The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions

[Student of Allah]

Shalom Aleikhom,

my first appreciation was that it is impossible for any process based on triyng and errors to create what we see.
It is like writing a book by tiping characters by chance. impossible

I have a little challenge. You can think of it as a learning experience for "both" of us. I quoted you above. Now, the challenge is to Produce "ONE SINGLE" evidence that evolution is what you just stated there. I know that "you" think of it that way. But simply get me the same understanding from any respected known scientist/biologist/authors in the field of evolution.

If you can not, then you are against your "gross misunderstanding" not against "Evolution".

the second was that evolution works by "continuity". That is changes are light changes over millions of years. However discontinuities exists and can't be explained:
-First cell
-First ADN
-flying (birds, insects...)
-invention of sex (one gives two to two gives one)

in fact, each biological mecanism is a problem:
how evolution knew that we need to see and how it created eyes ? to what served the proto-eyes before they were able to see ?

Life is too complicated for chance.

1. Evolution is NOT THE STUDY of ORIGIN OF LIFE. You looking for that answer in Evolution does not make sense. Evolution is concerned with adaptation to environment. And the effect it has on species over long periods of time. "Origin of Life" has nothing to do with Evolution.

2. You are attacking the process based on the assumption that the process itself was aware of the final consequence. Let me put things in perspective by the following example:

I say: Gravity is responsible for a lot of what you see in the universe. Stars collapse, new ones form, etc, etc.

You say: It is impossible for Gravity to know that we need other planets and stars to sustain our life and existence.

Dont you see where you are going wrong ? A process/law of nature on itself is a slave of God. Gravity does not consciously decide to make solar systems. It is God that designed it in a way that it does so without being conscious itself.

Your challenge is to find a SINGLE respected evolutionist that would back up "your understanding" of evolution. Find me one single evolutionist (expert) that would agree with you that the human body all of a sudden decided to evolve an eye.

It looks to me, that you have been ill-informed about evolution by "Young Earth Creationists" or some similar baseless hadith foundation. I am not saying this to condescend , because I myself had those questions till the time I actually read about evolution from experts in that field who have scientific evidence. 

I took the time to write all these because of the "first quote". Take that first challenge, either way, both of us will benefit.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

[noshirk]

peace

english is my third langage and apologize for mistakes.
Notice that i have also a scientific education. I have read much about evolution and physics.

Your challenge is to find a SINGLE respected evolutionist that would back up "your understanding" of evolution. Find me one single evolutionist (expert) that would agree with you that the human body all of a sudden decided to evolve an eye. 

I can't find such evolutionnist and i know what they say. They never formulates evolution as something that is a response for a need. The lie would be too evident.
However they say that all the life we see, all the complicated mecanism are found by chance. Evolution respond to the need by chance without knowing that it is a need and without having a conscience.
The result is the same.


even you, you said:

Evolution is concerned with adaptation to environment

the response to a need is between the words you used. Even a kind of conscience can be found in your sentence. But you didn't say that.
I don't judge you on the figure of style you used. Don't judge me on then ones i used.

My analogy whith typing a book by chance comes from biology. The book is the ADN and the typer is the ribosome (that is the guy in the cell that innovate by doing mistakes while doing photocopy).

What evolutionists says is that the ribosome can create all what we see if he has a long period of time. Ribosome is guided by environnement who respond by good (let live and reproduce) and bad (let die). They never evaluate the quantity of work that is necessary and the time that is necessary. They just admit that he succeded doing the right work in the right delay because they admit he is a kind of GOD.

Such saying is not science but a belief.
If I consider my ADN as a Book to write. I am convinced that no ribosome can write it without having to consider all the failures that leads to me.
In fact, i think that whatever be the delay, it can't create even an insect.

Evolution, without conscience, without methodology, without reflexion is doing technological miracles by accumulating mistakes on a long period of time.
That's Evolution. An hymn to the glory of errors.

Evolution is tautology. "Evolution" select the more apt and let him leave and reproduce. Who is the more apt? the more apt is the one who lived and reproduced.
So we can never find a counter example.
However it is obvious (at least for me) that it can't do the right work in the right delay.

1. Evolution is NOT THE STUDY of ORIGIN OF LIFE. You looking for that answer in Evolution does not make sense.

Evolutionists are in facts also trying to find evolutionnary mecanisms that can justify the creation of the first cell and the first ADN (and the first robosome). They are failing until now but "Evolution is TRYING THE STUDY of ORIGIN OF LIFE".
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Really Evolutionnists are triyng.


Concerning gravity. I didn't say such a thing. I know that gravity has no conscience.

Einstein said: "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility ... The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle"

The question is unsolved: Why universe have laws ?
And there is another problem.
Physical laws lies on universal constants: Who fixed their values ?
What we know is that changing slightly these values leads to an universe that can't form planet, galaxies and life.
--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle  for scientits asking these questions


Once again, life without very very very very very big chance is impossible.

Now i will give you my understanding of science.
Science is a kind of second quran as quran use the terms "ayats" for natural phenomenons. "Ayats" is word that mean also verses.
6.38 . There is not an animal in the earth , nor a flying creature flying on two wings , but they are peoples like unto you . We have neglected nothing in the Book ( of Our decrees ) . Then unto their Lord they will be gathered .

Quran respond to the question of Einstein. Universe is comprehensible because GOD wanted to.

Understanding the "two qurans" is obtained with the same manner: Confrontings verses (ayats).
6:104 "Visible proofs have come to you from your Lord; so whoever can see, does so for himself, and whoever is blinded, will be such. I am not a watcher over you."
6:105 It is thus that We dispatch the "ayats" and that they may say: "You have studied," and We will make it clear for a people who know

i replaced "signs" in the traduction of 6:105 with the original word in arabic.
Quran is comprehensible. Universe is Comprehensible. It's GOD promise.
We have to STUDY THEM and HE WILL MAKE IT CLEAR. We are all "Student of Allah"
Unfortunately, i don't think that our generation will understand every thing.
ALL we can do is asking GOD to put us in the right path. That's FATIHA.


Returning to evolution. Evolution is not facts. Evolution is just a theory surronding facts (i will not reproduce the post of jonny_k).
It's a belief.
Darwing "launched" his belief without knowing what is ADN and what is inside a cell.
"Evolution" is also an old religion. I had read somewhere that an old greek said something like that.
So religious Atheits don't need proofs to believe what they want to believe. They are continuously trying to adjust the proofs to their beliefs since the beginning.

Evolution is one of the books of Hadiths in the old religion of Atheits who believe in universe and nature ( falses and mortals gods). Once again, people idolater creation of GOD in place of GOD and once again they are writing their religious book themselves.

Like jonny_k said, many scientists believe in GOD. Science is not atheist and is not only for atheists even if atheits (the majority of humans 12-103) want us to think so.

Now il Will respond somewhat dishonestly to your challenge.
There is no "SINGLE respected evolutionist " that i respect. They are all liars. They are disbelievers. They say "they know" but "They don't know".
I respect scientists. I don't respect evolutionists (the imams of atheism) and read no more their lies.

Peace.

[Student of Allah]

peace

english is my third langage and apologize for mistakes.
Notice that i have also a scientific education. I have read much about evolution and physics.


I can't find such evolutionnist and i know what they say. They never formulates evolution as something that is a response for a need. The lie would be too evident.
However they say that all the life we see, all the complicated mecanism are found by chance. Evolution respond to the need by chance without knowing that it is a need and without having a conscience.
The result is the same.


even you, you said:
the response to a need is between the words you used. Even a kind of conscience can be found in your sentence. But you didn't say that.
I don't judge you on the figure of style you used. Don't judge me on then ones i used.

My analogy whith typing a book by chance comes from biology. The book is the ADN and the typer is the ribosome (that is the guy in the cell that innovate by doing mistakes while doing photocopy).

What evolutionists says is that the ribosome can create all what we see if he has a long period of time. Ribosome is guided by environnement who respond by good (let live and reproduce) and bad (let die). They never evaluate the quantity of work that is necessary and the time that is necessary. They just admit that he succeded doing the right work in the right delay because they admit he is a kind of GOD.

Such saying is not science but a belief.
If I consider my ADN as a Book to write. I am convinced that no ribosome can write it without having to consider all the failures that leads to me.
In fact, i think that whatever be the delay, it can't create even an insect.

Evolution, without conscience, without methodology, without reflexion is doing technological miracles by accumulating mistakes on a long period of time.
That's Evolution. An hymn to the glory of errors.

Evolution is tautology. "Evolution" select the more apt and let him leave and reproduce. Who is the more apt? the more apt is the one who lived and reproduced.
So we can never find a counter example.
However it is obvious (at least for me) that it can't do the right work in the right delay.


Evolutionists are in facts also trying to find evolutionnary mecanisms that can justify the creation of the first cell and the first ADN (and the first robosome). They are failing until now but "Evolution is TRYING THE STUDY of ORIGIN OF LIFE".
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Really Evolutionnists are triyng.


Concerning gravity. I didn't say such a thing. I know that gravity has no conscience.

Einstein said: "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility ... The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle"

The question is unsolved: Why universe have laws ?
And there is another problem.
Physical laws lies on universal constants: Who fixed their values ?
What we know is that changing slightly these values leads to an universe that can't form planet, galaxies and life.
--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle  for scientits asking these questions


Once again, life without very very very very very big chance is impossible.

Now i will give you my understanding of science.
Science is a kind of second quran as quran use the terms "ayats" for natural phenomenons. "Ayats" is word that mean also verses.
6.38 . There is not an animal in the earth , nor a flying creature flying on two wings , but they are peoples like unto you . We have neglected nothing in the Book ( of Our decrees ) . Then unto their Lord they will be gathered .

Quran respond to the question of Einstein. Universe is comprehensible because GOD wanted to.

Understanding the "two qurans" is obtained with the same manner: Confrontings verses (ayats).
6:104 "Visible proofs have come to you from your Lord; so whoever can see, does so for himself, and whoever is blinded, will be such. I am not a watcher over you."
6:105 It is thus that We dispatch the "ayats" and that they may say: "You have studied," and We will make it clear for a people who know

i replaced "signs" in the traduction of 6:105 with the original word in arabic.
Quran is comprehensible. Universe is Comprehensible. It's GOD promise.
We have to STUDY THEM and HE WILL MAKE IT CLEAR. We are all "Student of Allah"
Unfortunately, i don't think that our generation will understand every thing.
ALL we can do is asking GOD to put us in the right path. That's FATIHA.


Returning to evolution. Evolution is not facts. Evolution is just a theory surronding facts (i will not reproduce the post of jonny_k).
It's a belief.
Darwing "launched" his belief without knowing what is ADN and what is inside a cell.
"Evolution" is also an old religion. I had read somewhere that an old greek said something like that.
So religious Atheits don't need proofs to believe what they want to believe. They are continuously trying to adjust the proofs to their beliefs since the beginning.

Evolution is one of the books of Hadiths in the old religion of Atheits who believe in universe and nature ( falses and mortals gods). Once again, people idolater creation of GOD in place of GOD and once again they are writing their religious book themselves.

Like jonny_k said, many scientists believe in GOD. Science is not atheist and is not only for atheists even if atheits (the majority of humans 12-103) want us to think so.

Now il Will respond somewhat dishonestly to your challenge.
There is no "SINGLE respected evolutionist " that i respect. They are all liars. They are disbelievers. They say "they know" but "They don't know".
I respect scientists. I don't respect evolutionists (the imams of atheism) and read no more their lies.

Peace.

Shalom Aleikhom,

You are prepared to say that it is a lie, it is BS, it is propaganda, it is not science .

You gave evolution your "self made" definition. Now you are refuting that "self made" definition and deluding yourself over a sense of victory !! That is not honest.

Unless you can show us atleast ONE SINGLE expert in the field who defines evolution as you defined, your argument is not valid.

Dont bother replying to my post unless you can actually submit that evidence. Because I have no right to tell you what to believe, I can only judge on the balance of EVIDENCE, not your belief.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

[noshirk]

peace

Shalom Aleikhom,

You are prepared to say ...
You gave evolution your "self made" definition....
Peace
------------ Student of Allah

you also added:
then you are against your "gross misunderstanding" not against "Evolution
Now you are refuting that "self made" definition and deluding yourself over a sense of victory !! That is not honest.

it is you that you are judging me without knowing me. I rejected evolution before i "really believed" in god.
I say that Evolution is not science but belief.
I say that Evolutionists are not scientists, are not experts but only "imams" of a religion that promote atheism and that they are lying also to themselves.
I say that Evolution are hadiths surronding facts.

I say that Evolution is a lie for ineducated people and that why it is to so easy to understand even with 0% of scientifc background, even by stupids.
It is the only "science" that have that property.
People believe in it without knowing anything about it. Evolution say to people: I have proven that we don't need a god for the creation.
people can speak about it, defend it, without knowing anything about it.

I don't even understand what is "my proper definition" of evolution according to you.
So i Will give it to you again (with irony however):
"Evolution" is a process that select the genes carried by the more apt between a descent and let them leave and reproduce more than the others.
New genes are created only by mistakes while copying ADN.
Who are the more apt? the more apt are the genes who reproduced more.
With this blind mecanism, with no aim, only by mistakes done while copying genes, under the pression of environnement, all life have been created.
How can we know that evolution can succeed to make a dog in the delay ?  Because dogs exists and Evolution is Truth.

Now, if you are sincere:
give "the best" definition of Evolution you can find in that theology (beware, there is many doctrines as in all religions)
give "the best" proof of Evolution you can find in that theology

Please, don't ask me again to find another "Sheikh " of atheim and to take one of their lyings definitions as my definition.
7:3 Follow what was sent down to you from your Lord, and do not follow besides Him any supporters. Little do you remember!
47:16 And some of them listen to you, until when they go out from you, they say to those who have been given the knowledge: �What did he say?� Those are the ones whom God has sealed their hearts, and they followed their desires.



Peace

[Student of Allah]

Shalom aleikhom,

it is you that you are judging me without knowing me. I rejected evolution before i "really believed" in god.
I say that Evolution is not science but belief.
I say that Evolutionists are not scientists, are not experts but only "imams" of a religion that promote atheism and that they are lying also to themselves.
I say that Evolution are hadiths surronding facts.

I say that Evolution is a lie for ineducated people and that why it is to so easy to understand even with 0% of scientifc background, even by stupids.
It is the only "science" that have that property.
People believe in it without knowing anything about it. Evolution say to people: I have proven that we don't need a god for the creation.
people can speak about it, defend it, without knowing anything about it.

I am sorry, I wasnt talking about your beliefs. You on a personal level can reject the theory of gravity, I can't help with that. It is only weird when you bash anything while the only evidence you bring forth is "I believe" "I think" "I say" "I dont believe". Don't get me wrong, it doesn't cost me a single penny that you believe or don't believe in something. But as I was trained, I demand evidence instead of your belief. Repeating that God is a donkey 10 times doesn't make him one. And a person hating God doesnt make God "hate-able". 

I don't even understand what is "my proper definition" of evolution according to you.
So i Will give it to you again (with irony however):
"Evolution" is a process that select the genes carried by the more apt between a descent and let them leave and reproduce more than the others.
New genes are created only by mistakes while copying ADN.
Who are the more apt? the more apt are the genes who reproduced more.
With this blind mecanism, with no aim, only by mistakes done while copying genes, under the pression of environnement, all life have been created.
How can we know that evolution can succeed to make a dog in the delay ?  Because dogs exists and Evolution is Truth.

Now, if you are sincere:
give "the best" definition of Evolution you can find in that theology (beware, there is many doctrines as in all religions)
give "the best" proof of Evolution you can find in that theology

In the age of internet, it is an injustice that one can do toward him/herself by denying to read. Mutations of gene is just a part of it. Let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

This simple but nice article should help you out to understand basic. The way you portray evolution is as though a tornado going through a junk yard giving you a fighter jet. Evolution is not that. In that case, it would be the dumbest idea ever. The reason I asked you to quote serious authors is because you attack Darwin. Its like anyone picking on Galileo Galilee and using his mistakes to say Physics is dumb.

You didnt even know that mutation in gene is not the ONLY FACTOR ? Anyone who can type should be able to read as well. So please, its only just if you dont pick on darwin's lack of knowledge and tell us "why" you dont agree with evolution. 

I am quoting what you originally said :

my first appreciation was that it is impossible for any process based on triyng and errors to create what we see.
It is like writing a book by tiping characters by chance. impossible


My challenge still holds. Show us any expert on evolution that said that evolution is what you are saying there. You have not been able to show one.

Is it that hard to get ? I can not say that I disagree with theory of gravity because gravity = things falling in love with each other and coming close. That is me giving it my own definition and then disagreeing with it. In that case, the dumb one is not "theory of gravity" , but me.

Please, don't ask me again to find another "Sheikh " of atheim and to take one of their lyings definitions as my definition.
7:3 Follow what was sent down to you from your Lord, and do not follow besides Him any supporters. Little do you remember!
47:16 And some of them listen to you, until when they go out from you, they say to those who have been given the knowledge: �What did he say?� Those are the ones whom God has sealed their hearts, and they followed their desires.

Quoting ayaats could not be any more irrelevant !!

Anyways, I am not asking you to quote them to show their superiority over you. The only reason I asked you to quote them is because by no twist of language can freedom of opinion mean that you put "YOUR WORDS" into "THEIR MOUTH" and call them dumb. That is extremely evil. When you claim something like "monkey typing randomly..." you must be able to show us where you got that from. Otherwise, you are putting your thoughts/words into their mind/mouth.


If you can not bring any author/expert that said what you said, all it proves is that the experts "never said" what you said.

Peace
------------------- Student of Allah

[noshirk]

salam student of allah

i can give you my arguments but i can't give my conviction.

let see you challenge:

my first appreciation was that it is impossible for any process based on triyng and errors to create what we see.
It is like writing a book by tiping characters by chance. impossible

it is my sayings. You challenged me to give you "recognized Sheiks" in evolution  that says something like that

from wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome

In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information. It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA. The genome includes both thegenes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.[1]

i assimilate the genome to a kind of book since it contains "entirety of an organism's hereditary information" written (evolutionnary sheikhs says encoded) with the alphabet of DNA.

how this book (euh sorry genome) is written ?
see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg
i found it in the link you gave in your post.
let us comment the words in this diagramm:
Mutation creates variation=Mutation tries to change (or add) a sentence in the genome
Unfavorable mutation selected against=errors and bad sendences are eliminated
Reproduction and mutation occur=Mutation tries again
Favorable Mutations more likely to survive="good" sentences for the genome more likely to be retained
and reproduce=and duplicated in the next versions of the book.

is challenge still holds ?

i think no.

let's add this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_error

Biological evolution is also a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error. Thus after a long time 'knowledge' of well-adapted genomes accumulates simply by virtue of them being able to reproduce.

and also, in the same page

The basic strategy in many fields?

Traill (2008, espec. Table "S" on p.31) follows Jerne and Popper in seeing this strategy as probably underlying all knowledge-gathering systems — at least in their initial phase.

Four such systems are identified:

Darwinian evolution which "educates" the DNA of the species,

notice that the guy called "Jerne" is a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Kaj_Jerne
notice also that the guy called Popper is :Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS[1] FBA (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British[2] philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics.[3] He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century 

is it sufficient as recognized Sheikhs ?

Perhaps No.
let's add this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel's_rule
Orgel's rules "are a set of axioms attributed to the evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel."
what states the second rule ?

Orgel's Second Rule:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are."
Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.

you say:

This simple but nice article should help you out to understand basic

sorry dear professor, it 's all that my poor and ineducated brain can understand.

The largest and the most wonderful library, which contains all of the genomes of living, IS enterely written by chance, by a dummy process of trial and error.

That is the main faith of the religious atheits. They become very upset when their faith is joked because they believe they are smarter than other and more educated. They believe they are the "SCIENTITS". They are the more arrogant people because they even don't know that they don't know.
Am I allowed to have this belief ?

peace

[Noon dhe plume]

Peace,

The largest and the most wonderful library, which contains all of the genomes of living, IS enterely written by chance, by a dummy process of trial and error.

Nothing --> strings (hypothetical) --> quarks --> particles --> 92 natural elements

Mix 92 elements + time = 3 billion year old algae still around today unchanged!

http://pilbara.mq.edu.au/wiki/Stromatolites



Thus the conjecture/theory becomes:

Rocks left alone to "rub" a billion years will one day awake and start theorizing!

Hardware by itself cannot write its error correcting/replicating code or Software.

[Student of Allah]

Shalom Aleikhom,

Seriously, this is going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-track.

1. Evolution has no answer and is not concerned with "Origin of life" , let alone it's purpose.

So, one might stop bringing up origin of life and blending it with evolution.

2. Random mutations submit to God, willingly. Just as gravity submits, mass submits...everything does. By the way, did I mention before that mutations alone does not result in "evolution", it is one of the factors among many.

This however does not mean that God had to sit with a bucket full of dust and put them together with his very physical hands, similarly, God does not need to use a magic wand and say "shaka laka boom boom" to create beings. He sets the rules, the end product can not escape his calculations.

3. And whats with the "evolution sheikh" thing ?

I did not ask you to bring them up because they can not be wrong. I asked you to bring them up because you said something that they never said. You accused them of saying what you said about them. If anyone says that "According to Student of Allah there are 11 Gods", wont you ask the person for reference This has nothing to do with "Student of Allah"'s scholarship. Its general common sense.

For the last time:

Evolution is not ALIVE. It has no purpose, it is DEAD. All credit goes to The One that set the rules of the world.

By the way, evolution does not say that a species must extinct with time, if the environment has no problems with the species, it will go on forever.

Dead matter did not program itself to wake up one day. The only reason we came out of that is due to the Ultimate Programmer. The silicon chips, or electrical signals do not consciously decide to give you the internet/computers/phone/softwares etc. If you are smart enough, you can let them do whatever they do, but manipulate the process so that the end result is what you want.

I would agree with you guys, if evolutionists said that "One day, a group of rocks consciously decided, lets rub ourselves together and become Adam".

Peace

----------- Student of Allah

[sarah_bd_gemini]

1. Evolution has no answer and is not concerned with "Origin of life" , let alone it's purpose.

So, one might stop bringing up origin of life and blending it with evolution.

2. Random mutations submit to God, willingly. Just as gravity submits, mass submits...everything does. By the way, did I mention before that mutations alone does not result in "evolution", it is one of the factors among many.

This however does not mean that God had to sit with a bucket full of dust and put them together with his very physical hands, similarly, God does not need to use a magic wand and say "shaka laka boom boom" to create beings. He sets the rules, the end product can not escape his calculations.


----------- Student of Allah

In addition, I would like to say that it is not required for there to be any input once life originates. The issue I see here is that the concepts of mutations and natural selection are accepted, but that we can get that result solely through random mutation (both positive and negative), followed by natural selection (environmental pressures), then by accumulation of beneficial/ neutral changes (hence we have vestigial organs). You (I mean everyone on this forum, not just you specifically) could read Richard Dawkin's 'The blind watchmaker' and 'Climbing mount improbable.' They are very well written, and would be a great way to spend a few hours.

[youssef4342]

I actually would believe in Evolution.... The evolving of Species..... BY GOD!
God Almighty has perfected all things, and when you look around lnature things change constantly... creations have to adapt in order to survive (e.g be  perfected)

In a verse, we see that God has "tweaked" the human species and made them better (7:69).... 
This might be the transition between neandrathals and homo sapiens...

Evolution would be true when you put God in the picture....