@ XenoNinja #708873
This one's dedicated to you, monkeyman.
Great counterargument, by the way. </sarcasm>
Lol if Evolution is real explain why monkeys are still around.
Evolution doesn't work the way I think you think it does, and you're not giving anything close to a valid argument when saying that.
In other words - you're setting up a straw man argument. In short, a straw man argument means taking the claim you wish to refute, creating a superficially similar claim, and then refuting the new claim (the "straw man") instead of the original one purposed.
In this here case, it means that you are not, in fact, refuting evolution (which I will soon attempt to explain). Instead, you are refuting your own distorted image of evolution, which is really very different from the original.
What will follow is evolution in a nutshell.
This means that there's much more behind it, for better or for worse.
If, however, your problem with evolution is that it's "too long/complicated to make sense", then please stop complaining, turn off your overly complex computer and stop seeing over-educated doctors, and avoid supporting military research, which is far too tedious for the common man; also, consider simplifying your anatomy by removing your cerebral cortex. Hell, why don't you pull your entire brain out.
No?
Then please read on :)
That said, if anyone catches a mistake of mine, please let me know:
The foundations of life as we know it is known as DNA, massive molecules which can be alluded to blueprints. These blueprints, in turn, can be alluded to computer data, in that both are at their base a series of numbers - binary (base 2; 0s and 1s when dealing with programing) for computers and quaternary (base 4; A, C, G and T when dealing with genetics) for DNA.
How this came to pass is irrelevant. Evolutionary creationists say such complexity is only possible through divine intervention; atheists who support evolution say it can occur naturally given time, of which the universe has plenty.
Either way, the following will describe evolution as it occurs by mutations, something which iirc both theistic and atheistic supporters of the theory agree upon.
When copying a string of characters which is as long as DNA very often is, there is a very high likelihood of making a mistake here and there. This is in spite of the various fail-safe mechanisms that have themselves evolved over time, which check and re-check DNA molecules for inconsistencies.
Thus, a cell might not be identical with its predecessor: either the DNA copying process made a mistake here and there, or the new cell's DNA was later altered by external effects such as radiation. The new cell then passes on its new DNA, rather than its predecessor's original, whenever it divides.
Each of us humans, who are sexual reproducers (unlike single-celled organisms and other asexual reproducers, who are essentially clones of each other), have DNA comprised of half the DNA of our father's sperm, and half the DNA of our mother's egg. This DNA, however, is likely to be at least minutely different from the original, as explained earlier: the sperm or egg have a good chance (especially at later ages, when cells have copied themselves a great many times, leaving a lot of room for mistakes) of being "imperfect". Usually the differences are so minute that they are entirely unnoticeable, but they still exist, making the offspring just very, very slightly genetically different from what he would have been if mistakes hadn't been made.
One such offspring is not, however, barring outrageous odds, so different from his parents that he qualifies for a new race. What he might be, however, is different enough to constitute potential change if more changes are added down the family tree. Thus, there is a very reasonable chance that, given many generations, this offspring's great great great great (...) great great offspring will be different enough to be considered significantly different.
Even then, there may be sufficient similarities to allow inter-racial copulation - that is, copulation between two distantly related races, which are by now separate in most respects, but not all.
Take the mule, for example: horses and donkeys are distantly related, but have reproductive systems similar enough (by courtesy of their common ancestor) that they may beget offspring. However, in this case the offspring is sterile, preventing mules from becoming an independent race.
However, this doesn't mean, or even imply, that the new race leads to the extinction of the old one - we're only talking about one family tree out of the many in a race. Out of a great many prehistorical apes, one family tree began the transformation into the humans we are today, and went through many stages on the way, and each of these stages may have also had more than one offshoot. Another such family tree evolved into gorillas, and another into chimps. Others may have stayed more or less identical to the prehistorical ancestor, but it doesn't seem they survived.
In turn, humans may or may not survive - whether another race evolves from us or not is irrelevant, barring that the new race decides to exterminate us or whatnot.
My point here is:
One race doesn't evolve into another as a whole; it is members of the original race that evolve into a new creature, which may survive to put its mark on the world. In turn, the original race may or may not survive on its own accord. It also may indeed produce more than one different race.
If something is unclear (or just plain incorrect), please let me know, and help me avoid doing it again :)
