Evolution Explained

Evolution began the moment some random molecule had the ability to replicate itself. Evolution progressed whenever a mistake (a mutation) during replication created a new molecule that was at least as successful at getting copies of itself into the future. Evolution thus requires that the evolving entity possess both a means of reproduction and a means of mutation. For example, a complex object such as the proverbial “Swiss watch lying in the desert” could not have evolved because it has no means of reproduction and no means of mutation.

Although more than 99% of mutations are not successful, given enough time, the replicating molecules evolved into proto-DNA, and later evolved into cells, and later into flatworms before evolving into species that specialized into male and female roles.

Most mutations died out quickly because mutations are both common and random and thus unlikely to be beneficial. It only seems like mutations occurred when they were needed because when a need arose, sometimes one of the many random mutations that were already occurring was useful. Some of the most obvious evidence that evolution happened is the discovery of DNA, the growing fossil record, the increasing complexity and variety of species, the early hominid fossils, and the age of the earth and the universe. Consider that none of this was known at the time of Darwin, so he is not a good source of expertise on evolution.

Most mutations died out quickly because mutations are both common and random and thus unlikely to be beneficial. It only seems like mutations occurred when they were needed because when a need arose, sometimes one of the many random mutations that were already occurring was useful.

One species does not mutate directly into another. Mutations are usually very small, and thus the offspring of a species will mutate over a very long time until some of them are different enough that they start living separately and reproducing less with the earlier versions. Eventually, they would no longer see themselves as the same species and would not try to reproduce with each other, but they could, and their offspring would still be fertile – like grizzly bears and polar bears. They would then be evolving independently, and after enough generations had passed, their hybrid offspring would not be fertile – like when a horse and a donkey produce a mule. Eventually, after more independent evolution, their hybrid offspring would not be able to survive birth, and eventually, their evolution would diverge until the sperm of one species could no longer fertilize the egg of the other.

Evolution is not always so smooth and gradual. For example, extreme environmental changes can happen abruptly, and thus extreme genetic mutations that would have been irrelevant or even harmful before, might actually be useful in the new environment. Another such sudden an extreme mutation can occur when a microorganism such as a bacteria or a virus merges its DNA with ours, and sometimes an entire microorganism, such as mitochondria, becomes a part of us. Another form of sudden mutation is an increase in mutation inducing radiation, such as when the earth enters a part of the galaxy in which we are more exposed to cosmic rays, or when there is a solar eruption. Such rapid evolution would probably look as if a new species just evolved suddenly in the fossil record.

When trying to understand evolution after DNA, it is often helpful to think of genes (snippets of DNA) as the replicating organisms, and to think of ourselves as their outer layer of mobile thinking armor, which they evolved in order to get as many copies of themselves into future generations as possible.

For example, if a gene mutated and made its carrier more likely to create children (e.g. better looking), who were themselves more likely to create children, etc., etc., then each generation would have more copies of that version of the gene than the previous generation until it was the only version in existence. Likewise, if a gene mutated and made its carrier less likely to create children (e.g. homosexual), then that mutation would die out quickly.

Therefore, human behavior is the product of those genes that have caused our ancestors to get them into every generation to date, so we act a lot like those particular cavemen. Most of those genes existed before we were human, so we also act a lot like animals too.

We may be the product of more than one billion years of evolution, but we are also the product of more than one hundred thousand years of human evolution, and we instinctively know that in the last few thousand years, we have evolved something quite special …. The Soul of Humanity.


  • We have been endowed with a soul by our Creator.

    In the most condense form, you'll say it's ignorant to take God on faith, but aren't you taking the evolution of a soul on faith? In essence, isn't the evolution of a soul your "religion"?

  • Jim says:

    The Soul of Humanity is a theory that I have created to explain what I have observed in my lifetime. I don't see a soul as an actual thing. It is just a convenient term for the core of what is best about humans. By writing about it, I/we can use it as a guide.

    It is not dogma. I will probably change it as I learn more and think about it more.

  • Of course it's intangible.

    My comment still stands.

  • Jim says:

    Don't you want to accept the Soul of Humanity? Isn't The Soul of Humanity a healthier and more positive theory than any religion? Isn't it more compatible with human nature than any religion?

    To equate the Soul of Humanity with religion without further qualification is disingenuous. Not only is it healthier, more positive, and more compatible with human nature, but is also a scientific theory. Unlike religion, it is falsifiable. For example, we could test for the presence of these traits in humans.

    The fact that I and others can change it if the evidence changes, is again different than religion, which cannot change. Whereas, religion is based on ancient texts, the Soul of Humanity is based on science.

  • Anonymous says:

    Molecules dont fuck. its that simple. Why not? Because they cant. Otherwise the beach, with a whole lot of molecules bumping and grinding, would be JAM PACKED full of new life forms. Its a theory made up back in the day by the Greeks, then refined by Darwin and his freemason buddies. Why did they bring back the old Greek idea? Because evolution opens the door to Might makes Right. Or should I say Reich?

  • Jim says:

    DNA molecules do not reproduce with other DNA molecules, rather a DNA molecule makes a copy of itself. The first random molecule that could replicate itself was the beginning of evolution.

  • RocketMan says:

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • RocketMan says:

    The academic community likes to point to the well known experiment of dropping random chemicals into a primordial "soup" and observing their spontaneous organization into amino acids. I'd like to state that I do, in some evolving degree (no pun intended), see the theory of evolution as senseful. With that said, the theory has its limitations; the first being that, yes, chemicals do spontaneously organize into amino acids but there has NEVER been observable data that suggests that these amino acids spontaneously organize into proteins which are the building blocks of DNA. Evolution purists, which I believe are being less than open minded, always use the argument that enough time has not been allotted to the experiment due to realistic limitations. However, the fact remains that amino acids are yet to be observed as organizing into proteins and if one is keen on basing their belief system on observable data then I think some serious reconciliation is in order…

  • Jim says:

    I do not know of any experiment that has created a replicating molecule under natural conditions, but depending on the context, that is usually irrelevant. For example, given all the other evidence, evolution has infinitely more reproducible results than any other theory. It is more falsifiable and thus more scientific than all other theories, and yet, it has not actually been falsified. Therefore, evolution is by far the best explanation we have.

    On the other hand, evolution is a high level theory and thus not as falsifiable, and thus not as scientific as it might seem. For example, aliens could visit and claim that they kicked off evolution and helped it along at different points. That would not actually falsify evolution because we have no way to know whether the aliens were correct.

    If several fossils of modern humans were found in different locations and ALL dating technologies dated them to 10 million years ago, then I would say that would falsify the current theory of human evolution – even though we share 98.5% DNA with Bonobo chimps, but that still wouldn't falsify evolution – just human evolution, and maybe just the current version of human evolution. Given such an event, I would then say that humans must have evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, and thus the whole theory of evolution would be hard to falsify because it is not just one specific theory. It is more of an explanation that ties together many more specific theories.

  • Jim says:

    The limitations of experiments to create replicating molecules under natural conditions have not only been performed with too limited time, but they also could not possibly have been performed in all possible natural conditions. Then again, I could always say that no matter how long and how varied the experiments might be, which thus means that the absence of results does not falsify anything other than to prove that the given conditions and time were not sufficient.

  • Anonymous says:

    You need to look into Lloyd Pye and LA Marzulli. Until you can explain the pyramids all over the planet, the Egyptian hieroglyphs in North America, or the megaliths like outside of Cusco, Peru, then you shouldn't be so confident and rethink your theory.

  • Jim says:

    How does any of that contradict evolution? Are you saying that evolution may have had help from aliens, or that evolution may have produced everything except humans?

  • >