page #3
Back to the evolution of man, after two million years of early Hominid. Could Darwin's theory of evolution accounted for the change of Hominid to man, man Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus and eventually Cro-Magnon man, after he left Africa? We today are man Cro-Magnon, regardless of race, or locale. We believe that man, that entered the new world of the Americas some twenty thousand years past, was Cro-Magnon man. If we must stay within the bounds of Darwin's natural evolution, as agreed, we are forced to place man of two million BP., and his subsequent physical changes, other than rac, within the bounds of Africa. The only possible event outside this natural evolution is the man called Neanderthal. Neanderthal man, can only be explained by his leaving Africa prior to the outward ventures of Cro-Magnon. The question, of why there seems to have been lacking a mix of the two "man" creatures, could only be explained by the two being of two subspecies, of the same parent species, man. Not unlike the hummingbirds. The why of Neanderthal man vanishing, we may never know, but the cause we can state was not one that would also endanger man of the second subspecies. Our big problem now is man human. We know what he is, it's the where and why we are looking for. As with the larynx, all the species man is human. If we find it hard to accept that the larynx could have evolved in three separate locations, or man changed in several skeletal features prior to his dividing into three prominent races how do we find room in our explanation for man becoming human after the time he left Africa. Being human is no small potatoes, at least not in the world of natural evolution. Unless we are prepared to accept that no other species are human, that man is the only species on earth today and in the past, to be so. We must either accept Darwin's evolution or offer a new set of standards to measure by. So far we have referred to only the power of natural evolution, can we suggest there are two or more forms of evolution? One that is easy to observe, the form of evolution that is governed and created by man. In this era of man human, there are man changes to things we know and use. It is now that man can, and has altered the divergent life forms he works with. In the world of plants he regularly develops new forms. This altering of plant species and animal species could be described as "unnatural evolution". Like natural evolution, unnatural evolutions are the results of mutation. Natural evolution, as mention earlier is sparked by the natural random mutation. The power of a mutation to survive is, according to Darwin, it's selection as a change that is better suited to life, thus the term "survival of the fittest". Of course this offers us problems, problems that can not be solved with our present knowledge of evolution. As noted at the start of this paper, there is the case of the sightless fish in the caverns. If the ancestors of these fish had never developed eyesight, then we have discovered them in a late step of eventual evolution. But we are sure, these are the decedents of a earlier age, of a fish with sight? Then it's, Dr. Darwin, Why? Can we claim the fish are in a stage of evolution, one that works backward, from the form offered by Darwin? Regardless of how we view this unusual event, the term "survival of the fittest", just does not fit. There is one other event in the history of life on the planet earth, that has offered man a mystery. There was a time, over a hundred a million years in the past, when the world was populated by countless species of beast we today call dinosaurs. The history of species survival has shown that all of the species, even the many subspecies, vanished in a single event. It is suggested this complete elimination of some species was due to the earth being struck by a asteroid or other objects arriving from space. This theory works well with the present trend to fantasize, with events taking place in the vast reaches of space. But can we allow this desire, to find a easy solution, to such a fast change to be accepted? Could a disaster to the surface of the earth, that destroyed every subspecies of the dinosaur? Have left the remaining species unharmed? Or is there the possibility of a event taking place, that would have been related only to the numerous species of the dinosaur family? Could there have been a evolution that changed all the subspecies of the dinosaur, of the world, in a single stroke? One that could have even effected isolated subspecies? One that is not dependant on reproduction, alteration or mutation? A third form of evolution, one that is more powerful than natural evolution. This form would need to have, seemingly unrelated influence on many species, while having total control of all subspecies of a species. Or at least the subspecies of a multitude of creatures. It would need to be an evolution that could govern the continuing presence of a species, even without the power of proliferation. Could our knowledge of the left hand man, be a clue to such a form of evolution? The author is left handed, but there is no evidence it is due to the natural evolution, within his family. Neither his parents, nor siblings are or were left handed. Only a grandmother was similarly inclined to use the left hand. Yet there is little doubt that some day there will be new additions to the family tree, that seems to be all thumbs, and left handed. The ten thousand year history of the Zueberbueler shelter, offers us a history of the possibility, man as a species, would some day evolve to be left handed. But recall we now can identifi man over 30,000 years BP., as also being left handed. And as in that West Texas shelter, he was a very uncommon fellow. I would not be supprised that then, as todays left handed human remains, a very small minority. But realdless of numbers at the start, we have seen that a change in man or beast is the signal of change of the total. We do not find it a rare human, that has the power of speach. We do not find only a mionority of the cave fish, are going blind. This could be a long list, but what it means is that the left hand use is not an evolution, at least not as we haved discribed it so far. Man has not evolved to be left handed, but is he destined to find it in his future. Is the random occurrence of being left handed no more that a genetic fault of man, an error that is predestined to reappear over the years? Is the use of hands, left or right, by man, at birth the result of a cut of the cards? Could this sputtering attemt to evolve be a feature of evolution, we have yet to explore? Could we use the term "predestined", and be correct in our expectations? Predestined evolution?
|
