(Order goes from oldest posts to newest.)
4/10/2012
Some scientists believe that humans evolved from chimpanzees. I don't think we did, but I'll defend my side of the argument later. Scientists think that humans "branched off" from the ape about 5 to 8 million years ago. Where is the proof? Who came up with that information, you may ask? The theory of evolution is Darwin's. He did not believe in God and the Bible so he wouldn't know that his theory wasn't true. As it says in the Bible, humans were made in God's image. We weren't made in the image of an ape. We were made in God's image! Yes we were. Now you may ask, how do we know everything in the Bible is true? Well God told Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John what to write. God doesn't lie, therefore everything in the Bible is true. Apes have 48 chromosome and we have 46 chromosomes, therefore that is proof that we did not evolve from apes because then we would have the same amount of chromosomes. Also, if we evolved from apes wouldn't they all have evolved at some point then? Or at least most of them. Over the past few million years we have not seen any proof of this. How can we tell from a fossil that humans evolved from apes? Just because our human skull may have been similar to a chimpanzees skull long ago, it doesn't mean that we evolved from them.  "The skeleton of an early human who lived 4.4 million years ago show that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors, researchers reported on Thursday" (cited from). As I said before humans are made in God's image, as it says in the Bible, alone that does prove that we did not evolve from apes. 

I hope to do more research and add to this blog if I have time. Thank you for reading.

4/11/2012
I just found some more evidence supporting my side of the debate. "I reported earlier today that scientists concluded that we did not evolve from apes. In response, a source sent me a book review that appeared in the New Scientists I had missed. It turns out that apparent genetic closeness does not mean that we are closely related to chimps"(cited from). Also I read that mice share nearly as much genetic similarity with humans as apes do. I still believe (and will always) that humans did not evolve from apes just as much as humans did not evolve from mice, there is so much evidence saying that we didn't. Yet scientists can still say there is a lot of evidence saying that we did. I'm going to ask you to think it over a little bit- Did we really evolve from apes? Several scientists' answer is "No, we didn't." and so is mine.


4/12/2012
Okay. Looks like I need some more information to back myself up. I understand a few people that I talked to did not believe my quote from the Bible. They were asking "How do you know if it's all true? It was written by man." Well, I just do. I don't know, it's just that simple to me. I just believe it and that's all that really counts. I have to make it straight that I do support the theory of evolution for all mammals, except humans. I don't believe that humans evolved. 

Then there's the subject of humans having common ancestry. Okay, so basically what the scientists are saying is that the hominid eventually evolved into the human as we know it today. It was like this (as the scientists say)- The hominid had 48 chromosomes and eventually branched off into humans and apes. The humans that evolved had a mutation and had 46 chromosomes but the other species that branched off, the apes, had 48 chromosomes.


4/16/2012
I got some books on human evolution at the library the other day, but haven't had the time to read them yet. Once I read them I'll write more about my side of the debate. For now what, continued on from the 12th, I was talking about how scientists think we had a common ancestor. How do they know for sure how many chromosomes "our common ancestor" had? One can't tell how many chromosomes an organism has by judging the organism's fossils.

I'll continue after I read up on this subject more.  :)  


4/24/2012
Okay. I've decided that I'm going to finally end this post about human evolution. There's nothing really more that I can add. You have your views, and I have mine. For now we can just leave it at that. Although, I'm going to ask you to really think about it, and then maybe you will see why I think that we did not evolve from apes.

5/8/2012
I guess I might just add a little more to this topic. We've been going over this topic in my biology class and I've been thinking a lot more about it. I have an analogy, scientists have what they call "a lot of evidence" to support the evolutionary theory, they think because humans are similar to apes we have a common ancestor. My analogy is something like this- A television and computer are very similar, they both have screens and other things in common, but they are two completely different things. Just like the human and the ape, we have several similarities, but that doesn't make us related. 

6/3/2012
I just can't seem to let this topic drop. It's been bugging me as the topic has been coming up in science class a week or two ago, and at other times. There is actually no real evidence of the step from "ape to human stage", which is called the missing link. It's basically just a hypothesis, the scientists have no real bone evidence. So why exactly do we have this theory? I'm still asking myself that same question. If there is no hard evidence there should be no theory.  I think it should just be a hypothesis... If that.

This topic kind of corresponds with abortion in a way. Although, there's something different about this topic- I can fully understand the other side of the argument. I can fully understand why scientists want to take an embryonic cell and perform research on it to cure others with a disease. Some one who I know really really well has a disease that could possibly be cured by stem cell research. She is still against it all, even though that kind of research could help her. 

There's a much better solution than using the embryonic cell for research-scientists can use a different stem cell-the adult stem taken from a person's bone marrow. This solution can work nearly just as well. I read in an article that using the adult stem cell has been more productive in research than using an  embryonic cell, that could have later developed into a living human being. It's a very controversial topic- If we don't do research on the embryonic cell than we may not be able to cure another living person with a fatal disease, but if scientists perform experiments to find a cure for a disease on the embryonic cell, than they can possibly save the suffering person. Some scientists say something like, "If we don't perform experiments on the embryonic cell we will be farther away from finding a cure." There are still some very generous people who donate cells from their bone marrow, which has actually helped more in stem cell research than experimenting on other cells, as I've said before. 

It's a very difficult topic to debate about, and very sad how we haven't found a better way to cure disease. Perhaps one day we'll find a way to cure diseases without hurting others in the process. That would truly be a wonderful day.