That being what...adaptation?
And that being said, how can they say then that we are not from apes?
It's not like comparing a dog to a whale, which have almost nothing in common.
If you consider that, two we would not easily see as related, then look at us compared to other primates, we are infinitely more similar to each other.
No matter how special people want to think we humans are, comparing us to other higher primates is just the same as comparing a dog to a wolf. Yes they are different, but it is obvious that somewhere long ago there is a connection.
2007-10-05 16:10:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yah, it's strange. Creationists believe animals can change a little bit in a small amount of time but that they can't change a lot in a large amount of time.
2007-10-05 16:12:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Because they are ignorant to the evolutionary process. They think that micro and macro evolution are different, but they are in fact one in the same. Macro evolution is just over a much, much longer time period than micro evolution.
And to Edge, who said "A dog can breed with a wolf. A man cannot breed with an ape," we are apes. And according to this study, we very well may be able to breed with chimpanzees... As weird as that is.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
2007-10-05 23:24:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dear Ms.Taurus;
And where are we on the evolutionary ladder today?
Why do You think it is that humans and primates co-exist?
The answer lies in an easily provable hypothesis,which is 'things tend towards disorder".
You can prove this for Yourself.
Take a jar and fill it 1/3 full of black sand and 1/3 full of white sand,begin shaking the jar.At which point will it return to its ordered state? much less return to a higher form of order I.E. black white black white layers or even individual grains ? I contend that the answer is never ,at least without intervention.
now as a logical person ,who would be in such a position as to intervene in primordial times when single celled entities combined to form complex structures such as plants,animals,etc?
I'll leave you to your own conclusions .
Thank you for your time.
sincerely;
Joe c
and to edge ,you or i can't breed an ape but apparently some others are more adventurous
2007-10-06 19:32:48 · answer #3 · answered by joe c 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
oh it gets weirder than that. some young earthers believe that the surviving kinds after the flood lead to the earth's existing biodiversity. hypermicroevolution ;) in order to make the flood myth seem believable, they are required to believe in a rate of evolutionary change that "evolutionists" wouldn't support, and then they turn around and say that there has not been time for evolution to produce the changes in form that are required of it, over millions of years. they are opportunists, they use the argument of the moment. the contradictions go unnoticed (or worse, attributed to god's mysterious ways).
2007-10-05 23:18:56 · answer #4 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you would truly have to be an idiot to understand the observations darwin made on his voyage and yet take that data to a different conclusion then the one he made. so yes, even the strongest christians can believe in microevolution and natural selection, provided they actually understand it. the part of the story that is beyond them is the idea that this can happen on a large scale to produce an entirely new species.
2007-10-05 23:23:17 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Gentleman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some people find this false distinction more comforting and able to be shoehorned into the Bible story.
As Darwin first pointed out, so-called microevolution proves macroevolution.
2007-10-05 23:14:22 · answer #6 · answered by Voyager 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Dog and wolf are the same species.. so it is different.. but i see where you are coming from
2007-10-05 23:17:36 · answer #7 · answered by just some chick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only mutation. Change of skin color, or anything else in the level of being the same species.
2007-10-06 00:07:51 · answer #8 · answered by lodasky2 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if we put a wolf hair and a sheep dog hair under a microscope it both would show to be canine, the same with their blood, NOW if we put a monkey hair or blood & a humans under a microscope the one would be "human" the other a "primate" ...simple logic
2007-10-05 23:17:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sorry, there "ain't no connection". Even an 8 year could tell you that long ago an ape was an ape! Read the Bible.
2007-10-05 23:15:23 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Answer 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋