People have become convinced the theory of evolution, being man has slowly throughout history been transformed from little single amebas to fish to monkeys to modern man...
But the facts no longer support that feel good theory about it because we look similar or the science. the simple problem arises, where are all the in-betweeners?
they would still be happening, every species, everywhere, all over, and yet, not one fossil specimen of any kind ever has been found that has change from one species to another. It is scientifically impossible. There was at one time thought a horse, but later they found that it was not, same with a dog, these supposed in between man, they are apes, they just look similar.. its simply a theory being shot down more each day with modern science, especially with the study of DNA. Once a dog, always a dog, once a horse always a horse, once a fish, always a fish, once an ape always an ape, once a man always a man..no tweeners- no where...
More Scientist are reconsidering the possibility of intelligent design as the answer to how we came into existence. Now, true we may have evolved more modernized in the last 10 to15 thousand years, even that, the scientist struggle with explaining the rapid evolution..
Bottom line, its all still theory, that is just fact.. Thus there you have a choice, a bit of freedom of the mind and soul ..
What's with the interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, then? Those lineages diverged, but were still similar enough to produce viable offspring.
Looking at DNA, they are finding MORE evidence for descent with modification, not less.
And the "tweeners"? Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, H. gautengensis, Denisova hominin (a hybrid of species!). They're there, all right.
Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.
1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago.
And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.