Another way to think of Evolution

Hmmmmm, interesting. As soon as I get a chance, I'll read the link. I'm at work right now so I don't have a lot of time, but I'll make sure I get to it. Your argument seems compeling. I'm not sure if I have the expertiese required to argue that point, but I'll try for the sake of the debate. Well played.

LeftBehind. I agree with you. I'm not arguing to piss anyone off, I'm arguing so that those involved in the debate can be more enlightened to the views of the other side... which in the end openens minds to be more able to see the truth, whatever the truth may be. There are seemingly rock solid arguments for both sides, the goal would be to find as many holes in them and explain them to further the theory. I know it's not an argument that can be solved here on this forum (most likely anyway) but that's not the point. Knowledge is power, and I'm trying to get everyone to discuss so they can share their views and understandings (knowledge and opinions) with others to open their minds.

Don't worry I'm not pissed, I just happen to like this subject of debate. You have brought compelling points to the table, and it is true that the "why" of evolution hasnt been nailed down.

The one fact that we know for sure is that evolution happens, has happened, and will happen. All the various hows and whys are still subject to debate as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, back...sorry for the delay.

I asked a question about a village of short people last. Now, it was responded too with a partly correct response. Diet is partially responsible for our size, but it is also partially incorrect. You made another partially correct statement due to its intent to misleed (well all of your answers were intended to distract from a point you and everyone else knows I am going to make soon).

If you had a village of all short people...with no contact with the outside world, they would not be the same size. You are right about that. You gave a few reasons as to why, which can all be considered correct in context as part of a larger equasion. Random variances in height though, by your admission can and will occur in a closed off community and gene pool.

So, according to you, I am correct in saying that while genetically, everyone in that village would be predisposed to being short, differences in height will still occur. Maybe a few inches here and there is all.

What would happen, hypothetically, if a condition made it more favorable for someone three inches taller to survive. Lets say the average height is an amazingly short 4'-6" tall. Conditions made it much more favorable for a 5'-0" tall human who is a little heavier to survive. Would it not be MORE LIKELY for only the tallest members of the community to survive?

As you said, human size is based on diet. You did not mention other parts of the environment that affect human size. Temperature. Average age of parents when born. Average rainfall is even correlated to human size (wow....all these environmental factors having effects...thats weird......) I know that you were intentionally leaving important bits of info out to help prove your misguided efforts to save whatever religion you believe in, so we can look over them.

In the united states today. Right this very second, something rather strange occurs (considering according to you none of this evolution nonsense is possible).

If two people are six foot tall....is it less or more likely for their child to be around 6' tall? Its ok, you can answer. What if they were 5' tall? WOuld it not be more likely for their child to be around 5' tall? Even though you will try to fight this one because you are starting to see your misguided thoughts are being pushed against a wall, are these not true. Probabilities are amazing.

So, assuming you are going to deny this fact, I want to put forth another hypothetical question. IF THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH IS TRUE, wouldn't it be more likely then for the short village people who were more likely to survive because of their 5'-0" height, be more likely to reproduce (refer to your answers above) and subsequesntly be more likely to have slightly taller offspring? Over time, wouldn't the village population as a whole (refer to your previous answers) get taller?

Originally posted by Seapeople
I asked a question about a village of short people last. Now, it was responded too with a partly correct response. Diet is partially responsible for our size, but it is also partially incorrect. You made another partially correct statement due to its intent to misleed (well all of your answers were intended to distract from a point you and everyone else knows I am going to make soon).

Intended to mislead? I'm not intending to mislead anyone. I'm stating facts as I know them, and giving examples as best I can. I'm here to debate a topic, not convert anyone.

Originally posted by Seapeople
If you had a village of all short people...with no contact with the outside world, they would not be the same size. You are right about that. You gave a few reasons as to why, which can all be considered correct in context as part of a larger equasion. Random variances in height though, by your admission can and will occur in a closed off community and gene pool.

Yeah, because height isn't just controlled by genes. If your genes said you should grow to be 9 feet tall but I shoved you in a box 3foot cubed, you'd never be able to reach that height. It's not something like eye color where the phenotype will show no matter what.

Originally posted by Seapeople
So, according to you, I am correct in saying that while genetically, everyone in that village would be predisposed to being short, differences in height will still occur. Maybe a few inches here and there is all.

Not everyone would be predisposed to be short. The people who's tall geneotype rose as a dominant feature wouldn't be, they're predisposed to be tall.

Originally posted by Seapeople
What would happen, hypothetically, if a condition made it more favorable for someone three inches taller to survive. Lets say the average height is an amazingly short 4'-6" tall. Conditions made it much more favorable for a 5'-0" tall human who is a little heavier to survive. Would it not be MORE LIKELY for only the tallest members of the community to survive?

Yeah...

Originally posted by Seapeople
As you said, human size is based on diet. You did not mention other parts of the environment that affect human size. Temperature. Average age of parents when born. Average rainfall is even correlated to human size (wow....all these environmental factors having effects...thats weird......) I know that you were intentionally leaving important bits of info out to help prove your misguided efforts to save whatever religion you believe in, so we can look over them.

WTF are you talking about? I gave the example of diet to show height was environmentally affected. I didn't leave out anything intentionally, I deemed it unnecessary to add further examples since one example of why they wouldn't all be the same height is enough to denounce that they would all be the same height. Since you said "all" all I had to show is that one could be different and the statement is disproven.

Why are you bringing religion into this again. I'm not mentioning God in this debate, why are you? It has nothing to do with this debate at this point. I'm looking at this situation from a purely scientific perspective... so stop using what I believe in as a cheap-shot in this debate... its irrelevant to the subject and is completely inapropriot.

Originally posted by Seapeople
In the united states today. Right this very second, something rather strange occurs (considering according to you none of this evolution nonsense is possible).

And that would be?

Originally posted by Seapeople
If two people are six foot tall....is it less or more likely for their child to be around 6' tall? Its ok, you can answer. What if they were 5' tall? WOuld it not be more likely for their child to be around 5' tall? Even though you will try to fight this one because you are starting to see your misguided thoughts are being pushed against a wall, are these not true. Probabilities are amazing.

True, but irrelevant. This is not an example of evolution. A fish growing legs is an example of evolution because you have to CHANGE THE GENETIC STRUCTURE OF THE SPECIES (or at least a large part of it) to make this occur. Your example is showing genetic isolation, nothing more, each of your short people has the same genetics as every other human.

If the son's height were completely determined by the father's height, the correlation would be as shown by the solid blue line. What is observed is shown by the dashed red line. The height of the father and the average height of the son are related, but the average height of the son always regresses toward the mean. That is understandable if there is no dominance. The son only gets half of his father's genes; the other half comes from his mother.

FROM THIS SITE, which I suggest you read.

Originally posted by Seapeople
So, assuming you are going to deny this fact, I want to put forth another hypothetical question. IF THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH IS TRUE, wouldn't it be more likely then for the short village people who were more likely to survive because of their 5'-0" height, be more likely to reproduce (refer to your answers above) and subsequesntly be more likely to have slightly taller offspring? Over time, wouldn't the village population as a whole (refer to your previous answers) get taller?

Why, in your mind, would they be more likely to have taller offspring? Why would the villiage population as a whole get taller if the short people are still more likely to survive as you said in this paragraph. "short village people who were more likely to survive because of their 5'-0" height". No, with the natural selection factor being enforced on these people, the average height would stay lower as taller members would be likely to be killed by that predator you mentioned... leaving the shorter ones to breed. But because height is a quantitative trait meaning you recieve a certain number of the gene, to gain or loose height in the next generation, not an altered version of a height gene, no genetic change is made.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Seapeople, I think you're missing my point here.

The examples you are giving do not demonstrate alteration of the genetic code. Only variations in phenotype caused by different genotypes and their dominant, recessive, or quantitative qualities... even though all the genetic material required to produce all the variations you've mentioned is already present in the genetic code of each individual involved. You are too focused on

phenotype :The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.

variations that you're not focusing on what really matters to this topic, and that is

genotype :The genetic makeup, as DISTINGUISHED FROM (meaning not necessarily the same as) the physical appearance, of an organism or a group of organisms.

Since a single organism contains several

alleale(s) :One member of a pair OR SERIES of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome.

for a certain trait (like eye color), let's use ME as an example. Let's say I have brown eyes (I don't they're actually blue), but my genetic makeup probably also contains the gene for blue eyes and green eyes... you just can't see them as expressed phenotypes since brown is the dominant trait. But if I had a child with the right person, even someone with blue eyes, the child might have green eyes... even though it may ALSO posess the gene for blue eyes. Just because the child expresses a differnt phenotype than I do, doesn't mean he's genetically altered himself... he's still a genetic combination of me and my mate, it just depends on what alleles were passed on. No new genetic material was created just because he expresses a different phenotype.

Geneticists have designed a model using the bey 2 and gey gene pairs that explains the inheritance of blue, green and brown eyes. In this model the bey 2 gene has a brown and a blue allele. The brown allele is always dominant over the blue allele so even if a person is heterozygous (one brown and one blue allele) for the bey 2 gene on chromosome 15 the brown allele will be expressed. The gey gene also has two alleles, one green and one blue. The green allele is dominant to the blue allele on either chromosome but is recessive to the brown allele on chromosome 15. This means that there is a dominance order among the two gene pairs. If a person has a brown allele on chromosome 15 and all other alleles are blue or green the person will have brown eyes. If there is a green allele on chromosome 19 and the rest of the alleles are blue, eye color will be green. Blue eyes will occur only if all four alleles are for blue eyes. This model explains the inheritance of blue, brown and green eyes but cannot account for gray, hazel or multiple shades of brown, blue, green and gray eyes. It cannot explain how two blue-eyed parents can produce a brown-eyed child or how eye color can change over time. This suggests that there are other genes, yet to be discovered, that determine eye color or that modify the expression of the known eye color genes.

From THIS SITE explaining the basics of eye color genetics.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Greyhaven to clarify my question.

First polar bears are known as Ursus Maritimus and are classified as marine animals.

The clear, hollow fur that aids in bouyancy and camoflauge.

Feet are partially webbed, and the pads of the feet have short stiff hairs, which help with traction on snow and ice.

Their teeth are made for eating meat, most bears although omnivorous have teeth more similar to herbivores.

The fur also completely absorbs UV rays. This makes them so warm that in the summer they have been known to build dens to keep cool.

That first link wasnt very good. So here's a better link to someone more knowledgable on the subject. He is using the polar bear as "proof" of evolution in answer to Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge.
www.geocities.com...

To me it seems unlikely that these features are inherent in all bears, and those listed above are just the short list. It seems to me that these are unique to the polar bear, and it is not just another bear, as the pug is just another dog.

Also the reason they believe polar bears to be related to brown bears is that they can have fertile offspring together, as far as I can tell.

Thanks Grey, I forgot all about those books when i picked this name. LOL

Kent Hovind appears to be quite the jerk and it seems as if he's not even taking his own challenge seriously at all. If you're going to present such a challenge in such a professional manner, you should conduct the evaluation of entries as such. I would certainly have liked to see a better response/rebuttle from him... would've at least given me something to work off of . It certainly is a compelling exhibit. There are two possibilities (well three... but, two scientific) that could explain the existance of the polar bear.

1.) The traits exhibited in the polar bear existed in it's ancestors and other traits were filtered out to produce the modern version (this is what I mentioned in my previous post about a missing link). Also as stated in the article you posted (which I read beginning to end and found quite compelling, I must say) it is a possibility that can not be refuted fully.

Now of course one could simply claim that the polar bear is just a strained-out specialization of some "super bear kind" from just a few thousand years ago (which is not falsifiable for how could one scientifically prove that the pre-polar bear was not pre-packaged with all the genes that later went into making up all the many bear species that have inhabited this planet?)

2.) The polar bear evolved as per modern evolutionary theory from the brown bear. (lots of evidence for this one... but it can not be PROVEN beyond all doubt... but at the same time I don't think it can be scientifically disproven 100% either.)


The "other" possibility, and I'm only putting this here because the link you posted discussed the subject, otherwise I would leave this out and focus fully on scientific evidence.

3.) The big man upstairs wanted a refrigerator bear... though the argument about the warm climates before the floods seems to put that into question... UNLESS the animals are prone to change for the purpose of adaptation after their creation by God (which he states the Bible says they can not... though I'd like to see more about the Bible verses that he says state that animals can not change. (just curious, guess I'll have to find a Bible). ).

Many of these features of the polar bear you stated are certainly unique to the polar bear. My curiosity at this point would be as to the uniquness of these features across the whole of Animalia. Are these features granted solely to the polar bear, or are they shared with other creatures, be they bird, rodent, etc...?

Your point, it would seem, I can not refute to a degree that I am satisfied with, nor can you disprove "possibility 1" from above... it would seem we are at somewhat of an impass. Although I can not accept this exhibit as absolute proof of evolution, it certainly scores big on your side as it would seem far more likely that in this case you are correct in this particular instance... just not 100% proof positive. You have certainly opened my mind with the evidence you brought to the table. Well played my friend, well played.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Whether you accept evolution or not, it does happen. Sure evolution is a rare thing and maybe happens once in about a million years. Remember scientists haven't got everything figured out yet, and there is an example of a beneficial mutation:

A perfectly formed sixth finger.

How is polydactily beneficial exactly? I think it might be hard(er) to get a mate as a human with six fingers. It's just the way we are. And therefore hard to pass on that mutation.

I like how you supported your statements with scientific proof, that was really informative, thank you for your OPINION. If you'd care to support your claim with evidence and participate in our discussion, then you are certainly welcome to do so... otherwise please don't just state your opinion in a pretentios manner and leave, it detracts from the conversation.

Thank you Greyhaven, for taking the time to respond in such a precise manner. Way Above.

And I agree we are at an impasse on this one until the possibilities you mentioned are proven or disproven.

Off topic. By the way the way it is refreshing to debate with someone on this subject without religion being part of the discussion. And the funny thing about Dr. Hovind is that people take him seriously without looking at what he is really about.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Thank you Greyhaven, for taking the time to respond in such a precise manner. Way Above.

And I agree we are at an impasse on this one until the possibilities you mentioned are proven or disproven.

Off topic. By the way the way it is refreshing to debate with someone on this subject without religion being part of the discussion. And the funny thing about Dr. Hovind is that people take him seriously without looking at what he is really about.

So therefore we can conclude that I win the debate, right? just kidding. I've sinerely enjoyed this discussion, if you find any further evidence, please present it, as I will do the same.

You know most religious groups have extremeists and crazies who read way to far into their religions' texts and make conclusions of their own... and will stop at nothing, and for no one to see that everyone else on earth ends up believing what they do. I've come across many christians who I wish weren't representing my faith because they come across as complete jerks and were trying to ram christianity down peoples' throats (which we all know doesn't work). The really unfortunate thing is that these people are usually the most public, being on television, writing books, etc... creating a public view that all christians are like that. I'm sure it's much the same way that most muslims look at those members of their faith who choose to use terrorism as a means to show their beliefs. Sort of a "stop it already, you're making us look really bad you idiots".

yeah grey. Bill Oreilly is a christian of some sort, 'nuff said.

Originally posted by Azza
yeah grey. Bill Oreilly is a christian of some sort, 'nuff said.

Bill Clinton claims to be catholic.

Seapeople, I'm really interested to hear this argument you keep building up.
In the immortal words of the cast of Monty Python and theHoly Grail, 'Get on with it.'

Alright, I have been distracted by other threads and such, my apologies.

I was told a few posts before...."not everyone would be predisposed to being short" in a voillage full of short people. "Only those without the tall genotype" was the reasoning.

Tell me, what is the tall genotype? Where is it located? Or are you referring to a height genotype?

Lets just "pretend" for a second that there was no tall genotype. None, no real tall people ever in this closed off village. I am doing this because I need to remove your irrelevant argument for just a little while so you can gather some logic resoning in your mind.

So there is no tall genotype....all the people are short by our standards. By your own admission though, they would each have a height dependent on factors other than their genes....all of which by the way, are ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. So, something comes along...an environmental factor...any environmental factor, that favors taller people. So, it is easier for a taller person to survive (without the tall genotype because it doesnt exist) in this new environment than it is for a shorter person. By your own admission above that would mean that taller people would be more liekly to reproduce. By your own admission, offspring is somewhat dependent on geneology, and therefore....(not to mention this is something we can see walking down the street without science), over time, by your own admission. People would begin to get taller. Correct? Maybe it would only be an inch average every 10 thousand years. But, the average height of people would get taller......if you assume that the answers you personally gave are correct.

So you have a new average height 10 thousand years later.....what if this group of people split into two areas for one reason or another. One group finds itself in a location where it is more benificial to be taller yet..... By your own admission, they would get taller over time. Probability, more likely.....these are very important terms. You seem to be missing that.

Now where does this taller thing stop. If the average height in a population was 6' tall...would not people still be taller? What if it was benefiial again...to get taller than 6 foot.....

At what point would this stop?

Hi, I'm new to the boards and this is the best thread I have come across so far, I have learned from all of you and I thank you. In my opinion the evolution of humans does not fit into the theory of evolution as the other species do. Our lack of protection from the elements seems to indicate this. Our intelligence greatly aids us in our ability to survive in the environment of this planet, but if our intelligence evolved wouldn’t there have been a time that we wouldn’t have had the ability to create such things as fire, weapons, and clothes? It would have been necessary for evolving humans to rely on natural protection to cope and compete for survival. Some scientists propose that once acquiring intelligence environmental protection was no longer needed. Unfortunately, evolutionary adaptation occurs when it is beneficial to a species as a whole. This allows life to cope and compete to changing situations. What would have influenced an already adapted species to evolve away from existing conditions that allow it to survive within its environment? This is unique in humans. We have regressed away from the most basic of daily needs; ones that helped us cope with the changing climate, exposure to ultraviolet light, competition with other species and even the effects of gravity. These changes seem to oppose the laws of natural evolution. I don’t doubt evolution; we do have remmanents of common features to other species. We have evolved, but perhaps we were also influenced by some outside factor. I might be wrong on some of my ideas as they are collections of my memories of books and conversations that I have been exposed to, so I would value anyones comments or opinions.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Alright, I have been distracted by other threads and such, my apologies.

no problem =)

Originally posted by Seapeople
I was told a few posts before...."not everyone would be predisposed to being short" in a voillage full of short people. "Only those without the tall genotype" was the reasoning.

Tall isn't a genotype. There is no tall genotype, only a "taller" and a "shorter" It is the number of these genes that you posess that causes you to be taller or shorter (yes, along with environmental factors such as diet and temperature, etc...). Read the link I provided for you.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Tell me, what is the tall genotype? Where is it located? Or are you referring to a height genotype?

AHHHHHHH! You're not reading what I write. Read the link!

Originally posted by Seapeople
Lets just "pretend" for a second that there was no tall genotype. None, no real tall people ever in this closed off village. I am doing this because I need to remove your irrelevant argument for just a little while so you can gather some logic resoning in your mind.

You mean "taller" gene? Since there is no "Tall" genotype, only one that causes an average height, any variation from that is caused by the addition of what I like to call a "tallER" or a "shortER" gene. Oh, and thank you for your irreverant lack of respect.

Originally posted by Seapeople
So there is no tall genotype....all the people are short by our standards. By your own admission though, they would each have a height dependent on factors other than their genes....all of which by the way, are ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. So, something comes along...an environmental factor...any environmental factor, that favors taller people. So, it is easier for a taller person to survive (without the tall genotype because it doesnt exist) in this new environment than it is for a shorter person. By your own admission above that would mean that taller people would be more liekly to reproduce. By your own admission, offspring is somewhat dependent on geneology, and therefore....(not to mention this is something we can see walking down the street without science), over time, by your own admission. People would begin to get taller. Correct? Maybe it would only be an inch average every 10 thousand years. But, the average height of people would get taller......if you assume that the answers you personally gave are correct.

Who knows what would happen if you removed the gene that causes an average height in the first place... and No... if there was no gene that caused someone to be taller than average, it would require the creation of one to increase the height by any significant degree even in one individual. The likelyhood of this isn't in your argument's favor. However, a mutation in the height gene could alter the height... but this brings me back to my original post... that such a mutation isn't likely either... it's far more likely that a mutation in the height gene would cause gigantism or some other genetic "disorder". I understand where you're going with your argument, but you don't seem to understand how these genes work. Perhaps a different trait would be more advantagous to your argument. Something like number of limbs. Some trait that's decided by one gene instead of several....

Originally posted by Seapeople
So you have a new average height 10 thousand years later.....what if this group of people split into two areas for one reason or another. One group finds itself in a location where it is more benificial to be taller yet..... By your own admission, they would get taller over time. Probability, more likely.....these are very important terms. You seem to be missing that.

You seem to be missing the fact that genes do not get altered that easily. DNA does not have the ability to selectively alter itself so the being it creates is more suited to its souroundings. If it did, all animals would have night vision, wings, and venom. It's not that easy. It's a big game of chance. And the odds are against you.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Now where does this taller thing stop. If the average height in a population was 6' tall...would not people still be taller? What if it was benefiial again...to get taller than 6 foot.....

Perhaps slightly, but all instances where heights far obove average occur, serious health problems acompany them. The rest of the human genetic code is only capable of maintaining a certain size. You'd have to alter much much more of the DNA to get it to work well.

Originally posted by SeapeopleTell me, what is the tall genotype? Where is it located? Or are you referring to a height genotype?

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. So, something comes along...an environmental factor...any environmental factor, that favors taller people.

Nutrition is the usual factor here. Better nourished humans grow taller and will often have taller offspring.

(lots of snippage occurs)
Now where does this taller thing stop. If the average height in a population was 6' tall...would not people still be taller? What if it was benefiial again...to get taller than 6 foot.....

At what point would this stop?

At about 7 1/2 feet tall, from the medical evidence we have. Pepole who are 8 feet tall are generally very unhealthy with bone problems and joint problems (and are often in severe pain) and die young. There would have to be a lot of other changes triggered to the genetic material to make it possible for people 8 feet or 9 feet tall to be the dominant reproducers.

You'd need changes in bone structure as well as cardiovascular changes (at the very minimum). In fact, the changes needed to make a successfully functional and reproducing human who stood over 9 1/2 feet tall would make that human an entirely different species of human.

My point exactly. The only way to acquire those characteristics would be genetic alteration. Problem is that they would all have to occur simultaniously or each could cause problems without the others. A strong enough cardio system for a 9 foot person would probably cause very high blood pressure in a smaller person, a stong enough skelital structure for a 9 foot person would cause severe joint stress because of the increased weight of the individual bones, even if they were the same size only more dense... so you'd need an alteration for the gene that deduces the joint construction. But I don't see that stronger joints would cause problems without other things being altered. All in all you need three genes (cardio, bones, joints) minimum to mutate in precise manners in the same individual in order to effetively produce a healthy person of significant height... not to mention alterations in the height genes or a gigantism disorder to occur at the same time. Not a likely scinerio at all.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Any response from you Seapeople? Are you off galavanting around the other forums again or are we done here?