A New Theory of Evolution

I invite you to consider…

What if evolution were true, but it wasn’t quite like Darwin said?charles_darwin_vegan_soldier_c

What if there were a new evolutionary model that could explain why fossils show almost no change for millions of years…. then suddenly the Cambrian Explosion: Thousands of new species emerge intact, virtually overnight.

What if this new theory pointed the way to new innovations in artificial intelligence and adaptive computer programs?

What if “Evolution vs. Design” wasn’t an either/or proposition – but both+and?

What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?

Read more »

Can Anybody Actually Win The Evolution 2.0 Prize?

evonne_crayonsCan Anybody Actually Win The Evolution 2.0 Prize?

Science, God, and

Happy Chemical Accidents


There’s a million codes out there. HTML, bar codes, zip codes, Java, English and Chinese.

Out of a million codes, 999,999 are designed by humans.

There’s one code we don’t know the origin of – and that’s DNA. We don’t know of any codes that are not designed. This implies design in DNA.

That’s an unsolved science mystery. So I and a group of Private Equity Investors have formed a company, Natural Code LLC, to offer a multi-million dollar technology prize for Origin Of Information.

Read more »

Evolution: The Untold Story, Part 1

There are two kinds of evolution:

1) There’s the version that you read about in the bookstore. It’s two-thirds science fiction.

2) Then there’s the version that PhD biologists, cancer researchers and genetic engineers use to do their jobs.

The two are entirely different.

Popular books tell you evolution works like this: Read more »

Wanted: “I was a Young Earth Creationist” Stories


I was raised a Young Earth Creationist.

Were you?

WANTED: Stories of people who lost or almost lost faith – and only came back because they realized…

There’s more than one way to read Genesis!

I’d love to feature your story here on my blog.

Post a short version in the comments below and if it’s a fit we’ll be in touch with you directly.


Anti-Evolution is Anti-Bible

Genesis 1:24-25 (NASB):bible-preacher-elvert-barnes

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

You may ask, “Where is evolution in this passage?”

Right here:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures…

God did not create them directly. He commanded the earth to bring them forth. It was a process.

That’s an important distinction. Everybody knows animals come from animals, not the earth. Note the word for earth is “erets” which can mean soil, or land, or the whole world.

OK, so what is a “kind”?

The Hebrew word “miyn” seems to be used much as we use the word “species” today.

So how do you get a new species? As in a significant change?

If you breed dogs, all you’ll ever get is dogs.

You can separate two populations of dogs. Because of genetic drift, you’ll eventually get dogs that can’t breed together wit the original dogs.

But you still won’t get anything significantly different from a dog.


There are two ways to get a brand new species:

1) Symbiogenesis, which is nature’s version of a merger-acquisition. I symbiogenesis discuss here and here

2) Genome Duplication through Hybridization –  where Species 1 crossed with Species 2 gives you Species 3.


Emmer wheats + goat grass = modern wheat.

This doubles the number of chromosomes. After this merger, “hybrid dysgenesis” kicks in. Extensive genome editing re-arranges and deletes parts of the new DNA.

Whatever “kind” means in Genesis, it surely must allow for Hybridization (at least if the Bible can be trusted to be true) because botanists produce new species through hybrids every day.liger-flickr-james-ball

Hybrids are typically sterile… but not always. When you get a fertile hybrid you can get a brand new species that never existed before.

A liger, for example, is a hybrid of lion and tiger. It has twice the chromosomes of either of its parents.

This fascinating article details many new kinds of plants and animals that have been bred through hybridization:

Genome studies suggest that a hybridization event got us from invertebrates to vertebrates, when two tunicates merged to create a hagfish.

Then a second merger got us from vertebrates to jawed vertebrates.

This is called “Ohno’s 2R hypothesis,” where the “2R” stands for “2 Rounds of doubling” of chromosomes.

We are not able to go back and observe tunicate 1 + tunicate 2 = hagfish, of course. But the genetic data is greatly consistent with such a hypothesis.

We also know from plant and animal breeding that in a small minority of cases, a hybrid merger produces a very successful new species. (Like wheat.) The new species may have significantly different features than its ancestors.

So unless we assume that observable symbiotic and hybrid mergers somehow prove the Bible wrong – and I seriously doubt “kind” was ever meant to exclude such things – then there is no conflict between the Bible and an evolutionary view.

Does not scripture say God commanded the earth to produce animals? And plants?

Also… does not scripture say that the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielded seed, and fruit trees bore fruit with seeds in them? And that all of this took place before the end of “day” 3?

Genesis 1:9-13 (New American Standard Bible):

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Scriptures say the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielded seed, and fruit trees bore fruit… all on the third “day.”

We have two choices:

1) The earth brought forth vegetation and trees grew at thousands of times normal speed, or

2) Perhaps a day is not 24 hours.

The word “yom” clearly means something other than 24 hours in Genesis 2:4, where all the “days” are described as one “day.” Yom has even more meanings across the Old Testament.

So I cast my vote with option #2.

Seeing that the earth produced animals – scripture indicates God did not directly make them, but commanded the earth to make them – I see no conflict between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary progression.

Not only that – but to assert that God created animals and plants intact, fully grown, clearly contradicts scripture. Genesis 1 is not describing instantaneous miracles; it’s describing a process.

Post your comments below.

Witness Bacteria Evolve in Real Time

When you confront bacteria with antibiotics, they actively seek to adapt and survive. They begin editing their DNA, causing mutation rates to skyrocket. The rate of DNA changes suddenly ramps up to 100,000X normal speed.

Watch this time-lapse video by Harvard Medical School. It only takes two weeks for these bacteria to develop 1000X resistance!

Source: Harvard Gazette

What Is Evolution 2.0?

Evolution 2.0 is the cell’s capacity to adapt and to generate new features and new species – by engineering its own DNA in real time. This is based on 100 years of experiments which the public has heard little about.2.0_nautilus

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that neither “side” is telling you the truth.

Traditional creationists, denying and demonizing evolution, have missed the amazing adaptive capacities of nature.

Old-school Neo-Darwinists, in their insistence on “chance and selection” have failed to produce a testable model that qualifies as science.

Instead they’ve squandered decades patching up the most troubled theory in the history of science.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that in the 1940s, biology took a wrong turn. Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983, was ignored for years. Instead we got the Neo-Darwinian synthesis which crammed Mendelian genetics into a “chance and selection” corset. Lamarck was scorned – but is now vindicated 200 years later by Epigenetics.

Neo-Darwinists took no notice of Russian discoveries about Symbiogenesis; then in the 1960s they fought Lynn Margulis tooth and nail when she re-introduced it to the West.

The truth was what McClintock said all along: The cell re-organizes the genome dynamically in response to stress – with a sophistication that challenges our finest minds.

Evolution 2.0 echoes what Denis Noble of Oxford said: “All the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis.”

We are finding superior answers in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and in Systems Biology.

#Evolution in 140 characters or less: Genes switch on, switch off, rearrange, and exchange. Hybrids double; viruses hijack; cells merge; winners emerge.

Evolution 2.0 points out the symmetry between opposing viewpoints, neither of which told you more than a third of the story. The truth is in the experimental middle, where the most interesting questions lie…. where scientists produce evolutionary events and new species in the lab and in the wild, in real time.

Evolution 2.0 calls out extremists for promoting an agenda that is not science. Both sides are more interested in ideology than empirical truth. This has led to a false war between science and religion.

Evolution 2.0 believes there is no conflict between science and faith; and in fact unanswered questions raised by religion become fuel for new scientific inquiries.

Just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes are not worthy of the questions mother nature presents to us.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that science is empirical. Scientists should be be paid to do their jobs, which is to peel the onion of nature’s mysteries.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it, or validate it mathematically, then it’s not science.

Evolution 2.0 also acknowledges that science cannot explain itself. All worldviews make metaphysical assumptions. Science is always practiced within a wider framework of philosophy, mathematics, and axioms which may be disproved but cannot be proven. Everybody has faith in something.

Evolution 2.0 believes our greatest technological questions have already been solved in the cell. All we need to do is look.

Evolution 2.0 posits that Origin of Information is one of the central questions in all of biology and offers a technology prize for the answer.

Evolution 2.0 believes God granted the cosmos freedom to make itself in its own way, much as parents release their children into the world to be free adults. At every step, we serve science by assuming nature is rational, discoverable, measurable, orderly, and yes, volitional.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that many disciplines have something to bring to the table – biology, physics, engineering, history, mathematics and philosophy. And yes, even business, art and music. All are manifestations of life and teach us about life itself.

Young Earth Creation vs. Old Earth Creation

I got a provocative blog comment from Young Earth Creationist B. A. Christian:Fish Fossil

Question: Do we need “Special Knowledge” in this case brought in from something called science to rightly interpret the passages? Or does it mean what it says? Is death the hero of the plot or the last enemy? Does consensus of geologists, biologists and astronomers determine truth?

Answer: It IS necessary to incorporate what we know about nature to properly interpret Genesis.
It is not possible to understand the Bible – not even Jesus’ parables about seeds – without accurate knowledge of the physical world.

I need to point out the presumptuousness of the statement “Does consensus of geologists, biologists and astronomers determine truth?”

Well, strictly speaking, the consensus of scientists does not itself determine truth.

Any honest philosopher of science will freely admit that.

However in science we do have many things that any person can reasonably verify as fact. Like the phenomenon that gravity operates very consistently.

Any reasonably educated person can follow the logic and confirm the process that is used to determine that a star is 100 million light years away.

Any reasonable application of logic and knowledge of the speed of light (which you can measure and which in measurements is not changing) verifies that yes, that star is in fact more than 100 million years old.

It was not clear 1,000 years ago that the earth is old. But it is very clear now, except to a very small pocket of people who follow Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research.

Nobody else believes the earth is young on empirical grounds – at all – unless they are married to a very particular and peculiar Biblical exegesis.

Contrast this with old-school Neo-Darwinism. It is the most troubled theory in the history of science. Why? Because it is challenged on empirical grounds by people in MANY MANY fields, many times having no religious dog in the fight whatsoever.

See my article about the “Salem hypothesis” for example

Now I certainly can respect people for holding to unpopular views because of their faith convictions. I can observe Mormons believing, in faith, that the American Indians are actually a lost tribe of Jews; and to an extent I can respect them for enduring ridicule for that.

But this belief is not supported by genetics. We have tools for proving or disproving this that Joseph Smith never had, and science proves the book of Mormon wrong.

And I believe we should incorporate such knowledge. I believe an honest Mormon should question his or her confidence in the Book of Mormon by the use of empirical evidence.

Young Earth Creation is equally without support from empirical science.

The same Christian who argues against the Mormon position on American Indians with modern science – or defends Biblical history with archaeology – is being hypocritical when he insists modern science is wrong about the age of the earth.

That is especially sad since 1) The Bible generally is a very reliable historical document and every Christian ought to know that, and 2) an Old Earth concordist interpretation of scripture works quite well.

What YEC commonly defends itself with is a pharisaical attitude that says, “We have the truth, we are the righteous ones, and those ignorant secularists are walking in darkness.”

It smacks of religiosity and it reminds me of the pharisees we read about in scripture. They hold to the letter of the law but miss the spirit.

In this case it is the religious people who are walking in darkness – because they cannot even see something that is right in front of their face – evidence from a dozen scientific disciplines that the earth is very old.

You will see the speed of light coming up again and again in comments on my site. Nowhere has any YEC person adequately addressed this problem. Not in any book or blog or website or anywhere.

Speed of light all by itself invalidates YEC. The universe is old, plain and simple.

Does that make death the hero? No it does not, and if you study my model of evolution, even death itself cannot exist without life being here first. Life is the prevailing driving force.

But make no mistake. This one fact – earth is old and not young – does force the YEC to re-evaluate LOTS of components of their theology.

This is not an indication that science is wrong. This is an indication that portions of YEC theology may also be wrong.

So yes, that means the YEC person may have to re-think a lot of things. That is scary and painful. It is inconvenient. It alters your theodicy. It challenges large assumptions about God and how He made the world.

If you have a significant Biblical education, you will have to relax your grip on any number of assumptions and re-evaluate them.

I never said this was going to be easy. I grew up YEC and it wasn’t easy for me.

But the process is necessary. And frankly for the thinking Christian it never really ends. Theology is always a work in progress.

Some folks are simply unwilling to do this.

But if you’re not willing, your faith is old wineskins. And it is being held in place by religious pride which is actually sin.

So I respectfully submit to you that none of us can afford to cling to provably false beliefs.

The arrogance of YEC and its contempt for scientists… as well as its presumption that they believe what they believe because they’re all sinful and depraved and lying to us etc etc… is giving Christianity a black eye.

This is no minor problem. This is a major issue. Many Christians are on the wrong side of this one.

It’s one of the many reasons why young people leave the church. It’s a major reason why my brother went from being a missionary to almost an atheist.

YEC and its champion ministries are unwittingly and systematically turning a percentage of Christians into agnostics and atheists because they’re forcing people to choose between science and the Bible.

Which is totally unnecessary, because there is no conflict between the Bible and science.


Book Review: Cosmosapiens by John Hands

John Hands Lifts the Skirt of Modern Science, Revealing Cellulite, Varicose Veins, Scars and Blemishes

I once complained to an eminent professor at a prestigious university: “Everybody here is miles deep in some incredibly specialized topic. Nobody seems to be about the big picture.”

“Exactly,” he said. Cosmo Sapiens is one of those rare books that is about the big picture, yet also reports the state of the field accurately and not triumphantly.

I received a review copy from the publisher. I might not have Read more »

Memo To Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne & PZ Myers: Recess is OVER

apple2_book_brennerIf you were studying computers today…

Would you start with the 1984 “Apple II Plus Troubleshooting and Repair Manual”?

Then… why would you learn evolution by reading Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye?

Dawkins’ books on evolution – like those of his pals Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne and others – are every bit as outdated as this computer book.

You may be tempted to doubt me. But don’t take my word for it. In a minute I’m going to show you how to prove this to yourself.

Old-school Neo-Darwinism has been replaced by a new, Post Modern Synthesis. Practicing biologists know this. Only now is the public beginning to hear the truth.

Read more »

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 11
221, Mount Olimpus, Rheasilvia, Mars,
Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
+1 (999) 999-99-99
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Darwin Bad
Evolution Good 
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Rub 2 rocks together and create a cell with DNA... that's evolution, right?
Learn the truth.
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Lava. Gas. Water.
Discover the truth.

Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.