[quote]If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" [b]Species- In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Its a standard definition. [/b] Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? [b]no minuet change will classify as what creationists call macroevolution (that's not a science term by the way, but I'll use it for illustration.) Many many minuet changes across many many generations are required before what you would call micro evolution becomes macro. Its simply a scale of time. [/b] In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. [b]which is incorrect. Evolution doesn't reverse, it only goes forward. [/b] Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. [b]that is because as I pointed out once already, we've only been observing for the last 156 years of recorded history. It will take much longer observation before we are able to physically see and document the kind of change you're talking about. Which is why we use the fossil record. [/b] However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. [b]They skip it because its a separate field of science called abiogenesis. If you're interested in that subject we can discuss it, as chemists are making some amazing discoveries and are working toward a scientific theory for abiogenesis, but currently there isn't one, and like I said, its not part of evolution. [/b] Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. [b]This is misleading, it doesn't go from an amoeba to having limbs. It would evolve a basic locomotion ability, not limbs.[/b] Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. [b]its reasonable that if the conditions to create life from none life exist, it would occur over at least a small area, which would create many many basic organisms, which are needed to start a population. [/b] This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? [b]no, because the basis for your question is incorrect. [/b] Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? [b]no, part of natural selection is competition between organisms, including organisms of the same species. The strong or more equipped to survive ones live, the less equipped do not. Mutations plays a background role. Sometimes they're good and help. Sometimes they're bad and hinder. Sometimes they're even benign. [/b] Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. [b]natural selection isnt dogma, its an observation of how life behaves and interacts in nature. Everything in nature is constantly in competition with each other and as well as just trying to survive in the environment itself. Those equipped to survive have the best chance to survive, and as the overall environment changes so does what that means. That natural selection is what drives change. Also, you're incorrectly putting a negative context on mutation.[/b] Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? [b]One of the aspects of natural selection is sexual selection. Basically, if you can't attract a mate, you don't pass on your genes. Its just another competitive aspect of natural selection.[/b] We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place? [b]you're blending two fields of study again.[/b][/quote]