Just what creationists want to hear:

This link describes apparently ongoing evolutionary traits in
the human brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974

Originally posted by sonhouse
This link describes apparently ongoing evolutionary traits in
the human brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974

Speaking of creationists..."It could be advantageous to be dumber," Lahn says. "I highly doubt it, but it's possible."

Originally posted by sonhouse
This link describes apparently ongoing evolutionary traits in
the human brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974

The human brain may still be evolving, new research suggests. New variants of two genes that control brain development have swept through much of the human population during the last several thousand years, biologists have found.

The evolution of a large, complex brain has been the defining feature of the human lineage – although human brain size has not changed over the past 200,000 years. But it is not apparent whether the new genetic adaptations discovered in human brains have any effect on brain size, or intelligence.


The very first two paragraphs...please...
There are changes in the human brain found by biologists! Have
biologist been dissecting the human brain for thousands of years
to make such a claim? This is a false statement, first paragraph
you are being lead to believe something that cannot have occurred.
Than the second paragraph another statement that the human brain
has not changed that much over the last 200K years...they know
this how too?

Science, faith in action, hidden by the use of the word evidence.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The human brain may still be evolving, new research suggests. New variants of two genes that control brain development have swept through much of the human population during the last several thousand years, biologists have found.

The evolution of a large, complex brain has been the defining feature of the human lineage – although human brain size has not ...[text shortened]... know
this how too?

Science, faith in action, hidden by the use of the word evidence.
Kelly

If you think you're having a serious medical problem, KellyJay, do you go to a hospital or to a faith healer? You go to a hospital because science has been demonstrated to work. A vast majority of christians actually have more trust in science than they do in the power of faith when it comes right down to it. But they take endless pleasure in bashing science, even as it is saving or prolonging their lives.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you think you're having a serious medical problem, KellyJay, do you go to a hospital or to a faith healer? You go to a hospital because science has been demonstrated to work. A vast majority of christians actually have more trust in science than they do in the power of faith when it comes right down to it. But they take endless pleasure in bashing science, even as it is saving or prolonging their lives.

It isn't a matter of medical issues... Look at what was written, can you
justify how those time lines were used?

You believe, people have studied the human brain for thousands of
years by looking at it physically and can tell the differences today
that were not in the human brain a couple of thousand years ago.
Show me an example of the human brain 2 thousand years ago so
we can make that comparison! How about a 12k let alone a 200K
year old brain, lets put the examples side by side for a comparison
and see the differences! Where are you going to get your
examples...from someone some body found and dated that old, or
has there been an on going study that we have had data for all this
time? You have a great deal of faith in man if you believe this!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't a matter of medical issues... Look at what was written, can you
justify how those time lines were used?

You believe, people have studied the human brain for thousands of
years by looking at it physically and can tell the differences today
that were not in the human brain a couple of thousand years ago.
Show me an example of the human brai ...[text shortened]... e had data for all this
time? You have a great deal of faith in man if you believe this!
Kelly

Are you truly that ignorant?? There are many fossilized hominid skulls that predate 200,000 years ago that scientists have had in their hot little hands for many years. The top of your skull is a handy dandy carrying case for your brain and analysis of the skull is used to determine the shape and contours of the brain inside. If you found a bag for a bowling ball 200,000 years old, you could tell what size and shape the bowling ball was that once was in it. Please read ONE book on science someday.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you truly that ignorant?? There are many fossilized hominid skulls that predate 200,000 years ago that scientists have had in their hot little hands for many years. The top of your skull is a handy dandy carrying case for your brain and analysis of the skull is used to determine the shape and contours of the brain inside. If you found a bag for a bow ...[text shortened]... ize and shape the bowling ball was that once was in it. Please read ONE book on science someday.

Find by me, you define a 200K old person as one that as found and
think it is that old according to the method of dating you like, another
may think that same sample could be 150K or 400K by the methods
they like. Do they have samples of human brains taken for a study
that has been going on for thousands of years too, or are we relying
on methods of dating for them too, just wondering about the control
of the samples used for that study too. I suppose it doesn't matter
to you, if it is from what we call science it has to be right.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Find by me, you define a 200K old person as one that as found and
think it is that old according to the method of dating you like, another
may think that same sample could be 150K or 400K by the methods
they like. Do they have samples of human brains taken for a study
that has been going on for thousands of years too, or are we relying
on methods of da ...[text shortened]... uppose it doesn't matter
to you, if it is from what we call science it has to be right.
Kelly

😴😴😴

Originally posted by KellyJay
Find by me, you define a 200K old person as one that as found and
think it is that old according to the method of dating you like, another
may think that same sample could be 150K or 400K by the methods
they like. Do they have samples of human brains taken for a study
that has been going on for thousands of years too, or are we relying
on methods of da ...[text shortened]... uppose it doesn't matter
to you, if it is from what we call science it has to be right.
Kelly

Scientist: here is a detailed case showing some evidence for evolution.

Creationist: There is no real evidence for evolution because it doesn't appear in a neolithic myth. Your evidence is rubbish. I have no evidence to back my assertion but I'm going to rubbish you whatever you say.

ID-er: Your evidence is good apart from a couple of details. However, because your theory is less than totally perfect it means that my theory (for which I have no evidence what-so-ever) must be true.

Aardvarkhome: SOD OFF, REDNECKS. My children don't need your religiously inspired lies.