Human Beings Evolved

Rebuttals:'Oh wait a minute. Wait one darn second. Did i hear what i through i heard? I think i did. You say you don't want to bring religion in to this. We'll why the heck should i debate then if i can't bring religion in to this, because that goes right in to my Creation argument. Well thank you Ms.Emilrose, and thank you who ever reading this. Well this was a very short debate......'Firstly, Con makes a number of structural/grammar errors here-so it is not a promising start to his argument. He also fails to refer to anything specific. 'Wait....... I think i'm still breathing. Yeah, that's right. The higher power give me a working brain to work with. So, with the power invested in him i will go on in this debate.....'At this point, it would seem that Con is merely repeating nonsense. No arguments thus far have been presented. 'Okay, before i really begin. I want to go over something.Human evolution is a theory, not a absolute truth.'Human evolution, as I have displayed evidences for in this debate, is a proven scientific process. '1. We still aren't really sure why we walk on two legs, why we don't have fur, and where our big brains come from.' So, this is the first real contention from Con, but one which is easily negated. We walk on two legs because our ancestors walked upright (so the hands could be used for carrying tools and so on). [6.] http://www.bbc.com...As for not having any 'fur', this is due to natural selection. However, humans retained hair where it was practical for it to be retained (the head, the genital area, etc.) [7.] http://www.nytimes.com...Regarding Cons third contention-our brains are big because of our gradual evolutionary development. They have in fact doubled in size since the first species belonging to Homo genus come into existence. [8.] http://www.nytimes.com...So, if anything, Cons questions actually benefit my argument as they relate directly to the evolutionary process of change. 'Why humans continued to evolve when our fellow hominids became extinct.' Again, this simply alludes to what occurs in evolution; different subtype of species' die out and then other subtypes develop. I gave a basic example of our evolutionary timeline in round one-so that our fellow hominoids became extinct does not contradict or negate my case at all; because in acknowledging that we did indeed have primate ancestors in the first place, Con is acknowledging that evolution exists. The video that Con links does nothing to dispel evolution, rather it's just raising certain questions, which as I have pointed out, are easily answered. And to note once again. 'Scientific study of the origin of life on earth" cannot go back in time and trace the first life on the earth given present technology."Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1"2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God".' It does not. There's not one thing in Genesis that can be scientifically validated or shown to be correct. '"A biological evolution that converts bacteria into humans, with an obvious increase of order and complexity, would violate the Second Law which says "things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists.' This is incorrect. Unfortunately, some anti-evolution proponents have a poor understanding of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. 'Entropy' is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to 'disorder'. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.Referring further to evolution itself: The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the 'entropy' of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less 'ordered' (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.[9.] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...So again, the argument that the second law of evolution isn't compatible with thermodynamics simply doesn't work-it is clutching at straws. 'Human evolution, just isn't clear enough and not enough dated to go forward with this theory. They the scientist, can't accurately predict when or where we came from.' They have researched where we came from; originally, it was Africa. 'They could estimate on the age. But they are always off with they numbers, first they say dot, dot, dot. ' No. See my opening argument to get an idea of the evolutionary timeline. 'Then totally change things around. 'Nothing significant in regards to our knowledge of human evolution has been changed, 'At least the Bible, don't change.' That is because the bible isn't scientific-therefore, no real research or new developments are conducted and/or found. In written pieces of literature, things do not change unless they are rewritten or reformulated. 'Plus the bible is the only written document, and the oldest that state where we actually came from. Science have yet to accurately say where we came from.' This is because 4000-2000 years ago (this is the timeline of the bible), people did not have the means to research our origins. Since then, science has been able to accurately conclude our origins. 'What we see right now, of course, is an array of distinct kinds of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called micro evolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.'Again, accepting that micro evolution exists does not contradict my case in any way. Con is yet to provide a strong argument against human evolution.