OK... let me do it. There is a big difference between adaptation and evolution. This is the reason that some people are black and some are white. If you live near the equator, your body will produce more meletonin and your skin will get tanned. After some generations, the gene that causes it will be so prevelent that the children would be born equipped to live under a hot sun. Those away from the equator nedd less protection from the sun and so produce less meletonin. It would take at least the same number of generation to reverse the effect as caused it. But if a black person and a white person have a child, that child will take genes from both the father and mother and the prevelence of meletonin will be less, and perhaps half the intense.

This study they did does not show that one species changed it's proper genetic code to "evolve" into a unique species that cannot be called man. Evoloutionists keep substituting adaptation more evolution and that's where they err. So evolution is this the fairy tale wishful thinking it always was. It's a novel idea but still without proof.

And using the mutations of cells such as viruses doesn't prove it either because it is the nature of a virus to change and adapt. But... it is still a virus.

Originally posted by Fromabove
OK... let me do it. There is a big difference between adaptation and evolution. This is the reason that some people are black and some are white. If you live near the equator, your body will produce more meletonin and your skin will get tanned. After some generations, the gene that causes it will be so prevelent that the children would be born equipped to live under a hot sun. Those away from the equator nedd less protection from the sun and so produce less meletonin. It would take at least the same number of generation to reverse the effect as caused it. But if a black person and a white person have a child, that child will take genes from both the father and mother and the prevelence of meletonin will be less, and perhaps half the intense.

This study they did does not show that one species changed it's proper genetic code to "evolve" into a unique species that cannot be called man. Evoloutionists keep substituting adaptation more evolution and that's where they err. So evolution is this the fairy tale wishful thinking it always was. It's a novel idea but still without proof.

And using the mutations of cells such as viruses doesn't prove it either because it is the nature of a virus to change and adapt. But... it is still a virus.

I disagree, adaptation is a concious attempt at dealing with a new circumstance, whereas evolution is the natural course of change through the influence of outside effects.

"After some generations, the gene that causes it will be so prevelent that the children would be born equipped to live under a hot sun."

That is evolution. If it were anything else, children living under a hot sun would not show any predisposition to any other type of skin colour other than what is natural for the people of that area. If the gene pool of an area actually changes because the environment demands it, that is evolution.

A person does not, and can not, make any concious or willful effort to alter their genetic makeup.

Think advances in technology have a lot to do with it? I wonder what all these devices we use everyday would do to someone 200 years ago.. and the water we drink and food we eat.. I definitely think we are still evolving. Call it adapting, or what you want. Eventually we are going to have grey skin, communicate telepathically and have USB ports on our heads. Or a much more advanced port

Shihulud. you have to be on solid ground to suggest that human evolution has accelerated recently. For example why do light skin and blue eyes confer a selective advantage to Europeans?

Even in the OP link, Professor Jones is dubious about the findings and suggests that they are contentious:

However, geneticist Professor Steve Jones of University College London said suggesting a large population size could increase the speed of evolution was "a contentious issue".

Seven percent of human genes are undergoing rapid evolution

"Once a population gets above a very small size it is not very clear if its ability to respond to natural selection depends on size," he told BBC News.

"The general picture that evolution has speeded up in the last 10,000 years as we change from, to put it bluntly, being animals to being humans is clearly true," he explained. "To suggest it is happening at this instant, I would suggest, is probably wrong."

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Shihulud. you have to be on solid ground to suggest that human evolution has accelerated recently. For example why do light skin and blue eyes confer a selective advantage to Europeans?

There is one advantage to having light skin when there is a lack of sunlight and that is to make it easier for the body to produce Vitamin D and the theory is that the genes that confer lighter skin also tend to have a lighter eye colour (which would be the case as it is the same pigmentation that controls both). There is also another theory that such attributes confer better sexual selection.

Even in the OP link, Professor Jones is dubious about the findings and suggests that they are contentious:

However, geneticist Professor Steve Jones of University College London said suggesting a large population size could increase the speed of evolution was "a contentious issue".

Seven percent of human genes are undergoing rapid evolution

"Once a population gets above a very small size it is not very clear if its ability to respond to natural selection depends on size," he told BBC News.

"The general picture that evolution has speeded up in the last 10,000 years as we change from, to put it bluntly, being animals to being humans is clearly true," he explained. "To suggest it is happening at this instant, I would suggest, is probably wrong."

He only found the speed of evolution in such a large population to be contentious and therefore contends that humans are not evolving as fast now as we did in the past 10,000 years. However there may be some other factor involved.


G