Not so much scientific knowledge, just evolution. It threatens most religions throughout the world, and politicians tend to be religious. Politics and religion.. yep, there you go.

It just shows how completely asinine and tone deaf some of the authors here at Neatorama can be.

What could have been an interesting and historically curious post was sidelined by yayo's amateurish attempt at politicizing the post.

And I'm the guy who has spent the entire thread trying to offer a semi-articulate defense of evolution and science.

Careless posts like this, and the ignorant, overly reactive magical thinkers they enrage make my daily internet fix a lot more stressful.

Mitochondrial DNA does have function - mutations in mitochondrial DNA lead to several diseases such as Kearns-Sayre Syndrome.

That femur is not human. I'm not a biologist but it's clearly not human because it's a fab haha:
http://www.mtblanco.com/html/giant_tale.html

I can't tell you a word about IMAX history because it's clear that there's a wrong word in the begining: "Censorship"

Polystrate fossils are singularities among the whole fossil record. The same way as a single dinosaur being fossilized from the billions and billions ever on earth is a singularity, there must be some environment conditions for it to happen. The fossil record is uncomplete because of that... I mean that you can't take as the truth that some hand put those bones in stone and scattered them around because... It's a tale and not a reason ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

And I'll stop reading those fairy tales because it's ten past mid night and I wake up at 6 ^^

And... So... ¡¡Don Quijote existed!!

It's true! it's wrote in a book!

It's the same argument of those products with a big star reading "As seen on tv!"

"With walk on water action, As seen on the bible!!" haha ^g^

Only that Mitochondrial DNA doesn't serve any purpose in cellular processes and it is theorized to be a four billion year left over from early single-cell evolution.

But forget your cells for a minute. Have you ever had your appendix removed or known someone who has? Why would an intelligent designer create such a malformed organ for which the only apparent function is to occasionally blow up and kill us? And don't even get me started about cetaceans and their hip bones...

^^^^But science is accessible to anyone with access to a library, the internet, or a college campus. And anyone can contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. You don't have to be a high priest, a disciple, or chosen to transcribe mysterious golden plates (which are conveniently taken away) by an angel.

"Science constantly contradicts itself over and over."

^^^ Science has an error-correcting mechanism which is unique in all of human knowledge. It is under continual refinement, in a way that myth and superstition is not. Einstein's theories replaced Newtons. Newton corrected assumptions by Galileo. Brahe refined Copernicus' notion of the heliocentric solar system. Copernicus tossed out Ptolemy and Aristotle's model of the universe... and so on.

In so far as the concept of "truth" can be grasped by the human mind, science gets us much more closer to it than any system of knowledge which previously claimed to do so...

We know that the earth goes round the sun despite what the bible says because our perspective is fundamentally different than the earthly authors of the bible who lived thousands of years ago. This is perhaps the best example of science getting closer to the "truth" than myth that I can think of...

"It’s not a solid structure to base ones beliefs on."

^^^^ Indeed, I'm fond of saying that I don't have beliefs, I have well reasoned opinions.

Science does change (it is refined and corrected over time) and for some people (often religious-types who have a strange obsession with getting to some sort of universal "truth") this causes them to be uneasy.

It seems that some people need to grasp onto and support themselves with what they consider to be a fundamental "truth". Notions like "God is Good, he loves me and my family, he created everything" are very strong statements about the nature of reality. By comparison science never makes such black and white statements and I can understand why people are uneasy with a system which is so obviously open to revision by anyone willing to put in the time and research.

The irony is of course that in locking themselves into such a ridged interpretation of "truth" these people wind up ultimately believing in a form of reality which is very likely false.

^^^ By this line of reasoning, where did God come from, or rather, who or what created God? What existed before God? Did another, bigger, more powerful God created the current God which so many of us seem so familiar with?

Life origins is an area of science which is still undergoing much research and theorizing. What's increasingly clear is that the supernatural (magic, God, whatever) probably didn't play a role in the start of life on earth. The origin of life can probably be articulated using natural phenomenon, rather than relying upon Zeus, or God, or Allah, or the Tooth Fairy.

Everywhere we look in nature we don't find evidence of a creator, rather we find that natural processes, when allowed to run their course over billions of years can produce things (like us) which are capable of find other things (namely themselves) pretty amazing.

Few places is the lack of evidence for a creator more evident that in the science of microbiology. The interior of cells are really messy, obviously cobbled together in a hap hazard way which no omniscient engineer would be proud of. Mitochondrial DNA is perhaps the most glaring example I can think of.

As humans we often become entangled in language. We seem to divide the world into easily (to us) identifiable bits. Something is either alive or it is not. As intelligent beings we have a conscious notion of creating things (cars, computers, bad tv shows) from other components and for some reason we try to lay this human quality (of creation) on nature in the form of Gods or Devils. We have the feeling that because we are here, something must have placed us here. We feel self-important and the notion of life on our planet being caused by a series of chances seems insulting on a personal level.

"Life" is a messy word and it doesn't always apply across the board to everything we encounter. Are proteins alive? Would you say that a virus is living? Where do you want the cut off to be? Plutonium is a natural element which changes over time (it decays into uranium) - would you say that it is alive? Hobbs said that humans were "matter in motion" - perhaps we're too caught up on what possess these ill defined characters of "life" and what doesn't?

^^^ If the person who asked this question is genuinely seeking answers then I invite them to take some college level biology classes.

Evolution and its underlying principles are hard to understand because like much of science they are counter intuitive to both human experience and the "just-so" stories that we pass down from one generation to the next in the form of creation myths.

In absence of detailed observation and experiment the earth seems uniquely tailored for human beings, the sky (or "heavens") seem focused on the earth (and by extension, man) as the sole supreme inhabitant of the universe. It would be extraordinary for humans not to have dreamed up their own human-specific creation myths over the previous thousands of years and even more amazing for those beliefs to be easily discarded within just a few generations after Darwin...

Understanding science (whether its biology, astronomy, geology, etc.) takes work in the form of lengthy study and its not always fun. The beauty of science though is that anyone, with enough study, can understand it all.

What I see above are comments from people (some well meaning, some not) who are technically ignorant (I'm not saying they are dumb) of the underlying principles involved in evolution.

Getting back to the poster who asked about monkeys and "single cell organisms" though... More than likely this person has already made up their mind about evolution and is using tired and uninformed arguments from religious creationists in an effort to shore up their own belief system. I challenge this person to put their money where their mouth is and enroll in college level biology classes... you'll be surprised just how much we know about biology and evolution.

now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
"Proteins are large organic compounds made of amino acids..."

I mean that once we've got rum and cola we've got Cubalibre. hahaha!

Those reactions are posible in nature without the hand of a man. Those reactions are happening everyday everywhere ^^.

You must see the things from a neutral point of view and learn only from empirical facts.

btw... do you chat with that Jehovah in that talkorigins forum? because I've read that hottie19 and JehovahUrSavior are not real hottie nor savior at all... They are just prea... I mean... Some fat ugly boys trying to make a foul of you...

Oh, brother.

~He has an opinion, not a fact.~

Miller - In the 1950s, Urey theorized that the early atmosphere of the Earth was probably like the atmosphere now present on Jupiter --i.e., rich in ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Miller, working in his laboratory at the University of Chicago, demonstrated that when exposed to an energy source such as ultraviolet radiation, these compounds and water can react to produce amino acids essential for the formation of living matter. However, the early atmosphere of the Earth is no longer believed to have had this composition.

~Did you read that last part?~

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Oparin

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller

Everything did not started from a single cell organism but with a conjunction of materials, I mean that a cell can't be created by a thunderbolt as you may think. A cell is the joint of a lot of materials and single cell "entities" such as Golgi apparatus.

Everything started with a protein.

Monkeys DID in fact evolve, the selection and evolution can't stop. You may think that they did not evolve but they're perfectly addapted to their environment... why should they have some those long strong arms to climb up trees? We share common ancestors but they're not like them at all.

“In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.”

"Theory" means more than "guess" or "hunch". Look it up. To debate evolution's factual status by pointing out that it is referred to as a theory doesn't just display ignorance of evolution, but also ignorance of dictionaries.

Semantics are important. And theories are just 'THEORIES' even when 'GENERALLY' accepted as being true. Science uses theories becuase it makes things easier to understand and explain, but a theory is a theory. A LAW is a LAW.

I agree that evolution makes sense and is logical explaination of how plants and animals become plants and animals. But I am a stickler for semantics and theories are theories.

I don't mix my political thoughts with this science facts. Those are the words of a fanatic.

"In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

Link