Evolutionary biology does satisfactorily explain the origin of species (hence the title of Darwin's origin book, if you'll recall). Did I not explain it adequately? A species is a breeding population of organisms. Ergo, two different species of sufficient genetic difference (say, a chimpanzee and a macaque), cannot mate (except under very rare instance, such as will mules, in which two distinct species are closely enough related to produce viable offspring; though mules are sterile). That is the distinction of species. Let's make a hypothetical: there is a species of gecko which lives in the deserts of California. These geckos live and reproduce perfectly normal, over time perhaps changing slightly to adapt better to their environment. Say, however, that due to, for instance, a shortage of water in one region, a small fragment population of the geckos migrates into a shrubland, and settles there. Over time, those geckos will adapt to their new habitat. Eventually, the differences in adaptation and evolution will have compounded in such a way that, even if the two groups were to be reintroduced to one another, they would not be able to mate and to yield viable offspring. That is the process known as speciation.
Simple, fragmentary populations of a species can sometimes adapt to better fill region-specific niches which better allow them to proliferate; thus, one species may become multiple, and each of those new species might, in time, go on to have their differences with the original species become so significant that they branch off into entire new genera, families, orders, etc.
You still seem to be taking a rather erroneous, teleological view. Evolution is not a set path; a monkey-like ancestor need not yield humans among its descendants, however, due to a chain of events involving environment, adaptation, speciation, and a number of other factors, humans happen to have been one among the numerous descendants of the lineage in question. And yes, for the niche they are adapted to inhabit, monkeys are far better fit to survive than humans; if you lived in a tree and leaped from branch to branch for your whole life, chances are you might end up wishing you were a monkey... after all, they're much, much better at it than we are.
I'm not even sure what you're saying now... Would you be so kind as to rephrase that question?
We do share common ancestry with dinosaurs, just as we do with all other life on the planet. However, the ancestor which diverged into the two lineages which would ultimately yield dinosaurs, and us, respectively, would likely have been something like an iguana-like animal, hundreds of millions of years ago. And yes, there are bountiful supplies of so-called "intermediate" or "transitional" fossils; here's a tentative list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo is a virtually worthless work, as I gather it; particularly if it is making claims about evolution which bear any resemblance to yours. In any case, from what I know of Cremo, he's not a credible scholar; as a Hindu myself, it is overwhelmingly clear that his interpretations, from what I understand of them, are extremely farfetched and radical.
Yes, I can say that mutation has a part in evolution; this is because it serves a function in heredity, which is the fundamental driving force of allelic frequency shifts and gene flow which are the principal mechanisms of evolution.
You might rather believe that human were the first, and all others are descended from them, but you'd be mistaken. It simply didn't happen that way. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that (nor would that explain the origin of humans themselves), and mountains of evidence substantiating the current evolutionary model. And I did not say that it took billions of years for any species to differentiate from the parent; I said that it took billions of years to arrive at the stage at which we currently are. It can take as little as a matter of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years for significant evolutionary changes to compound; millions of years are more typically required for larger changes (for example, the divergence of caniforms and feliforms).
Heredity is a process which gaurds against mutation as we inherit what our fathers,mothers already have,so please stop saying heredity,you can probably say genetic recombination instead.All the other concepts you invoke are based on wild assumptions rather then rational and objective proof.I thought i was a liberal but evolutionist put me to shame.Finding fossils of different species and saying that one evolved from the other is not objective proof.Which mountains of evidence are you talking about?You can show me proofs for adaptation which makes a lot of sense but there is absolutely no proof for speciation or evolution of one species to another.If you show evidence of even one instance of speciation that can be observed presently then i and probably the whole world would not be able to deny Darwin's Gospel,but the reason that it is not happening is that there is no objective proof for evolution or more specifically speciation.At best what you can demonstrate is adaptation.Just saying that a group from or organisms from one species got seperated and eveolved into another species over millions of years is not enough.
Even if evolution is real then what is the probability of evolution of human beings?Is it anything less then a miracle?
Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 13 September 2012 - 10:53 AM.