I don't have alot of time, just got off work and am waiting for the bus but I'll add to my answer tomorrow! I'm an evolutionist too. I've got a question on here right now about god, the answers are pretty interesting.
Ok, I'm back....at work. Will add throughout the night.
I believe in evolution. As many others have answered here, there is A TON of evidence that confirms it. Plus, it just makes good sence.
TO rtuttle321................You question whether there would be enough of this kind of "ape" to procreate the necessary numbers needed. Think about the time frame that passes that would allow for this to happen. Millions of years. That leaves some pretty good leaway for it.
With all of the "half man/half ape" finds we have discovered....what else would you suggest about these if not an anciestrial humanbeing? A mistake? God had a bad day?
People say, nope. Evolution is not real.....there's no evidence of it today so why would I believe it? Well, there is evidence. It's sad but I don't remember exactly what the example was. Saw it on some show on tv. Something about a kind of squirrel up here in Canada. It evolved to change it's mating season and how long it is pregnant for due to the climate changes and the shorter springs. (climate/environmental changes being one of the primary causes of evolution).
2006-06-27 13:59:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by send_felix_mail 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am a creationist in the sense that I believe that a higher power created us and placed us here for some reason unknown to us. I believe that God placed us here, gave us free will knowing only the outcome of the entire process, not the exact path in which it would take. It is like potting a plant. You give it life, sun, water etc. and watch it grow. You really have no control over how it grows you only have the power to take away it's life. I however don't believe that my great, great...., grandfather was an ape. Recent studies have shown that the human #2 chromosome could have been comprised of two smaller ape choromosomes. This would indicate a mutation of the chromosome and not necessarily an evolution of sorts. Evolution as I view it is the loss or gain of some aspect of the organism that better allows it to function within its enviorment. I can see where these types of changes would cause minor gene rearrangement, but the combination of two chromosomes due to enviromental adaptation is not very likely in my opinion. Let's assume that the combination of the genes took place, in order for the species to reproduce there would have had to have been more than one, or two apes with this gene combination because organisms with different gene numbers cannot reproduce. I am not sure if there is an explanation for a gene combining in an organism and not be a mutation, but let's assume that there is. What change would cause the apes to evolve from the 24 chromosomed organims into the 23 chromosomed humans and would you not feel that the odds that enough apes needed to reproduce to cause this shift towards manlike creatures were very unlikely? I am interested to hear what you have to say, you can email me at rtuttle123@yahoo.com.
2006-06-27 16:13:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok... My only problem with evolution... is that it is a theory that is treated as if it were fact. For a long time people used carbon 14 dating.. and found it varied enough to make it inaccurate in many cases... how can we be SURE it is accurate at all? tree rings.. ok... I can go for those to date stuff... fossils... hmmm.. now.. I'm not sure.. but I've never seen a fossil formed to know how long it takes... how do you know it takes millions of years?.. oh.. wait.. yes.. in high school.. we made fossils from chicken bones.. took 4 months....
ok.. really.. biggest item... with all the breeding of fruit flies in colleges all over the world to study biology and heredity... how many of those have actually changed species? NONE And don't tell me it takes millions of years.. if you get ONE new creature of a new species in a million years.. it would have to live a million years to breed and make more..and be in the same spot where the new one would form.
ever consider that the earth was CREATED with fossils?... that dinasours never lived?.. just thinking.. maybe I'll make it a theory and start teaching it as fact... call it the fossil creation theory.
ok... if there is evolution.. why are the intermediate forms not still present? shouldn't they be better than the old and not quite as good as the next? we should have a continuous spectrum of evolution STILL LIVING... no... but..
If I was creating a world.. I would make one creature.. and while I had the materials at hand.. I would make one just about like it.. and then one just a little different from that... follow some kind of logical order just to be sure that I didn't miss any of the ones I wanted to make...
of course after I got done with all of the boring stuff.. I'd go to Australia and make some really cool creatures!!!
2006-06-27 14:05:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by ♥Tom♥ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well this is what I think, I am an creationist, Christian. The bible says God created the world in 6 Days and rested on the Seventh. Well, the bible doesn't say how long one of these days lasted, but I seem to think that it probably isn't 24 hours. So that accounts for the 4.6 billion years old the world is. God said, that after every day that "this is good" so im sure he took some time to admire his creation. First he created light (no im not going to tell you the story of creation don’t worry) but How great is out God, light is constantly being made. The starts after burring out, they go through the phases and create more stars, and thus more light is made. So when God said let there be light, he meant what he said and it hasn’t stopped yet. Next he made the sky, then the land and continents, then the day and night. Finally, he created the ocean animals and the birds. Hey funny scientists say life originated in the ocean, just like verse 20. He also made the birds, and one of my science books from school said that dinosaurs are more related to birds. Well, there you go. Pre-historic animals. The bible says God made great sea monsters, so im sure he birds were all panzies. Well earlier I said that well there goes the dinosaurs, but i just only talked about birds. Well, here is evolution. Again since we don’t know how long a day is, I believe evolution took place and what God had created changed to adapt to its surroundings. “Survival of the Fittest” took place and thus we have fossils. I believe that our God is great enough to create something that is able to change. Then God made humans on the 7th day, and we were made special, “In the image of God” that’s pretty nice to be made in the image of our creator. So Humans weren’t so “dumb.” Either way all I’m trying to say is we aren’t animals(only having limited thought) , but just like the animals humans slowly changed to fit its environment. The biggest change came when Adam and Eve at from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and then i believe complex thought began (numbers, math, written language, ect..), so that explains why we are the most intelligent, progressing species. We have knowledge of good and evil (thought) which i don’t believe that animals do, I believe they act solely on instinct, or based on training( as most dogs are to some extent). So I believe that evolution happens, but everything is not a result of it, as it is being taught.
2006-06-27 15:34:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kyle K 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution is not a political issue. It is completely neutral on the question of whether American presidents should be Republicans or Democrats. Evolution is not even a religious issue - while it does not align with the most literal possible reading of Genesis, on the larger question of whether there is a God or not, evolution is silent. I myself believe strongly that God exists.
Evolution is deserving of credibility for the simple reason that it is the one explanation that makes the most sense of the fossil record, of Mendel's findings on how inheritance works; it is the one explanation that explains why the most similar creatures (morphologically) usually tend to be the most similar creatures genetically.
Creationists try and sell a line about how there are no transitional fossils. But in fact, there are transitional fossils all over the world - not necessarily transitional in the sense that the specific organism found is the direct ancestor of a living organism, but certainly transitional in the sense of being a lower branch on the organism's family tree.
Take archaeopteryx - there's little doubt that it is a bird, although an atypical one, lacking a wishbone, fused foot bones or a pigostyle - but it is a bird. It is also unquestionably... a dinosaur. And despite the lame assertions some YA posters like to toss out there - archaeopteryx is no fraud. It was found in Bavarian shales that preserved creatures so perfectly that any fraud would be easily detectable - and yet four specimens, all bones and feathers intact, are known from these shales.
Take horses - the lineage leading to the modern horse has a trail so long you can practically see the hoof prints. From eohippus to the modern relic of Przewalski's horse, there's little mystery in the evolutionary lineage of horses.
And then there is mankind. Fossils of earlier forms are well known, such as Homo Erectus, and Homo Habilis. Habilis moves away from the Australopithecine model of being a two legged chimp, but slightly, haltingly - it begans cracking rocks in half to make stone knives, a technology known as Oldowan.
Then Erectus makes bigger strides. it grows a bigger brain, loses its body hair, and becomes an endurance runner. It leaves Africa. It begins refining the cutting blades by making biface tools from rock cores with stone hammers - a form of toolmaking that takes preconception, and possibly even rudimentary language (acheulian tools.) Erectus makes rafts and floats out to islands, learns to control fire and cook, and even begins to paint himself in ochre - the dawn of nascent symbolic thinking.
The ever-advancing tools are always found with ever advancing hominids. When Erectus begins to grow a brain in the modern human range, its behaviours change again - things like burial of the dead and musical instruments start to show up, as Erectus becomes Neanderthal man and archaic Homo Sapiens.
There's a ton of scientific evidence for all of this - just a ton. We know the Earth is ancient, and that older rocks hold simpler life forms in their fossils. In the scientific community, the debate ended many decades ago. It is only in the popular dialogue that any question ever comes up.
Let them question; it is all irrelevant to the scientific debate anyway.
2006-06-27 14:52:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by evolver 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well I believe that evolution is the orderly change that has shped the earth. I really dont believe in religion so this makes my differnt to most of the worlds but similar to most scientist who have studied this topic in depth. I believe we all stated as micro-organisms and that slowly some evolved because of our surroundings. like charles darwins theory of natrual selection which was based on his ground work of five years where he traveled to the galapagos islands , australia, asia, africa and back to england. He collected data from each of his stops he then made a collection of his thoughts and published it with the title of "on the origin of species by means of natural selection" and now known as "the origin of species". I think that the survival of the fittest is the best explanation for evolution. The competition and how adapted the species is to the enviornment really depends on its evolution.
2006-06-27 15:04:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by rose_red_91 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution really isn't that hard of a concept to understand but I think the reason most americans don't believe in it is that they don't understand it.
It's easier to just take the route where you don't have to think. I'm glad courts have continued to reject ID as science and hope that they continue to do so.
Believe whatever you want....but lets keep science in the science class and religion at church.
2006-06-27 13:58:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Franklin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look at pictures of animal skeletons - giving close attention to the Sarcopterygii. Look at your fingernails. Glance briefly at the embyonic development of animals, plants, fungi and seaweeds.
Orange, tangerine, satsuma, lemon, grapefruit: different climates favour different mutations.
It becomes very clear very quickly when you allow yourself to see the obvious. Life is one big family. Then again, within my body, the cells are all one big family, all descended from the first cell (my Ma's egg, fertilized). Get a microscope and say hi to the 4 billion-year-old Mitochondria, who live in every animal and plant cell. Who needs science? We have eyes. There is only one known tree of life.
2006-06-27 14:42:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tell me who's idea was to start life and Evolution to take over. Why mankind in general are 66 inches high.Who invented photosynthesis. Why is life carbon based and not another element.
2006-06-27 14:11:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by ASTROALCHER 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is real and fake
2006-06-27 15:36:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋