Evolution

Why is there no more evolution

Don't be so sure of that! Just because you can't see it physically doesn't mean its not happening. People are advancing mentally in different ways you wouldn't believe!

Who says there's no more? Evolution takes TIME... A LOT of time: centuries, millenia, eons, etc. Which means for the most part, you can't just sit back and watch it happen.

Evolution takes millions of years so you wouldn't see it happening right before your eyes.

Ya but what I don't get is if we evolved from apes, why are apes still here? -.-

lol...

Think about it. That goes to show how retarded the whe idea is.

It shows how little your understanding is. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor! Crucial difference. There is no serious scientific debate about evolution, we're as sure about evolutions existence as we are about the planets rotating around the sun. So if you want to deny it, you'd better have a good, well informed reason!

***Ya but what I don't get is if we evolved from apes, why are apes still here? -.-
Think about it. That goes to show how retarded the whe idea is. ***

That goes to show how retarded YOU are. Evolution does NOT say we evolved from apes... try reading your textbook once in awhile... geez... u___u

***why is there no more evolution***

There is, but it takes years and sometimes millions of years.

For example. Rattlesnakes' rattles are becoming smaller and smaller and it is expected in quite some years there will be no rattles left because the ones with big rattles are being killed. Or elephants have smaller teeth than about 40 years or so ago because the ones with big teeth were hunted down. Thus nature is expelling the weakest ones.

***Ya but what I don't get is if we evolved from apes, why are apes still here? -.-***

You just proved how little you know about the whole subject of evolution.

ok..

Its impossible. .

The whole idea behind Charles Darwin's theory of evolution based it's self saying that some species are a little stronger an would have a better chance at life to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. His ideas stated that through millions of generations later the changes will new species.

What makes this idea retarded is the fact that in order for these changes to take effect they would have to be major changes.

One example of this is the idea of a bird evolveing a wing. There's no way a little bump or stub would become adaptable in the birds environment. Or no way the stub would grant the bird an advantage. The bird with it's half sized wing(assuming that it would grow that far) would rather be a disadvantage. You try running through the woods with 2 halfs of a wing on your back once. -.-

You can also look at the DNA. Any changes to DNA would render impossible through the fact that any attempt to change DNA is either stopped or reversed by the DNA it's self.

Not only that ever specie is locked to it's chromosome. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost one due to a deformity it could not successfully be reproductive or mate.

Evolutionists also look at similar species and cline them up to clam they evolved from each other. The reason the offten use humans for an example is because there are hundreds of extinct monkeys and apes to work with. Many petrified skulls and bones exist from these animals. So they line up all there findings and fill in the gaps with make-believe creatures to force the picture to fit. This can only be done with humans because there are many extinct monkeys and apes to work with. This is never done with giraffes or elephants because there arnt enough abnormal skulls or bones to do so.

Every*, They*, Line* not cline. Sorry for my typos and run-ons. =|

matt, you have some very strange ideas about how wings developed.

You also have strange ideas about how it's impossible to create a phylogenetic tree with anything but humans. On the contrary. There are many examples of elephant and giraffe ancestry, and no scientist would be able to pass his or her findings off as legitimate by using make-believe creatures. Your typos are the least of your problems.

I believe in an animals ability to adapt to it's surroundings such as ifeelcrazy stated. But not so much to grow another body part..

There are proof of elephant Ancestet existence such as the wooly mammoth but it is rather a differnt breed of elephant. It's DNA structure stayed relatively the same. It's kind of like different kinds of dogs. There are different breeds of dogs but since they all have have the same chromeosome count they are able to mate.

Monkeys on the other hand have a different chromeosome count so it's impossible to have intertwined with them.

the answer by matt18091 is classic. I dont know what to say, especially about the DNA structure. that statement made no sense.

***There's no way a little bump or stub would become adaptable in the birds environment.***

You mean like, say, the way flying foxes and flying squirrels have flaps of skin between their limbs, which allows them to glide from tree to tree, without requiring the full ability of flight?

You also seem to be assuming that wings evolved from nothing - but the ancestors of birds weren't creatures with legs but no upper limbs - they were creatures with featherless upper limbs that gradually evolved into wings - and one only has to look at the examples above to see how 'half a wing' can be useful.

Being bacteria out of the sea it would have had to developed out of nothing.

What's that sound I hear? It's matt18091 moving the goalposts! Before you start claiming another 'impossibility' about evolution, I personally would like to hear your response to the criticisms already levelled against your claims so far. Otherwise we'll just engage in a constant series of debunked claims with no acknowledgement.

I already did. Here's my points:

*There are many examples of elephant and giraffe ancestry*

There are proof of elephant Ancestet existence such as the wooly mammoth but it is rather a differnt breed of elephant. It's DNA structure stayed relatively the same. It's kind of like different kinds of dogs. There are different breeds of dogs but since they all have have the same chromeosome count they are able to mate.

I'm saying there are other breeds of elephant and exzisted at the same time... and thats why I was pointing out that they had the same DNA structure.. but the breeds that we dont see today are just extinct. So... you guys just line them up and say they evolved from each other. Just as you do with moneys and apes..

If most of the breeds of dogs were extinct I feel you'd do the same with them.

Anyways...

*You also seem to be assuming that wings evolved from nothing*

Being bacteria out of the sea it would have had to developed out of nothing.

Any other questions on my beliefs are welcome. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything I enjoy debating about these things as you do.

I just don't believe everything I read. I like look at the other standing also. And in this case I feel evolution isn't the right answer as to how life came to be.

***the breeds that we dont see today are just extinct. So... you guys just line them up and say they evolved from each other. Just as you do with moneys and apes..***

There's also the fact that carbon dating, physiological changes, and the strata in which the fossils are found are all consistent with each other and give compatiable answers. Further, fossils of the same creature found in different areas are consistently found in the same strata, indicating that that creature clearly existed during a particular time period.

***Being bacteria out of the sea it would have had to developed out of nothing.***

I don't know what exactly you're trying to claim here. I presume you mean at some point in its history it was just bacteria, but that's completely beside the point. You asked how wings could evolve - I gave an example: they evolve from forelimbs that are used for other purposes, and you can see this with flying squirrels as one example, and bats as another. 'Half a wing' is pretty much exactly what flying squirrels have, and they're very useful indeed.