The Human

The controversy of the origin of the human species is one of the main controversies found in the Evolution/Creation debate. Evolutionists and Creationist take have extremely different views of this issue and I will be discussing them both here. Did humans "evolve from other life-forms" or was the human "distinctly created?" http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

Evolutions would say that since chimpanzees and humans have similarities between embryos, anatomical similarities, and biochemical similarities they must have a commons ancestor. Furthermore, over 95% of the DNA of a chimpanzees is equal to that of human DNA. http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/eng/ So, the human species came into existence by gradual changes from variation and natural selection over long periods of time. By these processes the human race as well as chimpanzees and gorillas have evolved from the same ancestor. Variation is present in all species. Every member of a species varies slightly from the other members- this is variation. Natural selection is the process of the most fit surviving. As the environment changes, those of a species that can adapt to the new environment survive while those who do not adapt die. Gradually the species changes so that it can better survive in the new environment.
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/overview/Overvw3.html From these processes everything as evolved. If apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, then their common ancestor evolved from some other species, and that species evolved from another species and on and on. From a simple organism evolved highly complex organisms and the first organism spontaneously generated. This is the view of the evolutionists.

Creationists take on an completely different view. Everything did not evolve from the first original organism (blue-green algae) and the human race and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor. for creationist, every species was created individually by the hand of God. At this point you may be thinking that evolution has stronger facts and evidence, but does it? Let me talk about now the "facts" of evolution can actually be "facts" for creation. Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D wrote an article titled, "Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?" The point is no DNA similarity does not prove a common ancestry at all. Would not another reason for common DNA be that both humans and chimpanzees have a common designer? Also all organisms have common needs and functions, such as obtaining energy and reproducing. Since all organisms have this in common shouldn't their DNA also have something in common? Here is an excerpt from Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D.'s article that I found quite interesting.

"What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross." http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

Therefore being common lends itself more to a common designer than a common ancestor. There are even more arguments that show that the evolutionary theory is not correct. There are missing links between many species and their common ancestors. There are no transitional forms! If changes from one species to another occurred of long periods of time should there not be many fossils showing the small, gradual changes from one species to another? The fact is there is none. The missing links proves to be a huge damper on the evolutionary theory. There is nothing really to support, besides the fact that species evolutionists think have a common ancestor, have similar DNA. But as already stated, similarities in DNA does not necessarily mean a common ancestor but could mean a common designer. With creation there are no missing links because each species was created individually by the Designer of life.

Take both theories and way out which one makes more sense to you and please feel free to comment with your opinions of which you think is true. And if you have a different view from one of these please comment and describe your beliefs. Thanks for reading!