Replies

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And if it’s the survival of the fittest, then how come the apes didn’t die out after man came on the scene?
After all, that is what supposedly happened to all the missing links between apes and men."

Most all apes did die out.
I once heard that if you took every non-human great ape in the world, they would not fill a single football-sized stadium, while humans would fill 60,000 stadiums, filling another 1,000 every year.

The fact is, great-apes which survive today do so only in areas which were never densely inhabited by humans.

Yes but if even simple apes were able to survive the arrival of man (even if only in isolated pockets like you suggest), then why didn't any of the "missing links" survive? After all they would have been smarter than regular apes.

Also, if everything is always survival of the fittest, then how does one explain symbiotic relationships? And in such relationships where both partners are dependent on one another for survival, which one came first?

Macro evolution is a scientific impossibility. While microevolution (variations within a kind, as seen in dogs) is acknowledged fact, macroevolution has no basis in reality and has never been observed. Scientists have attempted experiments on rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced. In fact, all mutation ever witnessed has been either neutral or negative. This is in line with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that things tend to disorder and decreased complexity. There are no examples of a mutation that created increased complexity. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one.

Also, life could never have originated by chemical means. Scientists still don't know how life originated, because it's origin still cannot be explained. Matter of fact, in the 1970s, Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the probability of spontaneous generation of a single cell organism was one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. To put this in perspective, if an event has the probability of one chance in 10 to the 50th power, it is considered a mathematical impossibility. This fact, Hoyle stated, is "enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

George Wald, a prominent atheist said:
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore we chose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"
"I do not want believe in God. Therefore I chose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."