Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 157

Thread: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'm not an expert on this subject so let me see if I can determine exactly what you mean.

    When you say the oxygen is the same at higher elevations, I assume you mean it remains 21% of the existing pressure (or amount-of-air-per-given-volume), but the partial-pressure of oxy is lower because the overall pressure of the atmosphere is lower... right?
    Not 21% of the existing pressure, 21% of the content. The air we breathe is 21% oxygen. That percentage does not change at 24,000ft, but the pressure does. So whether you're at sea level or 24,000ft, 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen, but the pressure gradient is vastly different.

    Medical science does not yet know why this pressure makes a difference for breathing, given that the oxygen content is the same.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post

    More here at the link
    .

    Yes, evolution may only be a theory, but the evidence in favor of it is massive. And now, we can actually see evolution in action from recent human history. The only discrepancy here is the number of years that this particular natural selection event took place - Biologists maintain 3,000 years, while archeologist claim it happened in 7,200 years. Nevertheless, we have ironclad proof that this evolution among Tibetans did happen.

    And here is the problem that I have with certain people in the "Creationist" camp. They ask for proof of evolution, and time and time again, evidence is provided. Yet, when you ask them for proof that God created humans, they reply "Prove that God didn't create humans", which is the kind of an answer that speaks for itself, and as we all know, not a reply that is based even remotely on logical debate. You don't debate by asking people to prove a negative, especially when the scientific method dictates that evidence through experimentation and observation provides evidence that the theory is correct.

    Yes, evolution is still a theory. So is relativity, a theory that is used today to focus an electron microscope. So is the periodic table of the elements, without which chemists would still be in the dark ages. And creationism? Hogwash, obviously, since absolutely no evidence has been provided to date that supports it. Of course, if and when creationists come up with even an iota of hard evidence to support their claims, I am willing to listen. As of now, though, I am still waiting.
    Not that I disagree,... I for the most part accept and embrace the 'theory of evolution.'

    But as for these Tibetans,.... how is this proof of evolution and not merely a necessary adaptation?

    (recognizing of course that the two are closely intertwined)

  3. #53
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Belief that in the end science will explain everything and that everything is explainable through natural law and science is in and of itself faith.
    I for one don't think that science will explain everything, even if our scientific knowledge was built upon for the next million years, but I can see how some people might extrapolate the incredible increase in human knowledge that has occurred over the past few hundred years into the distant future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    One may say "But history shows us many things people attribute to gods to be found to be natural through science". Yes, that is true in many...not all...cases thus far.
    The argument of pointing out the the limits of our knowledge of the natural world and saying something like "See, science doesn't know everything. How do you know God(s) didn't cause that?" has a few problems:
    • It puts the person who brings up the argument on the defensive by implying that God doesn't explain the things that science has discovered.
    • God is immanent in all things, so God is present even in natural phenomenon. (at least that's what some theists claim)
    • The argument diminishes in its effectiveness every time science discovers the answer for something science can't explain.
    • A person on the fence about their belief in God runs the risk of perceiving God to be shrinking, or becoming more distant from their life with each new discovery. If, in the future, scientists happen to find that simulating the newly refined estimates of the conditions of the early earth results in the creation of self replicating molecules that then start utilizing the energy in the materials around them, then, in my opinion, that discovery shouldn't have an effect on the strength of a person's belief in God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    At the same time, science itself is not falliable.
    I'm assuming you meant "science is fallible".
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    There has been numerous scientific theories and even things believed to be scientific facts that have been found later to be false.
    Later found out to be false by science that is. Science is done by human beings, so of course mistakes are made. Science is a method of finding things out about the world that starts out by making tentative assertions which are then subjected to tests to see if they conform to reality. In science, a theory is well supported explanation of many facts and observations. Scientific theories can explain facts, but they never become facts. The theory of evolution is a theory just like the theory of gravity, atomic theory and the germ theory of disease are theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What it truly comes down to, at the end of it all, is both sides. Either faith/belief that there is something greater than the natural world of which we can not fully comprehend, or faith/belief that everything and anything within the universe is absolutely provable and absolutely natural with anything beyond that completely out of the realm of possability.
    I can see with my own eyes that many things in the universe can be explained by natural causes. I'm open to being shown a reason to consider the possibility that the supernatural exists, but so far every fact that I am aware of is either better explained by natural phenomenon, or doesn't currently have a explanation at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I reject this idiotic notion that somehow one form of belief is better or worse than the other. My only contention would be is that once one belief or the other is somehow found to be wrong...such as the notion that Zeus throws down lightening bolts...that continuing to hold that exact belief after that fact is rather foolish. However, we are no where near a point of answering that unquestionably prove the removal of all that is supernatural, so until such a point that science completely and utterly wins out it still boils down, without question to one thing.

    Belief.

    Forgive me if I don't care about those arrogant enough to believe their belief is better than others. I'm not a fan of extreme fundamentalists...be they christian, islamic, agnostic, or athiest.
    Do you think that your belief that the Earth is round is better, i.e. more correct, than the belief that the Earth is flat? Of course you do. I don't assert that God doesn't exist, I just don't have a belief that God does exist.

    As for the theory of evolution, the evidence for it is so overwhelming that no informed fair minded person can reasonably think natural selection or common descent is false.

  4. #54
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Not that I disagree,... I for the most part accept and embrace the 'theory of evolution.'

    But as for these Tibetans,.... how is this proof of evolution and not merely a necessary adaptation?

    (recognizing of course that the two are closely intertwined)
    What's the difference?

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    What's the difference?
    Well,.. I maybe should have read the article more closely as I see there is likely a genetic shift associated with this "change",... so I guess my question really comes down to where the line is drawn (if anywahere) between a simple adaptation and a full blown example of evolution?

    Subtle changes because one group lives in high altitude and another at sea leven doesn't fill int the 'missing links' for example between many of the creatures we conceivably 'evolved' from.

  6. #56
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    First: No evolutionary scientist is claiming that humans descended from monkeys. That is a fallacy and simply not true. Humans did share a common ancestor with apes about 5 to 8 million years ago, and that ancestor diverged into two lines, one becoming apes, one human eventually. Sorry, pet peeve.

    Chuz, the genetic difference is evidence of part of the process of evolution. If the shift continues far enough and leads to speciation, it would be a complete step in the process of evolution. It seems to me that speciation would be unlikely.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #57
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Well,.. I maybe should have read the article more closely as I see there is likely a genetic shift associated with this "change",... so I guess my question really comes down to where the line is drawn (if anywahere) between a simple adaptation and a full blown example of evolution?

    Subtle changes because one group lives in high altitude and another at sea leven doesn't fill int the 'missing links' for example between many of the creatures we conceivably 'evolved' from.
    No one is saying that it "fills in" anything. Simple adaptations are examples of evolution.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    First: No evolutionary scientist is claiming that humans descended from monkeys. That is a fallacy and simply not true. Humans did share a common ancestor with apes about 5 to 8 million years ago, and that ancestor diverged into two lines, one becoming apes, one human eventually. Sorry, pet peeve.

    Chuz, the genetic difference is evidence of part of the process of evolution. If the shift continues far enough and leads to speciation, it would be a complete step in the process of evolution. It seems to me that speciation would be unlikely.
    Seems plausible to me,....

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    No one is saying that it "fills in" anything. Simple adaptations are examples of evolution.
    As I said,... had I read the article more closely,... I would have worded my first post differently.

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    I think this unconfirmed study shows natural selection at work and not evolution. They can only speculate, but they cannot prove that these 30 genes they are looking at "evolved" and by random chance gave these people an edge in just 3,000 years.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •