Human evolution is not only contained in the idea that the great apes of the past are the ancestors of modern man, but it also includes the various cultural and sociological changes that is present in the process. This is the reason why, aside from the physiological similarity of man and apes, the socio-cultural aspect of evolution is also taken under consideration. In my opinion, as far as the evidence are concerned, humans are possible descendants of the apes but it must be taken into account, that even though both modern apes and modern humans came from the same ancestor, it doesn’t mean that they have equal capabilities.
As far as science goes, life forms on earth all came or evolved from a single-celled cyanobacter bacteria that results from the different natural forces on the earth’s surface. So, if we would believe in this argument, it is not a problem to accept that we are, in fact, descendants of the great apes.
It just seems to be uncomfortable, but whether it is a misconception or a reality actually depends on the faith that the spectator or the person have.
If it be faith on God or faith on science, what one can be sure of is that similarities and differences are present in every living creature, but everyone of them comes from a single source, may that be from God or from a bacteria, or both. In order to make the “truth of evolution” easier to bear for the common man, scientist devised a multi-faceted evolutionary tree that describes how men evolved from great apes.
Indeed this “multi-branch bush” is a common explanation or evidence that humans although believed to be lined with apes are different from them in a lot of ways.
I believe that this sort of evolutionary tree is a good representation of the evolution process rather than that of the unilateral ladder approach, because the “multi-branch” chart makes room for other possibility and explains why other species of the hominid family have disappeared or is not present in today’s world. One more reason, I would more likely believe in the evolution process, is the presence of modern humans who displays ape-like character like the pygmy’s and other ethnic groups of people.
I am not saying that evolution is real, but it is something that seems to be closer to reality than to misconception. The evolutionary history can be a misconception but that it is more likely to be a “multi-branch bush” is more realistic than the “single unhenched ladder” explanation. The unilateral explanation would denote that we are descendant of a great ape and all that follows that line is our ancestor. Well, according to the remains of the hominins they can be found in different sites in different countries and across the continents.
And in each place there are several resemblance and distinction. A hominin found in Africa, does not have the same character of those found in Indonesia or Europe. With respect to the whole of hominin history, it is a misconception to assume that there is no hominin species that coexisted at the same time because in the details of the fossil records the “Neanderthal man and the archaic Homo sapiens along with the Homo erectus” all lived under the same time frame. It is also evident in the tools that they used and the way that they lived.
Aside from that, several species of different hominins are found in different parts of the world. Thus, it may be said that they are all hominins but they might not been able to interact with one another. If we would relate this to the present day, we would find that there are many animals of the same family and the same species that coexist. This might be the reason why the different fossils are scattered around the globe under the same period of time. Some scientists also speculate that some of the specie have died out and do not evolve into Homo sapien sapiens.
Another misconception is the idea that early or ancient hominids used to hunt down dinosaurs for food. As far as the studies of evolution are concerned and from practical reasoning, this can be quite unrealistic because of the fact that the early hominids do not have sufficient tools and enough knowledge and craft to cut and kill a gigantic size dinosaur that would presumably have thick skin. The tools that the early man have at that time, would be sharpened stone tools or sticks that can only be sufficient to cut on soft meat.
I simply find the assumption of dinosaurs as food source of early hominins as illogical since for so many years we are presented by the ideas of how great and powerful dinosaurs are and how feeble, week and animal-like, early hominins are. Having all this in mind, it can be safe to presuppose that in the early times, man and dinosaur lived or had a chance to lived at the same period, at that time, man might be able to eat dinosaurs’ meat, but it is simply unimaginable that they are able to hunt them down.
I presume that they have done so by feeding on the left-over by other dinosaurs or eating the meat of “already” dead dinosaurs. I do not think that they actually rely on dinosaurs as a source of food because they can only rely on gathering rather than hunting. Lastly, it is an undeniable misconception to presuppose that we already have a complete grasp or understanding of the highly controversial human ancestry and evolution.
Up until now, the debates about creationism and Darwinism remains to be unresolved, the missing links and further evidences that evolution is real is still insufficient and above all the data gathering process that most of the scientist have depend upon are now believed to be null or void due to the discrepancies and major errors in carbon dating process. There are still too many things that need to be considered before we can say that we have a complete understanding of something especially if we have not experienced it first hand.
What I mean by this, is that, although we can say, described and give reliable proofs that such things as human evolution does happened, it would still not count as a complete understanding because as of the moment all we can do is to give hypothetical situations and provide clever assumptions that will be supported by the evidences that were found. Everything we hear and see in the television and the magazine are mere speculations of the people who have credits or who have the “authority” to give a “scientific” answer out of their”scientific” basis.
The mystery of human life and life on earth in general remains as a puzzle unsolved up to this date. What we can or we must do is to live in accordance to what our natural instinct and reason dictates. To solve the problems and mysteries of the past might indeed open a window for us to see what had happened or to let us understand ourselves better. But to completely rely on these data’s or information’s will not only cloud our perception and beliefs but would also deny us of our being humans.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment