Do You Believe In Evolution?

[FaT_tONle]

Mutation... its is the key to our evolution... it is how we evolved from a single cell organism into the dominate species of the planet. This process is slow... taking thousands and thousands of years but with every few millenia, evolution leaps forward.

Fixed.

 

[BlackLantern]

We are taller and generally bigger people from 200, hell even 100 years ago....ever been to Fenway Park, those seats are made for short, small white people

 

[squeekness]

We might be getting bigger, us Yanks, but I don't think it is height. We are getting fatter.

 

[Steve Rogers]

We might be getting bigger, us Yanks, but I don't think it is height. We are getting fatter.

That's not evolution. That's fast food.

 

[Sentinel X]

ok so back to evolution. in 200 years you think people will change very much or just little?

what changes do oyu expect?

I don't think 200 years would be much of a difference. We aren't that different from people back in the 1800s

However way into the future I think people will be paler (because they we will stay inside a lot) and perhaps our muscle structure will change because we will become so reliable on technology...I wouldn't think anything drastic but still a change.
Also I think we are losing more hair, just look at the brow ...from unibrow to two eye brows, maybe we won't have them at all eventually. Our brains will get bigger and humans will most likely be a lot smarter, the average IQ would probably be like 130 or something. And perhaps our eyesight won't be as good as it is now and because of this probably some other sense will be enhanced like our hearing or sense of touch.

But thats just what I'd assume, I'm no evolution expert so probably none of those things will really happen, lol.


edit: also, perhaps our digestive systems will evolve too. With all the crap people eat there will probably be more evolved humans that can eat a wider range of foods without getting sick and doing harm to their bodies. And also maybe we'd be able to fight a few diseases off much better like cancer and HIV/AIDs but hopefully they find a cure so we don't have too.

 

[Carcharodon]

However way into the future I think people will be paler (because they we will stay inside a lot)...

Careful with this. Remember that phenotypic changes that are the result of the environment (and not the organism's genotype) will not be passed on.

I think it was Lemarck who proposed that mechanism (anybody care to verify?). He said that, for example, if you got a scar during your life that it could be reflected in or passed on to your young. Or, as another example, that somebody who is a body-builder will have strong offspring. This has been shown to be false.

If somebody stays inside all the time and becomes pale, it doesn't mean that this will be reflected by the offspring's genotype. This trait would not be passed on because it has no genetic basis.

I feel that this is a very important point to make in this discussion.

 

[Bill]

edit double post

 

[Bill]

Careful with this. Remember that phenotypic changes that are the result of the environment (and not the organism's genotype) will not be passed on.

I think it was Lemarck who proposed that mechanism (anybody care to verify?). He said that, for example, if you got a scar during your life that it could be reflected in or passed on to your young. Or, as another example, that somebody who is a body-builder will have strong offspring. This has been shown to be false.

If somebody stays inside all the time and becomes pale, it doesn't mean that this will be reflected by the offspring's genotype. This trait would not be passed on because it has no genetic basis.

I feel that this is a very important point to make in this discussion.

Yes, it was Lamarck. Nowadays, his ideas are reconstituted as any change that is not genetically based. I don't think too many working biologists buy into it though.

 

[Bill]

I don't think 200 years would be much of a difference. We aren't that different from people back in the 1800s

However way into the future I think people will be paler (because they we will stay inside a lot) and perhaps our muscle structure will change because we will become so reliable on technology...I wouldn't think anything drastic but still a change.
Also I think we are losing more hair, just look at the brow ...from unibrow to two eye brows, maybe we won't have them at all eventually. Our brains will get bigger and humans will most likely be a lot smarter, the average IQ would probably be like 130 or something. And perhaps our eyesight won't be as good as it is now and because of this probably some other sense will be enhanced like our hearing or sense of touch.

But thats just what I'd assume, I'm no evolution expert so probably none of those things will really happen, lol.


edit: also, perhaps our digestive systems will evolve too. With all the crap people eat there will probably be more evolved humans that can eat a wider range of foods without getting sick and doing harm to their bodies. And also maybe we'd be able to fight a few diseases off much better like cancer and HIV/AIDs but hopefully they find a cure so we don't have too.

I don't think you'll see a great deal of change very soon as the need for a competing species to feel a niche has been diminished. Greater technology and the presence of society and civilization has eliminated the need for competition for resources that has resulted, in the past, in species that were unable to compete dying out. I think mutation will drive the majority of human evolution in the future, that and scientific experimentation in human genetic manipulation.

 

[Sentinel X]

Careful with this. Remember that phenotypic changes that are the result of the environment (and not the organism's genotype) will not be passed on.

I think it was Lemarck who proposed that mechanism (anybody care to verify?). He said that, for example, if you got a scar during your life that it could be reflected in or passed on to your young. Or, as another example, that somebody who is a body-builder will have strong offspring. This has been shown to be false.

If somebody stays inside all the time and becomes pale, it doesn't mean that this will be reflected by the offspring's genotype. This trait would not be passed on because it has no genetic basis.

I feel that this is a very important point to make in this discussion.

I heard that the first humans were more coffee colored...so the reason we have DARK DARK skinned individuals was because melanin was favorable for their environment so eventually they evolved until people were actually born with really dark skin.

why wouldn't staying inside most of the time after a loooong period of time eventually cause a change like it did for humans who lived by the equator?

 

[Carcharodon]

I heard that the first humans were more coffee colored...so the reason we have DARK DARK skinned individuals was because melanin was favorable for their environment so eventually they evolved until people were actually born with really dark skin.

why wouldn't staying inside most of the time after a loooong period of time eventually cause a change like it did for humans who lived by the equator?

This is a basic confusion when it comes to evolution. The environment didn't make the skin color. That's what you're sort of missing.

If there were a change in the environment that made it advantageous (somehow) to be pale, then we may see a change or shift. But staying in dark rooms intermittently won't cause a heritable change.

In other words, if you stayed in the dark all the time and you got really, really pale, that won't be passed genetically on to your offspring.

 

[Carcharodon]

Yes, it was Lamarck. Nowadays, his ideas are reconstituted as any change that is not genetically based. I don't think too many working biologists buy into it though.

No. However, there is a field called epigenetics that deals with semi-Lamarckian ideas. Actually Lamarck has very little to do with it, but there are subtle similarities.

It's fascinating to think that what we put into our bodies may actually affect our offspring on a heritable genetic scale. Has everything to do with gene expression and activation/deactivation through methylation and acetylation of DNA. Cool stuff.

 

[Sentinel X]

This is a basic confusion when it comes to evolution. The environment didn't make the skin color. That's what you're sort of missing.

If there were a change in the environment that made it advantageous (somehow) to be pale, then we may see a change or shift. But staying in dark rooms intermittently won't cause a heritable change.

In other words, if you stayed in the dark all the time and you got really, really pale, that won't be passed genetically on to your offspring.

But wouldn't there eventually be an obsevable change after millions of years?
I understand that if a dad is a bodybuilder that doesn't mean his son will be born with 'bodybuilder' genetics. But if there was a tribe who heavily relied on strength for survival I assumed that eventually their offspring would be stronger after a very long period of time.
But thinking about it I don't see how it'd be advantageous to be pale so I take that comment back



On a tangent, I'm just wondering what are the advantages of being fair skinned? That must have been a genetic mutation or something, right?

 

[Danalys]

the advantage is than in environments with less sunshine like the northern lands you can get more vitamin D by being pale.

what would be usefull would be a really fast acting tanning system so your skin sort of worked like those glasses that turn into sunglasses.

 

[BlackLantern]

^^^why is everyone so obsessed with being tan all the time?

 

[Bill]

But wouldn't there eventually be an obsevable change after millions of years?
I understand that if a dad is a bodybuilder that doesn't mean his son will be born with 'bodybuilder' genetics. But if there was a tribe who heavily relied on strength for survival I assumed that eventually their offspring would be stronger after a very long period of time.
But thinking about it I don't see how it'd be advantageous to be pale so I take that comment back

Yes, but that would be due to natural selection. The environmental niche the tribe is attempting to survive within puts pressure on the tribe that requires strength so that those whose genetics allow them to develop strength can survive and breed. Those who are weaker either do not survive to breed or their characteristics are not as desirable for mating.

Or those that are weaker get smarter and develop their own line that may compete for the same resources or migrate to another environment that favors intelligence.

 

[Bill]

^^^why is everyone so obsessed with being tan all the time?

People are robots that are thirsty for data that tells them what to wear, read and think and how they should look.

 

[Oddzball]

ah but would you be punished for believing that you shouldn't believe, based on a belief in a god that rewards not believing.

Where's the percentage in punishing? Now stupidity is very often a capital crime against the universe but aside from not letting stupid afterlifians in, does there have to be a punishment place? All sources of those are from religion, which has been posited to be BS in what it has said in any and every form.

 

[squeekness]

I think the idea of a punishment by a diety has been kicking around since the ages. As kids we learn from pain and by punishment so why wouldn't that threat be tossed out by religious leaders? It would be the most effective. Why would anyone feel compelled to change their behavior if they were told that God would love them anyways?

 

[Carcharodon]

Yes, but that would be due to natural selection. The environmental niche the tribe is attempting to survive within puts pressure on the tribe that requires strength so that those whose genetics allow them to develop strength can survive and breed. Those who are weaker either do not survive to breed or their characteristics are not as desirable for mating.

Or those that are weaker get smarter and develop their own line that may compete for the same resources or migrate to another environment that favors intelligence.

Exactumundo.

 

[Danalys]

^^^why is everyone so obsessed with being tan all the time?

decreased skin cancer rates for one. altho ironical the vapid who tan for beauty reasons increase their chances of skin cancer.

but anyway i prefer to ask myself why do people jump to conclusions and presume someone vapid?

 

[Danalys]

Where's the percentage in punishing? Now stupidity is very often a capital crime against the universe but aside from not letting stupid afterlifians in, does there have to be a punishment place? All sources of those are from religion, which has been posited to be BS in what it has said in any and every form.

well i could have said go unrewarded instead. would that be acceptable to you? i'm sorry i wasn't so explicitly acurate so that there was room for nitpicking that has nothing to do with the crux of the statement.

 

[Spider-Mania2]

Im a roman catholic, but I'm not stupid, evolution happened the earth was created by the Big Boom, and and we evolved from chimps, to believe the other is a little naive, would be nice tho to think we could be running around butt naked, and playing volleyball.

But alas not gonna happen.

 

[psychocheeseman]

Im a roman catholic, but I'm not stupid, evolution happened the earth was created by the Big Boom, and and we evolved from chimps, to believe the other is a little naive, would be nice tho to think we could be running around butt naked, and playing volleyball.

But alas not gonna happen.

You didn't really need to use the "but" to qualify your statement about being Catholic - the Catholic Church official accepts evolution.

 

[chaseter]

We might be getting bigger, us Yanks, but I don't think it is height. We are getting fatter.

We are getting bigger because we get better nutrition We are also loosing are wisdom teeth because we eat too many soft and processed foods.