Is human evolution speeding up?

MSNBC ^ | 12-10-07 | Randolph E. Schmid

[Bruinator]

I did read the article and it spoke on adaptation relative to climate. It made the statement that lighter skin color was an evolutionary process rather than an adaptive process. Evolution denotes more complex. Skin color changes and the acceptance of natural milk are adaptive processes not evolutionary. Take your attitude and drop it off with someone who deserves it, not on a someone who makes an innocuous and non threatening statement on an internet forum.

[allmendream]

Induction of lactase in response to lactose in the diet is an adaptive response of an individual to its environment. The ability to keep lactase active into adulthood is an evolutionary adaptation of mostly northern European populations.

The ability to induce melanin in the skin in response to sunlight is the adaptive response of an individual to its environment. The amount of melanin in the skin as a base-line is an evolutionary adaptation of a population to balance the needs for vitamin D synthesis and protection from the sun.

[Cicero]

What we seem to be talking about is intra-species evolution or adaption, which has never been in doubt.

The most famous instance is the length of bird beaks, but it also applies to skin color as an adaption to how much sunlight people are exposed to. Or there is the famous argument that you shouldn’t help out diabetics, because it would be better for the species if they were allowed to die out.

Maybe it is devolution, since civilization tends to preserve what Darwinists would call undesirable traits. See Cyril Kornbluth’s classic SF novel, “The Marching Morons.”

[SunkenCiv]

Rapid Acceleration in Human Evolution Described
Reuters | Dec 10, 2007 | Will Dunham
Posted on 12/11/2007 3:34:37 AM EST by anymouse
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1937741/posts

Human Evolution Seems to Be Accelerating
(Jews evolved from “financing!”)
AP via Fox News | 12-11-07
Posted on 12/11/2007 11:28:45 AM EST by squireofgothos
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1937908/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Blam, one more. :’)

[seowulf]

Well, modern society seems to promote larger offspring counts for the least successful. What does that say bout your 'accelerating evolution'?

It says nothing about it. Evolution does not imply things will improve according to some individual's perspective, only that survivability of offspring will shape what they look like. Government assistance increases the survivability of the least successful. Therefore, we will evolve into people who depend on government.

[MEGoody]

Used to be that the appendix was used as 'proof' of evolution. . .that no one knew what it was used for, but it used to be used for something and was no longer needed.

I was reading some medical info the doctor gave us the other day in preparation for a family member's surgery, and it indicates that the appendix is now considered to be a 'storage area' for the beneficial bacteria our bowels need to digest food efficiently. (Those bacteria can be lost or their populations signficantly reduced when an individual has a long bout of particularly severe diarrhea or if an individual has significant surgery on their digestive system.)

[MinorityRepublican]

With the advent of global travel, distinctions among races will cease.

[Bruinator]

Exactly, it does not make the race more complex or superior as evolution needs, only adaptive. There is nothing with that that supports evolution over creation.

[Defiant]

You mean the more people ride horses, carriages, and later, cars, the less fit they become? Astonishing.

[samtheman]

Survival of the fitless.

[RightWhale]

Yet another evolution motor that may be so far from reality that even a watchwearer could refute it.

[Defiant]

Lately, we seem to have entered an age of survival of the witless.

[samtheman]

Yes, Defiant, we have. We are true Children of Men marching into a Brave New World behind our Witless Wonder Leaders.

[GoLightly]

Another article (don’t think it was posted at FR, but uses the same source as some that were):

http://charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14233799&feedid=176

[allmendream]

Sure it supports evolution. Even if you believe that humans were created as a single mated pair some few thousand years ago, it is obvious that human populations have evolved to different selective pressure since then resulting in different allele frequency for skin melanin, sickle cell anemia, and lactose tolerance among different human populations.

And while this evidence certainly doesn’t rule out creation, it is most decidedly evidence that supports the notion that evolution has happened and is happening within human populations.

[Boogieman]

The point several people are trying to make is that these changes in human biology are merely specializations due to the mechanism of natural selection. Their argument, and I believe it is quite valid, is that such changes may cause wide variations within a species, but they have never been shown to change the basic nature of the species itself. For example, it has never been shown to my satisfaction that any amount of simple gene selection due to the environment will cause a fish to give birth to a lizard.

Most evolutionists I’ve read argue that it’s not these normal run of the mill changes alone that would be the mechanism for evolution of new species, but that actual genetic mutations creating new traits not previously available in the genepool would be necessary to achieve that. Natural selection creating a preference for those with a certain melanin level based on genes that have always existed in the genepool is really not that “kind” of evolution.

[allmendream]

There is little difference in the ‘basic nature of the species itself’ between a rat and a mouse. Very little innovation or new information is needed to arrive at the difference between one and the other from a common ancestor.

The only genetic difference between us and chimps is 2% in our genetic DNA and 6% genome wide. It is hardly anything new or innovative that makes us different, it is our large brains (more of the same, not something new and different) and the soul given to us by GOD. As a Biologist I can offer opinion and data about the former, but have very little to proffer about the latter.

As far as ‘new’ and ‘innovative’ functions from natural selection I suggest you look at the bacteria that picked up the ability to digest nylon from a two base pair mutation of a gene for an esterase enzyme. Or the single nucleotide polymorphism in the hemoglobin allele that leads those heterozygous for the trait to be resistant to malaria. It happens, it happens all the time, but this type of biological innovation is not at all needed to produce a human from a chimp, all that is needed is a 2% genetic change, a 6% genomic change, and the addition of a soul (and that would be the hard part).

[Coyoteman]

The point several people are trying to make is that these changes in human biology are merely specializations due to the mechanism of natural selection. Their argument, and I believe it is quite valid, is that such changes may cause wide variations within a species, but they have never been shown to change the basic nature of the species itself. For example, it has never been shown to my satisfaction that any amount of simple gene selection due to the environment will cause a fish to give birth to a lizard.

Your understanding of evolution is severely flawed. The "fish to give birth to a lizard" is so preposterous a notion that only creationists use it. And the reason? It would argue against evolution!

Below is something that demonstrates speciation -- and it has all of the transitional populations still intact. This does "change the basic nature of the species itself" in that it creates a new species in relation to the original one.

Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:

• A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
• At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
• Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.

A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks.