Click here if your mom is a monkey!!!!

[aMindBesideItself]

Prove to me that we evolved from monkeys.

[Imgrimm01]

"PROVE" To me that we didn't...

[Imgrimm01]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[esa]

I honestly have no theory as to how anything got here save for this. We all start from a bunch of atoms getting together, creating mass. We are constantly shifting and changing to suit our atmosphere and needs. (Look at dogs and cats...they have a useless toe on their back foot that they no longer need). So, if we shared the same genetic background as apes like dinosaurs do of birds, then perhaps if the whole creation story of adam and eve is true, perhaps apes are a bi-product of man and not vice versa. Hell, I don't know. But I do know this...whether the Being Upstairs created us from primordial ooze, apes, or in His/Her immage, we are here so what does it matter? And by the by...for the big bang theory people...there had to be some being there to create the necessitties needed to "bang" together.
We're addaptive creatures...

[byndrsn]

And by the by...for the big bang theory people...there had to be some being there to create the necessitties needed to "bang" together.

Then who or what created the "being"?
Then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"? ..................

[MOONDOGGY]

You know Mr Grimm...You're right, and so is that Mr. Ian Johnston!

And all this time, I was believing just some fictional story book.....a book that billions upon billions of people have looked to and relied on for 2000 years. All this time, those billions of people believed this Bible when it said we were created by some sort of God or something.

If the accurate art of carbon dating, and scientific reasearch shows that we were alive billions of years ago, and that during that time we were knuckle draggin monkeys chillin with the dinosaurs, and that before that, we were just single-celled organisms like parameciums and flagella and other stuff, then I believe it!

[Imgrimm01]

Good I'm glad to see you're coming around. Look the thing is this the Bible is NOT to be taken literally! I mean come on if we take it literally we are all in trouble, Anyone who speaks out against his parents should be put to death... Thou shall not kill.... contridiction.... anyone who lye in the same bed with an unpure woman ( menstruating ) put to death .... 95% of ALL humans ... dead because they didn't sleep on the couch when their wives had their periods???? Come on ! I respect your beliefs and your religion but I also know you and you are a SMART GUY too smart to think that the bible is to be taken literally word for word. I gave only a few examples but it is FULL of contridictions and statements just like those, ( Gays put to death ?? ) ( Love Thy Neighbor ) Turn the other cheek .. what unless they are gay ?? I don't get it ... My brain is burning.

[bassist_25]

And by the by...for the big bang theory people...there had to be some being there to create the necessitties needed to "bang" together.

Then who or what created the "being"?
Then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"?
And then who or what created that "being"? ..................

- There are things in this world that are in motion
- Things in motion must have a cause to put them in motion (i.e. variable B must have been caused by variable A)
- There is no infinite regress, so there must have been a starting part
- To create that motion there would have been an "unmoving mover" to instigate the first action
- We call this first cause God

I've always had a huge problem with the Cosmological Argument. I think that the fatal flaw is the claim that there can be no infinite regress. Of course, this philosophy was created back in the middle ages, so the Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics were unknown right then. I always thought that the Teleological Argument was a better rationale for the existence of God. Still, I always wondered that if reality, as a dynamic system, is really a self-actualizing entity capable of its own determinist end, rather than the design of an outside "watchmaker".

BTW: I'm an existentialist, which is probaly obvious since I have a picture of Sartre as my avatar.

[DMFJ03]

I say we drink beer and forget about it.

Where here now, so - what does it matter?

[byndrsn]

Paul,

I mean no offense here - but could you give that to me once again in english? (or in other words - so that dumb fucks like me can understand what you are saying)

Thanks buddy!!

Urbs

[esa]

It's funny. I have a problem thinking that I can't talk to a man about my problems as a two way before the Creator. I have a problem thinking that I'm going to hell if I don't sit in a Church for an hour, hating it. I have a problem thinking that a baby will go to hell (too damn bad for you limbo babies...they got rid of limbo so now you're really stuck there! )because it didn't get baptised.... I have several problems and questions again the church or any religion..but that's one thing i know. There is a higher power. They came first. They made stuff and then they sat back with a drink and laughed at us. He just always was and is. I dono how else to explain it.

[bassist_25]

Paul,

I mean no offense here - but could you give that to me once again in english? (or in other words - so that dumb fucks like me can understand what you are saying)

Thanks buddy!!

Urbs

Cosmological Argument - is based off of simple physics and what not. It's basically saying that something doesn't just simply can into being (remember the whole "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" thing from 10th grade physics). It needs another force to bring it there.

Teleological Argument - is basically saying that the world is much too complex to simply be an accident. There has to be some intelligent creator (i.e. God) that brought everything into existence. The most famous essay is by William Paley, in which he compared the universe to a pocket watch.

Existentialism - Philosophical movement which emphasizes personal experience and subjective morals (as opposed to objective and universal morals ala unitarianism). Though it's mainly thought of as a secular philosophy, the first existentialist were actually Christian theologians.

[Imgrimm01]

My mom is NOT a monkey BUT my DICK is a peach !!

[Jim Price]

I don't know if it proves that we came from monkeys, but I ate bananas for breakfast all this past week, and when I clicked on the Virtual Bar Tender thread and went to the site, I kept repeatedly typing in "banana" for my order from the two ladies. Proof of evolving from simians? Maybe. Maybe not...

[Ron]

Where here now, so - what does it matter?

Very wise words for a guy made of particles and energy trapped in four dimensions.

[DMFJ03]

Where here now, so - what does it matter?

Very wise words for a guy made of particles and energy trapped in four dimensions.

The only thing trapped in me is the thinner, leaner Jae that I knew in highschool.

[Imgrimm01]

Did I mention my DICK IS A PEACH ?

[ERiC_AiXeLsyD]

I don't know if it proves that we came from monkeys, but I ate bananas for breakfast all this past week, and when I clicked on the Virtual Bar Tender thread and went to the site, I kept repeatedly typing in "banana" for my order from the two ladies. Proof of evolving from simians? Maybe. Maybe not...

No, the "banana" code is just ... um ... entertaining. Yeah, that's it. Entertaining.

[RobTheDrummer]

I mean, if we did evolve from monkeys, wouldn't you think that we would have found a missing like somewhere? I mean, just because they are our closest relative in the animal kingdom, does not me we came from them. A horse and a zebra look alike, did the zebra evolved from the horse?

Also, if we evolved from monkeys, there wouldn't be anymore monkeys running around because they would have eventually died off to the superior version of them...I just don't buy into evolution. I think people can adapt to certain climates and such, but not evolve into a totally different being.

Therefore, I cannot prove that we did or didn't evolve, but I give ya my 2 cents on the matter...

[Banned]

I don't know about monkeys, but we all are decendants of the sea sponge.
It has been found that the sponge contains the base DNA of all animals on the planet: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/epi ... xplo2.html

Molecular Biologist Mitch Sogin, of The Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, recently sent shock waves through the scientific world when his genetic research supported the placement of sponges at the base of the animal kingdom.

Sogin made this discovery by extracting DNA from a sponge and investigating one gene common to all animals. After painstakingly sequencing this gene, he compared its nucleotide sequence (represented by letters) to that of the same gene in other animals like worms, mammals, insects and more. Little variation of this gene in different animal groups would signify the groups were closely related while large variations would represent a more distant relationship. After comparing all the groups, Sogin traced out an evolutionary family tree, knowing that the animal at the base of the tree would be our oldest ancestor. He discovered that sponges indeed, were the most basal group that must have laid the foundation for all animal life to follow. "The sponge was the first animal with the genetic blueprint for living large," Sogin says. "All animals are based upon that same blueprint."

[bassist_25]

I mean, if we did evolve from monkeys, wouldn't you think that we would have found a missing like somewhere? I mean, just because they are our closest relative in the animal kingdom

Actually, "Lucy" is often thought of as being a predecessor to modern homo sapiens. Keep in mind, while monkeys still do exist, homo sapiens are the last of the genus homo. Monkeys and humans are still related insofar as they are both hominids.

eetfuk: very interesting article.

[bassist_25]

Anyways, back to rationalist philosohy. Here's part of a paper I wrote a few weeks ago for my reading class. The essay's actually longer (hence why the foot notes start on a later number); the first part was about the history of rationalism and existentialism, but this here is my own argument (with other's ideas footnoted). I'm sure someone with a doctrate in philosophy (or even physics) could rip it apart, but I never said I was a philosopher. Since determinist causes got brought up, I thought that some people may be interested in it. So.....

The Argument Against Deterministic Objectivity
By Paul Rainey

Scientific deduction has always relied on rationalist theory to help predict relationships occurring in an external reality. Determinism asserts that event B is contingent on object A, so therefore an objective truth can be concluded from the assumption that things are the cause of other things. The purpose of the argument against deterministic objectivity is not to dismiss causal-relationships (as they can be widely observed, David Barash even synergized existentialism and biology(6); science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive.) but to prove the irrationality of attempting to predict material behavior.

Events and objects often do not come into being through simple linear cause-and-effect relations but are the result of multiple factors interacting to create a large interwoven system of causes. Rather than have one event conceptually cause another event, there are many spurious variables working in tandem towards an eventual termination. Each variable is exclusive unto itself and only shares universality with other variables insofar as their mutual result. Of course, each variable can also be considered an end, as it is too contingent on preceding factors.

Chaos theory provides an explanation as to why the chances of predictability diminish as a system is rationalized. Once any conceptual architecture is brought into realization it becomes vulnerable to miniscule, extrinsic fluctuations acting upon its compulsion. As the number of variables grows, larger errors impede one’s ability to predict an accurate outcome of the system – in other words, the system is chaotic. The only way the system’s behavior can be predicted is by knowing the initial conditions’ state to an infinite degree, which is impossible(7).

Descartes’ method of attacking foundational beliefs exemplifies the flaw of linear thinking that is found in many rationalist arguments. He contended that knowledge was based on a vertical structure of proven truths; if a cause were found to be untrue, the effect residing above it must also be untrue. Much like the chaos theory’s explanation of external variables instigating changes in a system, an external variable could also account for a change in Descartes’ model. The next logical step would be to view his model not as a set of independent strands of contingencies, but as a series of linear systems interconnected by auxiliary pathways. Still again, the infinite existence of external causes creates a problem when attempting to acquire thorough knowledge of a system. While in this case rationalism still maintains its objectivity, it fails at providing enough relevant information for the statement of a truth.

Theoretical platforms only provide information pertinent to a static reality; humans, on the other hand, exist in a dynamic reality. Rational maxims cannot explain absolute knowledge for they do not take in account the entirety of complex systems. Since knowledge exist (according to the rationalist view) a priori, one is left facing his or her own finite being. That is since all determinist models are prone to unpredictability, the individual loses his or her free will in enacting change upon an external reality simply because they still believe in the theoretical laws governing causal relations.

There does seem to be an existentialist antagonism toward rationality( 8 ), but it is at this critical juncture that rationality resolves into existentialism. Even from an existentialist point of view, natural laws still exist – it’s the perception of where the individual stands in relation to the laws that changes. One begins to realize the indifference of the external world and then forges a personally unique reality. Instead of operating against the world, the existentialist now operates within the world. Since objective phenomena can no longer be quantified or qualified, it’s up to the individual to define his or her own external reality. Objects no longer possess measurable properties but are now things insofar as they exist within the perceivers mind. For example, a brick wall is no longer thought of as having the property “red”; rather, red is simply a construct of interconnected things (i.e. light rays), which then are perceived as being “red” by the cones and brain of the individual looking upon it. If one looked at the wall in a low-light situation, it would probably appear to be blue or black due to his or her rods instead of cones synthesizing the texture. Therefore, it would be foolish to say that the wall, as an external object, has the color “red”, since the color is simply a property perceived and given subjective meaning by internal factors. If a color-blind person said that the wall looked green, would he be wrong?

Understanding how the unfathomable objectivity of Rationalism concludes to existentialism is rational in itself – one has to hypothetically reason towards his or her own realization of existence. Some may even say that it’s human nature to try and understand the world, that we are all innate rational beings. But, as stated before, the worth of any theory is found in its tangible results, not its design. With that in mind, existentialism provides infinite freedom, while rationalism creates self-imposed barriers. It has always been the individual and not the world that defines reality – And once man realizes this, he will truly see things for what they are.

6. Barash, David P (2000). Evolutionary existentialism, sociobiology, and the meaning of life. Bioscience, Vol. 50, Issue 11.

7. Lorenzen, Michael (2005). Chaos Theory and Education. Retrieved on April 2, 2005 from http://www.libraryreference.org/chaos.html.

8. Solomon, Robert C. (1992). Existentialism, emotions, and the cultural limits of rationality. Philosophy East & West, Vol. 42, Issue 4.

[JeffLeeper]

If we came from monkeys and apes.....how come there are still monkeys and apes ?

Somebody got ripped off !

[ain soph aur]

And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution... No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Maybe people still refuse this "fact" because it's hardly a "FACT"... but simply a THEORY!!!

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent.

Going along these same lines, but in a totally different direction... there are two immutable laws of science 1) life always gives way to life and 2) like always gives way to like. Evolution calls for the exact opposite of both... where is your living parent if life emerged from nothing and why can't we see any evidence in evolving from birth to birth??? Reproductive systems all work the same way, to REPRODUCE the same as both parents. When this system fails scientificly it's called a MUTATION, remarkably NOT evolution and these mutations don't improve the life, but disable it.

The argument was used "And then who or what created that "being?" but the same is true for evolution... where did it begin and from what? A sponge, well then where did the sponge come from??? To say that chemicals, gases, and heat and came together and produced life blantently contradicts the fact noted by science above " that all living creatures must have a living parent". Either way it's a BELIEF... you have to belive in Evolution just as much (IF NOT MORE) than Creation.

One of the most hypocritical things seen today is how Evolutionist FORCE their beliefs down everyone elses throats the very exact same way that Religions have. All of mans history has been religions forcing people to believe as they do, forbidding people to educate themselves outside of that particular religion. What we are seeing today with Evolution is NO DIFFERENT!!! It is ridiculous to think in our day an age we have a "religion" (Evolution) based on a belief system CONTROLLING what science can be taught in public schools!!! What a joke! I would love to know what Evolutionists are so afraid of??? Especially since they are so confident that they are 100% right!!! Why can't both theories be presented EQUALLY and WE CAN THEN MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS FOR OURSELVES!!! Why the desprate need to make everyone believe as they? That is exactly why we are seeing yet another belief system controlling what people are allowed to think.

I'll save someone the trouble... because 'Creation has no place in science". Well that is what Evolutionists would have you think, but the truth is the Bible is FULL of science and contrary to popular belief the Bible is NOT AGAINST science in the slightest, but actually harmonizes quite well with it, but much of that science is supressed and kept from the general public. Then to go above and beyond that the Bible makes mention of many scientific facts that have taken countless scolars and hundreds of years to come to the same conclusions! Gluons are my favorite example.

In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

What a nice and polite way of saying go ahead believe what you want, but your an idiot. If that is the case, that we are free to choose, again why do Evolotionist CONTROL what science is taugh in our schools? There is SO MUCH SCIENCE out there that PROVES Creation and a YOUNG EARTH that it can just as easily be unreasonbly scientific to claim it is not true. BTW, "liberal"... our last few elections would beg to differ.

I have a problem thinking that I can't talk to a man about my problems as a two way before the Creator. I have a problem thinking that I'm going to hell if I don't sit in a Church for an hour, hating it. I have a problem thinking that a baby will go to hell (too damn bad for you limbo babies...they got rid of limbo so now you're really stuck there! )because it didn't get baptised

These are ALL perfect examples of what religons have FORCED people to believe over history, all of which as a side note, have NO shred of Biblical basis.

Look the thing is this the Bible is NOT to be taken literally! I mean come on if we take it literally we are all in trouble, Anyone who speaks out against his parents should be put to death... Thou shall not kill.... contridiction.... anyone who lye in the same bed with an unpure woman ( menstruating ) put to death .... 95% of ALL humans ... dead because they didn't sleep on the couch when their wives had their periods???? Come on ! I respect your beliefs and your religion but I also know you and you are a SMART GUY too smart to think that the bible is to be taken literally word for word. I gave only a few examples but it is FULL of contridictions and statements just like those, ( Gays put to death ?? ) ( Love Thy Neighbor ) Turn the other cheek .. what unless they are gay ?? I don't get it ... My brain is burning.

It is pretty obvious that your not trying to get it... these are hardly contradictions, but simply ramblings of someone who clearly has no understanding of the Bible. I'm really not trying to be rude, but there is just no other way to put it. The first thing needed to be understood about the Bible is The Old Testament and New Testament... TWO VERY DIFFERENT SETS OF LAWS that can not be itermingled. There are OT laws that to most people seem harsh and cruel, but at those times there were very deep and complicated reasons and justifications for such laws, but when you don't bother to examine those things of course your going to not get it. "HONOR" thy parents is a far cry from being put to death, "lye in bed" is a reference to sex, not "sleeping" and as for gays, God gave the gift of free will which means that EVERYONE is free to do with their own life as they choose, BUT that doesn't mean that God has to approve of everything we do either. Depending on which translation you are pulling the "put to death" and EXACTLY what context it comes in (that's why things can't just be randomly intermingled) "put to death" could simply be just refering to being separated from God... spiritual death. What were you saying about not taking it literaly?

The NT changed all the old laws because through salvation there was no need for them anymore. Conseratives still push the death penalty, but that was specifically changed in the NT, it is all compassion and forgiveness under the new laws, but the many religions of the earth didn't grasp that and it is their actions that lead people to assume that the Bible is reponsible for all the vile actions of man, but in fact it is just man corrupting and abusing the Bible for their own agendas. WAY off topic though.

Getting back to Evolution, in it’s truest sense, evolution does take place, but not the way Darwinism preaches and distorts. Real evolution is simple adaptation; the way things change to fit into their environment. Like the differences in animals that live in warm weather compared to the same species that live in cold, or how humans got lighter in skin tone the further out from the equator they migrated, and how the many forms of plant life adapt to their surroundings. Taking the giant leap from basic adaptation to Evolution as we know it today is just that…a giant leap and even bigger stretch of the truth.

People very mistakenly think the “missing link” is one ape like man that
connects the entire chain of human Evolution, but in fact the missing link is
MILLIONS of missing fossil records. Not only in human Evolution, BUT ALL THOSE IN BETWEEN THE MAJOR DIVISIONS OF LIFE... fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, mammal, human. Yes, there are tons of fossils of the same species with slight differences; this is what Darwin called Evolution, but there are NO FOSSILS CROSSING OVER THE MAJOR DIVISIONS WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OF EVOLUTION… let alone ONE living species. If Evolution holds any truth then there should be and endless amount of fossils consisting of all kinds of SUBSPIECIES, there should also be all kinds living now, yet there is nothing. Not to mention, there is not one species in the process of Evolution; not even in the last 100 years of science can one living animal be shown to be evolving into something else. Are we to believe that Evolution miraculously and magically takes place to all species at the same time??? It is absolutely ridiculous to think that there is not one animal evolving that science hasn’t been able to actually observe it evolving, but that’s right Evolution happens over so many millions of years that you can’t see it. Bull, if Evolution was even remotely plausiable then AT LEAST ONE SPECIES WOULD BE IN THE PROCESS AND OBSERVABLE!

When you honestly look at apes and humans and think that there are millions of years passing with each and every little change, and there is no
fossil record to support this its just absurd. This is millions of years, meaning millions of fossils… but we just so happen to only find those fossils that already fit into one of the major divisions. Either there is a lot of SELECTIVE DIGGING, or spontaneous Evolution… or our current perception of Evolution is entirely false.

One of the biggest fallacies and where Evolution blows itself right out of the
water is survival of the fittest. Evolution teaches that stronger species
develop and wipe out the weaker, yet most of the species alive today go all the way back to the beginning of the fossil record. Using apes as an example again, if all these different species of apes/chimps/monkeys that exist today are our ancient ancestors, why are the ancient ancestors still around considering humans are the stronger species and according to survival of the fittest they should long be extinct? The majority of animals that are extinct today is because man wiped them out or destroyed their habitat... not Evolution. Also, if our ancient ancestors are still around and we are here, why aren’t all those many species inbetween ape and human running around as well??? Evolution says that’s because of survival of the fittest, man today wiped out Neanderthal and so on, but the chain breaks at the ancient ancestors, evolution clearly contradicts its own theories.

I once heard in a movie that if man did evolve, we would have evolved from parasites not apes… humans suck the life right out of every other living things. Man is self-destructive unlike everything else in nature, this also contradicts Evolutions own theories… all living things grow and flourish, they strive to continue life, but not man. This leaves only one possibility and that is there is something else going on with humans… sin maybe? That brings up another interesting point, if Evolution was true then it would be true for ALL the major divsions... why is it that mammals and only mammals evolved into intelligemt life??? Why don't reptiles evolve into their own rep-men, or fish-men, or amphib-man??? This is kind of where the absurdity of Evolution shines it's brightest!

The last major flaw in Evolution I have for the night is if everything had to evolve into it's current state... it could have NEVER SURVIVED in the first place!!! All animals have their own unique SURVIVAL SKILLS and without them they would die! Imagine the first mammals with no legs trying to survive on land, or birds who hunt from the sky waiting millions of years to develope their wings. More exact examples, how about the giraff and the valve that stops the massive amount of blood flow to it brain when it leans down for a drink... without it their head would explode, but we are to believe that they devolped that valve over millions of years! Or a Woodpecker that burrows into trees to survive, the strength of their heads and beak are like no other to withstand the pounding and force they absorb... their brians would have been mush long before they could wait to develope. Then there's the spitting fish that soley depends on it's ability to see above the surface and make accurate aim at insects on weeds and branches... the eyesight required to diferentiate between water and the surface is astounding, again if it had to develop over millions of years they would have starved to death! There are countless examples of this over and over in nature and there is NO POSSIBLE way ANYTHING could have lived long enough to reproduce without being COMPLETELY INTACT FROM THE VERY START!!!

There are many "reasonable scientific stances" not to believe in Evolution, this is just the beginning.

[MOONDOGGY]

Nick, Nick, Nick!!! Look what you have done my brother. You have created a philosophical, religious, evolutionary, and revolutionary monster!