You're mistaking the definition of theory in this case. Among scientists, a hypothesis is a logical guess, a theoretical idea of how things appear to be. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven, logically and beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why it's referred to as "the theory of gravity", for example. When you see the word "theory" in a modern scientific context, regard it as fairly established fact. There's always a level of uncertainty, and scientific thought regards nothing as absolutely true or false due to the difficulty (nay, impossibility) of accounting for every possible variable. That's why the "theory" terminology is used; but, as I've pointed out, there is no reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the evolution theory. There's always a level of doubt for anything, but in this case there's not enough to be meaningful.
The chemicals did not come together like magic- the chemistry and structure of biology has been developing for the past 3.75 billion years. That's a hell of a long time, enough to be almost meaningless to us. It's been a slow process of aggregation, as various structures and solutions to the challenge of survival have succeeded or failed. What we see around us in the biosphere today is there result of an unimaginably long period of trial and error, false starts and failed lines. Every organism that has ever lived has striven to be the ultimate stupendous badass at survival, the process of evolution refining and tweaking and weeding out the weak. If you want a great introduction to evolution, run and don't walk to the nearest bookstore and pick up a copy of Richard Dawkins' spectacular and superlative "The Selfish Gene", which is one of the best works I've seen on it, and approachable even for a non-science geek.
Ape-men is not necessarily the best term. "Hominid" is the most accurate. Java Man is physiologically identical (barring individual variations) to every other Homo Erectus fossil ever discovered; again, there is no question. Homo Neandtertalensis (Neandertal man) has likewise been established through a variety of means as being an offshoot of the Homo Erectus line, just as we are. Their skeletons display significant differences from both Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. Piltdown man was recognized as a fake in the 1800's; it's not a part of the hominid evolutionary tree. You may also be interested to know that early Homo sapiens are referred to as "anatomically modern humans"; the behaviorally modern ones have been around for a much shorter time, 60,000 years I believe. The anatomically (but not behaviorally) modern ones behaved much as Homo erectus and neandertalensis did, until the evolutionary advent of something a colleague of mine in the anthropology department refers to as "cognitive fluidity". That essentially means that humans were finally able to synthesize their skills and different types of intelligence; we were able to imagine and create, and had the mental flexibility to change our world and form culture. Our ability to concieve of morals, Gods, laws, technology, innovation, and complex tasks requiring cognitive synthesis are the outgrowth of our simian brains linking everything together. There's even a book out there that says that hallucinogens helped bring this about, which I won't disagree with.
Incidentally, the idea that our behavior is similar to the other apes is backed up by primatology. (and note that I'm not saying evolved from; they're not our parents and grandparents in the evolutionary tree, they're our brothers and sisters. We all shared a prototypical ape ancestor.) Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall are the best examples, but there is a massive body of work that shows that the minds of the apes and even primates in general are not particularly removed from our own, except that our brains are larger and we are cognitively fluid. I've personally observed startlingly human behavior and reasoning in monkeys and apes, including a gorilla in a zoo who loves to give hugs. (And good hugs they are, too, if a bit furry; she's one of the most affectionate beings of any species I've ever seen.) They have memories, a concept of time, and are able to express themselves creatively; so, incidentally, are dolphins, which I regard to be probably smarter than us. Gorillas have expressed (through sign language, which some of them have gotten quite good at) a conception of morality and a sense of good and bad. We're not so special and unique as we seem to think, is the message I'm getting at, and the divisions we create between our intelligence and other species' is probably not as meaningful as we think.
Delusional?
The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!
[/B][/QUOTE]
