Evolution for Dummies and Christians

You can do it like this: You can also use the "Peek" button to see what a poster typed in to generate a particular effect. Imagine an early mammal that did not have any of the distinctive features of a dog. Couldn't that evolve into a dog? And couldn't others from that same species evolve into a cat? If they could, then cats and dogs could have a common ancestor.You apparently think that the genetic variability would run out. But there is always new variability being introduced. I suggest you take a look at Some mutations sound too good to be true. You might find a lot if interesting information about how variation arises.

By the way, thure, welcome to EvCforum. Let's put this in perspective.When these sorts of findings are reported, nobody in science takes them as reporting certain truth. Such findings are always considered tentative, and subject to revision with better evidence that might be identified in the future.There was a mathematician who used to say that he was 2 billion years old. His reasoning: "when I was young, the earth was 2 billion years old. Now it is 4 billion years old. So I must be 2 billion years old." Of course, he was making a joke. But scientific methods do change, and as our techniques improve we can refine and re-evaluate data.The theory of evolution does not depend on the specifics of this data. The ToE is mainly based on what we see with known species, and what we know about the processes involved in biological reproduction. The fossil evidence is not an essential part of the evidence base for ToE, although it does add additional support.Ambiguity and uncertainty is to be expected in fossil evidence. It isn't a problem for evolution.Incidently, the theory of evolution is also revised, as new evidence becomes available. When Darwin first proposed his theory, he did not know about genetics. We know a great deal more than was known at Darwin's time, and that new knowledge has been incorporated into our current understanding of evolution. The new knowledge could have turned out to contradict the theory of evolution. However, it didn't. Instead, it provided strong confirmation.

No, he is not saying that. He is simply saying that apes did not turn into humans.You have a confused misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. If you want to criticize the theory, you will first need to understand what it says.Get yourself a good book on evolution, and study it. Make sure it is a book written by an evolutionary biologist. You should be able to find a good book at your local public library.