what is the origin of human ? dont tell me it is monkey..?

Question

I read that "live" starts from water (sea) protozoa...then slowly developed during million of years
If so, male and female who is first started

Answer 1

If you're into Genesis, then from tadpole to Adam and Eve.

Answer 2

well, than the real answer is a single celled organism. Since being a molecular biologist, for me this is the real answer. and in the one of answers say that a peptide is impossible to generate; but i suppose he didn't happen to know miller's experiment. In this experiment Miller oiginataed organic compounds from inorganic chemical compounds which were presen to be in the "young world"s ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

this experiment proves that life emerges in the ocean; and like a single cell organism. Than this cell first learn how to colonize, then turn into a multi-cellular organism, like sponge, or fish...

during the evolution, many species exist and disappear like experiment of life, only the fittest organism can survive. This means onlygood genes, good manipulation can survive. This is what the Darwin says.

an also not only the genes also environmental factor also effect the evolution. for example, every body know a meteor erases dinosaurs from the earth; but it is not because it hit all the dinosaurs because it changes also the climate of the earth. then that big animals didn't survive. and the earth scene is left to mammals that are newly evolved small animals.and mammal distrubute world-wide and get chance to evolve as a dominant group.

and here comes the answer of who are the first human pair; and say you that they are humanoids evolve from the same ancestor with monkeys. so here is the general mistake; we donot evolve from monkey we share a common ancestor. the monkey we see today is not our ancestor. and you may say how do we know this, then i would say that genetic studies reveal that chimpanziens and humans have 97% percent same.. and when you draw a tree from the genetic studies,, they are closest relative but as cousins :)

and the last point is the first human pair lived in africa; then humanoids originated from them distributed into whole world. this is also proved by the mitochonrial DNA assays. this will be a simple biology lesson; mitochondria are energy source o te each cell so every cell has mitochondria, and there is a little dna in it helps it to divide in need of cell. When a zygote forms from an ovum and sperm, all the mitochondria of this new baby are originated from mother's ovum. So when you look genetically to mitochondrial DNA; this study shows this that all humanity has a common "mother" back in Africa.
Humans distribute to world and since they are smart enough to make and use tools they survive, and evolve over animals by their intelligence.

i hope i can help you, and please be open-minded this is what is taught to us, the researchers..

Answer 3

If you want a true answer to your question, why put a caveat on the potential answer. hypothetically if "monkey" was the true answer, would you still reject it because you don't want to hear it?"

Ask yourself this, are you genuinely interested in knowing the truth? If so, then the only caveat to apply to your question is "Is there evidence to support it" As far as the god created it argument, there is no evidence at all to support it other than that it exists. If this is logic enough then take it one step further. What created god? If god is redundant, how could it then have occurred. Darwins theory is elegant in its simplicity in that it needs no unprovable magical being that there is no evidence for. If life on Earth was created by a supernatural being, where is the evidence that it was the Judeo-Christian-islamic god, and not Odin, or Zeus, or Barney the purple dinosaur? These arguments make as much logical sense when you think about them.

Answer 4

If I may rephrase your question: Why did sexual reproduction evolve?

This is a very interesting question to biologists. After all the majority of organisms reproduce by simply dividing; this is called asexual reproduction. But people, because we are animals ourselves, tend to focus on the sexual reproduction that most (but not all) animals use to perpetuate the species.

Asexual reproduction is clearly more energy efficient, because a species does not need male individuals to contribute to successive generations (see Maynard Smith's analysis of the paradox of sex). All offspring, however, remain genetic clones of the parent.

Scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved to allow a species to quickly adapt to a changing environment. With asexual reproduction if the parent thrives in an environment, then the offspring being genetic clones will also thrive in this environment. But what if the environment changes?

Even small changes in moisture, temperature, food, parasites, predators, etc. may dramatically influence fitness (the ability of an organism to produce offspring). Sexual reproduction provides for the blending of two individual's DNA producing genetically diverse offspring. So if the environment changes from one generation to the next, then hopefully at least some of the offspring will be able to survive and produce offspring themselves.

Answer 5

God. Calculations show that even the chances of chance creating a dead peptide are so low that we should ignore them.

"In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he (Sir Fred Hoyle) calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to power 40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10 to power 80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."

Answer 6

The only relevant quote from the bible is
"There are none so blind as those who will not see".

The evidence for evolution is there for all to see, to examine, to discuss and to question.
With creation, you either believe it or you don't.
I don't.

Evolution is the only theory which explains the differences and simmilarities between humans and apes, or between any two animals.

Think along these lines.
Read Richard Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale" for some enlightenment.

It makes sense.

Answer 7

well, I would agree with the monkey as we have a back bone
well, if evolution occurs, I'm sure the first humans ( ADAM AND EVE) will not look like us cause it's way back then
well, if you are in genesis, humans come from tadpoles
If you think it's cell combining together, the cells may be amoeba.

Answer 8

not a monkey, but a very hairy human that ate bananas

Answer 9

it was Adam and eve (pbut) were first man and women on earth .science cannot prove that we came from monkeys etc.
check out this www.evolutiondeceit.com