Question for Aethists/Evolutionists

[Mickalino]

I'm not trying to start a bitter religion debate, I just want to ask a genuine and objective question to the group of people described above. To those whom this applies, I'm curious what is your theory on why evolution no longer occurs ? I find it highly suspicious that, according to this theory, that evolution strangely never occured while humans were around to document it. It suddenly stopped occuring eons ago, and does not even happen on other planets as far as we know. There is no documentation of "Neanderthal" diaries saying things like "I lost a few more monkey hairs today, on my way to becoming a human. It's really cool cuz now some Cavegirls are asking me out now, that never would have otherwise. All the hot Cavegirls HATE hairy backs."

And likewise we don't see it happening in any kind of form anywhere in the world since that time. There are no residual animals changing form. There are no humans that mutate, etc.

Again, this is not meant to mock you guys, because I do not claim to be a scientific expert and maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm curious to hear your opinion/theory on this. In your beliefs, why did evolution suddenly stop and never start up again ?

[inmate running the asylum]

Mick,

I am an agnostic but I think I can still answer for the evolutionists and atheists. First off if you are addressing atheists, agnostics and evolutionists as you say you are, you are not going to "start a bitter religion" debate. If you have read or followed the threads Religion I, II, and III, I don't think there is any bitterness evident there. Some of us are more opinionated then others, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Most atheists, agnostics and evolutionists are open-minded. They just want to see some proof for these supernatural miracles in the Bibles and other holy books, as claimed by religious authorities and feel the burden of proof should be on them.

Originally posted by Mick

I'm curious what is your theory on why evolution no longer occurs ? I find it highly suspicious that, according to this theory, that evolution strangely never occured while humans were around to document it. It suddenly stopped occuring eons ago,

To answer your question above Mick, evolution did not stop occurring eons ago. It is occurring right now under your nose and you do not realize it. You just have to read more scientific articles. Ask any medical doctor or microbiologist, and they will tell you that germs, bacteria, and viruses are mutating NOW and developing a higher and higher resistance now to antibiotics. So much so that many of the antibiotics are not working any more or are no longer as effective. THIS IS EVOLUTION TAKING PLACE.

The medical and drug industry is getting quite worried about this, as I just recently read, as these organisms adapt and mutate in order to SURVIVE the antibiotics. Note: I will try to find and dig up some of these articles and post them here, when I get more time.

Mick, what you probably were thinking as far as evolution was concerned, is why don't the larger animals, such lions, elephants, dogs, etc., evolve? Apparently they do from pictures I have seen, but apparently it takes a longer length of time with larger animals.

Modern day Homo sapiens only have a recorded history that goes back maybe 5,500 years to Mesopotamia. The latest research indicates that Neantherthal man first appeared on earth 230,000 years ago, and survived 200,000 years before mysteriously dying out about 30,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon man [the first Homo sapiens] lived 100,000 years ago, but disappeared around 30 to 40, 000 years ago. Apparently we are their descendants. But all these prehistoric peoples, left us only with cave paintings and little else to go on, and they did not even have a written language. There is even a debate going on as to whether they even had a spoken language. So we have a difficult time now in comparing the fossil records, because many of the skeletal remains or bones are incomplete and there are huge gaps in mankind's recorded and geological history.

I hope this answers your question.

P.S. The only Cro-Magnons known to exist today are cowpuke fans. In fact Counter Tre has a picture of one -- with the cross-eyes. :laugh:

[Mickalino]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

To answer your question above Mick, evolution did not stop occurring eons ago. It is occurring right now under your nose and you do not realize it. You just have to read more scientific articles. Ask any medical doctor or microbiologist, and they will tell you that germs, bacteria, and viruses are mutating NOW and developing a higher and higher resistance now to antibiotics. So much so that many of the antibiotics are not working any more or are no longer as effective. THIS IS EVOLUTION TAKING PLACE.

The medical and drug industry is getting quite worried about this, as I just recently read, as these organisms adapt and mutate in order to SURVIVE the antibiotics

Actually, I see a flaw in that belief as well. In the example you give of "current evolution", it involves a reaction of organisms in response to MAN's actions. To me, that is not equivalent to an animals changing form independently of itself, as they supposedly did hundreds of thousands of years ago. I mean, what did animals do to evolve during the period of time when they didn't have man and scientists to "help them along". Isn't the whole premise of evolution supposed to be that it's a process that happens by itself, and not with the help of man, scientists, or God ? Can you give an example that fits that description ?

[inmate running the asylum]

Mick,

What can I say Mick? I am not a microbiologist, so I am not qualified to argue for them in their field. I only know what I have read, and what medical doctors have said. However, from what I have read about evolution, it is about "survival of the fittest" for the species. So who is to say what a microorganism is really evolving or reacting too? It may also be that microorganisms are evolving now independenlty as you say, in fish ponds in Africa for all I know. I mean what about the recent deadly outbreaks over there of Ebola Virus? No one has ever seen anything like this medically, and apparently antibiotics are almost useless.

P.S. I am throwing out some random thoughts after I made the post above.

I also just remembered, that U.S. and Russian labs have created deadlier strains of microorganisms in labs. So here would be a case where they caused the microorganism to EVOLVE or CHANGE into a newer, more virulent form.

Originally posted by Mick

I mean, what did animals do to evolve during the period of time when they didn't have man and scientists to "help them along". Isn't the whole premise of evolution supposed to be that it's a process that happens by itself, and not with the help of man, scientists, or God ? Can you give an example that fits that description ?

No not necessarily. I understand sharks and ****roaches have been around for hundreds of millions of years, and have remained almost unchanged. Why change if you are successful in your environment?

Where is Blade when you need him?

[Terry]

Mick,

What's the difference between man and nature??

If a population is stressed because of a natural dought, or because of a man made anti-biotic, either way that population is under stress. Many, maybe most will die. But for some, a random mutation - a genetic variation that provides resistance to the anti-biotic, or the ability to digest and convert to energy a less rich forage - will allow them to survive and pass on that genetic difference to their heirs.

Evolutionary changes caused by man are quicker because they are occuring in fecund life forms. Evolutionary changes due to nature occur slower because natural changes take place over longer periods, unlikely to be observed in less than a few human genrations

You've made a statement without anything to back it up - that evolution stopped eons ago, and then ask us to respond as though it were a fact.

[Barney B]

Also remember, Mick, that not all evolutionists are atheists. It's easy for some people to believe that God set the clockwork of evolution turning. Many scientists who are religious believe this.

[Mickalino]

With all due respect and appreciation for everyone's comments, the problem here is that we differ on a definition of evolution. And as a result, have strayed from my original question. I had no idea that the term 'evolution' was such a broad and vague term by some. And until we agree on such a definition, we could just go in circles in this discussion.

[inmate running the asylum]

Mick,

I think we all got the gist of what you were asking, but you started the thread, so you give us your definition of evolution then.

Keep in mind though that life forms do not live "independently" in a vacuum, and that man is also an animal. Whether man is around or not, all life forms are interreacting with other life forms and their environment, such as chemicals, weather, etc. Many life forms "evolve" and are still unsuccessful in their environment and die out.

A book you might want to read is "Wonderful Life" by Stephen Jay Gould. Although a difficult book to read -- because it is oriented towards biology majors -- it contains a number of gems of wisdom on evolution and how man may have gotten here. Evolution has been tweaked a little bit sense the days of Charles Darwin. Has anyone from Extremeskins read this book?

Meanwhile here is an article you might want to read about microorganisms mutating and evolving and becoming more drug resistant.

http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398issue/0398levy.html

Found within the article

Bacteria can acquire resistance genes through a few routes. Many inherit the genes from their forerunners. Other times, genetic mutations, which occur readily in bacteria, will spontaneously produce a new resistance trait or will strengthen an existing one.

There are also followup articles listed at the end, about microorganisms and evolution.

Also, it would be nice to know Mick, where you are coming from. Are you taking the position of organized religion that evolution is invalid and that some God created everything? On the other hand, my position is well known by the regulars here.

[Om]

I think the premise of the initial question is flawed, Mick. Your suggestion, if I understood it correctly, is that the evolution of mankind – assuming evolution is in fact more than "theory" from your perspective – has stopped. If that's the case, I would argue that is flatly incorrect, and suggest that there is far more evidence to support the contention that it continues merrily on as we speak, than there is that the bodies you and I occupy today have reached their evolutionary pinnacle and are static.

I also think it would be useful in this context, if you are in fact interested in learning more about the whole evolution question, to look at the distinctions between evolution and natural selection. It think you're right when you suggest that we need to come to some working definitions here before having anything resembling a meaningful debate on this topic. It's simply too broad to cover in generalities and without shared definitions.

Not trying to sound condescending here, but if we're starting this discussion at the "evolution is just a theory" stage, or stating flatly that it has "stopped" insofar as Man is concerned, I don't know that there's much common ground. If I may be so bold, here are a couple of links that cover soup to nuts on the whole shebang.

Perhaps we could use them as a jumping off point ...

Charles Darwin

Tmeline of Evolutionary Thought

[Om]

This one is pretty good, too:

http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.html

[CounterTre]

One point here that Mick you need to grab on to. Man and Nature are not independent entities, they are part of each other. Man is a part of nature, so saying anything he throws in to the mix is "unnatural" is just patently wrong. Evolution is going on everyday as we speak in every Family, Genus and Species. cases abound from the Antibiotic cases just cited to things as basic as body arts slowly being fazed out on some anilas as each geneartion goes on. Horses for ex have a toe that ahs over time slowly gone away more and more and is now no more than a remnant growth like a fingernail halfway up their leg. several generations and it will be completely gone. humans are still getting bigger and stronger, another sign of evolutionary advancement. Evolution has definitely not stopped, it hasn't even taken a breather.

[Mickalino]

Perhaps I should re-state my original stance. Basically, what I was looking for in my post, was for someone to give me an example of a 'current evolution', or an evolution that occured during documented history that proves, or at least strongly suggests, that the 'early evolution' could have occured (when organisms changed to animals, and animals changed to humans). So far, the only examples that I've seen here is minor changes in micro-organisms or humans. Well, adaptation and minor modification are not synonomous with evolution. It may be a part of the evoltion theory, but these events by themselves do not suggest that the greater events in the evolution theory could have happened. That's the problem, that some here are pointing to virtually any changes in the environment, and calling it evolution. That's why I said we need to define evolution. As for my definition, at least for the purpose of this discussion, once again I am looking for something major enough and relevant enough that proves that the entire process, and the original process, could have happened.

[Om]

You do realize that evolutionary evidence on a species scale generally takes place over really, REALLY long periods of time, right? Like the appendix you may or not be carrying around any more -- you know, the one that no longer has any real function and is now "expendable"? Dollars to donuts that in a mere thousand or two generations, our descendants won't be born with one. And that thinning hairline and basically hairless body that most of us sport -- you know, dramatically unlike the ones our ancestors who lived in caves sported a mere few hundred thousand years ago. I've got a $100 says that if we check back in the year 257,002, our descendants probably won't have to use Remington shavers to look like MJ or Brave.

Once again ... here's some solid stuff on evolution & natural selection, complete with a little section on "evidence." But don't take just this one link's word for it, check the others.

The evidence you seek is out there, Mick. It really is.

[Brave]

What about the height of the average human? Haven't human beings, as a species, gotten taller on average over the last several centuries? Wouldn't that be evolution in some form?

[Terry]

I think that increase in human height has more to do with nutrition than evolution. Feed us the diet that folks ate in europe in the middle ages and we'll start getting smaller again.

But in answer to Mick's question, I believe there is an example of evolutionary adaptation occurring as we watch it, although exceedingly slow. This article on

Darwin's Finches gives a brief overview of what we are seeing on the Galapagos Islands currently.

[Ignatius J.]

Om,

I'd take that bet (for donuts of course, I have no use for dollars). Our appendix isn't going anywhere in the near future. While it is vestigial, evolution requires that we gain survivability by a smaller appendix. This just isn't the case with medicine what it is.

In the other case, It is a little hard to argue why we have less hair than our slant foreheaded forefathers, but if evolution is to be beleived, chicks must have dug the sleeker look. Since this isn't the case now, I see no reason for this evolution either.

(you can private message me and i'll give you the address to send the donuts)

-DB

[Om]

I'd take that bet (for donuts of course, I have no use for dollars). Our appendix isn't going anywhere in the near future. While it is vestigial, evolution requires that we gain survivability by a smaller appendix. This just isn't the case with medicine what it is.

I'll grant you modern medicine has made the evolutionary need to do away with the appendix moot in the developed countries. One wonders, though, if left to it's own devices – i.e., to those w/o access to modern medicine – if the appendix would eventually evolve away. Now that I think about it a bit, it almost seems counter-intuitive: if left untreated, a ruptured appendix can kill – or at least render unable – its host. Logic would seem to suggest, therefore, that natural selection would favor those with healthier appendices; and it would follow from that that the organ would become more robust in the species, not less.

I don't know, internal medicine ain't my bag. Perhaps someone with a degree in organic plumbing could shed some light on how it is that the little pink bugger became such useless baggage in the first place. And I guess that was my point: we developed the organ; at some point it served a purpose. It no longer does. Yes, modern medicine throws another element into the equation, but the question remains ... w/o modern medicine to routinely remove it, what would natural selection do with the damn thing? Ignore it? Doesn't seem likely ... nature rarely seems to support unnecessary or useless things – Cowboy fans notwithstanding.

In the other case, It is a little hard to argue why we have less hair than our slant foreheaded forefathers, but if evolution is to be believed, chicks must have dug the sleeker look. Since this isn't the case now, I see no reason for this evolution either.

As the to hair, I suppose we could talk social evolution as well. No, perhaps today yon curvaceous blond does not choose yon bald flunky (unless of course said flunky is possessed of that modern wonder of western evolution - the bloated bank account), but 250,000 years ago, she might well have seen it as attractive, for any number of reasons: hell, he'd stand out from the crowd if nothing else. Also, I would question the bald (ahem) assertion that for "evolution to be believed, chicks must have dug the sleeker look." This presumes much, such as that those "chicks," by and large, had a whole lot of say in the matter. Perhaps said sleek dudes were possessed of the means (more cunning linguists, perhaps, or more in touch with their "feminine side") to either woo more successfully than their overly hirsute brothers; or perhaps possessed of greater technological toys (read a better club), or both ... you get my drift.

I trust you're at least half-kidding in suggesting that, since chicks generally don't dig bald guys over hairy ones in 2002, that by default means chicks didn't dig bald dudes in 248,002 B.C. I guess next time they thaw out and resuscitate a preserved cro-magnon babe, we'll make sure to have both Grizzly Adams and Michael Jordan in the room.

Even admitting that either of the examples I threw out there are open to legitimate debate, let's not lose sight of the ball, here. The question was whether or not "evolution" had stopped. I maintain it has not, whether my chosen "examples" hold water or not. I'm sure someone smarter than me, or at least more willing to dig a little, could come up with better examples. But unless someone is prepared to stand up and say "wrong, hairball – evolution has stopped, and here's why," I'm comfortable with my stance here.

[Ignatius J.]

I in no way meant to insinuate the cessation of the evolutionary process on the whole, but i think there is a very strong argument for it's declineing effect on humans.

I would venture that it is much more probable that we have in fact stopped evolving for the time being. Evolution has pseudo-steady states to which it evolves. One need only look to the dinosaurs for examples.

I do not have info on this, but it appears to me that the dinos were on this planet longer than the neanderthal. Both are now extinct, but one clearly evolved into something (us or maybe not i could be wrong, neanderthal may have been a branch that died out, but whatever take your higher monkey of choice) wheras it appears at this time that all of the T-rex's died out. The T-rex's were such a dominating force that they probably stopped evolving.

Now, the above may be entirely wrong, since i made most of it up, but i don't think it is. Maybe I should do some web research, but I think that it is true. Evolution is kind of a process towards perfect surviveability. As survivability (read reproduction rates) go to 1, evolution slows down. As survivability drops, evolution picks up. T-rex's, like humans probably had high surviveability, thus they lasted a while before being evolved out of existence.

Thus, since most humans reach breeding age, (at least %50) evolution is slowed by quite a bit.

Anyway, just some thoughts, your turn.

-DB

[Skins24]

These examples and links...they're still not doing it. Some of them are the equivilant of a grape turning into a raisin...

Where's the real stuff at!!??

I know how you feel Mick.

If I don't get straight answers within 24 hours, then... :asta: ...curtains (only the strongest will survive right?)

-time to lay off the :high: ?

[inmate running the asylum]

rskin 24,

So if you don't believe in evolution rskin24, whats the alternative for you? What do you believe in .... God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th?

[inmate running the asylum]

Mick,

Originally posted by Mick

As for my definition, at least for the purpose of this discussion, once again I am looking for something major enough and relevant enough that proves that the entire process, and the original process [evolution], could have happened

Ok Mick, I refer you to the book Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould (1989), page 36-37, that provides text and diagrams showing the unbroken evolutionary ladder and connection between the ancient and modern day horse. I am sure there is other evidence from other species, but this in the classic case usually presented by modern day paleontologists.

Of course I am assuming Mick, that you are aware that the prevailing theory of evolution, is that man did not evolve from monkeys or modern day apes. The prevailing theory is that man and monkeys had a parallel evolution, with man probably evolving from australopithecines [ape-like men who made tools and walked upright] millions of years ago. There are some very interesting books on the discovery of the australopithecines in recent years in East Africa, who may be mankind's "missing link."

First off, Darwin’s theory of evolution, holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmissions of slight variations in successive generations, and that the forms which survive are those that are best adapted to the environment [natural selection]. But Darwin’s theory of evolution has been slightly tweaked by many scientists in recent years. What follows is my synopsis of the book "Wonderful Life," which is not the most exciting book to read, unless you are a biology major.

As a former believer in the Bible -- I am no longer -- one of the first things years ago that started me on my personal quest for my own answers, was the following: Reading a biography about Charles Darwin, I was surprised to learn that he had initially been a theology student at Cambridge University, before he dropped out and became a naturalist. Then I ran across something he was reported to have said, that started him wondering and launched him on his own personal quest for answers.

Darwin stated that upon learning and observing that there were 250,000 different species of beetles in the world, he began to doubt the existence of God, when this observation raised the following question in his mind. Why would God or a creator bother to make so many different species of basically the same beetle, with only a minuscule amount of variation in each type? He then asked himself: Would not 100,000 or 200,000 species of beetles have been enough?

The book "Wonderful Life," deals with the discoveries made in the Burgess Shale, which was a limestone quarry in the Canadian Rockies that formed 570 million years ago. Less than a city block long and only 10 feet high, the Burgess Shale holds the remains of an ancient sea that contained more varieties of life than can be found in all of our modern-day oceans. In the Burgess Shale lived dozens of creatures never seen before or since -- creatures perfectly preserved in awesome detail, including the five-eyed Opabinia.

The 1909 discovery of the Burgess Shale by Dr. Charles Walcott, head of the Smithsonian Institute -- and America‘s greatest paleontologist at that time -- could have thrown traditional scholarship on evolution into confusion. Unable, however, to read the exciting new message locked in those fossils, Walcott erred by making an effort to accommodate many unclassifiable forms of life within the standard system. He misinterpreted these peculiar fossils and shoehorned every last Burgess animal into a modern group, viewing the fauna collectively as a set of primitive or ancestral versions of later, improved forms.

Walcott’s work was not consistently challenged for more than 50 years until 1971 by Professor Harry Whittington of Cambridge University. Whittington reinterpreted forms that had lain in laboratory drawers for over 40 years, and ended with a radical interpretation not only of the Burgess Shale, but by implication for the entire history of life, including our own evolution.

The Burgess Shale teaches us instead that evolution produced an incredibly prolific bush that spread its branches suddenly half a billion years ago and has ever since seen bits of life fall away. The falling away has the character of a lottery -- many called, few chosen and for no particular reason of superior anatomy. Play the “tape of life” again starting with the Burgess Shale, says Stephen Jay Gould, and a different set of survivors -- not including vertebrates and man this time -- would grace our planet today.

“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago-- and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. The “Cambrian explosion” marks the advent [at least into direct evidence] of virtually all major groups of modern animals -- and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.

These Canadian fossils are precious because they preserve in exquisite detail, down to the last filament of a trilobite’s gill, or the components of a last meal in a worm’s gut, the soft anatomy of organisms. Our fossil record is almost exclusively the story of hard parts. But most animals have none, and those that do often reveal very little about their anatomies in their outer coverings [what could you infer about a clam from its shell alone?]. Hence these rare soft-bodied faunas of the fossil record are precious windows into the true range and diversity of ancient life. The Burgess Shale is our only extensive, well-documented window upon that most crucial event in the history of animal life, the first flowering of the Cambrian explosion.

“The Burgess Shale includes, for example, early representatives of all four major kinds of arthropods, the dominant animals in terms of numbers on earth today -- the trilobites [now extinct], the crustaceans [including lobsters, crabs, and shrimp], the chelicerates [including spiders and scorpions], and the uniramians [including insects]. But the Burgess Shale collection of some 80,000 specimens, also contains some 20 to 30 kinds of arthropods that cannot be placed in any modern group. Consider the magnitude of this difference: taxonomists have described almost a million species of arthropods, and all fit into four major groups: one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than 20 additional arthropod designs! The history of life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity.” - pg 25

“Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress.” p35

“For 2.5 billion years after the Isua sediments, or nearly two thirds of the entire history of life on earth, all organisms were single-celled creatures of the simplest, or prokaryotic design. [Prokaryotic cells have no organelles -- no nucleus, no paired chromosomes, no mitochondria, no chloroplasts] Nearly 2.5 billion years of prokaryotic cells and nothing else -- two thirds of life’s history in stasis at the lowest level of recorded complexity. Another 700 million years of larger and much more intricate eukaryotic cells, but no aggregation to multicellular animal life. Then, in the 100-million-year wink of a geological eye, three outstandingly different faunas. Since then, more than 500 million years of wonderful stories, triumphs, and tragedies, but not a single new phylum, or basic anatomical design, added to the Burgess complement.” p60

“The Burgess Shale -- one quarry in British Columbia, no longer than a city block -- contains a disparity in anatomical design far exceeding the modern range throughout the entire world!”- p62

Consider this: “Of nearly a million described species of insects, none has a biramous appendage and nearly all have exactly three pairs of limbs on the thorax. Marine crustacea display incredible diversity of form, but all have the same pattern of tagmosis in the head -- two pre-oral and three post-oral pairs of appendages. Apparently, evolution settled upon just a few themes or ground plans for arthropods and then stuck with them through the greatest story of diversification in the entire animal kingdom. The story of the Burgess Shale ranks as perhaps the most amazing in the history of life largely in relation to this phenomenon of later restriction in arthropod ground plans -- for in addition to early representatives of all four later groups, the Burgess Shale, contains fossils of more than 20 additional basic arthropod designs. How could such disparity originate so quickly? Why did only four basic designs survive?”-p106

“Perhaps the grim reaper works during brief episodes of mass extinction, provoked by unpredictable environmental catastrophes [often triggered by impacts of extraterrestrial bodies]. Groups may prevail or die for reasons that bear no relationship to the Darwinian basis of success in normal times. Even if fishes hone their adaptations to peaks of aquatic perfection, they will all die if the ponds dry up.” p48

Wind the tape of life back to Burgess times and let it play again, and if the pikaia does not survive in the replay, we might all be wiped out of future history -- all of us, from shark to robin to orangutan. Why? Because the pikaia was the world’s first known chordate -- a wormlike creature and a member of our own phylum which had a notochord or stiffened rod along its back with zigzag muscle bands, that evolved into our spinal column. p322-323

So you asked, Mick, and I hope this gives you a start on some answers. This is heavy stuff, Om. There aint no alternative except to write an essay. :laugh:

[inmate running the asylum]

Mick,

As a follow-up to my last post, in evolution there are also mutations known as "inheritable variations." Whether these mutations in species remain permanently or disappear in a given species, is dependent on variables too numerous to go into here. In this particular case, these are genetic defects transmitted by recessive genes, which are not at all unusual. Pertinent to the present discussion is an inherited syndrome of an abnormality in humans, known as the Ellis-van Creveld syndrome. Afflicted individuals are disproportionately dwarfed [short limbed], have malformed hearts, and possess six fingers on each hand. [click on the link below and then click again on photo to enlarge].

http://medgen.genetics.utah.edu/photographs/pages/Ellis%20van%20Creveld%20syndrome.htm

The recessive gene that is responsible for this complex of defects is exceedingly rare. Yet this anomaly occurs with an exceptionally high incidence among the Amish people in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The defective recessive gene apparently was present in one member of the original Old Order Amish immigrants from Europe two centuries ago. For a few generations, the detrimental gene was passed down unobserved, masked by its normal partner gene.

Since 1860, the Ellis-van Creveld deformity has appeared in at least 50 offspring. Ordinarily, it is uncommon for both members of a married couple to harbor the defective recessive gene. However, in the sober religious Amish community, marriages have been largely confined within members of the sect with a resulting high degree of incidence. Marriages of close relatives have tended to promote the meeting of two normal, but carrier, parents [each of which harbors the abnormal recessive gene].

Coincidentally, the Book of I Chronicles mentions six-fingered and six-toed giants in the Bible at [i Chron. 20: 6-7 -KJB], so this mutation or abnormality has apparently been around a long time.

I have other photographs of mutations that I am not able to show here, such as 3 legged frogs found in 1958 in Tunica, Mississippi, two headed human beings, three legged human beings, hermaphrodites [humans having the sexual organs of both male and female] etc., etc.

As you can see my quest for the truth of the Bible took me into many divergent fields of science........ from astronomy to genetics to archaeology, but it has been interesting.

[Yomar]

I know this has been touched on, but as I understand the theory of evolution, it occurs when a genetic mutation proves to be benefical in allowing a creature to adapt to its environment. Until we as a species are faced with catastrophic events, we have mastered our environment in that all but the most grave genetic mutations are irrelevant in regards to a persons ability to live long enough to reproduce, so wouldn't that mean that evolution is not what it used to be? Evolution in the form of genetic mutation is now something human beings can supposedly control and dictate at our discretion

On a side note, PBS just had a documentary on bi-pedal hominnids existing over 6 million years, which would destroy previous ideas of Man evolving from four-legged apes in the convetional chart where you see the different stages of Man's evolution from an ape to a bi-pedal neanderthal type creature to modern day Man.

Secrets of the Dead

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

[Glenn X]

I have one very serious question here: Inmate, how did you get your text to display in all those groovy colors?

[inmate running the asylum]

Posted by Yomar

Until we as a species are faced with catastrophic events, we have mastered our environment in that all but the most grave genetic mutations are irrelevant in regards to a persons ability to live long enough to reproduce, so wouldn't that mean that evolution is not what it used to be? Evolution in the form of genetic mutation is now something human beings can supposedly control and dictate at our discretion

From what I have read within the scientific community, Yomar, Darwin's original theory has been tweaked a little -- but it is not invalid -- as indicated below from my previous post. But man from what I have read cannot yet control all genetic mutation and is certainly not a master of nature's evolution through that means.

"Perhaps the grim reaper works during brief episodes of mass extinction, provoked by unpredictable environmental catastrophes [often triggered by impacts of extraterrestrial bodies]. Groups may prevail or die for reasons that bear no relationship to the Darwinian basis of success in normal times. Even if fishes hone their adaptations to peaks of aquatic perfection, they will all die if the ponds dry up.” - Jay Gould

Originally posted by Yomar

On a side note, PBS just had a documentary on bi-pedal hominids existing over 6 million years, which would destroy previous ideas of Man evolving from four-legged apes in the conventional chart where you see the different stages of Man's evolution from an ape to a bi-pedal Neanderthal type creature to modern day Man.

The previous idea of man evolving from ape to bi-pedal Neanderthal man to modern day man -- as you refer to above Yomar -- was a concept at the beginning of the 20th century, held by creationists and used mainly to ridicule Charles Darwin's original theory of evolution. From what I can recall reading Darwin’s books, he never claimed that modern man descended from a monkey, but presumed that there must be some "missing link" descendant between apes and man. He did not have the benefit of modern science which we have today. Darwin's best proof of evolution was probably his discoveries around 1836 while aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, on his findings on the different finches that were unique only to the Galapagos Islands.

Beginning with Robert Dart's discovery in 1924 of the first australopithecines, and leading progressively forward with discoveries by Robert and Mary Leakey and "Lucy" in 1974 by Donald Johanson, the theory now is that apes, monkeys and man evolved separately and PARALLEL to each other. In some cases some branches of apes, monkeys and australopithecines may have died out completely and became deadends. It is a little too detailed and complicated to go into this on these posts -- Om is always accusing me of writing essays :laugh: -- so if you are interested further, there are a number of books on the subject. Also, below is a recent discovery that may shed some light on this for you.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news242.htm