There are those who believe we simply exist. That we "evolved".
If we evolved, then how is it that man is the only being on earth that "naturally" walks upright, has cognitive intelligence and speach? Why is it that man evolved to be so inept at hearing, sight and smell and requires clothing?
Where are the "inbetween" evolution of man? How is it that species of man take jumps between species?
Whether you are religious or not, these are questions that have caused some scientists to lose sleep at night. Some of them would love to prove evolution of man, but the hard evidence is lacking.
I'm by no means a religious person. I am native, so my beliefs are quite different than the norm. But in reading many religious texts, there are a ton of similarities between several religions, which if one to were make a hypothesis on those religions, one "could" possibly make the argument that several religions may have one single point of origin, coming from one sentient being.
Forgive my random thoughts, I get like that sometimes. LOL!
Sorry for hijacking the thread (and bringing in the creationism/evolutionism in the thread) but you bring up some good points in those questions; however, I think you missed the most important one.
First, scientists believe we evolved. No doubt about it, we do evolve and adapt by being a product of the environment. For example, if suddenly I was whisked away to the top of Mount Everest, I would not survive the night. My body would not be able to create enough oxygen quick enough and I would die from HAPE. (My lungs would drown in my own fluid) This is because my body is the product of the environment in Pennsylvania not Everest.
Anyway with adaptation and evolution out of the way; the subject of human life vexes and troubles many scientists at Penn State. If we evolved from some simple life form, like bacteria or some other single-celled organism, how did we know how to sexually reproduced? Why don't we reproduce through binary fission? (like bacteria?). Why does sperm need to fertilize the egg first? Why can't the egg just keep splitting without sperm?
An even more important question is how did life start? According to evolution scientists at PSU, their theory is life started with efficient spontaneous generation, in other words, POOF! Life appears!. So if spontaneous life generation was so efficient, why did we change to sexual reproduction?
I think those two questions are more alarming than the "inbetween" species. lol
Man is the only species that has had population explosions of jumps in evolution. No other animals that they can explain have had population explosions without transitional species.
Some scientists would like everyone to believe that modern man evolved from apes. Evolution adapts to meet the environment. If that were the case, why did man evolve to require clothing and lose fur, large canine teeth and thick protective skin? Why does man have the worst sense of sight, smell and hearing of any animal on earth?
They use the argument that man no longer needs those things, but the need for clothes goes back way before man had adequate housing to keep warm or dry.
Man is inept for this world, except for very few places. And even those places have hazards that the human body is inept at protecting. Had man evolved to requiring clothes in the last 300 years, it would be easier to buy that logic.
Don't get me wrong, I see things wrong with both evolution theory and creationism theories of man. There is so much missing information for either side to make a valid arguement.
As for going poof and there is life, it is not possible without outside interference, because we sure didn't do it.
And there is a huge difference between adapting and evolving. We adapt to swimming under water, but we didn't evolve with gills for breathing under water. People adapt to living at high altitudes, but their body will adapt to lower elevations. That doesn't mean the evolved to it.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
I completely understand what you are conveying. It was my mistake to mix up evolution and adaptation. Your definition of each is more translucent and correct.
Comments
First, scientists believe we evolved. No doubt about it, we do evolve and adapt by being a product of the environment. For example, if suddenly I was whisked away to the top of Mount Everest, I would not survive the night. My body would not be able to create enough oxygen quick enough and I would die from HAPE. (My lungs would drown in my own fluid) This is because my body is the product of the environment in Pennsylvania not Everest.
Anyway with adaptation and evolution out of the way; the subject of human life vexes and troubles many scientists at Penn State. If we evolved from some simple life form, like bacteria or some other single-celled organism, how did we know how to sexually reproduced? Why don't we reproduce through binary fission? (like bacteria?). Why does sperm need to fertilize the egg first? Why can't the egg just keep splitting without sperm?
An even more important question is how did life start? According to evolution scientists at PSU, their theory is life started with efficient spontaneous generation, in other words, POOF! Life appears!. So if spontaneous life generation was so efficient, why did we change to sexual reproduction?
I think those two questions are more alarming than the "inbetween" species. lol
Some scientists would like everyone to believe that modern man evolved from apes. Evolution adapts to meet the environment. If that were the case, why did man evolve to require clothing and lose fur, large canine teeth and thick protective skin?
Why does man have the worst sense of sight, smell and hearing of any animal on earth?
They use the argument that man no longer needs those things, but the need for clothes goes back way before man had adequate housing to keep warm or dry.
Man is inept for this world, except for very few places. And even those places have hazards that the human body is inept at protecting.
Had man evolved to requiring clothes in the last 300 years, it would be easier to buy that logic.
Don't get me wrong, I see things wrong with both evolution theory and creationism theories of man. There is so much missing information for either side to make a valid arguement.
As for going poof and there is life, it is not possible without outside interference, because we sure didn't do it.
And there is a huge difference between adapting and evolving. We adapt to swimming under water, but we didn't evolve with gills for breathing under water.
People adapt to living at high altitudes, but their body will adapt to lower elevations. That doesn't mean the evolved to it.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.