- Jan 7, 2016
- 6,266
- 6,019
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Not at all. There is evidence of modern humans skulking around caves and following herds of animals worn their stone tools for over a hundred thousand years.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.
Yes and no.Actually the fossil record supports sudden, not gradual, change doesn't it?
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.
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.
Perhaps not noticeable you, but quite possibly noticeable to natural selection.
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.
It's origins, though, are what is mysterious. Maybe Neanderthal played a role?
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm
"Neanderthals live on in non-Africans," co-author David Reich told Discovery News. "At least some Neanderthals were absorbed into the modern human population."
I believe some polar bears are inclined to dispute the role of top predator.
Ok? I don't really see your point. I couldn't care less that homo sapiens don't have these traits.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.
Or maybe 'dem scientists use those new-fangled "dating methods," and that's where the time span estimate came from! Just a thought.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.
Indeed, I quite agree. Fortunately, nobody claimed they were.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.
You are probably right. However, I wonder about the ethics of all this.Just wait til we start re-engineering / designing our own genome!
Then human evolution will speed up again, and faster than ever.
What is your superior theory as to how humans (and various other species) exist when they have not always existed?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.
Me too.You are probably right. However, I wonder about the ethics of all this.
1) Genome research indicates no such thing about the origins of different skin pigmentation. Some of the mutations involved are shared between Asians and Europeans, and are thus likely tens of thousands of years old.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 by "some huge percentage" you mean 0.1%, then yes, you're correct. Otherwise, no.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).
Skin pigmentation differentiation is very clearly the result of natural selection, driven by differences in solar radiation.Skin tone differentiation is a result of selective breeding and inbreeding, just as in domesticated dogs and cats.
No.Didn't 'modern man' burst suddenly on the scene (like T-Rex)?
No.Our evolutionary development would plot like the 'hockey stick' graph wouldn't it, the upward curve coming suddenly, and very recently?
No.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.
No.Actually the fossil record supports sudden, not gradual, change doesn't it?
Humans are devolving, not evolving. Case in point, the recent spate of LGBT activity. Animals are not sexual perverts.Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings?
What's you basis for saying this? Tool use developed over several million years. How much do you think it change in any single thousand year period?But nothing like the scale of the development of human language or tools is being observed
Never studied Adélie penguins I take it.Humans are devolving, not evolving. Case in point, the recent spate of LGBT activity. Animals are not sexual perverts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?