Is Evolution Over In Humans?

BrianGa writes: "Is evolution over? Are current humans the final version? This article presents a number of interesting theories, including the theory that 'Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing.' Professor Steve Jones believes this, in part, because 'human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change.'"

Comments

Evolution is a fairy tale

[Tyreth]

I've done a lot of reading on the arguments for evolution (macro-evolution) compared with creation, that God has created the world.

I have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.

Before people start modding this down or claiming I am an idiot, first hear me out a little.

Natural selection does occur - this cannot be denied because it is observable and verifiable. Genetic mutations occur - this also is observable and verifiable.

The creationist understanding of evolution splits it into two areas:

1. Micro-evolution - variation within species. This is where natural selection plays a role - bears born in icy area, one has brown fur one has white. The one with white hair survives, so eventually the gene pool becomes small and only white furred bears are around

2. Macro-evolution - this is the fairy tale that claims that enough genetic mutations will eventually lead to the creation of a new species (whatever this may mean, since those who have faith in macro-evolution have a blurry line between micro and macro-evolution)

I have considered the method by which evolutionists (by this title I mean those who have placed faith in macro-evolution) claim that life arose, and that variation and new species arrived, and it seems to not only contradict available data - is also logically impossible.

Since this post will get rather long, I will also point to a link that can help explain it more adequately. This is an article by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

When you read these please keep an open mind. Many people have not heard a reasonable or rational description of creation science, and there are bound to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Please try to understand it first.

I have considered the theory of evolution and the reasons it gives for how this process works: variation through genetic mutation, with natural selection eliminating the disadvantages.

Natural selection does work in regards to eliminating disadvantageous mutations. However, it fails when we consider recessive genes.

Fact 1: We have beneficial recessive genes.
Fact 2: Harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial mutations
Fact 3: Natural selection requires a genetic mutation to express itself in order for the selection to work

Some may have already guessed the problem, but I will explain it in more detail. Imagine two elephants have a child, and this child possesses a disadvantageous mutation - this recessive mutation, when dominant, causes the elephant to have no tail. This child with the mutated recessive gene has a tail because the gene is recessive so doesn't express itself - thus natural selection is unable to work. This happens for a few generations until one day two partners have a child with no tail - these partners were distant relatives from the elephant child with the initial mutation. Here is the problem: for the recessive mutation to express itself, the partners must both possess the gene. This is only going to happen among relatives.

Now comes the problem for evolution: Imagine that the elephant has a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene - it can launch acidic spit from it's mouth to render an attacker unconscious (this of course is not realistic, and would require a number of successive extremely lucky mutations - impossible). This elephant though, like the one with the missing tail gene does not express it, and natural selection does not come into play. 5 generations down the track, two close relatives have a child with this super spit power. Unfortunately, because of the second fact I listed above, this child also has a missing tail, one leg that can't move properly, a reduced brain size, and a bad back meaning it has difficulty feeding in hard to reach places. The problem here is that along with the beneficial mutation there came a host of harmful mutations. Such is the nature of recessive genes - it won't express itself until close relatives with the same recessive gene mate with each other.

To summarise:
For a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene to enter the gene pool as a useful component, close relatives must mate with each other to make it dominant and allow natural selection to play it's part. Problem: when this happens a host of harmful mutations carry out their effect on the creature, rendering it cumulatively worse off than the beneficial mutation offsets. Conclusion: evolution is impossible as beneficial recessive mutations could never have arisen.

We have evidence that close relations have cumulatively worse of children than average partners. The data fits perfectly.

Evolution is illogical and impossible.

Re:This is not only total nonsense, it is ..

[theskov]

This post is so full of false claims, I just have to interfere:

A)

In addition, human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change. This increased mixing can be gauged by calculating the number of miles between a person's birthplace and his or her partner's, then between their parents' birthplaces, and finally, between their grandparents'.

In virtually every case, you will find that the number of miles drops dramatically the more that you head back into the past. Now people are going to universities and colleges where they meet and marry people from other continents. A generation ago, men and women rarely mated with anyone from a different town or city. Hence, the blending of our genes which will soon produce a uniformly brown-skinned population. Apart from that, there will be little change in the species.

Not only is this totally racist and white supremist horseshit, it is completely wrong. Whatever qualification Prof. Steve Jones holds, he should probably take down his degree and wipe his arse with it, as it has turned out that is all it's good for.

It is beyond me how you find anything racist in this. Allow me to clarify: Something isn't racist just because it deals with racial issues - it must also discriminate. Stating the obvious facts that people mix more today than they used to, and that this will create a more homogenous world population is in no way racist.

B)

Evolution works by trying combinations. When one particular combination hits exactly right for the current conditions at the current moment in time the result is a sudden and exponential success.

Correct - but not enough. In addition to a lucky combination of genes, there is one more requirement for any evolutionary effect: selection. The point of the article is *not* that there is less chance of lucky combinations of genes - the point is that these fortunate new humans have no advantage to everybody else. Therefore the race as a whole will only benefit extremely marginally from this contribution to the gene-pool. And for every beneficial mutation, there's a thousand harmful. But without any selection each of these thousands of disadvantaged individuals will contribute as much to the next generation as the single lucky one. This adds up to a general degeneration.

Selection is not completely forgotten in the post though:

And with all this greater health, and wealth, and energy, they will produce A LOT MORE CHILDREN than the average person

No, no, no. As is widely known - and described in an earlier post - succes does *not* result in more kids. Quite the opposite actually. Those who don't win the nobel-prize or run a multi-billion company tend to produce more offspring instead, put bruntly. So we actually have a selection towards the lower end of the spectre.

Next up: Common colds second wind:

C)

Modern medicine knows no cure for the COMMON COLD!! How many more diseases are we completely at a loss to stop right now?? Can you imagine a cold strain escaping from Shanghai, or Calcutta?

The people living in those cities are the survivors. Every year simple diseases kill people in the developing world. The local population builds a resistance. The disease mutates and kills again. The local population builds more resistance. And so on and so forth.

Westerners, living in their sterile and hygenic conditions, eating denatured food full of salt, fat and sugar, won't have any resistance to these viscious new cold strains.

This is an evolutionary event just waiting to happen.

Let me get this straight: In Shanghai or Calcutta, a vicious variation of the common cold is contained completely from the rest of the world, and if it ever leaks out 99% of us are doomed because we have weakened resistances?

I suppose it's just dumb luck that none of the thousands of europeans and americans who visit these places every year, haven't caught this deadly flu yet? Of course not. When we go abroad, we get a stomach ache, because the local set of diseases are so unfamiliar to what we're used to, but thats it. The concept of any part of the world being isolated in respect to diseases is ludicrous. There are plenty of scary bio-hazardous scenarios to ponder about - but this is definitely not one of them.

"Indigo Children" disproves article

[Ikari Gendou]

http://www.greatdreams.com/indigo.htm

The above is one of many links and documents online about the so called "Indigo Children". These children have above average intelligence, enhanced sensory & ESP-esque tendancies, and what is imho, amazing, immunity to aids and other emerging diseases.

It seems a little weird, I know...but if this all is true, we are seeing an evolution in progress.