Humans are Now Physically Evolving Faster and Faster than Ever Recorded.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


You've completely forgotten mutation and environmental selection pressure. No species carries all the genes that will ever exist. Furthermore, epigenetic regulation alters the way in which genes are expressed. It seems that we're not only off-track again, but people are confusing Darwinian evolution with Lamarck's model.

reply to post by Wisen Heimer

You are right, we are evolving faster, and our environment is helping us evolve, and the animals too.

I don't know if it's such a good thing though, recently they found out all the pollution, chemicals and drug residue in the water system and the environment, is causing fish, mammals, and MEN to become more feminized.

article here

It's official: Men really are the weaker sex

Evolution is being distorted by pollution, which damages genitals and the ability to father offspring, says new study.

Geoffrey Lean reports Sunday, 7 December 2008

The male gender is in danger, with incalculable consequences for both humans and wildlife, startling scientific research from around the world reveals.

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have "gender-bending" effects.

It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals.

"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, who wrote the report.

Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 per cent of them.

Many have been identified as "endocrine disruptors" – or gender-benders – because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides.

The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.

It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

Good thing the EPA and the FDA and the CDC are right on this, doing what they do, huh?

Oh, but wait, I can't recall hearing about this in the US news, so perhaps we don't have to worry..........after all, recently the FDA said phthalates in plastics wouldn't hurt babies at all..............

[edit on 9-3-2009 by sezsue]

The archeopteryx was a complete animal, not evolving in any way.

We have never seen an animal in the progress of evolving nor found any fossils of animals evolving, say the example I gave, scales turning into feathers, or little stumps starting to bud out on a worm, something like that.

You better take a look at Archaeopteryx. It had claws on it's wings. Claws/wings, they just don't go together, do they? Google Images

Sorry, a bit OT, but I couldn't let that go by.

I can't see humans evolving if natural selection is removed. It's too easy now to stay alive and reproduce even if one has half a dozen medical problems. Anyone know of families that have several cases heart disease in multiple generations?

Here's a theory:

People have children at a lot older age than 50.000 years ago, hence more mutations will happen and be passed on.

Originally posted by John Matrix
They would have a lot more credibility if they would show the evidence and give both scientific explanations for it, and let the viewer decide. The viewers decision will confirm whether he/she descended from neanderthals or not.

There is only 1 scientific explanation because only 1 model is testable: EVOLUTION. Just in case there's any confusion about the scientific method: www.sciencebuddies.org... Show me how creationism fits the scientific method, and I'll back off.

I'll get you started:

- Ask a Question: Did God create all the organisms on Earth?

- Do Background Research: You'll have to fill this one in.

- Construct a Hypothesis: God will create life.

- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: You'll have to fill this one in too.

- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: ... and here (insert data)...

- Communicate Your Results: We know you believe that God created everything and by filling out the scheme, we'll all be able to see why from a scientific perspective. That way, "both scientific explanations" will be present and complete the discussion. Hopefully that will end the debate and we can get back to discussing the original topic!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by X-tal_Phusion]

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


I think they would be better suited terming their studies in these parameters... "Did aliens create life?"

At least then you have something that is definable. If that much is true (but you still would have to satisfy all the rigors of the method to determine) I would argue it doesn't really matter what we call them... God, beings from Alpha Omegacron, or whatever else.

About the video that dalan. posted:
Jurassic park was supposed to teach us not to screw around with nature (among entertainning us offcourse).The video starts "Ever since Jurassic park,we've dreamed of recreating dinosaurs...".
Just a bit later "Recreating dinosaurs might not be a smart idea..." (no sh*t) and he continues "but in the future will it ever be possible?" that's ALL we care allthough we know it's a stupid idea.
Gotta love humans,we're amazing.


Nice little example right here to give me the opportunity to say that probably we're devolving.

reply to post by Oceanborn


I don't think that recreating dinosaurs would be such a bad idea.

What, do you think it would happen just like in the movie and the dinos would suddenly explode in population and start killing we humans, with all of our advanced weaponry, off before we just made them extinct again?

I think things like this are a good idea. We'll need this knowledge when we start colonizing space.

The rate of minor physiological mutations are in fact increasing due to the growth of the size of the population. Fortunately for us, most of these mutations are absolutely useless.

When you consider the richest individuals on the planet, those who have access to 95% of the wealth, they represent only 5% of the global population. There is no reason to indicate that they are better adapted physiologically to those environmental niches, which result in acquire wealth better than others. Wealth can not indicate for enhanced physiological processes. However, if a mutation, which would enhance brain function were to emerge in such a population, it is very likely that its fixation would be limited to that population itself, as they tend not to breed outside their extremely inclusive social core. If that were to occur, this enhanced brain function could help them to perpetuate their ability to acquire resources. They would apply their old-money capital to enhancing their own well-being primarily. This would result in global inequality, and a cultural polarization of the planet's populations. Cultural exclusivity would act as a mechanistic barrier to sexual reproduction, and speciation would inevitably occur over some generations.

This is one my major issues of contention with our current capitalist world order, working in conjunction with the major financial institutions, which favors those who have historically had access to capital, such as those old families from the United States and Great Britain. If capitalism is to work on an equitable basis, everyone has to begin on an even playing field. We need some kind of global capitalist institution, which offers risk analysis on an individual basis, and then allocates capital accordingly. If everyone had a shot at accessing wealth, then cultural barriers would come crashing down and the human population would become one.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by cognoscente]

None of this is "evolution" under the popular definition.
And
None of this is due to "mutations".
The so-called scientists who would use this term are not scientists.

All of what they are talking about is "adaptation".

And the whole article and all the whoopla over this discovery is rather passe'.

reply to post by cognoscente


"Wealth can not indicate for enhanced physiological processes."

I would argue that their wealth can, in fact, indicate for physiological superiority through advanced medical care.

Magic Johnson is going on, what, 20 years now of successful maintenance of HIV?
A MIRACLE!

Edit - I agree with the rest of your post.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
ALSO - I have thought that evolution was the process of genes mutating for the better? Isn't that what the OP is talking about?

Therein lies a major point of confusion. Mutations can be beneficial or deleterious; it depends largely on the environment in which an organism finds itself. Most mutations, under a given set of conditions, are deleterious (not well-suited to the environment). Sometimes, this pertains to genetic diseases, but harmful mutations can also manifest as physical traits that fail to provide some sort of competitive advantage (i.e., large size in a place with limited nutrient sources). Those organisms that posses deleterious mutations are at a disadvantage when it comes to competing for mates or the chance to pass along it's genes to progeny. Those that die before getting the chance to reproduce, fail to pass along their genes and if that mutant is the only one of its kind, the trait disappears from the gene pool. New genes arise from new mutations (e.g., from DNA damage) and new mutations give rise to new traits if expressed (epigenetic regulation can obscure the presence of new genes for generations). New traits spread throughout a population of organisms if carriers of a given mutation gain a reproductive edge over the wild-type (not carrying the mutation). Otherwise, it either dies out, or persists hidden at low levels until it is selected for or against by environmental change.

Several posters have mentioned domestic animals (esp. dogs) in this discussion. In that case, humans served as the selection pressure. Perhaps one of the most obvious cases is demonstrated by the changes observed in bull dogs over the past century. This breed was once a lean, athletic dog. Over the years however, people chose to breed dogs with larger underbites, legs spread more widely apart, and stouter bodies (www.petplanet.co.uk...). If we had not selected dogs with these exaggerated traits for breeding, the modern bulldog would look a lot different! Clearly, human breeding is responsible for the long list of health problems plaguing bull dogs today. Generally, natural processes (devoid of human interference) weed out health problems like these.

Modern Bulldog

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


I haven't forgotten anything. Or confused anything. I find it remarkable how those who espouse such theories the strongest can't even see the point another tries to make, if they pare it down to the point. The three things you mentioned have nothing to do with anything, really. Two of them act upon existing genes. The other, mutation, is severely lacking in evidence that it can lead to any significant changes in complex organisms that are anything but severely detrimental.

Trust me, my friend. I know the subject inside and out, in every different guise it has worn. Because I wanted to believe it. But there is nothing to believe but the assumptions of a great number of arrogant men, based on circumstantial evidence and faith.

To bring it back to the point of the thread, the article quoted is dishonest, misleading drivel. AS I and many others have pointed out.

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


After reading your further comments on dog breeding, you really did totally miss the point. By about a continent. Which always seems to be the problem. It's impossible to debate a strong believer in evolution any more than you can debate a strong believe in a religion; they lack the capacity to see things from any other angle.

I dont care how we were created. Maybe we came from inside the Earth like everything else here or maybe aliens droped us off or maybe we just popped in from another dimension. Who cares, its not important. Whats important is where we are now and where we are headed.

I like that post about pollution. You dont hear a lot about that after everyone was convinced global warming was a myth. Sort of like when the ozone thing was brought up. There was some hype about it and then it just dissapeared. That is something to be worried about. I dont think those mutations caused by pollution are hereditary though. Mutations caused by drugs and things like that I dont think are hereditary, but I could be wrong. I know that not all mutations are hereditary and the ones that are would most likely contribute to evolution and those are the ones being talked about in the OP. Pollution is a serious problem and it does alter our environment so Im sure it is contributing a alittle though major pollution is a new phenomena only being created after the industrial revolution. So we will get to see how that may effect us in our future.

I dont believe we can de-evolve, but a huge population drop is a very likely possibility in our future.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Wisen Heimer]

Originally posted by george_gaz

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Pure crap.

It is based on Darwinian "survival of the fittest" hokem. Since the evolutionists are unable to come up with even one missing link, not just of humans but of any other creature, not one fossil showing a reptile growing feathers

Have to break it to you ... but that is incorrect ...

Archaeopteryx

Oh but wait ... maybe the Zionists created the fossil of Archaeopteryx and it is all a hoax made by them ...

edit: to add the ripping and sarcasm

[edit on 9-3-2009 by george_gaz]

That's really funny especially when you consider the FACT that it IS a hoax and unless you can prove it is unequivocally a fact, it is just what was said about it.

This wouldn't be the first time evolutionists manufactured evidence to support this over rated totally ilogical fantasy fable called Darwinian evolution.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
reply to post by Salt of the Earth

 

Darwins theory of evolution was never about the fittest, it was about the most adapatable.

Consider that many of the people who died during the influenza pandemic of the early 1900's were very fit. It should also be noted that survivours had previously contracted a milder form of the virus and were often old and unfit.

Adaptation is the key to evolution, which is different from survival as an individual. Humans are devolping but not as in these eugenic driven fantasies.

Perhaps because nature sticks to the old adage if it aint broke...

Here we go again equivocating micro evolution for macro evolution which by the way is what he was talking about NOT adaptation

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
This is pretty misleading. All of the examples given in the OP are not "evolution." They are just changes in gene expression. Kind of like breeding dogs. Nothing NEW; merely different breeding habits making different genetic aspects more prevalent.

More bad science.

Yep that is exactly what it is, just another sun tan happening nothing more. When are they going to quit teaching this sillyness in our public schools or at least allow for some really intense challenge to it without all the protections surrounding this asinine school of thoughtlessness

reply to post by Aermacchi


Ok, I'd just like to point out that I've never read anything more arrogant and blatantly misguided before that sentence, regardless if that fossil is ultimately inaccurately depicted or not.

Changes in the frequency of gene expression in any population is a readily observable phenomenon. We all understand that. Most biologists have done the fruit fly experiments. What's actually important, however, is the introduction of reproductive barriers or distractions, which prevent genes from being replicated with blueprint accuracy in the creation of similiar organisms. We should also take the time to reflect on the fact that the "organism" is only one type of strategy for gene replication, probably the most stable one, but nonetheless others could have evolved.

Regarding the fruit fly experiments. What researchers have not yet done, and I'm not sure if it's technically possible, is actually alter the fruit fly's chromosomes so that they can no longer reproduce. Once that happens, you might observe, provided there are introduced adequate environmental differences between both of the distinct and sterile populations, changes in the physiological makeup of the organisms might become so apparent that they begin to look like different organisms completely. I think we've been approaching this thought experiment in the reverse this entire time.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
ALSO - I have thought that evolution was the process of genes mutating for the better? Isn't that what the OP is talking about?

Therein lies a major point of confusion. Mutations can be beneficial or deleterious; it depends largely on the environment in which an organism finds itself. Most mutations, under a given set of conditions, are deleterious (not well-suited to the environment). Sometimes, this pertains to genetic diseases, but harmful mutations can also manifest as physical traits that fail to provide some sort of competitive advantage (i.e., large size in a place with limited nutrient sources). Those organisms that posses deleterious mutations are at a disadvantage when it comes to competing for mates or the chance to pass along it's genes to progeny. Those that die before getting the chance to reproduce, fail to pass along their genes and if that mutant is the only one of its kind, the trait disappears from the gene pool. New genes arise from new mutations (e.g., from DNA damage) and new mutations give rise to new traits if expressed (epigenetic regulation can obscure the presence of new genes for generations). New traits spread throughout a population of organisms if carriers of a given mutation gain a reproductive edge over the wild-type (not carrying the mutation). Otherwise, it either dies out, or persists hidden at low levels until it is selected for or against by environmental change.

Several posters have mentioned domestic animals (esp. dogs) in this discussion. In that case, humans served as the selection pressure. Perhaps one of the most obvious cases is demonstrated by the changes observed in bull dogs over the past century. This breed was once a lean, athletic dog. Over the years however, people chose to breed dogs with larger underbites, legs spread more widely apart, and stouter bodies (www.petplanet.co.uk...). If we had not selected dogs with these exaggerated traits for breeding, the modern bulldog would look a lot different! Clearly, human breeding is responsible for the long list of health problems plaguing bull dogs today. Generally, natural processes (devoid of human interference) weed out health problems like these.

Modern Bulldog

Humans did NOT serve as the selection pressure if you watch the PBS special about Dogs you would understand how this animal became the most varied species of animal and WHY they are STILL ALL DOGS and have never come close to transpeciation