smashattack
Smash Journeyman
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that it is strange that, since every organism is "evolving", there are still monkeys around. I just made a point that they should have evolved as well, since they've been around as long as we humans have.First you say that we can't have evolved from monkeys since there are still monkeys around, then you say that we can't have evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys since the common ancestor isn't around. HUH?!?
And I was also wondering about this "common ancestor". I didn't explain very well in the last post... let me try again. I meant that, since Bumble Bee Tuna pointed out that (and I quote):
Basically, what I'm asking is this: what happened to the common ancestor? The world is a big place and many things can happen. The chances of this common ancestor existing is very high. Yet there is not a species that bridges the gap between monkeys and humans. I do not understand this. And if this common ancestor died off, how so? What explains it? What killed only the "common ancestor" and nothing else?If that isn't good enough, keep in mind that the world is a big place. A primate can evolve down one path in South America and down a completely different one in Africa. Evolution does not happen the exact same way in every location. It is a random process, and just because a monkey mutates in one location does not mean all monkeys in all places have the same mutation.
Ah, I understand about the beetle. I'm glad that's been brought back up. There is a lot of information to digest about this little guy, and it seems to be two-sided. I'd like to conduct some research on one myself, if I could get a hold of one... however, considering there are none here, it looks like I'll have to peruse through tons of info. In fact, I'm looking at the site you posted right now, Novowels...
Right now, I see one thing of importance so far: "(Other species spray an unpulsed stream; most species haven't been investigated so closely.)" So it's quite possible that the German study was not incorrect, it's just that the certain beetle has not been "re-discovered".
It also says this beetle's stuff explodes outside. Very interesting... I have found several sites now that say either way. What's going to end up happening is this: I'll say that my site is correct, you'll say yours was correct, when in fact it's probably both. For once, it seems like everybody is seeing what they only want to see...
So I think it goes either way! Since there are many that have not been discovered, the beetle found by the German guy (I don't even want to try and spell that name) exists, but has not been found again. The ones that are being studied today do, in fact, exist, and happen to work like you have said. So I think we're both right on this matter, if we can both see all sides of it.
Ah, that pesky rock... I think I'll leave this up to Gora_Nova, since he was the first to introduce the idea! I don't understand Geology too much, but can try and help out where needed. :D
As for your post, Bumble Bee Tuna, most of it was saying how I "still have an attitude" and you're still going on about Kent Hovind. Therefore, since Novowels has offered a great debate and some very good points, I'm sticking to replying to him.
So, Novowels, keep your ideas and points coming! I look forward to this debate. :D