Evolution is an adaptation of a species over generations. Is that a simplistic version of it? When I look at depictions of ancient men . . not CroMags but . . say the Egyptians If taken as somewhat accurate . . I see no real significant difference. and that is almost 5000 years ago When you account for better work, health, food etc . . . what differences there are kind of fall out. Question: How old is the Modern Human? This site: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html They give some interesting information They start with 1000~10000 Generations [Which is a wildly large amount of variation] So 20 - 200 Thousand years. If you looking at 20000 years. . . based on only cursory observation IT would mean that for a full 25% of our existance we have not evolved much if at all. If you look at 200 000, then it goes to 2.5% [of course] So we look at what a 200K yr old man looks like. If we took a baby from that guy . . . could that babe function in our society [mental capacity evolution.] What physical differences would we see? I would not some skull changes but any internal organ changes? etc. This is the fascinating parts of evolution that I have questions about Rocket River
My understanding is that recent science on this matter shows that it isn't as clear cut. Genetics isn't destiny and there is an interplay between genes and the environment between what traits are expressed. It used to be thought that there was a lot of junk DNA in most genetic codes, for example corn has twice the genes that humans due, but we are learning that a lot of that DNA actually does play a function and become active depending on environmental factors. While you are basically correct that the overall genetic code changes very little in organisms as complex as humans there is evidence that how that genetic code is expressed does change quite a bit.
or Bred. we do breed cows for our benefit. If we bred them for intelligence over several millinia Until we have talking cows Would that be evolution or would our tampering mean it is not true evolution Rocket River
A lot of it has to do with technology. Since the advent of civilized society, the human population is able to better care for "weaker" genes that would have otherwise been killed off in a hunter-gatherer type society. Even now though, humans are continuing to "evolve" in ways (higher IQs, taller and bigger, etc.)
Which is why it does nothing . . .whatsoever . . .to disprove God. It simply does not address God at all . . . Rocket River
Exactly! I am not sure but I don't think we can say we haven't evolved more than the ancient Egyptians. We look exactly like them but who knows what subtle differences there are between us and them.
I just did a quick search and found this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml Mutations are Random The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation. Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. In the U.S., where people use shampoos with particular chemicals in order to kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to the chemicals in those shampoos. There are two possible explanations for this: This is of course not field so I just have some really rudimentary understanding on the subject from some random readings.
That would work but it wouldn't be evolution, which requires random mating. It would be as you said, breeding.
When I think of evolution, I think in millions of years before you see a radical change in a population so I don't think that there would be major changes in that short period of time. There really weren't any major environmental changes in this world during the last 2000 years that would make a particular trait more adaptable than the other. But if we are talking DNA, I am sure there is a big difference. We are more global than the folks living in that era. Meaning, our DNA would have had more diversity (middle eastern, european, asian, etc ) while theirs would be more localized. I read an article that studies shows that our brains are actually shrinking in size the last 20-30K years. Nobody knows why but some scientists hypothesize that this is the result of not needing to hunt for food and/or not needing to be aware of predators trying to kill us all the time. I guess what they are saying is that the portion of the brain that is used for hunting/surviving predatory attacks is larger than say.. making and inventing tools.
Yes. Evolution neither proves or disproves God. The problem with these type of arguments is that they end up being seen as bright lines of opposition when they really are addressing very different things.
I think we need to define "evolution" better. If we are talking about evolution in the sense of speciation then we need to look at genetics. A dog and a wolf can interbreed and produce viable offspring so they are basically the same species but the expression of traits is very different. A human now and one from 100,000 years ago is going to pretty much be the same genetically and still the same species but it is possible that the expression of certain traits are going to be different. The expression of different traits in the same genome muddies up the straightforward idea that natural selection weeds out non-beneficial genes and encourages genetic mutations that are beneficial when in many cases adaptive traits that are beneficial may already be in the genome while ones that are not are simply not expressed but remain.
Link? There is a lot of junk DNA, tons of it. What do you mean the genetic code changes how it is expressed? I don't follow what you are trying to say. You have plenty of things in your DNA that are only expressed at certain times, there's nothing new about that concept. How are you saying that shapes evolution. In no way, shape, fashion or form can you say "It's colder outside, I'm going to pass on genes for more hair growth to my child." That doesn't happen.
Evolution does not say that certain genes/traits disappear. It has always said that those who have the beneficial trait which is expressed will have children who express this beneficial trait. A mutation is not just the appearance of a new trait that wasn't there. Mutation leads to the expression of a previously dormant gene, the loss of a previously expressed gene, or something novel, etc. I don't know where you are getting your info from. You are saying "we're" now learning things that have been known for a very long time and certainly do not "muddy" the concept of natural selection.
I don't know anyone who actually believes that, though. "In his image" isn't a physical thing, but has to do with the ability to create and have self-awareness....and I don't think you'll find anyone in Judaism, Christianity or Islam suggesting man is perfect....quite the opposite actually.
hmmm, not quite sure about this. List of animals (non human) that are self aware - http://listnation.blogspot.com/2012/03/9-animals-that-are-self-aware.html
