Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as “just a theory” in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation. What Darwin did for biology is on par with what Newton did for physics — and mathematics plays an important role in both theories.


Evolution has produced wonderful animals, like this Philippine tarsier. Image mtoz, CC BY-SA 2.0.

If you look up the meaning of the word “theory” in the dictionary, it is described as being a synonym for words like “proposition”, “hypothesis”, or even “speculation”. In contrast, a scientific theory is an established body of knowledge about a certain subject, supported by observable facts, repeatable experiments, and logical reasoning. A theory in science is a formal explanation of some aspect of the natural world, tested and verified by careful observation and experimentation. A good theory is one that also produces accurate and useful predictions.

As an example, let’s consider gravitation.


In the 17th century, Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation, which explains the motions of objects under each other’s gravitational influence. Newton’s law can be used to predict the movements of the planets around the Sun, and NASA has used this same law to successfully land people on the Moon and send space probes to the outer edges of the solar system.

By the beginning of the 20th century, however, it had become clear that Newton’s law did not hold up under all circumstances. When it comes to planets or falling apples, Newton’s theory of gravitation is perfectly adequate. But when objects move at velocities close to the speed of light, for example, this theory does not produce accurate predictions anymore. Albert Einstein extended Newton’s law with his general theory of relativity, which accounted for these discrepancies.


Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727).

During the 1960s, physicist Peter Higgs and others postulated the existence of an elementary particle, now known as the Higgs boson, that would explain why some elementary particles have mass. Mass is of course directly related to gravity: both Newton and Einstein tell us that it’s massive bodies which exert a gravitational pull. Thus, a prediction from particle physics provided a deeper insight into the workings of gravity. The postulation of the Higgs boson was purely based on mathematical reasoning, as there was then no way of actually observing such a particle. However, just a few years ago, CERN announced that they had confirmed this prediction with their multi-million dollar particle collider.

The theory of gravitation is a well-established scientific theory, supported by observational and experimental evidence. It explains something about the natural world, and can be directly applied to obtain useful results. Over the years, the theory has been extended and refined (as part of the usual scientific process), but the basic ideas and principles have withstood the test of time.

Now let’s have a look at evolution.


In the 19th century, Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution by natural selection. The fact that species change (evolve) over time was not new, as this was already well accepted among Darwin’s scientific contemporaries. However, what Darwin provided was a new and logical explanation of how this process of evolution happens.


Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882).

Offspring inherit their characteristics from their parents, but with small (and mostly random) variations. However, most organisms have far more than one offspring, resulting in competition for resources and healthy mates among individuals between and within species. This, in turn, gives rise to a natural selection process where, on average, individuals with advantageous variations (making them more likely to survive and secure a healthy mate) will have more offspring than others. This way, such advantageous variations are passed on to subsequent generations more often — thus spreading through the population — than disadvantageous variations, which are “weeded out”. Over long time spans, the accumulation of such adaptations can eventually result in a speciation event, for example when a population of related organisms splits into two geographically isolated ones, which subsequently evolve in different directions.

Yet Darwin and many biologists after him could not explain how exactly organisms inherit their characteristics from their parents. Darwin’s insights were based on observing and comparing actual organisms in nature (including fossils), and then deducing general principles of their evolution that are logically consistent with these observations.

Darwin’s theory of evolution, however, still fell short in certain aspects. For example, it did not provide any quantitative predictions. During the first half of the 20th century, though, the mathematical theory of population genetics was developed. This theory provides accurate predictions about, for example, how fast a new variation (genetic mutation) will spread through a population. Soon after, Darwin’s theory and population genetics were married into what is known as the new evolutionary synthesis (or modern synthesis).

In 1944, the physicist Erwin Schrödinger published his book What is life?, in which he postulated the existence of a certain kind of molecule, referring to it as an aperiodic crystal, that would form the basis of genetics, which is directly related to inheritance. Thus, a prediction about chemistry provided a deeper insight into the workings of evolution. Schrödinger’s postulation was purely based on logical reasoning, as he had no means of actually observing the structure of such a molecule. In 1953, however, his prediction was confirmed with the discovery of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. This discovery eventually led to cracking the genetic code.

A crayfish

Being bright blue might help you secure a mate and spread your genes.

These days, evolutionary theory is used in many practical applications. For example, when a new virus appears somewhere in, say, Asia, scientists use phylogenetic and population genetics models to predict how this virus might evolve, so they can try to create the most effective vaccine by the time the virus reaches Europe or the US (phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary history). Mathematics plays an essential role here, without which these predictions could not be made.

Also, evolution-based methods are used in the laboratory to find better medicines for various illnesses, or in computer programs to find good solutions to difficult optimisation problems. And environmental policies are increasingly based on evolutionary (in particular phylogenetic) analyses to make decisions about species preservation efforts, to name just a few.

The theory of evolution is a well-established scientific theory, supported by observational and experimental evidence. It explains something about the natural world, and can be directly applied to obtain useful results. Over the years, the theory has been (and still is being) extended and refined, but the basic ideas and principles have withstood the test of time.

Of course the above story is only a brief summary, with many of the finer details and contributing scientists left out. But note the striking similarities between the theories of gravitation and evolution, both in terms of their development over time as well as their practical applicability. Evolution clearly is not “just a hypothesis”. It is as much a valid scientific theory as the theory of gravitation. And nobody in their right mind would claim that gravity is not real, or that Newton was wrong. So why would anyone claim that evolution is not real, or that Darwin was wrong?

The maths of phylogenetics

As mentioned above, the idea of evolution (as in “change over time”) was already accepted among many biologists in Darwin’s time. But the way most scientists thought of evolution was in terms of independent lineages. In other words, horses evolve, but remain horses. And the same for tulips, pigeons, herrings, or any other species out there.

However, one of Darwin’s great insights was that evolution is a branching process. In other words, a species can change and diversify to such an extend that it eventually splits into two species (for instance due to geographic separation), each of which then continues to evolve on its own. For example, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestral ape species that lived some 6-7 million years ago, and all currently living bird species have their common ancestry within a group of dinosaurs known as theropoda which lived during the Jurassic period (145-200 million years ago).

As a consequence, evolution can be depicted as a tree, where currently living species (the leaves of the tree) are connected by branches via their common ancestors. The earliest common ancestor to all other species forms the rootof the tree. Such an evolutionary tree is often referred to as a phylogenetic tree. One of the first phylogenetic trees ever drawn was by Darwin himself in one of his notebooks from 1837.

three trees

Darwin’s first sketch of a (hypothetical) phylogenetic tree (1837).

One big problem with reconstructing phylogenetic trees, however, is that there are many ways in which such a tree could be drawn, even though only one of them can be the “true tree”, depicting the correct evolutionary relationships between a group of species. For example, for the three species man, ape, and dog, a phylogenetic tree can be drawn in three different ways (note that phylogenetic trees are often drawn upside down, i.e., with the root at the top):

three trees

The three possible ways of drawing a phylogenetic tree on three species.

In this case it is clear that only the tree on the right can be the correct one, as we know that man and ape are evolutionary more closely related to each other (i.e., they share a more recent common ancestor) than either of them is to dog. But for five species the number of possible trees is already more than a hundred, and for ten species it is more than 30 million!

In general, for $n$ species there are

\[ (2n-3)!! = (2n-3) \times (2n-5) \times (2n-7) \times ... \times 3 \times 1 \]

possible (rooted) binary trees (see here to see the calculation). The expression above is called a double factorial, you can find out more here. So, the problem is how to decide which one of these many possible trees on a given number of species is actually the correct one.


Horses don’t necessarily always stay horses.

The easiest (and fastest) way to construct a phylogenetic tree is to simply calculate distances between pairs of species. For example, given genetic data such as DNA sequences, the distance between two species can be calculated as the number of nucleotide sites in their respective DNA sequences where they differ. This results in a tree where the species with the shortest distances between them share the most recent common ancestors (such as man and ape above). However, this method assumes that mutations (i.e., evolutionary changes) happen with a fixed probability over time and across the DNA sequence. Unfortunately this is too simplistic of an assumption, and can easily result in a wrong tree.

Instead, sophisticated probabilistic models of how evolution happens are used, including the possibility that mutations can happen with different probabilities over time and space. Maximum likelihood methods are then used to estimate the model parameters and to evaluate how accurately a given phylogenetic tree fits the actual (genetic) data. Finally, given that we cannot exhaustively evaluate all possible trees, heuristic optimisation methods are used to try and find a tree that is reasonably accurate. Mathematicians and computer scientists are currently still working on improving these methods, especially given the ever increasing availability of genetic data.

Another difficult issue is that evolution cannot always be depicted as a tree in which each species is connected to exactly one ancestor. For example, some plant species have evolved through hybridisation, in which the genetic material of two different ancestral species is combined into one descendant species. Also, many bacteria, even from different species, regularly exchange genetic material directly (called horizontal gene transfer), independent of any reproduction. These cases are known as reticulate events, and cannot be captured by a proper tree structure. Instead, the more general concept of a phylogenetic network is required, which is also a topic of active research.

The ultimate goal of phylogenetics is to have a complete Tree of Life containing all known species and their ancestral (evolutionary) relationships. This would connect all species, current and past, through their individual but converging ancestral lineages back to the common ancestor of all life on Earth. As Darwin wrote at the end of his famous book: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” It seems that mathematics can make a significant contribution to this grand view of life.

Haeckel's tree

An English version of Ernst Haeckel’s tree from the The Evolution of Man.

This article originally appeared in Plus Magazine.

Published On: June 26, 2017

Wim Hordijk

Wim Hordijk

Wim Hordijk is an independent and interdisciplinary scientist interested in the origin and evolution of life. After spending several formative years as a graduate student at the Santa Fe Institute, and earning a PhD in computer science from the University of New Mexico, USA, Wim has worked on many research and computing projects at different universities and research institutes all over the world. A wandering scientist by choice, he has collaborated with biologists, physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, chemists, and also an archaeologist. He currently holds a senior fellowship at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Klosterneuburg, Austria.

Wim is also an enthusiastic popular science writer, with contributions to (among others) The Scientist, Plus magazine, and TVOL. You can follow his research and writings on Twitter (@WanderingWim) or on his personal website at www.WorldWideWanderings.net


  • ishi crew says:

    Nice article. I have studied some of the mathematics of evolution, including some combinatorics (though forgot alot of the details of derivations) . I think evolutionary trees actually need loops, which makes the math even much more difficult. Because of that sometimes one looks for things like ‘limit theorems’ as in statistical physics, and look for global patterns and ignore some of the details.

  • Clay Farris Naff says:

    Much appreciated. I’d only add that evolutionary theory is more firmly seated than gravitational theory, because we know of serious problems with general relativity (GR) in extreme environments (very small or very massive) that lead to its breakdown, but — despite what you might read in creationist literature — there are no similar crises in evolutionary theory. The abiogenesis problem remains unsolved, but just as the universe is an assumption for GR, life’s a given for evolutionary theory.

  • Brian says:

    How do people still believe in evolution in this time. There is not 1 spec of evidence it happens. People need to start recognizing the difference in adaptation and evolution. Science can not prove evolution, there has been and never will be any 100% fact on it because for this to happen one must first see it happen for it to be real. There for there is not one spec of evidence of this, just theories of it. Man did not evolve from apes or monkeys, there is no proof. yes I get DNA this is no proof. If we did then why has it stopped, why has there in all the thousands of years man has been here has it not happened again. One would think if evolution is real it would not just stop at this point or there, it is not a intelligent force that pick when and who can evolve and when it would stop. why has man there for not evolved more, why are we (man kind) then the only intelligent life on earth. There is no waiting list or line for any life to wait it’s turn. But please do not quote or show me theories, show me 100% proof all live forms on this planet started from 1 single cell organism that come from the water on to land and evolved thousands of times to create all the animals and humans is not true. If so we would have something in our DNA that would tie us to everything living and breathing. Now adaptation can be seen by the eye and in a life span of 1 person. But at no time in history as evolution ever been seen or proven.

    • Gus Brown says:

      Ah, but you claim that humans evolved from apes or monkeys, when in fact, apes and monkeys evolved from a common primate ancestor that they and humans share. Also, you’re wrong that evolution is not proven. Adaptation is one of the many processes involved with evolution. In the words of Wikipedia, evolution is “change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction” and the dictionary characterizes adaptation as “a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.” Funny how there’s so many similar terms and phrases used in the two definitions, huh? That’s because adaptation is part of evolution. Also, your claim that evolution has stopped is wrong. It’s not stopped. Evolution is extremely slow. Why do you think it took roughly 3.5 billion years for us to evolve in the first place. And there is other, intelligent life on Earth. There’s animals. Animals communicate through body language and noises, but just because they don’t speak English or a human language doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent. They have feelings. They love. They mourn their dead. They’re protective of our young.
      Another thing. Evolution has been documented in many ways. For example, the peppered moth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
      You can’t say that wasn’t evolution, when the title of the article is “Peppered moth evolution.”

      • Timmy says:

        All you naysayers should read a book for once. Evolution is real, and there’s plenty of evidence.

        • Nathan says:

          Please show one piece of evidence, one link. Surely there must be a line of evolved creatures that shows small changes along the line to the end product. Yet, you want people to believe we evolved from a single cell to a human being by chucking in a fish, and a snake or monkey or a dog and saying, ‘theres your links’. Obviously intelligence wasn’t guaranteed in all end products.

      • Arthur says:

        So if I wrote an article and named it, peppered moth designed and built by aliens, that would make it true?

      • Greg says:

        if humans evolved from primates why dont we see the inbetween happening rn

        • TD says:

          I’ve asked the same question with no REAL explanation. Where the cat-dogs and that’ll the monkey-men?Love to understand how there is a hyper jump from one species to another. Why are there still monkeys? Why is there bald people if we can will ourselves to change? How do we know that the dog or the cat isn’t happy being what they are.
          If everything started 4.6 billion years ago, how did it start? It’s okay if some want to believe everything came from nothing, but it should be okay for those who believe that it came from something. Something programming all the codes and adding up all the numbers.
          If you have a reason HOW there’s not a decillion evolving being walking around our planet, please explain. Thanks.

          • Salazar says:

            Why would there be cat-dogs? Will ourselves to change? How foolish you are, will and happiness never had anything to do with it. Evolution happens when a species needs to change, and ONLY when it needs to change, and that change happens slowly over the course of generations. Penguins can swim in frigid water and not fly? Simple, millions of years ago an ancestor of penguins started living in the cold southern oceans and, over the course of generations, began being born with rounder and rounder bodies and smaller wings to better swim, they lost the ability to fly because they have no need to fly since they get their food from underwater. Why is there bald people? Because people started wearing clothes that kept us warm, our ancestors had hairy bodies to keep warm but since we began wearing clothes we started losing hair since we had no need for hair, and some people wear hats so their hair falls off since their bodies don’t need it to keep warm. Simple, really.

      • Paul Robinson says:

        We also know far more problems with evolution.

        So much so that the entire industry was demolished by leaders saying things like ” nobody know how it works” and ” sold a bill of goods” in a conference on Evolution reported by NY T science writer Mazure.

        Evolution is an impossibility based on EVIDENCE

        The standard evolutionary argument is a bait and switch deception. Adaptation does NOT imply the possibility of evolution.

        Darwin’s Beagle captain Fitzroy unlike Darwin was a trained scientist who observed the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion.

        Evolution CANNOT be proven. It fails the definition of SCIENCE.
        Sorry the peppered moth myth was a fraud.

        Like many evolutionary “facts”

      • william conway says:

        You claim evolution happens slowly over thousands of generations. Well that’s convenient for you, or is it? Fruit flies live very short life spans and are studied by evolution enthusiasts exhaustively, hundreds of thousands of generaton have been observed and there has been no evolution, no change, no new information. Evolution is a fantasy written by a low I.Q. failure and propogated by successively lower I.Q. zealots and fascist hacks who don’t want to consider any other possibilities besides their religiosity of evolution.

      • Dave says:

        You are confusing evolution with variation. Evolution needs new genetic information. Variation sorts existing information.
        Only variation has been observed.
        Adding new genetic information has never been observed.
        And it is completely mathematically impossible.

    • Gus Brown says:

      And to add on, it wasn’t a single-celled organism that came out of the water onto land.it was the first amphibian, that evolved from fish, that evolved from multi-celled organisms, that evolved from single celled organisms.

    • Tye says:

      You take such a short view to existence one that time is not controlled by. That is the gorilla in the room You cannot look at 1,000, 5,000 or even 10,000 year review to try to find evidence of evolution. That’s like sitting for an hour watching your hair grow. You won’t see it happening but unless uou are bald. Rest assured it is occurring. To see the evolutionary evidence of which you speak. You have to look out 100,000s to 1,000,000s of years because that’s how slowly evolution occurrs. One dog like animal returned back to the ocean over 60 million years ago to become all sea mamals: whales. Dolphins, etc. They know this because they have gound skeletsl remains that link the animals together. In an infinitesimal way this can potentially be seen happening again with wolves of British Columbia. There is s great documentary on this avsilable on Amazon prime. Stop thinking so small. If uou are not so hardened to your opinion thrmen you may be able to begin to understand. If not. Then I’m not sure why you would even read the article.


      • John says:

        Good point!

        The fossil records within the geological column and the mapping of the animal and human genome is evidence enough for evolution. Genesis by evolution over time is still a genesis and equally amazing.

  • John B. Andelin says:

    Evolution contradicts science. Despite all the smokescreens that have been presented in the attempt to valiate evolution, no one has even proposed a plausible mechanism whereby organisms can increase in genetic information over time. All we have is the one-size-fits all dogma “mutations plus natural selection plus time”… Mutations cannot create novel genetic information. That is the law that should be compared to gravity.

  • Sarah loheni says:

    I’ve recently read an article saying that DNA proves that humans, animals etc came from two of a kind and didn’t evolve from nothing. Also why are organisms degrading instead of becoming more complex? (Like they used to, huh?) But seriously dude, if you believe in evolution why don’t you try shaking a box full of lego and see if you end up with a lego house.

  • Daniel says:

    You say it is a shame that evolution is always downplayed as a ‘theory’ yet there is not a spec of evidence that evolution ever happened. Actually from what I heard there is more evidence against evolution than for it.

  • Ezequiel Dominguez says:

    You haven’t answered anyone’s question? Not Brian’s or anyone elses. Show the article science uses to show duplication of ANY organism changing into a species, any species, fish or otherwise. Show me proof of one species turning into another species for adaptation. Let me give you a hint, THERE ISN’T ANY, because it has NEVER happened and never will. Here is something we have observed and see every day, intelleget being made something with a purpose and that something evolves, like windows 95 becomes Windows 2000 and so on, but it first took an intellegent being to create Windows 95 and it’s hardware and tell it what to do, and how to proform. When windows 2000 came out the old hardware was thown away for new hardware, which also took an intellegent geing to create. Can you see the observable connection here, because I or any intelligent human hasn’t seen your obeservable proof of mutation from one Man to Ape to dog or anything else like this. There is NO proof of a ¨common primate ancestor¨ except for what we have to take by Faith because you told us so.

    • Ezequiel Dominguez says:

      And please don’t give examples of moths or squirrels changing into another moth or squirrel we need something like snake becomes horse, Ape becomes Human, Monkey became Dog and so on. But I know what you’ll say, “that takes millions if not billions of years”, as if that amount of time hasn’t already passed. I’ve heard it before it before. Give us something real, something we haven’t heard.

  • IdPnSD says:

    “…scientific theory is an established body of knowledge about a certain subject, supported by observable facts, repeatable experiments, and logical reasoning.” – Did anybody verify gravity? Do you know that humans can levitate, float in the air, and even can move above the ground on its own? There are many well documented cases on earth for such examples in the literature. The case for Saint Joseph of Cupertino is well known in the west. Scientists usually ignore such examples and thereby fail to find the truth. For more details take a look at https://www.academia.edu/38590496/A_COMPARISON_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE_WITH_VEDIC_SCIENCE

  • Christopher Windes says:

    What? Seriously, what? This thing reads like a C+ 11th grade essay. Until the last 600 words, which read like a plagiarized 9th grade essay. Just knowing that this was published by an editor that accepted the title as written has drained the last dregs of my waning hope for humanity. It was difficult to get past that, but as I read on, there seemed to be an extremely unmerited confidence in this writer that this was somehow new, revelatory information. Was this lifted from the op ed section of my HS science club circular?

  • Justin says:

    This article is good until it hits phylogenetics. This article gives good evidential support for micro-evolution (referred to as linear evolution), but completely lacks any evidence for macro-evolution and just posits it’s legitimacy. A fiddler crab and a shore crab are both crabs, but different species of crabs. This article makes the mistake of defining differing species being a dog and a horse (and people). These are two totally different concepts in biology. The fiddler crab and shore crab are two different species, but asserting that horses and dogs are two different species, while kind of correct, is also very wrong. This article is ignoring genus, family, and so on in its assertions, and confuses terms often. It says different species are created by natural selection (which is true for explaining the differences between the shore and fiddler crab), but this is not a strongly supported theory regarding a common ancestor for any biological life. The statement “natural selection has caused many species to evolve” is true. It is a major logical leap to then apply that to entire genuses and families without anymore evidence presented. Due to the wrongly used terms and leaps in logic, this article only helps argue for micro evolution. For macro, it only basically says “it’s true.” It gives no evidence for macro evolution. I’m not arguing whether macro evolution is true or not, just that this article would be wholly unhelpful in learning if it is or not. There’s huge logical leaps here. Just a warning for any who read it.

  • Dianne says:

    Where is the proof of half evolved animals turning into humans ? Apes then humans,..big jump! How can the miracle of birth be explained? Male and female had to evolve at the same time, whilst reproducing? Everything needs a designer and maker, ridiculous to say otherwise. Chuck a pile of bricks, some pipes & bits of wood in a field & expect a shed to appear after a few million years I think not, so how much more complex are living, reasoning humans with a conscience unlike animals who act on instinct.. no, the reason mist people believe in evolution is they can’t acknowledge a superior being, or feel beholden to a Creator.

  • John Andelin says:

    The peppered moth story is not evolution.

  • Patrick says:

    Fairy tales for atheists. This isn’t science.

  • Domenic says:

    The big question is, “what is the origin of life?” You must agree Everything did not come from Nothing. And a big bang cannot create order out of chaos. No one or organization has answered those statements with any scientific proof.

    Now here is something worth discussing. What is the nature of the philosophy that “survival of the fittest”/evolution produces? What absolute standard does evolution produce for social order, hope, human value? At the very least we can say evolution produce an a-moral set of codes; redefined morality to accomplish your goal of survival; eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. Evolution defines YOU as an evolved animal! We observe animal behavior every day. It is worth noting that it is not in the power of the scientific community to judge a spirit realm since it is not observable, measurable, see-able, touchable, taste-able, repeatable. That’s how science works.

    It might be worthy to recognize that humans have value, a purpose, are sacrificial for family and community order, and a higher well designed plan for harmonious co-existence. We have a moral code made up of absolutes that are unchangeable, incontrovertible principles which come from a greater mind than humans offer. Think about it next time you consider stealing from, coveting property, or killing your neighbor. You are more than an animal. There is a plan, purpose and peace specifically designed for you. Believe it even if you can’t see it.

  • Derek Fullum says:

    There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is legitimate, we see it happen. But you cannot say that just because micro-evolution is legitimate that macro-evolution also has to be. That’s just poor reasoning. I can see natural selection working out. I mean in about 500 years selective breeding has created all of the dog breeds that we have now. Natural selection is the same process but slower because nature is doing the selecting and not an intelligent person. But one thing that I see with selective breeding and natural selection is that with each new “breed” genetic information is lost. The medium haired dog population that had both long hair genes and short hair genes had all the long hair genes selectively bred out of them by nature when that population found itself living in the desert. That is also why if you constantly bred english bulldogs with english bulldogs you will never get one that has a long muzzle because that genetic information has been lost. This is the way micro- evolution or natural selection works. So in working from a unicellular common ancestor, where did all the genetic information that we see today come from? Face it, real evolution is actually de-evolution. And macro-evolution is just an outdated theory that is only held because people refuse to consider the alternatives. (Also mutations cannot create new genetic information that leads to a new more complex organism. Most of the time mutations are extremely harmful).

  • Kyle Turrentine says:

    Whether or not evolution is real or false (in my case I don’t believe in it) but the truth behind all scientific discoveries is having an open mind. Saying that creationism is fake. Or that evolution is fake is going against the entire scientific world. Stuff like this just shows how blind humans can be. If we are going to make a difference we’ve got to be better and get different perspectives.

  • Jim Thinnsen says:

    The Fairytale of Evolutionism is garbage and this inept article merely confirms so.. It gives examples of Variation and Adaptation, talks about what the word “theory” means.. Talks about gravity.. Anyone who wants to defend the Mindless MYO Mud to man myth of Evolutionism against me will lose and lose badly.. There is only ONE reason why the fairytale of Evolutionism is still in the textbooks and it has ZERO to do with scientific rigor….

    “Darwin made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled Atheist” Richard Dawkins


  • Steve says:

    Wikipedia states ” The scientific theory of evolution is greatly dependent on point mutations in cells. The theory explains the diversity and history of living organisms on Earth. In relation to point mutations, it states that beneficial mutations allow the organism to thrive and reproduce, thereby passing its positively affected mutated genes on to the next generation. On the other hand, harmful mutations cause the organism to die or be less likely to reproduce in a phenomenon known as natural selection. ”

    Where evolution fails is in it’s inability to explain just how fast phenotype changes occur throughout the entire genome. We are finding new species at a near daily rate and we don’t find them all.

    So where does this extreme adaptability come from if it’s not preprogrammed?

    Naturalism cannot supply the answer!

    It won’t accept a design solution and it can’t conceive of a Designer.

    This self imposed limit is it’s biggest shortfall.

    Good day!

  • Jackson Beasley says:

    God created us please don’t believe this, praise Jesus Christ

  • John Andelin says:

    This article is utter hogwash. The theory of gravity is validated by mathematics. Evolution is nothing beyond metaphysical-based conjecture.

  • Nathan says:

    I looked up this site, to see if anyone could deliver a single piece of evidence. NOT ONE!
    Science is a great thing, please don’t make yourself look anymore foolish by arguing this any further.
    One simple link, one piece of evidence, surely in all the time of the earths existence there’s something you can prove to me.
    No, didn’t think so!
    FOOLS! 😂😂

  • all4vaping says:

    There are sizeable differences in views about evolution between those with more and less general knowledge about science. About three-quarters (76%) of those with more science knowledge say that humans have evolved, compared with 54% among those with less science knowledge.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.