There is a curious part of evolution which is going on around us today. If you ever looked at the ceilings of Dutch and German homes made in the 1600s...they were fairly low and the average height of a guy was several inches lower than what we have today. How did we change over 400 years? You can use forty different phrases, but they all equal some type of evolution underway. By 2500, I would imagine that we will all be at least three inches taller than what we are today, if the trend holds.
this has been gone over before...it’s our diet primarily.
Evolution presupposes the changing of form. That perhaps something that is not a bird produces, over time, a bird., That a non-dog will change into a dog; and ultimately, that a human was produced from soemthing that was NOT human.
Creation says that humans were created as such, humans. While humans may chage, or adapt if you will, by skin color, hair texture, height, etc, in the end, we are a human.
“You can use forty different phrases, but they all equal some type of evolution underway. “
It’s undeniable that people at least around here are taller than they used to be.
I have read also that the people of North Korea are getting much smaller.
It has to do with nutrition, not evolution.
We remain the same species (homo sapiens). We aren’t changing into another species.
Evolution, properly called, requires the mutation of certain species in a beneficial way , adding information to the genetic code, that ultimately creates a new species. Birds become fish, or what have you. Variation among a species is not evolution.
Be careful that you don't fall into logical fallacy with these kinds of arguments. This is basically known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Affirming the consequent happens when you accept that, since evolution predicts 'change' and you observe 'change', that you think that the theory is therefore supported. It is not because you have not excluded every other possibility for the observed 'change'. 'Change' can be equally used to support a created biology and is not unique support for evolution.
Evolution is defined as 'change' for the same reason that AGW is now defined as climate 'change'. Science has been overwhelmed by logical fallacy in both cases.