Humans Evolving Faster Say Science People

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Your post was in pro life rhetoric. And your justification was by the idea of natural selection.

If you see abortions as a form of birth control, etc, and use evolution as a guide to weeding out or in certain people into the gene pool then the question arises, will you only allow for natural births? Millions of women a year are saved by C-sections, if we went by your thanos style ways infant mortality rate will sky rocket.

a reply to: FamCore
You know what, I read, Vance Packards '' The Hidden Persuaders'' back in high school. That was 55 years ago for me. That book was an early expose of the advertising industry and set me on a course of understanding that we humans are incredibly gullable. It's part of our nature.

That set me on a course to hate those of us who choose to take advantage of this human quality to their own profit.
It also lead to a short time where I looked at the rest of us as ''them'', those fools who did not see as clearly as I did. It got me to believing that I was above it and only after a long time did I come to realize that I am just one more of ''us'' and that there is no ''them'' to be superior to. In the end, those manipulators find a way to prove that we are all still gullible. All of us. Hell, Trump proves that to me each and every day.

originally posted by: MorpheusUSA
a reply to: Blue Shift
Then how can they explain the decrease in logical thinking and over all intelligence of the human race?

They never claim that higher intelligence (however you want to define it) is a positive evolutionary adaptation, and I've read plenty of arguments for it actually being detrimental. Neanderthals were probably not nearly as smart as us, yet managed to survive far longer than we probably will. This is likely, IMHO, because they were more in balance with the natural world.

As for the decrease in logical thinking, I suppose you can blame that on the current educational system where inclusion and sensitivity are prioritized over basic reasoning and recognizing logical fallacies.

a reply to: strongfp

Again you missed the point. You are reading more into my post than is there.

I suggested that indiscriminate use of abortion, simply as a method of birth control, and the destruction of children that do not fit our present day definition of perfection, may interfere and slow down our evolution progress.

A simple suggestion as a possibility in response to the OP.

"Science people" are idiots, generally speaking. It's not that I "don't believe in science." It's just that there are so few real scientists left. Most of them are just priests for the New World Religion and demand blind faith in their edicts.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess CRISR is a “directed evolution” tool. It really does seem to be a goal and this is not even the dumb “trans human” fad.

I think that we will start small then expand what we are capable of doing. Like correcting gene that cause specific diseases then adding something like immunity to “common” ailments like cancer and dementia. There will be the “eye color” or “taller” and other desirable traits. Then the “google glass” crowd who will push the boundaries at any chance they have.

I am 50-50 about us growing wings or prehensile tails but the disease aspect seems like a laudable goal!

I like the term, “directed evolution” but I also suspect that there is an unseen competitor to evolution. Maybe like “augmentation” where we technology to do things like “find friends” on your phone works but with thoughts or images.

Our future, either way, is open ended.

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: Blue Shift

If you take into account the changes in human environment it does make sense.
Evolution is driven by environment

The link does appear to be driven by environment, while the really short term analysis is harder to grasp, unless you include the observed, 'memory genes' of which is somewhere out there, and not really thought of as short term, or even long term, but maybe something spatial. Not quite sure of some aspects re the OP, Still, very interesting though.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess CRISR is a “directed evolution” tool. It really does seem to be a goal and this is not even the dumb “trans human” fad.

I think that we will start small then expand what we are capable of doing. Like correcting gene that cause specific diseases then adding something like immunity to “common” ailments like cancer and dementia. There will be the “eye color” or “taller” and other desirable traits. Then the “google glass” crowd who will push the boundaries at any chance they have.

I am 50-50 about us growing wings or prehensile tails but the disease aspect seems like a laudable goal!

I like the term, “directed evolution” but I also suspect that there is an unseen competitor to evolution. Maybe like “augmentation” where we technology to do things like “find friends” on your phone works but with thoughts or images.

Our future, either way, is open ended.

There will be two huge ones...One will be genetic based, super humans with all the bad stuff removed and enhanced all the good stuff...how about everyone has a 200 IQ an can not get sick as example. The other one will be technology as in direct modification of our bodies with technology. how about better eyes, hearing, direct implant to our brains from computers, and Nano technology where millions of nanobots live in you and all they do is repaired/rebuild your cells, no aging anymore.

We have been changing our diet too quick, that includes consuming multiple chemicals that were not present in such high amounts in nature before. Everyone is metabolically intolerant to too much of certain chemicals and their bodies try to adjust genetics to match. Maybe people were not as book smart sixty years ago, but they had more common sense, they could detect a deceiver well back then. Much of the things we consider necessary now are nothing but wants to make things easier. Science is messing with our physiology every day, they create all kinds of chemicals which could be forcing our evolution at too fast of a level.

a reply to: Blue Shift

People don't seem smarter. Thats for sure.

Cool, we're dying.

Some time ago a fish was chewing on some toes of a chimpansee that didn't came into existence yet and grew some teeth.

When you bump your head enough against a wall you will evolve an airbag.

Okay I feel like an idiot.. can someone explain this to me? I thought evolution was largely driven by survival of the fittest and which traits were sexually favored and passed on to future generations? Is this article claiming that one day suddenly wisdom teeth stopped showing up across the board?

originally posted by: solarjetman
Okay I feel like an idiot.. can someone explain this to me? I thought evolution was largely driven by survival of the fittest and which traits were sexually favored and passed on to future generations? Is this article claiming that one day suddenly wisdom teeth stopped showing up across the board?

It's just another conditioning attempt that conflates slight changes in the descendants of living things with the concept of evolution by using the term "microevolution" (which was not used in the OP but is used in the article quoted in the other thread about this subject). Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’ (While the word “species” is used frequently in this comment, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.)

In reality, though, the teaching of (macro)evolution rests on three myths, three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Is the evidence for (macro)evolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Is Evolution a Fact?

...
Can Mutations Produce New Species?

Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations​—or random changes—​in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake! Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”*

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

...

There you go, finches remaining finches, that's apparently “a particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species]”, supposedly.

a reply to: solarjetman

Continuing from previous comment:

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

The bolded part relates to what I said about finches remaining finches (and still interbreeding). One of the footnotes in that article mentions that organisms are classified into increasingly inclusive groups or "categories" (see quotation below), from specific species to kingdoms.

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories. [whereislogic: e.g. "entirely new families of plants and animals."; quotation from previous comment]

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

Continuing with the earlier article regarding myth and assertion 3:

Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”

This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Evolution​—Fact or Myth?

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? After criticizing some of Richard Dawkins’ reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense “because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

[*: Materialism, in this sense, refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.]

a reply to: solarjetman

Now since the part concerning the fossil evidence is rather short in that article, you can get more detailed information regarding the points made there following the links below:

Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak
Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs​—Can Evolution Bridge Them?
QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
The Fossil Record—Their Best Proof (Awake!—1981)
Fossils—Do They Prove Evolution? (Awake!—1983)

Fossils (1986-2020)

...
Quotations

general picture consistent with the idea of a special creation: rs 124

geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution: rs 123

links between major groups of animals simply aren’t there: g94 5/22 21; w90 2/1 6; gm 106

not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile: wi 4-5; w86 4/1 14

on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act fits best: rs 124

species appear suddenly, show little change: lf 23

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: solarjetman

Now since the part concerning the fossil evidence is rather short in that article, you can get more detailed information regarding the points made there following the links below:

Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak
Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs​—Can Evolution Bridge Them?
QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
The Fossil Record—Their Best Proof (Awake!—1981)
Fossils—Do They Prove Evolution? (Awake!—1983)

Fossils (1986-2020)

...
Quotations

general picture consistent with the idea of a special creation: rs 124

geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution: rs 123

links between major groups of animals simply aren’t there: g94 5/22 21; w90 2/1 6; gm 106

not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile: wi 4-5; w86 4/1 14

on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act fits best: rs 124

species appear suddenly, show little change: lf 23

"You've seen the science, now let me show you the Jehovah's Witness propaganda to really educate you."

🙄

originally posted by: Atsbhct


"You've seen the science, now let me show you the Jehovah's Witness propaganda to really educate you."

🙄

Respond to the science he posted rather than making personal attacks. I've realized how many evolutionists simply blindly believe in evolution. None of you can defend your belief in evolution without revealing blatant flaws in the entirety of the theory.

I dare you to actually debate whereislogic rather than hiding behind your indignation 🙄

It doesn't have to be the body that you see evolving, It's not visible to us. Most of the evolution going on is within our brain, as you know our brains are what make us human and the body is how we move and manipulate the environment, the body has already reached it's maximum potential.

We didn't have programming codes, Satellite navigation, Food variety, mandatory education and Affordable vehicles between 100-200 years ago so I'm fairly certain we have evolved during that transition.

I don't think the human race will last much longer on Earth though... too many people.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Those links discuss the relevant science, i.e. the observed facts and how they contradict and compare to evolutionary philosophy and mythology. Many of the quotations used, come from evolutionists (evolutionary philosophers promoting themselves and eachother as scientists), paleontologists or so-perceived 'scientific' sources (favoring evolutionary philosophy or philosophies, pseudoscience). For example (from the 2nd quotation) under the link "Fossils (1986 - 2020)":

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

4th quotation + some extras:

THE FOSSIL RECORD: Fossil evidence is called by some ‘the final court of appeal’ because it is the only authentic history of life available to science. What does it show?

Professor of natural science John Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.”​—Should Evolution Be Taught?, 1970, pages 9, 14.

COULD MUTATIONS HAVE CAUSED EVOLUTION? Because of the harmful nature of mutations, The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”​—1977, Volume 10, page 742.

Sorry, no X-Men on the horizon. But if you don't mind being programmed and conditioned with Hollywood's fictional entertainment*, go right ahead and roll with it because of .... "wisdom teeth" (ooh the irony is strong in this one, I feel like there's a joke in there somewhere about wisdom, ridiculous name for teeth anyway). At least that might make it a little more obvious what's going on here to some. (*: X-Men isn't the only fictional entertainment that promotes the idea of humans evolving superhuman abilities, or some sort of evolutionary progression, such as Stargate with their 'ascension' idea, or a large variety of other evolutionary philosophies, promoted in pretty much every popular Sci-Fi movie or show. Hook, line and sinker. Tickling people's ears as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4. Bring back Babylon 5, at least it had some cool stuff about propaganda and the night watch; the thing about propaganda is that most people don't recognize it when they are being conditioned by it, quite nicely demonstrated in the character Zack and his colleagues in Babylon 5)


Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda (playlist: Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories)

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Blue Shift

People don't seem smarter. Thats for sure.

These days our brains are filled up with a lot of useless "facts" and fashion. Our ancestors worked and died so we could have life this good, and the result is that we've gotten dumber about real life.

Instead of Blade Runner, the future turned out to be more like Zardoz.