Evolution Or God... How were we created?

Ok, you don't understand evolution. In evolution men did NOT evolve from apes. Rather, men and apes BOTH evolved from something ELSE. To answer your question about in between creatures, there are plenty. Many are extinct because of being out competed by both apes and humans. For instance, the neanderthal. The easiest place to see this is in genetics. There is HUGE overlap between ape/monkey/human genes. In particular, chimpanzees are very similar.



Like I said, above, this is a misunderstanding. As for variation, there is a lot in the assorted monkey/ape category. For humans, it would only evolve if there was an advantage to being similar to humans. There isn't, because humans kill any predators/competitors. The more similar they are to us, the quicker they would be eliminated. See neanderthals.





Incorrect. There are 'missing links' between many different creature groups. Evolution happens at a constant rate, but speciation doesn't. That means that while genetics will shift at a constant rate, they may not shift in any particular direction. If the environment changes, either due to external shifts (say, global warming), or due to migration, then a species may be divided and one group may be ill adapted to its new environs. In that case, natural selection becomes more relevant, and speciation will begin to occur. It is possible for this to happen VERY fast, leaving no obvious stepping stones. ESPECIALLY stepping stones that are entirely external (like skeletal remains). Change speed best seen in genetics, since that is where it actually occurs.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. As such, attempts to inject it into scientific discussion is due to religious, not scientific, beliefs.

Really, intelligent design is simply a non-denominational version of christian creationism, wrapped in a fancy wrapper.

Before you claim there are holes in evolution, be sure you understand evolution. You seem to have a number of misunderstandings.

First, Humans did NOT evolve from apes/monkeys as currently seen on earth. People say this only because they don't get it. Humans evolved from the same base species that monkeys/apes did. This means that instead of Apes/Monkeys being our great great...grandparents, they are more like our very distant cousins.

Second, there is the general misunderstanding that evolution happens linearly. As in, Species A becomes Species B becomes Species C. This doesn't really cover it. Species A evolves, and perhaps the population splits, and then there is Species B AND Species C, which are very similar to each other and to Species A. Also, Species A may not disappear when this happens. So, from Species A we get Species A, B, and C. That is just an example, and simplified, but hopefully that will clear things up on that point.

As for Apes needing to be created to evolve into Humans, as suggested, the above two points should handle most of that misunderstanding.

More to the point, no species needs to be 'created', all of them can evolve into increasing complexity. As I explained in a different post, Evolution doesn't just happen, it MUST happen. Attacks on how evolution happen are irrelevant, because in the end, whatever methods are involved, EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

You can put things in a lab and watch them evolve. I know, I have done it.

This is actually incorrect, this isn't darwinian evolution, but instead Lamarckism, which is incorrect. From a species basis (as opposed to individual basis), there is no such thing as 'use it or lose it'. Species do not forget. And, while you may not realize it since people generally live in cities these days, humans are VERY good tree climbers. Maybe not as good as some monkeys, but pretty damn good in any case.

Similarly, You example of seeing far distance vs. running quickly is flawed. My cat can stand on its hind legs, and it can see far distances, but it is not a biped. There is not an 'ability trade off' in this sense. Realize that in evolution, everything must happen at a genetic level. So, The only time you will have a trade off is when the trade off is necessitated at the genetic level. Basically, if you have a gene that codes for something, it therefore doesn't code for all the other possibilities. Add in control genes and this gets complicated, so I am gonna stop here.

A good example comes from viruses/bacteria in sicknesses. These days, we have antibiotics, so viruses that cannot overcome these generally die. However, being resiliant to drugs is 'genetically costly' in that genes are spent on coding for characterists that help the bug overcome medicine INSTEAD OF coding for things that would make the the bug better at infecting things. Thus, when you remove the presence of antibiotics, the non-resistant bugs out compete the resistent ones, and the 'drug resistence' genes fall out of the gene pool due to natural selection.

Once again, slightly oversimplified, but hopefully this illustrates the principle.

Communism is not the same as Atheism, I just want to point that out.

Religion has little to do with it I think. Extremism and hate, and envy and greed are the root cause. Sometimes these things stem from religious fervor, or hate of a certain religious group. Sometimes it is 'the glorious future' as said by the communists. In general, the explanation is something abstract and easy to BS to always back your actions. Religion can be very good for this, but so can any ideology.

Religious trappings or not, the sources of suffering are the same: Hate, greed, envy, attachment to views, seeing others as different from ourselves, less than human, as things.

So, the real test is whether or not the religion/ideology/whatever encourages this, either overtly or passively.

No, communists are atheists (usually), but they are not related. Atheism is not a form of Communism, nor is Communism a form of Atheism. One can be an atheist and have nothing to do with Communism, in terms of historical lineage or ideology. Similarly, one can be a Communist and have nothing to do with atheism. That the recent communists were atheists is unfortunate, but not necessarily related.

On the other hand, Catholicism IS a form of christianity, and protestant forms of christianity, while not part of catholicism, ARE related, both historically and ideologically.

Which is why conclusions get drawn as they are.