.
For several decades, the story of man, man human, has intreged both the world of sicence, and those of us with that inner thought of, "Who am I?". There are those who find a easy answer to the question, their choice is that called "Creation". To some it is also the fumdelilisum, of the mystrey of God.The task here is to demonstrate man, as man human, and, possibly the answer to the above. Can there be evolution without first creation? There seems to be no doubt that man, at sometime, in the distant past, ventured out over the land. The how and why can only be offered from facts. Theory can be offered, but it often offers more error than truth. Facts are there, and human reasoning can offer evidence. Here only facts, with the aid of reasoning, tell the story of man, man human's evolution.
|
I AM WHAT I WAS, I WILL BE WHAT I AM.
.
To have evolution, there must be two of me. There is that me, as was created by my parents, and the me that will reproduce the next generation. They, the two of me, need not be the same. To have evolution, they must not be.To this, I must add. Did man evolve? Yes. Did he mutate to evolve? No. Man is not the result of a mutation. He is, the result of the instructions pocessed within his geans.
|
Evolution
Above are a few of the truisms that an Anthropologist should not only learn, but try to understand. The history of man, as he, the student of man’s history, may wish to offer, is not as hard to grasp, as he may wish others to believe.The story of man began with that first pulse of life, a life as we can only offer in theory. But beware, theory can be an obstruction to truth. The story of man, need be, and must be, offered in evidence, of facts and reasoning. For those, whose reasoning need be guided by fundamentalists beliefs, there can be no arguments offered. There faith in creation, is not one I would wish to disprove. It is only the facts of evolution I wish to offer reasoning for. I can detail the past, from facts and reasoning, even suggest the future. But it is the present era of man, we will need to understand, to grasp evolution. To understand how man, man as we know him, has maintained the evolution he has gained, "now", is the step we need to take, to grasp or comprehend all evolution. Evolution, of any life from, is change. Normally offered as an advantage, gained by the life form. There is the Darwin rule, "Surival of the fittist", offered in fact and theory. There is evidence, offered here, that alter this rule. In general, the trend is to accept that man, as we refer to him, first is evident by the evolution to walk erect. A species of primate was altered to offer this new skill. The suggestion here, is that it would be the total of this species, or at least that portion sequestered from others, of the same species. Man was not the result of this leap of change, a new species, hominid would take those first steps. Only a small change in the vertebra of an now unknown primate, but still the start of a new species. As it would only be time, two million years, and new generations, before this four legged creature, two of them used as arms, would face extinction. Had the change been noted solely among a separated band, of a large species of primate? Darwin’s theory of evolution to hominid, would have allowed the original species to have survive unchanged. With Darwin, this single mutation, had nature so selected, could have, as his evolution would demonstrate, in thory, would have replaced the total of the species. Here we face a major feature guiding evolution. If a altered feature is to be introduced to a species, all of the original species or isolated band, must totally be included in the change. We need accept that any change, to continue on into subsequent generations, will lead to a new species, it can not be random. It must be present in all future reproductive genes. To have less, would only offer unlimited variations of the new feature. Here we encounter the first obstacle to Darwin’s theories. Darwin gained the data for his theories of evolution, during the late nineteenth century. Any knowledge at that time of genes, would have been very limited, DNA and it’s data, were almost two hundred years into the future. Darwin would not have gained the knowledge of reproduction, at least not as we can demonstrate it today. His claim that nature would select a mutant to continue on as a improvement of a specie, provided it benefited the species, or as he referred to it “Survival of the fittest”, is without merit. Continued reproduction, in any form, is not dependent of the current functions of a present living creature, but rather on the genes offered by the parent. Any pattern of genes, we as parents offer our next generation, were acquired by us at our conception. That is to say, “Regardless of how much you or I may improve, the fate of our future young, nature could not. Nature cannot select or alter, the makeup of our genes, the "was", is, "there”, now, and a "then" is there to be. But can nature suggest? There seems to be one word, comely used by Darwin and others, often myself included, that should be given a clear stage for it's meaning. Nature, yes a common term, but now it is used to offer the history of man, man human. Darwin seemed to offer it the power to guide all changes, man or beast. The finial word, of evolution. But is this the meaning of Nature? It would seem more to be "natural". We often hear how it has changed our weather, suggested the unnatural, mutants. And I am sure many other forms of use. But can "nature" introduce evolution? Can it decide if a change is needed? Can it select the change? Or is it just a word? If we use the word, nature as natural, then it allows us to refer to the norm. But when Darwn used it with evolution, it represents the non norm. With evolution, can the non norm, become the norm, and be described as natural, a work of nature. We mislead when we offer it as the guide in evolution. As stated before, "I am what I was, and will be what I am"?. This is nature "natural" at work. |
