For those who believe in "Darwinism",or evolution.Who evolved first? Man or Woman?

Answer 1

You're assuming that evolution is the product of one birth. Evolution is a very slow process. It takes millions of yeas. It's the product of gradual changes that happen with each generation. For example, average height of people has increased over time. We have evidence of that as people have been measuring their height over the years. We know that to be true even in the last 50 years. Another evidence for evolution is the changes that we see in bacteria. Drug resistance is a form of evolution. When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, most of them die but some of them survive due to changes in their genes. These bacteria continue to multiply and after several generation, you end up with a new bacteria that is totally resistant to an antibiotic. That is what we call survival of the fittest. Now you can expect the bacteria to turn into a multi cellular organism just becuase there was one change in them, but over billions of years, you can get new organisms. So to answer your question, they both evolved at the same time.
Now, let's consider creation. The Bible says God created the fish, then he created land animals, and on day 6, he created man. It does not say how each of these species was created. Don't you think it's possible that God created them through a process called evolution? Maybe he created the fish and through evolution, he created land animals, birds, and humans. Also, the Bible does not mention creation of fungi, viruses, bacteria or other organisms that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Does that mean God did not create them?

Answer 2

Since the division of the sexes predates human evolution it wouldn't be something that occurred as a special favour to us (but people are always thinking that there's something special about humankind...) It's possible that species evolved into separate sexes at some point in the evolution of the barnacle. Barnacles are mostly asexual, with male and female parts, but for efficient reproduction it's better for the male to reproduce with the female part of another barnacle. Later evolved species indicate that part of one barnacle separated from the asexual version into an exclusively male barnacle that could reproduce with a number of female barnacles. That barnacle consists almost entirely of penis. In fact of all species in creation, size for size, the barnacle is the most well-endowed.

Answer 3

Obviously, neither one. A species evolves, not an individual. No-one today believes in "Darwinism". Darwin's simplistic evolutionary concepts still play a role in modern evolutionary biology. However, referring to modern biology as "Dawinism" is like referring to modern genetics as "Medelism", or modern medicine as "Hippocrateism". Of course I realize you desperately want to think of evolutionary biology as some sort of atheistic philosophy rather than simply one of many areas of legitimate biological research. But calling it that doesn't change the facts, and really, it makes you look quite ignorant.

Answer 4

Human

Answer 5

Based on your questions, you don't completely understand how the evolutionary process works. There were males and females form out ancestral species, and as they evolved into humans, they continued to be have males and females.

Answer 6

They both evolved at the same time from a common ancestor.

Answer 7

Neither, I evolved first.

Answer 8

Yawn...
The very fact that you can ask such a question clearly shows you have absolutely no clue how evolution works.

Answer 9

I don't think anyone believes in Darwinism! U've got no answers uptill now!!!!!!! any ways "Darwinism" is pretty silly, da u believe in it????????????????????????

Answer 10

It was the strawman.