Clips about the Evolution of Homo sapiens
Living in Europe, it is rather easy to assume that people around the world would share a perspective on the evolution of our species. But as I learned from some comments and mails, this is not the case. Therefore, I decided to present the scientific standard of knowledge about the evolution of homo sapiens before proceeding with the specific topic of the evolution of our religiosity and religions.
Of course, the evolution of hominids has taken place in the broad frame of the evolution of live in general. If you didn't have the chance to admire it yet, you might want to enjoy "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life" by Sir David Attenborough (6:30 Minutes).
About 500.000 years ago, (at least) two branches descended from our common ancestors, the species of homo erectus: Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Both of them evolved burials as the first behaviors that left traces which might be interpreted as religious or proto-religious. As modern Homo sapiens emerged in Africa, they were ready to conquer the planet - while sharing mythologies and performing rituals concerned with supernatural agents. Homo sapiens has been Homo religiosus from the start, and this might have helped him to build stronger communities and to settle all climate zones.
While it has been common conviction for a long time that the evolution of our species took place primarily in the fields of competition, wars and machiavellian intelligence, recent models and studies have shown that our abilities to build trusting social groups of cooperative breeding allowed for shorter birthing intervals, longer childhoods, bigger brains and the increasing importance of cultural evolution. As biologists as e.g. Sarah Hrdy discerned: Homo sapiens and her religiosity evolved not along a path of cooperative killings, but one of cooperative childcare.
Printview
Is human being living organism?
I think, it is "No".
But even as you think that the answer is "no", you are doing something only a living organism can do: Thinking and arguing.
To me, you seem to be alive! :-)
I suggest that the overwhelming majority of biologists would agree that Darwin's Natural/ Sexual Selection must now be accepted as a scientific fact rather than merely a theory. Not necessarily the only evolutionary mechanism, but certainly one of the foundational processes. The evidence for this over the past 150 years has been overwhelming. It has been seen occurring in several species; even over relatively short periods of time. There is evidence from studying the human genome and confirmatory evidence from the fossil record. There really is no room for doubt.
Alfred Russel Wallace discovered Natural/ Sexual Selection at about the same time as Charles Darwin. I suggest that, even without Darwin, progress in this area of scientific knowledge would have been similar to that which we have actually experienced.
An interesting thought, indeed. Although I do agree that the fact of evolutionary processes would have been discovered nevertheless, Darwin gave it a distinct flavour by his distinct wording, worldviews and perspectives - as any other would have done. After all, scientists and sciences, are never completely detached from their time and social surroundings.
As the years progress, Darwin's theory of evolution is gaining credibility and more evidence. I am sorry for my bad English but I believe what my Biology professor told me a couple of years back; every living thing will still continue to evolve.
Evolution of man has always been a very tricky and sensitive debate between religious people and people of science.
Evolution has always been a fickle subject, even with or without the help of religion.
I was just browsing for relevant blog posts for my project research and I happened to stumble upon yours. Thanks for the excellent information!
It was really nice to study your post. I collect some good points here. I would like to be appreciative you with the hard work you have made in skill this is great article.
First off, I am an atheist but I am open to all theories of how humans came to be. The more rational theory would be Darwin's theory than the more traditional one which is based on the bible's Genesis.
I believe in both the theory of evolution and the Genesis.