Evolution?

Question

If all organisms have supposively evolved from one single organism, why don't monkeys have non-monkeys anymore. Evolutionist day that humans came from mokeys millions of years ago, but yet all monkeys produce now-a-days are monkeys. I have this question for all animals. How come dogs don't have non-dogs ,and non-dogs don't produce dogs?

If the big bang actually happened wouldn't everything in the universe be rotating in the same direction? The Conservation of angular momentum says that everything would be spinning in the same direction.

"second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged."

sites
http://www.signsofcreation.com/refuted_14.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02b.htm

Well they say because our DNA and monkey DNA are 98% the same, yet if there is a missing gene of alteration in a chromosome there is a genetic disorder. iIm not completely sure but I think its somehting like 5 mistakes and the fetus aborts. How would it be possible to eveolve that much, wouldn't the fetuses abort?

hey Lisa E they are still the same kind.

Thank You sleeper_grrl,

"The law of thermodynamics (and conservation of angular motion) were created out of observation and mathematics."

Evolution on the other hand has not been observed (excluding micro_evolution- variations withing species)

"No species (that I know of) has ever given birth to a member of another species."
How could we evolve from one organism?

hey Aviator

1. So dogs can't have non-dogs ( just as cats can't produce non-cats) ...agreed
How can one organism be the "common ancestor" of two different species? ex: "dogs and monkeys have a common ancestor."- this is where i disagree i believe that all dogs had a common ancestor, but that common ancestor was a dog

2. i know the big bang doesn't say everything is would be spinning in the same direction ( just as everything isn't). The conservation of angular momentum really occured then everything would be spinning in the same direction.

hey secretsauce

i'm not sure if you no this or not but there are six different types of evolution( cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution, macro-evolution, and micro-evolution). so by naming the topic "Evolution?" i think i can ask questions on which every one i feel like asking questions on because its my question.

thanks for your opinion though.

One more:
Is it logical to assume that what has been observed today (laws, atmosphere make-up, ect.) isn't how it was earlier?

hey don

so you're saying i confusing because i break down evolution instead of putting it to together... cuase that's not confusing.

all i want is proof that one population of organisms can be the common ancestor to to differnt species.
All I ever hear are assumtions and people say the variation between species prove it. When all variation between species proves is that there are variations between species.

minuteblue, i glad you were there to record that the big chunk of matter wasn't spinning... thanks for your big scientific evidence

thank you brianthemusicman1 for answering my question so thoroughly. I'm so glad that you stuck to the topic instead of giving you opinion about me.

Answer 1

Evolution is anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.
Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites—one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

Answer 2

You have some misconceptions...

Evolutionists do not say that humans came from monkeys (and you are probably thinking of a chimpanzee when you say monkey). Humans, chimpanzees, monkeys, and all other primates on this planet today evolved from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is an animal which no longer exists today, and probably looked more like a possum than primate.

It is not true that everything in the universe would be spinning the same way due to conservation of angular momentum if the big bang were true. This is a gross misconception because...

1. The big bang was not an explosion.
2. The way things in the universe spin, for the most part, have to do with gravity, and can be changed due to interferance by other objects.
3. The universe is isotropic, meaning no one direction is prefered more than another and if everything was spinning the same way then one direction would be prefered.
4. Your assumption means the universe would had to have been spinning a particular direction before the big bang occured. This makes no sense. Direction in terms of 3D space did not exist.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics can be stated many ways, but it basically says that when work is done, the entropy of the universe must either increase or remain unchaged. The entropy of a system, however, can decrease. This will either increase the entropy somewhere in the universe, or leave it unchanged though. Evolution aside, at one point, or all points I should say, before your life, you were scattered molecules and now you're a nice, orderly human being.

This happens all the time. Your parents eat food, drink water, and breath air, the body takes the molecules from these things and makes cells, and some of these cells are egg and sperm, which make you. A few days before you were conceived part of you could have been a bowl of cheerios.

Answer 3

If you want to have an argument about evolution, you actually need to ask an intelligent, coherent question. The second part of your question, about entropy is the weakest. You don't seem to understand what entropy is or how it works in the universe. If your simplistic understanding were correct, then it would have been impossible for matter to have been created in the first place. How could stars and planets have coalesced if the very nature of the universe precluded increasing complexity? It couldn't.

The law of thermodynamics (and conservation of angular motion) were created out of observation and mathematics. When the universe doesn't conform to a set of "laws" that human beings have developed to explain their world it's ridiculous to suggest that it is the universe that's wrong.

You are conflating a whole bunch of things that don't go together.

a) Part of evolutionary theory posits that humans and all other living organism evolved from single celled life-forms that self assembled from proteins that self assembled from protein precursors in an ancient aquatic environment. The theory of evolution does not say that this has reduced the entropy in the universe. This is like claiming that a woman's pregnancy decreases the entropy in her neighborhood because her body has turned carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. into a baby, an organism which is obviously more complex than its raw materials. This ignores, of course, all the plant and animal life that went into feeding the mother and all the energy that was wasted by her body and lost in body heat and digestive waste. Not to mention that the developing fetus is already busy breaking simple sugars down into CHO to fuel its processes well before it's even born. Life doesn't decrease the overall entropy of the system it inhabits, therefore there is no conflict between entropy and evolution. And even if there was, it would just be a matter of picking one and finding more evidence for it than the alternative. You can't just pick a random scientific law and claim that because of a logical inconsistency it disproves another.

I won't talk about the big bang thing because I don't know anything about cosmology.

And the first question is also stupid. No species (that I know of) has ever given birth to a member of another species. That fact has nothing to do with evolution. But I'm sure other posters have addressed this issue to your heart's content.

Answer 4

You have a lot of misinformation.

1. We didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor. And a dog will not have a non-dog offspring. If that happened, that would actually disprove evolution. You should go back an re-learn how evolution works.

2. No, the Big Bang doesn't say that everything in the universe would be spinning in the same direction. You should go back and re-learn about the big bang.

3. You have learned the laws of thermodynamics wrong. It doesn't say that things move toward disorder. No law of thermodynamics is in violation with evolution. Go back and re-learn what the laws of thermodynamics.

Answer 5

Could you answer a question for me? Most of the time, when people post this question (it's posted some 200 times in the past few months), they never actually read the answers (obviously, you are, so maybe you'll actually answer me).
People give very thoughtful, insightful scientific answers, but most questioners pick the person who says "Yea, right on man!" Even the person who had a very thoughtful, coherent answer was largely ignored. You picked the one statement you agreed with, and made this the only statement she said. In reality, she was really disagreeing with you. This implies that whoever is asking the question really has no interest in getting information - they just want to rile people up. So why do people keep posting this question? And also, please stop. It's very annoying. Most people here are trying to help others, so don't be so mean.
Also, little word of advice: It's much easier to debate a topic if you actually have some correct information about said topic. You couldn't discuss the meaning behind Moby Dick if you had never read the book, so don't do the same thing with science until you actually know something (something true, preferably).

Answer 6

Life does not evolve to reach a prescribed goal. It is based on selection pressures in the environment. The way you explain it is that monkeys didn't change significantly because monkeys never left their niche. Apes changed because they moved into a new niche that had different selection pressures.

After the big bang, according to the theory, the universe expanded outward from a central point. I have never heard of it rotating.

Life has mechanisms that use energy to overcome entropy. The law is not actually violated. Some simplified versions of of the law don't apply to life. DNA and RNA no doubt, in my opinion, evolved from simpler systems. RNA likely performed many functions in an earlier system that protein does for life today. There is no way to know because the current system of life consumed most of the evidence.

Answer 7

When monkeys evolved into humans, they weren't monkeys like they are now. Today's monkeys are the product of a divergent path of evolution from the apes of prehistory. I'll get back to that a minute, because primates aren't the only thing that is different now than it was back at the dawn of man.

Evolution happens for one primary reason, survival. Species that live in a harsh environment adapt to their surroundings a little bit every generation. Primates in Africa and Asia in harsher climates evolved to more intelligent creatures because if they hadn't they would have run out of food and died off. Early primates in more arboreal regions, eventually evolved into the monkeys we see at the zoo today.

Think about it, could you survive in the rainforest as well as an Orangatan? They may not have devoloped to be as intelligent as us but they do thrive in the trees.

Its divergent evolution.

Now as to why dogs don't produce more evolved dogs, there are three things to consider.

A. Dogs are domesticated and therefore there is no impetus to adapt to their surroundings, in fact they have adapted very well in the process of becoming domesticated.

B. Dogs DO form new species. Rat Terriers were bred from Jack Russel Terriers and Feists to catch Neutras in France during the Victorian Era.

C. Not being able to see new species form is a very hard way to disprove evolution because it happens at such a small rate of mutation per generation, but you can see it happen in bacteria that spawn a new generation in a matter of seconds.

Answer 8

a million) According to evolutionists, Humans advanced from apes? Humans are apes by means of definition. Linnaeus categorized us as such and he was once a creationist. two) There are many tested details in technology, however evolution is only a concept. False because of a false impression of the phrase concept. A reality, in technology, is a discrete factor of knowledge. Theories attach details and provide an explanation for them. There is not any larger type than concept. three) A transitional sort is a fossil of an animal that's side one species and side an extra. False. All organisms are transitional. four) The age of the earth is located by means of scientists totally via the radioactive relationship of fossils ? The age of the Earth was once located by means of relationship a meteor at the assumption that the Solar System was once the entire equal age. All different calculations have compatibility the age determined. five) The medical system starts with a prediction after which appears for proof to help that prediction? It starts with commentary. Then a speculation is shaped from that commentary. After the speculation is shaped, scientists seem for proof to help or falsify the speculation. 6) The concept of evolution entails the Big Bang? False. 7) To feel in evolution is to feel that existence and topic got here from not anything? False.

Answer 9

Evolution is a proven fact, from which it follows that all these arguments are necessarily false. A mutated descendant of an original wild type may not be sufficiently better suited to the environment to render the wild type obsolete and subject to extinction; furthermore, separation leads to differential evolution (consider the biota of Australia) so the wild type may survive or evolve differently. Since the initial angular momentum of the universe was zero, conservation leads one to expect different rotations adding up to zero, and that is what is observed. (The varying rotations occur because of turbulence.) There is plenty of entropy shortage to permit life to evolve; the sun provides the energy, and natural selection generates the increase in order that is observed. We don't know how life started in the first instance, but once it did, evolution took over and produced the vast panoply of life that we see today.

Answer 10

Well, evolution states that we share a common ancestor, millions of years ago, and there were, even then, more than just one species of "monkey". One of those species eventually, due to environmental changes and pressure was force to evolve and after oh-so many million years, it became mankind as we know it. I honestly don't understand your monkey/non-monkey concept. All I know is that evolution is a process that takes thousands of millions of years and more
and it is not possible for us, in human time to be able to observe it, but the way the earth functions has left us with numerous evidence of these process.
As for mutation questions, first of all there are different types of mutations, those which are harmful, and those which are innocuous, so some mutations we wouldn't even see unless having our DNA decoded for us and compared with human genome. Secondly, Evolution is not entirely based on mutation, this is just one of the processes that can lead to it, more common (and effective) in unicellular organisms than in most multicellular ones. Most of our "evolving mechanisms" are already in our DNA, the ability to adapt to certain changes is already in our DNA so, and if we don't have the necessary information for a particular change in our environment we will simply become extinc in time.

As for thermodynamics law, well, we have to take in count that earth thousands of millions of years ago, was different than what it is now, this law is for the world as we know it, for the rest of the 3800million years, who knows how the situation was?....it is all speculation so maybe physics was different too, we REALLY don't know (not yet anyway). The earth evolves too, not only life forms.

Answer 11

Look up gradual versus punctuated evolution. Most of evolutionary change is gradual.....meaning that a pregnant woman will give birth to a child, not an elephant, bird, or other organism. And monkeys will give birth to monkeys.

Earth is 4.5+ billion years old and our lifespan is only a 100 years at best. It's tough to think in terms of millions of years, but over that long a time-frame, evolution can result in millions of different species.

By the way, the DNA in a tree, a bird and you and me is all made of the same basic parts. Those parts are just arranged differently in each creature.