Are humans evolving?

Justatruthseeker said:

And regardless - the Asian remains Asian and the African remains African. Once again - stop ignoring the observational evidence.

Click to expand...

Once again - stop pretending that evolution states that asians should produce anything but asians.

It. Does. Not.

See, this is why people say that you have no clue on how evolution works. Because you make stupid points like that one........

ONLY when the Asian and the African infraspecific taxa mate - does variation occur in the species itself.

Click to expand...

You really believe that, do you?
So, are asians all clones of their parents?


Which changes the Asian infraspecific taxa not at all. They remain Asian and always will.

Oh we agree, when mutations happen it is very observable.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bir...ved=0ahUKEwig2Zf_s7vMAhVILSYKHW0lCLAQ_AUIBigB

Click to expand...

EVERY newborn of EVERY species has mutations.
Clearly, the claim that mutations only produce birth defects is beyond ridiculous.

And you dare to accuse others of being selective in their evidence.... for crying out loud...

A quite factual representation of it.

Click to expand...

Clearly, that isn't true.

It's not my fault you can't except what you see right before your eyes

Click to expand...

Says the person who claims that "mutation = birth defect".

mindlight said:

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

Click to expand...

Compare the chimp and human genome. Of the 40 million mutations that differ between the two, among those are the mutations that benefit humans.

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?

Click to expand...

There isn't a "higher state of evolution", so with that being said . . .

Not that I am aware of. Human populations differ very little, and there is now plenty of interbreeding to ensure that mutations spread through the population.

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

Click to expand...

Evolution affecting humans is no more a myth than gravity affecting human beings.

mindlight said:

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?

Click to expand...

Those mutations can be found by comparing the human and chimp genome, as mentioned earlier.

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.

Click to expand...

We don't have to identify the specific mutations that led to human specific traits in order to know that mutations are responsible. Every biologist I am aware of agrees that the difference between human and chimp intelligence is due to the mutations that separate our genomes.

Justatruthseeker said:

No one does, not even evolutionists, because there is no such thing.

Click to expand...

Hogwash. The theory of evolution is defined. If you bothered to, you could learn its parameters. But instead you make foolish statements on message boards and reveal your scientific ignorance.

mindlight said:

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.

Click to expand...

You see the smallest amount of change in large populations because it is more difficult to drive mutations to fixation.

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.

Click to expand...

That's because it takes time to accumulate the beneficial mutations you require. It took 5 million years to move from an intelligence like a chimp to human intelligence. Why do you think the same change should take 50 years now?

mindlight said:

Microevolution can be scientifically demonstrated while macroevolution cannot.

Click to expand...

Macroevolution is demonstrated by the genetic differences between humans and other apes, and by the phylogenies both morphology and DNA sequences fall into.

That a great many scientists do not accept this distinction between science and speculation is what is worrying here.

Click to expand...

So says the person who speculates that we should turn into X-men in the span of a few centuries if evolution is true.

Justatruthseeker said:

And regardless - the Asian remains Asian and the African remains African.

Click to expand...

Humans remain humans. Chimps remain chimps. We also share a common ancestor with chimps.

Once again - stop ignoring the observational evidence.

Click to expand...

The only one doing that is you. You refuse to deal with the 200,000 observed orthologous ERV's shared by chimps and humans which is smoking gun evidence of their common ancestry.

Oh we agree, when mutations happen it is very observable.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bir...ved=0ahUKEwig2Zf_s7vMAhVILSYKHW0lCLAQ_AUIBigB

Click to expand...

What about the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Those are responsible for the observed differences between humans and chimps.

Job8 said:

Humans are devolving, not evolving. Case in point, the recent spate of LGBT activity. Animals are not sexual perverts.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you consider sexual perversion, but homosexual sex and necrophiliac sex are not unheard of in the animal kingdom... and sometimes they're combined <shudder>.

Hoghead1 said:

Certainly we humans have evolved way beyond the "caveman days."

Click to expand...

Genetically, there is no significant difference between the earliest 'caveman' homo sapiens sapiens and modern man. The vast bulk of the differences between them and us are cultural. Of course, it's true that there are significant differences between modern humans and the ancestor species we evolved from - that's why we're considered to be different species. Your statement is tacit (and probably unintentional) acknowledgement of our evolutionary heritage from pre-human species.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I don't know what you consider sexual perversion, but homosexual sex and necrophiliac sex are not unheard of in the animal kingdom... and sometimes they're combined <shudder>.

Click to expand...

I have always found it strange that people would argue against homosexuality by pointing to the claimed lack of homosexuality elsewhere in the animal kingdom. How would Christians feel if we tried to justify wild promiscuity by pointing to the social habits of bonobo's? They would probably respond that we should not act like animals, and yet that is exactly what they are arguing with respect to homosexuality. It seems to be a rather obvious double standard.

Hoghead1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe this is the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who are so incompetent in a certain subject that they have no idea how incompetent they are.

DogmaHunter said:

Again, it's not the amount of individuals that matters. It's the amount of generations.

Click to expand...

I would actually argue that a larger population takes longer to ball then a smaller one. You can use selection pressure to change a genome slightly in a small population over relatively short period time. The same selection pressure would take a much longer time to make the same difference in a larger population.

mindlight said:

Microevolution can be scientifically demonstrated while macroevolution cannot. The terms therefore define borders as to what lies in the scope of the scientific method. That a great many scientists do not accept this distinction between science and speculation is what is worrying here.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by macro evolution?

Justatruthseeker said:

What solid scientific theory?

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) ever seen in the species.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only whe Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (Chinook) ever seen in the species.

Neither the Asian nor the African evolves into the Afro-Asian. Nor does the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

The only thing you have backing your theory is the incorrect classification of the fossil record. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found - as did all of them. The fact you ignore how variation occurs in the species is unscientific. In all cases you ignore the infraspecific taxa any creature must have mated with to create variation. Nothing evolved into anything, it happens by the interchange of genes from different infraspecific taxa.

If evolutionists had never seen a dog in life, bit only in fossils, you would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. Worse yet you would list them all as separate species, just like you have incorrectly done in the fossil record. The fact that you refuse to accept what it right before your eyes, shows your theory is based on pure belief - with no science at all.

Click to expand...

Your understanding of evolution is way, way off here. Also, evolution has been observed in the lab, with bacteria.

[serious] said:

What do you mean by macro evolution?

Click to expand...

Micro vs macro evolution is a way of thinking found among many anti-evolutionary persons. However, this distinction is not at all used in science. Micro means changes within a species. Macro means one species turning into another. In science, these processes are understood as inseparably bound together.

Hoghead1 said:

Certainly we humans have evolved way beyond the "caveman days." Also, specifically what do you mean by th4 Law of God? All the biblical laws? If so, would that include the sanctification of slavery, as per Exod. 21? What?

Click to expand...

Your statement would work if you were not talking about Darwinian evolution. Before Darwin, evolution was simply a word coming to the English from Latin; evolution was used to describe a rose blooming, a tadpole changing into a frog, and the word could be used more broadly to describe any activity occurring across an interval or period that can be measured in time. Evolution may describe Darwin's theory but Darwin does not redefine evolution unless you let him.

Today, if you were raised by a caveman you would be a caveman also and while that might be evolution it is not what Darwin is talking about.

Thing were very different in the old days; the word slave covers every form of employment even contractors and general managers and primeministers; so say the Bible translators.

Hoghead1 said:

Micro vs macro evolution is a way of thinking found among many anti-evolutionary persons. However, this distinction is not at all used in science. Micro means changes within a species. Macro means one species turning into another. In science, these processes are understood as inseparably bound together.

Click to expand...

If he draws the distinction at the species level, speciation has been observed.

sparow said:

Your statement would work if you were not talking about Darwinian evolution. Before Darwin, evolution was simply a word coming to the English from Latin; evolution was used to describe a rose blooming, a tadpole changing into a frog, and the word could be used more broadly to describe any activity occurring across an interval or period that can be measured in time. Evolution may describe Darwin's theory but Darwin does not redefine evolution unless you let him.

Today, if you were raised by a caveman you would be a caveman also and while that might be evolution it is not what Darwin is talking about.

Thing were very different in the old days; the word slave covers every form of employment even contractors and general managers and primeministers; so say the Bible translators.

Click to expand...

Baloney! One of the earliest uses, of not the earliest major use, of the term "evolution" is to be found among nineteenth-century Christian mystics. See Ernst Benz, "The Mystical Sources of German Romantic Philosophy," translated by myself and Eunice Paul, and published by Pickwick Press. Indeed, earlier major figures in the Christian mystical tradition, such as Eckhart and also Boehme, argue that cretin was God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness and self-actualization.
NO, the word "slave" definitely does not to that. If you would have read Exod. 21, you would have seen that and easily recognized that the OT does condone slavery. Incidentally, that was one of the points Jefferson Davis used to legitimate slavery.
Going from "caveman" to modern society is definitely social evolution, the finest example.

wndwalkr99 said:

I would actually argue that a larger population takes longer to ball then a smaller one. You can use selection pressure to change a genome slightly in a small population over relatively short period time. The same selection pressure would take a much longer time to make the same difference in a larger population.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

DogmaHunter said:

In this case, biological evolution.

Click to expand...

What biological evolution. Stop ignoring Asian always remains Asian, African always remains African.

Evolution doesn't claim otherwise. We can only guess what your point is. Aside from putting up a strawman, off course.

Click to expand...

So if African always remains African - how did we get the Asian from the African? You accept the truth that African always remains African then ask us to believe the African becomes Asian - while pretending you just didnt agree it is impossible by your own admissions.

You could make every fossil on the planet disappear and the genetic evidence alone would be more then enough to prove common ancestry of extant life.

Click to expand...

What genetic evidence? That E coli regardless of how many times you mutate them over billions of generations remain E coli? So much for simple life evolving......

Genetic evidence proves common ancestry.
Fossil evidence merely supports it.

Click to expand...

Genetic evidence simply proves that foreign genomes are brought in by viruses through lateral gene transfer. It is after all those ERV sites you claim as proof. But you wont accept your own biologists who do study it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"Those who study the phenomenon are still struggling to quantitatively assess LGT as a process or processes and accommodate its implications for how patterns in nature should be represented — such as the existence of definable species or a meaningful universal Tree of Life. But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

And claiming that fossils are "incorrectly" classified, doesn't make it so.
If you think you know that much better then those thousands of paleontologists, biologists, and whatnot... You are free to write a paper and show them all wrong.
A nobel prize awaits you.

Click to expand...

Yah, yah, such a strawman. Why just a hundred years ago we were assured the Milky-Way was the entire universe. The experts all turned out to be wrong.... Why just a few years ago we were assured as fact that Coelacanth was the pinnacle of proof. Until its DNA was studied of course.... Why just a few years ago we were assured as fact by these same people that Archaeopteryx was the defining proof of dinosaurs to birds, sadly we found older ones and that theory ended up in the trash bin as well.

However, I'ld advice you to first actually learn about evolution theory, because with your current "knowledge", you'll only be laughed at.

Click to expand...

If being laughed at by people that see birds mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes and ignoring the DNA evidence they have been doing so from the start means derision..... I gladly accept that derision. Better to be laughed at by idiots than to be an idiot yourself.

Perhaps you should first learn about basic genetics and the nature of nested hierarchies in living things, and then try again.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should - since in all instances it takes two different infraspecific taxa to create a third. But then that's why you can't show me where it has ever happened otherwise...... You make a lot of clims, but never seem to be able to back up a single one..... But then I expect nothing less from those that refuse to accept that birds mating right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring are the same species. I'd be confused to if I refused to accept my own scientific deffinitions and ignored what was right in front of my face.