[mountain_man]

Just something interesting:

"Lincoln was 6 feet 4 inches tall, at a time when the median height of adult men in the United States was 5 feet 6 inches."

President Abraham Lincoln : Health & Medical History

"The average male American mens height is 177 cm, which is 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot - 10 inches tall. (for white males*)."

Mens average height chart

Hmmmmm..... :)

I am not sure why this is so interesting and what it points to?

[katieperez]

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

I do not feel conflicted between my faith in God and science and I have never disputed the findings of Darwin. Perhaps I was being unclear when I said I question my religion from time to time. There was never a time when I didn't have faith in God. I should've been more specific. Just because I believe one thing, I still like to learn about and understand other beliefs and theories. Another thing, my religion teaches to take the bible totally literally. Do I personally? No, not quite. But it doesn't matter how good or bad of a Catholic I am. I feel that people have the right to take the Bible totally literally if they so chose and I respect them. I apologize if I was at all rude or misleading as that was not my intent. And no I have not even heard of 'Inherit the wind' but it certainly sounds like something that would interest me:) I appreciate all your comments and input, and I'd like to make it clear that I never meant to challenge scientific evidence. Maybe I shouldn't have posted that God vs. Science thing. I had a legitimate question (silly as it may be), and I realize it was my fault God got brought into this in the first place. I probably should have thought of that before I clicked submit. Again, my apologies.

[jillianleab]

I am not sure why this is so interesting and what it points to?

It's a joke mountain_man...

You said you haven't seen evidence of evolution in the past 2000 years. I pointed to the median height of a man during Abe Lincoln's life and the median height of a man in present day. Notice, the median height is now higher. Evolution at work. Get it? Simple thing that is probably caused by other factors, but it's funnier given this thread if we call it evolution.

[mountain_man]

It's a joke mountain_man....

You said you haven't seen evidence of evolution in the past 2000 years. I pointed to the median height of a man during Abe Lincoln's life and the median height of a man in present day. Notice, the median height is now higher. Evolution at work. Get it? Simple thing that is probably caused by other factors, but it's funnier given this thread if we call it evolution.

Well alrighty then!! ;)

[ebaines]

but is this more adapting than biologically evolving?

My point was that the agent of evolution in modern man may be different than the agent of evolution in other animals and plants; not that evolution in man won't happen.

In an earlier post you asked whether there was any evidence of human evolution in the past 2000 years. I think probably not. An important part of evolution is that natural boundaries such as oceans and deserts serve to isolate animal and plant populations, so that they can evolve in separate paths without co-mingling genes. Hence the isolation of Australia, for example, is responsible for the vastly different wildlife there than, say, in Asia. However, given the ability of man to travel and share genes easily across natural boundaries, I doubt that there is much significant differentiation between humans today and humans of even a few thousand years ago. But go back several hundred thousand years and the evidence for evolution is clear.

[mountain_man]

What evidence besides I assume archaeological supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? And based off the evolution theory where/when did everything begin?

[jillianleab]

My point was that the agent of evolution in modern man may be different than the agent of evolution in other animals and plants; not that evolution in man won't happen.

In an earlier post you asked whether there was any evidence of human evolution in the past 2000 years. I think probably not. An important part of evolution is that natural boundaries such as oceans and deserts serve to isolate animal and plant populations, so that they can evolve in separate paths without co-mingling genes. Hence the isolation of Australia, for example, is responsible for the vastly different wildlife there than, say, in Asia. However, given the ability of man to travel and share genes easily across natural boundaries, I doubt that there is much significant differentiation between humans today and humans of even a few thousand years ago. But go back several hundred thousand years and the evidence for evolution is clear.

Don't forget natural selection doesn't really exist today. Medical advances allow us to keep people alive for much longer and allow them to reproduce. Genetic disorders can carry on and on and on because we have medication to keep people around, whereas back when Caveman Zorg and his wife Cavewoman Zorga had a baby with a life-compromising disorder (like a heart condition), it would have died. Or if the baby was born with a genetic disorder (like dwarfism) it might have survived, but would have been less likely to reproduce. Now we medicate people, shock people back to life, keep them alive on ventilators and so on. BTW, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that natural selection doesn't occur in the same way it used to. Personally, I like that if I get an infection a 10-day round of antibiotics keeps me alive instead of becoming septic and dying... :)

[Capuchin]

What evidence besides I assume archaelogical supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? And based off the evolution theory where/when did everything begin?

There have been several new species evolve within our life times. For instance the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in our hospitals. There's also a bacteria which digests nylon - a synthetic man-made fabric, so that must have evolved in the past few hundred years. There are many more evidences which are not archaeological.

The theory of evolution starts with a single self replicating organism or chemical. It doesn't attempt to explain how that organism got there.

Human evolution is much less natural then is used to be. Even the weakest members of the species can pass on their genes. Also we are losing some of our hard earned evolutionary advantages. Our sense of smell used to be highly honed for keeping track of tribe members in the dark of night and to keep vigil against predators, but now we have absolutely no use for our sense of smell, and it is slowly diminishing (this is why there is a big disparity in the ability to recognise smells, some people are better than others because now the smelling genes are not selected for).

[michealb]

I've been saying for years the birth control pill is bad for evolution. The people that should be using it don't and the people that really should be having lots of kids don't. There is a movie call Idiocracy that is a comedy that shows this point really well.

[worthbeads]

Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (modern humans) both had the same ancestors, but are two different animals. The Cro-Magnons were better suited for their environment and lived on, while the Neanderthal race died out. Try looking it up some time for interesting information.

[ebaines]

[QUOTE=mountain_man]What evidence besides I assume archaeological supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? /QUOTE]

Here is some good information on the evolution of the Genus Homo:

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you want to exclude archaeological evidence?

[firmbeliever]

See the thing is I don't believe there is a direct conflict between creationism and evolution. The only time such a conflict exists is when one subscribes to a totally literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that one can maintain and find comfort in their faith in God without disputing the findings of Darwin.

Have you ever seen or read Inherit the Wind? I believe that some intelligent force created our universe. Did that intelligence specifically create an Adam and Eve? Did that intelligence create the flora and fauna as they exist today? I don't believe that because science doesn't support it. But I believe that intelligence create a framework of biological, chemical and physical laws that shaped a figurative Adam and Eve.

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

An interesting read..
------------------------------
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/science/
Is There Creation? Or Evolution? Or Both?

Quran Teaches - BOTH!

It says, "Allah is - Al Khaliq" (The Creator)
It also says, "Allah is - Al Bari" (The Evolver)

For the Muslim there is no need for separation between religion and science. It is understood from the Quran, revealed over 1,400 years ago, that there is both; "Creation" and "Evolution." And in both instances, it is only Allah who is "Able to do all things." In fact, it was the Muslim scientists, more than 1,000 years ago, who set the stage for the adancement of learning, technology and disciplines in science that we know today.

Allah has explained how He created everythng in the universe and brought all life out of water. He created humans from earth (not monkeys) and there is no need to attempt fabrications of "links" to the animal world in Islam.

Origin of man in Islam: Creation or Evolution

ISLAM EVOLUTION CREATION

The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on Earth, less than 10,000 years ago. The Quran says that Adam & Eve were created in Heaven, and NOT on Earth. When they disobeyed God, He expelled them from Heaven, down to Earth. The Quran does not say when this happened. Also the Quran does not say whether Adam & Eve were physically transported from Heaven to Earth, or just their souls were put into the already living homo sapiens.

Muslims believe that souls are assigned to humans 40 days after the human inception. The Quran says that angels retrieve human souls on two occasions. One occasion is when humans die. The other occasion is every time humans fall asleep. When humans wakeup, the angels release those souls back to them:

(Quran 39.42) It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that did not die, during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back, but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.

So, according to the Quran, humans can be alive, breathing, with fully functional bodies (hence perfect DNA), but still without souls.

Homo sapiens had the same bodies and DNA as humans, but what about their souls? Were the souls of the first humans (Adam & Eve) put into those evolved homo sapiens? To answer this question, we need more information about souls and spirits. But Allah clearly bans all information about souls and spirits:

(Quran 17.85) And they ask you about the Spirit, say: "The Spirit concerns only my Lord: The knowledge of which only a little is communicated to you"

So all the information that will answer whether the souls of the first humans were put into homo sapiens, is banned. Muslims don't venture into this topic simply because God ordered them not to.

However, this is not the case concerning animals. The Quran agrees with science that all life started in water, and not on dry land:

(Quran 24.45) And Allah has created every animal from water; of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills: for verily Allah has power over all things.

So the Quran agrees with science on the evolution of animals. But for humans, the Quran stops short of answering whether it was transportation from heaven or just homo sapiens with human souls.

DNA research point to the later scenario; but why couldn't God use for Adam & Eve the same DNA as homo sapiens? Isn't this DNA of His own creation in the first place? And how difficult is it to copy?
------------------------------------------------

[Blastoff]

Well, I'm not a biologist, but as I understand it, humans are not believed to have evolved from what we know as the modern ape. Instead, humans and modern apes are thought to have shared a common ancestor. Scientists estimate that, between 5 and 8 million years ago, the earlier species split into two at least two lineages, one of which were the human or human-ike species. The other evolved into the African great ape species we know today.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well after looking around at the mess man has made of this world are we sure that apes did not evolve from man?

[Capuchin]

Well after looking around at the mess man has made of this world are we sure tht apes did not evolve from man?

Hehe. "Evolved from" does not mean "Better for our planet" :)

[asking]

I'm coming in late on this thread, but I wanted to comment. I thought the original question was a good one, not "silly" at all. A lot of evolution is about one species branching into several. So even though we are descended from something that might resemble an ape, that exact kind of ape might have evolved into 6 different ape like animals over several million years. They are all related, like cousins in a big family.

As for whether human beings are still evolving, they definitely are. Evolution just means change with a genetic basis. It doesn't mean getting better, and it doesn't matter whether the change is caused by competition or by lack of competition or anything else. The existence of medical advances etc. doesn't prevent us from changing over time. Also, the fact that we are taller than in Lincoln's time is more likely a result of better nutrition than genetic change. Not all change is genetic. We are MUCH fatter than we were in the 1950s, but that's not because we evolved in 50 years. It's because we eat, on average, an extra 800 calories a day more than we did in the 1950s. Hope this helps. (And I AM a biologist! :) )
Cheers,
JustAsking

[sovaira]

Its more biological than religious
We shudnt bring them both together
Otherwise we won't end the debate going on.



Evolution is taking place all thetime
That's another thing that its span is very hard to find out... takes more than ten million years for just a micro change...

[gallivant_fellow]

My friend told me he read that chimpanzees and humans were able to mate as little as one million years ago. Just an interesting piece of knowledge. I'm not completely sure if it is true but I imagine that it would have been possible around that long ago, whether it would create fertile offspring or not.

Here is something you may find interesting: Can you find the similarities between a great ape's teeth and a vampire's? The vampire was invented to strike fear into people. It's teeth are considered scary and dangerous. An apes way of threatening something is by bearing it's teeth, which look exactly like a vampire's. Is it possible that we have a left over survival instinct? I saw it on a show once, I thought it was cool. Also, why did God give us these silly tail bones and hands suited for climbing trees?

[inthebox]

Our so called " tail bone" or coccyx is the anchoring point of many of our pelvic and pubic muscles, so that when we stand or cough our innards don't herniate out. So it has a functional purpose and is not a vestigial "tail."

Same can be said for our hands. They are suited not only for climbing trees, but for typing, grip, using tools, etc... perhaps God knew how much we would depend on our hands.

Just curious -- what is the common ancestor that humans have in common with apes and other primates? Where is this ancestor in the fossil record?

If modern man, especially Americans are taller, heavier [ some would say fatter ] etc.. This is evidence of micro-evolution, not macro evolution.

What has always been humans evolutionary advantage has been our ability to reason, use tools, alter our environment, so in that respect we are "evolving." { iuse that term very loosely ]





Grace and Peace

[Capuchin]

Our so called " tail bone" or coccyx is the anchoring point of many of our pelvic and pubic muscles, so that when we stand or cough our innards don't herniate out. So it has a functional purpose and is not a vestigial "tail."

Same can be said for our hands. They are suited not only for climbing trees, but for typing, grip, using tools, etc...perhaps God knew how much we would depend on our hands.

Just curious -- what is the common ancestor that humans have in common with apes and other primates? Where is this ancestor in the fossil record?

If modern man, especially Americans are taller, heavier [ some would say fatter ] etc.. this is evidence of micro-evolution, not macro evolution.

What has always been humans evolutionary advantage has been our ability to reason, use tools, alter our environment, so in that respect we are "evolving." { iuse that term very loosely ]

The Americans aren't evolving to take into account changes in the abundance of food in their environment, they still have the primitive "eat as much high fat food as you can" mentality. But really it's not evidence against it, as the fat americans are having less children and dying earlier, leaving the more fit ones to survive. But it hasn't been long enough to see if there are any effects here. Our medicine interupts evolution, making humans a tricky thing to study the evolution of.

I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.

There are plenty of things that we have that are vestigial, muscles to move our ears? (some people can move their ears, others can't, because it's a useless trait and we are no longer selected for it). Same with our sense of smell. These things we used in prehistory, but now have no use for because predators are such a small threat so they are diminishing. Surely god would not let these things diminish, in case we needed them in future? Right?