I apologize if the question sounds flippant, but I am sincere. If the process of evolution did not exist, then the vaccines developed 50 years ago should still be sufficient. However, they are not because flu viruses develop resistance and mutate into new species that did not exist 50 years ago. Scientists can trace the chain from the new species back to the old ones, thereby proving the evolutionary process.
However, if the evolutionary process does not exist, then why become vaccinated more than once?
2006-08-18 13:36:22 · 21 answers · asked by ? 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
People who actually know about the evolution of man have never said that humans evolved FROM apes. It's always been that humans evolved WITH apes. It's a critical difference.
2006-08-18 13:53:58 · update #1
Good question, viruses are some of the quickest evolving forms of life out there. If they want to survive they have to move fast to survive their battle with us.
I'm tired of people who keep thinking we evolved from other apes and don't get that we are our own species that evolved, as you say alongside other primates, to who we are today. Not FROM them, WITH them. And only distantly related by way of the primate family in which we are included in that category.
2006-08-18 14:19:12 · answer #1 · answered by Indigo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um evolution isn't a fantasy it really is a truth. i'm a christian and understand this! The evolution of guy is what's at question. If there wasn't human beings and animals alive immediately with bone structures of each portion of the concept of guy's evolution i'd say that this is a probability. yet, with the hordes of scientists wanting to get provides so undesirable that they convey links to guy and monkey that purely are not there. this is purely there is not a creature that existed. There are those with a similar skeletal structure of a neanderthal living immediately! i'm purely waiting to ensure evidence. it really is what you're waiting for obviously. the region is I doubt i am going to ensure it, the position the alternative is actual with you. sometime you'll see evidence, this is purely that once you spot it i imagine it can be too late to do something about it. Bummer!
2016-11-30 19:10:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with the first person that answered the question. A virus can mutate, but that doesn't mean that people will. If we were going to evolve, why are we still evolved into a greater species yet? I just don't believe in the Darwin theory.
2006-08-18 13:46:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you sure you're right when you say the flu virus mutates into a new species? The virus may change over the years, just like a breed of dog changes over the years with breeding. This is called microevolution, which is a lot different than jumping from one species to another.
2006-08-18 13:46:19 · answer #4 · answered by David S 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i believe in evolution to the extent of non-human species. catch a cold and what caused it before may be a different bacteria, because these bacteria and viruses can mutate and become tolerable of the vaccine or antibiotic used for them. but we as humans cannot mutate and become tolerable of these bacterias and viruses. but take pneumonia, the cause remains the same and we cannot build up a tolerance to it. this explains why some humans can and do become tolerance of some illnesses. all it takes to believe is as humans, we donot evolve because if we did, what did we evolve from. i for one am glad to know that i was made in God's image and not an ape walking bent over and sometimes swinging from a tree.
2006-08-18 14:12:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wow, I never really thought of it that way. Actually I believe evolution to be a proven scientific fact AND I have gotten a flu shot every year for the past 11 years but I found your question very interesting.
2006-08-18 13:42:50 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there are 2 kinds of evolution, the 1st macro evolution that is one species changing to another this one is completly false; a dog + a dog will always = a dog. The 2nd is macro evolution which is adaptation, the flu falls under this category, it changes to resist the vaccination but it will always be the flu. so the flu proves micro but not macro evolution.
2006-08-18 14:25:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Adaptation is a truth all Chrisitans should believe in adaptation, big difference between evolution. If i live in alaska and move to arizona it will take me time to change to get used to living normally in that new climate. The flu lives in alaska (a human) and moves to Arizona (a vaccinated human) eventually the flu will get used to the "heat" or vaccine and live normally "become affective in spreading" See adaptation is different from evolution
2006-08-18 13:47:05 · answer #8 · answered by Jonathan S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you are confusing on purpose of course the fact that there are minor variations within a a line of DNA. and the silly idea that one creature will mutate and create another, and do so , to the point of creating billions of variations of life forms.
There is a level of minor evolution within a family of life form, but not between.
A fish does not become a air breathing animal by being thrown onto the shore enough times. A apple tree will not become a maple tree.
A maple tree may be changed to form various maple trees, but not a pear tree.
Of course you know that, why try to confuse less knowledged people with half truths and lies.
2006-08-18 13:54:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean doubters of the "evolution of Man"? As a person, a human being, I feel I evolve everyday based on my environment and experiences. But I do not believe man evolved from apes. That's stupid.
If they did, then we would still have apes that are evolving into humans. But we don't.
2006-08-18 13:49:33 · answer #10 · answered by grrandram 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋