No animal ever turned into another animal in the form of evolution like you lot claim.
It happens all the time. Are you the same animal you were yesterday? How about on the day of your birth? How about as an embryo? if you walk that back to moment of the meiosis of the zygotes from which you were conceived, you'll discover one of the essential mechanisms of evolution, called crossover. It's a way to randomize the propagation of genes that code for certain traits while at the same time preserving genes that code for general traits (like arms and legs). Once in a while there is an error in the process (and other processes besides crossover) which cause mutations. Mutations can sometimes be catastrophic, resulting in harmful birth defects. But once in a small percentage of mutations the change in traits can be significant enough to mark the emergence of new species.
The belief that organisms can not evolve is contradicted by evidence which you could reproduce yourself if you think science publications are dishonest. One of the most commonly known examples of evolution are the seasonal changes in microbes, in response to human immune systems, which evolve from those offspring that survived the immune response, built in numbers, and produced a new epidemic. The same is true of microbes that evolved resistances to antibiotics or other medicines.
Many organisms co-evolved with other organisms, especially parasites. The parasites that aid in digestion for example may be specific to the host species and necessarily co-evolved. All of this dovetails with the known eras of appearances and disappearances of species according to fossil evidence, plus the wealth of recent genetic studies that have become another tool for scientists to correlate various kinds of evidence.
The evolution of humans from "other animals" begins with recognizing the many humanoid fossils already found. Your other remark concerning your disbelief that humans and apes do not share a common past is disproved by
Ardi.
Do you not think after all these years of searching they would of found something,
Fossils are hard to find, but a treasure trove already exist. But no matter how many mountains of evidence science brings forward, creationists will ignore and deny it. You may want to open another thread to learn more, or to refer to any of many existing threads on this topic.
or with all the science done, like i said above why couldn't they get monkies to invent the wheel?
That has nothing to do with evolution.
Creationism still exists as evolution is just a rubbish system
Creationism is just a re-hash of the belief in a creation myth, plus an insistence that, to preserve the myth, all evidence to the contrary must be rubbish.
with charles darwin, just came up with, oh look apes look like humans, we must be from same family, lol. Thats good science.
In the first place you are confusing
Origin of Species and
the Descent of Man, but you are also incorrectly paraphrasing Darwin. To begin to understand how he discovered evolutionary and natural selection, you would first need to solve the science problem he was working on, which involved explaining how certain finches came to inhabit the Galapagos Islands.
The science behind evolution is about as bad as the science behind the big bang, which just came from male ejaculation.
That's OK we can just rely on the female works in science and we'll get the same result. If either evolution or Big Bang Theory bother you because of your religious beliefs, then you should question the source of your beliefs. It's fine to question both theories, it's just that it requires you to understand science, which is for some reason beyond you.
Like i said so many times humans will never work out beyond whats in there own mind.
Look around you at the developments since the Stone Age and see if you can restate that more accurately.
That must trouble people so into evolution science like you seem to be.
Evolutionary biology is not going away, it's only gathering more and more evidence which creationists tend to ignore.
No missing link found, what a shame.
Why so? What about Ardi, or half a dozen other finds? How about the find that humans carry Neanderthal DNA? Like I say, the evidence just keeps mounting.
With the mind control techs today,
You mean the creationists? In science you are free to prove or disprove anything. We're not chained to any religious belief.
why doesn't science transmit the idea of the wheel into a chimps brain and see if it comes up with how to build one.
IF you are so averse to having evolved from a lower animal, you should strive to elevate your own mind, so that you may see the irony in this statement.
Humans do not need to talk to do stuff, so lack of talking means nout.
They are essential to survival, which is why we possess such faculties.
So science should take some chimps, then transmit the idea of the wheel into there brain, and the concept of it, as they think chimps relate to it, and see if they come up with a wheel.
In a cartoon maybe. In which case they would go on the road and start doing evolution tent revivals.
Whether you like to admit it or not, the techs to transmit pics and knowledge into brains of people exist, so why not try it on chimps. See if science can get a group of chimps to build a wheel.
So science needs to
1) get group of chimps
2) set up conditions they think will lead to chimps wanting a wheel
3) leave materials around to see if the chimps understand the problem.
4) transmit the idea of the wheel, and pics and stuff and how it relates to the chimps and there problem into the chimps brains.
see then if they come up with building a wheel, i am sure science can take over some farm or something to make sure controlled conditions exist.
Then you can see if they can, like i said above humans do not need to talk to do problems, and build things.
Science has all this tech today, why cannot science show us if monkeys can do it then.
You said that about half a dozen times.
Actually it's the other way around. If you want to disprove the facts scientists are publishing, then you have to publish your own evidence in support of creationism. That's where Creation Science came from. But that's also why it's bogus. It never was interested in learning anything about nature in the first place.
Having said all of this, and thinking that the subject is off-topic, I am reminded that 6 million years of progress (probably more) to get to the wheel was indeed slow, but then again humans had a lot of setbacks, like superstition, so maybe this discussion is more germane than I first thought.
