blazeofglory
09-16-2009, 01:38 AM
This question is ridiculous and stupid in point of fact. We cannot say at tall absolutely that man is a descendant of a chimpanzee as Darwin had said. Of course there is evolution in nature. Things are in constant flux and we cannot see the same thing over time and they all undergo change, modification or transformation or conversion. Weather changes over time. There are enormous modifications, variations and adaptations in livings beings. If we fail to respond to stimuli or fail to adapt to change in weather conditions or if our anatomical structures cannot adjust to change in environments, geographical upheavals or climatic ambiances and if our chemical elements in our bodies do not undergo adaptation we will be wiped out from the planet. And Darwin rightly had said about survival of the fittest and indeed those who are biologically or genetically fit survive alteration in climatic changes and if not will go extinct ultimately. This is the law of nature.
Darwin was very much right and his methods of observations were scientific and he arrived at some conclusions thru long courses of observations and had he not observed through a prolonged expedition in the sea.
Notwithstanding his long and protracted journey and studies of different species, floras and faunas and geographical, biological, geological variations, disruptions, alterations over time and responses of various species or geneses over generations we still cannot totally subscribe to his ideas. In due course there were new researches into genetics or hereditary factors or transmissible elements from generations to generations. This is really a classical debate over generations.
Most of our ideas on evolution are hypothetical or to put differently, no one has said conclusively about the origin of life. Man is not just a biological amalgamation or chemical combination of elements or compounds and indeed he is different than that.
What man is not a biology, a geography or a culture. Man is all of them in aggregate or more than that or something above all these delimitations.
No one can exactly say what man is.
Darwin was very much right and his methods of observations were scientific and he arrived at some conclusions thru long courses of observations and had he not observed through a prolonged expedition in the sea.
Notwithstanding his long and protracted journey and studies of different species, floras and faunas and geographical, biological, geological variations, disruptions, alterations over time and responses of various species or geneses over generations we still cannot totally subscribe to his ideas. In due course there were new researches into genetics or hereditary factors or transmissible elements from generations to generations. This is really a classical debate over generations.
Most of our ideas on evolution are hypothetical or to put differently, no one has said conclusively about the origin of life. Man is not just a biological amalgamation or chemical combination of elements or compounds and indeed he is different than that.
What man is not a biology, a geography or a culture. Man is all of them in aggregate or more than that or something above all these delimitations.
No one can exactly say what man is.