2007-08-28 03:38:33 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
C'mon people , it was just a handy alliterative phrase there's no reason to have my poetic license suspended because I chose to use it.
2007-08-28 04:00:11 · update #1
Many of them do. They realize that evolution is undeniable. So they agree that evolution is true. But humans just weren't part of it.
(Which I find quite hilarious.) :)
2007-08-28 03:42:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think that evolution is being misunderstood as adaptation. Species adapt they don't become other species. Just because they change colour or gain a new ability, this does not mean they evolved. They simply adapted to their environment. Let's get this straight. Evolution claims that new species are produced from other species through time. This is ludicrous and ridiculous because there are no transitional fossils. And don't use wikipedia or give me two that were found throughout your so called' billions of years." If evolution were true there would be millions of transitional fossils found. Look at how many dinasour fossils have been found. Also, mule males, which are the offspring of a mare and a donkey, all are sterile. They can't produce. This is sure evidence that two different species mating can make a first generation offspring but the males will be sterile and the new species will stop there.
2007-08-28 10:52:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm assuming you're using "monkey" as a genetic term for "non-human primate" because we didn't evolve from monkeys. We did, however, evolve from other primates.
If there was no genetic link between monkeys and humans, evolution wouldn't be true. You can't ask to eliminate a key aspect of a theory and ask if that would make the theory acceptable. In order to eliminate the relationship between humans and monkeys, we would need to eliminate the process of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution, which is unacceptable.
That's like asking "Would you believe in gravity if it didn't say that things fell?"
2007-08-28 10:47:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, this is not going to answer your question. I'm going to pick up on this "we did not evolve from monkeys" baloney.
We share a common ancestor with the modern day apes and the modern day monkeys. We also share common ancestors with goats, donkeys, fish, reptiles, birds and bananas! Each of these common ancestors was a living organism (usually two!) as they were living organisms they would fit into a taxionomic grouping. That is to say that each of these "Common Ancestors" was SOMETHING, be it bacteria, fish, reptile, mammal like reptile, whatever.
So what was the common ancestor between humans and modern day monkeys. My guess is that it was an archaic species of monkey! What was the common ancestor between modern apes and humans? Did it belong to an entriely different taxionomix grouping? No - it was an archaic species of ape.
2007-08-28 10:54:14 · answer #4 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here's the neat-o thing that everyone seems to miss:
Darwin never said we "came from monkeys"
Rather, he said that we had a common ancestor millions of years ago- a big difference. And it's relatively universally accepted by the scientific community. More than 98% of our genetic material is also found in chimps. Coincidence? Eh...
You also have to consider the other part to evolution- Natural Selection. We still see this happening today.
Christians refuse to believe in anything that contradicts what their bible has told them to believe. It's called a "personal bias"- and no matter how much scientific proof we present them, they're just going to scratch their heads and "pray" for us.
I'm comfortable saving myself, thanks.
:)
2007-08-28 10:44:52 · answer #5 · answered by ~*Live, Love and Blessed Be*~ 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would have to be a two or three stage evolutionary process, of dirt becoming a man , then a rib from the man forming a woman.
2007-08-28 10:42:30 · answer #6 · answered by Sporadic 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Err..science doesn't say that monkeys became human. That is only a Christian misunderstanding of it.
2007-08-28 10:47:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem for them is that it contradicts their magic book, not the monkey thing. Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys anyways.
2007-08-28 10:43:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why? Most believe in Bush
2007-08-28 10:47:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to evolution, monkeys did not evolve into men. That being said, no.
Evolution is a lie.
2007-08-28 10:43:07 · answer #10 · answered by L.C. 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋