Debunking Shits About Evolution - Episode 12 [Conflicts in evolution and evolutionary contradictions]

For the fact that the concept of evolution (particularly the human evolution) has been one of the mostly theorized aspects of science has raised some untold insinuations that might prove contradictory to the accepted theories of evolution. No doubt, evolution is regarded as a science fact; and if it is a fact, then it is gotten through systematic reviews, testing, and observation of comparative data, which at the point of analysis and review has been proven to be true. But as it were; there is no guaranteed immunity that these facts may not be overridden in the future when another fact superimposes on it; just like the dark sides of evolution we busted in the last episode - you can take a quick recapitulation of the last episode:

The Darwinian model of evolution has been such that has found acceptability in the concept of evolution. But even at that, there are places that have been kept in the dark zone. Like this; evolution is meant to ensure our adaptability, sustenance, continuity, and survival right? Then what is "aging" ensuring, if not death? We've seen the purpose of aging as it relates to evolution. And also, another concept was brought from the dark zone, and that is "supremacism" - which showed how different subspecies of organisms (hominins; in this context) have been differentiated from each other as either being inferior or superior...

To get a fuller detail, click here.


There have been some areas of human existence that have been in absolute opposition to each other, and because of this, the concept of evolution has been kept long in the grey zone. Because, I mean, none of us in this present era lived to witness all these evolutionary parameters first-hand. So the major tools at our disposal to gain a vague insight of what happened behind the scene are "fossils" - and of course, oral tradition, and written records could prove useful too. In this episode, we will be dissecting the areas of conflict and contradictions in human evolution. Lenght Alert: You might find this piece pretty lengthy, but I promise, it's worth the length. Alright guys, join me as we evolve together.

[Image from Pixabay. CC0 Licensed]

The first area of contradiction is something that might have crossed the minds of many since the start of the series, and that is in the area of creationism.


Some people have believed that the human species were formed by some supernatural forces, and this has created serious opposition to the science of evolution. This is not to talk about some other legends and myths relating to the existence of man; like that of the Fulanis (in the Northern part of Nigeria and the Chadian region) that believe that humans were created from a big drop of milk - no wonder their love for Fura d Nunu (fresh cow milk), but also, other tribes are not left out of some weird beliefs too. I once heard of a very funny myth sometimes ago that expresses that humans came from a very mysterious tree called "anunebe"... lol, holy shit!!. But asides that; coming to the religious aspect of it, some have also believed that everything we see today (including humans) were created by a supreme supernatural being - as cited in the holy books. And like you would guess right; your belief in one is inversely proportional to your belief in another, and that is why I earlier stated that the concept of evolution is mostly theorized.

Just very recently, I read a publication by Dr Ellis Silver, which suggested that the first life form on earth (in relation to the humans species) was seeded here by some aliens from some extraterrestrial colony. And in his own school of thoughts, he raised his own theories in attempts to substantiate his claims. Firstly, he observed that the curvature of our spine and back only suggests that we are mostly suitable for adaptation on planets with a lesser gravitational pull. And also that our skin structure is not particularly synced to adapt to the continuous rays of the sun for everyday, and that is the reason we put on cloths - being the only species to do so. Really? So why would aliens drop us off on earth? Like the way you drop a naturally violent person in a prison; but are humans naturally violent as species? Well, that's a discourse for another day. Some proponents of the same school of thought as Dr Silver have said that human life might have not really been seeded by alien species, but might have been seeded on earth through meteors and whatnot, but like you know, this is also in opposition to the theory of evolution.

Another account has also suggested that humans might have come from some sea creatures and not necessarily from Ape-like creatures. From comparative embryology, when you take a look at the embryos of humans at the early stage of development, you would discover they look like tadpole (with gill slits, tails et al) right? But also, this is common to the embryos of Apes too; so does it suggest that we have an aqua-ancestral descent? But on contrary to the other of the extant Ape species, the babies of humans have a natural swimming capability when they are born, and they show strong affinity for water (though I'm not saying you should drop your newborn in water, but if you do, you'd be surprised they wouldn't drown - nature at its finest).

[Is this a tadpole? Not at all, this is the embryo of a human. Suggesting very strong resemblance with aqua-creatures. From Wikipedia. Author: Ed Uthman. Public Domain]

Also, looking in-between your fingers, you would discover that there are miniature web-like appendages or paddles between the fingers. But do you know that these web-like paddles were more pronounced in the embryonic stage of development, and these have been some of the factors that have aided the likes of David Attenborough to postulate that humans' origin could be traceable to the bottom of the sea. But I ask; are humans the only species that have pointers towards aqua-ancetory? Even from Charles Darwin's book; Origin of species; all living things have been proven to have a descent from water; right from the Prokaryotes (which is the first life form) to the Eukaryotes, but we are only focused on the humans aspect of evolution.

But looking at all these creationist theorems, some part of them have followed a coherent pattern that is also pointing vaguely to evolution. Here's what I mean: Majority of these creationists (people who believe in creationism) also do believe that some small changes have been happening to the humans species over time, like the mutation in eye colour, loss of hair, skin colour et al. And looking at this remotely, this could be termed "microevolution" - which; in the real sense of it; is regarded as evolution; only that they have refused to accept the formation of an entirely new species - which is "macroevolution". Here's a question to the creationists: if you believe that the humans species have been altering (both physically, morphologically, and in adaptation), why do you not believe that some other species had to change repeatedly with time till it got to the extant modern humans? Or do you think that these changes were initiated with the extant modern humans? Or maybe they need to know that the accumulation of microevolution would lead to macroevolution.

But as it were; creationism is not the only opposition to evolution we have. Looking at another aspect; some evolutionary scientists have believed that species had a lesser time to evolve distinctively to the next species; and this is called catastrophism, while some are proponents of gradualism.

[Random funny evolution picture to keep you happy. From Flickr. Author: Manuel Cernuda. CC BY 2.0 Licensed]


From the lingual point of view, a catastrophe is something that happens dramatically and suddenly right? Though catastrophism goes beyond just the human evolution to even the birth of the earth, but applying it to the human evolution, it suggests that humans appeared in this extant form without necessarily passing through the evolutionary rigors of millions of years of adaptation and mutations. Some also do believe that; as against these millions of years; evolution would take just thousands or less years. And as it were; some of these catastrophists also tilt towards believing in the creationist theorems. The likes of James Ussher, Carolus Linnaeus, John Ray, Comte de Buffon (who also had a belief that the age of the earth could be around 75,000years, and no species should have been older than that), Erasmus Darwin (not to be confused with Charles Darwin) etc.

But going with fossil analysis, the Sahelanthropus; for example; has been dated to about 7million years ago, so what does this tell you? Obviously, the age of the earth is way more than what Comte de Buffon et al want us to believe. And remember, this is just one of the not-so-distant species. Looking at another point; for one specie to completely and distinctively evolve into the next specie, it could take somewhat of 1milllion years (like we dissected in the previous episodes). If you doubt that; may I ask you this: In over 200,000years of the appearance of modern man, what significant and characteristic alterations and speciation (initiation of entirely new species) have been documented? This points out to the fact that evolution is rather a very slow process, rather than the one that comes at the press of a button. But this does not rule off the fact that many things have been altering the speed of human evolution lately - just like I sighted technology in the last episode. But in all these, it is still not as fast as catastrophism presents it.

Even within the postulations of gradualism, species might not only show a very gradual rate of alterations (and speciation), but might be followed by a long period of non-alteration; and this is known as punctuated gradualism. Logically; with recourse to fossil analysis; gradualism holds more potency than the catastrophism. But with further analysis (and fossil study) the concept of evolution would become clearer.


Even though evolution has been explained using science as tool, there are some areas that are in opposition to these theories of evolution. Among these evolutionary contradictions is creationism; which suggests that humans were created by a supreme being. We have tried to see the view of evolution in relation to this, and have tried to draw our own conclusion. We also considered catastrophism and gradualism. I believe your knowledge has now been enhanced about evolution. Let's keep evolving.

Disclaimer: This article is a presentation of the view of evolution, and does not; in any way; suggest that your belief is no longer your absolute prerogative.

Thanks for reading

References for further reading

If you’re in the field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, you can join SteemSTEM community in the discord:

gif by @foundation

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

A nice piece as user and the theory of gradualism sure look more justify than CATASTROPHISM from changes we observed thus far, truly if it was spontaneous, we would have seen noticeable changes by now and the beliefs of creature sure looks funny.

Nice work as usual

Posted using Partiko Android


Exactly bro. If it was meant to be catastrophism, we should have witnessed a lot of speciations by now, but that is not the case. Thanks for coming around bro.

Logically, I don't know why panspermia or Dr Silver's theories would be opposed to evolution: regardless of how life originated on Earth specifically, it's still perfectly possible that it originated via evolution generally.

Even creationism and supernatural explanations perhaps don't a priori go against evolution, because there would be the further question of how that creator god or supernatural entity was created in the first place, and evolution again becomes a contender (the only one?) as a possible explanation.

It's not the 'supernatural entity' per se that goes against evolution, but the idea that a being - any being - can create itself, or in other words that complexity can arise spontaneously out of nothing.

Regarding tadpoles, is it still the common opinion that the reason we look like that is because "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?


Thanks for the comment buddy.

Here's the logic; there's been an established acceptability that the origin of the present day humans can be traceable to the ancient hominids. But clearly, Dr Ellis Silver has sidelined that belief with his postulations that humans came from ET colony.

If humans were seeded by aliens here, where would you group that school of thought? - is it under evolution or creationism? That's the point I want to raise. Were humans fully evolved in the ET colony before being seeded here, or were they seeded in a crude state and left to initiate the evolutionary processes?

If humans were seeded here, that also means we're not related to any of the hominids and hominin species; but we're just an independent specie. And this would also make a mess of paleoanthropology and fossil analysis.

But in all these; one thing has been common to any of the schools of thought - and that is the fact that humans are still undergoing alterations here and there; and that's microevolution. And in the long run, the accumulation of these microevolution would lead to macroevolution, or even speciation (formation of entirely different species).

Thanks for dropping by


Yeah creationists tend to accept microevolution, but say things like 'no dog ever became a cat' or something like that. In other words, they seem to accept within-species evolution, but don't accept that one species can become another species.

Obviously, that makes no sense scientifically, because 'species' is just an arbitrary name we give to things when we deem that the differences are sufficient to merit a new classification.

Once you accept a single DNA mutation, you've accepted the whole of biology and Darwin, there's no escaping it. Everything comes down to single-letter-changes piling up.

It was cool to read about those funny 'ideas' about the origins of man. Thanks for sharing them :)


Thanks a lot sir for dropping by.
I'm glad you found them pretty cool :)


I always drop by when I have the possibility :)


I sincerely appreciate it sir. Thanks a lot

Wow! Amazing article as usual. Looks like so many things I've known about evolution has been debunked.
In my opinion, the point you raised about gradualism seems to be the basis of evolution.
Meanwhile; I laughed when I read that some people do believe that humans came from milk, lol.


Thanks a lot bro.
You'd be surprised what many people have believed about human evolution. That's actually one of the reasons I took up these series - to debunk shits about evolution. And I'm glad we're making a headway in it.

Thanks for coming bro

This story was recommended by Steeve to its users and upvoted by one or more of them.

Check @steeveapp to learn more about Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface.

This post has been voted on by the SteemSTEM curation team and voting trail in collaboration with @utopian-io and @curie.

If you appreciate the work we are doing then consider voting all three projects for witness by selecting stem.witness, utopian-io and curie!

For additional information please join us on the SteemSTEM discord and to get to know the rest of the community!

Hi @samminator!

Your post was upvoted by in cooperation with @steemstem - supporting knowledge, innovation and technological advancement on the Steem Blockchain.

Contribute to Open Source with

Learn how to contribute on our website and join the new open source economy.

Want to chat? Join the Utopian Community on Discord