1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75There are a number of differences between various groups of humans which do show adaptation to environment.
Another observation. Many humans have lived not only their entire lifes in cold climates but so have their ancestors for many thousands of years and lets say they've always been hunters of reindeer.
Others have lived in a tropical climate for thousands of years and have fished by diving under water.
Why do we see no evolutionary differances going on ...[text shortened]... viroment, as was just jokingly said about gills? Should we not see something going on here yet?
1. Skin color: Europeans (and other races to a lesser extent) have lost a lot of pigment in their skin so as to better absorb sunlight and create vitamin D.
2. Some groups that live in extremely cold conditions have significantly shorter limbs in order to conserve heat.
3. As mentioned by ua41 several independent groups of people around the world have characteristics that help them survive at high altitudes.
4. Genes that provide resistance to diseases are found where those diseases are present.
5. Many other adaptations are present though less obvious - like the ability to digest milk as adults - found mostly where dairy farming has been prevalent over long periods.
And all this is just within modern man. If we look at Neanderthals we see a much larger set of different adaptations
Originally posted by galveston75Did you actually read my earlier post?
Another observation. Many humans have lived not only their entire lifes in cold climates but so have their ancestors for many thousands of years and lets say they've always been hunters of reindeer.
Others have lived in a tropical climate for thousands of years and have fished by diving under water.
Why do we see no evolutionary differances going on ...[text shortened]... viroment, as was just jokingly said about gills? Should we not see something going on here yet?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo problem with adaptation and some mutation. It is
There are a number of differences between various groups of humans which do show adaptation to environment.
1. Skin color: Europeans (and other races to a lesser extent) have lost a lot of pigment in their skin so as to better absorb sunlight and create vitamin D.
2. Some groups that live in extremely cold conditions have significantly shorter limbs in ...[text shortened]... within modern man. If we look at Neanderthals we see a much larger set of different adaptations
Macroevolution that reports that a lobster can turn into
a fruit fly that I would like to see.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut in the really big picture of evolution they are all still humans. Evolution claims thru their theories that species can change so much that creatures that once walked the earth changed and then began to fly or crawl or walk or vis versa or whatever.
There are a number of differences between various groups of humans which do show adaptation to environment.
1. Skin color: Europeans (and other races to a lesser extent) have lost a lot of pigment in their skin so as to better absorb sunlight and create vitamin D.
2. Some groups that live in extremely cold conditions have significantly shorter limbs in ...[text shortened]... within modern man. If we look at Neanderthals we see a much larger set of different adaptations
So sure humans can adapt but we are still humans and can all still interbreed with any humans with no problem and don't change into some other species.
God gave us all the ability to adapt but we never have the ability to change into another species as evolution suggest.
Originally posted by galveston75You are completely mistaken about how evolution works.
Then if it didn't need it why and how did it go that direction and why didn't other life forms such as a trout not have that happen also. Did it not need it either or would it not help it catch food or defend itself with it? Doesn't seem to be much direction here with that process of logic.
If the eel didn't really need it then why not grow or let som ...[text shortened]... to do that as opposed to some thoughtless eel being able to recreate itself physically.
We don't grow hands or wings or penises or anything else because we need them.
Species change over time - they mutate. Most of the time these mutations are either deleterious (they kill you and life moves on without you) or benign (they do nothing and life moves on with or without you). Sometimes - very, very occasionally - a mutation does something that helps you to survive better, or have more kids. You pass this mutation on to your kids, and voila, evolution is off and running.
But what decides if a mutation is good or bad or indifferent? The environment the species lives in.
So, let's look at an example - wings. I'm not saying this is how wings developed - I don't think we truly know that. But, here's a story about how they could, which follows an evolutionary pathway.
I'll ignore birds at the moment and look at flying mammals - bats.
Let's start with some primordial rat - I think bats are related to rodents so that may not be too far off anyway. This particular rat lives in a tree, or at least uses trees to hunt or escape predators or whatever. Occasionally it jumps across from one branch to another within trees and, if they're close enough, even jumps between trees.
Alright so far?
Okay, now one day a rat is born that has a mutation - a slightly larger flap of skin in its armpit. Doesn't have to be big - you might not even notice it - but there's some small genetic mutation that's led to it having some miniscule extra skin there. And lo and behold, the skin flap helps it to jump a little bit further than its brothers and sisters. It survives better, catches more food, escapes more easily .... has more kids, all of which have this same mutation.
Time passes. Lots of time.
Generations of bats are born - many have the mutation now because it's so successful. More mutations occur - these happen all the time. Some of them make the flap of skin smaller - evolution doesn't have a direction, it goes in any direction because it's random - but some mutations make the skin flap bigger.
Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this, because this post is getting way too big.
Originally posted by amannionI read a link from Andrew Hamilton concerning macroevolution
You are completely mistaken about how evolution works.
We don't grow hands or wings or penises or anything else because we need them.
Species change over time - they mutate. Most of the time these mutations are either deleterious (they kill you and life moves on without you) or benign (they do nothing and life moves on with or without you). Sometimes - ...[text shortened]... you can see where I'm going with this, because this post is getting way too big.
and the professor said that bats should be grouped with apes
because they had 10 shared derived characters.
Originally posted by ua41It's intriguing that the Christian evolutionists remain silent when these debates, and i use that word in it's loosest possible sense, happen on this forum.
So this question has been asked earlier in this thread, I will ask in different words-
What is wrong with God using evolution? Is there a contradiction between God/Creator and evolution? If so, what is it?
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, I'm no evolutionary biologist if that's what you're asking, but I am a science teacher, so I reckon I've got a pretty good idea about the evolutionary process.
I thought so too. I am also wondering if you really know
how evolution is supposed to work or maybe you are just
guessing at it.
Now, the example of the wings I described is a guess - we don't, we can't, know how any particular evolutionary process leading to the development of any one feature or another happened. All we can do is make educated guesses on that one. Mind you, genetic evidence can build pretty good pictures of likely pathways.