The fuss here is that we are running after the truth about the existence of man or human origin. There is one fact about the origin of man and other living things which is reasonably certain. This you must agree with me is irrespective of how it happened. The very evident fact is that it started a very long time ago, so long ago that it is very difficult to form any feasible idea of such vast stretches of time. The anatomy of man demands he has a limited lifespan which is too short to enhance personal recollection of boring old times. The constant interaction with the environment we live, coupled with the influence of culture and societal norms on our behaviors have been described as memory setback agents.
Because it took sometime to invent the art of writing, most of the experiences of earlier generations that were embodied in stories, myths, and moral principles to guide behavior, was passed down verbally or to a lesser extent, in pictures, carvings, and statues. Writing actually made more effective the transmission of such information and very recently, photography has tapered our impressions of the immediate past.
My opinion as regards this topic is that we are yet to have the better presentation of what the past looked like. This is because without a clear blueprint of the past, it is a sheer overgeneralization and void exaggeration for anybody to conclude an origin for men. You see, we still need several explanations, and details of the past for any viable conclusion.
Visi tHere - What happened at Stonehenge?