Originally posted by CaptainStoic
1) First off the word theory means that it is not an absolute.
2) Whenever scientists are asked to prove without a shadow of a doubt that we evolved from simians they can not.
3) A gorilla was a gorilla 10,000 yrs ago and is still a gorilla today... unless you're saying that in another 10,000 yrs, that they will be able to build cars, or invent things beyond their primal grasp. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything that you read in a text book.
3) Yes, it's true our DNA and a chimps DNA nearly mirror eachothers, but then again the DNA found in trees nearly mirror ours too, so what... am I to believe that trees will one day start walking around, and talking? Not everyone is in the dark when it comes to the BS being pumped into the masses of the less informed.
Calm down dude and Reread my post. There was a reason I included the qualifier: "scientifically speaking". If you want to disagree with evolution, then by all means be my guest. But as Aquaman has used telepathy on humans in his book then, at least in DC, the theory of evolution is used in regards to humans. But as I think this fight is over fairly quickly and I'm always up for a little debating....😈
1) Of course evolution is just called a "theory". Unfortunately since fossilization of any organism isn't a very common occurrence, usually requiring both the animal having hard parts and it dieing near a somewhere where soft sediments are being gently deposited, there is just a limited amount of information available. If we had living samples of every creature that had ever lived then evolution might be able to be proven conclusively (thus granting it the title of "law"😉, but a lack of evidence due to natural processes should not be counted against the theory.
2) See above. We lack samples of every simian that has ever lived and thus creating a complete picture of human evolution isn't yet possible. However, I would contend that very few things in the universe can be proven to an absolute with current scientific methods. All of the available information is taken and compiled into a model that supports said evidence. The current model that supports the information available on human origins (as well as all other life) is evolution.
3) Living in the Southern United States, believe me when I tell you I've heard this one before 😉 . What people who say this tend to ignore that the origin of new species is specialization. The ancestors of humans found a type of niche in nature in which they were able to thrive and which promoted an increasing level of intelligence. Not all apes needed to specialize in the same way as the human ancestor to thrive. They were able to adapt in other ways in order to survive or to put it another way, the environmental pressures they faced did not trend them towards our level of intelligence.
As to if apes can evolve intelligence in 10,000 years, I would say no. The best estimates have it taking millions of years for humans to evolve to their present status. Given millions of years and the proper environmental pressures towards specialization in intelligence then there no reason why another branch of the ape family couldn't become more intelligent. And if you don't look to science textbooks for information on science questions, where exactly are you suppose to look? 😕
4) No, what the commonalities found in the DNA in different organisms reflect is a common ancestor at some point in their development. I would suggest at the very least doing a little research on scientific theories before you dismiss them offhand.