Is there any proof that man evolved from another species? Is there scientific evidence that we did? How about any scientific evidence that humans have always been humans?

Thank you for your answer. Here's something as well: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 5th, 2007

tried the link but just get a page not found error

• Report

by slothmister on July 5th, 2007

I see. Try this then: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm
It's the same thing but on a different website.

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 5th, 2007

I hope that that works. Something's not right on my computer. Instead of the links I give being in blue, there just black letters like the rest of the words. Hmm.. hopefully it'll work on yours.

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 5th, 2007

ahahahaha. the gluon thing cracked me up. GOD HOLDS ATOMS TOGETHER!

lol. crazy creationists.

• Report

by leetmeat on December 14th, 2007

He sure does. The Bible tells us that by Jesus Christ(who is God in the flesh) all things consist(Colossians 1:17 KJV).

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on December 14th, 2007

/facepalm.

• Report

by leetmeat on December 14th, 2007

Thank you for your answer. Could you provide me with a link or some links on this information? :)

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on December 6th, 2007

Thank you for your answer, Friartuck. I must say that I am thankful to God for Brother Jack Chick. His tracts have won many souls to Christ and are useful in exposing false religions. As for evolution, I do intend to study and research more on it myself. Thank you for the links. :)

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on December 12th, 2007

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 5th, 2007

98% is the similarity. the difference is less than 2%...

• Report

by Anonymous on August 19th, 2009

Biologists are not confounded by the idea of life coming from non-life. There have been countless experiments that back up that possibility. Of course many creationists want scientists to do in a lab what took nature hundreds of millions of years.

• Report

by Aquatic Eagle on September 28th, 2008

Amen, that sounds like good news to me! Thank you for your answer! :D

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on January 12th, 2008

...and, of course, you are prepared to provide evidence for this claim? Quotes from real scientists? (and not all those quotes taken out of context you find listed on creation sites)...

• Report

by Friartuck on January 18th, 2008

wingnut... -2

• Report

by 773491 on August 29th, 2008

your wrong. But one thing surprised me. You said 'it would take millions of fossil finds to show the graudal change'. This is exactly right. But not every individual fossilizes. Why do you think this speaks against evolution? Evolution isn't just based on fossils. There are many living species that prove evolution is different ways, and molecular evidence alone is enough to prove the theory beyond reasonable doubt.

• Report

by 773491 on August 29th, 2008

Oh, and why are you assuming that evolution disproves god? If so, then god doesn't exist because evolution is proven. But I can tell you, millions of Christians, especially in Europe, accept the theory of evolution.

• Report

by 773491 on August 29th, 2008

It is proven that every single species on earth has evolved since 3.5 billion years. All life descended from self replicating macro molecules. That's proven. And the question why simple one celled organisms haven't evolved is based on a misconception. Evolution isn't like a ladder, going from simple organism to complex ones. It is true, that with time, organisms get more complex, but ALL of them do, so all animals/plants/fungi etc. had the same time to evolve as humans. They just went another path in evolution, imagine it like a huge tree of live with different branches. One big branch are all the mammals, and humans are on a tiny twig among the 'great apes'.

• Report

by 773491 on August 29th, 2008

You have just described micro-evolution which is obviously true. Can you name a sequence of species that evolved? I'll try to make it simple for you. Please tell me that species "a" became species "b" which changed a little and became species "c" which evolved a little more and we call this species "d". Just fill in a species name for the letters. You can go all the way to "z" if you like. If you can't then you should probably not comment any further.

• Report

by Anonymous on August 29th, 2008

Let's do it with humans: A Ramapithecus, B1 Australopithecus afarensis, B2 Australopithecus africanus, B3 Australopithecus robustus, C Homo habilis, D Homo ergaster, E Homo sapiens (that's us).
.
The family of Australopithecus could probably interbreed with each other if they woulda lived at the same time, this is why I called them B1, B2 and B3. If you want a perspective of time, Ramapithecus lived about 6-7 million years ago.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Oh and by the way, this is not just based on a bunch of random fossils, scientists managed to excerpt DNA from bones and made molecular comparisons.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

And Ramapithecus was at the same time our common ancestor with chimpanzees. A group of Ramapithecus became geographically isolated from the rest, and found itself in different conditions than the rest. This group became the hominids (eventually us), and the others evolved into chimpanzees.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Those are all similar species. No, proof that they were not all created separately from one another without evolving. Since that was so easy for you, try it with dissimilar species or any other type of life form. Pick even the simplest life form that gradually became something much more complex. Since evolution is so obvious there should be plenty of hard evidence in all species and life forms.

• Report

by Anonymous on August 30th, 2008

Why doesn't it count? I told you there is molecular proof that they evolved insteado of being created separately.
Additionally, try out the following links:
There is. Here is a very nice example of speciation in action, and all the intermediates are still alive:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Here is macro evolution observed in the lab, a bacteria evolved a new trait that makes it a different species: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
.
There is molecular evidence in every life form. Humans have still relicts of ancestor genes that were necessary for the survival in the oceans of 500 million years ago. All mammals have those genes. One funny fact is that whales have two separate lineages of genes for surviving in the water, since they are mammals, so they once evolved out of the water, and later (70 million years ago), went back into the water and evolved fish shape again.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Other funny evidence is all the 'unintelligently designed' organisms. The following fish has a totally distorted skull, because it's ancestors laid on the side and made a living as ground dweller. The eye facing the ground evolved gradually around the skull. No sane designer would design such a monster: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/07/09/the-wandering-eyes-of-eocene-fish
Another example is the human eye (humans should be the best example of god's creation), even we have useless remainders of our evolutionary past (tailbone and appendix), and the blind spot in the human eye is a typical example of 'poor design'. The nerves from the retina are on the wrong side, and have to leave the eye trough the blind spot. It coulda been 'designed' otherwise, but the 'mistake' clearly shows that humans evolved. Evolution doesn't have foresight, it makes the best out of already existing organs through small, gradual changes.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Nice try, but it is still a salamander and still a bacteria. Where are all the intermediate fossil remains from simple life forms to more complex. With ample time to do so there should be plenty of fossil evidence to show the gradual change. There should be millions upon millions of remains that look a tiny bit less like the orig. and tiny bit more like the new species. No such evidence.

• Report

by Anonymous on August 30th, 2008

Why do I keep wasting my time with narrow minded creationists? Would you please just start to leave open just the slightest possibility that you might actually be wrong? Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to talk to you, I could as well talk to a wall.
.
Tha salamander show the change from one species into another. They are still salamander, but not the same species. That's exactly what you wanted. There are many fossils of the lineages of species. But I know what's gonna happen. I will show you fossils A-B-C, and say that they evolved. You say 'Where are the intermediates A-?-B-?-C? I get lucky, and the next day, scientists discover fossils D and E as intermediates. I show you the sequence A-D-B-E-C. You say 'and where are the intermediates': A-?-D-?-B-?-E-?-C?' So with every new fossil, two new gaps arise. You won't stop until you see millions of fossils, and because not every individuals fossilize, you now think that you're smart.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Again, the salamander are the perfect evidence, every intermediate is preserved, not just as fossil, still ALIVE. Now if you expect a major change, you need more time. I hope you are not one of those you earth creationists, would you agree with me that the earth is about 5 billion years old?
.
Again, evolution is NOT just a comparison of a bunch of fossils. It is proven independantly through all kinds of mechanisms.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

I totally agree with what you have shown, which is micro-evolution. You have not proven to me that simple life forms have evolved into much larger more complex species.

• Report

by Anonymous on August 30th, 2008

Micro-evolution rejects speciation, yet there is overwhealming evidence supporting speciation, and I showed you three examples of it. Molecular evidence also proves that all living organisms evolved from bacteria. Now bacteria are too small to fossilize, so I can't show you fossils or tell you which species of bacteria your ancestors were, but as I said, molecular evidence proves it. Additionally, I want to qualify something you said. Evolution does generally lead to more complexity, but this can easily be misunderstood.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

It's survival of the fittest (in this context meaning 'best adapted, best at reproducing). If the environment doesn't change, organisms don't change much (that's the reason why some deep sea fish are still pretty much like ancient fossils, they have evolved (the part of the DNA that is not translated into the phenotype has changed), but there were very few 'visible changes' in the genome. Not all genes are 'read' in a cell, most of the DNA is just random text. By comparing those sequences that don't have selection pressure, that means mutate at a constante, unbiased rate over time, one can measure the relation of certain animals and the time where a common ancestor has lived. That's partially what I was referring to as 'molecular evidence'. The other part would be the relict genes from surviving in other ancestor's bodies that are left in our genome.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

Anyways, back to complexity. Evolution is not bound to lead to progress. Some organisms become smaller with time, just because being small gives short term benefits to the species. If a population of fishes starts to live in dark caves, they loose their eyes, because they are useless in the dark and are a waste of energy. So the words complexity and progress are relative, however, it is fact that all the larger individuals (even mice are huge compared to bacteria) have evolved from bacteria. This increase in size is because of new evolutionary niches and arms races between predator and prey.

• Report

by 773491 on August 30th, 2008

If you want an intermediate, why don't we discuss a mudskipper. A fish that has evolved to breath air out of water and basically walk around on dry land. Or fish like coelocanths that have appendages that act as legs for them to "walk" through reeds underwater.

• Report

by Aquatic Eagle on September 28th, 2008