Because evolution isn't the solution to a species' threats to survival, it is merely a process.
Extinction occurs when adaptations are not sufficient to overcome environmental hurdles, or there's some other massively traumatic event. Humans, for example, are fairly responsible for the extinction of several hundred animal species worldwide because it takes millions of years for a forest ecosystem to establish balance and we can probably raze the entire thing to the ground in about ten years.
I'm pretty sure I dealt with that multiple times...anyway:
a) Evolutionary paths are divergent and dependent on circumstance. By your reasoning there would be only one species living on earth, and that would be humans. And as you know, that just doesn't work.
Humans aren't the "innacle" of evolution. There is no such thing as a "innacle"- this is a continuous process with no purpose or agenda.
b) Evolution of a population is best measured in terms of thousands of generations. This is why we can observe evolution in rapidly reproducing organisms such as microbiota but not so in most other organisms. Evolution as a species would require taking into account the evolution of all existing populations...that's a huge dynamic to consider.
The human factor in all this is that the manner in which environments change has also changed! Evolution as we are apt to describe it will not necessarily be reflected in the scope of human history.
@Bigbowla just because all monkeys didnt evolve into humans doesnt mean that evolution isnt true. Only one species of monkeys evolved into humans. The monkeys we are related to are 1 species from Eithiopia who evolved over thousands of years to get where we are now.
This first part is meant to respond to Bigbowla and a few others. Going off what woody said, there were several other species of 'human-like' monkeys that were similar to us but went extinct. This shows that evolution is about suvival of the most adaptable. There were some environmental factors in the time and place that they lived that proved too much for them to overcome. It could be mostly luck (or divine will) that our ancestors were born with the right traits at right time and in the right place to survive.
To respond to Ricador, "If we evolved wouldn't the apes be like us by now? They aren't showing any signs of evolution." Large-scale evolution (i.e. the connection between apes and us) takes millions of years. And that statement is based on the complete fallacy that the end point of evolution is us and that all animals are striving to become humans. Aside from the logical inaccuracy of your argument, have you been studying up on the great apes? because they aren't the same as they were a million years ago...which means that they are "showing signs of evolution." To see a short term example of evolution in progress look into the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Through survival of the fittest their beak sizes change over the years depending on food availability. This is because the birds with the correct beak size to take advantage of the food source at the time will be healthy and able to have more offspring that have similiar traits. Those birds with unfit beak sizes will be less able to eat the food available and will not be strong enough to compete for reproduction. In turn they will not be able to pass on their less desirable traits. But the traits that are desirable change on the island from year to year based on environmental conditions.
And I would like to end on a unifying note, while I firmly believe in science and evolution, I also believe in God and in no way is that a contradiction. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF A HIGHER POWER. That is something that cannot be proven or disproven. Science is concerned with what we can prove and disprove. Therefor, depending on your beliefs about God, it is perfectly acceptable to believe that a Higher Power set all of this into motion and 'evolution' has simply been God's tool or process.
THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF A HIGHER POWER.
That is certainly refreshing to hear. It bothers me when people completely exclude the possibility of evolution because they perceive that it must be one or the other. Its not all black and white, but all shades in between.
i personnaly beilive in creation first of all how come animals aren't still evolving? adn all th eexplosions i have ever seen have destroyed things not made them
I'm a Christian but its hard to believe that a God created the Universe but who created him it doesn't really match it doesn't go back at the beginning plus how can someone as a God create all sorts of different life across the Universe his a Human why create other planets that are empty, no offense to people who believe in a God and believe that he created life but to me it looks like will never know how the Universe began even with science together.
God created the Universe but who created him it doesn't really match it doesn't go back at the beginning plus how can someone as a God create all sorts of different life across the Universe his a Human why create other planets that are empty
Now this is refreshing, to read the open questions from somebody who professes to be a Christian.
Strangely enough, as a non-Christian I'm going to provide the suggested answers:
Traditional theology will claim that God *is* the answer to 'who created the universe' and that there is no such question as 'who created God', and that's the end of that. If you're still wondering about *that*, then you may wish to consider the value of the question in the first place!
Modern apologetics will generally suggest that the sheer number of celestial bodies that are empty and that humans are the only ones who recognise their unique place in all of existence should stand as testament to the wonders of all creation. Again, I'm really not sure just how important such a question is regarding whether one believes in a God or not, but I will say that attempts to 'rove' the existence of God via the argument that it was so very unlikely to make any planet with life on Earth moots itself because traditional theology also holds that the entire point of people existing is because God exists, and from the fact that God 'yearns for a relationship with man' I would say that the converse also holds true- therefore it is sufficient to say "we exist anyway", and that's that.
Comes down to the same thing anyway. Regardless of everything else, would you accept God?
I believe in God and everything in Christianity I just wanted to know who's right science or Christianity how the universe began that's all they both tell different answers
