Note: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, AND I AM NOT ACCEPTING EVOLUTION IN THIS EXPLANATION. I AM JUST ENSURING THAT MY ASS DOESN'T GET FLAMED. THAT, AND I'M JUST ASSUMING WHAT MOST EVOLUTIONISTS WOULD BELIEVE...
O_O, could you please back that up, basic physics dictate that a whale's body would be to heavy for they're fins to support.
True. So very true. But, whose to say that whales started out in water? If that was the case, then wouldn't they have evolved gills by now? They should. Which is why I deem that the whale started as a land mammal, and slowly became a water mammal after continued and ever increasing time in the water. In fact, if evolution is true (which I highly doubt), then in the next 20 million years or so, whales and dolphins will have lost their lungs and developed gills, or have both.
As for where you humans come from, then it'll require a more detailed explanation. Apes are indeed a member of the primate family, and do share 98% of our DNA with us. Apes and humans may have lived side by side a long time ago, but they also might've evolved from them. So, I'll do both.
Assuming that humans lived side by side with various apes and monkeys, then it'll be hard for us to tell where you come from. My theory is that you started out as a completely different lifeform, as did apes. Slowly, you turned into something. What we can't be sure, but anyway. Your multicellular ancestors (note that you don't have to have 75 trillion cells to be considered a multicellular organism. Any organism made up of more than one cell is considered a multicellular organism.), made up of about 20 or so cells, may have bonded with the cells of apes. Thus, developing into humans.
Humans started out the same way as apes: by slowly developing cells. But, the some cells branched off into different branches at some point, with one of those branches destined to become humans.
With that said, I run.
I think the reason you don't support evolution is that you miss understand it. No matter how long the species survives, a whale will not "evolve gills". The whale's design is enough to survive, so nothing needs to be improved. But even if there was a major flaw in the whale, and they were dying out, it wouldn't "evolve gills". That's that other guys' theory, which was proved wrong.
As you probably will have been told, evolution happens when on accident, a mutant has an advantage over the rest of the species and survives better or for longer. But that creates a new species, and the old species remains (sometimes is depended on of course). A new species will evolve though only in an extremely rare case, as the chances of a mutated wild animal surviving are so often so slim they can be regarded as impossible. Etcetera.
The species may change anyway - if perhaps an unnoticeable change happens and it survives, it may become that soon the entire species has that change. But a change like that just
doesn't happen.
I thought of putting this like monkeys at typewriters. Or hecking exe files. Think about it.
There are three ways a species can change - via completely random mutation, via genetic modification, or via in-breeding sort of thing. If you imagine an exe file, you want to change it somehow, you could decompile it and edit the source (thus, genetic modification), you could get a monkey at a typewriter to place random bytes and eventually have a working exe file (virtually impossible, 'specially to be what you wanted), or repeatedly email the exe file over a bad connection - eventually it'll corrupt, and if you're extremely lucky it'll corrupt for the better and work. That last one would be equivalent to reproduction, as in, there's a tiny chance the offspring will mutate, and a tinier chance it'll survive.
But if the exe file wasn't perfect, it's not more likely to corrupt. The animal isn't more likely to mutate. Probability plays a part too, if you flip coin and it lands heads three times in a row, it's not
more likely to land tails next time. And so on.
What's more, is that the mutation is likey to a) be similar in most ways to its parents, and b)
probably follow the same course of mutation as others in its species, possibly as part of a global error in the species' genes. That's why usually a mutation is not unique, and may have more chance of survival as you might think (although still unfathomably low in most cases).
Saying that they don't evolve too different from the ancestor is significant also. Because, depite being aquatic, a whale as we all know is very different from large fish. It's just where two leaves from different branches brushed in the giant family tree of life.
For me, evolution is completely plausable. There is no "believing" in it, it's proven every day around us that it works. What's unanswered is the original question, where did it start?
Who cares. I just find it very amusing that everyone argues about evolution and then puts "but let's not argue about evolution.... last word!"
