No, that's not evolution in the form of new species, you're correct. However, as has been stated before evolution doesn't act on an individual basis. If the child you have carries a certain gene making him or her more likely to survive, which he/she does and produces more offspring carrying this gene then over hundreds of generations you might see evolution take place in the form of a new species.
The other point would be that physical appearance differences don't actually mean a different species (as you noted in humans). Many different species have many different patterns, colors, and shapes while still being in the same species.
I as a strong beliver in catholicism (Yes I'm catholic. Were not a cult.) Believe that God made us. I do not believe we evolved from monkeys but I think we evolved from cavemen who were god's orginal creation, and as most other species have, adapted to earth to become the dominant species. So I say that it is a mix. We evolved but not from monkeys. Because if we evolved from monkeys you would see monkeys having more human traits than normal. Am I correct? Because last I checked monkeys don't live to be over a thousand years old. And if we did evolve from monkeys, then that means with every new generation of said monkeys, and as I stated before, each would have more and more human chracteristics. So evoulutionism can not be true because there would be no monkeys.
i saw some flowers saying "calvary" the other day, while its posssible that the flowers grew there in perfect rows, i doubt it beause the odd are way more likley that they were planted
I do not believe we evolved from monkeys but I think we evolved from cavemen who were god's orginal creation, and as most other species have, adapted to earth to become the dominant species. So I say that it is a mix. We evolved but not from monkeys.
guitarhero: humans didn't evolve from monkeys, they simply shared a common ancestor, but your point on creation is still taken.
zerato: I am not quite sure what you're getting at with this example, but I'm assuming it must have something to do with complexity being derived from simplicity or something like that?
Evolution is all about random chance. People see it as a forwardly progressing "force" but it is absolutely chaotic and non-directional. Mutations happen, especially in less sophisticated organisms and these mutations either help or hurt the survival rate of a species.
Seriously though, I know a lot of people who have views similar to your own (something alone the lines of God set things in motion and nature took over from there with evolution and whatnot) and I can't say I find fault in it. There's no definitive proof about how life was first started so I personally say believe what you want to believe.
However, it seems that you have some misconceptions about what evolution actually is. There is no end goal to evolution (not everything is actively trying to become us, and we ourselves still evolve albeit at a very slow pace in relation to a human life). Furthermore we didn't evolve from monkeys (at least not the type that are alive today), rather we evolved alongside them form some common ancestor a really long time ago (which is why I sometimes find myself thinking of them like the cousin on the genetic tree, rather then the how are we related that makes up most of the rest of the world).
Supporting the universe's complexity is not the same as supporting the existence of a god - certainly this is apparent?
Also, using life on this planet as evidence of a god having created life on this planet is begging the question. I seem to keep running into fallacious arguments here...
Supporting the universe's complexity is not the same as supporting the existence of a god - certainly this is apparent?
Yes its not the same but is somehow related. I'd say its more of a argument on the Big Bang.
You know, I'm ok with evolution and the big bang but I don't like it how people, even scientists, state that they are facts. You can't even prove to me that gravity existed 5 billion years ago.
I think people think too highly of the actual science process. No one thinks of arguing against science. Science is not logic, therefore its argumentative.
You can't really argue on logic, you can only point out that its wrong and argue on that. Ehh, you might want to forget about those last 2 sentences.
The sciences aren't supposed to be universal truths. For the most part, I personally, consider them to be the best guess that we have at the time giver our current observations and knowledge. They're not necessarily right all the time, and some things that we think are right today may not be true, but science is the pursuit of that truth and attempting to uncover how things work.
Stating that they're unchangeable facts is a little silly but to say that is to say that the scientific process doesn't work as what we've uncovered so far are the facts as we know them. They may not actually be the case, but as of now it's the most likely answer.
