where did evolution go?

[Eudaimonist]

Evolution is an idea with not much proof regarding transformation of one species to another.

Seriously?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[morningstar2651]

All the atheists on this forum... I have a question.


Its taken supposedly billions of years to get to be the human race we are now. And yes if you follow strict evolution from nothing, i guess it would take billions of years considering how complicated the human body is. so I have a question for you. what are we evolving into NOW?

Humans have been around more than 6,000 years, without evolving drastically. Why has there been such a stand-still of evolution?

There is a science section to this website that is much more relevant than the world religion section for this thread. Evolution isn't an atheist belief, it is a scientific belief. There are Christians that believe in evolution.

Also, this is a PRATT.

Claim CB928.2: Humans have stopped evolving

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago and then to have stopped evolving. Evolution since that time, it is claimed, has been "cultural and social evolution." Biological evolution is unknown among humans in historical times.

Response:
There is evidence that humans have evolved in the last several thousand years and continue to evolve.

• Analysis of variation in the human genome indicates that genes associated with brain size have evolved over approximately the last 37,000 years and 5800 years (Evans et al. 2005; Mekel-Bobrov et al. 2005).
• Sickle-cell resistance has evolved to be more prevalent in areas where malaria is more common.
• Lactose tolerance has evolved in conjunction with cultural changes in dairy consumption (Durham 1992).
• Some humans have recently acquired mutations which confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) and to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

Genome-wide sequencing shows evidence of much more positive selection as well (Sabeti et al. 2006). There is some evidence that human evolution has accellerated recently, since humans dispersed from Africa and developed agriculture (Hawks et al. 2007).

References:

• Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
• Durham, William H. 1992. Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Evans, Patrick D. et al. 2005. Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans. Science 309: 1717-1720.
• Hawks, John et al. 2007. Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 104: 20753-20758.
• Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene. Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
• Mekel-Bobrov, Nitzan et al. 2005. Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. Science 309: 1720-1722.
• Sabeti, P. C. et al. 2006. Positive natural selection in the human lineage. Science 312: 1614-1620.
• Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
• Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.

 

[morningstar2651]

I realize it's a fraction of history, although enough of a fraction to where we should have some sort of growth. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. But not the evolution FROM nothing to a one-celled organism to where we are now.

That's not evolution you're arguing against - it's abiogenesis.

Evolution describes the process of one species evolving to another species over a long period of time. It does not describe where life came from.

 

[Rationalt]

Seriously?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, seriously. The following sentence from your link is kind of a give away.


"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.".


In other words since a better explanation was not found let us stick to this theory.

To me , logically, the concept of "common ancestor" , among other things, is absurd. There was no way for people to cross continents in older days.

Nothing in common between Australians and Finns or between mongols and Italians.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In other words since a better explanation was not found let us stick to this theory.

Eh, no. A big no. That's not what they meant. There is plenty of positive evidence for Evolution. It's not like it's just some wild guess that has nothing in favor of it except being better than alternatives.

They are saying that it is by far the best theory to match the known facts. That isn't as weak a statement as you are making it out to be.

To me , logically, the concept of "common ancestor" , among other things, is absurd. There was no way for people to cross continents in older days.

Of course there was. Boats, for one.

Nothing in common between Australians and Finns or between mongols and Italians.

There is plenty in common genetically and in other ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

I'm not a scientist, but I know a Christian biologist who has been working on this issue for most of his life. Basically, he tells me that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and any so-called evidence for a young Earth or alternatives is negligeable. An anti-evolutionary scientist can sound very convincing to the layperson, but my scientist friend sees the flaws and rather shoddy fieldwork.

Evolutionary theory is not going away, but this does not in any way affect my belief in God and that he is the origin of all things. What are we evolving towards? Catholic theologian Karl Rahner would say, in a word, Christ.

 

[Rationalt]

Eh, no. A big no. That's not what they meant. There is plenty of positive evidence for Evolution. It's not like it's just some wild guess that has nothing in favor of it except being better than alternatives.

They are saying that it is by far the best theory to match the known facts. That isn't as weak a statement as you are making it out to be.

Not something clinching. It is not unusual in the field of biology to have well laid out theories busted out by new evidences .Genetic treatment is one such area.

Of course there was. Boats, for one.

Not sea worthy before 5000 years ago.
(Ancient maritime history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

There is plenty in common genetically and in other ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Commonalities do exist.

On a less serious note, something about this common ancestry thing irks me to no end. One group of negroids from hot Africa traveled to equally hot middle east and lost most of their melanin and turned light colored.

another group of them somehow navigated to japan , became slight in physical stature and turned yellow. Some more of them traveled to Europe and picked up their Eye color from Sea.Kind of ridiculous, I feel.

 

[morningstar2651]

Let me know when you find evidence that disproves the overwhelming evidence that evolution exists.

Until then, I will continue to not care that you don't like evolution.

 

[pinkputter]

I'm not a scientist, but I know a Christian biologist who has been working on this issue for most of his life. Basically, he tells me that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and any so-called evidence for a young Earth or alternatives is negligeable. An anti-evolutionary scientist can sound very convincing to the layperson, but my scientist friend sees the flaws and rather shoddy fieldwork.

Evolutionary theory is not going away, but this does not in any way affect my belief in God and that he is the origin of all things. What are we evolving towards? Catholic theologian Karl Rahner would say, in a word, Christ.

 

[elephunky]

I would say that we are forever evolving, but as we are currently living it wouldnt it be difficult to predict where it is to go? It is always easier to observe it after the fact like generations getting taller, etc.

 

[BaconWizard]

I am normally more tollerant than this, as anyone will testify on this forum. But where the issue of Evolution is concerned, this is very, very simple indeed.

"Where did evolution go?"

Nowhere. Unlike any assertion made purely on faith, evolution is proven using The Scientific Method. It is utterly unassailable in its principles (but details continue to self-correct over time with increasing accuracy) unless you do away with critical thinking and accept logical fallacies blindly. Let's not do that.

Certain disgusting elements of various churches deliberately spread ignorance out of fear that they might otherwise lose their power over a doe-eyed, unthinking, unbalanced, uncritical, blindly faithful, mentally unequipped, aggressively defensive, deliberately obtuse, self-deceiving, anti-intellectual population, since their position is in fact completely untenable and deeply immoral and at the expense of their human crop and others.

To give an example of this mindset, know that ONLY the absolute and unbending, literal translation of Genesis could possibly give rise to an anti-evolution mindset. What that requires is to take the original Hebrew poem, translate it into a foreign and modern language thus losing the similes, rhymes, rhythm, alliteration, structure, beauty, cleverness and repeating themes.. take the new words (roughly or even badly translated and of which there may be several versions) and after some careful editing to try and shoehorn it into making some kind of sense, treat the new version which is now devoid of any meaning or intent of the original author, as a work of precise and dogmatic history written in the unbending language of legal practice. A work of extreme, deliberate vandalism and desecration, in other words.

This is a viewpoint that depends upon ignorance of both Evolution AND The Bible.

While they seek to encourage sheep-like qualities in their congregation to a whole new level, shepherds they most certainly are not.

Furthermore, such people enjoy disproportionate representation in world media and education, due to their aggressive evangelism, internet exposure and access to unprecedented funding (tax free) in parts of America.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Of course there was. Boats, for one.

And until recently, the last ten thousand years, lower sea levels meant people could, you know, just walk across. The Bering land bridge made travel between Asia and North America very possible. Indonesia was connected to Southeast Asia, a short boat ride to Australia not too difficult.

The Polynesian settlement of the Pacific islands and New Zealand within the last five thousand years would also settle the "boats weren't advanced enough" objection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BaconWizard]

And until recently, the last ten thousand years, lower sea levels meant people could, you know, just walk across. The Bering land bridge made travel between Asia and North America very possible. Indonesia was connected to Southeast Asia, a short boat ride to Australia not too difficult.

The Polynesian settlement of the Pacific islands and New Zealand within the last five thousand years would also settle the "boats weren't advanced enough" objection.

-CryptoLutheran

Not to mention periodic ice bridges before that. Also, it's nothing like as simple as is conventionally taught at the most basic school level, or the standard maps you can google:

Going even further back it would seem that several waves of homonid left Africa, evolving in their own right as ring-species and quite possibly re-interbreeding a little later-on in some cases, lending a very few but not entirely insignificant genetic change to the surviving species in its various disparate populations (namely, us lot)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Not to mention periodic ice bridges before that. Also, it's nothing like as simple as is conventionally taught at the most basic school level, or the standard maps you can google:

Going even further back it would seem that several waves of homonid left Africa, evolving in their own right as ring-species and quite possibly re-interbreeding a little later-on in some cases, lending a very few but not entirely insignificant genetic change to the surviving species in its various disparate populations (namely, us lot)

At the same time, our genetic heritage is so homogeneous that it'd be utterly preposterous to talk about distinct human "races". The last time one of us would have been able to meet a person of a distinct human race was when the Neanderthals were still around, and/or before the hobbit-like people of Indonesia died out.

 

[theophilus777]

At the same time, our genetic heritage is so homogeneous that it'd be utterly preposterous to talk about distinct human "races". The last time one of us would have been able to meet a person of a distinct human race was when the Neanderthals were still around, and/or before the hobbit-like people of Indonesia died out.

Couldn't possibly be true. If it were, then why wasn't the Hobbit filmed in Indonesia?

 

[theophilus777]

Certain disgusting elements of various churches deliberately spread ignorance out of fear that they might otherwise lose their power over a doe-eyed, unthinking, unbalanced, uncritical, blindly faithful, mentally unequipped, aggressively defensive, deliberately obtuse, self-deceiving, anti-intellectual population, since their position is in fact completely untenable and deeply immoral and at the expense of their human crop and others.

Sir, you need to use more adjectives. And don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!

What that requires is to take the original Hebrew poem, translate it into a foreign and modern language thus losing the similes, rhymes, rhythm, alliteration, structure, beauty, cleverness and repeating themes.. take the new words (roughly or even badly translated and of which there may be several versions) and after some careful editing to try and shoehorn it into making some kind of sense, treat the new version which is now devoid of any meaning or intent of the original author, as a work of precise and dogmatic history written in the unbending language of legal practice. A work of extreme, deliberate vandalism and desecration, in other words.

Hey, an atheist who knows the Bible? Good to meet you.

 

[BaconWizard]

Sir, you need to use more adjectives. And don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!



Hey, an atheist who knows the Bible? Good to meet you.

LOL, I am nothing if not passionate about this subject. It is not rejection of evolution per-se, it is the deliberate promulgation of ignorance that makes steam come out of my ears and hypocrisy only increases the temperature!

These people DON'T reject evolution, they don't even know what it is to begin-with, nor science that produced it, nor do they know the bible they claim to live-by in doing so.

As for knowing The Bible, meh, not as well as I should. While I reject theism as truth, I do not reject it as natural and significant with works such as The Bible being of massive value; the ultimate in Literature.

Anyhow good to meet you too.

 

[fschmidt]

To give an example of this mindset, know that ONLY the absolute and unbending, literal translation of Genesis could possibly give rise to an anti-evolution mindset. What that requires is to take the original Hebrew poem, translate it into a foreign and modern language thus losing the similes, rhymes, rhythm, alliteration, structure, beauty, cleverness and repeating themes.. take the new words (roughly or even badly translated and of which there may be several versions) and after some careful editing to try and shoehorn it into making some kind of sense, treat the new version which is now devoid of any meaning or intent of the original author, as a work of precise and dogmatic history written in the unbending language of legal practice. A work of extreme, deliberate vandalism and desecration, in other words.

This is a viewpoint that depends upon ignorance of both Evolution AND The Bible.

Here I completely agree with you. The Bible and Evolution not only aren't in conflict, but they actually support each other as I explained here:

Learn about Scripturism - Human Evolution

 

[Rationalt]

I suppose it is politically incorrect to talk about races. It is clear that life forms sprang through out the world unconnected to each other geographically. African lions didn't migrate to asia or vice versa. The kangaroos apparently never left australia.

 

[Rationalt]

I would root for the tower of bable story had it was mentioned that people were modified physically before changing their languages and sent across the world (or to the ends of world ) .