Or we crashed on this planet as passengers on a star ship filled with hair dressers and lawyers.
2007-06-22 14:51:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by sonofmary 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
First thought: get your science from scientists, not religious leaders. Laws of nature and science? Where did you get that? There is no concept in biology better supported than that of evolution. Even if we accepted your hypothesis, evolution works in both directions, increased and decreased complexity. Consider parasites as an example of the latter. Transitory species? We keep coming up with them. I think Tiktaalik is the latest. You fundamentalists just say, "Well, what is the link between the links?" You will never be satisfied. DNA changes all the time. It's called mutation. That's why you are not a carbon copy of your parents. BTW, nobody (at least, no scientist) ever said that cats became dogs or that monkeys became human. (Granted, I have had some doubts when I've graded some of my students.) However, the two pairs can be traced back to common ancerstors. Considering the odds against fossilization of any individual, I'd say we've done quite well in piecing together the fossil record. AHA, you admit a species can change. Doesn't that negate your third argument? While evolution is generally too slow to see during the short time man has been around, there has been an instance of a new subspecies evolving fairly rapidly. It is a small rodent found only on an island in the Great Salt Lake. The ones on shore area different subspecies. We can time it fairly well because that island didn't exist until relatively recently.
2016-05-17 23:48:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have brought up a good point. Where are the intermediate species? There should be half apes/half humans, 3/4 ape-1/4 human, etc.
There is what we would call "micro-evolution" but no "macro" evolution.
I would also like to point out to you that evolutionists conveniently ignore issues that put a "monkey" wrench into the theory.
Explain sex. How did it come about? The evolutionary model is based upon cellular multiplication and growth through cellular division. By what mechanism did two cells, or two early creatures get the idea to exchange dna?
How about structures that all the parts have to be working in order for the structure to work at all, such as an eye? How many thousands of years (or more) did it take before the first eye actually worked?
To me, it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a Creator God who made all things.
.
2007-06-22 15:40:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Hogie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
UUUUGGGGGGH
*headdesk*
WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!!!!!
COMMON ANCESTOR =/= APE
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Okay. Biology says that we evolved from a common ancestor. Think of it like this: A long time ago there was a species called Species A. It lived and hunted and climbed trees and had a grand ol' time. Somewhere down the line, Species A started to have a genetic mutation, that is-- Species A started giving birth to slightly "deformed" babies. After a while, these "deformed" young ones became more and more common-- Species A started to stand on two legs, the species started eating different thins because they could reach and climb easier. With these new qualities, Species A slowly started to split into Species B and Species C. Species B didn't like the idea of standing upright--for whatever reason. So it took to climbing and staying in trees, while Species C stood up, left the tree and started new diets, hunting groups and families. Species B became what we know as apes today and Species C are the humans. We are not apes. We did not come from an ape. We came from a common ancestor.
Make sense?
2007-06-22 14:59:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by grayson_michael18346 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is not what happened:
Day 1 - Apes
Day 2 - Some apes gave birth to proto-people, and others gave birth to apes.
A more accurate description:
Day 1 - Ancestors of both apes and humans alive.
Day 2 - Some ancestors begin giving birth to the first proto-apes. Others gave birth to the first proto-people. As these two lineages diverged, they adapted to different selection pressures.
So, there were never half-man/half-ape beings to begin with. One of the things that people who don't understand evolution fail to understand repeatedly: there is no such thing as a transitional species. Or, to be more specific, ALL species are transitional.
A better question: why are there no human-like creatures from the evolution of hominids?
Many times, the answers are simple: competition for the same resources to occupy the same niche strains one side more than the other. A good example that ongoing research is demonstrating this is the time period that homo sapiens and neanderthals co-existed in Europe and (for very short time) the Levantine.
Another, more significant event occurred approximately 60,000 years ago, when an Indonesian volcano (Mt. Toba) blew itself apart. The prevailing winds dropped ash all over India, the Middle East, and eastern Africa. Any human-like beings that lived in these areas were destroyed virtually immediately. On the other side of the East African mountains, human beings would have been sheltered...and anthropological evidence shows just that. The places where human-like creatures may have survived consisted of parts of Indonesia...where we have found Java man (Homo erectus)and a possible off-shoot of the Homo Erectus, Homo Floriensis (which local legends may be referring to in the areas in which they may have survived, possibly as late as the early 20th century, if the tales are to be believed). But, these areas were climatically isolated.
So, with most of the other hominids wiped out, it ended up being homo sapiens from Africa and homo neanderthals competing. Anybody who had travelled the rest of the world was gone.
2007-06-22 15:02:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by jtrusnik 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is absolutely, unequivocally, NO evidence ANYWHERE that ever suggests any information has ever been added to DNA in any species on the planet. At best, there are inferences based on evidence suggesting LOST information in DNA. One parent cannot pass on new genetic information to the next generation no matter how hard they try. They can, however, pass on a genetic fault or a missing gene sequence resulting in the eventual disappearance of characteristics, and variety and change within the species. Basically, the evidence points more toward DEVOLUTION, not EVOLUTION.
If I am wrong about this please show me the evidence that we've got more genetic information now than we did in the past. I would sincerely like to see it if it exists.
I will say though that I know the evolutionists are not claiming we came FROM apes, but that both apes and humans come from the same ancestor. Like branches on the same tree.
2007-06-22 14:57:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Michelle M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Science is not even totally buying into that concept anymore. A large faction now says SEPARATE SPIECES
What's more important is WHY AREN'T WE SEEING ANY MAJOR EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS HAPPENING
It's like evolution just stopped except for viruses.
I'm talking in the higher life forms.
WHY are there no transitional forms around for us to study.
Something that is ONE chomosome away from something else.
The sheer fact exists that the EVOLUTIONARY backers basically have the SAME TYPE OF EVIDENCE as the religious backers.
Some fossles. REligion has the dead sea scrolls and some Codex fragments.
Evolutionists have some fish fossles.
The non believe says WHY DOESN'T GOD SHOW HIMSELF
Well I can say the same thing
Why DOESN'T EVOLUTION SHOW ITSELF
Why aren't we not seeing it.
Why are there NOT specimines in a lab being studied or in the wild being tagged and studied over 10,000 years of time by someone at HArvard, Eaton, the University of Cairo
The beauty of evolution is you can hide behind a concept it takes 50,000 years so you can't see it with your own eyes.
Well, let's video document it so that in 50,000 years we can play back the videos and SHOW the process.
2007-06-22 14:54:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do not know of any scientist who says human beings evolved from apes. That myth is just an attempt to distract you, from the people who are scared to let you find out the facts. They want to keep you in ignorance, so they can continue to keep themselves in ignorance and still feel comfortable about it.
A factual statement is this: All life forms have a lot in common. they are all based on the DNA molecule in its many different forms. The DNA of a chimpanzee is at least 98 per cent identical with your DNA. If that is a problem for you, then the problem is with your own reluctance to face reality, not in the science.
But the problem is that reality sometimes interferes with your comfort in your religious convictions. Some people then choose to believe according to comfort. This does not change the facts, it just permits you to hide from them like a scared child who thinks that if he puts a pillow over his head the monster under his bed won't find him.
Facing reality is awesome. It's called growing up. Too bad many fundies don't make it.
2007-06-22 14:55:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by fra59e 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Think of man and apes as distant cousins. They share a great great great grandfather that existed thousands of years ago.
The ancestor that we are descended from is neither a living type of ape today, nor is it human.
That ancestor and the type of ape it was, has long gone extinct.
Proof of evolution happening today:
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution—evolution on a small scale.
2007-06-22 14:47:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sapere Aude 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, we evolved from the same ancestor that the great apes evolved from. That ancestor might not still be alive today.
Pretty simple.
2007-06-22 14:48:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Leland 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because we didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
You're related to your cousin, but you didn't evolve from them, did you? You have a common ancestor in your grandparents.
2007-06-22 14:47:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by eri 7
·
2⤊
0⤋