Â
†SlashÂâ€
Guest
I am by no means an expert on evolution or creationism, but I think that many people undermine the concept of evolution.
When people say evolution happened by "chance", that's only half true. Yes, it was chance that organisms appeared in different types of environments, but it is not by chance they evolved the way they did. People sometimes ask me "Well, how can everything be so perfect and symmetrical if evolution was so random?". Well, if you look at the situation from a logical perspective, would it make sense if things were not symmetrical? Could you imagine the instability of having only one leg in the center of your body? Could you imagine the limited eye-sight of only one eye in the center of your head? Symmetric anatomy is a cornerstone of adaptation and fitness in the environment.
Organisms evolved the way they did to adapt to their environments and survive accordingly. If, for some reason, an animal's prey moves out of the animal's ecosystem (be it weather or environmental changes that forces it to move), the animals that follow the prey will be the ones that survive. If their prey happened to move to a desert environment from a swamp-like environment (unlikely, but plausible), the animals best fit for that environment would flourish.
For example, these Ibex: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Ibexes.jpg (image courtesy of Wikipedia).
Those Ibex are virtually invisible in their environment. Naturally, if they were in a forested area, their brown color would stick out like a sore thumb. Say that this animal's ancestor had a dark brown and black embossed coating to fit in with a forested area, but they had to migrate to a desert environment in search of food. Naturally, the animals with the light-brown coat traits would be harder to see and would thrive, while the Ibex whose coat was dark brown would stand out easier to predators. Prime example of survival of the fittest.
.... And honestly,... Can you tell me you don't see an uncanny resemblance to humans when you look at most apes? In my opinion, apes are living proof that evolution happens, and it's not simply "chance" that we evolve the way we do. Suppose again, for some reason, that chimps, orangutans, or whatever were forced to leave the trees and live on the land due to environmental disaster or lack of a food source. If these apes had to evolve to fit a land environment, they would need to adapt. Naturally, their feet would have to become more apt for running,... Just like a man's. They'd need to become lean and swift, rather than bulky. But most of all, the apes would have to rely on their mind in this new environment, which I think is how humans came to be. There is a lot more information that this Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ancestor could tell you than I could ever try to explain. But, if you look at the skulls of pre-homo sapiens you probably couldn't tell much of a difference from chimp skulls.
When people say evolution happened by "chance", that's only half true. Yes, it was chance that organisms appeared in different types of environments, but it is not by chance they evolved the way they did. People sometimes ask me "Well, how can everything be so perfect and symmetrical if evolution was so random?". Well, if you look at the situation from a logical perspective, would it make sense if things were not symmetrical? Could you imagine the instability of having only one leg in the center of your body? Could you imagine the limited eye-sight of only one eye in the center of your head? Symmetric anatomy is a cornerstone of adaptation and fitness in the environment.
Organisms evolved the way they did to adapt to their environments and survive accordingly. If, for some reason, an animal's prey moves out of the animal's ecosystem (be it weather or environmental changes that forces it to move), the animals that follow the prey will be the ones that survive. If their prey happened to move to a desert environment from a swamp-like environment (unlikely, but plausible), the animals best fit for that environment would flourish.
For example, these Ibex: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Ibexes.jpg (image courtesy of Wikipedia).
Those Ibex are virtually invisible in their environment. Naturally, if they were in a forested area, their brown color would stick out like a sore thumb. Say that this animal's ancestor had a dark brown and black embossed coating to fit in with a forested area, but they had to migrate to a desert environment in search of food. Naturally, the animals with the light-brown coat traits would be harder to see and would thrive, while the Ibex whose coat was dark brown would stand out easier to predators. Prime example of survival of the fittest.
.... And honestly,... Can you tell me you don't see an uncanny resemblance to humans when you look at most apes? In my opinion, apes are living proof that evolution happens, and it's not simply "chance" that we evolve the way we do. Suppose again, for some reason, that chimps, orangutans, or whatever were forced to leave the trees and live on the land due to environmental disaster or lack of a food source. If these apes had to evolve to fit a land environment, they would need to adapt. Naturally, their feet would have to become more apt for running,... Just like a man's. They'd need to become lean and swift, rather than bulky. But most of all, the apes would have to rely on their mind in this new environment, which I think is how humans came to be. There is a lot more information that this Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ancestor could tell you than I could ever try to explain. But, if you look at the skulls of pre-homo sapiens you probably couldn't tell much of a difference from chimp skulls.
