Posted on 07/10/2004 7:06:11 AM PDT by jalisco555
if you don't understand the difference between chemical equilibrium and metabolism, there is no use chatting.
> if you don't understand the difference between chemical equilibrium and metabolism...
... I probably would have said something clearly wrong like: Things do not build up by chance, They run down...period!"
heh
> Evolutionary Clearasil needed!
What... you're recognizing that evolution, like pimples, does exist... you just want something to make it go away? Well, best of luck with that...
> An utterly dishonest tactic, but what can you expect from them?
Desperation. If an evolutionist, or a scientist of *any* stripe, finds an indisputable error in a theory or data record, they can adjust accordingly to fit the new data, or scrap the theory and try something else. Heck, there's nothign scientists love more than a serious and *real* flaw... gives 'em somethign new to explore.
If a Creationist finds an indisputable flaw in their notions... then that means that the whole nature of the universe, God, life, death and morality come crashing down on them.
You can thus understand why they might be a tad twitchy...
What effect has modern transportation had on genetic diversity? While geographic proximity is still the dominant factor in determining mating pairs the increased mobility of humans has to have increased the variety of dominant and recessive genes geographically. Barring xenophobia won't there eventually be globally dominant genes that become prerequisites for survival and procreation?
Positive mutations tend to get ignored. If someone is 10% smarter or stronger than the general population due to a mutation, how would we notice that the mutation existed? Furthermore, positive mutations eventually become the norm in a population, so they eventually become the status quo.
However, a negative mutation is easily identifiable because of the unfortunate effects of such a mutation.
Before WWI, French men were statistically the tallest in Europe. Shorter, less healthy men were the last to be drafted and therefore less likely to die. That's probably why Frenchmen are so short and mousy these days.
How about Australian aborigines or American natives?
My brain is growing and pushing the hair right out the top.
Yeah, that's what happened to me, too.
I agree that positive mutations might be hard to spot.
But it's not at all clear that there have been any. There have been advances in nutrition and healthcare, that have enabled us to live longer than people did a century ago, but 120 years as an approximate age limit was written in the Bible 3500 years ago. If anything we still seem to be living shorter lives.
There have been advances in human knowledge, but as far as true intellectual capacity, it doesn't appear that man has evolved in some time.
The changes that we do have, such as the shortening of the jaw resulting in wisdom teeth, do not appear to be a positive, but rather a negative health impact that must be overcome with modern medicine.
The likelihood that a random mutation actually improves functionality is incredibly small. Most mutations are harmeful. It still looks like man is de-evolving. And that the negative genetic mutation load vastly outweights the positive.
But the "negative genetic mutation load" does not increase if the people who get the negative mutations die off or have fewer kids! That's the beauty of natural selection: It ratchets the species as a whole towards fitness, even in the face of an overwhelming majority of negative mutations.
As I understand it, aborigines had some contact with Polynesians. I don't know if American native eskimos had any contact with Russian eskimos, but there surely was some gene flow traveling up & down the Americas.
Yes, but the over 600 inherited genetic diseases have already passed the second phase. So there is a huge negative load that has avoided dying off and is being passed down in the gene pool.
So it's not clear at all that natural selection is even preserving the gene pool. It looks like a slow degradation of the gene pool. It's also by no means certain that even if there was more pressure on the human race, so that natural selection could work better, that the gene pool would be preserved.
Natural selection will kill off the weakest members, but it looks like enough of the negative load gets transmitted from one generation to the next, that Natural Selection is still fighting a losing battle.
> There have been advances in nutrition and healthcare, that have enabled us to live longer than people did a century ago, but 120 years as an approximate age limit was written in the Bible 3500 years ago. If anything we still seem to be living shorter lives.
Incorrect. While there have always been those idividuals who have lived quite a long time, those who are remembered were those who had the ability to lead healthier lives... more expensive food and medical care, less or no back-breaking labor, so on. What's going on now is that there still seems to be an age limit, but more people are bumping up against it due to improved health in general.
3500 years ago, your average schmoe would be damend lucky to make it to 35 or 40, much less 120. Claims of ages measured in multiple centuries are unsubstantiated and basically silly.
> There have been advances in human knowledge, but as far as true intellectual capacity, it doesn't appear that man has evolved in some time.
History is much less than 10,000 years old. That is not enough time for notable evolutionary progress to be made here.
> The likelihood that a random mutation actually improves functionality is incredibly small.
Yes, it is. That much is agreed upon by all. But an improvement-mutation is still a damned nice thing to have. Do a FR search for the super-baby born in, IIRC, Europe. A mutation has made a toddler who looks to be a massive power lifter... muscle development without the actual effort of workign out. If the kid decides to be a power lifter or a construction worker, then that mutation is a positive. If he decides to be a ballet dancer... well...
Unfortunately, some are not allowed the luxury of choice.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aids-virgins.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/107036097535.htm?_lite_=1&via=lnav
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.