…Where did the very different Ethnicities come from?
How did the Epicanthic fold come about or evolve in Mankind?
The very different skin pigmentations within different peoples?
etc.
Evolution. Yes I said it. I’m not referring to macroevolution however. Gradual changes to our species over time without changing our species into another one.
[quote]Karado wrote:
…Where did the very different Ethnicities come from?
How did the Epicanthic fold come about or evolve in Mankind?
The very different skin pigmentations within different peoples?
etc.[/quote]
I don’t know, where did they come from?
[quote]forbes wrote:
Evolution. Yes I said it. I’m not referring to macroevolution however. Gradual changes to our species over time without changing our species into another one. [/quote]
Microevolution is macroevolution on a small time scale. If you’re willing to accept that mutation and genetic drift have the power to change the fundamental makeup of the progeny of a set of organisms, you’re a stone’s throw away from Darwin and Dawkins.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Evolution. Yes I said it. I’m not referring to macroevolution however. Gradual changes to our species over time without changing our species into another one. [/quote]
Microevolution is macroevolution on a small time scale. If you’re willing to accept that mutation and genetic drift have the power to change the fundamental makeup of the progeny of a set of organisms, you’re a stone’s throw away from Darwin and Dawkins.[/quote]
Race isn’t a “fundamental change of the progeny of a set organisms”, it’s a differential subset of change. In fact, it’s more likely that Darwin was almost entirely wrong,(in fact he was a racist as well), and that specification happens not because of gradual changes but because of a specific stack of mutations that pushes beyond the boundaries of genetic safeguards to handle.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Evolution. Yes I said it. I’m not referring to macroevolution however. Gradual changes to our species over time without changing our species into another one. [/quote]
Microevolution is macroevolution on a small time scale. If you’re willing to accept that mutation and genetic drift have the power to change the fundamental makeup of the progeny of a set of organisms, you’re a stone’s throw away from Darwin and Dawkins.[/quote]
Race isn’t a “fundamental change of the progeny of a set organisms”, it’s a differential subset of change. In fact, it’s more likely that Darwin was almost entirely wrong,(in fact he was a racist as well), and that specification happens not because of gradual changes but because of a specific stack of mutations that pushes beyond the boundaries of genetic safeguards to handle.[/quote]
This is what I’m saying: removing the cultural and climatic aspects of “race,” there are racially-determinant genetic variations among human beings. If a Christian is willing to acknowledge that the origins of those variations are evolutionary, they’re giving up the whole game.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Microevolution is macroevolution on a small time scale. If you’re willing to accept that mutation and genetic drift have the power to change the fundamental makeup of the progeny of a set of organisms, you’re a stone’s throw away from Darwin and Dawkins.[/quote]
First, let me say, I fully believe Mendelian genetics and TOE. However, I’ve started to find this sort of thinking to be B.S. and an example of a false dichotomy.
Microevolution is a ‘cognitive distortion’ for people who can’t consider biological change outside the context of evolution. It’s like the term ‘sub-clinical’ in the medical community (like medicine only happens in a hospital with a doctor around). Saying you believe microevolution, therefore, macroevolution is complete B.S. and is like saying you have a sub-clinical food allergy so eliminate peanuts, fish, and other allergens from your diet.
The human overbite is largely the result of the use of eating utensils. You can, archaeologically, see it develop, independently, after the invention of those devices in Western, Asian, and African cultures. The earliest records of the use of these utensils is for ceremonial purposes.
Science helps you figure out what you know (regardless of what you may believe). Religion helps you figure out what you believe (regardless of what you “know”). A world overrun by fundamentalist zealots would be no better or worse off than a world overrun by mindless non-believing robots.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Microevolution is macroevolution on a small time scale. If you’re willing to accept that mutation and genetic drift have the power to change the fundamental makeup of the progeny of a set of organisms, you’re a stone’s throw away from Darwin and Dawkins.[/quote]
First, let me say, I fully believe Mendelian genetics and TOE. However, I’ve started to find this sort of thinking to be B.S. and an example of a false dichotomy.
Microevolution is a ‘cognitive distortion’ for people who can’t consider biological change outside the context of evolution. It’s like the term ‘sub-clinical’ in the medical community (like medicine only happens in a hospital with a doctor around). Saying you believe microevolution, therefore, macroevolution is complete B.S. and is like saying you have a sub-clinical food allergy so eliminate peanuts, fish, and other allergens from your diet.
The human overbite is largely the result of the use of eating utensils. You can, archaeologically, see it develop, independently, after the invention of those devices in Western, Asian, and African cultures. The earliest records of the use of these utensils is for ceremonial purposes.
Science helps you figure out what you know (regardless of what you may believe). Religion helps you figure out what you believe (regardless of what you “know”). A world overrun by fundamentalist zealots would be no better or worse off than a world overrun by mindless non-believing robots.[/quote]
I didn’t say “therefore,” I said “a stone’s throw away.”
“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection.”
–Roy Caldwell, evolutionary biologist, UC Berkeley
^ If that’s true, then one who accepts microevolution has positioned himself poorly in the macroevolutionary debate. Because he’s already accepted the legitimacy of the processes by which scientists say macroevolution is carried out. Which is not to say that he’s an avowed evolutionist.
There’s also the mystery of Wisdom Teeth, the majority which come in crooked and the
Human Skull cannot accommodate them coming out the way they should…Does this mean the Human
Skull must been larger in the past to accommodate them and the opposite is true?
The “opposite” meaning That we are DEVOLVING rather than evolving?
[quote]Karado wrote:
There’s also the mystery of Wisdom Teeth, the majority which come in crooked and the
Human Skull cannot accommodate them coming out the way they should…Does this mean the Human
Skull must been larger in the past to accommodate them and the opposite is true?
The “opposite” meaning That we are DEVOLVING rather than evolving?[/quote]
What do you men by devolve? The concept that an evolutionary change is ‘better’ is subjective. Its only better for adaptation to an environment, not one a human may consider better. Prehistoric hominid skulls did have different proportions. Smaller cranial cavity, larger mandible etc.
Another example would be prehistoric equines. They evolved from having multiple digits to a hoof. Is this a step backwards? or an improvement given the environment.
I have pictures of both instances from the British museum of natural history a few years a go.
Googling gives some pictures, but I cant seem to find the side by side layout I viewed in person.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection.[/quote]
And there is plenty of biological change that gets labeled as microevolution despite having little or nothing to do with these mechanisms.
As the OP suggested or indicates, where are the epicanthic fold genes/mutations (I tried to point out the same with overbites)? In agrarian societies, where’s the natural selection (reproductive selection, in humans, is certainly playing fast and loose with the idea of ‘natural’) of eye skin folds (or handedness, double-jointedness, overbites, etc.)? Mecca is completely devoid of ethnic Jews and is replete with Arabs, microevolution at work, right? Maintain it for the next 10,000-100,000 years and we get the Jewish and Arab species, right? Ignore enough of the qualifiers and redefine the scale, and macroevolution becomes just “change”.
Jared Diamond certainly doesn’t have all the answers, but he and the debate around his book do make some good points about how genetics can be largely irrelevant.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection.[/quote]
And there is plenty of biological change that gets labeled as microevolution despite having little or nothing to do with these mechanisms.
[/quote]
That’s fine, but there’s also plenty of biological change that is microevolution. Which makes my argument perfectly sound.