Evolution Proven False

Yeah, and if European americans were derived from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

You didn't answer my question.

Europeans are not a a part of an evolutionary chain, they are a class of nationality named by humans. Your simile has no backing.

Let me ask it again.

Evolution is about natural selection, which means that after that species has been evolutionized, it dies off.

Why are there still Monkeys if we have evolved from them.

Do not dance around the question.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

[another one ] this is one of your first posts here so..maybe you could have a look at some other threads and actually learned something about the TOE before arguing against it?
Humans and other monkeys etc. share a common ancestor. There is no reason for one to replace the other unless they are in direct competition.

See above. Hundreds of gaps? What.. are you expecting a fossil record of a humans entire ancestorial tree or something?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by riley]

One second.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

The idea was to get you to think about the possible answer, rather than me just spout it out.

I guess it's the teacher in me.

You don't understand how evolution works. It isn't a simple linear ladder-like progression. It's like a branchy bushy thing.

So, what happened in the past, millions of years ago, is that populations split. Keeping up the analogy I tried to use, at one time a group of Europeans split from the larger population and moved to a new environment they called America. Then over time they became European Americans, they even split further within this 'family' into Californians, Texans etc etc

Now apply this to a group of monkeys. Evolution shows as a nested heirarchy.

ABE:



No, they really don't. Please get a good book on evolution. You don't need to accept it, but at least learn what the theory is. I suggest Richard Dawkins' book 'the ancestors tale'.

(also, the word you're looking for is 'evolved')

[edit on 10-11-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by riley

---

scientificly why not take this to a more extreme level and say how did a single cell start the creation of ALL organic life. Im pretty sure one cell didnt have the genetic material for eveything, and if its a mutation that did it, I would like to say a cell that asexually reproduces ALWAYS makes an exact copy of itself. What about the trees/plants water and the chemicals in everything, were they created from the 1stchemical do they have an evolution, or hav they always been. Natural selection could be used to argue your theory about apes, like look at all the different finches on all the islands, humans can be compared to them(somehow). Its not that i dont believe in evolution its just it needs to be better explained and justified, plus i think you need alot of faith to believe monkeys turned into humans.ps is humanity evidence that evolution does not exist?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

It has been explained perfectly well. Read up on wikipedia, and you'll see it requires absolutely no faith at all. Do you need faith to know that 2+2=4? Nope. Same with evolution. If, though, you didn't know what '2' was, you'd need faith to know that 2+2=4. That's what we're dealing with here.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Logically, if there were conditions for 1 cell to form, then the conditions were probably (most likely) also right for other similar cells to form. If you had a soup full of protiens and such building blocks, it would be highly unlikely that only ONE cell would have formed. Many different cells could/would have formed, each with potentially different properties.

dont be so narrowminded. take a look at the big picture.

PS. that wasnt name calling, it was only a suggestion.

reply to post by SpilledBeans

---

Evolution doesnt say we evolved from monkeys. Evolution says we share a common ancester.

reply to post by SpilledBeans

---

...of course we didn't evolve from monkeys, nobody in the field of evolutionary biology is stating that we did.

we evolved from proto-apes
not monkeys

case closed.

Uh, not to show how biased you are but... When Creationists "tested" Carbon Dating what they did was take living, organic, material and then used the testing WRONGLY and got a wrong answer. Do you understand me? THEY USED IT WRONG SO GOT A WRONG ANSWER!

If I try to use a calculator to write a paper and it doesn't write a paper does that mean calculators don't work? No, it means I used it wrong!

i didnt read the whole thing i just read a paragraph and i already found a flaw

we didnt originate from monkeys, homosapiens were not monkeys and were never labeled as one

the first part FAILS
i dont hav the time to read the rest but for those who do, don't take my answer seriously, i just read one part out of many

BWahahaha.

I see people still believe that we evolved from monkeys/apes. The amusing thing is that we are apes definitely and definitively.

Go look up human evolution before you make these kinds of assumptions.

Here, I'll give you a hand.

As for the "where did the first cell come from" question, you're talking Abiogenesis, not evolution, a common misconception.

I'm tempted to start an 'Abiogenesis for dummies' thread so we can put this misconception to bed.