jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (121 posts)

If man evolved from monkeys & apes, y do we still have monkeys & apes

  1. Freegoldman profile image61
    Freegoldmanposted 5 years ago

    is there a logic..

    1. Wayne Tully profile image59
      Wayne Tullyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh these will evolve into other humans at a later date

      1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
        Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        no i don't think that this will happen. they might evolve in some new species but I don't think that new species would be like us.

      2. DuchessDuCaffeine profile image60
        DuchessDuCaffeineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm with Wayne. Humans are always in such a hurry. Some episodes of evolution just take longer wink

    2. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ..how else would we be able to fill Congress?

      1. ThePelton profile image77
        ThePeltonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hahahahahahahahahahaha

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know perhaps someone closer to the problem can answer that - I will ask my actor friends.

      1. DuchessDuCaffeine profile image60
        DuchessDuCaffeineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Finally we can settle this age old question once and for all. I just KNEW someone, somewhere had the right connections!

    4. nightwork4 profile image61
      nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the thing about evolution is that it is neither exact nor does it effect everything at the same time. apes and such perhaps were missing some gene that prevented them from changing over time.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, the other great apes clearly did change over time, they just changed into different things than we did.

        The evolution of chimpanzees, for example, is not as well documented as humans because bodies rot faster in the jungle than the savanna and are less likely to be preserved, but we know from genetic evidence that the modern chimpanzee species is only about one million years old, although the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans lived at least 4-6 million years ago. There were no modern chimpanzees in the Miocene. Just as the ancestors of humans went through several different species in the intervening millions of years, so did the ancestors of chimpanzees.

    5. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      None whatsoever.

  2. Sneha Sunny profile image85
    Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago

    yes there is. we shared common ancestors with all the apes, chimpanzee, gorilla, and the rest. Up to a particular stage we were same (during the process of evolution) but then at a point that particular species divided into two different species. and in this way we got divided. This process continued. And the last division (of the species) was in humans (primitive humans) and the chimpanzees. That's why they are the most closest relative of humans. We shared a common ancestor with them for the longest time than we did with other apes. And that's why there is a similarity in our DNA. Our (humans and chimpanzees) DNA is 90% same.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i would like to correct it. It's 99% same.

  3. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    I assume you have never actually read Darwins' Origin of Species or you wouldn't ask such questions.

    The only place in the world that thinks we did is the good old US of A where it is still argued whether Darwin's books should even be used or referred to as scientific fact. ( For the record they are fact, no longer theory as the God Squad still try to maintain.)


    For the umteenth time of saying;  We didn't evolve from Monkeys, that misconception also comes from the USA in the form of a Newspaper headline at the time of the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925,  look it up I can't be bothered reiterating it again !

    I think it works along the line of if you repeat a lie often enough most people will believe it.

    Darwin's original claim was that somewhere in our evolution we must have shared a common ancestor.  A fact no longer disputed and proven by modern day science of Genetics and DNA.

    Smart man Darwin,  he had it figured 150 years ago, still don't worry, we will wait for you and you're educational system to catch up !

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      who says modern day science of genetics and DNA doesn't support this fact?? Can you explain the reason of us being so much similar to chimpanzees?? Can you explain why 90% of our DNA is similar to them?? The reason is same. Because we had same ancestors and still we have same DNA up to a some extent.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I apologise, I didn't mean to mis lead you,

        What I meant was that modern day Genetic and DNA science has provided sufficient proof of Darwin's original theories about having a common ancestor, nothing more and nothing less.

        It does not provide evidence that Man evolved from Apes which of course we didn't.

        1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          no need to apologize.  it's a forum and everybody has equal right to speak out.

          Yes it does provides the proof. We can relate the similarity in DNA with the help of modern science only.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Damn right DNA and Genetics don't prove we evolved from Apes and monkeys.

          I would sh!t a brick if that were true. We'd have to rethink everything!

          1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
            Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We evolved from a same ancestor. This is what everybody is discussing here. You too believe this. Then tell me if DNA doesn't proves this that we evolved from a common ancestor then what does?? On what theory do you believe?? why you believe that we evolved from same ancestors?? Maybe DNA "only" doesn't proves that but yes DNA plays some part in explaining the series of evolution. If not then give me the theory on which you believe.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              DNA supports the argument that we came from a common ancestor.

              It does not support that we evolved from Apes and monkeys. -- we didn't.

              We did not evolve from apes, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas or monkeys. We share common ancestors.

    2. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh do I hate the term "scientifically proven." Yes, I'm being contentious when I bring this up, but I only do it because it irks me to see people of purportedly scientific ideology stoop to the same selective logic that plagues the supporters of mythology and pseudoscience. Science is not the business of proving this theory or that theory correct, but rather is the business of formulating and then scrutinizing to agonizing death every new theory.  In this manner we are reasonably assured that our idea is correct, since all the cold and merciless assault of experiment and reason have failed to destroy it.  But, this certainly does not "prove"the theory true.  Remember that Newton's model of gravitation was upheld for nearly 150 years until it was noticed that the orbit of Mercury did not fit.  Science does not say "this is true."  Science is a tool which can say "this is false."

  4. Stump Parrish profile image62
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Don't hold your breath Merlin, 66% of the republican party still disputes evolution and they are still fighting o have intelligent design taught in our schools. They aren't happy with our students simply lagging behind the rest of the world, they are hell bent on taking over last place. It actually makes sense when you realize that stuipid students grow up to be stupid GOP supporters.  Hitler knew what he was talking about and made several comments that the GOP has taken to heart...

    What luck for rulers that men don't think.He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.

    All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

    Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't understand why people don't believe that we evolved from apes. What they think?? With a "WHAM..." we appeared?? Give me one reason why people don't believe??

      1. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        People do not believe because religion tells them differently from a time when people knew very little about our world and universe - these people have failed to evolve from being pretty stupid to higher thinking forms of human being and soon will be extinct, hopefully.

        1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I too am a religious person and I do believe in god but as far as the universe,it's formation and the creation of organisms are concerned, I'll go with science.

        2. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I also wish that people would think in a better way. Being religious is not wrong, in fact you should be a bit religious but we should not always close our eyes and see everything in a way which is not true.

        3. Merlin Fraser profile image77
          Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand why people don't believe that we evolved from apes. What they think?? With a "WHAM..." we appeared?? Give me one reason why people don't believe??


          Sneha,

          Please go and seek out a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species and read it.

          We DID NOT evolve from Apes, we shared a common ancestor, that's all.

          Nor did we suddenly Wink into existence, in a garden somewhere 6,000 years ago.

          1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
            Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            OK I understood what is actually creating the confusion. I was using a wrong word. I meant those ape "like" creatures (our ancestors) from which we evolved. I used that term (ape) because there is no special term for them I guess (except the scientific names). And for the reason that they were more ape like. We can't call it monkey but ape was more suitable. If there is a specific term then let me know I'll use that word from now onwards as I don't know if there is some term smile

            1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
              Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And as far as the Darwin's theory, I've read that. I know each thing that he explained and presented as theory as it was in our syllabus. It was just a wrong word selection.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "hominid" is probably the closest term to what the creature that produced all of the great ape family was.  That is where the tree diverged to produce the different genus and species.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know that you've been corrected on this before, but we didn't evolve from apes.

        The five apes (humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) share common ancestors.

        1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          that's why I corrected it with ape "like" ancestor. Now as wilderness said "Hominid" is the closest term. That's why I used that term.

        2. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh... and "ape" if we define has semi-erect posture,arms longer than legs and many more features. So can we call humans as ape?? Or we call humans as "fifth apes" because we fall on the same line of evolution??

  5. profile image0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    By asking this question, you seem to be assuming that evolution has as its purpose an end result, which is the production of man.  Now that man has evolved, you think that there is little point in our closest cousins in the animal kingdom existing.  Since the beginning of life on Earth up until the present day, there have been millions of species.  It is not the case that these millions of species were all striving towards the evolution of man.  Only the believer in a divine plan at work in the universe could assume this.  The reason other species exist on Earth is because they are all products of their own evolution.  Earth was not created only for our own species.  The reason apes and monkeys exist, is the same reason cats, dogs, horses, sheep, cows, elephants etc exist - because they all have their own evolutionary story.  They are all the result of millions of years of evolution, each a branch on the tree of evolution.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. When we talk about human evolution we always start with ape "like" (not the apes but..... you can understand what I mean) ancestors but the truth is our ancestors were also a result of evolution and in that series it is believed that our ancestors, the most primitive one, was evolved from tree shrews (like creatures). If we look at the most primitive records, all the animals are evolved from a same creature. Variety came later.

    2. Merlin Fraser profile image77
      Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wish I'd said that !

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    I know a creationist attempt to disregard Evolution when I see it.

    Dude, open up ANY textbook on evolution and you'll see that your statement "If man evolved form monkeys & apes" is wrong

    --- we didn't evolve from monkeys and apes.

    You'll also find out that arguments like "...y do we still have...", do not in ANY WAY disprove evolution

    --- Darwin himself anticipated "living fossils", such as these:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhe3Hy7Q2GQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYOf2wIoxgo

    And, to go even further with your argument, evolution doesn't say - in any way shape or form - that "if one species evolves, another has to die".

    --- Evolution is not a zero-sum game. Species that create new species do not have to die out. For example:

    The banana's evolutionary history: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 002AAqaiBM

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      we didn't evolved from monkeys or ape but ape is usually referred because our ancestors were having more ape like features. But I don't know whether we have a proper term or not to mention our ancestors.

      1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
        Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        this is what I think,, smile

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Here ya go:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68g0MBO_uTM

        We are "the fifth ape"

        1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
          Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          this is what I explained in my replies what the man is explaining.

          I didn't knew that we are the fifth ape but yes I know that our ancestors were having the ape features as I said in my above reply as well. I don't know whether scientist say we evolved from "apes" or just used the term "ancestors"

  7. profile image61
    tumblooposted 5 years ago

    i agree why would there still be monkeys and apes if we didnt evolve from the what did we come from

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      they exist because they are the product of the division of the same ancestor from which we evolved. We had the common ancestors but our ancestors divided into two different species out of which one became we (or an advanced human(primitive) than the ancestor) and the other became an other form ape like chimpanzees and gorillas etc. In this path of evolution chimpanzees are the ones with whom we shared the common ancestor for the longest that's why they are more similar to us than any other ape.

    2. Merlin Fraser profile image77
      Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Read the relpies above...

      Especially Sherlock221b  he explains so simply I'm sure you will finally get it.

  8. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Here's a fun video that BRIEFLY disproves the idiotic nonsense of Creationists:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3H … re=related

    And here's a series of videos that debunks the claims much more thoroughly:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

    1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
      Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's rude to mock the afflicted... Didn’t your Mom teach you anything ?

      What we should be doing is find and imprison the people who deliberately filled this kids head with such crap that he went on to make such a complete Prat of himself.

  9. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 5 years ago

    1. The purpose of evolution is not to turn into some supposedly "higher" species, it is to adapt to some specific evolutionary niche. Apes and monkeys evolved to adapt to their own niche, just as we evolved to adapt to ours. There are species living on the planet today that have been around in relatively unchanged form for hundreds of millions of years, because they are already perfectly adapted to their niche and don't need to evolve in any significant way beyond minor variations in size, coloring, etc. The most famous of these include sharks, crocodiles, and horseshoe crabs.

    2. Humans did not evolve "from" modern apes and monkeys such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and baboons. We share common ancestors with them. The last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived about 4-6 million years ago, the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas lived about 8 million years ago, and the last common ancestor of humans and baboons lived about 25-35 million years ago.  Claiming we evolved "from" chimps is like claiming that your third cousin is actually your great-great-grandfather. Though the split between humans and chimps occurred about 4-6 million years ago, the modern chimpanzee species has only been around about 1 million years, and modern humans only about 200,000 years.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      and smaller organisms (microorganism. Not all but some) too are surviving without any change till today.

      and after the division of our ancestors into two different species, we still evolved up to the present, better form.  so in the same way chimps evolved to a better form, the modern ones. But that doesn't changes the DNA composition completely.

  10. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    For roughly the same reason that both German shepherds and poodles were developed from the descendents of wolves, and they both still exist (as do wolves).

    1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
      Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      UM!   I think there's quite a bit of Human interference there not to mention a degree of selective breeding rather than Evolution.

         I think perhaps a better comparison might be from Wolves, to Dingoes, Jackals, Coyote and the wild dogs of Africa.

      1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
        Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        whatever kind of species you take for the consideration whether the monkey family, dog family or cat family. The members are different because the ancestor got split into two different species.

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It was what we in the trade call a metaphor.  Functionally basically the same but much simpler for ease of understanding.  i.e. that A gene pool and be the genetic source of both B and C, (and continue to exist).

        The exact descent of wild canids on the other hand is not widely known, not recently occurring and complex.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Humans are part of the world's environment, thus we're a part of evolution...

        I've never understood the "yeah, but that's man-directed evolution". Either way, it's evolution!

  11. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    DNA does not prove evolution... similarities do not mean the same origin.

    More BS pushed by the Leftists...

    We are so far from understanding the entire coding of DNA, never mind the assembly process and mechanisms information systems, etc... which evolution has no way to explain their origins.

    More BS.... and many know it.

    Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information FOUND IN DNA states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

    "It was once expected..." writes Professor Behe, "...that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

    Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

    Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).

    Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

    "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

    DNA evidence in no way supports any conclusion in favor of evolution as you all wish to apply it.

    DNA is another exagerrated/fraudulent a piece of evidence as was Miller/Urey and the Black Peppered Moths scam. And the scam of one species giving rise to another, for which there is absolutely no evidence anywhere. And lets not sling the, "Micro-evolution proves Macro-evolution BS again, because to assume such is absurd!

    ________________________________________________________________

    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/humangenome.html

    ________________________________________________________________


    ---"Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm:139:13-15, emphasis added).

    Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

    All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

    "Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

    Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution!"---

    http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-cod … evolution/

    ________________________________________________________________


    Creation scientists and intelligent design advocates point out that the genetic code (DNA code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.[51][52]

    Dr. Walt Brown states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.[51] Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."[51]

    To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:

    ________________________________________________________________

    “No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8[53]

    ”In the peer reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.[54] The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer----"

    http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

    To say evolution is proved through DNA is a joke. Many a Geneticist has stated plainly that DNA is not the proof of evolution and to state such is a plain lie.

    And lets not forget this man and his conversion from Athreism to believer form his studie of genetics.

    http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science- … e-atheism/

    Nope... no evidence for evolution in DNA at all.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mason: once again, you're refuting "Abiogenesis" but calling it "Evolution"

      DNA does indeed prove evolution, it simply can not prove abiogenesis.

      Sorry, you're wrong.

      ----

      For the readers of Mason: please note that numerous "citations" of his come from the bible. Obviously he's trying to prove his bias.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan,

        Most of us got that, we were ignoring him !

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          right-o.

    2. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      DNA does prove the process of evolution. Otherwise just tell me why 99% of our DNA is similar to chimpanzees?? And we do believe that chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Why?? For the same reason that our DNA has 99%  same composition.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed, Mason is confusing "Evolution" with "Abiogenesis".

        Evolution is the change from specie to specie, and the changes found within a specie over time.

        Abiogenesis is the creation of life from non-living materials Creationism is a hypothesis of Abiogenesis -- one that is impossible to prove or disprove. There are countless people trying to find ways of creating life from non-living materials, and there have been amazing discoveries.

        here's a video highlighting the foolishness of what Mason is doing. It also covers some misconceptions and foolish arguments about abiogenesis theory:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

        Creationists spend their days refuting Evolution Theory when they should be demanding an end to Abiogensis theory.

        However, Abiogenesis Theory is simply astonishing. I was walking around my campus book store one day and came across the book "Abiogenesis", which was a difficult read to be sure. But it laid out the amazing attempts of people to analyze what life likely looked like when it first came about and how it likely began the process of evolution.

        They have a lot of it figured out pretty well.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, Evan. I am commenting on Evolution giving rise to new species, and as to it being the force which created biological diversity on this planet, from a singular origin..

          Not the origin of life itself.

          And I commented on DNA proving evolution as you all want it to. The fact that we have the same DNA as the rest of life on earth, does not prove evolution.

          If you want to talk about the origin of life and the failed Miller Urey experiment, then we can.

          But right now I am talking about Evolution, as you all want it to be, and what it is and isn't.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're exactly right: having all the evidence in the world supporting one set of theories -- even if every single prediction made by those theories is found to be accurate -- doesn't prove a theory.

            That's why they're called "theories". They can't be proved. They can only be tested so many times that no flaws can be found in them.

            Evolution is a theory. It has yet to be disproven. It is used on a daily basis. And new species HAVE been seen to be created via evolution.

            Evolution can't be proved - the same way that the atomic theory can't be proven. Even if we could see an atom - which we can't -- it still wouldn't prove it.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Miller Urey not only wasn't a failed experiment, it was a fantastic triumph of genius.

            The fact that you call it a "failed experiment" shows that you don't understand how the scientific method works.

            How bout instead of Miller Urey, we discuss Hydrophobic and Hydrophillic lipids, which allow for the passing of proteins in and out of their shell, and are able to encase basic hydrogen bonding protein molecules?

            They exist and could easily be the stepping stone needed from non-living material to take the jump to an evolutionary process.

            your turn... GO!

    3. I am DB Cooper profile image70
      I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of the names you dropped in that post are people who are young earth creationists. Just out of curiosity, do you also believe our planet is 6,000 years old, and that humans once lived with dinosaurs? The Dr. Walt Brown (who is a mechanical engineer) that you quote is also the man who developed the hydroplate theory, which states the earth's crust once sat atop a layer of water that was 10 miles deep, and when the crust cracked the water shot out and fell as rain, which produced the Great Flood as described in the Bible. This water also created comets and meteors in outer space. How do you feel about this theory?

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        6000 Yrs old... Nope.

        And I have not seen that theory. So I have no comment on it.

        And there are many geneticists and scientists who have nothing to do with creationism, who will state to you plainly, DNA does not prove Human Evolution in the way many want to appply it.

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Oh, and here's a fantastic video showing how the eyeball could easily evolve from random material.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDWCujcFEY

    If you listen carefully, you'll discover that the eyeball didn't evolve ONCE, it actually has been evolved TWICE -- Mollusks have a separate tree of "eye evolution" than the animals that we're more familiar with.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      not only our eyes but even our brain went through the process of evolution. And the videos are nice.

  13. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Oh, here's another fantastic video of someone who actually uses evolution.

    Watch this video from the third minute.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lbnVWHu … ure=relmfu

    Excuse the poor audio quality that randomly causes a brief repetition.

    This man has used evolution to create a new species of fruit flies, and he does this very frequently.

    He has actually used and seen evolution in process. I trust that I could easily do the same.

    (This entire video series is fantastic)

  14. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    The only biblical citation I see in there is Psalms... so give it a rest Evan.

    And my comment was in response to the assertion that DNA proves evolution... it does not.

    So have fun and continue on with the BS slinging.

    As I said above, DNA doies not prove evolution, and many a geneticist will state that plainly.

    More exagerrations from the Atheist left.

    As I have stated plainly, evolution exists within species for minor modifications and adaptations. There is no evidence of one species arising from another... nor does the similarities in our DNA prove we all evolved from one another.

    Simple.

    Intra-Species evolution is real, micro-evolution is real.... human evolution as spouted by the Atheist Left and others... is a fabrication based on assumptions and conjecture.

    1. Sneha Sunny profile image85
      Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      DNA does prove that.... big_smile (don't get angry on me smile).

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am not angry... it, DNA, simply does not prove evolution as those on here would apply it to Humans. It just does not.

        Simple as that.

        If you choose to believe the lie then be my guest. I would suggest you read up on it before setting your mind on it.

        1. profile image60
          Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Obviously only the strong survive, the strongest evolve. I hate to break it to you but we don't need DNA to prove evolution. We have fossils. And we see it everyday, it happens slowly. Why are there people with darker skin pigment than others, cause god wants everyone to be unique right? Well with the theory of evolution it'd be because they have more of a chemical in there skin to protect them from sunlight than lighter people. "B-b-but that doesn't make sense:" Well yes it does, they EVOLVED on the equator(the part of earth closest to the sun). There's lots of other things too. Most can be scientifically proven. But I do not bash anyone's opinions on religion, the problem is religious people are so defensive, so I only ask you don't bash everyone else's opinion.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why do you keep going to God?

            I have not based anything on the bible or God. I quoted scientists and others... you all are the ones stuck on God.

            And it takes as much FAITH to believe in Evolution as you all spout it, as it does to believe in God.

            We have already shown that to be a fact in the other thread.

            Welcome to the wonderful world of FAITH.

            And the fossil record does not prove evoltion as you all are presenting it to be.

            There is nowhere in the fossil record that we see transitional fossils from one species to another. And it, the fossil record, is so incomplete, that one cannot draw any conclusions from it as of yet. So that is BS.

            We have the equivalent of 100 pieces of a trillion trillion trillion piece puzzle... and you know what it shows.

            Yeah right!

            And your scraping the bottom of the barrel to throw up melatonin as proof of species rising through evolution.

            And I have alread stated that evolution exists within a species in order to modify and adapt -(melatonin)-.... so whats your point?

            1. profile image60
              Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry I'm not posting from a computer, I'm posting from a phone. I know the chemical, melatonin, just wasn't sure of I was correct. And yes, sir, we do have " the fossil record that we see transitional fossils from one species to another." I've seen it countless of times I would cite the name but again, I'm restricted by the boundaries of my smart phone. Try searching the first human or something you should find what I'm talking about. It was a very short, human that had many ape like features, or vice versa, either way, its a transitional fossil. And there are many others from other species. Yes it is a trillion piece puzzle, but its not just a piece of literature. What do we know about literature today? Anyone can write it, we like to call them stories. Now I said I don't like to bash religion. But again you insist. I do agree you gotta have faith in something. It gets people through tough times.

              NOW.
              I know you're already set in stone about the topic, so your mind is pretty much closed. But let's think theoretically. What if, and this is a big what if but think logically why this makes sense. What if religion was made up.
              What if someone invented the idea of religion thousands of years ago. "But why would they do such a horrible thing"?! Well maybe, again big maybe, they had a motive? What motive? That is the question that must be answered, right? Well let's first ask ourselves what the three most powerful forces are. Money, to supply to yourself and your empire for more and more power and growth. Control, to maintain stability of your empire. And last but not least, Fear, to give everyone reason to stay under control. Oh now we're getting somewhere. If only there was one way to sum it all up, it'd really be quite genius. Or wait, could it be, religion has done it before?

              "Well that's a very big speculation to make."
              -Yes it is but let's look at the facts.
              (Now again limited by my smart phone so I can't cite sources or go look up dates)

              Up until not very long ago, who was the most wealthy, powerful empire on earth? That's right, the Roman Catholic Church. Well there's the MONEY.
              Did you know they actually use to tell people offerings were a way to repent for their sins. As if they could buy their way out of hell.
              "But wait, today that doesn't happen and I've never heard of that"!
              Well that's because we write the history books;)
              You heard of the protestant reformation, ofcourse. But why on earth would people strike out so powerfully? Because they figured it out, the Roman Catholic Church was hungry for money and power. But instead of dissolving their beliefs, they reformed them. The reason it doesn't happen today is because the protestants(protestors) informed everyone of the Roman Catholics scheme. How else did they start such a large movement?
              Now for the control and fear. I've already typed too much.
              How else could they get everyone to become under their control? They did it the most ingenuis way I could possibly fathom. I mean everyone knows you tell someone no, they say yes, its almost an instinct to rebel. So what do they do, everyone's looking for a reason, "why are we here?" So they give the people their YES, whilst sneaking in their own NO. Yes there is a reason you're here, a loving god created us all. But this loving god wants you to join him in the beautiful paradise we call heaven, so you must do as HE says, or you will be condemned to the fiery pits of hell. Oh there it is, there's the control and fear to sustain itself.

              Now why is it the Roman Catholic Church fits those three points of any major empire?
              Again, have your faith, I have mine. Just keep it to yourself preacher men.

              Oh, and TMMASON or whatever. Stop being a narcissist, this isn't all directed toward yourself

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Let's compare the amount of faith it takes to believe the two competing schools:

              Creationism:
              "I have faith that...
              1) a giant invisible man exists
              2) this man decides how everything in the world operates
              3) it's impossible to know or see or prove this man's existence
              4) all animals were created less than 7,000 years ago and have never changed, despite the millions of fossils saying otherwise.

              OR

              Evolution:
              "I have faith that... everything I see and touch and do is consistent with everything that I see and touch and do".

              Evolution doesn't require faith - If I ever don't believe it, I can simply DO evolution with a bunch of fruit flies and a few bananas.

              1. profile image60
                Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ^ there is logic behind this. Lmao. Props to you.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  *bows*

                  Thank you, thank you...

                  The 4 o'clock show is different than the 3 o'clock, so stick around!

          2. Sneha Sunny profile image85
            Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            but fossils alone are not enough to prove evolution. DNA is important to prove that fact.

            1. profile image60
              Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sneha sunny I'm with you, all I'm saying is DNA isn't the only thing we have.

      2. I am DB Cooper profile image70
        I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed, read up on it. And use sources that TM likes to quote from, like Conservapedia; they're very entertaining. Here's a quote from a caption for a picture found on the entry on dinosaurs:
        "There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the Creation Museum, the evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape"

        That site is like going to college all over again, except this time all my professors are Larry the Cable Guy.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oops, here are 3 incidents of observed macro evolution.

      Oh well! I guess evolution is real!

      http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/p … c_id=12325

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        awww, no creationists wanted to debate the fact that macroevolution has been seen and documented? Really? No one?

        awwww

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Still no Creationists want to discuss the fact that there are documented examples of macro evolution?

          Awww, come on! Where's your faith?!

          1. Jim Hunter profile image58
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lets discuss.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Alright- I presented three cases of Macroevolution - please to be refuting them if you are a creationist.

    3. Merlin Fraser profile image77
      Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      " human evolution as spouted by the Atheist Left and others... is a fabrication based on assumptions and conjecture."


        Charles Darwin was an Atheist Leftist ?  I guess we should have him dug up from Westminster Cathedral and dumped in the Thames then !

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That sounds like a party - will the whisky flow freely??

  15. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    No there are not any transitional fossil ion the record... you do not have a clue what your saying. And if we had the first humasn to have tranformed into man then we would have the missing link... we do not. Matter of FACT.. the going answer from the evolutionary biologists as to the transitional fossil question is that all fossils are transitional fossils... quite a cover all excuse they have there. But that is what I have come to expect.

    So your wrong again.

    And if you want to talk about the creation of philosophies to gain control, then fine... yes religion is a tool of control... that doesn't mean it is false though.

    One does not automatically equate to the other.

    So... try again.

    And lastly... I am not a Catholic... so take that up with one of them.

    And what is your obssesion with religion? You can spout all the BS you want about evolution... it is still nothing more than a theory based on assumption and speculation... and supported by FAITH.

    Other than that. I don't know what you thought you were proving with that rant?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A transitional fossil is one that shows clear patterns that create a composite of living organisms preceding it. Why would anyone believe it to be an excuse when that mosaic is blatantly obvious?

      1. profile image60
        Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well there's a fun fact.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Missing links... missing links... let's see

      Lemur-like animals to primate like animal's missing link:
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nd_big.jpg

      Reptiles and Bird's missing links:
      http://www.dreamworlds.org/images/Dscf0 … 20Cast.JPG

      Swimming fish to walking fish missing links:
      http://www.daylightatheism.org/images/tiktaalik.jpg

      Land-walking animals to Swimming animal's missing links:
      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_U49YqeDV4Es/S … s400/4.bmp

      ..... so... yeah, sorry, "the missing link" exists... Which missing link were you talking about again? Because a google search is only a few clicks away.

      None of these fossils "prove" evolution, but they sure as sh!t deny creationism.

      1. I am DB Cooper profile image70
        I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think the simple answer is that God created a bunch of organisms for human amusement. The entertainment value of some, like the dodo, wore off and God created environments that did not suit them, and they soon became extinct. Others, like the platypus, provide us with so many laughs God has made sure they are provided for.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The dodo as entertainment?  Aren't you spelling that wrong?

        2. Merlin Fraser profile image77
          Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're Joking Right ?

          1. I am DB Cooper profile image70
            I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Of course, although I do find the platypus very entertaining.

  16. profile image70
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Good question.  Why DO we still have Congress?

    1. profile image60
      Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not trying to prove anything, I was just plain ranting about my beliefs. And I don't obsess over religion, Im just sick of religious people obsessing over it. Someone always wants you to conform.

      And I must quote you here:

      "Matter of FACT.. the going answer from the evolutionary biologists as to the transitional fossil question is that all fossils are transitional fossils... quite a cover all excuse they have there. But that is what I have come to expect."

      You said as a matter of fact as if you were successfully proving a point. The fact is they said all fossils are transitional. Which is supported by a theory that I share with scientology. That evolution is a constant event. It's always happening. Then you said its quite a cover all. No, no, that's not a FACT that is what we call an opinion. He was merely stating that all fossils are transitional. Which would, again, support a theory.

      Good job sir, your argument is now invalid because you supplanted fact with opinion.

      1. profile image70
        logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mr.danky, I've no idea what your talking about.

        1. profile image60
          Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Haha, a previous argument, not at you.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We still have Congress because evolution is for Apes, Congress is full of asses.

  17. NathanielZhu profile image84
    NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago

    Basically you're saying this:
    If your mom gave birth to you, why is your mom still there?

    First of all, humans ARE apes. The term ape refers to a super family including multiple species.
    The fact of the matter is that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor which is why I posed to you the comparison "If your mom gave birth to you, why is your mom still there?" Your mom may then give birth to your sister. Now you have 2 future lineages. In the same way, monkeys and humans are merely 2 different lineages of the same original family.

    ASTF.TK

  18. uncorrectedvision profile image60
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    These are interesting examples but I am not sure they are what is claimed.  However, I am not anti-evolution I am just skeptical of the examples in so far as they purport to be indicative of evolution rather than some other mechanism at work.

    1. I am DB Cooper profile image70
      I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But what proof would be needed to prove evolution? Are we going to have to actually record one species evolving from a previous species over the course of hundreds of generations, to the point that the "new" species can no longer breed with the species most-similar to the original (since that original species will be evolving as well)?

      Think of it this way: evolutionists believe organisms evolved over the course of billions of years, with individuals who were best suited to their environment and best able to reproduce winning out. Biblical creationists believe this planet was once exponentially more diverse than it is now, since the fossil record shows there are far more extinct species than species that current exist. Other creationists believe there weren't a bunch of other species, but that God, not unlike a murderer planting a gun on his rival, left us fossils of species that never existed just to test our faith. What a sly son-of-a...

      If not evolution, what other mechanism could be at work? Is God guiding evolution, slowly improving on previous models? I can understand that -- I'd feel sorry for the fish, too, and I'd do what it takes to give it legs so it can walk (was The Little Mermaid a movie about God/Ursula guiding evolution?!?!). But why wouldn't God just get his organisms right the first time? It seems like he kind of half-a$$ed it with some, like the panda.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ironically, I find myself completely separated from any concerns about how one species becomes another I am currently and fully engaged in preserving one specific organism - me.  All else seems like a mental exercise much like fantasizing about a Rizzoli and Isles sandwich with an Uncorrectedvision stuffing.

        1. I am DB Cooper profile image70
          I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you make it more than a fantasy you could be the one guiding evolution.

  19. Alice DeWonder profile image61
    Alice DeWonderposted 5 years ago

    OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY - DARWIN WAS A POMPOUS ASS

  20. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    99% of the scientific community believes in evolution and a guy who couldn't spell cat if you spotted him the "c" says they're full of it.

    It's so confusing.  I don't know who to believe. sad

    1. NathanielZhu profile image84
      NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The problem here seems like you're trying to pick a side similar to how most people pick either republican or democrat.
      Science (especially evolution) isn't a political debate! LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Screw looking at evidence!

        Just buy some fruit flies and screw with their environment for a100+ generations.

        DO Evolution. You can SEE it yourself!! Go out there and DO THE EVOLUTION

        IT"S EVOLUTION, BABY!!! (duhn da-duhn da-du-dah!!)

        1. NathanielZhu profile image84
          NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think many people have trouble believing in Micro-evolution, but the problem comes when scientists try to explain macroevolution - evolution from unicellular organisms to animals, ancestral apes to humans, etc.

          Of course, they're just trying to deny this because it isn't something we can see in a life time because by definition, Macro-evolution is evolution over a long time span. By definition, unless a person where to live thousands of years, we could never witness macro-evolution. The problem is, we have evidence of this macro-evolution, but the majority of people (average U.S IQ is 98, but the main problem is ignoring school for religion) are simply too uneducated in the sciences to understand the evidence.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            IQ and Schooling have little to nothing to do with one another.

            Also, IQ is a relatively defined standard - 100 is "normal", and thus I have a very hard time believing that the average IQ in the US is 98. By definition it's probably 100.

            1. NathanielZhu profile image84
              NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              True. IQ and schooling does have little to do with each other in general. There is however a funny correlation that the more educated people nearly always have a higher IQ range than the uneducated. Countries like New Guinea have average IQ's of 69 and the U.S an average of 98 (No I'm not mistaken. The U.S is below average). Hong Kong has an average IQ of 107 and China 100. Google it for the studies.
              Still, IQ is such a limited way to measure a person's abilities, but there is a strong correlation that most successful people also score high on culture fair IQ tests.

              1. profile image60
                Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'd have to say an IQ test is the best way to measure someone's intellect. Because, it doesn't matter how much they've learned, what they learned or how they learned it. It measures how well they learn and how well their mind solves problems. And I think the average IQ rating shouldn't matter due to the fact not everyone is required to take it. Although one could assume in Hong Kong many more people are pushed towards taking an IQ test considering our society is much different than theirs. We are more focused on appearances and prestige as they are likely more focused on intellect. So personally I think that makes the difference, there's just not enough people in the US that are interested in their IQ.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The intelligence quotient is calculated by taking what a person seems able to do for someone of a different age (relative to what is "normal") and dividing it by "what is normal" for the age in question.

                So if someone "acts like a 10 year old" and is only 6 years old, they have a higher IQ.

                But this is obviously a stupid way to try to measure how smart someone is.

                Also, the issue of "the IQ test has a standard deviation of 15 points" is a pretty huge problem.

                Also, the test is designed to automatically remove certain results that might naturally occur: For example, it's designed to automatically give men and women the same scores, and people of all races the same scores. I'm not saying this is or is not a good thing, I'm merely saying that it is artificially designed to give artificial results.

                The IQ test is more like the Zodiac - meaningless.

              3. recommend1 profile image72
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                IQ figures have always been used as support for racism - and it is totally meaningless as it measures specific things that some societies practice constantly and others like New Guinnea have no use for.  If you want to test my opinion then take someone from a western city and drop them in the middle of the Guinnea jungle - when you collect them a month later there may be a few bones left big_smile

      2. earnestshub profile image86
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What would 99% of the scientific community know, they're all dills like Hawkins right? lol

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't believes the wrong word.  Shouldn't it be a certitude?  Unless, evolution is more of a hypothesis than a theory.  In that case believes would fit better.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has not been falsified yet.

        A scientific law is merely a theory that has been not-falsified so many times that it's simply taken for granted.

        Evolution is a scientific law - it has yet to be disproven MILLIONS of times, but if a fossil were to be found completely out of context with the rest of evolution -- say, a bunny running around 150 million years ago -- then it could be overturned.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really, that is it.  No wonder I stuck with the Pseudo-sciences like Sociology and Economics.  Seems there is more certitude in the uncertain.

          1. profile image60
            Mr.dankyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I just wish that other guy that was so sure creationism was the truth would continue trying to blow smoke up everyone's @ss. I enjoyed debating with him. Haha.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Economics you say?

            Be ye Keynesian, Austrian or from the Chicago-school?

        2. I am DB Cooper profile image70
          I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your point about the bunny is an excellent one. While people can debate all day about whether a certain organism in the fossil record shows a transition from one species to another (although anti-evolutionists have to close both eyes when the evidence is presented), one thing that is certain is that organisms don't exist out of chronological context in the fossil record.

 
working