Direct and indirect evidence in science

There is no evidence that human beings "evolved" from apes as this response very wrongly assumes. Most scientists believe that both apes and human beings share a common ancestor at least 7 million plus years ago, that was neither an ape or a human. It would be just as accurate to say that apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around, although neither statement is scientifically accurate. Even Richard Dawkins, who consistently lies about the known evidence and the well-established historical method of science in relation to evidence, agrees that it is scientifically absurd to say that humans evolved from apes. Such an assumption assumes a) That apes haven't themselves changed; b) That humans are more "advanced" than apes and c) That there is an over all advancement in species design and adaptation. There is no scientific evidence that any of these three are true and on the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that ALL forms of life are more or less equally well adapted for their own particular set of reproductive and other survival circumstances. What there is scientific evidence for is, that God creates life to adapt and change, so that life itself can survive, which life has managed to do quite well on earth in spite of many major cataclismic events. The concept of "species" is an artifical invention of science, which has no relationship to the actual reality of either life or how life functions. Life marches on just fine, regardless of whether we call all snakes a "snake" or, we divide snakes up into various "species". Artificial divisions invented by human beings have no relationship whatsoever to how life either came to be or functions in true reality. Any first-year philosophy student knows better than that. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.