• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Lactase persistance would be a good example.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, skin tone is a combination of environment and genes. It's not like everyone born in climates close to the poles have the same skin tone regardless as to their lineage. The base tone you have, as well as how dark you can potentially get via sun exposure, are genetic. How you fit within that range is the environment.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are a few known mutations that confer significant benefits in small human populations.

So you have shared an example which in laymans terms suggests that certain people who have a rare protein mutation have an added defence against cardiovascular disease, cholesterol deposition and the oxidation that encourages it. But is this evolution on the scale of developing the hardware to support language skills or tool making skills for example or the ability to engage in abstract thought - mathematics, philosophy, scientific models...?? Also are these people any more likely to breed and pass on their genes to a position of dominance in the next generation?

I think they're still working on assessing the huge amount of data they have from a few living subjects; it would require sequencing people of many previous generations to establish trends.

Granted it is a massive project , and mapping the presence of gene patterns with real world advantages may take even longer. I was just interested if any broad patterns had as yet been identified.

Evolution is not like X-Men.

The theory of macro-evolution posits a series of jumps in capabilities between less developed common ancestors and the later more complex forms that followed them. So fish like beings become ape like beings become human beings would be the historical path. The difference between the ape like ancestors we are supposed to be descended from and modern humans is profound and includes the development of language, tool making capabilities and a capacity for abstract thought missing in the previous generations. The comparison with x men is therefore warranted as we are qualitatively that much superior to our supposed ancestors as xmen/heroes/alphas (whichever TV series you watch that share this assumption) would be to us.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we're still evolving. Whether you consider lactose tolerance an extra capability or a gift is a matter of opinion.

I was talking to a man who is lactose intolerant today. He said that because he cannot drink cows milk he has things like goats cheese which has actually proven a healthier option. Given the amount of antibiotics pumped into cows and the vested interest of the beef industry to maximise profits by selling beef, milk and leather from the same cows there is an institutionalised momentum to the idea that drinking milk offers evolutionary advantages. On the other hand it may be a factor in the growing obesity epidemic in the Western world. Overall I think the ability to eat/drink anything gives an advantage over those who are more fussy or physically limited about their food choices. But are milk drinkers any more likely to breed or succeed in our world than non milk drinkers? Not really. This is a microevolutionary development that offers clear benefits but is not an evolutionary shift comparable to the development of language or tool making capabilities for instance.


But there are no distinct breeding/succeeding advantages in the fact that you are lactose intolerant or not.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Human ingenuity has overruled much of the selection-side of evolution.

Almost anyone can survive to reproductive age and reproduce, thanks to cultural and scientific factors. So beneficial novelties dont offer much comparative advantage.

Yes I agree , so in that case even if evolution were true as an explanation to how we got here, it would be irrelevant to trying to understand our future development, as other factors are now more important.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
as long as each new generation of humans has mutations in it not seen in the previous one... as long as the frequency of genes differs generation to generation... as long as the environment is not unchanging... we are evolving.

Adaptation and the ability of the human design to change in response to its environment is not necessarily a proof of the larger claims of the evolutionary theory. The jump between ape like ancestors and human beings included things like developing the hardware to support language, tool making, art and abstract thought. What evidence exists to support the view that these larger jumps are possible or occurring. The number of human beings is now in excess of 7 billion. There has never been a larger sample. Yet where are the examples of people who are so genetically beyond the norm that they have developed new advantages over the rest of us that set them up for breeding and succeeding in the modern world at our expense? There are a great many examples of disabilities and regressions from the norm but where are the examples of beneficial mutations on the scale of the development of language or tool making?
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So communities that live in certain environmental conditions may adapt to those conditions and then later pass on those beneficial adaptations to future generations. That is a cool and observable feature of the human design and you have provided a scientific explanation of how that occurs with transgenerational epigenetic change. But these adaptations are not proof of evolution of the type and scale that is historically claimed for it
 
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,467
4,001
47
✟1,139,541.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
We are demonstrably continually adapting. To prove evolution requires more than the assertion of adaptive change however.
That's all evolution is. Small changes that provide a statistical improved chance of reproducing slowly spreading through the population.

Things like intelligence and tool use didn't jump in all at once, they slowly built on earlier adaptations.

We can see traits similar throughout the animal kingdom.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,451
23,114
US
✟1,765,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I like comic books and superhero movies, too, but I don't get my science from them.

Evolution does not imply "improvement." It merely implies that mutations within species occur each generation, and those mutations that fit the environment continue for another generation. And "mutation" does not imply "improvement," either.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,451
23,114
US
✟1,765,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Except that genome research indicates that skin tone differentiation is no more than about 8,000 years old--too recent to be the result of evolution, especially considering that it makes very little difference in survival rates.

If it were the case that some huge percentage of melanin-deprived persons in sub-Sahara Africa would die for that specific reason before reproducing, or that some huge percentage of melanin-rich persons in Northern Europe would die for that specific reason before reproducing, then the skin-tone differentiation we see could be ascribed to evolution (essentially, species running into region-specific extinction events).

But it doesn't make that much difference. Generations of melanin-deprived people have lived in South Africa with no noticeable reduction in their rate of survival to reproductive age caused by sun exposure.

Skin tone differentiation is a result of selective breeding and inbreeding, just as in domesticated dogs and cats.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I understand evolution does not imply improvement but if the theory is true we should nonetheless be seeing them. This is especially true given the size of the worlds population today.

Comic books and superheroes are in part the cultures response to an inflated set of expectations raised by too strong a faith in science. Their pseudo science is actually a genuine response to the idea of macroevolution minus the timescales that serious scientists suggest. As the overall human population grows in size those timescales become less and less significant statistical explanation for the absence of real evolutionary change in human beings.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,370
10,234
✟292,873.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Except that genome research indicates that skin tone differentiation is no more than about 8,000 years old--too recent to be the result of evolution
Since evolution is an ongoing process it would be irrelevant whether it was 8,000 years old, or 80,000 years old. What would be important is when the mutations responsible occurred and how sensitive the benefits/disdavantages were to the environment.

But it doesn't make that much difference. Generations of melanin-deprived people have lived in South Africa with no noticeable reduction in their rate of survival to reproductive age caused by sun exposure.
Perhaps not noticeable you, but quite possibly noticeable to natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes and applesauce
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,647
6,788
48
North Bay
✟819,308.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

This would suggest that melanin-rich people might not be able to camouflage as well in a polar environment. It would make sense if humans were not predators, at the top of the food chain.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

I ♡ potato pancakes and applesauce
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
17,647
6,788
48
North Bay
✟819,308.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's all evolution is. Small changes that provide a statistical improved chance of reproducing slowly spreading through the population.

Things like intelligence and tool use didn't jump in all at once, they slowly built on earlier adaptations.

Didn't 'modern man' burst suddenly on the scene (like T-Rex)? Our evolutionary development would plot like the 'hockey stick' graph wouldn't it, the upward curve coming suddenly, and very recently? Wouldn't metamorphosis better describe our rapid development? We went to sleep one night as cavemen and awoke next morning as modern humans complete with our present features and abilities.

We can see traits similar throughout the animal kingdom.

Actually the fossil record supports sudden, not gradual, change doesn't it?
 
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,332
3,032
London, UK
✟1,022,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
So Yes, Humans are Evolving.

But nothing like the scale of the development of human language or tools is being observed


Right!!! Said the guy who believed in instantaneous creation because it fitted the neo-Platonic assumptions of the intellectual elite of his own age better.
 
Upvote 0