From Iaachus's opening post:
Only because it's contingent upon the fall of man. And yet why can't it be as the Bible says, where God essentially culls man out of the (spiritual) garden and transplants him to the natural world of evolutionary change?
The information written in the bible is inconsistent with our fossil record. From what you suggest, this would be as if man just popped onto the planet.
However, we know this is not the case, there are quite a long line human-like animals which came before humans. They form a smooth gradient between non-human to neo-human to human to modern human animal.
Indeed, there's evidence to suggest this, beginning with the advent of modern man and the development of agriculture -- hmm ... why agriculture? -- in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago.
Good, this is an excellent example of evolution. This is not the type of evolution which occurs on the genetic level, instead it is the type of evolution which occurs at the social level (Note: Social Darwinism and Evolution are entirely unrelated). One social activity is highly beneficial, this ensures that animals who practice this activity will have a tendency to live healthier lives than those who do not practice this activity.
Being a social evolutionary advantage, there is no need to reproduce for this activity to spread. Other groups of caught on to this idea.
And this is not an unheard of phenomena in the animal kingdom. This is simply "learn as your grow". Do you think monkeys know that they should take a stick (a tool), shove it into an ant burrow to gather ants at birth? Of course not, this is a learned behavior. Most likely , this behavior was an accident from which one monkey discovered, and other monkeys copied.
Another example: Otters like to eat shellfish. One of the things they do is use a rock to smash open the shellfish with. Of course, this is also a learned behavior, all those adorably cute little baby otters struggle to crack the shell with their teeth. (Birds have been known to kill prey by throwing small rocks at them.)
By the way, the domestication of animals and the wonderful new creation called agriculture
arrived long after the advent of anatomically modern humans.
The thing that is so special about agriculture is that it changed humans dietary habits. That surplus of food is what gave rise to civilization. Agriculture is just another advancement of the human species, it is fully consistant with evolution, it is rather unrelated to your suggestion.
Whereas if you look back and ask what is it about man that would demonstrate 10,000 years of evolutionary change, relative to an original pair (Adam and Eve), basically all we have is the difference in the races which, would be about right. Otherwise we're all pretty much alike.
Yes, we are all pretty much alike. My DNA is virtually (but not 100%) identical to your DNA.
However, it was not always like this. One theory, which is not entirely substantiated, of evolutionary
history (note: History, not mechanism) says there was a very wide spectrum of genetic difference between humans across the globe. However, there was a genetic bottleneck which occurred ~71,000 years ago. This is what the bottleneck did:
Code:
1 - Some species of human
2 - Another species of human
3 - The humans you are familiar with today
4 - Yet another species of human
5 - Still yet another species of human
* represents an extinction
1 2 3 4 5
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
* | | * | }
| | * } 70,000 to 74,000 years ago
* | }
|
|
|
\./ } 0 years ago (Today)
The modern humans of today survived a global catastrophy. I would guess the reason why we survived is "luck".
We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quite a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative), so you'd think there'd be at least be a few sub-species between us, which there isn't.
Apparently you've never done your outside reading.
There are dozens of intermediate species.
From
Human Species Timeline:
From this image you can see that Homo Habilis is our ancestor, whereas Australopithicus robustus is not.
Australopithicus africanus is an ancestor of both though.
Then neanderthals branched off of 'homo sapiens', but are not our ancestors...only the homo sapiens are our ancestors.
The neanderthals survived the ice age well with their small size and hardiness, but when the homo sapiens started to take over Europe after it warmed up, the neanderthals die off.
...
A. afarensis is classified as an ape, not a human. It is a Hominid--that is, an ape closely related to human beings. In terms of overall body size, brain size and skull shape, "Lucy" resembles a chimpanzee. However, A. afarensis has some surprisingly human characteristics. For example, the way the hip joint and pelvis articulate indicates that "Lucy" walked upright like a human, not like a chimp (far left). This means that upright posture and bi-pedalism preceded the development of what we would recognize as human beings and human intelligence. At near left is a reconstruction of Lucy's full skeleton.
Until 1994, A. afarensis was the earliest Hominid species yet discovered.
That is a very short introduction to the evolution of humans, but its good enough to get you started.
(There are about 4 or 5 "evidences against evolution" that you should never use. This includes "2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution", "If humans came from monkeys, why are their still monkeys", "some systems are irreducibly complex", "the dust on the moon is too thin", and "there are no transitional fossils". You used the "no transitional fossils" argument, I can only assume you've never done any outside reading.)
Indeed, why is it that the chimps can live in perfect harmony with nature and we can't? ... almost as if we were some kind of evolutionary freak? Just look around at all the devastation we've wrought on the world as a result. Could it be because we weren't meant to be here?
See my reply
here.
