posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:53 AM
The sheer volume of ignorance in this thread is enough to pop my head open. However I will try and argue logically with you guys.
For starters anyone who has taken a single intro course in biology or anthropology or any other related science in course knows the following info.
How do I know? I'm currently enrolled in an introduction anthropology course.
1) "Evolution is just a theory, its even called the THEORY of evolution."
Theory in the colloquial meaning and scientific meaning mean two different things. In science nothing can be absolutly proven, but everything can be
disproven. Theories are simply regarded as the ideas that best explain our current situation, and can be subject to revision or thrown out if another
group of ideas come out.
2) "We couldn't have evolved from apes because apes are still with us"
The word "Ape" is a very broad term. It can be used to refer to a number of different species that currently exist. For example, chimpanzees and
gorillas are both considered to be part of the Great Ape family. Rather, science calls members of Apes as Hominoids. The last known common ancestor
between us and chimpanzees, our closest relatives, was the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, around 7 million years ago. That species in fact does not look
like either a chimpanzee or a human because both species have evolved since then. Needless to say, the Sahelanthropus tchadensis is extinct.
3) "evolution can't happen because you can't have half a spider or half an organ to survive"
You are right in that you can't have half an organ and survive. However, no where in evolution is there considered half a lung or half an eye. All of
our organs slowly evolve, with each inch towards our modern eye or lung being advantagous in an of itself. For example, early animals did not have
eyes. The eye is a very complex organ and one would think that it would not be possible to just leap to an eye. However, here is a hypothetical
scenerio that illustrates how something like the eye can evolve:
lets say an animal is born with an indentation on its body. There is nothing disadvantageous so it continues to live. One of its ancestors has a
mutation in which light-sensitive neurons cluster around the indentation. This proves advantageous because now the animal can sense light. Lets say
one of its ancestors has a mutation in which the indentation becomes deeper and filled with more neurons. Now we can start to see a distinct organ in
place, albeit not as complex or advantageous as the modern eye. However the animal can now see moving objects, which proves massively advantageous in
avoding predators. This process goes on for millions of years, slowly adding complexity to the eye with each addition making the eye slightly more
effective, until we reach the modern eye.
The same can pretty much be said for any other organ. It might take a while to create an organ because maybe it requires a bigger leap than the eye,
but considering how most animals generations are a lot shorter than ones we are familiar with, in a couple hundred thousand years the chance of making
a small leap is still good.
4) "We don't have complete fossil records showing all of this gradual evolution, so it couldn't have happened"
Fossil records tend to be millions of years in between. It is true that we do not have a complete fossil record to record all of the changes that have
happened, however this does not disprove the theory of evolution nor prove the theory of god. It simply means we have to continue looking. An example
is the recent discovery of an even older relative of humans. We didn't know about it before, but because we continued searching, we filled in another
piece of the puzzle that is human evolution.
In any case, most of you talk about macroevolution. We have seen microevolution in practice. microevolution is like the dept of a finch's beak, macro
evolution is a complete evolution from one species to another