Its already been done - he is called George W Bush.
2006-08-30 18:32:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Evolution isn't true. If you really want a scientific law, I would suggest the Law of bio-genesis. That is a scientific law. It says that life always comes from already existing life and that LIKE always produces LIKE(rabbits always produce rabbits, antelopes always produce antelopes, humans always produce humans......). That is a scientific law. It's been around for over 200 years and it's never been disproven. It's not non-falsifiable. It could be disproven. All you would have to do is find one example, either today or down through history that contradicted this law. That's never happened. Evolution, on the contrary, is a wacko theory. In reality, it's not even that. Something doesn't get to the theory level in science until there is much reason to believe it's true. Evolution is more like a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence. You have a proven scientific law going against hypothesis with no evidence and they diametrically contradict each other. The 3rd law of logic(the law of noncontradiction) says they can't both be true. I think I'll go with the law. I don't really remember any of my great, great, great, grand parents being gorillas.
2006-08-31 01:51:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by upsman 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're a silly, little guy. You would know all about how the number and chemical sequences of each species chromosomes prevent this sort of thing if you had gone to biology class. If you can't accept basic biological science, you might consider just dropping out of school all together. Isn't math a form of numberology, which is an occult science, right? Why let school fill your head with Demons? Drop out now, to save your soul!
2006-08-31 01:37:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course not. Genetic difference is too large.
The first thing you need to seperate is different conditions on the same species - like somethineg existing on either side of a mountain, and over time one side becomes dryer than the other.
2006-08-31 01:34:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not if those species have evolved beyond any point of compatibility. This applies to most of what we call unrelated species. The key phrase here is "what we call", and is something of a misnomer.
2006-08-31 01:39:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by h2odog 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
that doesn't make sense. according to your logic then we should be able to breed people and animals. the species are seperated by millions of years of evolution, they just won't reproduce together. and what do you mean "if" there is no credible opposing theory, just myths, superstitions, and insecurities
2006-08-31 01:36:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by C_Millionaire 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. If you don't understand that evolution is true, then you would not understand any further explanation.... take some college level biology classes. The questions you are asking require answers that are currently beyond your intelligence.
2006-08-31 02:26:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It took millions of years for species to separate. Species that have separated more recently, like donkey and horse, lion and tiger can be crossbred.
2006-08-31 01:34:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by October 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats a totally different thing. Evolution is when one species changes or 'evolves' not mixes with another
2006-08-31 01:33:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by punkvixen 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I fail to see how that proves or disproves anything. The DNA has become too different
2006-08-31 01:38:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The "theory" of evolution is false, when I go to the zoo, I still see monkeys and none of them are my relatives.
2006-08-31 02:34:38
·
answer #11
·
answered by Not perfect, just forgiven 5
·
1⤊
0⤋