You based your argument against evolution on a faulty premise: that a distinct species evolves within a few thousand years. That's not what the theory of evolution is. So you can't argue against the theory of evolution, if you cannot even state what the theory of evolution is.

__________________
"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

I have shown links to transitional species in my previous post, including Fish to Amphibians, Amphibians to Reptiles, and Reptiles to Mammals. If you would go out and actually research it, instead of listening to the empty rhetoric of some creationist, you would see that we have found many transitional species.

Your "theory", which really barely qualifies for a hypothesis is based on no logical observations, but rather wild speculations. You're saying we should ignore all the fossil evidence that shows a slow and gradual change from an ancient ape like creature into modern humans and instead just say, hey we evolved from something else!

__________________

Hehe, the difference is that ours is a scientific theory. One that has been confirmed many times already, while your theory is hardly anything scientific.

I know this wasn't for me but i have a question about it. (I'm not for or against evolution in this argument, just a spectator). What sort of environmental factors led to humans evolving the way we did and how come apes didn't evolve in the same way? Have we always been different to apes or was it something else that caused our evolution to be different?

__________________

I am really no expert on this, but a theory I have heard of is that the branch of the humans conquered the prairie habitat, while the ape branches stayed with the woods.

I am not sure if this is still the standard theory nowadays, but thats what we learned in school at least.

They teach you guys in Europe a hell of a lot more then they teach us in the US. Then again here there is a lot of resistance to teaching evolution. I knew humans evolved on plains rather then the forest although I never really considered that a factor for why we are more intelligent. Given the predators that humans would have to compete against though I'm not surpised.

You must go to school in Kansas. We learned plenty in grade school about evolution in California.

__________________

Well, if that's true, did being omnivores become an evolutionary stage as well?

Because, i know that apes are frugivores but humans eat all types of food, so im wondering if maybe that was evolutionary or if it has always been so.

__________________

Close. Missouri.

I'm not ignorant of evolution, I probably know more then the average person at least, but I don't have school to thank for it.

Right. On the open savanna there was great advantage to standing upright so that one could see long distances over the tops of the tall grasses. This in turn freed up hands, no longer being used at all for walking or for swinging through trees, to be used for a lot of new things, such as making and manipulating tools.
Also, not a particularly powerful or swift animal, Australopithecus and his descendants would've been social animals, living in the relative safety of a group, just as his ancestors in the forest before him did and as primates still do. The forebrain is where social complexities are handled, so it had already developed more than most other mammalian brains. The freeing up of the hands opened up more possibilities for those with the forebrain to really make use of those hands. It took many many many generations, but the descendants of those with brains just a little bit bigger (in the forebrain area) survived in larger numbers than those with not so large brains.