Believe it or not, I never heard that one. But I thought the theory wasn't that we evolved from apes, but that both humans and apes evolved from the same thing.
LSUSupaFan.... I don't think that Bestbank Tiger was implying that evolution is absurd. Tell me why you consider it to be.
Well it kind of goes against thermodynamics. Something can't come from nothing. Micro-evoloution and chemical-evoloution theories make the assumptions that just that happens. Some "scientists" go as far to say that all life came from single celled organisms, or that some goo started to live. It just goes against so many scentific laws. That being said, macro evoloution makes sens. Favorable traits are passed on that can cause populations to change over time.
Rex is right--I don't think evolution is absurd. I do think there are flaws in the theory, but I can't rule it out either.
Micro deals with say a prokaryote developing a mitochondria or other complex structure that is not in its gene. Macro is like this: a forest burns down, the apes in it have to flee to grasslands. To survive predation they have to stand on thier hind legs to look over the tall grasses. Naturally the apes with stronger hind legs will be more apt to survival, will mate and pass this trait on. Apes with weaker legs will be eaten. Over time the population will have changed and not be so much like the apes in the trees in this way a new species arises. The big difference is this In micro either individuals evolve, or their imediate offspring have a trait they do not. Impossible. See second law of Thermodynamics. In macro populations evolve. much more plausible. If evoloution exists at all this is at least in keeping with universal constants.
There is nothing within the Second Law of Thermodynamics... that makes evolution impossible. The 2nd Law states that entropy (unusable energy) increases within a CLOSED SYSTEM. Typically, the creationist argues that the evolution of more complex organisms is not possible because the 2nd Law dictates increased disorder, rather than increased complexity. But that constitutes a misapplication of the 2nd Law. For one thing, under such an argument, the growth of ANY organism from sperm and egg to adult would be impossible. It's interesting that a creationist can accept that energy and nutrients are enough to modify and complicate entire structures, but not the alleles that give rise to those structures. Notice also that the 2nd Law of T. applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS only. The earth, drawing energy from the sun, is not a closed system, therefore the constraints of the 2nd Law do not apply. Order from disorder is very common on Earth, including among inanimate items like snowflakes.
