Origin of Man: Where Do You Think We Come From?

Most likely explanation (by a very, very, very, very, very large margin) for human "origins" is that the species homo sapiens sapiens evolved from the direct preceding species homo heidelbergensis.

I haven't looked at the evidence to suggest one side or another with regards to the evolutionary origin of man, but I tend to like the multiregional origin. The fact that evolution is the source though as opposed to a supernatural force is undisputed to me. I just know little about the specifics of human evolution to have a more detailed answer than that.

What do you personally believe to be the truth regarding the origins of Humanity? Do you believe in evolution or creationism? Also, if you do believe in Evolution, which theory do you believe? The Out of Africa Theory or the Multiple Regions Hypothesis?

BluRayHiDef

Hasn't the out of Africa theory been somewhat disproven? I hear that they're finding skulls of distant relatives to the human species in Pacific Islands that they believe predate any bones previously found in the so-called cradle of life.

Anyways, yeah, I think we came from monkeys.

It can all be traced back to the number 42.

we're all sons of adam and eve , and they both were humans MAZ85

Well okay, but an anthropologist/evolutionary biologist (or anyone interested in the origins of mankind) couldn't just accept an answer like that. They'd have to ask things like:

• What did they look like?
• Where did they live?
• Roughly when was this?
• What did they eat? (yes yes, apples, very amusing)
• Did they have a language? If so, what did they speak? How did this language develop?
• What social structures would they and their children have formed?
• How does this account for diverging origin myths, races and languages?
• Given the observable rise in cranial capacity over the last million years, how would they have acted?
• What defines them as human? What species came before them, and what allowed them to make the jump towards humanity?
• Did they walk bipedally?

And so on. Assuming that the Adam and Eve story is true, all of these and more would have pretty standard, natural answers.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

What do you personally believe to be the truth regarding the origins of Humanity? Do you believe in evolution or creationism? Also, if you do believe in Evolution, which theory do you believe? The Out of Africa Theory or the Multiple Regions Hypothesis?

theone86

Hasn't the out of Africa theory been somewhat disproven? I hear that they're finding skulls of distant relatives to the human species in Pacific Islands that they believe predate any bones previously found in the so-called cradle of life.

Anyways, yeah, I think we came from monkeys.

Provide a link to an article which reports on what you've said.

STORKS!Human-after-all

I believe in creationism AND evolution. Evolution is real. It happens. There is really no disputing it. However, evolution says nothing about where we came from. Only that we evolve over time. But did we come from "monkeys"? I say no chance in hell. In the short time we've been on Earth, there is NO way that we evolved that much in that short span of time.

Think of all of the changes that had to take place for us to go from dumb, hairy, completely different looking monkey, into smart, hairless, modern humans. There is just no way. Evolution takes a LONG time for just TINY changes.

I think God created the universe, and we can evolve because that is how we were created.

I believe we evolved from a fish, that tuned into a monkey, that turned into a human.

I believe we evolved from a fish, that tuned into a monkey, that turned into a human.

Rckstrchik

I believe God created the universe then set it on "Auto-pilot". I believe in evolution and creationism. However, I do not want someone saying, "LOLOL BUT TEH BIBLE DOESN'T EVOLUTION" But we know this thread is another excuse for BluRayHiDef to take a stand or, whatever it is, against religion. clayron

No, it's not. I wasn't even thinking about religion.

The thing is, Darwinists would have you believe that there is sufficient proof of man descending from fish, when there isn't.

I am not ready to throw creationism out the window just yet. There's probably more evidence for creationism than there is for evolution if you take a good look around.

SkyWard20

What proof is there for creationism? People treat evolution and creationism as if they are equals, but evolution is a fact proven by countless distinct observations and measurements of the natural world and is used to model change in populations. Creationism just says "God did it" and leaves it at that.

There's a reason evolution is used in every field of biology, and creationism isn't given a second thought.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

The thing is, Darwinists would have you believe that there is sufficient proof of man descending from fish, when there isn't.

I am not ready to throw creationism out the window just yet. There's probably more evidence for creationism than there is for evolution if you take a good look around.

metroidfood

What proof is there for creationism? People treat evolution and creationism as if they are equals, but evolution is a fact proven by countless distinct observations and measurements of the natural world and is used to model change in populations. Creationism just says "God did it" and leaves it at that.

There's a reason evolution is used in every field of biology, and creationism isn't given a second thought.

MAN'S speculatations about his origins fall into two well-known categories - science's evolution theory, and the world's religious and mythical accounts.

Evolution theory, according to Darwin and his followers, describes man's animal development from the first micro-organism. No explanation is offered for his incomparable creative and artistic powers. According to the theory he is just a better kind of ape.

On the other hand, biblical and other religious traditions report some kind of divine or mystical creation in which man appeared physically fully formed and imaginatively inventive as we know him today.

The two approaches are irreconcilable - until the underlying truth connecting them is realised.

:P

soren008

what's that?

The origin of man is unknown. No matter what anybody says, they don't know unless they had a time machine to travel back to the time of the creation of man. Which nobody does.

These two great opposing ideas - evolution theory & creation theory ------ actually represent the two sides of man, his mystifying dual nature: the sensory physical, and the vitally creative.

Without doubt man is an animal; and yet he is uniquely creative. How?

soren008

It's unexplainable

Well in the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened. All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.gubrushadow

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, that's abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with the continual and inevitable development of life.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]Well in the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened. All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.metroidfood

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, that's abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with the continual and inevitable development of life.

Well yeah they study the process of evolution NOT the origin of it , imo , there's were creationism plays its role , I mean if we speak of big bang and 2nd law of thermodynamics , you will see that if both are true , there must be something supernatural .gubrushadow

The Big Bang is in accordance with the 2nd Law, as it started as a superdense singularity and expanded into the universe as we know it.

Not saying there wasn't something supernatural, but you have to make such affirmations on faith alone.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] Well yeah they study the process of evolution NOT the origin of it , imo , there's were creationism plays its role , I mean if we speak of big bang and 2nd law of thermodynamics , you will see that if both are true , there must be something supernatural .metroidfood

The Big Bang is in accordance with the 2nd Law, as it started as a superdense singularity and expanded into the universe as we know it.

Not saying there wasn't something supernatural, but you have to make such affirmations on faith alone.

I've just done a few subjects on anthropology and evolution, and without trying to spoil anything, nobody knows for sure. :PPlaneforger

I believe in a creator and I accept evolution as a fact. So I go for Theistic Rationalism.

I believe that we all came from our mothers, who came from their mothers before them, and on and on and on, all the way back to the beginning of life.SoraX64

[QUOTE="SoraX64"]

I believe that we all came from our mothers, who came from their mothers before them, and on and on and on, all the way back to the beginning of life.

magiciandude

Question: The chicken or the egg?

I'll have the chicken.

I believe in a creator and I accept evolution as a fact. So I go for Theistic Rationalism.

magiciandude

Theism is intrinsically irrational due to the fact that you can't use logic and reasoning to prove (or disprove) the existence of any deity. Theism relies purely on faith (which is belief without proof). Hence, Theistic Rationalism is paradoxical and subsequently impossible.

I'm pretty sure the Out of Africa theory is still the most widely accepted, so i'll stick with that. Why is everyone treating this thread like it's Evolution vs. Creationism?

Oops, didn't read the OP fully. :P

I'm pretty sure the Out of Africa theory is still the most widely accepted, so i'll stick with that. Why is everyone treating this thread like it's Evolution vs. Creationism?

fidosim

Because they have nothing relatedto contribute.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I follow the theory supported by actual evidence, not pseudo scientific nonsense like creationism. RobboElRobbo

So in other words you're going to hell

You went way too far with this post.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I follow the theory supported by actual evidence, not pseudo scientific nonsense like creationism. RobboElRobbo

So in other words you're going to hell

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I follow the theory supported by actual evidence, not pseudo scientific nonsense like creationism. BluRayHiDef

So in other words you're going to hell

You went way too far with this post.

hes right though

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I follow the theory supported by actual evidence, not pseudo scientific nonsense like creationism. HoolaHoopMan

So in other words you're going to hell

Isn't what he said forbidden in the TOU?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

So in other words you're going to hell

BluRayHiDef

Isn't what he said forbidden in the TOU?

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

I believe in a creator and I accept evolution as a fact. So I go for Theistic Rationalism.

BluRayHiDef

Theism is intrinsically irrational due to the fact that you can't use logic and reasoning to prove (or disprove) the existence of any deity. Theism relies purely on faith (which is belief without proof). Hence, Theistic Rationalism is paradoxical and subsequently impossible.

hes right thoughsikanderahmed

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] How Christ like of you. HoolaHoopMan

Isn't what he said forbidden in the TOU?

I don't know, I was just trying to be funny. I forgot that you have to put ":P" in order to not get modded here.

We were created in God's image.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

What do you personally believe to be the truth regarding the origins of Humanity? Do you believe in evolution or creationism? Also, if you do believe in Evolution, which theory do you believe? The Out of Africa Theory or the Multiple Regions Hypothesis?

BluRayHiDef

Hasn't the out of Africa theory been somewhat disproven? I hear that they're finding skulls of distant relatives to the human species in Pacific Islands that they believe predate any bones previously found in the so-called cradle of life.

Anyways, yeah, I think we came from monkeys.

Provide a link to an article which reports on what you've said.

Basically, I'm just throwing my hat in with the multi-regional theory. I'm not too into anthropology, but what I've seen from a TV special and part of an article seems to support it, as they're finding these pacific fossils like this recent hobbit. My sister's studying anthropology and she says it's a source of constant debate, there's always discussion over migration, if the presence of fossils proves ancestry, etc. At any rate, I'm not very familiar with it, it's just from what I've seen different humans evolved from different ancestors in different regions.

As to the uncaused cause argument, I think it's patently fallacious. First of all, assuming there has to be a first cause at all, I don't think that it disproves the big bang theory. Opponents of the big bang act as if the necessity for a first cause disproves the big bang, but perhaps the first cause is simply beyond our understanding. For instance, assume there is a first cause, the big bang led to the formation of our universe as we know it, but the big bang is not the first cause; is it not possible that despite the big bang not being the first cause, the first cause could still be some kind of natural phenomena? To me, using god as an explanation here is still insufficient, as it still only creates a hypothetical where god COULD be the cause and doesn't do anything to prove it.

Also, who says there has to be a first cause? Proponents of the first cause argument say that it is observable in nature that there is always a first cause, but that's actually fallacious. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, everything that occurs in existence is simply the transferrence or manipulation of matter or energy. There is no first cause so to speak, there is only cause and effect. Who's to say that causality actually has no beginning? Who's to say that this constant transferrence isn't simply the natural way of our universe?

[QUOTE="soren008"]

These two great opposing ideas - evolution theory & creation theory ------ actually represent the two sides of man, his mystifying dual nature: the sensory physical, and the vitally creative.

Without doubt man is an animal; and yet he is uniquely creative. How?

ThePartisan

It's unexplainable

That is untrue.. Other animals have shown to make creative solutions to problems.. The octopuss is known for this.. A specific octopus spieces for instance not only does camoflauge, but can mimic the actions of several other aquatic life! In which it pretends to be something else such as a Lion fish, which is extremely pisonus to scare off any threats.. Or when in its lair.. It colors one of its tentacles sticking out to look like a sea snake, another dangerously poisonus creature.. This shows more then just instinct but a unique problem solving..

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Hasn't the out of Africa theory been somewhat disproven? I hear that they're finding skulls of distant relatives to the human species in Pacific Islands that they believe predate any bones previously found in the so-called cradle of life.

Anyways, yeah, I think we came from monkeys.

theone86

Provide a link to an article which reports on what you've said.

Basically, I'm just throwing my hat in with the multi-regional theory. I'm not too into anthropology, but what I've seen from a TV special and part of an article seems to support it, as they're finding these pacific fossils like this recent hobbit. My sister's studying anthropology and she says it's a source of constant debate, there's always discussion over migration, if the presence of fossils proves ancestry, etc. At any rate, I'm not very familiar with it, it's just from what I've seen different humans evolved from different ancestors in different regions.

As to the uncaused cause argument, I think it's patently fallacious. First of all, assuming there has to be a first cause at all, I don't think that it disproves the big bang theory. Opponents of the big bang act as if the necessity for a first cause disproves the big bang, but perhaps the first cause is simply beyond our understanding. For instance, assume there is a first cause, the big bang led to the formation of our universe as we know it, but the big bang is not the first cause; is it not possible that despite the big bang not being the first cause, the first cause could still be some kind of natural phenomena? To me, using god as an explanation here is still insufficient, as it still only creates a hypothetical where god COULD be the cause and doesn't do anything to prove it.

Also, who says there has to be a first cause? Proponents of the first cause argument say that it is observable in nature that there is always a first cause, but that's actually fallacious. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, everything that occurs in existence is simply the transferrence or manipulation of matter or energy. There is no first cause so to speak, there is only cause and effect. Who's to say that causality actually has no beginning? Who's to say that this constant transferrence isn't simply the natural way of our universe?