No links please...What proof do you have, that man evolved from a common ancestor of ape and man?

Question

Lets keep this rational. i want those of you who believe in evolution as a fact, to provide me with any fact, that supports the evolutionary process that man and ape both evolved from a common ancestor.....no links please...if you cant answer the question on your own, dont bother as i have most likely been to the link or have studied the theory behind it....thanks

posting links even in written fashion is not proof, either.

as for the influenza, you are talking to a scientist here and i can tell you that although there are MUTATIONS within the virus itself, there is no functional change to the DNA at any level.

as for fossil records being geographically close, there is no evidence that this is not just a crossbreed of two similar, yet different species. again, not an evolution, but a integration of species.

i am a scientist. i was also a soldier and i am also a christian.

as a scientist, i have studied the evolution theory in depth. the facts are just not there to support it.

between each great evolutionary link there has to be one of two things: 1) a intermediate form of that species or 2) the work of a creator.

of all the species on this earth, there is no tangible proof of any such intermediate form of any species....none...nada...zip

Answer 1

Adaptation is a fact of life because God created all living "species" with the ability to become diverse. That is why domestic cats are different from African lions, even North American lions. They are all still cats. Moose are deer, same as a Key deer. God created all species with this ability. Evolution is a complete fallacy, and utter failure. Not to mention that it is one of many "teachings of demons,"
that we MUST oppose.


***Oh yeah...not one evolutionist religion fanatic from Darwin down can explain the sudden appearance in the various geo. stratas of diverse, complex species. Miniature horses are still here today, same as a Percheron stallion. Why don't evolutionist fanatics claim that they are two different species? Because they are the same species, just a defferent breed. The skeleton of a chihuahua looks extremeley different from the skeleton of an Irish wolf hound....Maybe in a thousand years (IF God had allowed them to be here then) they would dig up these two different dog or horse skeletons and said that evolution had been up to something!!!!!!!

**********************By the way, not all scientists are evolutionists; there are some excellent scientists who are of high intelligence and therefore reject evolutionary dogma.

Answer 2

Simply, there are many strands to knowing this is the truth. One or two examples will never prove this to someone that doesn't care to find proof...

However, to start with there is a now precise archaeological record that spans 2.5 million years and provides an exact bridge of each evolutionary leap between species

Evolutionary failures, such as Australopithecus and Neanderthal man, are just as important as counter examples as they demonstrate how some of the links were unable to compete with the homo sapiens and were selected through evolutionary principles for failure and ultimatly extinction

Furthermore, DNA analysis is precise. A recent DNA sample here in Britain extracted some DNA from a pre-historic carcass of a human that was much older than any written history and compared DNA to a local population, they found some one with the exact match...a precise descendant separated by thousands of generations.

I do however have to caveat my logical argument and consider whether I choose to believe these facts...there are plenty of facts that are complete sh*t

...as a Radical Humanist (for the sake of a term to express my own beliefs), I know that it really is irrelevant whether proof, logic and reason exists when it comes to articles of faith, everyone believes what they want to believe, other peoples views if the differ are merely window dressing...don't you think...

Great question though!

Answer 3

Are you prepared to believe that ANY two species have a common ancestor? Perhaps chimpanzees and bonobos? Perhaps California Sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and London Planes (Platanus acerifolia)? If you are not there is no point going any further. If you are, how would you check? Look at genome similarities, study expected rates of genetic mutation and I should think a dozen other scientifically measurable variables? Well apply those to the various african ape species and you will conclude that we are african apes, most closely related to the chimpanzee. You surely don't expect 150 years worth of evolutionary theory and research to get put into one of these answers, do you? No link, but read a book or two. I recommend Richard Dawkins for a start. And by the way I hope you understand it's not just apes and humans. Every living thing on this planet, every tree, mushroom, grasshopper, jellyfish, kangaroo, and person, has one....common....ancestor.

Answer 4

The truth is beyond the resemblances between human beings and apes both in physical structure (unusually close similiarities in brain mass-to-body mass ratio, opposable thumbs and skeletal structure) and social life (at least primitive forms of social life and tool-making)...there is little true evidence in terms of a fossil of a so-called missing link. There have been skeletons of more primitive humanoids (such as Homo Erectus) whose similiarities to apes get closer and closer the older the fossil/species, but we have never found a true missing link which can definitively link Homo Sapiens (us) from the other apes. Until we find a preserved skeleton of a true missing link...then I think this question will never be truly answered.

Answer 5

There is all types of evidence as in the genetic code, but you'll probably said that's because god made us even though that's such a coincidence. There is also the existance of other human-like species such as the neanderthals, but creationists say those weren't humans. There is also other skulls that seem intermediate and prove to be closer to the apes than human yet retaining human-like qualities, but creationists say that these are full ape and not human at all. And if we find something that is half human/ half ancestor and half ape/ half ancestor they'll say these are 2 totally different species that went extinct, that there is no proof that these reproduced, and that there is another missing link thats 25%/75%. You can't win with creationists.

Tell me, why is it that to believe science you need proof beyond any doubt, but to believe your bible you don't need any but your emotions and book that say god is real? Even if you prove that evolution is absolutely false, you still have to prove that Christianity is right and not hinduism, islam, scientology, etc.

Answer 6

while you're a help of evolution, how are you able to no longer comprehend the respond to that? you are able to no longer effectively argue against something in case you comprehend no longer something appropriate to the "something" you're arguing against. you purely look like a fool. i think of you're in all probability the 1st guy or woman that believes in evolution that i've got ever advised to circulate study it some greater. that's not appropriate what something looks prefer to the bare eye. Thats purely packaging. many stuff look like something else. Ever seen a sprig fish? Yeah properly, it looks precisely like the call says. a sprig. until you get close to it and it strikes. in case you %. it up, it has gills. Its a bloody fish, no longer a sprig. and that i merely ran out of time to be at right here. go study evolution greater. wisdom is the main ability somebody could have and the only excuse for no longer having any is psychological failure.

Answer 7

I can not provide you with any proof that you will find acceptable because the proofs are rooted in sceince. If you do not believe in the scientific process to begin with, the proof will mean nothing to you. But the same applies to religion, if you can not provide proof beyond "belief" or beyond what the Bible says, how can you or anyone see it as absolute truth. The proof means nothing if you're a non believer.
Why do you believe in creation? Is it because you find proofs rooted in belief and from a single book more acceptable? If that is the case, what makes belief in science less true than belief in religion? What makes the Bible more true than any science book?

Answer 8

man has'nt evolved from anything...evolution is just a theory...there are no solid evidences to date...the supposed piltdown man a link between man and ape was actually a jaw of an orangutan attached to the cranium of a human, this was used to fool people for 40 years...why would evolutionists be so desperate if they had many more evidences pointing to evolution being a reality...

Answer 9

There is no proof nor ever will be as a matter of fact Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

Answer 10

Extremely close genetic resemblence. +98%
Logic(Duh), vs religious creationism(no proof)

And, other than the fact that we can see a gradual change in the fossils that slowly date back...