Evolutionists (atheists or otherwise): if Darwin's theory was true, ...?

There is God. He created us, and no one can prove that there is no god!

if there is no god, how did we appear on earth? we we're monkeys? we share 98% of DNA with monkeys but we also share 99% with rats? alright how did the monkeys appear? how about other animals? why was it earth? how were we shaped perfectly? take time with you're self and think... look around you, look at gods creations.

Darwin didn't need to look in caves for his ideas regarding our existence.

Are you suggesting it has less credibility because it's a newer theory? because that makes no sense given that as time has gone on, science has provided more & more explanations about our earth, rather than the other way around.

'Wouldn't there be, for example, someone telling his kids or grandkids how his father or grandfather evolved from a "thing" that was also an ancestor to apes, monkeys, etc.? '

Why? Science isn't based on folklore, it's based on individuals using their brains and coming up with new concepts. Religion is based on ripping of old ideas of various deites etc.

Considering that communication like writing and drawing does not appear in the historical record until well after homo sapiens appeared on the earth, I think your question makes no sense. In any event, nothing would have evolved with such rapidity that ancient people could have recorded the event. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Incidentally, Darwin's theory (descent with modification) *is* true, verified beyond any reasonable doubt in the same sense as gravity, electricity and cells.

Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I am quite certain that cave dwellers were not very concerned with evolution, and thus would not have noticed an evolutionary change in an animal or plant. Also, it is very rare that a dramatic evolutionary change takes place from one generation of animal to the next. It is much more common that such change takes several generations which is to slow to capture in a cave drawing.

ok, shall we are saying that a creature has a mutation that provides it 2 hearts. a touch uncommon spontaneous mutation yet oh properly. This creature now walks the planet and has 2 hearts. Its off spring would have 2 hearts. however, does this creature have an superior threat of reproducing? the two hearts is in basic terms relatively sensible if one coronary heart is broken. commonly, that form of injury comes from a rather severe injury. whether there became a 2d coronary heart attainable that severe injury could nevertheless in all threat kill the animal because it may in all threat bleed to loss of life or have a great an infection later on. So, a 2d coronary heart does not in all threat help too a lot. in all threat a one in a million shot the place 2 hearts could be useful. shall we glance on the turn area. 2 hearts will require greater capability to artwork than one coronary heart. which will mean the animal has to consume greater. no longer very powerful to the entire survival situation. additionally, those 2 hearts ought to artwork jointly. in the event that they beat incorrect then they'd extremely artwork against one yet another. The physique could wish a device to regulate the two between the hearts and that would additionally require greater capability. additionally, a greater complicated device is greater companies to failure. 2 hearts could extremely be a quandary. interior the tip, having 2 hearts does not provide any area to the animal yet could in reality make it a tad bit greater solid to proceed to exist. The genes giving one greater coronary heart could in all threat die out and the animals with one coronary heart could proceed to exist and reproduce.

Such things exist but not in the form you suggest. I think you must not really understand the time scale of evolution. I'll try to answer respectfully. Please consider this answer carefully before you dismiss it.

Cave drawings of mammoths and certain other prehistoric large creatures represent the state of affairs at the time. The cave dwellers drew pictures of what they saw, and in that sense were good reporters. We can recognize many pictures that they drew and can even marvel at the apparent meticulous attention to scale and identifying detail.

Unfortunately, no one would be likely to have seen "evolution" in action because evolutionary changes span hundreds to thousands of years. Only from our current vantage point can we can look at different cave art to see what was and can compare it to what is.

Religious people who doubt evolution always demand to see evolution in action. But even small changes take place over many lifetimes. MANY lifetimes. You won't live long enough to see evolution in action unless you actually study the past through something other than the Bible.

Have you seen evolution of humans happen in your lifetime? Neither have I, so why would you assume that people would be able to tell stories about it? To observe evolution you need to look at the fossil records, which show a slow change over millions of years. The thing that you fail to understand is that evolution takes an incredibly long time to happen. The slower something changes, the less likely people are to notice it.

not really. the stories would have been lost over the millions of years when we evolved past primitive grunts to languages.

maybe this is the exact reason people created religions in the first place. they needed something to believe in or explain the world around them.

I don't think you understand evolution. But what your asking is a valid question for someone who hasn't studied it.

Evolution is something that took millions of years to occur.

Here is an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfhf1p8WKDk

Additional information: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma....

No. We don't even have a clear view of a lot of important historical events that happened 2000 years ago.

Cavemen drawing themselves turning into modern day humans? Evolution doesn't happen overnight.