If your argument against evolution was due to what you saw as a lack of evidence then you wouldn't believe in God or Creationism since there is even less evidence of Creationism (all of which is circumstantial) and no evidence of God.

Saying that evolution is not true because nobody has shown the so-called transitional fossils to prove it (by the way they have a fossil that is a cross between a dinosaur and a bird) is like saying that OJ Simpson didn't do it because he never got caught in the act. We just know that there are two dead bodies, a murder weapon, and a few other pieces of evidence lying around that all point to that.

No we never saw an ancient primate evolve into a man, but we do see the physiological similarities and the genetic similarities, a 97% match to be precise and we have plenty of fossils of primates that gradually look more and more human (that's pretty transitional if you ask me). Of course it's totally possible that God just got lazy and decided to create us using identical DNA template, but there's zero evidence of that.

we could well be in a transitional stage still, evolution doesnt 'happen' in a matter of years.

also we do see how animals have changed, we cannot predict how they will change in the future and therefore cannot determine in what 'stage' they are in.

It seems that you don't understand the concept of evolution. Evolution takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. I think you should actually learn about what the actual theory of evolution and natural selection is before you disagree with it.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

As I have said before it does not matter how long it takes, we should still have species in a in between period. For eg. where is the species that we evoled from. If you say ape, I say we did not just jump from ape to man. Also these skull people show of a slow morphing from ape to man, are just skulls that are from completely different species similiar yes but they have not evolved from one to the other. How come if man evolved from ape where are the species in between why did they not survive, after all they would have been more evolved than an ape.

People are just seeing species that are similar and assuming one evolved from the other. There is no proof, those who are pro-evolution tend to think they are always logical and open minded. Then why cannot see there is no proof of evolution. Humans do not share the same DNA as any other species, we may have a similar DNA to other species but not the same. If we evolved from these species then it is logical we would share the same DNA. Pro-evolutionaries go round like as if they are stating fact when all they are really doing is giving a theory, and it is one I don't agree with.

You've changed your argument from what it originally was. Before you were complaining that we hadn't seen some evolution in the past few thousand, now your argument is where's the missing link?

What happened to your old argument? Realized it was crap?

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Murphy:

You seem to be operating under the common misconception that Humans "evolved from apes", when that is ridiculous and not what the evolution theory states at all. The idea is that we all (that is apes and humans) evolved from a common ancestor. Our enviroments dictated our adaptations and eventual evolving to suit those environments.

Australopithecines came from that common ancestor (they are of course the earlier form of what would become human) and had to adapt to life differently than other groups of the same ancestor, who adapted to life in tree dwelling habitats. This is evolution. Nobody has seriously held that we "came from apes" and "apes just haven't caught up yet" as you implicitly posit.

I suggest picking up a text book or taking a course in Biology to learn about the theory and gain insight on just what evolution exactly is about, rather than operating on what appear to be gross assumptions.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

[quote=W.E.B. Du Bois;152958]You've changed your argument from what it originally was. Before you were complaining that we hadn't seen some evolution in the past few thousand, now your argument is where's the missing link?

What happened to your old argument? Realized it was crap?[/QUOTE}

No I am still saying that I do not believ in evolution, I still don't see it. I am asking you to prove to me by pointing out the transgression. All you have shown is species that are similar.

As I have said before prove this to me, show me that these species are not just similar. Where is the transgression from one species to another. As I have said before what you people are stating is a THEORY, well my THEORY is what you think what we evolved from is actually a different species with just some similarities.

we are openminded to other theories, we're just not convinced by them. the creationist theory does not match up to evolution theory in logic and that's why it is not dominant in secular societies.

and we do not compare our DNA to that of monkeys because they are not the species we evolved from.

it is fine if you dont agree with the theory, but i doubt you have an alternative one.