Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 157

Thread: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,725

    Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

    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.
    Last edited by danarhea; 07-02-10 at 01:12 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,036

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Well, I can't speak for all Creationists, but here's my opinion.

    I don't discount that humans, and all species, have an amazing ability to adapt. I don't discount that over time, humans have changed in different ways as part of a "survival of the fittest" weening out process. I readily accept those conclusions.

    What I don't accept - and I say this for effect, not saying you believe this - is that a paramecium turned into a fish thing, which turned into a salamander, which turned into a squirrel, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a human. I realize that is an oversimplification of the theory of evolution, but that aspect of it remains the most implausible and unproven aspect of the whole thing.

    Evolution, or the changing and adaptation of the earth's species, is not in my mind at odds with Creationism. It is in itself, a "miracle" as you would prescribe the religious views on these things.

    Whatever the process is not necessarily for us to understand, and it is certainly in the control of a higher power in my mind. Science and religion do not have to conflict with each other, which most Christians acknowledge.

    Churches are not filled with just mindless idiots, as non-believers would like to think. Albert Einstein believed in God, and many of the congregation each Sunday are educated, successful people who have given this a great deal of thought. Don't let the over-the-top televangelists paint the stereotype for you.
    Last edited by Erod; 07-02-10 at 01:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    What I don't accept - and I say this for effect, not saying you believe this - is that a paramecium turned into a fish thing, which turned into a salamander, which turned into a squirrel, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a human. I realize that is an oversimplification of the theory of evolution, but that aspect of it remains the most implausible and unproven aspect of the whole thing.
    Why don't you accept this? Why do you call it "unproven?" This transition of species is shown in several ways, it's not just fossil records.

    I also cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory." In scientific terms, a theory is something that is pretty solid. When most people use the word theory, they equate it to an educated guess, but that's incorrect. The word they're looking for is "hypothesis."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #4
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    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.
    15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
    Quote Originally Posted by Sciam.com
    1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

    Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

    In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea
    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.
    Certainly a few thousand years is enough.
    Nice to see yet more evidence tho.
    For those interested in new ideas about recent human evolution:
    10,000 year explosion - Google Search
    online google book but nevertheless bought Hardcover on ebay for $9/free ship. The first one in years I thought important and interesting enough.
    Last edited by mbig; 07-02-10 at 02:23 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  5. #5
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    You are linking to an example of microevolution which is something the vast majority of "intelligent design" proponents accept. I believe their primary concern with evolution is not that it "doesn't exist" but that it's not sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

    That is, are the processes of mutation and natural selection sufficient to explain how a blue whale, a cyanobacterium, and a corn plant all derive from the same parent organism?

  6. #6
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Why don't you accept this? Why do you call it "unproven?" This transition of species is shown in several ways, it's not just fossil records.
    Perhaps "unsubstantiated" might have been a better choice of words to reflect his intent. Of course, nothing is ever "proven" in science.

  7. #7
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NC
    Last Seen
    09-04-15 @ 01:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    420

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post


    people in Denver Colorado live at altitudes of 5,000 feet, thats 16% less oxygen than sea level...whats their deal? the article went on to say that genes in the Tibetans "adapted"


    if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,360

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by fishinRod View Post

    if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?
    Darwin never said that

  9. #9
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by fishinRod View Post
    people in Denver Colorado live at altitudes of 5,000 feet, thats 16% less oxygen than sea level...whats their deal? the article went on to say that genes in the Tibetans "adapted"


    if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?
    so you don't belive in evolution?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  10. #10
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,042

    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.
    This is a minor point but I'd like to point it out anyways. Yes, evolution is a theory, and it will always be a theory because it's a scientific theory, like gravity or any other scientific theory. That doesn't also mean that evolution is a fact, because plain and simple, it is. Just as gravity is fact because when you drop something, it falls.

    From wiki:
    In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
    Quote Originally Posted by - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... 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
  •