Are humans evolving?

[Ophiolite]

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.

I believe some polar bears are inclined to dispute the role of top predator.

 

[mindlight]

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving

Oh come on none of these are comparable to the development of language or of tool making capabilities and none of them conclusive proof of macroevolution.

Blue eyes, smaller brains, resistance to diseases that may not have existed previously, ability to drink milk and losing our wisdom teeth due to our smaller heads and jaws are hardly an impressive list of reasons to believe in macro evolution.

If a disease did not exist in a previously more environmentally friendly or even an age where populations were more isolated then the development of an immunity to it was not necessary. So all this shows is an adaptation to a changed environment in which humanity was increasingly exposed to diseases. It does not have to show macroevolution at all.

There is a school of thought that suggests smaller heads and therefore brains and jaws is evidence of devolution rather than evolution. To these people it is evidence that humanity is getting dumber, weaker etc. That there is a controversy as to whether smaller heads are an improvement or otherwise suggests that rather than being a proof for evolution it is an observable change that people are having problems explaining.

http://naturalsociety.com/leading-geneticist-human-intelligence-slowly-declining/

The development of lactose tolerance may merely indicate the increasingly domesticated nature of the food supply as the shift from a hunter gatherer to agrarian society occurred and the passed down adaptation to that reality.

All of these are relatively minor adaptations to the changed realities that could easily be explained in terms of the inherent flexibility of the human design rather than in terms of evolution. None of them remotely compare to the development of tools or language.

 

[mindlight]

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.

Actually the fossil record supports sudden, not gradual, change doesn't it?

Exactly and with a population of 7 billion today with mass global communications, if evolutionary theory has any validity, then we should be seeing sudden changes like this occurring. Most would be pointless failures leading to disabilities of various sorts but some should be genetically beneficial. But we are not seeing any SIGNIFICANT beneficial changes at all so maybe the theory is just hogwash.

Show me an X-Man or just admit macroevolutionary theory is a pile of excrement!

 

[Cearbhall]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Like what?

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

Evolution is a continual process that varies across populations and takes a looonnnggg time. Also, there's no "higher state." Evolution has no end-goal.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Exactly and with a population of 7 billion today with mass global communications, if evolutionary theory has any validity, then we should be seeing sudden changes like this occurring. Most would be pointless failures leading to disabilities of various sorts but some should be genetically beneficial. But we are not seeing any SIGNIFICANT beneficial changes at all so maybe the theory is just hogwash.

Show me an X-Man or just admit macroevolutionary theory is a pile of excrement!

If you are referring to the notion of 'punctuated equlibrium' even a sudden leap could take many thousands of years to become evident. In geologic terms 'puncutation' might be a very long time.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Punctuated_Equilibrium.aspx

 

[pgp_protector]

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

Not required, also not part of the definition of Evolution.

 

[Cearbhall]

But isn't genetic skin tone a direct result of the environment? What we 'do' to our bodies then, based on what our environment has to offer, has long-term effects if done for extended periods of time. At least one would think.

...But that goes completely against Darwins vision of evolution.

Huh? You can't change your genes. What you do in your lifetime regarding sun exposure isn't going to get passed on to your children, unless you want to get into epigenetics, which is a fairly new field...but generally speaking, your choices don't matter one iota unless they affect whether you reproduce.

Exactly and with a population of 7 billion today with mass global communications, if evolutionary theory has any validity, then we should be seeing sudden changes like this occurring.

It's the number of generations that matters, not the number of people.

 

[thehehe]

Are you interested in medieval History? If you are, then go to a museum with corpses of men from that period. The difference of size is impressive.
Far from the tall handsome knight of our imagination!
Isn't our little finger disappearing or something (sorry, I'm not what I would call a great scientist)?

 

[mindlight]

Like what?

That is not something that anyone could really say is it. But to draw examples from the popular literature on this theme people have posited the following list as definite improvements: telekinetics, reading thoughts, extra strength, healing / cell regeneration after injury, invisibility /camouflage etc etc. All of which are reported in scripture and in the churches today also.

Evolution is a continual process that varies across populations and takes a looonnnggg time. Also, there's no "higher state." Evolution has no end-goal.

So you guys keep saying and this places your theory beyond conventional scientific refutation. Fact is you have fossils that look like A and then suddenly fossils that seem to be in continuity with A but look like B and then you draw a line between the 2 and claim common descent. You cannot say if the process is in a single generation or over several thousand years cause you have no evidence either way. You probably suggest thousands of years because it fits the extended time spans that the theory requires to work in the first place. Of course that makes you smugly immune from the question : if evolution is true can you show me? Because normal science is not used here but rather a consistent but in effect speculative theorising based on analogies between scientifically verifiable facts. Given that the fossils contains very little of the original mass of the creature and mainly none of its brain tissue for example there is very little you can say about the capabilities of the creature before and after that is not speculative or based on modern day analogies with known creatures of similar skeletal structure.

Playing the time card is in effect saying we cannot prove it but just accept our word on this cause it fits.

 

[mindlight]

If you are referring to the notion of 'punctuated equlibrium' even a sudden leap could take many thousands of years to become evident. In geologic terms 'puncutation' might be a very long time.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Punctuated_Equilibrium.aspx

Playing the time card simply places your theory beyond the scope of the scientific method. No observable experiments can be run to prove these connections or timespans whether in a single generation or over thousands of years.

According to the theory of evolution for millions of years the human population was miniscule compared to today. the size of the modern human population means that we have a living sample equivalent to thousands of years of previous history but these sudden jumps in capability are not being observed.

 

[mindlight]

Not required, also not part of the definition of Evolution.

Convenient cop out

 

[pgp_protector]

Convenient cop out

Show me it in the definition then.

 

[mindlight]

Show me it in the definition then.

I am not asking you to define evolution but rather to demonstrate it is actually happening in the case of human beings. Since the theory cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method and since the jumps speculated in human developmental history are not occurring today it cannot be regarded as properly scientific.

"According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation."

The definition assumes that such adaptations can be demonstrated in history as having secured better chances for breeding and success for the creatures that made these adaptations. By implication it must be observably true today or it is not a proper scientific theory that allows for predictions and can be scientifically demonstrated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. But are milk drinkers any more likely to breed or succeed in our world than non milk drinkers? Not really.

Not so much in the first world...

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

I guess it depends on your circumstances. I don't know, but perhaps if you could drink cow's milk throughout your development and as a result grow stronger and/or healthier than your peers, then you'd have an advantage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

No, as I said, they're a complementary or parallel short-term means of heritable variation, but they don't change the genetic code, just its expression. Neo-Darwinian evolution has its own multiple independent strands of supporting evidence.

 

[Hoghead1]

We are demonstrably continually adapting. To prove evolution requires more than the assertion of adaptive change however.

Such as?

 

[Hoghead1]

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

Oh? Really? Why not?

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh come on none of these are comparable to the development of language or of tool making capabilities and none of them conclusive proof of macroevolution.

Blue eyes, smaller brains, resistance to diseases that may not have existed previously, ability to drink milk and losing our wisdom teeth due to our smaller heads and jaws are hardly an impressive list of reasons to believe in macro evolution.

If a disease did not exist in a previously more environmentally friendly or even an age where populations were more isolated then the development of an immunity to it was not necessary. So all this shows is an adaptation to a changed environment in which humanity was increasingly exposed to diseases. It does not have to show macroevolution at all.

There is a school of thought that suggests smaller heads and therefore brains and jaws is evidence of devolution rather than evolution. To these people it is evidence that humanity is getting dumber, weaker etc. That there is a controversy as to whether smaller heads are an improvement or otherwise suggests that rather than being a proof for evolution it is an observable change that people are having problems explaining.

http://naturalsociety.com/leading-geneticist-human-intelligence-slowly-declining/

The development of lactose tolerance may merely indicate the increasingly domesticated nature of the food supply as the shift from a hunter gatherer to agrarian society occurred and the passed down adaptation to that reality.

All of these are relatively minor adaptations to the changed realities that could easily be explained in terms of the inherent flexibility of the human design rather than in terms of evolution. None of them remotely compare to the development of tools or language.

This whole micro-vs-macro way of looking at evolution is purely something unqualified laity do. it has no real place in science.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not something that anyone could really say is it. But to draw examples from the popular literature on this theme people have posited the following list as definite improvements: telekinetics, reading thoughts, extra strength, healing / cell regeneration after injury, invisibility /camouflage etc etc. All of which are reported in scripture and in the churches today also.



So you guys keep saying and this places your theory beyond conventional scientific refutation. Fact is you have fossils that look like A and then suddenly fossils that seem to be in continuity with A but look like B and then you draw a line between the 2 and claim common descent. You cannot say if the process is in a single generation or over several thousand years cause you have no evidence either way. You probably suggest thousands of years because it fits the extended time spans that the theory requires to work in the first place. Of course that makes you smugly immune from the question : if evolution is true can you show me? Because normal science is not used here but rather a consistent but in effect speculative theorising based on analogies between scientifically verifiable facts. Given that the fossils contains very little of the original mass of the creature and mainly none of its brain tissue for example there is very little you can say about the capabilities of the creature before and after that is not speculative or based on modern day analogies with known creatures of similar skeletal structure.

Playing the time card is in effect saying we cannot prove it but just accept our word on this cause it fits.

Why don't you try and obtain some real understanding of science and evolution before you comment? It's amazing how many totally unqualified laity think they are so much more expert than the scientists.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am not asking you to define evolution but rather to demonstrate it is actually happening in the case of human beings. Since the theory cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method and since the jumps speculated in human developmental history are not occurring today it cannot be regarded as properly scientific.

"According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation."

The definition assumes that such adaptations can be demonstrated in history as having secured better chances for breeding and success for the creatures that made these adaptations. By implication it must be observably true today or it is not a proper scientific theory that allows for predictions and can be scientifically demonstrated.

Both human beings and human culture are becoming more and more technologically advanced. That is evolution at work. Also, the distinction between human and machine is beginning to vanish. It's hard to predict the future, but we may well be on the way to a future where you can't tell where machine ends and human begins. Darth Vader may well be a foreshadowing of our future.