Origin of Humans: Were We Created or Evolved?

Origin of Humans: Were We Created or Evolved?

 

I have wondered for a very long time ever since I was in school about our human origin from the scientific point of view.

Long after my retirement from the Institute for Medical Research, Malaysia, I have even gone to the extent of attending a postdoctoral course on Evolution at the University of Cambridge in 20I9 in the hope of finding an answer to this mystery. 

Cambridge University is where Charles Darwin published his world-renowned studies on evolution. Charles Darwin wrote his celebrated treatise "On the Origin of Species" which was published on November 24, 1859, in London.

I took this opportunity to have several dialogues with experts on evolution at Cambridge, but I had not gained any convincing acceptance.  

 

The origin and the evolution of the human species remains a mystery to me till this day.

However, I have written “A Summary on The Creation of The Universe and History of Evolution of Life on Earth.” 

This included when we first made our appearances on the surface of this earth. 

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-creation-of-universe-and-history-of.html

It may be possible for us to offer theories on the origin of microscopic life on earth which I have very briefly discussed and posted on Thursday, July 27, 2023, here in this link:

“Mysteries on the Origin of Life on Earth” here: 

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=origin+of+life

But it is highly improbable to offer the same for such a highly developed and complex species of life as us humans. Even if we attempt to link ourselves to fossils belonging  to the genus Australopithecus, an ancient hominin that was initially thought to live 2 million to 2.6 million years ago,  or other primates that produced successive clades leading to the ape superfamily, which gave rise to the hominid and the gibbon families; these diverged some 15–20 million years ago, and the African and Asian hominids (including orangutans) diverged about 14 million years ago, and  Hominins (including the Australopithecine and Panina subtribes) parted from the Gorillini tribe (gorillas) between 8–9 million years ago; Australopithecine (including the extinct biped ancestors of humans) separated from the Pan genus (containing chimpanzees and bonobos) 4–7 million years ago we still are unable to seamless linked them anatomically, structurally and genetically. There are “missing links” among them, as well as humans and them.  The Homo genus is evidenced by the appearance of H. habilis over 2 million years ago, while anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago.

In any case, whether we were created, or zoologically evolved, scientists have classified us humans as animals because we are not angels or heavenly beings. 

They have put us into the Animal Kingdom, and we belong here, and nowhere else :

Kingdom:   Animalia
Phylum:   Chordata
Subphylum:   Vertebrata
Class:   Mammalia
 Subclass:   Theria
 Infraclass:   Eutheri

Order:   Primate

 Suborder:  Anthropoidea
 Superfamily:   Hominoidea
 Family:   Hominidae

Genus:   Homo

Species:   sapiens

 

Having said this, an hour ago, I read these links on our human evolution and also on the origin of races. Still, they didn’t tell us anything about our origin.

 

1.       https://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/transcript_pdfs/Evidence%20of%20Human%20Evolution.pdf

 

2.       https://humanorigins.si.edu/multimedia/videos/evidence-human-evolution

 

3.       https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/are-humans-still-evolving/

 

Origin of the Races:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

1.       https://www.nytimes.com/1865/01/22/archives/the-origin-of-human-races.html

At a Symposia in 2009 on Quantitative Biology at Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Evolution – The Molecular Landscape, hundreds of papers presented were published in a massive Volume LXXXIV, where TD White from the Department of Integrative Biology and Human Evolution Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, California wrote among many other thoughts this:  

Darwin would have been astonished and delighted to witness the 2009 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s Symposium on Quantitative Biology anniversary celebrations of his birth and book. He would have recognized the many persistent themes discussed, taken satisfaction in the hundreds of mechanisms revealed, and been amazed by the broad advancing front of modern evolutionary biology. From ‘shadow’ enhancers (Heng et al, 2008) to segmental duplication (Marques-Bonet et al. 2009) and from ancient fossils to the ‘cognitive niche’ (Pinker 2003), ours is a world full of insights unavailable to Darwin in 1859.

In his historical scientist mode, Darwin was directly concerned with the paleontological, neonotological, and contextual data resulting from the natural, one-time, uncontrolled experiment of life on earth, Darwin clearly understood how the rich data sources of the neontological realm were living products of that vast experiment. And the phylogenetic and functional elucidation of how extant diversity has arisen – now provided by the modern landscape of molecular biology – is truly astounding, even in the hindsight of a single decade. These revelations make it too easy to forget what Darwin clearly appreciated – that the historical record of fossils, artifacts, and context is crucial to the fullest understanding of our evolution.

Human evolution was touched upon ever so lightly in Darwin’s 1959 ‘On the Origin of Species’. Darwin devoted detailed attention to ‘Imperfections in the Geological Records’ perhaps because he saw such gaps as rendering his theory vulnerable to critics (Sepkoski and Ruse 2009). His 1871 treatise on human evolution pondered what was then one of the largest imperfections of earth’s historical record – the paucity of truly early hominid fossil remains - family Hominidae bounds genera in the human clade after the last common ancestor we shared with the chimpanzees.

Darwin on Hominids:

Living humans are obviously anatomically, physiologically uniquely different from our closet living relatives, the African apes. What was the sequence by which natural selection assembled our obvious derivations of brain expansion, canine reduction, technology, and bipedality?

Darwin infamously avoided these topics in 1859, but despite this, Origin’s implications for human evolution could scarcely be concealed. Indeed, they generated even more immediate discussion and debate than did his later more immediate discussion and debate than his later 1871 treatise on humans (Browne 2002). When Huxley wrote on the subject in 1865 – followed by Darwin in 1871 – the poverty of the human paleontological record was overwhelming. 

Darwinian scholars had only a small, mostly European paleontological record extracted primarily from archaeological context with which had been labeled everything from ancestral to pathological. Even the extent of great apes were barely known. So, Darwin and Huxley turned to the extant hominoid primates to serve as the ‘outgroup’ for humans as proxies for the common ancestors we once shared with these now relics.

The late Stephen J. Gould famously characterized hominid paleontology as follows “…no true consensus exists in this most contentious of all scientific professions… a field that features more minds at work than bones to study” (Gould 2002. P. 910). Hominid primates are, in general, highly variable as judged by any of their living representatives. 

All workers agree that there is rampant homoplasy with the clade. Hominids have already lived fairly high on the food chain. Relative to many other mammals, they are K-selected, and therefore rare as fossils. 

These factors all contribute to make the delineation of hominid species lineages very difficult… and contentious. Contention is difficult to quantify but given the literally thousands of hominid fossils…and the relatively few professionals who work to interpret them… Gould’s characterization has surely been invalid since early in the 20th century. The fossil samples are today relatively large, even though the hominid clade’s record is terrestrial and therefore still full of imperfections.

The global experiment of human evolution cannot be repeated in a laboratory. We must infer what happened from the one-time experimental results, fragmentary and scattered as they may be. The good news about understanding our behavioural evolution is that there is a 2.5-million-year archaeological record. 

The good news about our understanding of our anatomical evolution is that some of the tissues shaped by that disappeared DNA can still be recovered from unique paleontological records derived from ancient landscapes. The order in which our unique human characteristics have been assembled via evolution is susceptible to investigations, and the temporal and anatomical perspective of the fossil record will continue to be the key to its success. 

Crucial in that investigation will be the understanding of how the hard tissues we recover as fossils were formed via development. Integration will continue to be the key to better understanding human origin and evolution.

Huxley’s ‘Nature’ 1882 obituary said it well on the occasion of Charles Darwin’s death. “He found the great truth, trodden under foot…” A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin wrote in “Origin” (1939) only that … light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”

He could not have imagined the illumination already thrown on our ancestry through the integration of the ever-expanding constellations of evidence about our human evolution".

Still, none of the papers presented gave any light on the origin of Homo sapiens, whether he was created or emerged through the agonizing process of millions of years of evolution?   

I think scientists are very confused and arrogant searching for the origin and evolution of human species. Were we created or evolved separately is my question?  

 It would have been far easier if they have carried their problematic academic burdens for an instant answer here: 

 

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

(Genesis 2:7)

 

We would need not have to search high and low, carrying such heavy thinking burdens in our brains about our origin if we just entrust all our questions to Jesus here:

 

^“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

(Matthew 11:28-29).

 

Scientists and paleoanthropologists have shown fossil skulls of human-like hominids over the last decade. There have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional ape / hominins, or proto-hominins.  These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs.  The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera—Sahelanthropus. The earliest australopithecines very likely did not evolve until 5 million years ago or shortly thereafter (during the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch) in East Africa.  The primate fossil record for this crucial transitional period leading to australopithecines is still scanty and somewhat confusing.  However, by about 4.2 million years ago, unquestionable australopithecines were present.  By 3 million years ago, they were common in both East and South Africa.  Some have been found dating to this period in North Central Africa also.  As the australopithecines evolved, they exploited more types of environments.  Their early proto-hominin ancestors had been predominantly tropical forest animals.  However, African forests were progressively giving way to sparse woodlands and dry grasslands, or savannas.  The australopithecines took advantage of these new conditions.  In the more open environments, bipedalism would very likely have been an advantage.

My feeling about all these discoveries is that human-like hominids may have existed one after another long before the advent of modern humans beginning from Adam and Eve. These hominids were like clay models of various shapes and sizes moulded by a human potter.

The potter with his clay (soil) will initially craft out many figures and figurines that resemble humans, but not exactly like humans. He may initially play about with his craftsmanship, but not to his satisfaction. But with each figure and figurine he improves his art.

Similarly, from the anthropological angle, the Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) said to be a sibling human species, the Java Man (Homo erectus), Piltdown Man, Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus, the Heidelberg Man that was probably ancestral to Homo sapiens & Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis that has features intermediate between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), and Australopithecus sediba were all separate hominids and there were missing links anatomically and genetically among them. They were all evolved separately like figures and figurines made separately by a potter at different times. They were not seamless genetically.

 

Then one day he decided to make a figure out of clay which is soil to resemble himself. In other words, it would be of his own image. Then when he had perfected his art, he decided to make a figurine of a female to accompany the male figure as he thought it would be better if he could craft out a pair of figure and figurine. So, he did just that.

 But what immediately strikes me is that God may not be satisfied with the imperfections of these hominids that looked like clay models. He would do exactly the same with these earlier hominids out of soil as He would with creating Adam out of soil that resembles His image, and later created Eve to make it a pair to accompany Adam.

This analogy given here by me fits exactly the verses in Genesis.  It explains the various skull fossils that have slightly different sizes and shapes scientists found in various parts of the world as much as a human potter makes different figures and figurines and places them in different parts of his workshop. Isn’t that similar? Isn’t this reasonable?

 In other words, God has been creating a lot of human-like creatures for thousands, if not millions of years before He perfected one which He named as Adam and Eve.

Then why was this not given in the Bible? First, we don’t expect the Bible to tell us that God has been experimenting with hominids before creating a perfect one that is in the same image as Him, do we? Second, the Bible is not a science book or a book on craftmanship or on technology. It is a book about God as a Maker similar to the potter and his dealings with his products of creation. 

 The Bible is a book on salvation which is far more important than the products of various craftsmanship. If the Bible was a book on science and technology, all the collective national libraries in this world would not be able to contain all those technical details of creation. So God has to make them exceedingly short and precise just for you and me. Does that explain?   

“ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis. verse 26) and in verses 27 – 31 it says, “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created them.
 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day”.

(Genesis 26 -31)

 

It was then the image of Homo sapiens bearing the same image as God Himself came into existence. Is this theory of mine probable and acceptable?

 

 Furthermore, even the theory of evolution we already know, subscribes that the plants and trees were first to come into existence.

 

They have to be evolved first to provide oxygen through photosynthesis before the animals could be evolved. But this is exactly also the same series of events that took place in stages as described in Creation, given in Genesis in the verses 27 – 31. Does that ring the bell? 

 

Does that not fit in so neatly from the millions of years of evolution in the eyes of evolutionists, scientists, was just one day in the eyes of God. What may have taken 13.5 billion years in the eyes of an astronomer on the age of the universe was actually six days for Him.  

 

Does this explanation of mine opened the eyes of both the scientist and the church to be acceptable for both parties who has been at logger heads turtles with each other since the time of Charles Darwin. 

 

Does that sound logical?

 

It is also clearly revealed that a thousand years to us is just a day, or a watch in the night to God.

“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night”.

(Psalm 90:4)

 

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”.

(Peter 3:8)

 

lim ju boo

(2,860 words)