Man can be described any number of ways, all accurate in part but none providing a complete description. It's like describing man as a mammal. It's true, but horribly incomplete. That having been said, I leave you with this quote from Shakespeare: "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!"

Hi... According to our understanding of evolution, man has always been man and did not evolve from an animal., There is no possibility for a plant to evolve into an animal, or an animal into a human being. History supplies no record of one species producing another type, or a lower species of living matter changing into a higher order of existence. There is no change going on in the lower orders who are said to resemble man by which it is possible that they might become men in the future. The gorilla and the ape, though resembling man outwardly, fail to resemble him inwardly. The great difference between animal and man is not of organic structure; their bodies are similarly constructed and endowed. The difference lies within the quality of spirit manifesting itself through the form. Man is a thinker, a chooser; he has free will, and these qualities reside within himself.

Plato defined man as "a featherless biped." One of his rivals showed up with a plucked chicken and announced, "Behold, Plato’s man!" Perhaps that was when Plato changed his definition to "a being in search of meaning." Pascal said man was "a reed, but a thinking reed." Mark Twain apologized for man by explaining that God made man at the end of the week when Diety was tired! What man thinks of man may be important, but most important is what God thinks of man.

How about this one from Mark Twain: "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."

Man is just a part of universe. It is just an energy. It cannot be a biped because there is noone controling us but our minds.