Why is it so controversial if someone posites a parallel evolution theory for man?

Question

The more we learn the less we know about anything but at least other Fields get serious consideration for exploration of the subject. It seems that when it comes to 'man' PC ism kicks in (historically religious) and the question can't even be ask let alone studied.

At what point in evolution,assuming the same thread started a TYPE of form, is there enough separation to become a separate spices to meet a criteria to be a separate Species?

Answer 1

First to define "species":

"In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

The rule of thumb would be if they can't interbreed, then they are of different species. Humans split off from apes some 8 million years ago and from chimpanzees some 6-7 million years ago. When Stalin and the USSR attempted man/chimp hybrids, it was a total failure.

One of my interests is the Kennedy assassination. There's a book out that lists the 47 "major" theories of what happened. Each of the theories has it's proponents, research and critiques of the 46 other theories. All of then cannot be right. All of then have to cherry pick the facts and disregard the facts that other theories deem important. What they all agree in is the Warren Commission got it wrong.

However, in 45 years the Warren Commission hasn't been overturned.

Should Congress do a fully funded project to search for the "Umbrella Man?" (My favorite theory) Should we give that theory the same weight as the Warren Commission? What about the other 46 theories?

The cliche "The more we learn the less we know about anything" really  refers to having too much information. This is when Occam's Razor is used to slice off the assumptions. Put another way. If you're at a horse ranch and hear hoof beats, don't assume it's a zebra!

When you state "other Fields get serious consideration for exploration of the subject" Consider this situation; a group of people lobby to repeal the law of gravity. Would you give them serious consideration? It's a parallel theory so shouldn't we spend lots of time and research funds on it? After all gravity is only a "law" and therefore can be changed.

The scientific method places responsibility of proving a theory on the person making it. Serious consideration follows. A "parallel evolution theory for man" would be an extraordinary theory. Therefore the person supporting the claim must provide extraordinary facts. Until then, no matter what our bias and how much we want to believe, such a theory isn't going to get a lot of consideration.  

Answer 2

Of every topic that humanity has ever studied, the study of humanity is and has always been the most controversial.  Add to this the bias and blinders added by belief systems and you have a most confusing mass of data.

Scientists, including Anthropologists, can only form hypothesis and gather data in a limited manner.  This leads to speculations and all but armed camps (separated by schools and like thinking groups) as to the development of the human species.  Sad, but true.  New ideas are immediately rejected based upon past concepts until the mass of data supporting the new ideas is overwhelming.

In the meantime, non-scientists are also divided by religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) and dogma which were accepted as true without any scientific proof.  It does not matter if the beliefs are not even logical, they are still accepted.  This is part of being humans, as are attempts to argue against the gathered data based upon what some call pseudo-science.

The theory of Evolution was generally not accepted when it was first proposed.  Neither was the concept of oxidation of fuel when first proposed to explain fire (as opposed to the loss of phlogiston).  These things take time.

If you look at the current information on DNA as a basis for the separation of life-forms into species, only when enough data has been gathered to confirm that changes in DNA make changes in mRNA which in turn allows for differences in the proteins found in a species (as either enzymes or structural items) to be sufficiently different to provide differences in looks, function and behavior can Evolution advance.

Those who interject the differences in dogs, or even the cultivars of Brassica oleracea (including Cabbage, Kale, Broccoli, Cauliflower, etc.) can only give evidence of how diverse a Species can be when it is subjected to the breeding programs of humanity.  These tell us nothing of the changes in microorganisms which promote some disease organisms from changing into new species.

One the surface, species may differ by looks, but this is not the only criteria.  Differences in function and behavior based upon differences in expressed genes (controlled by DNA) is also required.  

Answer 3

The criteria are actually somewhat arbitrary.  There are general classifications of plants and animals, and there are more specific descriptive terms for differentiating between similar species.

Answer 4

All theories of how we got here are controversial.  Evolutionists think Creationists are crazy.  Believe it or not it's the historically religious who are on the outside of the academic box on this one.  

For me, as a Christian creationist, the issue is the Word of God and the form of knowledge called revelation (as opposed to scientific observation and experimentation--which is a good thing, but better for telling how than why).  Creation is revealed in the Bible in Genesis 1.

It's amazing that it is, because no one was there, nor could have been.  The Genesis account tells me that the whole of creation and man in particular was made for a close and personal relationship with

God.  And then Adam's sin and separation from God and the need for redemption.  Most evolutionists don't like the idea of sin and the theory obviates the need for repentance and for a Saviour.

The thing about species is, that, for instance, a chihuahua and Great Dane are different species, but they are both dogs.  And as far as any records show, they have always been dogs--horses and donkeys are different species and they can create mules, but mules can't make mules--they are a dead end.  The snow leopard and my little short tailed Japanese are very different, but they are still cats.

I, myself, get confused about the talk of species.  What if we just said varieties of a kind--varieties of dogs, of cats, of horses, of snakes, of spiders, and so on.  I really think that is the "after their kind" that Genesis talks about.  

What evolutionists are looking at is for one "kind" to cross over into another "kind", and that, by any scientific evidence that has ever been found or examined, has never been found.

Good and important question.  We still have a lot to learn.

Some day, I believe, evolution will be there right along with the flat earth theory--defunct.  My problem is that it causes more harm to people, for they lose sight of the Lord God who made us all.

Maggie