2007-02-12 22:07:01 · 12 answers · asked by tanzi 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Man was never a monkey, with or without science.
If you're talking about evolution then Man has evolved from a common ancestor which we share with modern-day apes. Monkeys are from an earlier branch of the evolutionary tree and share their common ancestor with that of an earlier ancestor of both apes and humans.
Why "without science"? Science is evidence-based. Theories, rules and laws are based on evidence and for a theory or law to stand up it must fit all the available information. Without science, what you're left with is guesswork, mythology, mumbo-jumbo, superstition and unsupported belief. Just as you wouldn't want a legal system based on these elements, neither should you support a belief system.
2007-02-12 22:10:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am having a bit of trouble decoding your ebonics, friend. I believe you are referring to Evolution, but exactly what you want to know is a but hard to decipher. It is so murky, in fact, that it resembles a Zen cohn. So I will attempt an answer.
Man (well, most of us) was never "a monkey". In the distant past, our ancestors were smaller, harrier, and stupider ... but even they weren't monkeys, although they might have been confused with gibbons or chimps (apes, not monkeys).
Fortunately, our ancestors chose to wander off into the savannah, rather than hanging out in the jungle. The difficulties of living on the plains (including the constant threat of predators and the relative scarcity of food) put huge pressure on those proto-humans. Being better was a huge advantage. So the smart ones, the ones with opposable thumbs, the ones who could cooperate better, lived longer and had more kids. Over time, their genes were dominant in the population and the species improved.
In a way, you are correct: ancient proto-humans were "a monkey without science." The evolution of intelligence - "science" - forever separated us from our cousins, the chimps, gibbons and gorillas.
By the way, evolution requires stress. Without evolutionary pressures, there is no advantage to being different (even if you are marginally "better") ... in fact, if you are too different, the rest of humanity will shun you and your genetic material will not be passed on in children, 'cause no one will breed with a freak. So the current trend in humanity is toward genetic stability.
Cheers.
2007-02-13 06:24:07 · answer #2 · answered by Grendle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
GLH is correct. Man were never monkeys, man are descendants of primates as far as science can report and that to me is much more acceptable than a tale of some dude grabbing a handful of dirt and making a human. Evolution is much more probable in my eyes. Now I understand that you religous zealots are gonna flame me for this, but I care little about it. You believe what you want and I shall do the same. Science provides plausible answers through research and discovery. The Bible provides neither. Sorry, I go with fact not fairy tales.
2007-02-13 06:20:07 · answer #3 · answered by Pontius 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
without the theory of evolution, we cannot say that we have evolved from the monkeys. There is no known records or memory, to prove the point. Our memories are very weak, and the evolution has happened in a series of thousands of generations. Even science has not developed sufficiently to say that this has happened, definitely.
This is a physical truth, and whether we belive or not, the truth will be the truth. In case it is true, should we not be proud of our ancestors, even though they were just primates ?
2007-02-13 07:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by wizard of the East 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without science, we laypeople would have to find all the vertebrae intermediaries at the different levels in the earth...and make an assumption that evolution took place. Can we still keep our rational and logical minds? If so, then the various levels in the earth can be attributed to different eras from the past and the fossils would show gradual changes. In your assumption of a world without science, can we still have paleotologists?
2007-02-13 21:28:35 · answer #5 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually man was not a monkey...they were ancient people and they r not as modern as we r now..It just seems to us that they look lyk monkey....coz they were short and covered with hair.they had long arms.They bent forward lyk apes...their face were quite similer with monkey....
2007-02-13 07:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by stolen moment 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
man evoluted from apes not monkeys.Yeah he was without science e.g. Today-microwaves ; Past days - raw food
fire lamps ; halogen lights
****-pots ; no ****-pots
binoculars ; telescopes
wheel-boats ; mercedeis
no anesthesia ; having anesthesia
no condoms ; having condoms
n etc. - etc. so you see things have really changed .
2007-02-13 06:23:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look in the mirror!
Review all the antiques indulged buy man!
2007-02-16 06:30:30 · answer #8 · answered by Govinda 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By simply looking at the Mirror
2007-02-13 06:19:03 · answer #9 · answered by afraid talking 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
by observing reactions of a new born child..he/she starts aping the seniors from moment one after birth out of mother's womb.
2007-02-16 07:36:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋