Re: Most recent human evolution


NashtOn wrote:
> jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1137511897.231699.10070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>Chemical Pete wrote:
> >>
> >>>NashtOn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>julian.gall@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Can anyone tell me what is thought to be the most recent identifiably
> >>>>>evolved human characteristic? i.e. How long ago was the most recent
> >>>>>change in human beings that is plausibly the result of evolution.
> >>>>>i.e.
> >>>>>A change for which there is a reasonable explanation that it caused a
> >>>>>significant enough reproductive advantage to be favoured.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>e.g. If the answer is "humans became hairless x thousand years ago",
> >>>>>I
> >>>>>would expect there to be a feasible explanation why hairless humans
> >>>>>reproduced so successfully that hairy humans mostly (!) died out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Julian
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Darwin was the first of his kind. Ever since, there has been a
> >>>>degradation in the gene pool and most members (no pun intended) of the
> >>>>evolution/atheist mvt. are a perfect example of how "evolution" doesn't
> >>>>make for more complexity, but promotes degradation of the genome.
> >>>
> >>>Have you ever even considered getting a clue?
> >>>
> >>>Pete
> >>
> >>If Nicola/Nicolas has a typical background for young Earth
> >>creationists, he was raised from infancy to believe that his eternal
> >>life & salvation depends on avoiding the examination of internal
> >>inconsistancies, and denial of troublesome facts. Psychologically
> >>speaking, asking him to get a clue is literally threatening him with
> >>death. This is why these people are so unresponsive to reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder, why the attack on science then? It seems to me that if one is
> > secure in their faith they would not need to justify it to anyone. Are
> > fundamentalist creationists that insecure about their faith that they have
> > to have science validate it?
>
> I am not attacking science, per se. I'm attacking the crock of the ToE,
> Are the adherents of the ToE so insecure in their science that they feel
> the need to attack religion at every turn?


You claim that the genome "degrades" down the generations whilst also
claiming that it remains loitering around a fixed "essence" or "kind".
I'd love to see you try and reconcile the two (and demonstrate the
first without excluding natural selection).

What you call "degrading" is what gives rise to common variation within
a population.

Human A and human B, human A and giraffe B[sic], differ because the
cell division order and cell differentiation of their bodies is
dictated by differing genetic codes (acquired subtleties aside).

Each _individual_ being is genetically unique. That's because their
personal genomes are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies,
branching copies from parent to offspring. There are no master copies
- No "memory" or reference point for any "essence". Where is
the master copy for humanity? Leslie Phillips?

Such fixed data simply doesn't exist in the genome. It's not as if
nobody's checked.

The genetic variation of individuals within a population provides a
constant irregularity of data that natural selection is filtering and
cultivating. Individuals in populations vary subtly in manifold ways,
and as such, all trends of overall development are open to natural
selection.

A simple way of putting it is: Populations do not grow forever. So,
whatever restricts or slows the eternal growth of a population is
tilting the flow and mix of genes toward a form of co-ordinated
resistance to those limiting factors. The clearest example of this is
bacterial resistance.

Complexity of life for very _simple_ goals is the best evidence for
evolution - Evolution forbids any leaps, backtracking, foresight or
revision for coping simply with developing circumstance, so instead
this only leaves improvisation (exaptation), which would result in
complex solutions where simple ones would do. It would also produce
results typical of what we see today: wings stretched across five long
finger bones, dual-functioning penis, etc.

~Iain

.

Relevant Pages