Recent evolutions in human history (proof of evolution)

Although I'm Christian, I consider evolution true, and I would like to point out the most recent happenings of it that have happened within the past 10,000 years and show evolution to be true.

1 Grey Doves



Until the late 1800s, Grey Doves never existed. there were a once in a generation occurrence and nothing much more. But thanks to human activity, we turned the skylines grey with smog around major cities. Due to this, white doves went extinct with the lack of covering protection. This gave way to the grey dove gene becoming dominate. Today, although we have cleared the smog of most cities, the Grey dove reigns superior. The white dove has gone extinct in cities, being replaced with the Grey Dove. Also called rock dove, it has taken on the name "pigeon" or "sky rat".


2 Grey Moth


Like the "sky rat" from above, the grey moth was a little nothing seen once in a while in rare occurrences. When we polluted major cities, it became dominate. The grey moth has since gone extinct, but it can still be seen in the more polluted areas of the world. Its genes still inside white moths. The moth has evolved, or devolved, back to its original state of being white and tan.

3 My Front Yard Tree





A Christmas tree on my front yard evolved into a new species. Christmas trees are asexual, so they need not find a mate to spread the next generation. They simply make clones of themselves. My Christmas tree recently mutated, made seeds, and now the seeds are growing into this odd species. I call it the Gorm Tree. I will spread this new species.



So as you can see, evolution has already happened. Various other examples are the 2 different species of squirrels
on either side of the grand canyon, tigers and lions able to mate and form offspring (although they are mules), and so much more.

may I beg to say where in the Bible God says the universe is 10,000 years old?

Add your own recent evolutions bellow please.


[edit on 15-8-2007 by Gorman91]


[edit on 15-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Gorman91]

I think the Ensatina salamanders are a great example of evolution in action.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 7761-7767, July 1997
Colloquium Paper

Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex

David B. Wake*

ABSTRACT

The Ensatina eschscholtzii complex of plethodontid salamanders, a well-known "ring species," is thought to illustrate stages in the speciation process. Early research, based on morphology and coloration, has been extended by the incorporation of studies of protein variation and mitochondrial DNA sequences. The new data show that the complex includes a number of geographically and genetically distinct components that are at or near the species level. The complex is old and apparently has undergone instances of range contraction, isolation, differentiation, and then expansion and secondary contact. While the hypothesis that speciation is retarded by gene flow around the ring is not supported by molecular data, the general biogeographical hypothesis is supported. There is evidence of a north to south range expansion along two axes, with secondary contact and completion of the ring in southern California. Current research targets regions once thought to show primary intergradation, but which molecular markers reveal to be zones of secondary contact. Here emphasis is on the subspecies E. e. xanthoptica, which is involved in four distinct secondary contacts in central California. There is evidence of renewed genetic interactions upon recontact, with greater genetic differentiation within xanthoptica than between it and some of the interacting populations. The complex presents a full array of intermediate conditions between well-marked species and geographically variable populations. Geographically differentiated segments represent a diversity of depths of time of isolation and admixture, reflecting the complicated geomorphological history of California. Ensatina illustrates the continuing difficulty in making taxonomic assignments in complexes studied during species formation.

www.pnas.org...

More here.

Not sure if all this stuffwill satisfy a creationist though, Gorman. They want to see a mouse evolve into a bat, in the lab no less. Either that or evidence of the pesky crocoduck.

'Religion is not a departmental affair; it is neither mere thought, nor mere feeling, nor mere action; it is an expression of the whole man. thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy (rationalism/ scientific rationalism) must recognise the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective synthesis. Nor is there any reason to suppose that thought and intuition are essentially opposed to each other. The one grasps Reality piecemeal, the other grasps it in its wholeness. The one fixes its gaze on the eternal, the other on the temporal aspect of Reality...Both are in need of each other for mutual rejuvenation. Both seek visions of the same Reality which reveals itself to them in accordance with their function in life. In fact, intuition, as Bergson rightly says, is only a higher kind of intellect' from the sufi.com

Gentlemen, I agree. However, Natural Selection and speciation are Laws of Nature: they are entirely just, as God should is, in the Bible. This is where the justice of God comes into play. He has also made metaphysical Laws that dispense justice according to the morality of a person. Both the labourer and the thief fill their bellies by their earnings. However, the honest labourer will get his share of metaphysical reward whilst the thief inevitably gets his punishment. IMHO.

Have you gotten an arbologist to look at that tree? Could be a pretty important find...

Evolution exists. That is not what is in question. Anyone who doubts or disagrees with evolution is unlearned, unread and ignorant.

The evolution "debate" centers not around IF evolution takes place (it does) but rather HOW it takes place (natural selection, adaptation, gene flow, etc.)

By the way, rock pigeons/rock doves, commonly seen in cities, have existed in America since 1606, when they were introduced into Nova Scotia. I don't think smog was really an issue back in 1606..

[edit on 17-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

Don't evolutionists believe that the evolution of a particular species evolves into a more proficient, adaptable, smarter, … species?

Why then did whatever evolve into a 'man'? Why doesn't he have a hairy body to protect him from the elements? Why would something evolve into a 'man' when a man is so fragile? Why didn't something evolve into more than man?
How has man evolved in say the last 5000-10000 years? Why don't we have wings? Wings would make getting around a lot easier so where are our wings? Why no gills so we could use the water like a fish? Why does man have such an advanced brain? What made evolution make a certain species into a man?

Do you have anything to show why evolutionists think something evolved into a man and why?

X0846

Originally posted by x0846
Don't evolutionists believe that the evolution of a particular species evolves into a more proficient, adaptable, smarter, … species?

Why then did whatever evolve into a 'man'? Why doesn't he have a hairy body to protect him from the elements? Why would something evolve into a 'man' when a man is so fragile? Why didn't something evolve into more than man?
How has man evolved in say the last 5000-10000 years? Why don't we have wings? Wings would make getting around a lot easier so where are our wings? Why no gills so we could use the water like a fish? Why does man have such an advanced brain? What made evolution make a certain species into a man?

Do you have anything to show why evolutionists think something evolved into a man and why?

X0846

Chimps, our closest relatives, do not have a developed enough neocortex to construct a fire to cook, stay warm, etc. Humans do. We don't NEED a full body of fur to keep warm because our brains have allowed us to "discover" fire. Is it safe to assume that our early bipedal ancestors were very hairy, and eventually lost hair over-time? Absolutely.

There's no reason to say that we have more advanced brains than say a dolphin, as we know so little about the species. For example, a dolphin has almost twice as many neocortex folds in its brain than humans, and the amount of folding in a mammal's brain is significant in regards to its evolution and brain power. Does this mean dolphin's are smarter than humans? Perhaps in certain aspects. In fact, the only thing that keeps mammals like dolphins from speaking is the fact that the human brain is divided into two halves, called lateralization. We are the only mammal that exhibits this.

As to why we don't have wings. Whatever species we evolved from (NOT chimps, rather a very close ancestor of chimps) didn't have wings.

Take a look at the ostrich. They are birds, have wings, but don't fly. Instead, through evolution, the wings became used for balance while running. It would not be useful for such a large bird to exert so much energy to fly when it could use its long legs to run, and thus travel, much faster.

Also, ask yourself why you get goosebumps when you get cold. That's the erector pili. Animals activate this during times of cold to make their hair/fur thicken, thus making them warmer. Sometimes we get goosebumps when we are frightened. Why? Because animals, when threatened, also active their erector pili to bulk up their fur to give the appearance of being large and menacing. Or even ask yourself the obvious question - why do we have a tail bone?

All of these characteristics (tails, full bodies of hair, etc) existed in our ancestors. Through the process of evolution, we lost these characteristics simply because they are not useful anymore.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

x0846, like moderndystopia said we evloved skills like fire making and making clothes. The body hair we have like chest & legs serves no usefull purpose its a leftover from when our ancestors were hairy.

You also might be interested to learn the inuit poeple of alaska have higher fat body content than other people- this helps them keep warm.

Finally vitamin D which we get from the sun is important for keeping us healthy. In northern climates hair would stop the absobtion of vitamin D. This is also the reason white people lost their dark skin. To allow better survival odds in northern hemisphere.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by yeti101]

I have always found it interesting that "survival of the fittest" doesnt apply to humans. If if did we would not need glasses, hearing aids, birth defects would not be carried on, and as mean as it sounds all of the "differently able" people would not be here! Our ability to adapt and create has made us "weaker".

reply to post by ModernDystopia


Chimps, our closest relatives, do not have a developed enough neocortex to construct a fire to cook, stay warm, etc. Humans do. We don't NEED a full body of fur to keep warm because our brains have allowed us to "discover" fire. Is it safe to assume that our early bipedal ancestors were very hairy, and eventually lost hair over-time? Absolutely.

Yet your closest relative seems perfectly capable of living a happy comfortable life in the jungle. Could you?

There's no reason to say that we have more advanced brains than say a dolphin, as we know so little about the species. For example, a dolphin has almost twice as many neocortex folds in its brain than humans, and the amount of folding in a mammal's brain is significant in regards to its evolution and brain power. Does this mean dolphin's are smarter than humans? Perhaps in certain aspects. In fact, the only thing that keeps mammals like dolphins from speaking is the fact that the human brain is divided into two halves, called lateralization. We are the only mammal that exhibits this.

As to why we don't have wings. Whatever species we evolved from (NOT chimps, rather a very close ancestor of chimps) didn't have wings.

Take a look at the ostrich. They are birds, have wings, but don't fly. Instead, through evolution, the wings became used for balance while running. It would not be useful for such a large bird to exert so much energy to fly when it could use its long legs to run, and thus travel, much faster.

Also, ask yourself why you get goosebumps when you get cold. That's the erector pili. Animals activate this during times of cold to make their hair/fur thicken, thus making them warmer. Sometimes we get goosebumps when we are frightened. Why? Because animals, when threatened, also active their erector pili to bulk up their fur to give the appearance of being large and menacing. Or even ask yourself the obvious question - why do we have a tail bone?

All of these characteristics (tails, full bodies of hair, etc) existed in our ancestors. Through the process of evolution, we lost these characteristics simply because they are not useful anymore.

I’m sorry but this is one of the most ridicules versions of evolution I’ve heard yet! So let's say your dolphin had a divided brain what language would he speak? Man supposedly evolved from some mud bug according to evolutionists. Common sense should tell you all species should be connected to the mud bug, according to your theory. So why didn’t man evolve into a land /water being that could also fly? Could you navigate a few thousand miles in open seas without a man made device to get you to your favorite eatery? So a bird, the ostrich, evolved into grounded bird, why didn’t the ostrich evolve into a flying bird instead of a running bird? After all it is a bird and don’t birds fly.

Ok, I asked myself about the tail bone. Myself didn’t know. If you’re going to say it’s because we used to have a tail be careful. You said above we evolved from a close ancestor of chimps. Do chimps have tails? If we did evolve from some chimp who I’m sure you’ll say had a tail then, why loose the tail? Wouldn’t a tail be useful, heck it could hold my cell while I’m driving. I wouldn’t have to drive if evolution didn’t take my wings and I wouldn’t need a cell if I could communicate with buds like, oh lets say, a dolphin does with his buds. So we lost all of the characteristics that kept us alive and thriving for how many years you’ll have to tell me how many and evolution made us the most the most vulnerable species on the planet. Sure we have the advanced brain we can reason and build bombs but I’ll bet you wouldn’t survive and I’m being generous here, a week in the glades in Fla or pick a jungle or island or any man free place. The glades, 2 days but you'll probably die the first night.

reply to post by yeti101


x0846, like moderndystopia said we evloved skills like fire making and making clothes. The body hair we have like chest & legs serves no usefull purpose its a leftover from when our ancestors were hairy.

You also might be interested to learn the inuit poeple of alaska have higher fat body content than other people- this helps them keep warm.

Finally vitamin D which we get from the sun is important for keeping us healthy. In northern climates hair would stop the absobtion of vitamin D. This is also the reason white people lost their dark skin. To allow better survival odds in northern hemisphere.


Oh, we lost our hair to be healthy. It worked, say how many people do suppose die every year from a disease? Do you think animals get diseases like people? We evolved skills to make us clothes and make fires, well that just explains everything. Who has the better life your relatives [chimps] or mankind?

So a bird, the ostrich, evolved into grounded bird, why didn’t the ostrich evolve into a flying bird instead of a running bird? After all it is a bird and don’t birds fly.

Animals evolve differently based on enviroment and location. Perhaps the ostrich evolved non-flying as a result of its envirormental location. Over time it got larger and was unable to fly. Following your logic, all birds would have evolved the same, all flying, all the same size, all the same color. Penguines dont fly but they swim, why? Maybe its easier to "fly" through the water and catch fish. I know what your gonna say next, there are flying birds in the penguines habitat, yes, but there arent NEAR as many.



[edit on 21-8-2007 by coop039]

Originally posted by ModernDystopia

Originally posted by x0846
X0846

Chimps, our closest relatives, do not have a developed enough neocortex to construct a fire to cook, stay warm, etc. Humans do. We don't NEED a full body of fur to keep warm because our brains have allowed us to "discover" fire. Is it safe to assume that our early bipedal ancestors were very hairy, and eventually lost hair over-time? Absolutely.

There's no reason to say that we have more advanced brains than say a dolphin, as we know so little about the species. For example, a dolphin has almost twice as many neocortex folds in its brain than humans, and the amount of folding in a mammal's brain is significant in regards to its evolution and brain power. Does this mean dolphin's are smarter than humans? Perhaps in certain aspects. In fact, the only thing that keeps mammals like dolphins from speaking is the fact that the human brain is divided into two halves, called lateralization. We are the only mammal that exhibits this.

As to why we don't have wings. Whatever species we evolved from (NOT chimps, rather a very close ancestor of chimps) didn't have wings.

Take a look at the ostrich. They are birds, have wings, but don't fly. Instead, through evolution, the wings became used for balance while running. It would not be useful for such a large bird to exert so much energy to fly when it could use its long legs to run, and thus travel, much faster.

Also, ask yourself why you get goosebumps when you get cold. That's the erector pili. Animals activate this during times of cold to make their hair/fur thicken, thus making them warmer. Sometimes we get goosebumps when we are frightened. Why? Because animals, when threatened, also active their erector pili to bulk up their fur to give the appearance of being large and menacing. Or even ask yourself the obvious question - why do we have a tail bone?

All of these characteristics (tails, full bodies of hair, etc) existed in our ancestors. Through the process of evolution, we lost these characteristics simply because they are not useful anymore.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by ModernDystopia]

So, because a man learned to build a fire does that make him better equipped to deal with the elements? No, of course it doesn’t, dump yourself in the middle of a winter wilderness in all your nakedness and let’s see if you survive with your brain and get a fire going before you freeze to death. I’ll bet your dead within one 24 hour period.

Your dolphins which you say don’t speak, what don’t they speak the English lingo so they couldn’t possible communicate. Their communication system is much more advanced than ours, their able to navigate the oceans like we navigate highways but we need signs to tell us where we’re going only they don’t have maps and signs telling them where to go and yet they navigate the oceans of the world.

The ostrich didn’t fly because of its size well weren’t their other ‘birds’ that were much larger than an ostrich and they flew.

Goosebumps, that’s a real good piece of evidence of evolution. Then you say animals use a chemical reaction which causes bodily change, if we evolved from the animal why did we bring goose bumps with us and not move away from this animal trait?

Why do we have a tail bone? Why don’t we have a tail? Certainly a tail would be a huge benefit so why would evolution do away with such a vital asset?

Why did we loose those characteristics when they obviously would be useful to us?

Why did evolution produce the most evil species on the planet? Animals kill for food what does the evolved man kill another man for? Certainly not food.

Are these ideas coming from ‘intellectuals’, because if they are I question there ability to discern between the two theories.

reply to post by Heronumber0


If religion defines a man, how come every man doesn't have a different religion. Instead men grasp onto beliefs of others in there pathietic attempt to explain existence. Wait for death and you'll get an answer, otherwise live life justly and don't act like a catholic priest.

In reference to the evolutionary statement, I agree. I've been cataloging spider types inside of my new england home alone and have found three different types of species not local to this area, but close cousins to that of graden spiders and house spiders. There are to many to think that they ended up here in a crate somehow.

I think these are caused by breeding

reply to post by ModernDystopia


1 thing I disagree with. You imply that early humans, our ancestors, had actual tails which came from their tail bone. I do not believe this is true nor that you could prove that it is true.

It's a theory, but IMO, I don't think early humans had a tail considering how small the tail is on certain primates already.

Originally posted by runetang
1 thing I disagree with. You imply that early humans, our ancestors, had actual tails which came from their tail bone. I do not believe this is true nor that you could prove that it is true.

It's a theory, but IMO, I don't think early humans had a tail considering how small the tail is on certain primates already.

I don't think any homonids had tails. Just like no apes do. Although we do have them during embryonic development, it eventually regresses over time, except in very rare cases (see below).

However, the evidence clearly shows that humans evolved from an ancestor that was tailed. We even see evidence of this now and again:



True human tails can be inherited, they can also move and respond to emotional arousal.

Don't evolutionists believe that the evolution of a particular species evolves into a more proficient, adaptable, smarter, … species?

No, they do not believe this. What they believe is that if a trait enables a creature to better survive and breed, then that trait gets passed on.

Evolution is not like designing a car, it does not have a plan, there are not quality control engineers overseeing the process. The process never sits down with a study group and says"hey, wings would be cool, I think I will grow wings on people". If being dumber helped people procreate more then it is quite possible that the process of evolution would produce a species of dumb people.

Originally posted by x0846



So, because a man learned to build a fire does that make him better equipped to deal with the elements?

Yes

No, of course it doesn’t, dump yourself in the middle of a winter wilderness in all your nakedness and let’s see if you survive with your brain and get a fire going before you freeze to death. I’ll bet your dead within one 24 hour period.

Humans today do not have the survival skills that they did thousands of years ago.

Your dolphins which you say don’t speak, what don’t they speak the English lingo so they couldn’t possible communicate. Their communication system is much more advanced than ours, their able to navigate the oceans like we navigate highways but we need signs to tell us where we’re going only they don’t have maps and signs telling them where to go and yet they navigate the oceans of the world.

Most marine life does have a remarkable ability to navigate the oceans, not just dolphins. The navigation abilities of most land animals are not as advanced. Perhaps this is because marine life has had a much longer time to evolve, or the ability to navigate the oceans was a stronger survival benefit compared to the ability to navigate on land.

The ostrich didn’t fly because of its size well weren’t their other ‘birds’ that were much larger than an ostrich and they flew.


The ostrich doesn't fly because it took a different evolutionary path. Each mutation that gave the ostrich its attributes happened to aid in its survival without giving it the ability to fly.

Goosebumps, that’s a real good piece of evidence of evolution. Then you say animals use a chemical reaction which causes bodily change, if we evolved from the animal why did we bring goose bumps with us and not move away from this animal trait?

The same reason we still have a tail bone. Evolution takes millions of years. You don't gain or lose a trait completely overnight.


Why do we have a tail bone? Why don’t we have a tail? Certainly a tail would be a huge benefit so why would evolution do away with such a vital asset?

Because it no longer provided a significant survival advantage.

Why did we loose those characteristics when they obviously would be useful to us?

When a characteristic no longer provides a significant survival advantage, the species begins to lose it.


Why did evolution produce the most evil species on the planet? Animals kill for food what does the evolved man kill another man for? Certainly not food.

Are you suggesting that instead God is the one that created humans as the most evil species on the planet?

[edit on 4-10-2007 by aye aye]