Give me one example of an individual animal evolving - IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED !

Evolution is FACT. That I accept evolution may surprise you given the title of this thread, but what I said is true. Individual beings don't evolve their predetermined genetic bodies. Unfortunately, evolution has been presented that some animals magically started growing wings during their lives when they didn't have it before. This photo below makes it seem as if the same monkey one day turned into a modern human. Like it or not, but many evolution deniers understandably reject evolution because of how badly it's demonstrated to them.



Humans (and all species on this planet) ultimately are the way they are today for one reason - FEMALES SELECTIVE BREEDING CHOICES.

Going back to the image above, we need to tell people that what happened was that the females of the species on the left started selecting males as mates who demonstrated necessary survival skills at that time and place. Their offspring, naturally, resembled the male traits more and more.

It is a flat out lie to say, "Homo habilis evolved into modern humans" This is NOT what happened. A bunch of habilis didn't magically begin losing their hair and changing their facial look in reaction to environmental changes. No, what happened was that certain habilis - though genetic mutation in the womb - were born either bigger, stronger, smarter, etc ... than others. The FEMALE habilis looked around and determined what traits were best suited for them and their possible offspring to survive and chose the males accordingly.

Their children, obviously, retained the male traits desired by the female. This is how evolution works - YOU ARE AN EVOLUTION OF YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER.

Individual beings don't evolve beyond their genetically pre-determined bodies during their lives. Females ultimately are the deciders of evolution.

The science world has done a horrific job in explaining evolution. Hence, the continued acceptance of creationism by many in the world.

 

You figure there would be a lot more living links between apes and humans but there aren't. Although you can't deny there are some humans that resemble apes more than others. It's rare but they're around. Hope I don't get called racist for that comment but it's just simple observation. You can't deny that they do exist.

 

The new, Progressive Fascist variant on the Demonized Jew of the Nazis movement... the "XYZ" Denier!

What ever brand of DENIER! AWG, GMO, White Privilege....

What ever the brand, the Lefties hold concerted propaganda campaign to make sure that NO ONE wants to be lumped in with their select enemies LISTS.

Well, Go to HELL!

I'm not playing your game.

The Evil that I will stand firmly against is Progressive Fascism!

In ALL its forms, including this thread.

-

 

What "race" were Adam & Eve?

If black...how did their descendents become Caucasian and Asian??? (or vice-versa)

 

Isn't it interesting how the same people who insist that evolution is irrefutable fact are just as quick to call people racist for simply observing that some human beings appear to be visually closer to their primate ancestors than others? They want their theory validated and accepted but get mad when you acknowledge the links. It must suck to be a liberal. Always caught in a chronic state of ambivalence about everything. Such is the price of thinking with one's emotions.

 

Unifier...what ethnicity were Adam and Eve and Cain and Seth? Caucasian? Asian? Sub-Saharan African?

 

Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time that is why they are such bastards to put down, proof of evolution. Other examples happen over usually a long period of time but we can use DNA studies to trace human ancestry thanks to the Human Genome Project.

 

Sorry homie, did you say something?

 

Evolution has been demonstrated well enough. Some people just deny. They evolved that way.

 

I'm not sure why this is a political topic, shouldn't this be posted in the Science section?


And I can give an animal that has evolved in a relatively short period of time: humans. Contrary to your suppositions that "FEMALES SELECTIVE BREEDING CHOICES" is the one thing that determines selection, there are many other factors. Adult lactose tolerance is only about 5,000 years old but has spread to about a third of the human race. It's evolved separately at many points over the globe, and isn't a sex selection trait. At least, I doubt that young people huddled around the old cave fire used as a come on line, "So how's your lactose tolerance baby?"

 

I am not Unifer but I will take a stab at that. Adam and eve were before the races really developed but since it seems that race is very much a product of the environment and if the environment of the Garden of Eden was the "ideal" for human survival. I would say most likely the environment would be very close to the mediterranean. As such most likely they would be similar to the greeks, arabs, or spanish. If you would like to break it down to color then a light brown. Also considering our ancestral heritage with the primates most of their skins were also dark so, yep brown.

 

Totally ignores the patriarchy that been around since.. Oh...I don't know, the beginning of the human race? Women having the freedom to choose their own mates is a relatively new concept in the vast majority of cultures that even permit it.

 

We are really just space alien biological experiments...

 

Fixed that for you

 

So now Evolution is 'progressive fascism'- how the term 'fascism' has deteriorated- now it is just a word for anything someone on either the Right or the Left disagrees with.

 

I was trying to be lenient and gracious, they tend not to explode and act like a big Baboon..when you're not insulting...

When do you get picked up to transfer to another planet??

- - - Updated - - -

Not to also mention how progressivism is a bad,,,M'kay??

 

Relevant or not, based on what we are seeing in our inner cities, movies, music and (so called) art, the picture should be reversed.

 

LOL - trust me I aint near that smart - I have definitely my share of stupid in me

 

Actually its a good point to think about. I don't have faith in evolutionary science so I don't latch on to its theory. But I do believe in micro-evolution---certain traits carrying on through natural selection.

One article I've heard promoted useless wisdom teeth as evolution caused by environment. And I have always considered this an example of micro-evolution. But you make a good point that the dna is still there...unchanged. The smaller jaw that can't handle the extra teeth is not carried on by a dna change but by its lack of development from how we eat and what we eat.

 

While lactose tolerance isn't a trait that can be identified by the naked eye is it not still the case that lactose tolerance would give individuals a leg up over others without?

Not explaining myself well but, if I can break down the sugars in milk more efficiently than the person beside me doesn't that give me a metabolistic edge? Better able to put on calories. Its minor but given that food shortage was such a problem for so much of our history is it not likely that as it was an edge however slight the trait was unwittingly favoured in sex selection.

 

Exactly, the Human Genome Project has given us lots of information and will continue to do so as technology allows.
I also enjoyed watching "Your inner fish" on PBS and how we have alot of similarities genetically with Fish, Reptiles, and Primates. In the more recent theories it not that we evolved from chimps, we are on another branch, but do share a common extinct ancestor. More needs to be learned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv-PzdmN578
If you watch the 3 episodes its funny how we share many genes, ours are just not active but could have been in the past.

 

I agree that it's a great survival trait; that's why it's spread with relative super fast speed through the human race, but my point was that it was not a sex selection trait and the OP stated that all traits were.

 

Aren't sex selection traits simply a subset of survival traits? After all, you can't reproduce if you don't survive to adulthood first.

 

no you've got it backwards...women not choosing their mate is the relatively recent social concept, in the animal world the female chooses the mate not the male...

 

that would give you a leg up in aquiring vitamin d where it wasn't available in other foods...it wouldn't do you much good in regions where there are few available sources of milk...