Hvordan startede menneskeheden ?

Den anden dag stillede min 9 årig datter mig et spørgsmål som tog flere med sig. Jeg må indrømme at jeg kom til kort overfor disse spørgsmål så måske sidder der nogle derude som kan hjælpe mig lidt. Spørgsmål.1. Mor : hvis Adam og Eva var de første mennesker på jorden.. og de blev kærester og fik børn...så kunne deres børn jo ikke få børn for så ville de jo blive handicappet...så hvordan er vi blevet så mange mennesker???? Øhhhhhh
Jeg forsøgte her at fortælle lidt ud fra Darwins teori om at vi nok stammer fra aberne... hvorefter hun spurgte : Hvorfor er alle aber så ikke blevet til mennesker ???
Og her kom jeg sgu til kort.... ja hvorfor mon??

Du vil nu sikkert få mange "tilbud". Det er lige som Netto og Fakta.
Hver uge sit tilbud.
Dersom du kan forholde dig til, at engang eksisterede der ikke fysiske væsener som os mennesker er der mulighed for at du kan forklare din datter følgende.

Hverken iflg. Bibelen og heller ikke iflg. videnskaben.
Iflg. Bibelen skabtes universet af "ingenting". D.v.s. ud af intetheden, den tilsyneladende ”intethed” og det betegner Hebræerbrevet i kap. 11 vers 3.
Nu er der ingen der ved hvad der så var før det, som er blev til (skabt).
Der er heller ingen der ved hvordan de første mennesker blev til, men Bibelen fortæller sin historie fra den kultur Moses havde "historien" fra.
Du kan fortælle din datter (og dig selv) at der findes mange fortællinger om hvordan mennesket blev til.
Den ene kan være lige så god som den anden, men faktum er, at ingen ved hvordan. Darwin forholder sig blot til den molekylære og væsensarts - lighed og udvikling i et 4 milliarder forløb.
Imidlertid kan man godt fortælle, at der var en planet af gas, der blev til en granitplanet der blev til en planet med vand og en planet der blev fyldt med vækster i vandet, samt væsener.
Solens lys samt vandet og molekylerne udgjorde grundsubstansen. Sådan vil forskerne igen i dag forsøge at gå den anden vej.
I de 4 milliarder af år dette påstod, dannedes det ene efter det andet efterhånden som det der skulle til, til "det næste" blev dannet af det "forrige".
Så den energi det hele stammer fra, frembragte også de atomer og derfor de molekyler der skulle til for at danne fast stof og liv.
Livet er ikke af atomer eller molekyler, men af ånd (ikke spøgelser ånder) ånd der i Bibelen får det hebraiske betegnelse "ruach".
Så "aberne" kan godt have været "bærere" af det molekyle der i sine koder skulle frembringe det menneskelige væsen og samtidig blive ved med at være sig selv (aber).
At være "bærer" af et molekyle der kunne fremstå, som det menneskelige væsen er næsten som en rugemor der er "bærer" af en fremmed kvindes foster.
Om man kan få en abe i dag til at være rugemor for et menneskefoster tror jeg sagtens kan lade sig gøre.
Men energien, som er usynlig og den der var årsag til alt det fysiske stof, kender vi ikke karakteren af eller substansen af.
Den kan være af en sådan sammensætning, at ting kan udvikles og eller dannes på det tidspunkt da muligheden er tilstede.
Ligesom energien kunne fremstå og udtrykke det "skjulte" da "Big Bang " skete.
Altså energien er den der "føder" atomerne og molekylerne og de til gengæld er dem der "føder" planter, dyr og mennesket.

Når først de molekyle der frembringer det menneskelige væsen i sit genom er frembragt, fastholder molekylet (DNA) sin kode.
Venlig hilsen
Enoch

har vist aldrig påstået at vi stammer fra aberne. Hvis du fortæller hende det, bliver hun da først forvirret. Det er jo absurd!

Tak for dit svar. Ja, jeg er for så vidt enig med dig, men det kræver en forklaring. Efter jeg havde skrevet denne lille afhandling, tænkte jeg lidt over det.
Dersom du ikke havde skrevet og ingen havde kommenteret mit indlæg havde jeg nok alligevel have tilføjet følgende til det, men alligevel.
Du har delvis ret, forstås på den måde, at vor ”ancestors” probably was not an ape but ”….some unspecialised common ancestor”, probably far back in the Miocene or early Pliocene periods.”
Citat slut.
Så ”familieskabet” med aber er ikke oprindelsen af menneskearten, men den oprindelige ancestor har åbenbart givet det menneskelige genom videre og har givet både genom til aber og abelignende væsener og også det menneskelige væsen, arten menneske.
Så hvor lang tid fra da af og indtil ”det” skete og i hvilken rækkefølge og hvordan koderne eller informationer i molekylerne blev specifikke eller omstændighederne var parat og klar til at udtrykke det menneskelige genom i DNA, ved jeg ikke om nogen kan sige nøjagtigt.
Derfor denne ”sammenblanding” med aber og menneskelignende abelignende væsener og derefter det menneskelige væsen eller race.
Så jeg forsøger ikke at forvirre, men at forenkle.

DARWIN, in his "Descent of Man", specifically states that man is,descended from "Old World monkeys". You will find the statement in next to the last Paragraph of Chapter Six. His precise language is worth remembering :
"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World Monkeys; and from the latter at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."
In spite of this, there are those who will deliberately misrepresent Darwin by stating that he never claimed we are descended from monkeys. Thus if you go to Rochester, N, Y., and visit the Rochester Museum of Art and Sciences, you will find there, in a case exhibit of man's family tree, a card bearing these words:
"As Darwin pointed out, there is no reason to believe that man descended from any monkey or ape ..."
On calling attention to the obvious error, Mr. Arthur G. Cromwell of the Rochester Society of Freethinkers with whom I visited the Museum, received a letter from one of the Museum's officials, William A. Ritchie, archaeologist attempting to justify the statement on the card, Mr. Ritchie responded as follows:
"I have your letter of September 14th, addressed to Dr. Parker, concerning a supposed error in a label which I wrote for the exhibiter titled 'The Family Tree of the Primates". Apparently the offensive clause in this label is the statement, 'As Darwin pointed out, there is no reason to believe that man descended from any monkey or ape,' rather all were descended from some unspecialized common ancestor, probably far back in the Miocene or early Pliocene periods'. I then proceed to explain that divergence with specialization for their respective modes of life has operated with the result that the current products of this evolutionary process are far more dissimilar than their progenitors."This is precisely what Darwin stated, as expressed in the folder you enclose, and in another statement from the same chapter of 'The Descent of Man", viz., "The early descendants of this progenitor, before they had converged to any considerable extent from each other, would still have formed a single natural group', etc. (p. 175, Home Library edition).
"Most modern anthropologists, in view of all the evidence now existing (which of course Darwin lacked) still concur in the opinion of a common anthropoid ancestor far the Primates and a divergence of the genera and species, so that it is absolutely correct to say that no known monkey or ape can be designated the ancestor of man, albeit they are his distant cousins."
It is easy to see that Mr. Ritchie doesn't know what he is talking about, and that his letter, glutted with irrelevancies, sidesteps the point at issue. Did Darwin say mankind is descended from "monkeys"? He did. And he named them as "Old World" monkeys.
There are men, psychologists tell us, who can look directly at a printed page, read what it says and inject an opposite.
Thus Mr. Ritchie reads the Darwin statement:
"New World and Old World monkeys... from the latter... Man... proceeded."
The words immediately become:
"New World and Old World monkeys ... from the latter... Man... DID NOT proceed."
Why does this happen? Maybe because the word "monkeys" is emotionally upsetting. Maybe because of some religious prejudice. Maybe because he doesn't like the Darwinian doctrine and is trying to face it in the easiest way he knows how. Whatever the cause, the Rochester Museum gets a fraudulent label.
There are men who, because of a peculiar twist of temperament, or because they believe they are children of God, revolt at the idea that men are descended from monkeys. Henry Fairfield Osborn was one of them. Yet he got over it in time and lived to see the day when he could write: "the ancestors of man, namely, the Lemurs, Monkeys, and Apes." You will find these words on page 274 of his "Origin and Evolution of Life". If the late President of the American Museum of Natural History could do it, maybe there is yet hope for the archaeologist at the Rochester Museum.
Darwin castigated those who, admitting our descent from savages, balk at our monkey descent. "For my own part," said he, "I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrades from a crowd of astonished dogs -- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
Let us put a direct question to Mr. Ritchie and ask him to give us an unequivocal reply.
Where, in any of his writings, does Darwin state that man is NOT descended from "any monkey or ape"? We challenge Mr. Ritchie to cite chapter and page. We challenge him further to substantiate his claim that Darwin "pointed out" that "there is no reason to believe" that man came from simian stock. "There can, consequently," says Darwin, "hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World Simian stem and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classed with the Catarrhine division." The Catarrhine group is classified by Darwin as "Old World monkeys".
If Mr. Ritchie is so sure that Darwin did not teach the monkey descent of man, we challenge him to put the Darwin passage in the Museum's exhibit case next to his own card, and let the people of Rochester decide for themselves. It would make a unique exhibit. On the one hand would be Mr. Ritchie's card, reading:
"As Darwin pointed out, there is no reason to believe that man descended from any monkey or ape." On the other hand would be Darwin's statement: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter at a remote period, Man ... proceeded," Who do you suppose would get the big laugh? And what kind of a reputation do you think the Museum would get locally for veracity of statement?
Every fundamentalist knows that Darwin taught the monkey descent of man. Mr. Ritchie has not yet caught up with them, but he can. Let him write to Dr. Hooton of Harvard, whose Family Tree of Man is exhibited in the Rochester Museum, and ask him whether, in his judgment Darwin upheld our "monkey" origin. I know Hooton's hilarious sense of humor and the kind of answer he will give.
And while he is about it let him turn to Hooton's book, "Apes, Men, and Morons", and see what Hooton himself says about our monkey descent. "I still believe," says he, "that man's stock separated from the large anthropoid ape trunk in the Miocene." Wouldn't that be nice to place in the exhibit case next to Mr. Ritchie's remarks?
We suggest that, if it doesn't want to become the laughing stock of science in America, the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences hire an anthropologist or an anatomist, rather than an archaeologist engaged in collecting arrow-heads and Indian relics, to label its exhibits bearing on the descent of man.
As for "modern anthropologists" who, Mr. Ritchie claims, have access to "evidence" which Darwin lacked'", there is not one of them of any distinction today who does not subscribe-and subscribe fully--to the monkey descent of man, precisely as Darwin did. The list includes Keith, Elliot Smith, Gregory, Tilney, Hooton, Wilder, Schwalbe, Sonntag, and ten times as many we could name.
We challenge Mr. Ritchie to give us a single citation from any of these authorities which states, as he himself states on his card in the Museum, that "there is no reason to believe that man descended from any monkey or ape" All of them, on the contrary, definitely hold that man is descended from a primitive ape stock, just as definitely as they hold that man's more remote ancestors were fish, and, still earlier, worms.
"All the evidence now at our disposal," writes Sir Arthur Keith "supports the conclusion that man has arisen, as Lamarck and Darwin suspected, from an anthropoid ape not higher in the zoological scale than a chimpanzee."
And Dr. William K. Gregory of the American Museum of Natural History, in New York writes: "Man, like his less ambitious cousins, the modern anthropoid apes, is a descendant of the late Tertiary dryopithecine ape stock of Europe, Asia, and Africa."
Where, then, does Mr. Ritchie's label fit in?. Nowhere but at the Rochester Museum, where it stands convicted, not only as a perversion of Darwin's views, but as a misrepresentation of what our leading anthropologists teach concerning the ape origin of man. It is false in every line.
What is all this trash that Mr. Ritchie writes about our "unspecialized common ancestor"? Our "common ancestor" was a highly "specialized" animal, described by Darwin as "a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits", and possessing a high degree of "specialization'' in its prehensile extremities. Such was the primitive monkey from which we are descended. It is the monkey which Thomas Henry Huxley and Emst Haeckel recognized as the ancestor of man.
Our "unspecialized common ancestor" is as mythical as Adam and Eve. In man's Family Tree will be found the lemur, the tailed monkey, the anthropoid ape, and ape-man--all highly "specialized". Each, in its own time and place, was a "specialized" organism, as indicated by skeletal remains. There is nothing blurry about our "common ancestor''. Comparative anatomy supplements the paleontological record. Blood tests show even our close relationship to present-day apes.
All Mr. Ritchie's rigmarote about an "unspecialized common ancestor" of the human race and our present-day anthropoid apes, amounts to nothing more than an evasion of the issue and an attempt to avoid the word "monkey" in man's ancestral tree.
If, as Mt. Ritchie admits and as anatomical evidence shows, our present-day apes are merely our "distant cousins'', what does he think our "common ancestor" looked like? An elephant? Look at Man's Family Tree again, Mr. Ritchie, and you will; find that the word "primate" in our remote ancestral line is only a nice word for a primitive monkey, hidden in the fork of the tree where man and our modern monkeys branch but. You can no more duck this point than you can cover up the fact, among those who can read plain English and are honest in the matter, that Darwin taught that men are descended from monkeys.
Return to Essays of an Atheist Index
RELATED ARTICLES
The 27 Best Things Ever Said in Favor of Human Evolution
Essay about Human Evolution on the Scopes Monkey Trial and irony of condemnation of man's ancestry with apes while the spiritual tends to compare man as a lowly creature.
More of the Best Things ever said in Favor of Human Evolution
Some thoughts on Chimp and Human relation, similarities in DNA, common Ancestry and the shared similarities in behavior between primates.
Genetic Mutations in Humans: From Feet to Flippers
Syndactyly is a medical term for webbed fingers or webbed toes. Photographs of a genetic mutation that was passed from mother to daughter. As was the case with land mammal to sea mammal webbing on feet to flipper, these are photographs of webbed toes on humans.
Creationism and Human Evolution
Common arguments used by Creationists against fossil evidence for Human Evolution vs. the actual facts.
Genesis, Evolution and Bernard Ramm
By what measure do progressive creationists distinguish between 'horizontal evolution' and 'vertical creation' in the case of human evolution?
Enoch

Jeg savner din kommentar.
Enoch

Jeg takker for dit svar, omend det at skulle forenkle svaret til en 9 årig... var næste udfordring! Hun er en snu én med en tankevirksomhed jeg kan nikke genkendede til ;-) for jeg/hende vi stopper aldrig der!
Hvis teorien du beretter om skulle være tilfældet så bekræfter det jo min / hendes teori om, at alle religioner er menneskeskabete og derfor nedskrevende fortællinger om moraler.. regelsæt/ regelreligioner som "nogen" på et tidspunkt har ment var nødvendig for at styre folk i den
"rigtige retning"...hvad det så end er ?
For hvem ved i bund og grund hvad der er..
den rigtige retning? Med alle de religioner der eksistere og deres forskellige fortolkninger af hvad der er rigtigt og forkert... så bekræfter det min teori om, at ingen kender " sandheden" "Rigtigt" eller "Forkert" for mig at se er "missionen" mislykket i forhold til at styre folk i "den rigtige retning"... eftersom det at slå ihjel... bekrige hinanden på baggrund af menneskeskabte nedskrevende "religioner"/moraler/ eller regelsæt... ikke kan være at styre i den rigtige retning.
Trolde -33

jeg så ingen spørgsmålstegn i dit indlæg.
Desuden var mit første svar ikke til dig, men til Trolle33. Mit erinde var såment bare at det er åbentlyst forkert at vi stammer fra aberne, så derfor skal man ikke fortælle sine børn det.
Hvorom alt er så kan det godt være at Darwin sagde at vi stammer fra 'Old World Monkeys', men 'Old World Monkeys' er jo ikke de samme som Trolles datter ser i zoo.
Evolutionen er temmelig kompliceret, og derfor svært at forklare til børn (og voksne). DNA fastholder IKKE sin kode. Liv er opstået som et resultat af en ikke tilfældig process som udvælger tilfældige mutation. Mutationerne forsætter. Trolles datters DNA er ikke det samme som Trolles - DNA gives videre men der sker ændringer. Vi stammer ikke fra aberne - vi ER aber. Kort sagt er evolutionslæren en enorm videnskabelig gren, hvor der stadig er elementer vi ikke forstår.
Personligt vil jeg nok fortælle mine børn at der er mange teorier om hvordan vi er blevet til, men jeg vil ALDRIG fortælle et de er lige gode. Der er forskel på en videnskabelig teori og et religiøst dogme.

Ja, der er du da godt nok kommet i klemme :)
Sagen er, at evolutionsteorien ikke siger, at mennesket nedstammer fra aberne - hvilken abeart skulle det så forøvrigt være? Det evolutionsteorien siger er, at menneskeaberne og mennesket har fælles forfædre - altså at en nu uddød abeart har udviklet sig i forskellige retninger, så nogle af efterkommerne er blevet til menneskeaberne, medens andre efterkommere er blevet til mennesket.....
Men det er nok lidt for avanceret for små børn.....

Du har i og for sig ret. Dermed ikke være sagt, at vi ikke kan finde ud af det.
Jeg vil hellere bo i Danmark end Iraq.
Enoch

Tak for dit svar.
”……………all were descended from some unspecialized common ancestor, probably far back in the Miocene or early Pliocene periods” .
citat slut.
Ja, det var min input fra ”Grøn måne” svaret.
Jeg kan se, at du er enig med mig i, at der må have været en tidlig ”ancestor” og derfra og så til det menneskelige væsen, finder vi forskellige abelignende/ menneskelignende arter, som alle må ha` deres oprindelse i denne ”unspecialized common ancestor”l.
Min teori er, at denne ”some unspecialized common ancestor”, ikke har været et væsen som har været bærer af både det abelignende væsen og det menneskelige væsen, men at ”some unspecialized ancestors” har været i et forløb der (som du nævner) har ”udviklet” eller forædlet det molekyle der grundet påvirkning og tidsforløb har frembåret ”rene” racer.
Disse er så gået tabt ”hen ad vejen”, men de ”rene” racer har bestået. Hvorfor? Fordi de har nået deres fuldendelse.
Altså, skulle man kategorisere menneskeartens oprindelse eller forfædre, så vil jeg sige, at vi stammer fra en menneskelignende væsensart, der igennem et millionårelangt forløb har formået, at forædle sit genom og derfor ikke eksistere mere og; at de andre væsener (menneskelignende) selv eksistere i deres forædlede genom der udtrykker dem.
Enoch