Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Human evolution hasn't stopped in the least bit as a number links that I have provided above have clearly indicated. As for "social policy" standing in the way of evolution, what social policy keeps humans from reproducing, passing on dominate genes, which in term changes the genetic nature of their offspring?
Did you even read your links? Neither really refer to evolution in any way shape or form. It talks about lactose tolerance, in which the gene mutation came into existence about 12,000 years ago. It wasn't so much some radical change to the human genome, since babies could always tolerant milk, they just lost their tolerance as they got older. The simple mutation just enabled them to keep that ability throughout their lives, as humans became more associated with animals.
Humans are changing now, true. But that is because of demographic changes, not because of survival of the fittest, nor because of some beneficial mutation. As I wrote in a previous post.
"According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.
If you think that is an example of "survival of the fittest" then you need to go back to school my friend.
Quote:
No. I am absolutely right.
5+5 does absolutely does equal 6+4.
Your very weird attempt to confabulate the politics of population growth with the politics of immigration is... well... just very weird.
Listen, you seem to think that immigration has no social, political, or economic effects on the ingoing and outgoing populations.
You don't seem to understand the cause and effect of anything. You don't simply move 1/4th of the population of a country to another country and for that to not affect social, economic, and political policies. Especially when America attempts to bring in only the most educated people of other countries(which are the ones that have the least children). Most 3rd-world countries are completely overpopulated, and they won't stop popping out endless children until they basically can't anymore. And while I find it terrible that people have to live in poverty and hunger. Nothing will change unless there is a need for them to change. Nothing will change until they stand up and do something. And when America is coming in and feeding them, clothing them, or being the release-valve for overpopulated countries, there will never be the push needed for them to change their lives for the better.
Theres an old saying, the mother of invention is necessity. If you apply that logic to all of life, you start realizing that the only way for things to get better, if for things to be bad enough that people perceive the need to change. A perfect world doesn't change.
It is always a conundrum that I find myself in. Should you help other people? How do you really know that your helping is helping? Take a bum on the street, practically all of them are habitual bums who choose to be a bum. Are you really helping them by giving them money? Or are you prolonging their irresponsibility. Should you pay someone electric bill if they end up short on money that month? You don't want them to freeze right? But what if they make more money than you do? Why didn't they pay their bill? Are they out blowing it at a Casino? Are they wasteful? Are you really helping them by paying their bill, that they should have been able to pay themselves?
Who do you help? Well, there are very few people that you should actually help, and that help should only ever be in the form of giving them opportunities to help themselves. Otherwise, you are just enabling them to be irresponsible.
Any other questions? There better not be, or you'll go to Hell.
But seriously? Since these 'creationists' bring up this question all the time and all they do is just attack Darwin and evolution, but I have no idea what they actually propose as the alternative. I am really curious what this new fangled creationism theory is
Last edited by wellyouknow; 02-08-2011 at 03:03 PM..
Humans are changing now, true. But that is because of demographic changes, not because of survival of the fittest, nor because of some beneficial mutation. As I wrote in a previous post.
"According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.
If you think that is an example of "survival of the fittest" then you need to go back to school my friend.
:
The above post (snippet) is as logically coherent as an argument that says... it didn't rain on the moon today because a chicken laid an egg on earth the other day.
The far right: promoting the teaching of creationism without any evidence to support it. Witnessing evolution in their very own lives, but refusing to acknowledge it's existence.
No proof that we came from monkeys either. Or that wolves used to be dolphins, etc,etc.
Because it is entirely arbitrary and not a measure of any genetic significance. For example, you could wipe out all of humanity except for the Bushmen of Africa and still preserve roughly 99% of all the genetic diversity in the human species.
"In general, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents."
Though 99.9% of the human genome is shared with all other humans. But about 99.5% is shared with Neanderthals, about 95-98% is shared with Chimpanzees, and 60% of shared with a mouse.
I would agree that the human races are arbitrary, because humans are not neatly held into racial boxes. You might even conclude that the very definition of what it is to be a human at all, is arbitrary. But, because of natural barriers(Mountains, Seas, Deserts, etc) or even social barriers, certain human groups are BY FAR more alike than others. Which is why the concept of "race" began in the first place.
I don't necessarily like the concept of "race" because it has no absolute definition, I think the fight against "race" is pushed by individuals who want you to believe that there is no difference between a Bushman and a Swede, other than superficial skin pigment. This is simply not the case. But the concept of "race" also tends to push the idea that all people of a particular race are somehow the same or equal, but that is equally untrue. Chinese and Japanese are similar, but they are also not the same. The people of Northern Japan are a lot different than the people of Southern Japan.
But, people of any particular "race" are FAR more alike each other than they are to members of another "race". And because of their significant similarities it is very easy to put them together as basically a single group. And it irritates me that people will pretend that race doesn't matter, when practically every study that comes out these days about genetics, talks about the reality of genetic differences from one human group to the next.
The genetic distances between "races" are no greater than the genetic distances within "races." So it is a scientifically meaningless concept.
That is both true and false. The truth is, 85% of all human diversity exists between every single population group. That means 85% of the diversity in the English exists in the Bushmen of South Africa. About 7% of human diversity exists between basically what amounts to "the same race". And the remaining 8% is completely non-existant between one race to the next.
Basically it means, if you killed off all human races except Bushmen, around 15% of all human diversity would be lost. If you killed off everyone but Africans, then 8% of human diversity would be lost.
And 15% is almost 1 out of every 6 genes. We would lose 1 out of every 6 genes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But seriously? Since these 'creationists' bring up this question all the time and all they do is just attack Darwin and evolution, but I have no idea what they actually propose as the alternative. I am really curious what this new fangled creationism theory is 
A good read for anyone who cares to remove partisan blinders on this subject
