-PJ
Posted on 11/20/2005 1:21:49 PM PST by blam
Natural selection changing the genes that get inherited, regardless of cause or motivation, is one of the two key components of evoluation. The other, of course, is genetic change (the source or cause of which is mathematically irrelevant.)
No it isn't ... preferential breeding does not change one species into another.
Humans with large faces to humans with small faces is not evolution, just variations within a species.
I think Blam and Sunken Civ will have a better clue about those ancient artifacts than I.
Wouldn't that be more specifically Darwin's "sexual selection", rather than the more general "natural selection"?
If faces change to a softer shape--I think it might have to do with the male attraction to childlike faces. Hardwired for the fecund and the nubile--and might go a long way towards explaining the intractability of the seduction of the adolescent. Yet again, in this article, the muddling-up of selection for type and "evolution."
That does not explain the "evolution" of bacteria changed into a variety of fish changed into a variety of mammals....
Isn't the idea that prefered breeding over an extended period of time (i.e hundreds of thousands or millions of years) creates a new species?
-PJ
ID deniers will have a hard time attacking this.
Face shrinkage here has nothing to do with survival, imo. Much with politics and sin, imo...like the Chinese not marrying girls with big feet....though I do like those hungarians and people with narrow eyes look crosseyed stupid, imo.
To me it seems, in any case, that it has nothing to do with survival, but an appropriate fit to a more graceful life, something Darwinism rejects as a factor....well, they do have fixes such as motherly instinct and looks for survival...but this goes into a realm that is much more subjective, imo.
That's the essence of evolution.
"I don't buy everything about evolution personally, but you just gave a text book definition of the theory.
Choosing a mate because she has a pretty face is natural SELECTION, NOT "evolution".
Seems to carry a hint of Lamarkian Evolution.
Darwinists claim that good looks suppresses your immune system, and, thus, those surviving with good looks must be very strong in immunity. Eg. the peacock with the biggest feathers gets chosen coz that's the strongest who can fight the immune supression best.
However, let us not confuse Darwinism and materialism, ie. as in materials precede thought etc...
Many materialists have hijack darwinists and used them for their own Marxist political purposes...and FR reeks with such.
Not everyone gets wisdom teeth? Rats, why was my family so unlucky, we've paid a fortune to have them removed from ourselves and our children.
women might have looked more like Camilla [the Duchess of Cornwall]. >>>
Or more accurately like her horse.
Unless you mean that evolution means selection for type? I've been given lots of vocabulary by evos in the attempt to bridge all these uncomfortable, contingent gaps between the species..Evos make so many assumptions--round faces do not new species create.
No, it isn't.
Stopped reading when I got to this second sentence.
The surge in dental problems is because the last 10,000 years our face has changed?
Why didn't our teeth adapt also???
It stands for Gods, Graves and Glyphs, an archaeology - anthropology and ancient history ping list.
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.