Scientists Discover Musical Complexity in Birds That ‘Utterly Defies Evolutionary Predictions’

birdScientists have found that many birds exhibit strikingly human-like musical principles in their songs—a revelation that may be difficult for evolutionists to explain.

In a paper published in “Royal Society Open Science,” an international team of researchers share their findings from a thorough analysis of bird songs. The scientists focused on the singing performances of Australian pied butcherbirds, whose songs are so complex and skillful that even composers have taken notice.

“Their songs are ideal for studying regularity across levels of song structure because song units (notes, phrases) are both complex and easy to identify,” the scientists wrote in their report. “Butcherbird vocalizations can be similar in sound to a piping flute, a cornet or an organ and also have inspired composers (such as Olivier Messiaen), who have referred to timbre, contour, gesture, rhythm, repetition, scales and formal structure as meaningful parameters of butcherbird vocalizations.”

The scientists were primarily interested in the relationship between repetition and novelty found in the butcherbird songs. This balance between repetition and variation is essential to most musical compositions, because it helps the music avoid habituation or overload.

“[B]alance between repetition and variation is highly abundant in music (within styles) and is one of the most-studied universals in music,” the scientists wrote.

Do birds, like humans, strike a balance between predictability and variety in their songs? This is the question the team set out to answer in their study.

“If this hypothesis is correct, then the level of temporal regularity in singing behaviour should be balanced against complexity: individual birds with larger song repertoires should aim at higher temporal regularity, and vice versa,” they noted.

  • Connect with Christian News

To test their hypothesis, the researchers recorded and analyzed hundreds of recordings of bird songs, looking for repeating motifs and musical features. They founds that the birds’ songs do indeed exhibit human-like musical principles.

“[Butcherbirds] balance their performance to keep it in a sweet spot between boredom and confusion,” said co-author Ofer Tchernichovski, a psychologist at Hunter College. “Pied butcherbirds, not unlike jazz musicians, play around with their tunes, balancing repetition and variation.”

The notion that complex musical principles are integral to bird songs was once dismissed as preposterous.

“However, the extensive statistical and objective analysis of the new paper demonstrates that the more complex a bird’s repertoire, the better he or she is at singing in time, rhythmically interacting with other birds much more skillfully than those who know fewer songs,” wrote Dean Maskevich with the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

“Since pied butcherbird songs share so many commonalities with human music, this species could possibly revolutionize the way we think about the core values of music,” stated violinist and biomusicologist Hollis Taylor of Macquarie University.

According to Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), this study “poses a big problem for the evolutionary model of human origins” for several reasons.

“Rhythm and synchronous ability do not provide any apparent selectable advantage for survival,” Tomkins wrote in an online article. “Plus, the intricate neural wiring required for such a complex trait must be engineered in just the right way for it to function. An additional evolutionary anomaly is brought to light by this research: the only other types of creatures with this unique ability are certain species of birds and, in one documented case, an elephant—creatures not directly related to humans on the evolutionary tree.”

Furthermore, the fact that songbirds exhibit “incredibly complex and human-like” musical abilities makes no sense in the evolutionary paradigm, writes Tomkins.

“If evolution were true, one would expect that such behavioral complexity found in humans, developed gradually over millions of years, would be found at a reduced level in humanity’s supposed closest ancestors—the great apes,” he said. “Or if not found in apes, then surely such a complex trait along with its intricate neural wiring would not be present in any other organisms lower on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, especially those with such small brains as birds.”

“But as is typical in the amazing diversity of life on Earth,” Tomkins continued, “we see unimaginable engineered complexity at every level that utterly defies evolutionary predictions and points directly to God’s omnipotent creative powers.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • TwoRutRoad

    Typical religious spin. They leave out the bits that answer the questions they pose.

    From the actual article: This finding
    suggests that such musical virtuosity may signify more than just the
    evolution of a way for birds to establish territorial dominance and
    facilitate mating. It may also provide evidence that musical ability in
    birds
    was a precursor to the evolution of the many dimensions of musical
    ability in humans.

    From the New Jersey Institute of Technology: Rothenberg has added the dimension of music to research connecting the
    living sounds of the natural world to traditions of global rhythmic
    innovation and
    improvisation. His book Thousand Mile Song is about making music with whales, and Bug Music, How Insects Gave Us Rhythm and Noise
    offers the provocative premise that listening to cicadas, as well as
    other
    humming, clicking and thrumming insects, fostered an innate sense of
    musical rhythm and synchronization over the long history of human
    evolution.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      That doesn’t prove what you think it does. 🙂

      • TwoRutRoad

        I said that they leave out the bits that answer the questions they pose. Then I showed what they left out, proving what I said. Like this:

        THEY SAID: ““Rhythm and synchronous ability do not provide any apparent selectable advantage for survival,” Tomkins wrote…”

        I POSTED: “…a way for birds to establish territorial dominance and facilitate mating.”

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Again, that does not mean what you think it does.

          • TwoRutRoad

            I would say that establishing territorial dominance and facilitating mating are advantages for survival of the species. What’s wrong with that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That has nothing to do with your original claim. Do you even know what you’re claiming?

          • TwoRutRoad

            That makes three times you’ve said that without pointing out my error. I’m sure you are enjoying your feeling of superiority, but you are not moving the conversation along with your little hit and run comments. Go play in the street…

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, I have explained it but since you don’t know science it goes right over your head. Sorry to be so blunt, but I don’t know how to make it clearer.

  • american4godncountry✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Evolution is a lie! Man from monkey, its amazing what “scientists” and “liberals” and even the atheists will say to push this lie! Of course if you teach jesus in class your considered a religious nut job. Pathetic.

    • Palsgraf’s Scale

      Not only is evolution true, its observable in some species. Bacteria and fruit flies are the easiest to observe. There isn’t any reason the same principals wouldn’t apply to humans, even in the absence of all the fossil records.

      • american4godncountry✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        I will pray for you and your atheist buddies who want to sin against our lord and savior.

        • TwoRutRoad

          Fine. You pray for us, and we’ll think for you.

        • Palsgraf’s Scale

          Please don’t. I’d rather be punished by your god for my personal choices rather than have a stranger who I disagree on beg for mercy on me. I stand, or fall, on my own beliefs. Save your prayers.

          • american4godncountry✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You atheists have already prevented my children from praying in school, then in public and soon it will be our churches. But now with Trump on the rise, we will take back our country! We will do away with gay marriage once and for thanks to Pence and we will finally bring God back into our nation as our forefathers have wanted! I will pray for you, and if it hurts, then perhaps you should rethink your life decisions.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Your children can pray in school. The school just can’t make all children pray in school. I feel as though you don’t fully understand what the rules are regarding religion and schools…

            It doesn’t hurt so much as annoy. You scream about wanting your beliefs respected, but you are entirely unwilling to respect mine. Why should I extend any courtesy to your beliefs if you can’t bother to do the same? You’re trampling on the most basic concepts of fairness in social interaction here.

          • TwoRutRoad

            So true. They beat us over the head with their crucifix, calling us all kinds of names and telling us we’re gonna burn in hell. Then they demand respect when we take away the crucifix.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You need to stop making up stories. Then again, that’s what evolutionists do.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Ha Ha Ha… Talk about made up stories! Adam and Eve, Noah, Virgin births, dead people rising, talking snakes and donkeys, water to wine, etc., etc.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, still no proof for your evolutionary fairy tales I see. 🙂

          • johndoe

            LOL!

          • TwoRutRoad

            Trump said the gay marriage issue has been decided, and he’s fine with that.

          • Croquet_Player

            What makes you think your children can’t pray in school? Who told you that, or where did you read it? I’m genuinely curious, because it’s entirely false, and you are mistaken. U.S. public schoolchildren have every right to pray in school, alone or in groups. They may discuss their faith with their classmates, and bring religious texts to school, any day or every day.

          • johndoe

            Where have kids been prevented from a personal silent prayer?

          • TwoRutRoad

            Nowhere.

          • johndoe

            Exactly

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Even evolutionists admit that isn’t true.

        • Palsgraf’s Scale

          Got a source for that? Otherwise we better stop the pharmaceutical industry. All of their lies about different flu viruses have cost the American people too much money.

          Since that clearly isn’t the case, I’m excited to see your evidence that evolutionists have been lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I said that even evolutionists admit that isn’t true. Look at Sir Fred Hoyle’s work. Dr. Colin Patterson. I have no idea why you’re talking about flu viruses. Completely off topic, and it doesn’t prove what you think it does.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Oh, goody. Scientists I know.

            Patterson was most misquoted as denying the existence of transitional fossils, of which several exist. Archaeopteryx and modern birds are what I recall the best. Though he was a regular critic of emerging hypothesis of individual species, he was not a creationist and his works were almost always taken out of context: See Bartelt, Karen (2000). “Review Evolution”, Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Book review). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education.

            Look, you made me go and dig something out from my library. Shame on you.

            Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a geneticist or a biologist. I’m not sure how much credence his arguments can hold.

            The Flu virus evolves from year to year. That is why we need new flu shots to remain immunized, and why those aren’t always enough. It was directly relevant and supported exactly my point: that evolution is present and observable and responds in a relatively predictable manner.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Patterson was not misquoted. Audio exists of the event. However, you’re referring to only one incident. Check out his writings. He was clear that there was no scientific proof for evolution.

            Second of all, Sir Hoyle was a scientist and he wrote often of evolution because he studied it.

            Flu viruses don’t evolve. They mutate.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Mutations are a key part of evolution. They pass the mutations on, the mutations that benefit the virus thrive. If this goes on long enough, it forms a new species. You’re arguing against the far side of the coin while accepting the near.

          • Oboehner

            Or so you wish to believe.

            “If this goes on long enough, it forms a new species.” – religious belief, nothing more.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Backed up by evidence that exists outside the minds of men, at least. Fossil records are pretty useful. Incomplete, certainly. After all, I never claimed science had all the answers. Just the tools to find them.

          • Oboehner

            There is evidence of a lot of things, that is not proof of any kind. Fossil records are just an example of circular reasoning and assumption. People merely ASSUME that any given fossil is anything other than a just deceased creature.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Somebody better share what rock develops into the shape of a T-Rex, then, because I want one.

            People determine that based on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, such as molecular composition, placement in the rock layers, and known data points about decomposition of compounds. Its all testable.

          • Oboehner

            There’s the circular reasoning I mentioned: Q – how do we know the age of the fossil? A – By the layer it is in. Q – How do we know the age of the layer? A – Duh, by the fossils in it.
            Molecular composition proves nothing.
            Like I said placement in rock layers proves nothing.
            Decomposition of compounds relies on the assumption of starting levels, any outside influences being constant, as well as any other conditions.
            Basically all that exists is a preponderance of assumption, speculation and just plain blind faith.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s false. In order for something to have evolved, it would need totally new components, not a mere scrambling of those that are already there.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            By that description, every time there is a duplication error in DNA, evolution must happen. That isn’t how it works. It isn’t a matter of more or less. To put it painfully generally, its a matter of significant difference.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what I said. See, evolutionists have to make things up and twist reality to fit their false narrative.

      • Oboehner

        Wake me when the bacteria or fruit flies become something other than bacteria or fruit flies, or they exhibit anything other than median adaptations.

        • Palsgraf’s Scale

          One of the most widely known examples of laboratory bacterial evolution is the long term E. coli experiment of Richard Lenski. On February 15, 1988, Lenski started growing lineages of E. coli
          in different growth conditions. When one of the flasks suddenly
          developed the ability to metabolize citrate from the growth medium
          aerobically and showed greatly increased growth, this provided a
          dramatic observation of evolution in action. The experiment continues to
          this day, and is now the longest-running controlled evolution
          experiment ever undertaken. Since the inception of the experiment, the
          bacteria have grown for more than 60,000 generations. Lenski and
          colleagues regularly publish updates on the status of the experiments.

          Three minutes of research found me that. Crack open a textbook.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, wake me when the e coli becomes something other than e coli or exhibits anything other than median adaptations.

        • TwoRutRoad

          There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Changing from one species to another takes much longer.

          • Oboehner

            So you choose to believe without a shred of proof.

          • TwoRutRoad

            No, that is what YOU do. I choose evolution because there are museums and universities full of physical proof.

          • Oboehner

            There is the appeal to authority portion of the evening. You have nothing, proven by the lack of specifics, “museums and universities full of physical proof” is about as lame as it gets.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Leave it to you to say that universities and museums are lame.

          • Oboehner

            Leave it to you to completely change wording and meaning which is even more telling of your lack of substance and even more lame.

          • TwoRutRoad

            I told you where the proof can be found. You said it was lame. What do you want me to do, take you to those places personally and explain it to you bit by bit?

          • Oboehner

            Vague claims are lame, how about some specifics – don’t bore me with links or lengthy cut and paste.

    • TwoRutRoad

      Evolution is not “man from monkey”. It is man AND monkey from a common ancestor.

      • american4godncountry✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Wow, what a stupid thing to say. I will pray for you and your atheist friends who hate our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

        • TwoRutRoad

          Those are some great discussion skills you have.

          • american4godncountry✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I do not discuss stupid things with stupid people. You can either except Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or you can burn in hell with the rest of the atheists and muslims who hate us.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Well, to put thing in terms you apparently understand, it would appear from your statements that you have been discussing stupid things with other stupid people. By the way, the odds are not in your favor that you have selected the correct god out of a choice of many.

          • Croquet_Player

            Actually, fundamentalist Muslims are creationists. So that’s one of the number of views you both share, including hating atheists. You have a lot more in common than you think.

          • Oboehner

            Actually they said nothing about muslims believing one way or the other.

          • Croquet_Player

            The comment has been edited since I wrote mine. Previously it said atheists and Muslims.

          • Oboehner

            Two religious sects, but still nothing about any beliefs on the topic of evolution or creation or intelligent design or…

          • Croquet_Player

            I always find it amusing when Christians get snippy about “atheists and Muslims” when in fact fundamentalist Christians and Muslims share some common views based on their interpretations of their respective religious texts. First of all there’s no requirement for an atheist to accept evolution. I would imagine most of them do, but there could be some who don’t, for any number of reasons. Second, I find it so funny that people who would violently disagree on any number of issues could arrive at a “Hail brother well met!” moment. “I think the earth is 6,000 years old and made by the Creator.” Well, I THINK…hey wait a minute, I think that too.” And of course they’re both wrong, but find a small patch of shared common ground. There’s something a little bit charming about the human condition there.

          • Oboehner

            “And of course they’re both wrong” Now there’s YOUR religious belief, you have something in common with both of them.

        • johndoe

          Sorry but atheists dont believe in your god or any gods. No hate necessary

          • Oboehner

            You can always keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

          • johndoe

            I sleep very well…thanks.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said…

          • johndoe

            Funny but its hard to hate that which doesnt exist

          • Oboehner

            But very easy to hate those who believe differently.

          • johndoe

            I have no hate for christians or otherwise. My entire family are church going christians.

          • Oboehner

            So obvious by your posts here.

          • johndoe

            Funny that to christians, disagreement is hate.

          • Oboehner

            Beyond mere disagreement, if it was just that, you would be on a different site.

          • johndoe

            Where have I posted that i hate christians? Paranoid much?

          • Oboehner

            Like I said…

          • Ted

            Under a bridge

          • johndoe

            Home on 8acres. Thanks for your concern!

          • TwoRutRoad

            Oboehner…did you notice the ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority from american4godncountry? “Wow, what a stupid thing to say. I will pray for you…”

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Creation is man and monkey from the same Creator.

        By the way, there is no proof that man evolved from monkey. 🙂

        • james blue

          “By the way, there is no proof that man evolved from monkey. :)”

          You are correct, The theory is that monkeys and men evolved from a common ancestor taking a different path, not that one evolved from the other.

        • TwoRutRoad

          You are correct. There is no proof that man evolved from monkey. Man did NOT evolve from monkey, and evolution does not claim that to be so. Man and monkey had common ancestors. We also have common ancestors with rabbits if you go back far enough.

          By the way, there is no proof that any creator made man and monkey at the same time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution did once claim man came from monkey. Evolution has made all sorts of erroneous claims and continues to do so today. Mankind and all creation have one thing in common: A Creator.

          • johndoe

            Can you prove it? Any evidence to back that claim up?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Which part?

          • Oboehner

            There is every bit as much proof of that as there is of some “common ancestor”.

        • Oboehner

          By the way there is no proof anything ever evolved at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly!

        • johndoe

          There is no proof that your god poofed us into existence. There are reams of peer reviewed literature which supports evolution.

          • Oboehner

            One can sum up the extent of the substance of evolutionists to ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority arguments with a dash of “your beliefs are stupid”. You surely haven’t deviated from that playbook.

          • johndoe

            Where has someone said your beliefs are stupid?

          • Oboehner

            “your god poofed us…” an obvious attack.

          • johndoe

            Not an attack just your truth. You all are the ones who believe that the earth was created in 6 days, snakes that talk, mud men and rib women. And that fossils are only about 6000 yrs old.

          • Oboehner

            All of which is irrelevant to evolution and it’s lack of any proof. I try to see how that is any harder to believe than exploding dots, magically appearing life out of ooze, or bazillions of years – but I cannot.

          • TwoRutRoad

            “Like an exploding dot and primordial ooze?” Your words. An obvious attack.

          • Oboehner

            A reply.

          • TwoRutRoad

            A reply.

          • Oboehner

            A diversionary tactic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, there is NO proof of evolution. Not one. Never been proven. There is lots of evidence of a Creator because there is creation everywhere. You, yourself, are proof of a Creator.

          • johndoe

            LOL! No evidence at all of a supernatural deity. Not one shred.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All creatures must be created by someone or something, just like all pieces of artwork must have had an artist. By your faulty reasoning, Van Gogh didn’t exist.

          • johndoe

            Nope. Evolution is all that is needed. The indoctrination is strong with you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, science is what’s strong with me. I wasn’t raised in the church. Secular education all the way.

          • james blue

            So how did the creator become?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If He’s really God, He doesn’t have to be created. He would always be. That’s what being God means.

          • james blue

            Well that’s a convenient stance, Set a standard for validity for others, but change the rules for your own argument.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re forgetting which argument you’re making under which handle. 🙂

          • james blue

            Nope.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL

          • Oboehner

            So you really don’t exist?

          • johndoe

            I’m human…not a magical being that can create entire worlds and inhabitants.

          • Oboehner

            Like an exploding dot and primordial ooze?

          • johndoe

            Do a little research and educate yourself.

          • Oboehner

            You first.

          • johndoe

            Thanks but I already have…

          • Oboehner

            If you had, there would be more substance to your replies. All of this talk, paragraphs upon paragraphs here – yet no specific proof of evolution has been given.

          • johndoe

            Not doing the work for you. Been to school and graduated already.

          • Oboehner

            Ah yes, the lame excuse for having no clue – no surprise there.

          • johndoe

            Opinions vary

      • Oboehner

        Common ancestor, got any pictures, or must I just have faith it ever existed?

        • TwoRutRoad

          Better than pictures, we have BONES!

          Got any bones of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mark, Adam, Noah or any of the rest?

          • Oboehner

            I have bones too, what’s your point?

            “Got any bones of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mark, Adam, Noah or any of the rest?” Not relevant. stay on topic.

          • TwoRutRoad

            You asked for pictures. I said we have bones. You did the typical “must I just have faith” attack. So I asked for proof of what you have faith in. Completely on the topic YOU introduced.

          • Oboehner

            You failed to show the relevance of “bones”, bones that don’t demonstrate anything other than something dead. I never introduced the topic of what I believed in, it is just a diversionary tactic frequently used by evolutionists who cannot answer simple questions.

          • TwoRutRoad

            “bones that don’t demonstrate anything other than something dead.”
            A completely ignorant statement.

          • Oboehner

            “A completely ignorant statement.” There’s the ad hominem, it is staggering how little substance evolutionist answers contain. If it weren’t for the ad hominem and the appeal to authority, there would be nothing but silence.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Bones demonstrate many things…age, sex, species, disease, injury, and other things. Stating otherwise is ignorant of these facts.

          • Oboehner

            That’s all very nice, but since the age determination is very limited, what does that have to do with the “common ancestor” thing?

          • TwoRutRoad

            The age of the individual at the time of death has nothing to do with it, but the age of the fossilized bone does. Certainly you must have heard it all before. The evidence is there in the museums and universities. Go and see it for yourself.

          • Oboehner

            The age of the bones can only be accurately determined if someone were there documenting it, were you there?
            There is NO proof anywhere.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Yes, I was there, and I chiseled it into my stone tablets. Unfortunately, I got angry when people would not listen, and my anger became hot, and I cast the tablets out of my hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain.

          • Oboehner

            More nothing, how quaint.

          • This style ten and six

            If you are ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, which you demonstrate in every word you type, you must expect to be called out on it from time to time.

          • Oboehner

            ZZZzzzzzz. All those who call come empty-handed, thus they are the ones ignorant of the religious belief of evolutionism.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Degrading evolution by bringing it down to the level of religious belief is like saying, “You’re as dumb as we are.”

          • Oboehner

            An atheistic religious belief, and actually I was bringing it up from a plain old lie.

          • TwoRutRoad

            So you were helping us? Nice try, but no cigar. You compared empty-handedness with religious belief and I busted you.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, more empty claims on your part.

    • Trilemma

      If humans did not evolve from old world monkeys, then why does human DNA have all the genetic information necessary to grow a tail?

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        That’s false. 🙂

        • Trilemma

          Why does human DNA have all the genetic information necessary to grow a tail?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re mixing up birth defects with evolution.

          • Trilemma

            I agree that a human tail is a birth defect. It is caused by a gene failing to suppress the tail genes. But why was the genetic information to grow a tail there to begin with?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you think a mutation is? And what you’re calling a tail is just a deformed spine, not a tail.

          • Trilemma

            Mutation is the basis of evolution. If a human tail is a mutation then that would indicate that humans are evolving.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Mutation does not prove evolution and even evolutionists do not claim that.

          • Trilemma

            Evolution cannot be proven but neither can creation be proven. Mutation is evidence for evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Mutation is evidence of sin. In order for mutation to prove evolution, new material must come into place, not already-created material that’s merely been scrambled. Creation is proof of a Creator.

          • Trilemma

            How does sin cause mutations in DNA? I agree that life is proof of a creator.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There was perfection prior to sin entering the world. There were no genetic mutations, which is why it was okay for relatives to marry. The more we go on, the more mutations are increasing.

    • james blue

      Even if you disagree with the theory you should actually learn what it is before you try to deride it. Otherwise all you are doing is arguing against your own created strawman (arguing against yourself)

  • james blue

    humanity’s supposed closest ancestors—the great apes

    Apparently Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins either isn’t too studied in the theory of evolution.or the English language isn’t his first.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Or you don’t realize the common error you just made. 🙂

      • james blue

        That being?

  • Croquet_Player

    “According to Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, Director of Life Sciences at the
    Institute for Creation Research (ICR), this study “poses a big problem
    for the evolutionary model of human origins” for several reasons.” Well, Dr. Tomkins is welcome to write up his findings for publication and show how it debunks evolution. until he has done that, he can’t offer anything but his religious opinions. So far creationists have nothing to show for their decades of efforts. Their dry spell is a lot longer than the Chicago Cubs.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Actually, that’s incorrect. You might be surprised to learn how many famous scientists – those living today and those from days gone by – are and were Creationists. They’ve contributed vast amounts of worthy study to science.

      • johndoe

        And yet zero proof of creation

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          That’s like saying there’s zero proof of Van Gogh. 🙂

          • johndoe

            You can go to the museum and see a work of art signed by its creator. There is zero scientific evidence of creation. No peer reviewed journals on creation. A you have is a book of stories written by bronze age goat herders that has been through multiple translations. There is, however, eams of scientific evidence of evolution. One only has to look it up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused about what science is and what creation is. There are peer reviewed journals on Creation, written by scientists who are Christians. However, peer reviewed journals don’t make something necessarily true or false. There have been admitted errors in peer reviewed journals as well as excellent science. The issue is – what is science, and why has a pseudo science like evolution been allowed to sully it?

          • johndoe

            LOL! Sure…whatever.

      • Croquet_Player

        People with firm religious beliefs can contribute a great deal to science. Up until the precise point where they say “my religious texts/teachings/traditions” tell me that this cannot be so, therefore it must not be so, so I will suppress and/or ignore the evidence before me, or distort it to fit my views. At that exact point, they are no longer truly scientists. When I say “creationists have nothing to show for their decades of efforts” I mean that they haven’t contributed anything at all to debunk evolution. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. It is accepted, demonstrated fact, with mountains of evidence. There is no reputable university or scientific institution anywhere in the world that teaches anything else. It’s a done deal. The only people still trying to make it an issue are people with fundamentalist beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, etc., etc. No one takes them seriously except for the uneducated, and that’s unfortunate, because they can waste a lot of people’s time, and push some bunk ideas on the young and/or ignorant.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Evolution has been debunked by evolutionists themselves! Not only has it never been proven, but scientists find contradictions in evolution all the time. It’s why they keep rewriting its suppositions. And then rewriting them.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding about science in general, and evolution specifically. You have two choices. You can pop down to your local Junior College and take a biology class, or you can remain ignorant all your life. I hope you opt to take a class or two. Best of luck.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL, yeah I always like it when non-scientists or mediocre ones try to bluster here. 🙂 Have a good day, and don’t hurt yourself with all that croquet playing. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Croquet is a delightful game for young and old. I play in a beautiful local park with my friends, we have a big picnic, and everyone loves it. I highly recommend it! Good luck to you.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Well, if he does hurt himself, maybe you could take him to a nice BINGO game.

        • This style ten and six

          You have saved me the trouble of posting. It is only religion which opposes evolution.

  • Ted

    I wish we could get past the silly “religion vs science” narrative.

    Richard Smalley, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996, had this to say:
    “God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose.”

    • Oboehner

      Richard Smalley is nothing more than a sugar-coated evolutionist.
      The Nobel Prize become a sick joke years ago as proven by the fact Obama one it.

      • Ted

        Obummer won the Nobel Peace Prize, and they indeed are a joke, since Jimmy Carter and Al Gore also won, and no one has a clue how any of those buffoons contributed to world peace. The Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences should be taken seriously. Many Nobel winners have been Christians, although the religion-bashers choose to ignore that. They have a knack for claiming to be pro-science, and yet they ignore data that does not fit their narrative.

        • Oboehner

          13.7 billion years is also a joke.

          • johndoe

            You have proof for that statement?

          • Oboehner

            I laughed myself silly, now do you have proof it’s not a joke?

          • johndoe

            That didnt take much

          • Oboehner

            You don’t then, ok.

          • Charles

            I know you can’t prove the age of the earth..

          • johndoe

            Read a book on science and get back to me…

          • Charles

            ha.. ha..Right….. I’m glad I wasn’t taken in by the great lie. It’s complete foolishness, and you take it as viable science. You keep trying to prove your theory, and it keeps coming back wrong….

          • johndoe

            Funny that theres a mountain of evidence pointing towards evution but absolutely zero pointing towards creation.

          • Ira Pistos

            There’s a mountain of evidence in support of creation. There is no viable evidence pointing to all life springing from gravel or developing into myriad kinds through evolution.

          • johndoe

            Where is this evidence? Is there a peer reviewed journal of creation that I’m unaware of?

          • Ira Pistos

            Creation exists and is self evident. God has declared that He created it and it’s existence confirms that. You have no viable alternative to declare otherwise.

            Is there a peer reviewed journal of creation? I hope not. God is peerless and requires no politicking for notice and position.

          • johndoe

            Nope. Theres zero proof of a god or creation. Evolution is a very viable alternative.

          • Ira Pistos

            Do you seek evidence or proof? The words are not interchangeable. You ask for one but complain that I did not provide the other.

            As for “evolutionary science”. Is it viable? Which denomination of evolutionary science do you hold to? How do you contend with evolutionary sects that contradict your faith with teachings in opposition to your own?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    It is all Creator God’s design. Everything is deeply meaningful because of Jesus Christ. Read Colossians chapter 1 before Genesis chapter chapter 1 to know the creation’s mystery.

  • masmpg

    DUH!!!! Should we slap ourselves in the forehead and say “I knew that”? Of course birds did not “evolve” from a rock like science says humans did.

  • Robert

    pastor Richard Wurmbrand and pastor Martin Luther knew birds made great theologians also. you can look up pastor Richard Wurmbrand quoting Martin Luther about these singing theologians..

  • Robert

    human involved science is constantly having to correct itself in all the subjects it tries to learn about as humans learns new things about those subjects.since humans are involved in science it has never been perfectly right about any thing.