RAY: Devolution is an interesting topic. In most cases things have wound downward not upward over time. For example the first Dinosaur (latin for “terrible lizard”) that was discovered was called Iguanodon as it was noted to be identical only more than 10x larger than todays Iguana. It is also this initial discovery that has caused the common belief that these terrible lizards had leather skin with scales. But the Iguanodon has seemingly devolved into todays Iguana. This is also the case for sharks which have devolved in size and plant species which have much smaller leaves than they did 6000 years ago. There is a scorpion that was found in an underground cavern system which appears to have lost its eyes over time. Wholly mammoths have lost their hair and are much smaller today (now called elephants). Humans that used to live up to 1000 years are now living only 80 years on average. The Neanderthal is an example of ancient humans that lived a long life. We know this because of their lengthened noses and their extra bone along the eyebrows. (It has been observed that noses never stop growing all of our lives and that extra bone accumulates above the eyebrows all of our lives.) Today no one lives long enough to develop the skull features of the Neanderthal. Opposite to what Darwin believed it appears that things are increasingly becoming reduced rather than improved over time.

This was in response to a very interesting article entitled Our sense of smell is “devolving” by Adam Benton

The Simplified King James Version. Why is Ray working on a version of the Bible that resembles the King James?

A few sentences were cut off in the video.

Ray: That is what proves the accuracy of the over 5000 Majority Texts and that is what disproves the two rogue Alexandrian documents known as the Alexandrian Text. The Alexandrian text should be avoided completely. These texts are also referred to as the Vaticanus (it was discovered in the Vatican) and and the Tischendorf (after the name of the one that discovered it in a monestory in the Sinai) it is also refered to as the Siniaticus. Some argue there are some other texts but these are the two almost complete texts from which we are now receiving most of our modern Bibles today.

One of the arguments for the need for newer bibles is the desire for English that is more up to todays standards. This is a legitimate argument and it is the reason that the KJV itself went through 5 revisions up to and including 1812, 1769 or 1762 depending on which version of the KJV you use. All of these versions are almost identical except for punctuations mostly.

I have chosen to stick with the KJV line of bible as the KJV is based on the Majority of the texts and not the alexandrian. There was a recent attempt to give us an updated language bible called the New King James Version (NKJV). The problem with this version however is that they too accepted some of the errors from the Tichendorf (Alexandrian).

Starting in around 2003 I took some courses in Greek and Hebrew so that I could better understand the original languages of the Bible. After that in 2009 I wrote a book entitled “Illumination or Illusion” which examined the various KJV and non-KJV versions which resulted in many people asking me which version of the Bible I would recommend for someone wanting to have a more modern Bible? Starting in 2010 I decided that I would experiment with producing an accurate modern version that I am calling the SKJV (Simplified King James Version).

We are now preparing this new version for use in “English as a Second Language” training by Missionaries overseas and eventually we hope to make it availble in regular book stores later on. The New Testament is complete and we have about a years worth of work to complete the Old Testament ahead of us.

If anyone would like to examine a portion of the SKJV, Look down the left side of the screen under FREEBIES for the downloadable copy of the Gospel of John. It includes the Bible introduction and some commentary. I hope to pick up on this topic again at a future time.

Brad: Well that concludes our show “Truth is what matters”. We hope to hear from our listeners. You may comment on any one of our programs. We look forward to hearing from you.

Categories: All Blog Entries, atheism, evolution, false science, sceptics | Tags: , , | 8 Comments

Post navigation

8 thoughts on “Devolution

  1. I too find devolution an interesting topic, mostly because it is often overlooked but also because – when it is discussed – it is often surrounded by misconceptions. You raise one of the more common ones: that “devolving” does not result in improvement.

    What people fail to realise is that building and maintaining an organism requires an extraordinary amount of energy; energy which cannot be spent on other useful things like reproduction, hunting etc. Any unnecessary trait quickly becomes a liability and “devolving” it actually results in a better, more efficient organism. It’s a lot like how a racing enthusiast might pull out all the extra seats from their car to lighten it. Granted you’ve lost the ability to ferry passengers around but that loss of weight might give you the edge you need to win the race. Overall you’re better for it.

    Unfortunately your mistakes don’t end there. As EOICR pointed out, the comparison between iguanas and the Iguanodon was based off limited data. The vast majority of their anatomy differs significantly. For example, not the difference between a classic “lizard hip” and the “bird hip” of the Iguanodon. These are fundamental differences between the two animals which cannot be resolved by simply adding a thousand year life span to the equation.

    Whilst I can’t comment on your references to plants and scorpions since you don’t provide specifics I am familiar with the classic “neanderthals were just old humans line.” This came from, iirc, the book “Buried Alive” in which the author analysed the dimensions of neanderthal skulls and applied human rates of growth to them. For example, a mature adult neanderthal’s skull is 16mm longer than a sub-adult neanderthal’s. The human skull lengthens during this period of the life-span by ~0.06mm per year, making the mature adult 287 years older than the other! However, if one performs the same analysis for skull height, rather than length, the difference is 137 years. Each part of the skull you compare seems to have aged a different rate.

    Clearly the conclusion is not “neanderthals were really old” but “applying human rates of growth to a non-human species doesn’t work.” If the former were true then one would expect some consistency between measurements, but there isn’t. A more plausible explanation is that neanderthals matured at a different rate to modern humans.

  2. You said:

    “Opposite to what Darwin believed it appears that things are increasingly becoming reduced rather than improved over time.”

    This is a common misunderstanding of evolution. There is no better or worse, up or down, or “reduced rather than improved” in evolution. This is important because if you don’t grasp this concept, then the whole idea of evolution seems like an attempt to create this perfect creature called “humans.” This is completely false.
    Simply put, evolution rewards those best adapted to a given environment. Environments are different and environments can change. Therefore there is no standard good or bad organism. Assuming no technology, if an environment is very cold, hairy short humans will predominate even though sexual selection may not favor these traits. If the organism cannot live to procreate, it doesn’t matter how tall and hairless you are.

  3. Paul

    Hi Brad,
    in response to the subject of religion and its apparent decline. Although some may be tempted to applaud the very idea, a famous Christian had this to say about it,
    “Wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. . . . as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.” –John Wesley
    I wonder if the decline of religion or church attendance is more a symptom of moral decline. If that is the case then surely the future is not a bright one.

  4. Alex Keith

    You have demonstrated the biggest misunderstanding about evolution. Evolution does not lead to more complexity. It simply rewards those who are better adapted to reproduce under the conditions of the time.

    Everything that every animal has (vision, smell, hearing, etc.) comes at a cost. If something gives you an advantage over others with respect to reproduction it will be retained and spread. But, if the same thing no longer is an advantage, it will be lost. The blind cave dwelling animals are an excellent example.

    And if you look closely through the fossil record, there is a greater tendency for ancestral lines to become larger over time, rather than smaller.

  5. Critical Thinker LA

    This is an interesting discussion that I have never really followed before.
    I have not seen any defense here pertaining to evolution, which I have been taught depended on “Species Change”. I see talk of adaptation. I believe in adaptation! When my white skin is exposed to too much sun, it starts to darken, or tan (hopefully not too quick that I burn). It does this because we have been designed with melanocytes. These cells have photosensitive receptors, like our eyes, that detect ultraviolet radiation from the sun and from other radiation sources. Then, in response to that stimuli, they produce melanin after only a couple of hours. Melanin then becomes the protective biological buffer against the ultraviolet radiation. Nature, or the creator has selected folks who have darker skin to inhabit the tropical parts of our planet and in less forested regions (read deserts) where the sun’s radiation is the strongest. By doing this, it limits sunburn damage that unchecked would result eventually in DNA changes and, ultimately malignant cancers. Is that evolution? No! It is adaptation, and it is the only changes we ever observe through the Scientific Method, that actually is science. But calling it Devolution is an interesting approach. I suppose you had to call it something in order to title your article, but I just call it change. I certainly see another law at work in the creation that we inhabit, and that is both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (Notice I said laws, not theories, because these are as provable through the scientific method, as the law of gravity is). When we mix salt and pepper and then apply random energy, we see devolution, or increasing randomness. (Black and white become grey). We do not see in creasing order, or a separation of the two, until we apply intelligence, and filter, or apply some other separation technique. Another example is placing a stack of dynamite beside a stack of timber, (or better yet, a forest), and a box of nails, and expecting a shed to be built when the explosion is over. Intelligence must be applied, or increasing order is never achieved. Adaptation is not Evolution. Devolution or simple change based on conditions sounds just as good to me!

    • Our original article was in response to EVO ANTH’s website where he used DEVOLUTION as a proof of EVOLUTION. We feel that if anything it disproves EVOLUTION. I like your response which is that ADAPTION is normal and doesn’t prove EVOLUTION. Interesting as well the fact that INFORMATION is needed for any useful result to occur. Randomness only breaks down and does not build as EVOLUTIONISTS claim.

      • Critical Thinker LA

        Thx for the answer Ray….Cheers! Your Buddy

  6. I would add that ADAPTION as you would call it is limited within a species and never results in a new species. The Bible calls a species a “Kind”. It clearly states that each animal would reproduce according to its kind. This I believe is the only thing that Science has ever proven is what you would call ADAPTION within a KIND or Species.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: