ADEENUL �AQL � RELIGION IS INTELLECT .

If you believe in evolution then you believe at some point man evolved from something else, correct? What does science say that man evolved from? Ape? And before that? At what point did sexual reporduction become necessary? We start with a single cell that divides, etc, eventually becoming man. We know for a fact that man needs to reproduce sexually, so at what point did that become necessary in the evolutionary chain? When the subspecies, whatever it was, evolved into the first manlike creature, was there just one? Was there a sudden simultaneous evolving that allowed this creature to reproduce? I don't really see how that could be since evolution took so long and natural selection, taking millions of years, probably could never account for simultaneous evolving of more than one of each species at a time, so what kept the newly evolved man from dying out? Did they reproduce some other way?

 

The fossils that have been found could all be primates for all we know.

 

What I do know is that science has no way of explaining modern man's emergence from the subspecies hominids. Modern man with his rationalising abilities just was. All of the fossil evidence has yet to account for the missing link, the subspecies that became man. Modern man appeared around 160,000 years ago and science cannot explain how.

They can show you a bunch of bones and say this was the creature that was man before, and now they have bones and say this is modern man, but where he came from and how that transformation occurred they have not a clue.

 

Probably because God created man, and that would explain where he came from and how he got here.

 

 

 

Absolutely not.  I just finished saying, "there's no point at which you can say, 'this is the moment when "man" begins'". 

 

What does science say that man evolved from?

How can I tell you what came before man if you can't tell me what you mean by "man"? 

 

...

Okay, I've read the rest of your questions and I can see you have a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is all about.  Above all it is a gradual process.  Theories of "punctuated equilibrium" aside, the basic model is one of slow, continuous change. 

 

Let's try an analogy.  There is no "first" man, any more than there is no "first" English speaker.  You might ask how the English language could have evolved from earlier Germanic and other languages.  Who would the "first" English speaker have conversed with?  Was there a sudden simultaneous evolving of multiple speakers?

 

Of course not.  With each generation, the language shifts just a tiny bit -- a few words, a slight change in pronunciation here and there.  Each generation can still easily converse with several preceding and following generations.  I can read Shakespeare without to much difficulty, although I have difficulty with quite a few of the words.  I can even battle my way through Chaucer if I use an edition with lots of footnotes.

 

Chaucer could probably struggle to make himself understood to a modern English speaker.  On the other hand, he could probably fairly speak easily with an even earlier speaker of the ancient Germanic language which would be utterly foreign to you and me.

 

In the same way, a hominid from 50,000 years ago might not be too much different from "modern" man, either morphologically or genetically.  If the ability to reproduce sexually is the test of distinct species, he probably could have children with modern women, though perhaps less reliably than with a modern couple.  (Obviously I don't really know whether they could or not, nor perhaps does anybody; I'm just trying to illustrate the principle here.)  So that would mean they are both "men" (i.e. human), right?

 

A hominid from 100,000 years ago mated with a modern human might occasionally conceive, but rarely.  So are they the same species?  And 150,000 years back?  Let's assume they would be infertile, so that would make them "non-man".  On the other hand, he would probably have good success mated with a hominid from 200,000 years ago, as well as from 100,000 years ago, and maybe even the 50,000 year old "man".  That's why I keep asking, what do you mean by "man"?  I don't think there is a precise definition.

 

Probably because God created man, and that would explain where he came from and how he got here.

Ah yes, the God theory.  Okay, how did God create man, and what is your evidence for this?  Just saying "God" doesn't explain anything at all.