Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

I meant today. There is not even in 10000 years a creature showing tendency to be in transition. As i said I am not agains evolution but the monkey part.

What the hell are you talking about? This evolution has already happened, that's why there aren't any neanderthals walking around on our streets today. They've already been around, and they evolved into the next type of human, eventually reaching today's Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

This is a cycle you see ?It have to be continued forever. I am stating the fact that in 10000 years monkeys must not like the idea to evolve than ? Even a single phase.

The theory also a flow which we have monkey anchestors while there is human and monkey existing but no creatures in transition process.

I meant today. There is not even in 10000 years a creature showing tendency to be in transition. As i said I am not agains evolution but the monkey part.

Sea creatures are creatures that swim. The bible doesn't really decide what an animal that swims would be called. Since we know theropods [the dinos that became birds] were able to swim, that goes in line with our evidence. You've got the sea creatures, you've got dinos that swim, you get birds, dinos die, you get cattle.

Also, there is a high possibility of feathered dinosaurs. So the birds, made first, might have taken some time to start flying [By evolving into more aerodynamic creatures], just as young birds do in nature by growing until they can take the leap of faith.

It is a little twisted, but it can fit in line.

My only issue is that I have loads of trouble with debating this stuff by quoting the Bible. I'm for one not Christian, so I haven't read it or anything. Also, my understanding that I've gotten, whether through religious bias or just research is that the Bible has been changed a bunch over time, so it's questionable.

[/quote]What the hell are you talking about? This evolution has already happened, that's why there aren't any neanderthals walking around on our streets today. They've already been around, and they evolved into the next type of human, eventually reaching today's Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[quote]

To back this up -

Here is an advert which explains quite simply :P

Quote reversal - my bad.
The top bit is supposed to be quoted, the bottom bit is not.

Here's a list of fossils from earlier humans.

the next type of human, eventually reaching today's Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Also, lets face it -- we're a rather successful bunch. Why is it that every other group died out?

This evolution has already happened, that's why there aren't any neanderthals walking around on our streets today.

This is a cycle you see ?It have to be continued forever. I am stating the fact that in 10000 years monkeys must not like the idea to evolve than ? Even a single phase.

These earlier humans still don't look at all like human-monkeys in the making.

Also, lets face it -- we're a rather successful bunch. Why is it that every other group died out?

Our common ancestry between us and the rest of the primates is catarrhini.

And further ignoring the fact humans still have the genes for making tails?

Our common ancestry between us and the rest of the primates is catarrhini.

That's because they competed for the same niche as we did or they became us.

Actually, those pictures are rare cases of spina bifada, not actual tails. What we have is, at best, a prenatal tail that we get rid of before birth. Also some long forgotten tail bone.

I meant today. There is not even in 10000 years a creature showing tendency to be in transition. As i said I am not agains evolution but the monkey part.

Actually, those pictures are rare cases of spina bifada, not actual tails. What we have is, at best, a prenatal tail that we get rid of before birth. Also some long forgotten tail bone.

That is just a taxonomy classification.

So do other primates and many other organisms, yet in most cases none of their other counterparts die out as quick as some of the counterparts of ours did.

Also, I don't even get why the Neanderthals lost a fight.
Recent evidence keeps making them look better.

the only thing they were thought to have lacked was communication [and recent evidence is showing that they infact could speak, but their speech was very slushy and deep, so not too hot for modern languages].

quote]Look in the mirror if you want to see a transitional form.[/quote]

I thought, evolving meant to becoming in a better state,to put it lightly. Or you may claim that it is not a downgrade because you seem to believe we are apes.

A species doesn't choose to evolve. It does so due to environmental pressures.

All apes evolved from old world monkeys. and you really think early hominids didn't show any sign of this transition?

And further ignoring the fact humans still have the genes for making tails?

We are in transition; so to speak. You must understand that each 'hase' between one organism and his ancestor was adapted to it's environment as well, and was not only a transition phase; which would be stupid to think, since evolution has no aim so you don't know before what comes next.
But now let's look at us: are we fully adapted at walking on two legs yet? Almost, but not quite. Ever asked yourself why so many people had back problems?

Like I said they were to specialized for the environment they were in. Once that started changing the more adaptable group (us) was able to take over.