inconsistent with the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving God, because many innocent people suffer from diseases, circumstance, human cruelty, and bad luck. But i do believe in many principles (though not theologies) espoused by religions, such as compassion and the Golden Rule. I believe these things would help make a world worth living in and that they call on us to be our most human and humane selves, our best selves. I try to live by and advance these principles, too.

By: Makaila

Makaila — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:00:34 +0000

hi carl, my name is makaila and i am doing a project on you and your research for my marine science class. you have done an amazing job with this website and your work and i just wanted to let you know. Also, i was wondering if you could share with me your religious views. I realize you beleive in evolution but i was wondering if you have a certain religion i am curious to know what it is. Thanks so much carl!

By: Tomasa Vankilsdonk

Tomasa Vankilsdonk — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:59 +0000

Substantially, the post is actually the sweetest on this valuable topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates.Fabulous work and much success in your business dealings!Thanks.

By: medical

medical — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:09:05 +0000

If God is perfect and if ID is a viable theory and counterpoint to evolution, then how did God create a complex and faulty organism called man? Does this mean God is faulty, or did I not get enought sleep yesterday?

By: carlsafina

carlsafina — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:47:21 +0000

thanks; the way i think of lower and higher life has to do with their complexity. Single celled organisms with no nucleus are lower (though critically important to life on Earth because they’re decomposers and recyclers). Mammals with placentas, warm blood, and parental care are higher. Many lower life forms are indeed fairly modern; viruses are constantly evolving brand-new strains.

By: Daniel Bassett

Daniel Bassett — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:36:46 +0000

Thanks for the great post. I often have arguments with my brother who is a full on christian. He is always telling me that science is just a theory. It is very hard for him to understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Or he chooses not to understand out of convenience.

I also like how you explain that all things are evolving even lower life forms. What often people consider to be a ‘lower’ life form is actually fairly modern. I just wrote a post on Cichlids who in the African lakes have speciated into thousands of species in the last million to hundreds of thousands of years. This is less time than humans have been a species. Does this mean they are more advanced than we are…are we a lower life form? Anyway just my gripe. Not with you but with that terminology.

By: carlsafina

carlsafina — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:29:17 +0000

More evidence of life evolving: whales have vestigial pelvic bones and some snakes have vestiges of limbs.

By: kenwilsononline

kenwilsononline — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:19:02 +0000

Thanks to Dr. Safina for emphasizing the common ground of religion and science–that the Abrahamic faiths intuited common ancestry behind the unfolding of life in diverse forms. Without the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment, all life would be doomed. And note to Brittany: Genesis 1, written in a different language than the language of science, written before the scientific method had been invented, recognizes a progression over time from simple to more complex life forms [life that can't move, followed by life that can, followed by life that can tell the story of life's unfolding].

By: Betsy Walker Hasegawa, Japan

Betsy Walker Hasegawa, Japan — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:04:11 +0000

Thank you Carl for your words for Darwin with your words on present-day scientists’ understanding of “lower” / “higher”…Great!
!: (in consideration of human bio-diversity):
If ever you touch the tips
of its eye stalks,
many a land snail, like as not
will retract its eyes into its head.

By: carlsafina

carlsafina — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:44:25 +0000

Dear Brittany,
Darwin could say that he never saw evidence. He had only inference. We, however, cannot make the same claim. The fossil record is full of creatures on their way to somewhere (such as dinosaurs with feathers), and even without fossils the DNA shows that creatures that look similar, like apes and people, are extremely close genetically, with just a relative few substitutions of amino acids making the difference, while the genetic differences are greater in creatures that look less alike. As they change and adapt, organisma sometimes evolve from “lower” or less complex to more complex (larger, more complicated, warm-blooded, with parental care, with increased intelligence) forms. The fossil history reflects the fact that the earliest life was simple, and more complicated forms come later. But a very great deal of change is rather lateral, and in some cases species lose complexity and evolve into simpler forms.