The Theory Of Evolution Is False

Hi! Since you've provided three points, I will use this Round to negate each one since we both have the BoPFor the purpose of this debate I will assume by "humans" you mean homo sapiens and not a predecessor homo erectusPoint 1: Humans have lived on this earth for thousands of years, and man has not changedThis is not true at all. In fact, natural selection is occuring every single day. Studies show, for example, women with low body fat do not ovulate. Over time, this evolves homo sapiens into a race without the traits natural selection deemed bad. In other species such as the elephants, they are evolving to exclude tusks to avoid poachers because seelction causes poachers to kill those with tusks. Hudson River fish are evolving to have immunity from toxic waste. I could go on and on but for further reading check out this article http://content.time.com...Point 2: If we evolved from apes, why are they not becoming humansThis is the easiest point of yours to negate. There is a very common misconception of evolution and that is 1. evolution finishes at a final product2. all animals evolve into the same new animal if they were to evolve.This is not true. Evolution is the change of a population and not an individual. For example, why are there so many species of the same animal but some have thicker fur in colder climates and less fur/more stamina in hot climates etc etc. Certain animals evolve based on their environment and not because an ape stood up one day and said"Hey guys, drop that banana lets all be homo sapiens"Continuing on, humans are not evolved from the species of monkey/ape today. We [our two species] are evolved from a common older ancestor.Evolution is not an escalator with one species on one step and moving up in an orderly fashion. In fact, isolated populations evolve based on their needs and not due to some pre programmed change.More reading on this matter: http://rationalwiki.org...I hope that clears things up. Moving on.Point 3: Apes have a different level of chromosomes than we doI again wish to remind you Apes and Homo Sapiensshare a common ancestor but are not direct relations. The genetic similarities and differences between these two species are present. However, the similarities are much more striking. Apes have 24 pairs [or 48 chromosomes] and humans have 23 pairs [or 46 chromosomes] which is pretty much the same. Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species.[The following is from multiple sources] Most chromosmal differences involve inversions which are common in many species- even humans. Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations (parts swapped among the chromosomes), and the presence or absence of nucleolar organizers. All of these differences can be observed to be occurring in modern populations. There are two potential explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres. Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. ____________ All this evidence points to a natural evolution process with a common ancestor instead of a common creator. I hope that clears matters up. I look forward to your reply