This' another lie . The theory of evolution : From monkey to man . Do you beleive this ?

Question

So what monkey feature is very close to man's ( genes , skeleton,......) means nothing . When I was a kid , I used to beleive that small trucks will grow up and be big trucks or even trailers . How comes that we never see other monkeys ( chimpanzees ) go through adaptation and become men ? Now they're saying that they link between the evolution of fish from water to land in Alaska . Big bull S h i t . It's not because a butterfly comes from catapilar that imply that all flying insect comes from catapilar . In other means all species have been created differently with some similarity and ecological interactions . what do you think ?

Answer 1

You see , scientists cannot admit the fact that we were all created by GOD that will put in jeapody all their concept at risk. Deep inside their heart , they know that it's not true .

Answer 2

The truck analogy is not close at all. Trucks do not grow like animals do. Animals grow from babies to adulthood, reproduce and die. Trucks are made the way they are and remain their entire usage.

You dont seem to grasp the concept of the theory at all. Monkeys do not undergo changes to become humans in one life time nor did we come from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor that diverged into monkeys and humans. That common ancestor is no longer around but fossil records trace the steps of this divergance.

Second of all, evolution is not the morphing of one animal into another in one lifetime. When DNA is passed on to offspring, they have little changes that might help them survive. The parents themselves do not contain these changes. Their offspring carry new changes as well. Successive changes like these often take millions of years before a new species arises.

Your idea of how life came on earth, that all life was created and simply just placed on earth with their differences already set, is close if not same to Creationism. Does that mean they are still being made or was this a one time process? Because if it was a one time process, I dont understand why we have these new strains of flu coming out every year that somehow develop immunity to our old vaccines. Oh wait, there are testable claims that show bacterias and virus's mutating in ways that allow them to survive in the immune system. Other bacterias and viruses who do not have these mutations die off and the new viruses thrive. If your claim is that new species are actively being created, then what mechanism are allowing these new species to appear? God?

The bottom line is, science requires data and testable ideas. Theorys are not facts; they are explanations used to explain how the facts are connected and used to make predictions. If you think that species are created "differently with some similarity and ecological interactions" , then please find ways to test it and support it with data. You can make claims against evolution but be sure that you can refute the facts that support evolution. If you want to make your own claim, support it with testable lab work or evidence.

Answer 3

Here we go again... It is generally impossible to prove that any theory, including the theory of evolution and the theory of special relativity, is a fact. A scientific theory may properly be defined as a refutable universal statement. Let's consider what this means.
A universal statement is a statement that applies under all circumstances. In mathematics, an example would be "every integer has a successor." In mathematics, it may be possible to prove that a statement is true, or to prove that it is false. In the real world, we cannot ordinarily do this: it may be possible to prove that such a statement is false by finding a counterexample, but it is not ordinarily possible to prove that it is true: there is always the possibility that a counterexample may yet be found. Such a counterexample would be a refutation, showing that the statement is false.
In science, we demand that a theory be refutable, because it can be proven that the predictive power (i.e., usefulness) of any theory obtains strictly from its refutability. It immediately follows as a corollary that an irrefutable theory can predict nothing, which is why such a theory cannot be considered to be science.
The theory of evolution and the theory of relativity are both established science, which means that workers in the field routinely rely on them to make predictions. Of course, such predictions have to be correct, or the theory would be abandoned.
The theory of evolution contains two (and only two) essential elements, and refutation of either of these would demonstrate that it is false:
- Variation. An offspring may, due to some error in its genetic replication, be different from its parent(s). Most such errors are adverse, but occasionally one will be beneficial. This element is well known to be true -- every commercially important plant or animal is a variation of the original wild type, sometimes to the extent that the wild type is no longer cross-fertile with the variant: i.e., the variant is a new species.
- Selection, either natural or artificial. It is obvious that a mutation could be beneficial to survival -- the descendant can run faster, see better, reproduce more easily, et cetera., and nature has had four billion years to weed out the weak genes. Much more recently, man has done selection, looking for more productive cows, tastier peaches, et cetera. So this element is also true. Hence the theory of evolution is not refuted by either of the only two means by which it would be possible to do so. This gives us a scientific theory which, unlike most, is proven to be a fact.

The establishment of evolution as a valid discipline does not, of course, answer all the questions. If one wishes to trace the evolution of a species from a precursor, it is still necessary to gather evidence. Possible sources for such evidence include fossils and DNA.

Critics of evolution often offer "intelligent design" or other such ideas as possible alternatives. The difficulty with any of these is that they are in principle irrefutable: there is no way to demonstrate that any such theory is false. From the corollary above, we see that all such theories are useless -- they cannot predict anything. Which is, of course, not the same thing as saying that such theories are wrong -- it is simply saying that we can't know, and it doesn't matter.

As for the evolution of H. sapiens, we share a common ancestor with current-day apes, particularly orangutans whose genetic code differs from our own by much less than one percent. There were a number of other hominid species descended from the same parentage which have now died out. For much more on this, see Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale.

Answer 4

It took our common ancestor 8 million years to evolve into chimps and humans. Evolution did not happen overnight, don't expect it to happen overnight now.

Evolution is a process that we observe today. Darwinism says that species evolved by those well-known processes.

Of course, the fact that evolution happens today and that the fossil record is consistent with the theory that evolution was also what shaped species in the past, does not prove that this actually happened. It could be that some extra-terrestrial magicians, somehow able to make themselves invisible to us, once in a million years or so killed of billions of plants and animals and replaced them with slightly different plants and animals, thus giving us an illusion of gradual evolution.

But why would you believe that? It's difficult to imagine how this could happen without defying the laws of nature as we know them. Also, there's no evidence whatsoever that such magic, extraterrestrial influence (feel free to call it "godly" if you like) ever has happened.

Answer 5

it is called evolution.
evolution is a process that takes millions of years. that's why we'll never be able to see the tranformation of a monkey into a man. all these are theories based on assumptions & evidences.
it has takes millions of years for the conversion or exactly, the evolution of a human being from a monkey.
we have numerous scientific evidences in support of this claim.
and, men from different continents differ from one another- this is coz of adaptation.

Answer 6

there is an unanswered question which is how apes become a man. This year scientists found some apes,i think in south america, who used rocks to break the nuts. scientists are wondering that whether they learned from humans or they learned by themselves. because if they learned it by themselevs, they are becoming intelligent like humans, and it will be an evidence for the theory of evolution or that of Darwinism about the evolution of the brain. but i think this evidence like the previous ones won't work.

there are some beliefs about the brain. one is that the brain is evolved by accident. other believed human beigns had many enemies and to find a way to escape, they used their brain alot which caused the evolution of brain.

Answer 7

There is an incredible diversity of living organisms on this planet. From microscopic virii that require other cells in order to reproduce to gigantic blue whales that cruise the depths of the oceans. Some are incredibly specialized: the fungus Laboulbenia grows exclusively on the rear portion of the elytra of one species of beetle, Aphenops cronei, which is only found in a handful of limestone caves in southern France. Other organisms are incredibly adaptable and can survive nearly anywhere. One species has even managed to use bits of its environment to modify its surroundings such that it can even survive temporarily well outside the Earth's atmosphere, and has even reached the surface of our lunar satellite.

At the same time, there is a continuity of general morphology. As different as the organisms of the Earth are, they also share a number of similarities. The basis of heredity in all Earth organisms is a few similar strands of nucleic acid. There is not one six-limbed vertebrate, even though there are other groups of organisms with multiple limbs. All of the vast variety of insects share a basic body plan of three body parts, six legs, and four wings. Even their mouthparts are amazingly similar, even with the wide array of different structures they have been modified into.

The theory of evolution, that simple idea that natural selection of variation within a population leads to changes in that population over time provides an explanation for both this extraordinary diversity, as well as this remarkable unity of morphologies.

Evidence supporting the theory comes not just from genetic and morphological comparison between the vast array of living species, but also comparison of fossil forms. The diversity, array and morphology of all of the fossils known have completely supported the theory of evolution.

In addition, the chronological ages determined for the fossils also fit into the pattern that would be predicted by the modern diversity of living organisms. The biogeographic distribution also fits this pattern, explaining things like why there are porcupines in Canada but not Russia, and why kangaroos are only found only in Australia. These pieces of evidence could be predicted by the theory of evolution and the evidence from geology of the ages and movement of the continents, and the actual facts again support the theory of evolution.

Other observed phenomena, such as drug resistance in bacteria, or pesticide resistance in mosquitoes can also be predicted by the theory of evolution. Indeed, we see these things happening, and evolution explains why.

No other theory in the entire field of biology has both the predictive and explanatory powers that the theory of evolution holds. Without the theory of evolution, the best explanation anyone could give about almost any observed behaviour, adaptation or morphological variation in the biological world would be "ummm... I dunno... that's just the way it is."

No other theory has as much physical evidence supporting it either, including well known principles as the theory of gravity, or the theory of heliocentrism.

The only opposition to the theory of evolution comes from a few camps who are upset that the particulars of how it reveals that life came about and adapted to the conditions of the Earth disagree with the creation myths set forth in their holy scripts, and a handful of people who seem to be mortified with the idea that we might be related to chimpanzees (as if being formed from dirt was somehow superior).

I'm curious as to why you would say that the wide array of features that humans share with the apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys means nothing. What evidence do you have that it means nothing? We're just supposed to discard 150 years of scientific inquiry because you think it doesn't mean anything? Pretty high opinion of yourself considering how little you've actually studied the field.

If species were 'created differently with some similarity and ecological interactions' how come whales and dolphins breathe air instead of water. Living in the water, wouldn't it make more sense to be able to breathe it like the ecologically similar fish? Instead they have all these features that make them very similar in internal physiology, skeletal anatomy and even genetic structure to land-locked mammals. That should never happen according to your hypothesis.

Yet the theory of evolution explains it perfectly, and even predicts at what time frame we could expect to find fossil ancestors transitional between whales and land animals. And sure enough, we find those fossils in those very geological strata. What predictions can your hypothesis generate to verify the veracity of your claims?

Ah right, you don't really have a coherent counter-hypothesis. You merely reject the millions of pieces of evidence gathered supporting the theory of evolution because... umm... because you think it's bull s h i t.

Right. Good argument there, sport.

Answer 8

I think that maybe you have been brainwashed by your religion.
Evolution is a proven FACT, not a theory. Your religious leaders do not want to admit this, as they realize that evolution completely undermines all of their religious mumbo jumbo, and it would destroy all religious beliefs. Perhaps it's time to destroy those beliefs and look at the FACTS, instead of the fiction of religion.

Answer 9

Try reading "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder .

Answer 10

I think you need to learn what evolution is. No one ever claimed that man descended from monkey.

Answer 11

I think it`s just what they say it is,a theory with no proof though.My Momma never said we came from chimps,so i don`t personally believe in such a degrading story...even though i love science!