What do u think about the evolution of mankind???

Question

man myt have been from monkeys. no issues. how can only one man and women existed at the beginning of mankind evolution. some religions support this and this is a widely accepted thought. how can this happen. is this scientifically possible?

dont take this in a religious sense please.... only science based answers pls...

Answer 1

Only a single breeding pair would mean the end of the human race.  I've heard that even 500 breeding pairs is pushing it, and that island populations that drop below this have a tendency to die off.  At the beginning, there definitely wasn't a very large population, but it was nowhere near that small.  That's how evolution works, anyways.  Our ape ancestors never one day gave birth to a human.  Instead, a group of those apes gradually evolved into humans, so slowly that you'd never be able pick out a demarcation point on an individual basis.  It's like going down the color spectrum; you can't pinpoint the exact color at which orange turns to yellow.

I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive.  They attempt to answer completely different questions in completely different ways.  Science wants to answer "how did we get here?" using sense perceptions, and religion tries to answer "why are we here?" using things like faith, feeling, and the less rational (not in a bad way) parts of us.  I don't think that mixing the two spheres is necessarily bad.  In fact, plenty of people have used religion to inspire their scientific research (in the Darwin/Einstein sense, not the Creation Museum), and plenty have had science and the beauty of the natural world and its complexities inspire their religious sensibilities.

Answer 2

You ask for an answer rooted in science, but your question is based on a religious premise.  It's not possible that there was one man and one woman 'at the beginning.'  First there were single-celled organisms, eventually there were homosapiens.  Among developed countries with high literacy rates, the US is unique in its embrace of Creationism.  It's simply a fairy tale.

Answer 3

Sorry but, are you talking about 7 For All Mankind jeans???

I Love them! Bye

Answer 4

Not really.

We're apes -- which isn't the same as monkeys.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bein...

Are some places to read up.

It's not like that -- how you describe it.

It's not like one day there was a man and a woman. The process is slow and the changes are subtle, over a really long time.

BTW, most religious people accept the findings of science. But the idea of one man and one woman comes from creation myths, not science.

There's a book I read, but it's a bit of a brain-breaker -- Darwin's Dangerous Idea -- that explains what you're asking about.

Answer 5

There is no such thing as evolution. It is merely man's attempt to write God out of human history which is absolutely absurd. This is not a religious answer to your question so do not be upset. The theory of evolution is a pathetic theory that at first thousands and in time millions of godless people on this planet rallied around. It much appealed to the "I will not be held accountable to anyone" people who lived life as they pleased without wanting to have to answer to a higher power. But in man's stupidity he/she does not realize that there is no wishing away an Almighty God who in the end will have the final say, and the upcoming day of reckoning is going to be the darkest day in the history of the world for untold millions, if not billions of inhabitants on this planet who thought they could easily do away with God. Fools all! Be not deceived for God is not mocked. And the created being will NEVER rise above its Creator.

Answer 6

There is no evidence that man has evolved form any ape-like creature. Ths is a philosphical idea, not a scientific one.

Humans and apes were created different.

All people are descended from Adam and Eve.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the ole Bible story is just a religious fable.

It is *unscientific* to dismiss one possible explanation of origins. It is downright foolish to ignore what claims to be an eyewitness account.

Actually the Bible account makes a lot more sense of the evidence than the eviolutionary fairy stories we see peddled everywhere. The evidence simply does not support evolution. It is not scientifically possible for apes/monkeys to evolve into man. The propsed mechanism is natural selection acting on random mutations. Evolution requires a massive net increase in genetic information. Yet all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy. So how can mutations possibly drive evolution!? In fact natural selection acts to weed out mutations.

All hominid fossils are clearly human or clearly ape.

Incidently *all* the hominid fossils ever found would fit on a small table, so few are there. And don't forget the lies and wishful thinking that have plagued the idea of human evolution:

Piltdown man (fake),

Java man ('Java Man' derived from a few teeth, a skull cap and a leg bone found in Indonesia in 1891 and 1892. The leg bone was found 14 metres (45 feet) from the skull cap, but the two were linked together to make the 'missing link'.),

Nebraska Man (a pig's tooth)

Austroloptihecine ( paraded as looking half human even in the Natural History Museum - even though it is known it had ape like hands and feet)

etc

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view...

Answer 7

Religion can ba a limitation to science because it causes people to be satisfied with answers and not look beyond.

Religion helps people to cope, to inspire, to hope.

You have to keep a perspective >insight>inner belief.

Science>outer belief.

Answer 8

The best comparison would to be look at the fashions from the 1950s and today. When you view the poodle skirt outfit, then compare it to today's fashions (links below). At first the two look radically different and seem to have no connection. The uninformed might cry that there's "No evidence of a transition style."

In truth you can easily trace the gradual changes between the two styles. There's no need of a "missing link" or anything magical.Most of us can go into our closets and find clothing we once felt was fashionable and now can't believe we wore.

That pretty much sums up human evolution. There's not a "first man" that can only mate with a "first woman." The generations  look pretty much the same but over long periods of time you see changes.



Humans are part of the hominid family. They are both part of and descended from them. The process of this development is called evolution. In brief, this means that new species develop and expand as they are better at dealing with their environment then others. See: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

for a discussion of the evolution process.

The hominids include humans and the apes. They are part of the family Hominidae, of the order Primate. Humans did not "descend from the apes" We share a common ancestor with them and are considered "cousins." Chimpanzees, our closest relative, share a 99% match in DNA. In protein sequencing, the match is closer, no differences at all.  When man's protein sequencing is compared to gorillas there is only two differences in the match with hemoglobin, red blood cells and amino acids. Lastly the antgen-antibody reaction for humans is 97% from chimpanzees compared to 50% for baboons. In other words we're related. DNA is today used to show how closely people are related (as in determining paternity) and to determine if people were at a crime scene (as a means to determine guilt or innocence). It also is used to determine how long ago species split off from each other.

The split from the apes is put at 8 million years ago. That's based both on the fossil remains and the know rate of change for DNA. The first bipedal hominids (walking on two feet) is 4 million years ago. The first known bipedal hominids were the Australopithecus. ("Southern Ape") There are several known types and the exact lineage is still being argued. The known family tree is:

Australopithecus afarenis "Southern Ape of Afar" This is the species "Lucy" belongs to.  Brain size is about 410cc, they stood between 3 and 4 feet and weighed about 65 pounds. They went extinct about 2.5 million years ago.

Australopithecus africanus "Southern Ape of Africa" Probably evolved from Australopithecus afarenis and lived 3 to 1 million years ago. Brain size was about the same as a gorilla's and they stood between 3 and 4 feet tall. Weight was about 45 to 90 pounds.

Australopithecus robustis "Robust Southern Ape" This species is larger then Australopithecus africanus , 4 feet 11 inches and 5 feet 7 inches, and weighed 110-154 pounds. Brain size is put at 500cc. This group lived 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago. There is argument that robustis was the male of the afarenis or africanus species.

Australopithecus boisei "Bosie Southern Ape" boisei is named after one Charles Boise and supporter of fossil hunts. The original name was Zinjanthropus "East Africa man" The species lived 2.5 to 1 million years ago. Height was between 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 10 inches. Weight was between 132 and 176 pounds. Brain size was about 500cc.  boisei is nicknamed "Nutcracker man" due to its large jaw and massive grinding teeth. However, examination has shown that it could chew no harder then us and it's diet seems to have primarily been of leaves.

Homo habilis "Handy man" This is reported to be the first known species of the genus Homo. The brain is larger the Australopithecus, 650-800cc compared to 500cc, the arms shorter, and hip bones that facilitated bipedal walking. Body size was reduced from boisei and robustis, back to between four and five feet. Weight is put at 110 pounds. The species is dated at 2.5 to 1.5 million years ago. Habilis was a throw back in that the head had not changed with the rest of the body. It still retained the brow ridges, jaws and nose of the Australopithecus. In fact, some discoveries were so labeled.

Homo erectus "Upright Man") was the first hominid to leave Africa. His existence dates from 1.6 million years ago to perhaps 200,000 years ago. However, recent discovers have suggested that isolated populations may have existed even later.

Brain size is put at 850cc, height up to 6 feet and weight was comparable to modern humans.

Early discoveries of Homo Eretus remains were variously named Peking Man, Java Man and Heidelberg Man. His range was all of Africa, most of Europe and as far east as China. Sites in California have been suggested as containing Homo erectus finds. No one had satisfactorily explained how the vast distance from China to California was crossed. Recently a small sample the population of China was tested to determine their DNA. The theory tested was that man developed in Africa, spread out and then further developed in China. What was found suggested that waves of hominids came out of Africa, each developed the race further. The idea how having man develop in several regions and not just Africa has supporters as does the "out of Africa" theory.

Homo sapiens neanderthalenis "Man from the Neander Valley" This species is today considered a "dead end," someone that did not give rise to Homo sapiens sapiens. The latest support has come from DNA analysis of his bones. They don't match with Homo sapiens sapiens. In other words, humans did not develop fro the Neandertals. Neandertals are larger in body then modern humans with massive bones. They have short, compact bodies, with large joints and hands. The body shape suggests they were well adapted to cold environments. They are dated between 200,000 to 30,000 years ago. In some sites (the Middle East at Jebel Irhoud, Tabun, and Skhul) the two species (Homo sapiens, and Homo sapiens neanderthalenis) lived near each other. It has been suggested that an archaic Homo sapiens gave rise to the species. They had to date been found only in Europe and the Middle East. It has been suggested that while the species was successful, they may have a a lower birth rate then the early humans. Given only a 2% lower rate per generation would lead to extenuation.

Homo sapiens "Man who thinks" The archaic form is dated between 500,000 and 150,000 years ago. Brain size is about 1200cc. The species shows  links and the characteristic of Homo erectus. Another term is "EMH" or "Early Modern Humans" this also replaces the "Cro-magnon" identification.

Homo sapiens sapiens Modern man. The first know group appears some 40,000 years ago during the Neolithic period. However, new finds are pushing that date back.

Answer 9

I'm not sure what you're asking but I think the human hasn't evolved enough.

Answer 10

I don't think anybody really knows for sure when the first man and woman came about...or how this happened...I guess it's something I would have to look into as well...

Answer 11

It's not that only two existed. It's that modern humans can trace their DNA back to two particular individuals who lived. There were likely hundreds of people who could have been our common ancestors, but only the descendants from a particular pair survived through the ages, the others would have died out.

Think of it like this, your parents have several cousins. All of these marry and have children. Those children then have 8 children of their own (in the old days large families were the norm). Only the great great grand children from your parents have survived. All of the other cousins have died and no new children are produced.  

Genetic testing to people around the world has shown that mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed from mother to child, showed a common female ancestor for humans. That is the scientific proof that we at least have the same female ancestor. It is possible that this female produced offspring with more than one male (people did not marry and were not always faithful during those times). This could help explain genetic diversity better.

Answer 12

The homo sapien can not evolve when doctors keep babies alive to reproduce. I think what we can see is an evolution of mankind as a social animal. Hopefully the early wars in Europe and the terrorist wars of today will be at an end some day and the boys growing up will not be told to become a suicidal soldier for what ever. It is also  important that we try to avoid in breding .