Well, where do I start? First, let me say that the last post was mostly satirical. The purpose of it was to see what some people might say about a possible end to evolution in humans (if we are even evolving). I thought I might get a few different types of replies, but apparently only a few people of the many who read this post left a comment.
I am not a scientist and have no degrees even remotely connected to the sciences, origin of the species, or the human genome; but I do have the power of observation and a love of finding the truth. Maybe what I say next will just prove my ignorance even further.
It is odd to me to think that if one accepts evolution as the process by which man is the result of millions, possibly billions of years of changing from a single celled organism into what we are today, that they think we cannot move on to some other type or variety other than what we are today. I mean, at some point in the process, all species branched out from their parent in some fashion. From fish to crawler, from gills to lungs, from walking to flying, at some point a major change would have had to take place and survived. My point in brining up the story of young Lakshmi Tatma was to ask the question, would social prejudice and scientific or moral process interfere with further evolution in humans if it meant us taking on a new form?
I believe, as is evident, that Lakshmi’s extra limbs are a mutation, and doctors are correct to remove them if she chooses. However, those who believe in evolution have to stop and ask the question, “Are we stopping further evolution because her limbs are not socially acceptable?” And if the answer to this question is yes, would that elimination of the next evolutionary step be considered survival of the fittest, or survival of the moral and scientific majority?
The fact that this question (no matter how legitimate) can be asked is evidence that there is a difference between man and animal. Since there is this difference, that we can contemplate things outside of our own needs, or discuss the relevance of a moral code or origin of life, I ask what made the difference? Is it a change in our genetic coding, or was it programmed to be that way from the beginning? If we were made with a distinct, intentional, intelligent design, was it for a purpose?
I believe in the six day creation of the world and life, as laid out in Genesis, so I answer those questions with God (Jehovah), programmed to be that way from the beginning, and yes.
- chris mooney