Has man evolved?

Question

Has man evolved?

Answer 1

Im sorry but these who have answered are false.   and they realy need to catch up.  There is NO evidence for evolution what so ever.    

    Darwin for your information was a racist, womaniser, and he beleived as Adof Hitler that sick peole should be done away with, just a tid bit for you.  

  Also to add for a tid bit, when ateists try and say that religion is the cause of murder and wars this is a complete falicy all you have to do is check it out, go to war of encylepedias and others for records and research.  93% of all wars had nothing to do with religion.  And all mass murdering dictatorial individuals and countrys were all of the evolutionary ateistic theology.  i.e.  Soloath sor or Pol Pot,  Adolf hitler, stalin, the red Guard wei pei wung etc...etc...  also the crusades had next to nothing to do with religion and The Irish conflicts are NOT about Catholic vs Protestant, they are about Scotts Irish vs Irish and the attempts to annex ireland with Scotland and England.  

  but heres the real scientific facts. first of all there isnt Christian creation science and then there is evolutionary science. Its all the same science and  the creationists havce the same PhDs as any one else and often times with much much greater credibility.   But the propagandists use the liberal media fruits to try and hide this.

   The evidence overwhelmingly shows evolution to be false a money making farse used to protect perversions. An excuse to not feel acountable to God.  

   First Darwin said there was pangene that passed on different characteristics and thats what caused changes in creatures---FALSE   we now know and have known for a long time ---THER IS NO SUCH A THING AS PANGENES

  So now evolutionists call it post darwinianism, where mutations somehow make evolving possible---FALSE  mutatins are NOT beneficial they only occur in about 1 in 10,000,000  and they are called deformities and disease,

  It is and has now been overwhelmingly shown mathmaticaly impossible for even three mutations to occur  let alone for them to be related and let alone for them to be beneficial---this does not happen nor is there nor has there ever been any evidence for the claim---and we thought these evolutionist were about science! ha!  

   Also there are NO transitional fossils that can be shown to be bonafied transitions i.e. missing links, which if it has been millions and billions of years they shoulkd be the overwhelming form of fossil we find, but there are none!  Even SAteven J Gould noted this along with many others who were evolutionists.  Also we know now that you do not and cannot add to the genetic code! All you have is a reshuffiling of what is already there.  i.e. red hair or black hair it just depends on the dominant or recessive genes, its called natural selection it has nothing to do with evolving into something else, Darwin also to note was not the one who discovered natural selection he just spun off of it. Edward Blythe who was a creationist Christian wrote of natural selection 24 years before Darwin.

  Now to the time spectrum, carbon dating along with all so called forms of dating is a complete farse in which even its inventor noted.   Geologic column is made up.   Carbon dating is supposed to be a ratio of C14 to C12  this is a flawed concept.  First you would have to know how much C14 was there when the animal died, but we cant know this, also there is an abundance of C14 in dino bones when found every time.  It is a guess work which is ridiculous and has been proven a joke countless times.  

  When you count backwards in population growths ratios it comes down to man only being on the earth for around 6,000 years---guess what thats the exact timeline of the bible and all bonafiable civilisations.  Also it is known we all came from the same genetics  just as it speaks of in the bible.

   If the universe was here for 14 billion years the spiral galaxies would have spun out a long time ago.

   Also the sediments at the mouths of rivers going into the oceans is only about 4,500 years worth the same exact timeline for Noahs flood.  

   Also it does not take a long time for a fossil to be made, you can make a fossil in 50 years,. many of the dino bones we find today are not even fosilised and some have tissue still in them.  

  All suppossed minkey bones of a transitional man are or have proven false and many fraudulent. Neanderthals are nothing more than people, they wrote wore make up, burried there dead etc...   just because they have different shaped skull means nothing we have this today with different ethenticitys .  Also it says that man in the world before Abraham that men lived for much longer times, into hundreds of years. And it is known that the older you get your bones change shape, your bones are malible and when you have been chewing and using muscles in your face as you get older the brow ridge gets bigger from the muscles pushing on it over long periods of time.  

  The geologic column, a complete ridiculous farse.  All over the world in the geologic column are found what is called Polystrate fossils. Many of these polystrate fossils are tree trunks which literaly run straight up and down through suppossed 10s of millions of years in geologic columns---wa wa wa wa !  these tree trunks were torn from there roots which is exactly what happens when volcanic activity is wide spread which is exactly most likely occured during a global flood.  Oh you say the Global flood?   Guess what there are marine fossils found at the tops of mountains all over the world and the grand canyon it self was cut by receding waters of this flood, it was not cut over millions of years by the colorado. when rivers cut the form a V shape the grand canyon is not in a V shape it is straight down. there is a 19 mile wide  base at the bottom.   All the wird shapes out west were cut into the sand and became rock hard this is a overwhelming peice of evidence to a global flood.  

  evolutinists will also bring up the speed of light and the distant to far away stars--- this means nothing, there is a theory right now that is showing with great evidence that light is not a constant, can actualy and most likely goes much faster the farther you get away from gravity.   They have shown that light is not a given it can actualy be slowed down and it has been to 38 miles per hour. This gives great evidence to the gravitational  time dialation theory.  Whish shows that light could very well be going much much faster before it gets to the slowpoke speed of 186,000 miles per second.  

                      There is much much more that can be shown as a matter of fact it is unending the evidence against evolution. I could go on about irreducible complexity which is simply stated that certain things require other certain things to already be in existance for they them selves to be in existance so this shows it cannot evolve certain things must be already in place for the other to survive.  

                                 Honestly check it out and you will be a much better informed individual, dont fall for the fairytales of evolution because the evidence doesnt support it.  And watch out for the defensive evolutionists which will bring profanity like all dabtaers you have nothing to bring so they resort to over talking you and calling you names. it makes me laugh!  Take care friend in Christ!

   There is so much more it is unending

Answer 2

To get where we are yes.

Evolution among us humans continues and, due to out large population and global migrations, has actually increased.

This doesn't mean we're progressing to some clearly seen "goal"  The tool of evolution is natural selection not "survival of the fittest." Those that live long enough to produce offspring will pass their characteristics on.

As for the "Adam and Eve" and 'It's only a theory" note that in 150 years no major tenet of evolution has been disproven.

Answer 3

Barely

Answer 4

apparently we have evolved from single cell organisms to bacterial organisms then to water species ( can you say sea monkey) after that amphibians then lizards and birds and then mammals is that right and we must have done a fantastic job because approximately 10, 000 years ago when we evolved enough to be come environmental destroyers, we stopped evolving. oh and all the other creatures and various earthly species got jealous and stopped also. no more advancing single cell organisms that I have noticed of late.

and if you do find any changling specimen try to convince them to stop at the sea monkey stage!!! there are enough of us already wreaking havoc on good ole' mother nature!!!

it would only serve to drive up the cost of a barrel of crude oil!

so if you catch any wanna be evolvers call me, we need to organize an intervention!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s. there is a huge difference between enviromental adaption and physical evolution

Answer 5

Ever since the time of Darwin till now, every time one of the theories within the theory of evolution has been shown to be impossible. The evolutionists simply come up with a new supposed explaination of how the whole thing is still possible.

At first, and for many years, it was believed by evolutionists that the first living cell came into being because all the right ingredients came together by chance, at the same time and place and then life just happened.

But when the information was presented that explains how living matter can not come from non living matter. Evolutionists then alter the story by adding more theory and keep the lie afloat. Now they say that the presence of some form of energy also coincided with the other ingredients. So that makes it possible...............again.

The rediculous thing is that they have treated the situation as if the rule of science is just simply, that if one can continue to come up with a theory that sounds good enough to enough people. Then thats it, and its a fact. I say this because the truth of the matter, is that evolutionists always speak in a manner that is consistant with how one speaks in regards to something that is undoubtedly a proven fact.

Thats how they speak in regards to evolution. Yet, the truth is that, the theory of how the perfect amount of protiens and amino acids and the other chemicals and elements which according to evolutionists, came together and at that same moment were zapped by energy to cause the first living matter into existence. Has never been observed to occure in nature. Has never been recreated in a laboratory. It has never, ever satisfied any of the requirements of scientific method, which are necessary in order for a theory to be given the status of empirical fact.

Yet these people who pour and maintain an incredible amount of blind faith into the rediculous fairy tale of evolution.  Such as "Mr. Jones" who answered this question. Will so blatantly insult and offend the people who refuse to go along with all of those like himself, who lie mostly to themselves.

When Darwin was still alive, and since in those days the fossil record was almost none at all, when compared to the record in existence today. Darwin expected that in the future, going forward from his lifetime. That fossil findings would eventualy produce an abundance of examples of transitional speices. Thats why he even wrote how that his theory depended on those fossils. That if they didn't exist, neither would any truth exist within his theory.

To this day there have been none. The tactics and methods of the evolutionists to get around this fact, are so obvious and rediculous. One wonders how they can continue to lie to themselves so much and for so long, without yet having found themselves out.

If you debate with people who believe such a make-believe, super-monkey story. Their lacking of any leg to stand on, becomes apparent from the way that they argue. I personaly have encountered, that when you present to them, the fact about non existant transitionals in the fossil record. Many of them have responded by resorting to debating over the wording which one uses. That when they end their reply, they still haven't even come anywhere near even touching on the subject matter which pertains to the question. If they were pro hockey players, they would all be "Ducks" Since they duck so much.

That even when they know perfectly well what is being spoken about when one uses the word "transitionals". They just reply by saying "oh the only ones who use that word are.....................

(then what they say with the rest of the statement, really means),

are..................the people whom we have determined to be wrong, therefor since you used that word,  you're also wrong, by default".

The most absurd thing is that, they leave the question totaly unanswered, without ever even having come to within a 100 miles of it. Never the less, and according to themselves, they're still right and your automaticaly wrong.

The thing is, that there came a time in which they were cornered on this matter, as with so many other matters. Thats when they proceed to devise all sorts of deceptive methods or a quagmire of 64,000 dollar fallacious words to deal with it.

What does it matter if one uses the word transitional instead of intermediate, if both parties are being honest? First of all, they know what is meant by it. Secondly, they now treat the word as if its one which "belongs" to those of us who oppose their fallacious theory. They saying;

"the only people who use it".....................

That is so rediculous, because the only reason why anybody has ever used it when speaking within the context of evolution. Is because evolutionists chose that word, somewhere along the line, as one which was incorporated into their evolutionary vocabulary.

That has to be true, since no one else but them, is responsible for manufacturing the theories within the context of evolution to begin with. Therefor nobody but evolutionists has ever used "any" words for that purpose. Except for when after they've already become part of the terminology used in speaking of evolution

Then the ones who do choose to have the shameless audacity enough to answer that matter, by attempting to slip past you, the totaly absurd, supposed examples of proof. Do it by presenting fossils of animals which are not an example of what is the true definition of a transitional, or intermediate, if you prefer. Therefor they're not real evidence. No matter what word you want to use to describe that, which they claim it to be. They select animals that are merely

"odd".

Not a true example of a species in

"transition" to another species.

The way I just worded that last sentence, is the reason why they employed the tactic to boycott the word "transitional".

Try to describe and convey that information without the word "transition". If its possible, it would be in a very unorthodox or grammaticaly incorrect manner.

Therefor, one can see their scoundrelous doings. If you eliminate the word, you eliminate the likelyhood of anybody ever saying what I said with that sentence.

The fact that evolutionists produced that automobile emblem of the fish with feet on it. Is because they know very well that thats "exactly" the kind of form that a biological creature would have to have. If what they meant as an insult, would in fact, be in existance, either as a fossil, or as a living creature. Just as they always claim that it already exists as evidence.

The fact of the matter is, that they only place it exists is on the back of their cars. However, for it to have ever existed, required for them to manufacture it. The problem with that, is that it only exists with a composition that is as phony as their entire evolutionary fairy tale. How fitting!

Since the fact is, that they are the only ones who believe in their own lies. Therefor, the only real insult, is one that they would feel, thus would be aware of, if there were enough intelligence in them to insult.

Since the one is so miniscule, causing the the impact of the other to also be miniscule. Thats why they still, have yet to feel it. Still, not knowing that they really insult only themselves.

Not to mention, the act of degrading a human being. That to claim that you are an animal, albeit, nothing more than some highly sophisticated monkey. Is nothing short of self-degradation.

Answer 6

You mean man AND woman? Yes, I do, because we've grown smarter throughout time.

Answer 7

Everything alive or active in the universe is evolving. So, man is evolving... except my cousin Jimmy... he is very...special.

Answer 8

ya to preps

Answer 9

Yes.  This question is no longer seriously debated among scientists, although in the United States there are large groups of people who, mainly for there own religious reasons refute the copious amounts of evidence.  They seem to get most bent out of shape about the biological evidence that contradicts their unique and narrow brand of Christianity (Many Christians in the United States, and most Christians in other all the other developed countries have no problem with the idea of Darwinian evolution).  They don't tend to get overly upset with modern geology, which ridicules the idea that the Earth is only a few thaousand of years old.  They don't have major court court battles trying to get physicists to stop teaching that the universe is billions of years old and originated in the big bang, but for historical and political reasons they rally around an anti-Darwinian cause.  There are very few numbers of these people who seem to actually understand the theory, which is curious because it's not very complicated to begin with.  Just look at some of the posts here- they pretty much demonstrate what I'm talking about.

Answer 10

what came first

the chicken or the egg?

Answer 11

NO i refuse to believe i came from a frigin monkey god made us and thats never goin 2 change no matter what man wants does this help hun?

Answer 12

Evolution only works if we are talking about a given species, so yes, we have made progress through the ages of man but we stop at man's beginning. Evolution cannot jump the species barrier and become some other mammal, and when man becomes extinct we do not automatically become the missing link.

Answer 13

No. We were made by God. To think that we are an accident is rediculus and makes me laugh!

Answer 14

The common misinterpretation of evolution is that of improvement, yet evolution is a continous cycle of change.  In such a sense, man has indeed evolved, whether one likes it or not.    

If you were asking whether man has evolved in the sense of improvement from today and onwards, I would say yes and no.  Our physical nature cannot withstand even the simple elements, and we depend too much on our own creations.  Should we lose electricity, should we lose materials, should we lose society, man would surely fall.  Mentally, perhaps, though a primate still have more mental capability (at least in photographic memory - scientifically proven) than us humans.  

Man is continually changing, for better of for worst, thus man has evolved.

Answer 15

evolution = the most flawed THEORY ever, and the worst lie we have ever sold to our kids.