First of all im not out to start a big controversy or for you people to call me an idiot or anything like, im just curious.
Based on the Evolutionary theory, and the theory of Survival of the fittest who says that has created a new species? Many people are now coming out and saying we did not come from any monkeys, apes, etc, but they are a distant cousin, so werent there humans to begin with? Its like when a baby grows up, it changes drastically. It becomes stronger, smarter, faster, but does that mean its a new species? Wouldnt that just be a part of life like the Big Man upstairs intended, for all of us to grow up and change?
2007-05-22 17:50:23 · 12 answers · asked by uiop b 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Umm no.
No one ever said we descended from monkeys. That's a falsehood Christian preachers came up with so they could easily dismiss evolution. It's called a straw man arguement. If you can't actually defeat an opposing arguement, change the opposing arguement to something you can defeat.
Humans, monkeys and chimps have a shared common ancestor (hence the cousin analogy) Consider it like a giant family tree. Chimps and humans might have the same grandparents. Both share the same great grandparents with monkeys and apes. That's about where the family tree analogy ends so don't break your brain over it.
And no, there were no homo sapiens before homo erectus.
And no, it is nothing at all like growing up and changing.
But yes, if you insist upon it, as always due to the infinite regression that is Christian thought, you can attribute it all to God. However, be warned, including God in the equation is not required, necessary, or even wanted so you might get hit with a stick.
2007-05-22 18:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Tao 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The theory of evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys, apes, etc. It says we had a common ancestor. That's quite different. It means that at different points in the evolutionary tree, different groups of hominoids branched off. No one really knows what the original ancestor was -- and if you carry it back far enough, it could be a one-celled protozoa.
Hard to tell what the Big Man Upstairs was thinking, because he didn't leave any instructions on the package, so we just have to watch and see what develops.
2007-05-23 00:55:23 · answer #2 · answered by old lady 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not quite understand your question. The point at which a different species is to do with our definitions of what a species is. We share 98% of the same genes as chimps, however because of our different evolutionary path, we are very different. (or are we- studies show that we do have a great deal in common).
So, in danger of getting boring by repeating myself:
Evolution is a fact - it is proven - you can, by following the studies and doing them yourself show yourself its validity.
It is a fact just as gravity is a fact and 2+2=4 is a fact.
There are just a few anti-science propagandists who, with semantic word play, false information and twisted agendas are trying to smash science. Why might this be is a more impotent question than is evolution true. And what after they have endoctrinated the world with their falsehood, will they insist that the Bible proves 2+2=5
2007-05-23 01:15:10 · answer #3 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Survival of the fittest (natural selection) isn't concerned with the creation of species--it's about how a species developes and retains those traits which help it to thrive.
Humans didn't come from apes--humans ARE apes, in every taxonomic way that matters. Humans are apes the way that tigers are cats.
2007-05-23 01:14:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A species doesn't simply become another species. Rather, a species splits into two groups that do not interbreed. Genetic drift then causes their features to diverge, and you then have two species. That's why scientists say modern apes are cousins to us. They share with us some ancient common ancestor, some "proto-ape". But scientists still agree that humans are primates.
2007-05-23 01:05:37 · answer #5 · answered by Brent L 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, there were no humans "to begin with". In fact there were no animals to begin with. Then there were invertebrates of various kinds, but no vertebrates for many millions of years. Then there were fish, but no terrestrial vertebrates for millions of years. Then amphibians. Then reptiles but no mammals or birds. Then birds and mammals with reptilian characteristics. Then true birds and mammals, but no primates. It's all very well documented. Take a look!
2007-05-23 01:40:44 · answer #6 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are missing the "Natural Selection" part. You don't understand the concept. It is much easier to understand than the Trinity and the evidence is presented clearly in Darwin's book. You might read it if you want to understand and not just snivel.
2007-05-23 00:54:24 · answer #7 · answered by valcus43 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Evolutionary therious are not only false but they are not even scientificly verifible. baby to adult is all human. just because we may have some chariteristics to monkys and apes doesn't mean we come from them. humans have always been on this earth (on the 6th day it was created to be exact) and for all of those how belive that we evoled, if it's really true, then why did it stop? oh can't answer it can you. that 'cause you don't know. hope that answers your question :)
2007-05-23 00:57:34 · answer #8 · answered by Rose16 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Doesn't sound like you quite know which questions to ask.
Here, this should be a good primer:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/
2007-05-23 00:56:39 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tim, your answer really makes you sound stupid and I feel bad for other Christians.
2007-05-23 01:10:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋