I believe evolution is a fraud otherwise why do we not see it happening today. If we are related to the primates why are they not getting smarter like us. In all the time we have known of the primates existence they have stayed the same, those that have mastered the use of simple tools still use those tools they did not adapt them or make them better. In the time since we have known of monkeys and gorrilas we have invented many new things, sky scrapers, the car, loads of stuff. Yet they are still sniffing each others bottoms and eating the fleas from each other. They have learned nothing, just like every other animal and humans are always getting smarter and learning new things adapting, researching, implementing different techniques to all different things.

You can watch it happen in a lab.

Anyway why havent we seen it happen with primates? Quick question, have we seen it happen with us? Or... did we need the fossils to tell us where we came from? New inventions dont mean a new brain.

ehm.. evolution theory doesnt state that changes come in a matter of days. we're talking about thousands and thousands of years. you're not going to 'see' evolution due to your short life, evolution theory is a conclusion of processes that took thousands of years.

we have developed a lot the last thousand years, but that is due to human creation, it is not nature.

We do see evolution happening today. If we didn't, there wouldn't be a different cold virus every single year.

The first rule of evolution, is that evolution DOES NOT mean that a species will necessarily get more complex, or more intelligent in the process. Many times, evolution leads to a species becoming less complex, and less intelligent in order to survive in a certain habitat.

Second rule of evolution, we live on a bacteria planet. Nearly every "life" on earth is a bacteria. We see evolution occurring among them at a very rapid pace.

Third rule, Humans and other higher life forms are a tiny tiny minority on life on this planet, and because of complexity, evolve much slower, in the order of millions of years. We are not going to see a Chimp turn into a Homo Erectus in less than a multi-million year span, thus we cannot observe it in real time, we can only observe the fossil evidence that it did occur.

Fourth rule, and perhaps the most telling: DNA analysis has PROVEN a definite genetic link among several species. Using DNA evidence we can construct "family trees" if you will that show which species have direct common ancestors, where the splits occurred, etc. We share more DNA with apes than we do Canines, and House Cats share more DNA with Tigers than do Dogs. DNA evidence provides us a conclusive link, that is impossible to deny.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution covers why evolution happened, and how evolution happens.

__________________

That's a solid case you have there, didn't think of it but I'd say that's game set and match for the pro-evolution folk here

__________________

How come then we never get to see the stages through this progress. For example why is there not something walking about that is between gorrila and man. Or other species in a transiational stage. Don't tell me we just go from gorrila to man just like that. Also if you believe the link between the gorrila and man has died out, why would it die out if it was more evolved than the gorrila. There is no evidence of evolution in the slightest otherwise we would see plenty of animals at stages in their morphing cycle.

The first rule of evolution, is that evolution DOES NOT mean that a species will necessarily get more complex, or more intelligent in the process. Many times, evolution leads to a species becoming less complex, and less intelligent in order to survive in a certain habitat.


Third rule, Humans and other higher life forms are a tiny tiny minority on life on this planet, and because of complexity, evolve much slower, in the order of millions of years. We are not going to see a Chimp turn into a Homo Erectus in less than a multi-million year span, thus we cannot observe it in real time, we can only observe the fossil evidence that it did occur.

It does not matter how slow it is we should see a progression from one species to another. Things don't just jump from one species to another. If we came from the sea there should be all types of creatures that show how we trangressed to be human.

Fourth rule, and perhaps the most telling: DNA analysis has PROVEN a definite genetic link among several species. Using DNA evidence we can construct "family trees" if you will that show which species have direct common ancestors, where the splits occurred, etc. We share more DNA with apes than we do Canines, and House Cats share more DNA with Tigers than do Dogs. DNA evidence provides us a conclusive link, that is impossible to deny.

All that shows is similarity in genetic make up, not that they evolved from one to another. Once again show me the transgression

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution covers why evolution happened, and how evolution happens.

Evolution is not fact it's a theory.

We, i.e. all species ARE in transition. Evolution never stops. In species with long life spans, like more than a year or two, it takes too long to observe. Every species we see looks to us just like the same animals our ancestors always saw because we, as a species, haven't been around very long.
Evolutionarily speaking, the existence of man is very, very recent. The vast majority of evolution - that of all existing species - happened long before any primate was around to observe it. And even if they had been, none of the species they saw would've looked transitional. Yet they all were.
Change is now and ever has been.

We do see the fossil evidence of the species leaving a trail from an ape ancestor to a human. WEB posted a good picture of it early in the thread, and I will re-post for your benefit.



Now if you're looking for even earlier evolution, we do have much evidence, but because so much time has passed, not all that much survives. Dinosaurs died out a mere 65 million years ago, and were dominant and huge, covering the entire planet, yet very little fossil evidence is left of them. Now think of how few 400 million year old transitional fossils from fish to land animals would be left. We do however have tonnes of transitional evidence, you just don't want to accept it.

An example of a Fish to Amphibian transitional fossil:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An example of an Amphibian to early reptile:
Proterogyrinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep looking and you'll find there are transitional species linking everything from Fish to Mammals.


There is plenty of it out there, despite the rareness of such finds. I'll just post a few links I dug out real fast as proof.
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions (ActionBioscience)
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Look, all the evidence shows that species did evolve. You can ignore the proof all you want. You can ignore the DNA evidence that shows we evolved from common ancestors, but that doesn't make your delusion true. Evolution happened. The theory covers how and why it happens.

We can see Virus's evolve rapidly, we see how bacteria evolve new traits, adapt to new environments, etc. We have fossil evidence of higher life forms connecting species to common ancestors. We have all the proof we need to conclude that life evolves.

__________________

Humans did not evolve from gorillas. Humans and gorillas share a now-extinct common ancestor, as we are both species of primates. Here's a news article about what could be this common ancestor.

Experts find jawbone of pre-human great ape in Kenya | Science | Reuters

__________________