Reader comments
Myanmar fossil may shed light on evolution

Memo to everyone; humans did not evolve from anything. Evolution answers no questions about the origins of life, but it does create hundreds of unanswered questions. If we spent as much time and money and research trying to understand life, as we do trying to prove a false theory, we'd all be far better off.

you are wrong..

Did you know that there are many different theories of life other than Darwin's and the Bibles?

Neither did I b/c darwinisim is the only thing the corporate media will talk about and potentially understand.

Some fish stay in the murky side of the pond their whole life. It is ok. Not everyone has to understand this. Wouldn't we be better off if everyone followed those commandments handed down from the Mt. Sinai? BTW what is Utah's stand on capital punishment?

Memo to everyone: The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The word "theory" means "an explanation for all the evidence;" in other words, it is a well-tested, well-founded, thoroughly defensible idea. That's what evolution is.

It is vital to understand that evolution, as a science, says nothing about God. Science cannot. By the same token, religion deals with faith and not science.

If you are LDS, recognize that the First Presidency statements say nothing about evolution. They only stipulate that Adam and Eve were the first of God's spirit children on Earth; they say nothing about the origin of their bodies, and nothing about the origins of plants and animals. Evolution properly understood is perfectly compatible with official LDS doctrines (though not with some expressed personal opinions; but these are not doctrine).

Unless you have some secret evidence in your possession that the scientific world is unaware of, you cannot justly say evolution is a false theory.

I agree that humans did not evolve from anything. But evolution does shed wonderful light on the creation process. I don't think God reached down and just created life in 7-days but instead put into place creative laws and rules that occurred over hundreds of millions of years and are still occuring today. Science and religion do go hand in hand even though neither provides every answer perfectly. It will not be until we learn at the feet of the Savior that we truly know everything. But it is exciting when technology like the Hubble allows us as humans to get a glimpse into God's handywork.

One of the things I like about the LDS faith is that it allows for scientific discoveries. It is not stuck to a 6,000 year time frame for creation. It allows for a lot of speculation and wonder which I believe God wants us to engage in. The Bible gave us a few answers and ongoing revelation, additional scripture and science continue to slowly fill in the gaps.

I don't believe in your religion or your creationist hypothesis.

I believe in the scientific method. Evolution is a result of that.

Don't believe in the scientific method? Look around. Everything you see is a result of that.

I think this is all so facinating. We are discovering, every day, more and more about ourselves and the planet. If some of you want to stay with your head stuck in the mud it's fine with me but I am all for information and intelligence!

People don't originate in Missouri? What next: will you tell us barley never grew in the Americas?

Everyone knows what hokum and ridiculous nonsense evolution is.

IS so filled with unscientific language as be laughable.

(even the title uses MAY, because you MUST believe in the dogma of evolution like any religion or belief system,


it has never been able prove any of it's claims with definity,

you MUST suppose, assume, believe in possiblities may haves, could haves, etc.)

on top of that it ignores all evidence contrary,

or magically created dead branches to explain it all.

the THRERY of evolution has drivng the interpretation of hthe evidence for years,

rather than the correct scientific method of evidence driving the theory.


A REAL GOD, a TRUE GOD, a God capable of all amazing wonders and miracles has NO use or NO NEED for evolution,

and it is only small or weak minds that try to reconcile both and believe both.

no, not everyone ... why should we take YOUR word for it? ... from the language of your post, you seem to be on the border of illiteracy ... you can't even spell THEORY ... weak minds? ... where is the rigor and discipline in YOUR mind? ... there is no evidence of that! ... NONE ... so, why should we take YOUR word? ... it's true because YOU say it's true? ... what a laugh! ... even though you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, your belief is NOTHING but an idea that cannot be tested by anyone but you ... others can share your belief, but there is no empirical test ... what if i were to state that i do not believe in the well-documented reality of diesel locomotives? ... wow ... does that mean that they don't exist? ... i think i'll lie down between the railroad tracks and take a nap ... there are some intelligent posts here, but yours is not one of them..

Don't you love when the first sentence say MAY or COULD and people eat it up and believe it to be true. MAY snow tomarrow and the sky MAY turn pick and AL Gore may spot flying all over and start practing what he preaches.

There is still no proof that man ever came from apes and there never will be. The only thing these facts show is the history of apes, not man. And the theory of eating meat spurred brain development is fictitious also, otherwise all meat eaters would have developed more brain matter. Man didn't evolve from apes or bugs or fish. Darwin's theory might work on the animal kingdom, but not man.

For his theory their had to be 2 different events to create man, the male and female. Two very different species with very different physical traits requiring 2 different missing links, which doesn't exist. And what about reverse evolution, where all animals and apes, bugs, and fish came from man? Eat on that for a while. It's only a theory but plausible with the same as other theories.

Theories are not fact nor provable, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

God used tiny organisms in the seas to prepare the earth for more complex forms of life. These organisms, over millions of years, converted the high levels of toxic gasses in the primordial earth into a breatheable oxygen-rich atmosphere.

God infused life with the intelligence required for the success of species and animal life most useful and bounteous to his ultimate creation. This process would require many diverse species that would compete, and be "optimized" into the rich diversity of plant and animal life we now benefit from...

God used a multi-million year process of steady iterative evolution to create man's physical body. Then he breathed in his spirit.

Then He gave man choice. Choice to ignore Him and His creations or to live in constant awe and wonder at His creations.

The fossil records should not be feared, nor should we jump to wild conclusions about a single bone.

There are none so blind as they that will not see.

The truth is plain, abundant and growing by leaps and bounds every year. You just have to admit to it's existence. It's called being honest.

No, humans didn't evolve "from apes," but apes and humans do share a recent (in in the timescale of life on Earth) common ancestor, the Australopithicenes. The animals that would one day become modern apes split from the animals that would one day become humans a couple of million years ago.

The scientific evidence for this is multidisciplinary and overwhelming(and that's really too weak a word for it).

Why are you feeling so threatened by simple scientific facts?

Are you also threatened to learn that lightning, thunder, earthquakes, etc., are natural?

You accept as a fact that germs, not evil spirits, cause illness, right? That Earth orbits the Sun? That the stars are light-years distant and that Mars is a planet, and not a God?

Why then can't you also accept the equally (if not moreso) proven reality that life on Earth evolves through random mutation and natural selection?

WHY? Why would God do it that way when he is OBVIOUSLY quite capable creating things directly?

Did he not create fish and bread to feed a mutitude,

Did he not raise the dead?

Did he not exhibit many many times his full control over the natural world even the objects of the universe?

So, Why?

Simply because it is ALL conjecture,

there is no proof you one species can change into another,

it must all be supposed, it MUST all be may haves, could haves, possibilities,

there is no real proof,

but that which is assumed and built around made-up stories.


There is NO proof that a

dog is can ever be anything but a dog,

or that a bird can became something else other than a bird,

or a fly is not always a fly no matter how hard in lab conditions you try to get it to mutate.


Minor Adaptation to an environment is NOT same changing into another species.


And worse you ignore all the PROOF of creatures not changing, inspite of existing for 10's of million of years some even into the hundreds of millions of years,


like sharks,

and crocks,

pteradons,

the many many dinosaurs that lived for millions and millions of years unchanged,

the coelcanth,

the many insects and plant life, and so on.


There could be other explainations for the old fossils,

explainations that we have not even thought of yet.


So let's stop ASSUMING.

To Geo PhD,

You are partly correct. The evidence in favor of evolution IS overwhelming.

You are wrong that science in general, and evolution in particular, say nothing about god. They do. They always have. Religionists have not liked what science tells us, but that doesn't mean science has been silent on theological, metaphysical, and "religious" questions. Evolution (The Origin of Species) supplanted the theological and religious explanations for the origins of species. Darwin was explicitly arguing against the idea that the various species of life were "created" the way we see them "in the wild." That is why his "theory" rocked the religious world.

As for LDS, THIS First Presidency has issued no statements about evolution. But PAST Church leaders have been explicit and WRONG: Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund - the First Presidency in 1909. In 1959, President McKay had to backpeddle: "Neither 'Man, His Origin and Destiny' by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor 'Mormon Doctrine' by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church." - because these took foolish stances against evolution. Don't forget the professors who were fired from BYU for teaching evolution in 1911.

Part 1 of 2:

The evidence in favor of evolution IS overwhelming?

Yet you mention none,

because there is none that can not be qualifed as an assumption, a supposing, or something just suggesting a possibility.

And most of it is simply interepreted as supporting evolution, because that's how they chose to interpret it,

story telling at its finest,

where theory drives the interpretation of the evidence,

rather than the correct scientific way of letting the evidence lead one to a theory.

This story is a prime example:

they find some fossil, INSTANLTY ASSUME it MAY be some ancestor of man,

because they can make their imaginary tree of life work better,

and when it doesn't fit they will SUPPOSE it is a dead branch,

viola! their made up story (theory) remains intact.


NOW can see how ridiculous it all is!