English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If in fact evolution is real,then where are the creatures that reside between us and apes? Apes are alive and we are alive,both have the resourcefulness to stay alive so where is the between? We have uncovered the remains of dinosaurs,apes,prehistoric fish,and so on,but nothing of this "missing link".. If we did in fact come from apes or fish or reptiles, then please explain to me where the two massive rocks in space came from that made the earth or better yet tell me where the gasses came from to make the sun and the stars,what made them ignite in a place with no oxygen? Please someone make me a believer of this "THEORY !!"

2007-06-14 07:33:58 · 8 answers · asked by James S 1 in Science & Mathematics Biology

8 answers

hey consult wikipedia its very well explained there and its not just a theory(its a fact)....if it was a theory that was false then how would we be here

2007-06-14 07:39:02 · answer #1 · answered by manish_wolfyfox 5 · 4 0

The scope of your question is beyond the ability of anyone to answer in the confines of this format. You have essentially asked how everything from the big bang to present day came into being. I would suggest looking into taking some classes at your local community college or taking a trip to the public library. Either place can provide you with a wealth of information on the formation of our universe. and by the way, belief is based upon faith, Faith is an element of religion, not science. Science is about what is observable. A theory is a hypothesis (idea) with a significant body of evidence to back it up. You are free to accept or reject such evidence as you see fit. However, I nor anybody else, can make you "believe" anything that you do not choose to. Keep an open mind but be skeptical of all claims made. Do your own research and then make up your own mind.

2007-06-14 15:06:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

1. Technically, we are apes. Other human and ape species that existed between modern humans and the human and ape's ape-like ancestors lived in niches very similar to our own. They are extinct because the newer species they gave rise to outcompeted them, driving them to extinction. If they could not have outcompeted them then the new species would not have lasted, and the older ones would have continued until yet another new species did.

That both the great apes and humans have the "resourcefulness to stay alive" is am arguable one, given the unfortunate state that the apes are in right now. Evolution has not stopped, it is very much still going right before our eyes, but it may well stop for the great apes very soon.


2. So called "missing links" are not predicted by the theory of evolution. Really, all species are intermediates between their most recent ancestor and whatever future species they may evolve into, unless of course the entire lineage dies out with them. Fossils are extremely rare, finding any at all is a great achievement, but they are only brief snapshots of a lineage in a specific moment in time. We cannot hope to display a smooth gradiant in fossil forms given the nature of fossilisation. When taking holiday photos you can infer what you did from the pictures that you have, but you do not require every single millisecond to be recorded on film, and neither are you expected to have. The missing link argument is a flawed one, since it is impossible to represent an analogue gradient in random and discreet entities.

Finally, the theory of punctuated equilibrium states that new forms may emerge relatively quickly compared to the rate of evolution in a species "normally". This would greatly reduce the time in which so-called "transitional species" may be recorded in, and would account for the rareness of such specimens.

Then again, how would you know from a single fossil that it was an interspecies intermediate, and not a new species in its own right?


3. This is not evolution at all, this is Nebula Theory, PLEASE do not confuse the two, it is quite infuriating. I have not heard of Two massive rocks smashing into each other. The Earth formed from the dust and gas in orbit around the early sun, remnants of previous stars that went supernova. Their gravity caused the articles to collect and accrete into a massive object. A second proto-planet, Theia, is hypothesised to have formed in the same orbital zone as Earth in the same way, and crashed into the planet, cracking the forming crust into plates and throwing material into orbit that would form the moon.


4. Not evolution either, but astrophysics: Stellar Theory. The sun and stars do not "burn", they did not ignite and do not combust. They are engaging in nuclear fusion, their gravity creates enormous pressures inside the star, enough for fusion. Four Hydrogen nuclei are fused into a single Helium nuclei, and the excess mass is converted into energy as described in the equation E=mc^2, and that is the heat and light of the sun.


5: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In science, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition. It is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and a theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the general theory of relativity.

As it follows from this, it is an observed fact that organisms can, do and have changed their form through descent, and the processes and causes of this are described and explained in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (of the Theory of the Evolution of Species by Natural Selection, unifying many branches of biology, particularly genetics, palaeontology, cytology, botany and systematics).

2007-06-14 15:10:27 · answer #3 · answered by Bullet Magnet 4 · 5 0

Whatever might not yet have been found (remember, very, very rarely do organisms in the fossilize and even more rarely are these fossils discovered) in the fossil record is now being filled in with DNA evidence. DNA is not only agreeing for the most part with the fossil record, but is further verifying the "theory" of evolution.

The formation of the sun and earth is not biology. You are asking big questions in an easy way without doing your homework.

2007-06-14 15:30:44 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 1 0

Well, first of all, your conception of what evolution attempts to explain is somewhat askew. It doesn't try to explain how the earth was created, only how life came to be on the earth. You pose a common question. The missing link is missing, that is how it got its name, although a few specimens of Homo erectus, sometimes considered the missing link, have been discovered, the link between humans and complex apes is one mystery surrounding evolution. The mystery of the missing link cannot be considered as evidence according to the scientific method, however. This is because only knowledge can be considered evidence, ignorance is not evidence for or against.

2007-06-14 14:47:26 · answer #5 · answered by spinacheater 2 · 4 1

There are many species of Australopithecines that we know from fossil evidence; they are now extinct. There are also many species of other hominids, many showing transitional features (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, etc.) which are known from fossil remains as well.

For more information, there are many fine texts of the exciting research being done on human ancestry that you can find by searching for "Human Evolution" on Amazon.com.

Also, our star, the sun does not burn. It releases energy through nuclear fusion, a process by which atoms are smashed together (such as two hydrogen atoms fusing to make one helium atom, in the process creating heat and light).

2007-06-14 14:54:02 · answer #6 · answered by Dendronbat Crocoduck 6 · 3 1

Well, I was about to take your question seriously and direct you to some good evolution information, but then I saw that you think the sun needs oxygen to 'burn'. If you really want to understand some of these things, you need to get a basic education first, then come back and ask an informed question.

2007-06-14 14:42:00 · answer #7 · answered by Geoffrey S 3 · 4 1

I have no desire to work my poor arthritic fingers to the bone with long explanations to some one who obviously is not ready to learn.
There are a whole slew of young people on YA that will do the job; for me and you.
Suffice it to say; it is not a matter of belief, but of evidence. If you are capable of reading, go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

http://www.accessexelence.org

2007-06-14 14:43:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers