Skip to comments.
Rapid Acceleration in Human Evolution Described
Reuters ^
| Dec 10, 2007
| Will Dunham
Posted on 12/11/2007 12:34:37 AM PST by anymouse
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: rbg81
successful among us see little or no pressure to reproduce.Well, you are still allowed to contribute to the gene pool. So, find a partner and get busy!
41
posted on
12/11/2007 7:31:22 AM PST
by
Rudder
To: Rummenigge
the less you understand the more of a higher creature is necessary for explanation.
And the more we learn the more we understand it isn't nearly as simple as the naturalists would have had us to believe.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. - Romans 1:20
42
posted on
12/11/2007 7:32:34 AM PST
by
Sopater
(A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2)
43
posted on
12/11/2007 10:48:18 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Profile updated Monday, December 10, 2007____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: muawiyah; Rudder; Arthur McGowan; From many - one.; RobbyS
Rudder said: Nope. It's still selective pressure and selection, no matter who or what changes the environment. And we human beings are no less "natural" than any other organism on the planet.
Actually, "natural selection" means the "best" mutations survive. So while man in certainly natural, human intervention is unnatural select as it allows genes to survive that are not among the best.
Arthur McGowan said: Since medicine has made ANY difference to survival only since 1920, and a great difference only since about 1940, that leaves more than 10,000 years of civilization in which crowding, new diseases, etc., have introduced greater natural selection effects, not less.
I did wonder about this. Certainly the most short circuiting of natural selection has been in the last 100 years or so. But in that case the story should have been that human evolution WAS faster than previously thought. [BTW, even 100 years ago, people with a genetic disposition to take risks that would lead to say the loss of a limb were able to live when they would not likely have lived long nor reproduced as much in raw nature.]
From many - one. said: That apparent short circuiting also allows mutations to survive that may weaken the individual in some areas, yet strengthen them in others. IOW the gene pool is getting bigger.
Actually, I pointed out decades ago to a leftist environmental economist, if maximizing genes is your greatest value, nuclear power plant accidents if not nuclear war are great events as they create more genes. [It was his highest value and he did not care for this point.] But natural selection and evolution are NOT about maximizing the number of genes out there. Evolution is about natural selection and evolution allowing organisms to adapt to their environment that might even be changing.
I have no problem with evolving traits in organisms. I have no problem with the mechanism of natural selection. I am neutral in this debate. But as I said, if as the mechanism, natural selection, is being short-circuited, change in mankind, ie evolution, has sped up, someone has some explaining to do and really needs a new theory or mechanism or both.
44
posted on
12/11/2007 10:52:18 AM PST
by
JLS
To: exDemMom
So, the 7 per cent figure is the fraction of the 1 per cent figure that is not totally identical?
45
posted on
12/11/2007 10:59:11 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Profile updated Monday, December 10, 2007____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Does so
“(I’m SO smart after morning coffee).”
That’s interesting. I’m smarter and funnier after tequila, and tougher, and a better dancer ...
To: JLS
Simple solution ~ your DNA strands are full of tiny machines, some of which are supercomputers that far exceed anything we have yet built.
With the ascendancy of messenger RNA, it would seem to be possible for your genome (plus its supporting machinery) to go about the business of rewriting code in order to "adapt" just about as fast as it pleased.
You and I might not agree with the results every time, but we've all had software contractors like that ~
47
posted on
12/11/2007 11:24:06 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: SunkenCiv
Genes are found along DNA strands. 7% of genes could be rapidly changing with little change in aggregate DNA content. Besides, not all your DNA is composed of genes ~
48
posted on
12/11/2007 11:27:10 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: CarrotAndStick
The more science teaches us about ourselves, the more we see that a higher power has shaped us into what we are.
How did you infer that?
Where do ideas come from? Sometimes, we believe they are God-given. You look at the idea and say “How could I have thought of that?” The famous examples of Kekule’s dream of a snake eating its own tail leading to a fundamental discovery in organic chemistry, Tesla’s flash of insight into how to make what became known as an AC motor. Einstein’s leap into relativity, and many more “dis-joint” ideas are tempting to regard as some form of divine intervention.
His argument though is probably more complicated than that. The notion of God-given insights is just the starting point for a whole body of notions about divine guidance. But, there is the old saying, Man Proposes, God Disposes, in Yiddish, Man Thinks, God Laughs.
49
posted on
12/11/2007 11:30:50 AM PST
by
bioqubit
(bioqubit, conformity - such a common deformity)
To: damondonion
How about an ability to rapidly identify and expel common poisonous substances ~ that’s pretty new.
50
posted on
12/11/2007 11:31:31 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: CarrotAndStick
Most of the significant evolutionary pressures concern diseases, both inherited and acquired. Even the dumbest idiot is usually provided some sort of charity/hand-out in most societies. Intelligence neednt necessarily be a force for evolution as much as the other factors are, in modern human beings. An exception to this would be among small groups of people living nomadic lifestyles, where the size of the group is too small for members to be able to compensate for the shortcomings of other members.
That’s fine, but the problem I have is the fetishtic focus on DNA, without discussion of the influence of methylation, and epigenetics. How these “evolve”, mutate, or get selected by cultural changes in diet, and other matters is a huge scientific void.
51
posted on
12/11/2007 11:33:58 AM PST
by
bioqubit
(bioqubit, conformity - such a common deformity)
To: Erasmus
Alas, run of the mill Japanese girls are NOT keeping up with the Japanese royal family (who compete nicely with Bavarian girls every single time). Still, in general, they are larger these days.
52
posted on
12/11/2007 11:34:41 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: muawiyah
“the Japanese royal family (who compete nicely with Bavarian girls every single time)”
This says more about me than you but, are you describing bosoms or the ability to consume dark beer?
To: JLS
Evolutionism heavily emphasizes randomness and accident and ignores intelligence of any sort, whether divine or human. Ironically, it has always glorified the powerful, who in their pride do not hesitate to bend nature to their will.
54
posted on
12/11/2007 11:48:50 AM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: live+let_live
They drink rice wine ~ so it’s not the beer part eh.
55
posted on
12/11/2007 12:10:10 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: Mojohemi
"...How many times have the continents broken up and divided again and again...?" Within the last 350,000 years?
None.
56
posted on
12/11/2007 3:29:46 PM PST
by
Does so
(...against all enemies, DOMESTIC and foreign...)
To: muawiyah
I must be an Eskimo! Cool.... ;)
susie
57
posted on
12/11/2007 5:14:52 PM PST
by
brytlea
(amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
To: anymouse
Such rapid "evolution" (/sarcasm) for there to be any changes within a species.
58
posted on
12/11/2007 5:16:12 PM PST
by
unspun
(God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
To: bioqubit
And it’s a void that’s only going to get bigger when they discover that homosexuality can be UNDONE (through reverse methylation).
59
posted on
12/11/2007 6:03:55 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: SunkenCiv
So, the 7 per cent figure is the fraction of the 1 per cent figure that is not totally identical? More or less.
It doesn't take a 7% change in nucleotide composition to completely change a gene; a single nucleotide change in a 2400 base pair long coding sequence can drastically alter the function of the protein product.
60
posted on
12/12/2007 4:19:04 AM PST
by
exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson