Human Evolution

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I know this is a touchy subject for some of the fundies, but hey, it interests me.

So I recently learnt that human tolerance for lactose is a recent development, as in the last few millenia. It was caused by a mutation of the gene that controlled the creation of lactase, the enzyme needed to process dairy. It usually stops somewhere between 2 and 5, about analogous with breast feeding, but it seems, as humanity in Northern Europe domesticated cattle, they had enough dairy in their diets to not only develop a tolerance to it, but a [i]mutation[/i] that allowed them to keep consuming it without any adverse side affects at all.

Of course, through European exploration and settlement of the globe, this mutation became widespread in populations all around the world, to the point that most first and second world countries have lactose intolerance as a minority. I would consider this an evolution, albeit minor, in the human genetic code. I mean, hell, it even made [i]not[/i] producing lactase a recessive genetic trait.

There's other examples. Humanity as a whole has gotten taller over the last few hundred years, and manual dexterity has risen in leaps and bounds as our own technology becomes more complex and fine - though the latter point could be nature verse nurture, I'm not at all well versed in the subject, it just interests me. The former could be attributed to taller men being preferred throughout the ages, but I doubt an almost global height increase could be attributed to that and that alone. There's also the case of the appendix, an organ in other mammals used in digestion that holds almost no apparent use in humans, the rest of the body having evolved beyond the point of needing it, making it a vestigal organ.

I'm not talking X-Men ****, of course, I don't expect spontaneous wings or laser beam eyes to [i]ever[/i] be part of human development. I'd imagine a more likely scenario is the human body changing to more effectively handle our high fat diets, for instance, or maybe dealing with the poisons created by alcohol consumption entirely differently. Products of our society, and the way it's heading.

What are your thoughts on this? Is my line of reasoning flawed, lol?

Edit: Des informs these are forms of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution]microevolution[/url] (maybe not the appendix, which seems pretty drastic to become useless) but I'm pretty sure this is still a cool topic.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I'm not talking X-Men ****, of course, I don't expect spontaneous wings or laser beam eyes to [i]ever[/i] be part of human development.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]You made Cyclops cry...

In any event I see all these things as interesting and cool to think about, but nothing more. Until I see someone coming to me saying that this is going to be very useful in the near future, it's nothing to get giddy about, but like you said, it's very interesting.

I'd prefer not to come to any drastic results with this. Debates are founded on just such opinions, lol. just... [i]interesting...[/i][/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']You made Cyclops cry...[/COLOR][/quote]
Cyclops fires concussive blasts, not lasers. Lasers are more of a secondary thing for most characters (it's hardly useful on its own).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]So I recently learnt that human tolerance for lactose is a recent development, as in the last few millenia. It was caused by a mutation of the gene that controlled the creation of lactase, the enzyme needed to process dairy. It usually stops somewhere between 2 and 5, about analogous with breast feeding, but it seems, as humanity in Northern Europe domesticated cattle, they had enough dairy in their diets to not only develop a tolerance to it, but a [i]mutation[/i] that allowed them to keep consuming it without any adverse side affects at all.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=deeppink]The way you worded this makes me think that you think that the mutation was caused by the increased amount of dairy in their diet. If that's not what you think, ignore this next paragraph.

That's [i]not[/i] how evolution works. Mutations are not caused by external forces; they are simply completely random. External forces merely decide whether or not that mutation becomes prevelant. It could easily have gone the other way; we could [i]still[/i] be drinking milk and not have the ability to handle it properly. We got lucky there.

As far as high-fat diets and the resistance to alchohol... We [i]might[/i] develop a need for the high-fat diets (or a tolerance), but there's certainly no guarantee. If somebody is born with a mutation concerning it, he or she would certainly be able to survive easier; but would they [i]mate[/i]? That's the tricky part; the mutation has to be able to handle a high-fat diet while still allowing the person to be attractive to the opposite sex.

I doubt we'll devlop a resistence to alchohol, as it's so far ingrained into most social settings that it would be a hinderance in mating. I'd go so far as to say that being able to get drunk helps get one laid.[/color]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']I doubt we'll devlop a resistence to alchohol, as it's so far ingrained into most social settings that it would be a hinderance in mating. I'd go so far as to say that being able to get drunk helps get one laid.[/color][/quote]
I wasn't specific on the mutation part, but I did mean a random mutation that was beneficial would become prevalent. The mutation happened at the right time, in that case.

As for alcohol, I didn't mean a resistance to it. lol I was more thinking of the way the liver creates poisons when it processes alcohol, and the body finding a better way of removing it. I doubt the fact it helps some people get their dick wet would influence how the body deals with toxins.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]As for alcohol, I didn't mean a resistance to it. lol I was more thinking of the way the liver creates poisons when it processes alcohol, and the body finding a better way of removing it. I doubt the fact it helps some people get their dick wet would influence how the body deals with toxins.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=deeppink]I know you weren't talking about resistance to alchohol per se. What I said wasn't a direct response; rather, it was more along the lines of "Hey, this is similar to what you said. I'll talk about it."

And yes, the fact that it helps get them laid is a major factor here. They have to be able to procreate to pass on the mutation, and their offspring have to be able to procreate. If we are to apply your mutation, someone who can drink alchohol with no toxic effects, they are able to drink, which helps with mating (not talking about just drunkenly hooking up, either), and they'll be able to survive and mate for much longer due to the lack of liver disease. This scenario, of course, only applies to males, because women are only able to have kids for so long.

It's not that simple, of course, I'm just using it as an example of how "getting their dick wet" would influence the way future generation's bodies will deal with toxins.. It could easily go the other way; he could drink way too much and become unappealing. Yeah, he'd live longer, but he may never mate.

Humans are something of an exception to this, though. Our intelligence is a curve ball. We could easily develop a completely useless trait (this increase in height, for instance, doesn't really give us much of an advantage as far as survival goes), we could develop a harmful trait that gets passed on because modern medicine allows us to live with it, and a beneficial trait may be lost because the person who devloped it could have taken a vow of celebacy.

Essentially, it's even more unlikely that we'll be able to predict human evolution than it is that we'll be able to predict evolution in animals.[/color]

[Charles]

Jesus is the one who is responsible for making us tolerant to lactose!

[Desbreko]

[quote name='Charles']Jesus is the one who is responsible for making us tolerant to lactose![/quote][center][img]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5809/winkingjesuskr1.jpg[/img][/center]

[Sandy]

[img]http://evolution.haifa.ac.il/html/html_eng/images/FUTURE%20OF%20HUMAN%20EVOLUTION.jpg[/img]

It's pictures like this that make me lose faith in human research. I'm prone to believe that life has a sense of aesthetics. XP

[TheShinje]

[font=Verdana][size=2]There has been a lactose intolerance for more than two thousand years. Jewish people in their faith consider bovine-derived milk to be Kosher, it's hard to see them giving milk such status if it made them ill.[/size][/font]


[font=Verdana][size=2]As far as evolution goes, I reckon it's funny that examples of similarities between animals, like humans and chimpanzees, are produced as evidence of the evolutionary theory. To me, it simply looks like the work of a creator who is consistent with his design.[/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=maroon]Oh God (how fitting, hehe), I swear if I hear the pseudophrases microevolution and macroevolution one more time...

Ok, there's no point in differentiating between the two freaking things because both are inherently the same. Secondly, I've been lazy in searching for it (and I still am), but [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html]both have been observed[/url] (yes, those references are legit, but I'm lazy to look for online references which also exist). All these people whose only salvation to religion was the lack of macroevolution need to find some other, more honest way of keeping their beliefs in science and God harmonious. C'mon guys, you knew it was coming (technically, it came out decades ago, but you get the point).

Phew, anyway,.. I don't know if mankind is going to evolve to adapt to the fat diets per say, but there has been belief that the more fit and the less fit, as the obesity trend continues, will eventually split into two incompatible species.

The fundamental problem with certain trends and habits, such as fat diets, is that they are detrimental to all forms of life, so I don't know if evolution is called for in such a situation. Evolution tends to arise from a necessity to adapt, and having a bountiful amount of food and comfort is the opposite of that.[/COLOR]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][color=maroon]Oh God (how fitting, hehe), I swear if I hear the pseudophrases microevolution and macroevolution one more time...

Ok, there's no point in differentiating between the two freaking things because both are inherently the same. \[/color][/QUOTE]
No. They are not one in the same. That is ludicrous.

Macro-evolution is the scientific creation myth, it is the theory that, over millions, perhaps billions of years, we have mutated from a signle cell organism to the complex lifeforms we are today.

Micro-evolution is the theory of adaptation. A bird in a certain climate where bugs or fruit are hard to get to will adapt to their enviornment by producing a longer beak. This theory can wrok with creationism, eg, God put the animals on the earth and gave them the mechanisms to change in an ever-changing world.

The fact that micro-evolution alone can work with creationism should make the differences in such theories rather obvious.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Jeremiah']Macro-evolution is the scientific creation myth...[/quote] [COLOR=maroon]The black-colored text is a link to evidence that proves to the contrary. Also, macro-evolution (or correctly, evolution) is the amalgamation of small changes over time. The theory of adaptation is not micro-evolution. Examples of a theory of adaption would be natural selection, nomogenesis, and even intelligent design (or, how evolution works).

Again, if that was the difference between those pseudonyms, then there's no difference.[/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][QUOTE=Jeremiah][font=Verdana][size=2]There has been a lactose intolerance for more than two thousand years. Jewish people in their faith consider bovine-derived milk to be Kosher, it's hard to see them giving milk such status if it made them ill.[/size][/font]


[font=Verdana][size=2]As far as evolution goes, I reckon it's funny that examples of similarities between animals, like humans and chimpanzees, are produced as evidence of the evolutionary theory. To me, it simply looks like the work of a creator who is consistent with his design.[/size][/font][/QUOTE]
The world is substantially older than the history of the Jews, and you conveniently glossed over the fact that there's a recessive allele that causes lactose intolerance to begin with, and that lactose [i]tolerance[/i] is the minority in the world, just doesn't seem as such due to western ignorance, both things which wouldn't be true if God designed humans to drink milk from the start. I mean, OT fables paint him as cruel and merciless a lot, but he's not THAT cruel.

Also, chimps share something like 94 percent of human dna. It's that 6% that makes them so different, which is understandable, considering how long dna sequences are.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I've never understood fundies attachment to the more magical, Disney image of a God creating every single thing out of thin air.

I've always thought that as the Great Architect of all things that it seemed much more plausible that he would go through a process of design and redesign, experimenting as he saw fit. The creation of the Universe was described as being quite taxing on himself. That doesn't seem to go together with him knowing ahead of time how every single thing would be and just willing it to be.

Some would argue that, being perfect, obviously and inexplicably he automatically created everything. I'm not sure how perfection can be correlated to this, lol. Being perfect seems to say to me more that he was able to put things in their proper place as he tinkered with it. The gasses in the atmosphere, the temperatures involved, the natural systems that slowly took place. All of it was slowly pieced together.

Macro evolution is not a myth. It is an increasingly plausible, if not proven, theory. How this has become the great threat to religion seems amusing to me.[/color]

[Sandy]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']How this has become the great threat to religion seems amusing to me.[/color][/quote]

But without evolution, gay people and abortion, what would there be left for Christian fundamentalists to fight against? [I]Poverty[/I]? [I]Diseases[/I]? [I]Wars[/I]? Pfft, none of those are even [I]nearly[/I] as severe as the first three!

[Nerdsy]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]
Phew, anyway,.. I don't know if mankind is going to evolve to adapt to the fat diets per say, but there has been belief that the more fit and the less fit, as the obesity trend continues, will eventually split into two incompatible species.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]How do they figure that? Has someone discovered a genetic link to fitness or obesity that I don't know about?[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Here's the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution, and the rationale behind them being separate processes, that I've most commonly seen:

Microevolutionary changes in a species don't require any new genetic information (DNA). The information required for an emerging trait, such as a bird's beak becoming harder or a human producing lactase, is already present in the species' DNA.

Macroevolutionary changes, on the other hand, do require new genetic information. Larger scale changes, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, would require huge amounts of new genetic information because reptile DNA just doesn't contain the information necessary for many avian traits.

Given this, it's impossible for macroevolution to simply be the accumulation of microevolutionary changes since microevolution doesn't add any new information to a species' DNA. Therefore they must be two different processes.

I really don't care to get into a pointless debate of throwing sources back and forth while knowing full well that nothing I say will change anyone's mind. But if people are going to argue, at least define your terms. lol[/color]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]:O Lotta strong points for evolution! Scientists +1, Religion -1. *high fives Tom Cruise, then smacks him for being Tom Cruise*

I think I stand by the idea that the macro- and micro-evolution stuff is a bunch of bull, and that evolution in any form should be considered a breakthrough as well as a substantial point toward evolution. how can you go about attesting 'micro-evolutions' to god, just because you see proof, and yet be closed minded toward the existence of larger-scale evolution? That's just called trying to fake open-mindedness and spin everything to look like it fits on your side.

EDIT: This was before Des' post, though :catgirl: [/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]Here's the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution, and the rationale behind them being separate processes, that I've most commonly seen:

Microevolutionary changes in a species don't require any new genetic information (DNA). The information required for an emerging trait, such as a bird's beak becoming harder or a human producing lactase, is already present in the species' DNA.

Macroevolutionary changes, on the other hand, do require new genetic information. Larger scale changes, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, would require huge amounts of new genetic information because reptile DNA just doesn't contain the information necessary for many avian traits.

Given this, it's impossible for macroevolution to simply be the accumulation of microevolutionary changes since microevolution doesn't add any new information to a species' DNA. Therefore they must be two different processes.

I really don't care to get into a pointless debate of throwing sources back and forth while knowing full well that nothing I say will change anyone's mind. But if people are going to argue, at least define your terms. lol[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Those definitions aren't accurate. Here are much better definitions, taken from a dictionary.

[b]Microevolution[/b] ?noun Biology. 1. evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
2. minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

[b]Macroevolution[/b] ?noun Biology. major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

They are different, but microevolution does lead to macroevolution. Over several millenia, the new varieties formed by microevolution may turn into completely new species, as it is with most cases of geogaphic isolation. New species don't just appear; they form gradually over time.

And as you can see, neither form of evolution requires new genetic material. It is certainly possible that certain recessive traits may emerge and form a seperate species of, say, canaries.

Yes, the evolution of reptiles to birds needs an lot of new genetic information, but microevlution is also caused by mutations, otherwise known as "new genetic material." Therefore, microevolution is still required.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]They aren't the formal definitions, which you listed, but that's how many creationists use the words. That's why it's important to define the terms and know how they're being used before jumping into an arguement.

Under the formal definitions the micro and macro prefixes are simply describing the amount of change; one small change (micro), or lots of small changes that have added up (macro). Under the non-standard definitions they describe the type of change; variation within a species without any new genetic material (micro), or variation from new genetic material to the point of creating a new species (macro).

And yes, I too wish people would stop using the words incorrectly and just come up with new terms. But they haven't yet, so we just have to deal it.[/color]

[hidaboy]

the way i see the next major human evolution is kind of an x-men thing, but with only a few uniform changes, like a certain group growing wings and devoging hollow bones or isolated devclopment of x-ray vision, what i'm saying is that a world filled with every human being unique is never gonna hapen, but certain powers happening to certain groups is possibility. later

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR=Blue]I just hope we don't go backwords in evouloution. I don't want to be a pot smoking monkey studied by aliens.

Aliens what's them and *** probes? The're interested in out turds aren't they. what? do they want to know what foods are best? Now here's a message for the aliens. Try corn, corn ofn the cob, or even corn soup. believe me, peas suck.[/COLOR]

[liamc2]

[QUOTE=Nerdsy][color=deeppink]

That's [i]not[/i] how evolution works. Mutations are not caused by external forces; they are simply completely random. External forces merely decide whether or not that mutation becomes prevelant. [/color][/QUOTE]

[size="1"][font=Trebuchet MS] Genetic sequences exposed to UV light causes mutations in the arrangement of the bases, often eliminating entire sequences resulting in a mutated expression, often resulting in cancerous growth or deactivation of cellular function. [Typically: Yay! Skin cancer!]

Exposure to various chemicals used in laboratories for Agarose gel electrophoresis [for gene sequencing], will result in mutations. Substances such as [b][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethidium_Bromide]Ethidium Bromide[/URL][/b], which is used as an intercalating agent in the previously mentioned Electrophoresis, are known as [b][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen]mutagens[/URL][/b].

As for evolution, a cursory glance into the world of microbiology [specifically for the implementation of antibacterials] will reveal that natures smallest members prove to be "evolving".

A minor [well, major really] example is that of the use of penicillin as an antibacterial. It was a lifesaver, literally, and an essential antibacterial used in patient management. Unfortunately there were a few bacteria that possessed [b][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betalactamase]Beta-lactamase[/URL][/b], which breaks the beta-lactam ring in penicillin, rendering penicillin harmless.

As the bacteria that did not possess this enzyme were killed off [to an extent], the enzyme positive bacteria survived, becoming the dominant bacteria in that species. This form of natural selection happens quite a lot [ie: Methicillin Resistant Bacteria is a large threat in hospitals at the moment]. Microbiologists have a selection of developed antimicrobials in a sort of tiered response set up. If the first doesn't work, use the next etc. This is to prevent the possibility of bacteria becoming resistant too early, natural selection etc resulting in "super bugs."

Ah, isn't life exciting?[/simplified response][/font][/size]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]Microevolutionary changes in a species don't require any new genetic information (DNA). The information required for an emerging trait, such as a bird's beak becoming harder or a human producing lactase, is already present in the species' DNA.

Macroevolutionary changes, on the other hand, do require new genetic information. Larger scale changes, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, would require huge amounts of new genetic information because reptile DNA just doesn't contain the information necessary for many avian traits.[/color][/QUOTE] [COLOR=maroon]Before the discovery of DNA, these definitions might have had some validity. To see if two creatures were from one species only required the mating of the two and seeing if a fertile offspring arose. However, once DNA came into play, the definition of a species became stricter: its genome, [i][B]which includes alleles[/B][/i]. By definition, if there's no change in the DNA, there is no evolution. If we are arguing semantics, it doesn't matter because change in DNA has been observed as well as no changes to DNA...

And changes in gene expression happen all the time, day-to-day in our very bodies. We are not undergoing microevolution everyday. If we were to call this microevolution, then certain cancers are evolution, as are natural processes in our bodies. Natural, inherent responses to stress and other environmental factors has never been considered evolution. Evolution requires more than just an individual.

If microevolution is just a phrase for what is natural adaptation, then the word is a useless pseudonym designed to confuse people. If I ran a marathon everyday, my body would ADAPT, not microevolve, to better handle environmental factors (altitude, hardness of ground, etc.) and my lifestyle (diet, etc.).

Well, I did a quick google search, and although I couldn't find a publication (mostly because all these discoveries are really old), this guy is an Oxford dude. That's gotta count at least more than my word. [url]http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html[/url]

Nerdsy's definitions from the dictionary are a little easier to swallow, although I feel since the mechanism and underlying process are the same, that there's no need to differentiate.

As for your question on a genetic link and two different species, Nerdsy, I read this article a long time ago (a year the latest). A quick and lazy google search turned up nothing, but I'm sure there were people saying some nonsense. Although technically expression of certain genes (and therefore proteins) are altered in extremely obese people (IL-6 and other inflammatory signals (google "is obesity an inflammatory disease" and I bet you'll find something)), I think they were talking about those who relied on their brains for survival versus those who relied on their bodies.[/COLOR]