The posting by "brad" should be dissected to see where he and all other
creationists get it all wrong.
"Solid proof" well, what are you looking for brad. What would constitute
such proof. We have potential ancestors in the fossil record, we have a very
tight place in phylogenies based on morphological and molecular data, we
are animals and work like them. What more can you ask for.
"'evolved' from a lesser species" well, we know something about you now don't w
e. Evolution does not comprise value-judgements. Biologists in the modern-day
do not talk about "lesser" or even "lower" species. No species is "more evolved
" than any other. That's where Ed Rybicki makes his mistake too. One may say
mor or less like humans (What I think you mean) but this does not impart any
value. The people who have gotten value laden about evolution have been very qu
ickly screwed to the wall.
So given this, what do you mean "got lucky"? Sure our ancestors got lucky.
Anything that doesn't (except perthenogens) doesn't leave descendents. Now
if you can understand inheritence, no matter how shallowly, and can understand
differential reproduction ("getting lucky"). You're well on your way to underst
anding biology (evolution).
Sorry the reply isn't personal (or too personal) but this is a discussion group
so we must discuss.