Ok,im a stone cold athiest, but this one christian asked in class once, well if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Honestly I couldnt think of a reason,why are there still monkeys, and niggers for that matter?

Monkeys are a successful species, sure. There's nothing wrong with them. But when the appendable thumb came along, it allowed the new creatures to use tools and manipulate their environment.
These new creatures developed further into humans and were massively successful.
So while we came from monkeys, there was nothing wrong with the monkey species, so it didn't die out.

Re: black people.
Let's say a green moth lives in the forest that lives on the brown bark. In time, one genetically mutates into a brown color and reproduces. When new birds come into the forest, all the greens are killed because the browns are camouflaged against the trunk.
Same with humans, mutations in skin pigmentation are extremely useful in a Saharan environment.
At least that's my understanding of human development.

Ok,im a stone cold athiest, but this one christian asked in class once, well if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Honestly I couldnt think of a reason,why are there still monkeys, and niggers for that matter?

This is a common mistake. We did not come from modern monkeys, apes or chimps.

Humans, apes, chimps, and monkeys all evolved from the SAME primate ancestor.


The christian in class probably heard that at church. It is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not say that at all. The church is CLEARLY and UNDENIABLE lying to it's flock in this regard. Either that or they should study more before telling clearly guillible people scientific information.

Good luck getting answers from a christian here. They have mostly moved on to greener pastures I think. They do not win arguments here. They come here to cry.

Ok,im a stone cold athiest, but this one christian asked in class once, well if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Honestly I couldnt think of a reason,why are there still monkeys, and niggers for that matter?

How can you believe in something you can't even spell properly? :rolleyes:

On second thought, you do hold some similarities with a monkey. :)

On second thought, you do hold some similarities with a monkey. :)

Not much of an insult when the topic is evolution now is it?

How can you believe in something you can't even spell properly? :rolleyes:

On second thought, you do hold some similarities with a monkey. :)

well....fuck you prick.And no im not mad at you callin me a monkey Im mad at you makin fun of my inability to spell.We cant all be middle school gradutes ok.And im not a nigger you asshole.

Whats been said before me is true, the premise of evolution is largely understood. Apes, monkeys, chimps, and us along with other animals im sure all originate from the same common ancestor. At some point in our evolution over hundred of thousands of years the animal adapted to its specific conditions, and thats why there are chimps, apes, and monkeys living with us today. Whatever that common ancestor was, it probably split into groups throughtout the world. One group may have went somewhere where evolving to have the characteristics of a monkey may have been benficial. On the other hand, there could have been another group of these common ancestors who moved to another part of the world, where the characterists of chimps were much more suited for the enviornment and problems they needed to solve. We pretty much just lucked out, we got the right set of conditions for us to evolve to where we are today.

At least that's my understanding of human development.

Aye, its all about adapting to ones enviorment.

Example:

Cavemen grew less and less body hear when clothes were "invented".

If you set a child free in the jungle he will adapt fast, if he survives.
He will learn to climp trees, learn to find food, and learn to communicate with other intelligent animals, monkeys etc.
He will seek animals and learn from them.

There are a few real examples of kids who where left in the wilderness and survived.
One had a pack of monkeys as familly, and another were found with a lion mother and its two cubs.

Both of these kids were walking on 4 lims.

Like some scientists asks: Are we a product of nature, or a product of being raised?

And that gives the question: What is Human?

Evolution doesn't have to be beneficial. It just cant make you less able to survive. People always try and find a reason why people would have blue eyes and some green. They end up with stupid reason why it will benefit you. But really it doesn't matter either way. If it didn't make the species less able to reproduce then it doesn't matter. We could mutate a bunch of fingers growing out our heads right now, and they would have absolutly no function at all, but it wouldn't prevent our species from continuing.

Also evolution is not just adapting, it only appears so from our point of view because were observing the mutations that ended up being successful, and didn't prevent a species from reproducing.

And like previously stated, we come from a common ancestors along with monkeys. We can actually look at our DNA and compare it with the chimps DNA and make a time line of when the split happened.

Also evolution is not just adapting.



Evolution = Adaption, doesn't matter how you put it.

Animals wouldn't have grown wings if it wasen't because they couldn't survive on ground.
And i think we all can agree that, THAT is not devolution.
Adaption can only be possitive.
So the point of view don't work here.


Organisms that are adapted to their environment are able to:

obtain air, water, food and nutrients
cope with physical conditions such as temperature, light and heat
defend themselves from their natural enemies
reproduce
respond to changes around them.
--Wikipedia.

From the Junior Skeptic section of the current issue of Skeptic magazine:

If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes?


This question is based on a misunderstanding: humans are not not descended from modern apes. Apes and humans share a distant ancestor in common. Several million years ago in Africa, a species of ancient ape-like primate split off into different family lines. One of these lines led eventually to modern apes, while another led to modern humans.

Think of oit like this: you aren't descended from your cousins. You and your cousins just share a set of grandparents.

People often suppose that new species are only created when evolution transforms one entire species into something new and different. Usually this isn't what happens.

New species usually come about when a small branch of species split off in a new direction, the tree trunk doesn't die. The branch shoots off, and the trunk just goes on growing as before.

When a small part of one species gets isolated into a new environment, that small isolated population can start to evolve in a new direction away from the main group. One way this can happen is if there is a barrier between the two groups, such as a river or mountain range. In Darwin's most famous example, birds belonging to one species of finch were blown to various remote islands. There, isolated from their relatives on the mainland, they adapted for life on each island. This led them to evolve into several new species. Meanwhile, on the mainland, the original finch species went on happily living as before.

Evolution = Adaption, doesn't matter how you put it.

Animals wouldn't have grown wings if it wasen't because they couldn't survive on ground.
And i think we all can agree that, THAT is not devolution.
Adaption can only be possitive.
So the point of view don't work here.



The point of view is you looking at a succesfull species that has been evolving for millions of years. Evolution is not just adaption. One one hand you can have an animals DNA mutate and start producing feathers, then greater mobility in its wings, then through trial and error that species can learn to use them to fly. And on the other hand that same process of genetic mutations aided by reproduction can make an animal develop down syndrome.

Now I'm not shur if the definition of evolution only talks about the viewable adaption that we can see. But it is not just simply adaption.

Also evolution is not just adapting.

Evolution = Adaption, doesn't matter how you put it.

Boozehound nailed it. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations over time. These changes do not always allow the group to survive better according to its environment. These changes can be benign and in some cases even be detrimental and if severe enough may allow a species to go extinct. The changes are still examples of evolution.

The point of view is you looking at a succesfull species that has been evolving for millions of years. Evolution is not just adaption.

One one hand you can have an animals DNA mutate and start producing feathers, then greater mobility in its wings, then through trial and error that species can learn to use them to fly.

Its not a mistake that birds got wings. What are you on?
How many birds in this world got wings?
How many people in this world got wings?

My point is that if the birds got wings by a mistake, then there would also be a chance for us to develop wings.

DNA mutation can not be blamed for the creation of wings.
Some lizards adapt to thier environment by changing coloers.
same as some fish.
Thats because of DNA mutation aswell?

So you're actually saying that we are the mutated species?
Its just a coensident that we can walk on two legs and use our 10 fingers?
okay!



And on the other hand that same process of genetic mutations aided by reproduction can make an animal develop down syndrome.


DNA mutation is to blame here yes.
But never adaption.



Now I'm not shur if the definition of evolution only talks about the viewable adaption that we can see. But it is not just simply adaption.

Again: if we didn't adapt, we would die out = no evolution.

These changes do not always allow the group to survive better according to its environment. These changes can be benign and in some cases even be detrimental and if severe enough may allow a species to go extinct. The changes are still examples of evolution.

What i said above : If we fail to adapt, we die and that equals: No Evolution.

But you make it sound like if the human race dies, its also evolution.

Quite strange eh.

What i said above : If we fail to adapt, we die and that equals: No Evolution.

But you make it sound like if the human race dies, its also evolution.

Quite strange eh.
No, I didn't say that a population dying is evolution. If we are, however, changing in ways that will cause us to die, those changes are still evolution.

Human has evolved to the point where a large population can curl there tongue. This is an evolutionary change caused by a gene mutation. Because it is not advantageous it is not an example of adaption.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you. The reason I seldom post here is the idea that some have that if they continue to repeat themselves, whoever posts last wins. Believe what you choose to believe and anyone that's interested in getting to the bottom of who's correct can do their own research. Later.

Its not a mistake that birds got wings. What are you on?
How many birds in this world got wings?
How many people in this world got wings?

My point is that if the birds got wings by a mistake, then there would also be a chance for us to develop wings.

DNA mutation can not be blamed for the creation of wings.
Some lizards adapt to thier environment by changing coloers.
same as some fish.
Thats because of DNA mutation aswell?

So you're actually saying that we are the mutated species?
Its just a coensident that we can walk on two legs and use our 10 fingers?
okay!




DNA mutation is to blame here yes.
But never adaption.




Again: if we didn't adapt, we would die out = no evolution.



What i said above : If we fail to adapt, we die and that equals: No Evolution.

But you make it sound like if the human race dies, its also evolution.

Quite strange eh.

genetic mutations are happening right now in every species on this planet, it may only be a single protein marker changing, but thats still mutation. Dont think of it as x-men here. When enough markers in our DNA change, and in the right spot for it to effect the animal. We can see this mutation.

ANd yes, if a species dies out from genetic mutations it is evolution, aided by natural selection.

No, I didn't say that a population dying is evolution. If we are, however, changing in ways that will cause us to die, those changes are still evolution.

Wrong, and bye.

ANd yes, if a species dies out from genetic mutations it is evolution, aided by natural selection.

Mutation is not what i'm talking about.

Because mutation is not normal ( normal enough ). It can't be conisidered evolution. nor adaption.
Its simply, mutation. Its an error weather it makes you better or worse.

But i refuse to belive that we're at this stage because of mutation and not adaption.

But i refuse to belive that we're at this stage because of mutation and not adaption.

Then you fail your biology lesson for the day. And therefor fail life.

Then you fail your biology lesson for the day. And therefor fail life.

It seems to go the right way for me.

And if you're wrong about me failing.. then there is a great chance that you're wrong about evolution aswell.

/shrug

Mutation is not what i'm talking about.

Because mutation is not normal ( normal enough ). It can't be conisidered evolution. nor adaption.
What the fuck are you talking about? Mutation is not normal enough? Please share with us what sort of variations are causing the majority of evolution to occur if not mutation.





But i refuse to belive that we're at this stage because of mutation and not adaption.
The adaption must be caused by something. If not by mutation, then by what?

What the fuck are you talking about? Mutation is not normal enough? Please share with us what sort of variations are causing the majority of evolution to occur if not mutation.


No need to get rude.

And no, mutation is not normal.
Mutation = Errors in DNA.
It can be good, or it can be negative.

But it doesn't change the fact that its an error.
i don't see errors as evolution unless it get us to a higher level.
And i haven't seen any proof of that yet.

For all that i know, the reason we are like we are is adaption.




The adaption must be caused by something. If not by mutation, then by what?

Um.. no, adaption was never caused by something, it was always there. ever since the first living living organism.

Organisms that are adapted to their environment are able to:

obtain air, water, food and nutrients
cope with physical conditions such as temperature, light and heat
defend themselves from their natural enemies
reproduce
respond to changes around them.

And this is what we do,

i don't see errors as evolution unless it get us to a higher level.
And i haven't seen any proof of that yet.
You haven't seen proof of that yet? Then you should read a book. The changes nature selects from is due primarily to mutation.

Since you disagree, please tell us what is causing the changes.




Um.. no, adaption was never caused by something, it was always there. ever since the first living living organism.
You didn't answer the question. Through what process of change is nature selecting?

Give it up, Xlite. You're just digging yourself a bigger hole.

Let's see what the experts say:

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html



I think it's clear that changes that are other than adaption certainly count as evolution. Heritable changes in a population over time. THAT'S IT!!!!!

You haven't seen proof of that yet? Then you should read a book. The changes nature selects from is due primarily to mutation.

Since you disagree, please tell us what is causing the changes.


You didn't answer the question. Through what process of change is nature selecting?

You want me to reply to the same twice?

In any case, you might wanna refraise the question..
My english is not the best so please.

Evolution is bla bla... and so on.

I read it all but failed to understand.

Mutation or not.

Adaption is the key to survive. (evolve)

Your DNA adapts because you are the DNA. And if it fails to do so, you die or become deform or whatever you call it.

Now i don't see any reason to discuss this matter any futher.

You want me to reply to the same twice?

In any case, you might wanna refraise the question..
You said: "i don't see errors as evolution unless it get us to a higher level.
And i haven't seen any proof of that yet."

If errors (mutations) are not responsible for evolution, what is?





Adaption is the key to survive. (evolve)
Sorry, neither adaption nor survive is synonymous with evolution.

If errors (mutations) are not responsible for evolution, what is?

Within the illusion I experience, I would defiantly agree with Scraff and xray on this matter.

Within the illusion I experience
Okay, that was funny. :D

Okay, that was funny. :D

:p I'm sure it was.

Xlite, or whatever your name is, you seem to be thinking of linear evolution, which has been disproved. I suggest you do some reading, or enroll in a college level biology or anthropology class, before you go around spouting off about evolution.

Mutation is not what i'm talking about.

Because mutation is not normal ( normal enough ). It can't be conisidered evolution. nor adaption.
Its simply, mutation. Its an error weather it makes you better or worse.

Mutation and adaptation are the same thing. Adaptation is the effect of a series of mutations. It is no more an error than a coin landing on heads rather than tails.

But i refuse to belive that we're at this stage because of mutation and not adaption.

We're at this stage because an exceedingly large amount of mutations have resulted in "adaptation". If we were at this stage solely based on adaptation, that would imply a design in evolution. If that were the case, the human eye wouldn't be the tangled jumble that it is.

Mutation and adaptation are the same thing. Adaptation is the effect of a series of mutations.
I guess you weren't paying attention? Adaptation and mutation are NOT the same thing! The majority of mutations are not beneficial and are not examples of adaptation.



We're at this stage because an exceedingly large amount of mutations have resulted in "adaptation". If we were at this stage solely based on adaptation, that would imply a design in evolution. If that were the case, the human eye wouldn't be the tangled jumble that it is.
Not all variation is due to mutation, although the majority is. There is also genetic drift, chromosomes crossing over, etc. There is somewhat of a design in evolution and the eye works pretty darn well, and that's because it's NOT a tangled jumble, but it would be without a designer. That designer is Natural Selection.

I guess you weren't paying attention? Adaptation and mutation are NOT the same thing! The majority of mutations are not beneficial and are not examples of adaptation.

What I meant was adaptation (an abstract concept in itself) is the result of many mutations. Not all mutations result in an adaptation, but all adaptations are a result of mutation. I agree with not all mutations being beneficial.


Not all variation is due to mutation, although the majority is. There is also genetic drift, chromosomes crossing over, etc. There is somewhat of a design in evolution and the eye works pretty darn well, and that's because it's NOT a tangled jumble, but it would be without a designer. That designer is Natural Selection.

Natural selection is not a designer at all. That's the point of evolution, it works because there is no designer. I see your point that it selects for mutations that are beneficial by decreasing the fitness of organisms with deleterious mutations. But you missed my point about the eye.

"Your eye has a blind spot caused by the blood vessels that cover the surface of the retina converging on one point to exit the eye. If they were behind the retina it would be much better.
The optic cells (called rods and cones) are the wrong way round (the blood vessels come out into the eye rather than go out the back. "

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

The eye is used often as evidence for evolution because an actual designer could have designed a better eye, with no blind spots, as some organisms possess.

What I meant was adaptation (an abstract concept in itself) is the result of many mutations. Not all mutations result in an adaptation, but all adaptations are a result of mutation. I agree with not all mutations being beneficial.



Natural selection is not a designer at all. That's the point of evolution, it works because there is no designer. I see your point that it selects for mutations that are beneficial by decreasing the fitness of organisms with deleterious mutations. But you missed my point about the eye.

"Your eye has a blind spot caused by the blood vessels that cover the surface of the retina converging on one point to exit the eye. If they were behind the retina it would be much better.
The optic cells (called rods and cones) are the wrong way round (the blood vessels come out into the eye rather than go out the back. "

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

The eye is used often as evidence for evolution because an actual designer could have designed a better eye, with no blind spots, as some organisms possess.

Thats actually very interesting, are there other things that go along with this besides the eye? I guess if you really wanted to get down to it, a designer could have created anything better than it already is.

What I meant was adaptation (an abstract concept in itself) is the result of many mutations. Not all mutations result in an adaptation, but all adaptations are a result of mutation. I agree with not all mutations being beneficial.
Adaptation is not an abstract concept and not all adaptations are a result of mutation.



Natural selection is not a designer at all. That's the point of evolution, it works because there is no designer. I see your point that it selects for mutations that are beneficial by decreasing the fitness of organisms with deleterious mutations. But you missed my point about the eye.
I didn't miss the point about the eye; I knew you were getting at our parts not being 'perfect' However, you are missing the point about Natural Selection being the designer. Without Nature selecting which variations it will keep, the eye would indeed be a jumbled mess, so much so that it wouldn't even work.

Thats actually very interesting, are there other things that go along with this besides the eye? I guess if you really wanted to get down to it, a designer could have created anything better than it already is.

I think so too. There are other examples but I'd have to go through my old notes for them.

Adaptation is not an abstract concept and not all adaptations are a result of mutation.

Do you know of any examples where an adaptation resulted without any mutations?


I didn't miss the point about the eye; I knew you were getting at our parts not being 'perfect' However, you are missing the point about Natural Selection being the designer. Without Nature selecting which variations it will keep, the eye would indeed be a jumbled mess, so much so that it wouldn't even work.

I didn't miss that at all. There's no disagreement that beneficial mutations result in increased fitness, and deleterious mutations result in decreased fitness. The only thing we disagree on then is semantics: the meaning of the word 'designer'. Which doesn't really matter.

Here's the thing, animals didn't actually evolve, they changed , but never from one species to another. in the beginning of time everything that could be concocted existed, over time the things that couldn't survive died out, since man survived it wouldn't be that far fetched for monkeys to have survived aswell since they are so close to what we are, the biggest difference we got with monkeys is that we have a double helix DNA strand, where monkeys have a single helix.

Here's the thing, animals didn't actually evolve, they changed
And the difference is...?


but never from one species to another.
Oh no? Where are you getting this from, Bible class? There are tons of evidence that says you're wrong.


in the beginning of time everything that could be concocted existed,
Cite?


over time the things that couldn't survive died out,
How where complex organisms just there from the beginning of time? God made them? Why would he make creatures that couldn't survive? Never mind- because He works in mysterious ways, right? Any cites at all for your claims?


since man survived it wouldn't be that far fetched for monkeys to have survived aswell since they are so close to what we are
So no species of monkey has ever dies out and neither has any of our ancestors?


the biggest difference we got with monkeys is that we have a double helix DNA strand, where monkeys have a single helix.
You sure about that?

And the difference is...??

That we didn't go from species to species.


Oh no? Where are you getting this from, Bible class? There are tons of evidence that says you're wrong.?

No, I personally don't care what god did if he had anything to do with it at all, he probably just throw some magic dust in the corner of the room, and that became the universe. Their is evidence that some change has happened, but not necessarily from species to species.

How where complex organisms just there from the beginning of time? God made them? Why would he make creatures that couldn't survive? Never mind- because He works in mysterious ways, right? Any cites at all for your claims??

Well if you think that complex organisms were their from the beginning of time you have to also believe that their were none complex organisms that couldn't survive, they probably only lived for a second, before they died out from not being advanced enough to survive. Their was probably thousands of different types of man some had no lungs, heart , or brain, so they immediately died.

So no species of monkey has ever dies out and neither has any of our ancestors??

No later they died because they couldn't keep up with the genetics over time, kind of like an ice cube of varies compound, if you put a icecube that has dirt in it, and a icecube that is pure on a beach in miami one of the ice cubes are going to last longer because of that one detail. just because one died out doesn't mean the others had to follow suit.

You sure about that?

No it's just a theory, which is more likely then others.

well....fuck you prick.And no im not mad at you callin me a monkey Im mad at you makin fun of my inability to spell.We cant all be middle school gradutes ok.And im not a nigger you asshole.

Well said, mate. Spoken like a true redneck racist.

That we didn't go from species to species.
The definition of evolution has been given many times in this thread, and evolution that results in speciation isn't the only kind of evolution. BTW, there is PLENTY of evidence for speciation!




No, I personally don't care what god did if he had anything to do with it at all, he probably just throw some magic dust in the corner of the room, and that became the universe. Their is evidence that some change has happened, but not necessarily from species to species.
There is more than evidence that some changed happened and as I said, there is plenty for speciation.



Well if you think that complex organisms were their from the beginning of time
You don't already understand that xray doesn't? I'm pretty sure the only one in this thread that believes this is you.


you have to also believe that their were none complex organisms that couldn't survive, they probably only lived for a second, before they died out from not being advanced enough to survive.
So, these complex organisms were created at the beginning of time, but died out a second later.

That's quite a theory you've got there. I'll ask again, where did you come up with this?


Their was probably thousands of different types of man some had no lungs, heart , or brain, so they immediately died.
Why is that the way it probably was?




No it's just a theory, which is more likely then others.
It's a theory that we have a double helix DNA strand and monkeys have a single helix DNA strand? Cite?

The definition of evolution has been given many times in this thread, and evolution that results in speciation isn't the only kind of evolution. BTW, there is PLENTY of evidence for speciation!





There is more than evidence that some changed happened and as I said, there is plenty for speciation.




You don't already understand that xray doesn't? I'm pretty sure the only one in this thread that believes this is you.



So, these complex organisms were created at the beginning of time, but died out a second later.

That's quite a theory you've got there. I'll ask again, where did you come up with this?



Why is that the way it probably was?




It's a theory that we have a double helix DNA strand and monkeys have a single helix DNA strand? Cite?

Accom's Razor, and no it's not a theory that we have a double helix DNA strand and monkeys have a single helix DNA strand, that has already been proven.

WE did go from species to species.

If you would like to disprove this it is REALLY FUCKING SIMPLE.

You ready? I am about to tell you how easy and simple it will be to disprove evolution.

Dig down throught the layers of the Earth. Dig through the Jurassic and ALL the way down to the pre-cambrian layer. DO you know what we find there? Invertabrates. No skeletons. Trilobytes are the most complex animal in that time period. WE KNOW THIS.

If you want to disprove speciation and evolution dig down there and find a fucking mammal of ANY MOTHER FUCKING KIND!!!!! Find a human skeleton in a T-Rex's mouth!!!

They haven't. You won't. Until that happens (which it won't) evolution inculding speciation is viable.....fuck its logical and rational. No matter how difficult it is to picture it .......... it is the way it works.

Done :)

WE did go from species to species.

If you would like to disprove this it is REALLY FUCKING SIMPLE.

You ready? I am about to tell you how easy and simple it will be to disprove evolution.

Dig down throught the layers of the Earth. Dig through the Jurassic and ALL the way down to the pre-cambrian layer. DO you know what we find there? Invertabrates. No skeletons. Trilobytes are the most complex animal in that time period. WE KNOW THIS.

If you want to disprove speciation and evolution dig down there and find a fucking mammal of ANY MOTHER FUCKING KIND!!!!! Find a human skeleton in a T-Rex's mouth!!!

They haven't. You won't. Until that happens (which it won't) evolution inculding speciation is viable.....fuck its logical and rational. No matter how difficult it is to picture it .......... it is the way it works.

Done :)

So just because we didn't fossilive, doesn't mean we weren't their, maybe we didn't fossilive, maybe the ethenol in the world was just strong enough to destroy our bones, where dinosaurs bones were probably much bigger then we see in fossils.

So just because we didn't fossilive, doesn't mean we weren't their, maybe we didn't fossilive, maybe the ethenol in the world was just strong enough to destroy our bones, where dinosaurs bones were probably much bigger then we see in fossils.

NO.

SIMPLY NO.

If there was enough ethenol in the world to erase any human or modern primate or modern bird or modern ANY FUCKING THING we would detect it in the stone. Dinosaur bones would not have fossilised either.

This is a joke right? This cannot be your actual argument. It simply cannot. I refuse to believe that someone who can operate a computer and comprehend a written language would actually believe what you suppose.

I will not believe that. You are not this stupid.

NO.

SIMPLY NO.

If there was enough ethenol in the world to erase any human or modern primate or modern bird or modern ANY FUCKING THING we would detect it in the stone. Dinosaur bones would not have fossilised either.

This is a joke right? This cannot be your actual argument. It simply cannot. I refuse to believe that someone who can operate a computer and comprehend a written language would actually believe what you suppose.

I will not believe that. You are not this stupid.

Never underestimate... lol

Here's the thing, animals didn't actually evolve, they changed , but never from one species to another. in the beginning of time everything that could be concocted existed, over time the things that couldn't survive died out, since man survived it wouldn't be that far fetched for monkeys to have survived aswell since they are so close to what we are, the biggest difference we got with monkeys is that we have a double helix DNA strand, where monkeys have a single helix.

The are so many animal fossils that we have discovered theres no possible way they could all live at the same time. Look how well balanced everything is right now. You cant have a thousand different top predators competing for food, and thousands of grasers fighting for grass to eat. Unless you believe god through a few million species into a big mixing pot, scattered them around the world to see who would survive. Like the ultimate dog fighting match.

About evolution changing species. Search "retro virus fossil record" on google and you should come by some research that found retro virus's dna in our dna. We can compare these "fossils" in our DNA with the chimps DNA. Its like a time line in our DNA, some of the mutations in the DNA happend to our common ancestor, some happend after we split off.

Small changes over small periods of time lead to large changes over long periods of time.

Hopefuly your not a troll or I just wasted my time.