Athiest: If evolution happened, why don't monkeys give birth to humans anymore?

Question

Have anyone seen a monkey that had a human for a baby?


Lets' see you explain that one.

Jeff: I can see the Earth and the stars. All of which, He created.

Me: I'm rubber and you're glue, buddy.

Answer 1

TROLL! BUT I LIKE YOUR ACT!!!

Answer 2

Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

Why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.”

Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

Answer 3

LOL. You're literally confusing trees with forests.

Evolution doesn't say the mutations were great enough for monkeys to birth humans or rodents to birth monkeys or reptiles to birth animals or fish to birth reptiles.

The mutations are small enough so that you don't suddenly get a new species but can be enough to make one has a slight advantage over the other. For example, 50% of a wing is better than 45%, and five-eighths of an eye is better than half of an eye.

A monkey giving birth to a human would actually DISPROVE evolution, not prove it. It would go against everything we've learned and could more appropriately be called a miracle.

Answer 4

Talk about the name being false advertising!

No-one outside of the US would say such an ignorant thing! You don't even understand what a common ancestor is obviously so further explanation would be futile.

Doctors advice: Lie down, relax, then do something you have never done before - read a book on how the universe works that is not published by a right wing extremist, after that read some more and soon enough you will be laughing at the old you, like the rest of us.

Answer 5

Go take a biology class. Tow different species!!! Human and it's APES by the way, can mate...well that is the theroy that a living infant can be bred.

Also, Apes and modern humans came from one ancestor. There were different species from this common ancestor and what you see today is the result of evolution. If you think about the theory of evolution, without putting in all that Religious stuuf, it is REALLY fascinating!

Answer 6

I heavily question whether any creature evolves to accomplish any specific style of smart labour. that they are able to being experienced to accomplish straight forward initiatives isn't doubted, and there exists evidence that some human beings is often experienced as much as a matching familiar. QUILL

Answer 7

Well done for this question - that'll show them! Originality - can't beat it. I think this stupid ignorant, desperate, imbecilic question has only be asked about a thousand times before and each time the brain dead asker has been show to have the brains of a dung beetle! You are not the exception to that record. Christians, if God created man they why did he forget to give this one a brain? Was he hoping he'd find his way to Oz and the wizard would give him instead?

Answer 8

Huh? Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Read your science book. Both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Answer 9

Ok you are a troll. Not even the dumbest Christian thinks that evolution has anything at all to do with monkeys giving birth to humans.

Answer 10

No, you got that all wrong. Instead of monkeys having human babies, humans are starting to devolve back to monkeys. Also, monkeys are starting to evolve into lions. Oh, it’s a mess, which Darwin never counted on.

Thank God I'm a Christian and don't have to deal with this junk science.

Answer 11

I was going to say 'your mother', but I know I'd get reported. You wouldn't have to be the smartest Christian to be aware of all the inetermediary fossils and bones that have been found, all of them snapshots of a gradual progression: Rampitepithecus, Austrolopitecus and Neanderthals to name but three.