quote:
Millions of years may indeed have been too long. That is my main point. I don't think a human would be the result of an extinction/takeover/degeneration, as they too would have the same problem when 'needs' arose.Millions of years wont solve an urgent problem.
I think you are looking at this from a teleological perspective. It's not like a 5 million years ago a species began evolving into a human. The species simply adapted to a new environment, then another, and then another, etc. Now we are here. Its pretty clear that if you look at change in environments on a broader scale, the environment changes quite frequently. So this isn't a stretch to say that a species just adapted to new environmental circumstances.
Also, the environment doesn't have to change necessarily. All you need is new variation caused my mutations that can have more reproductive success then other variations.
quote:
Any evolutionary way it is looked at cannot change the fact that we observe extinction but not evolution. Degeneration rather than improvement, can be indicated by this.
You make it seem like evolution and extinction are competing theories, and if extinction is proved, then evolution is false. That doesn't make any sense, IMO. No evolutionist denies that species go extinct when drastic environmental changes occurr.
Extinction isn't necessarily a fast process either, it can take thousands of years when a species numbers begin to dwindle before they are extinct. The only reason we see extinction at such a rapid rate is because we (humans) are causing them to go extinct. We would observe extinctions at a vanishingly smaller degree if we didn't cause them.
Let's say I go into a Sequoia forest and cut down a 250 foot tree. Do I then conclude that Sequoia's don't grow because I've only seen them get cut down? The answer is no, because growing and getting cut down are not exclusive concepts.
JustinC