Evolution.. fact or not?

[TheProwler]

I'm not so sure that physical strength has ever been proven to be a trait that has gone through devolution.

I mean, sure, if a creature decided to leave the ocean and start hanging out on land, I can see that their fins might start to get smaller and those particular muscles that control them will grow weaker.

But we are talking about muscle mass that is less efficient. If we didn't need them, then we would just lose them. Or if we didn't need them to be as strong, they'd get smaller. It does absolutely no good for them to get less efficient.

A 200 pound fat and lazy gorilla will be way stronger that a 250 pound man who works out constantly. Early "man"'s muscles worked way better than ours. Evolution does not explain why we would lose this physiological advantage. Creation of a new species does.

What do you think about the idea of macroevolution and how/when a new species is actually produced?

I'm pretty sure science has proven microevolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think they've come close to proving macroevolution. All the fossils,etc. don't really provide much of a proof. They certainly don't disprove my theory that an early design of an animal could be used by a "creator" as a template for a new species.

Early "man" has certain deficiencies, so we'll create a new model. Bigger brain, more erect stance, etc.. But with the tweaks, they made the muscles not work as well.

Much like cars in the early '70...

Car were sucking the gas too quickly, so we'll create a new model. Lighter weight, catalytic converter, etc.. But with the tweaks, horsepower took a nosedive.

[Frigidus]

I'm not so sure that physical strength has ever been proven to be a trait that has gone through devolution.

I mean, sure, if a creature decided to leave the ocean and start hanging out on land, I can see that their fins might start to get smaller and those particular muscles that control them will grow weaker.

But we are talking about muscle mass that is less efficient. If we didn't need them, then we would just lose them. Or if we didn't need them to be as strong, they'd get smaller. It does absolutely no good for them to get less efficient.

A 200 pound fat and lazy gorilla will be way stronger that a 250 pound man who works out constantly. Early "man"'s muscles worked way better than ours. Evolution does not explain why we would lose this physiological advantage. Creation of a new species does.

What do you think about the idea of macroevolution and how/when a new species is actually produced?

I'm pretty sure science has proven microevolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think they've come close to proving macroevolution. All the fossils,etc. don't really provide much of a proof. They certainly don't disprove my theory that an early design of an animal could be used by a "creator" as a template for a new species.

Early "man" has certain deficiencies, so we'll create a new model. Bigger brain, more erect stance, etc.. But with the tweaks, they made the muscles not work as well.

Much like cars in the early '70...

Car were sucking the gas too quickly, so we'll create a new model. Lighter weight, catalytic converter, etc.. But with the tweaks, horsepower took a nosedive.

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not so sure that physical strength has ever been proven to be a trait that has gone through devolution.

I mean, sure, if a creature decided to leave the ocean and start hanging out on land, I can see that their fins might start to get smaller and those particular muscles that control them will grow weaker.

But we are talking about muscle mass that is less efficient. If we didn't need them, then we would just lose them. Or if we didn't need them to be as strong, they'd get smaller. It does absolutely no good for them to get less efficient.

A 200 pound fat and lazy gorilla will be way stronger that a 250 pound man who works out constantly. Early "man"'s muscles worked way better than ours. Evolution does not explain why we would lose this physiological advantage. Creation of a new species does.

What do you think about the idea of macroevolution and how/when a new species is actually produced?

I'm pretty sure science has proven microevolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think they've come close to proving macroevolution. All the fossils,etc. don't really provide much of a proof. They certainly don't disprove my theory that an early design of an animal could be used by a "creator" as a template for a new species.

Early "man" has certain deficiencies, so we'll create a new model. Bigger brain, more erect stance, etc.. But with the tweaks, they made the muscles not work as well.

Much like cars in the early '70...

Car were sucking the gas too quickly, so we'll create a new model. Lighter weight, catalytic converter, etc.. But with the tweaks, horsepower took a nosedive.

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

A full-grown male chimpanzees could easily beat you up though.

[thegreekdog]

A full-grown male chimpanzees could easily beat you up though.

Unless Frigidus has some sort of weapon; which is not to say this supports physical evolution (rather, mental evolution I guess).

[Frigidus]

A full-grown male chimpanzees could easily beat you up though.

Unless Frigidus has some sort of weapon; which is not to say this supports physical evolution (rather, mental evolution I guess).

I'd KO the chimp in Round 2, as I am a total bad ass.

[StiffMittens]

Early "man" has certain deficiencies, so we'll create a new model. Bigger brain, more erect stance, etc.. But with the tweaks, they made the muscles not work as well.

Much like cars in the early '70...

Car were sucking the gas too quickly, so we'll create a new model. Lighter weight, catalytic converter, etc.. But with the tweaks, horsepower took a nosedive.

Yes. It's like a balance sheet. Add something here, you have to take away something there. And the light that shines twice as bright shines half as long. There are so many factors involved that it can't be reduced to: muscle efficiency should improve over time. The manner in which the organism gathers sustenance in it's environment, the demands of reproduction, the rigors of it's environment (predators, climate, terrain, pollutants), etc. etc.... all these factors dictate what is sustainable. What traits are absolutely essential to survival in the environment. How much do those traits "cost" biologically. Are there sufficient nutrients available to sustain that "cost." How many other organisms in the area are competing for the same sources of nutrient. Is the biological "return on investment" worth it? etc. etc. etc.

[TheProwler]

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

Forget the apes. What benefit would we see by our muscles becoming less efficient? This goes to StiffMittens too.

Evolution does not explain a system becoming less efficient. It would have been better to just leave it (ie. that particular system) alone.

Creation (based on another species) does explain it. Look, Creator A makes a species of animal in year 1. Three million years later, Creator B studies the DNA blueprint and decides he can make a few improvements. He makes a second species of animal, largely based on the first species of animal, but with some tweaks here and there. "Oh look, by tweaking that DNA strand, we not only changed their body size, we inadvertently decreased the efficiency of their muscle tissue. Boy, Creator A made a pretty complicated species." This would explain it.

Why do people find it so difficult to discuss a theory that is much more likely that a 7-day creation blitz? It's just "Nope, I'll stick with what I read in a textbook. No need to discuss any other possibilities. I'll just keep quoting what I already know, because I know I know everything and I know I'm right. I just know." Sorry about that - just a little frustrated that people are stuck in one box or the other.

[Snorri1234]

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

Forget the apes. What benefit would we see by our muscles becoming less efficient?

Our muscles didn't become much less efficient, they became smaller. And it's because it costs a lot of energy to maintain muscle-mass just like it costs a lot of energy to keep your brain running.

If we had maintained the same amount of muscles, we would now have to eat about 2 or 3 times as much a day.

[Neoteny]

More efficient energy usage. Energy we aren't using to spend building massive muscles can be used to increase brain size, run away from predators, birth children, etc.

The dean of my biology department is always saying "life is a series of trade-offs" (you point at your head, and then at the sky as you say this), usually to get the point across that a very important, yet not obviously visible, factor that evolution acts on is a generic "energy factor" (more specifically, ATP and it's production and distribution). Energy that you aren't using on something you don't need (a robust body) can be spent somewhere you do (a robust brain).

In short, any benefit from a redistribution of our energy would be seen. There are many possibilities.

EDIT: fastposted by snorri. The "trade-offs" thing is still a good point imo.

[xelabale]

One interesting example is evolution on islands. There have been many cases observed where big species that get trapped on islands decrease in size over time - I believe it's known as island dwarfism, but someone correct me if it's different.

What happens is, some members of a species get trapped on an island, let's say elephants. As there is less food available, larger members who need more food are evolutionarily disadvantaged, the genes for producing smaller individuals survive and become dominant and the species as a whole shrinks.

There is some interesting debate around "The Hobbit" found on Flores regarding this point if you're interested.

Another point to note is that everything is interconnected, genes affect more than one attribute, and usually more than one gene is involved in things. This makes things more complicated than they are often described as.
It is entirely plausible for example (there is no research on this as far as my limited search went, but it's a useful example), that one gene could negatively affect muscle efficiency and at the same increase brain size. At this crucial point individuals with larger brains were better equipped to survive, despite the disadvantage of less efficient muscles. Thus humans became less efficient. (this is an example of what could happen, I'm NOT saying this happened or such a gene actually exists).

The real beauty of evolution is it's amzing flexibility in explaining many different things. Who could argue against the notion that evolution is such a perfect concept it must have been created by God?

[TheProwler]

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

Forget the apes. What benefit would we see by our muscles becoming less efficient?

Our muscles didn't become much less efficient, they became smaller. And it's because it costs a lot of energy to maintain muscle-mass just like it costs a lot of energy to keep your brain running.

If we had maintained the same amount of muscles, we would now have to eat about 2 or 3 times as much a day.

I think that is inaccurate. My understanding is that early "man" was as strong as a great ape, pound for pound. Modern man is about 1/7th as strong as a great ape, pound for pound. Do you think our brains actually weigh that much?

This is quickly degenerating into a tunnel-vision type of argument instead of a proper discussion with new thoughts and ideas being presented. No offense to anyone in this thread (specifically); that is what happens in this place.

[Neoteny]

Do you think energy usage by the brain is the same per pound as muscle tissue? Tunnel vision?

[TheProwler]

Another point to note is that everything is interconnected, genes affect more than one attribute, and usually more than one gene is involved in things. This makes things more complicated than they are often described as.
It is entirely plausible for example (there is no research on this as far as my limited search went, but it's a useful example), that one gene could negatively affect muscle efficiency and at the same increase brain size. At this crucial point individuals with larger brains were better equipped to survive, despite the disadvantage of less efficient muscles. Thus humans became less efficient. (this is an example of what could happen, I'm NOT saying this happened or such a gene actually exists).

Exactly.

This opens the possibility of the second or third set of creators to misunderstand the entire chromosome and make some changes that were not intended.

[StiffMittens]

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

But that IS the point. That our species is more successful than theirs IS WHY (in a manner of speaking) we don't need as much physical power.

[TheProwler]

Do you think energy usage by the brain is the same per pound as muscle tissue? Tunnel vision?

Discussions involve making points and adding to the conversation. They do not involved asking leading questions. Make your point. This isn't a debate. Be efficient and make your point.

[TheProwler]

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

But that IS the point. That our species is more successful than theirs IS WHY (in a manner of speaking) we don't need as much physical power.

Around and around. I've already given my thoughts on this.

[Neoteny]

Do you think energy usage by the brain is the same per pound as muscle tissue? Tunnel vision?

Discussions involve making points and adding to the conversation. They do not involved asking leading questions. Make your point. This isn't a debate. Be efficient and make your point.

I made my point, which was similar to snorri's.

More efficient energy usage. Energy we aren't using to spend building massive muscles can be used to increase brain size, run away from predators, birth children, etc.

The dean of my biology department is always saying "life is a series of trade-offs" (you point at your head, and then at the sky as you say this), usually to get the point across that a very important, yet not obviously visible, factor that evolution acts on is a generic "energy factor" (more specifically, ATP and it's production and distribution). Energy that you aren't using on something you don't need (a robust body) can be spent somewhere you do (a robust brain).

In short, any benefit from a redistribution of our energy would be seen. There are many possibilities.

EDIT: fastposted by snorri. The "trade-offs" thing is still a good point imo.

You dismissed it by saying "Modern man is about 1/7th as strong as a great ape, pound for pound. Do you think our brains actually weigh that much?"

I replied by, granted, implying that the energy our brain uses and the energy our muscles use are not equivalent in a pound for pound ratio. Additionally, i said the energy can go many places, not just to our brain.

[TheProwler]

You don't have to think a lot to squeeze a coconut. If that is all you were doing at the time, your body should be able to direct all energy to squeezing the damn coconut. Similarly for any physical exercise. I agree that if you are solving math problems or figuring out how you can afford that new XBox game, you won't be able to direct as much energy towards a physical task. But when all you are thinking about is that physical task....why don't the muscles work well?

[Neoteny]

Because if you create a coconut squeezer, you save not only energy now, but energy in the future, as well as having the energy for remembering you invented a coconut squeezer, and all the other things you invented. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to want it to be,

[thegreekdog]

You don't have to think a lot to squeeze a coconut. If that is all you were doing at the time, your body should be able to direct all energy to squeezing the damn coconut. Similarly for any physical exercise. I agree that if you are solving math problems or figuring out how you can afford that new XBox game, you won't be able to direct as much energy towards a physical task. But when all you are thinking about is that physical task....why don't the muscles work well?

I don't know if this answers the question (or if there is a question), but if we use brainpower to develop a more effective way (i.e. a way less reliant on muscles), doesn't the brainpower work better than the muscles. If you put me and a chimp next to a bunch of coconuts, I'll create a tool to squeeze the coconuts and get to cracking, while the chimp will attempt to squeeze them using his hands. Alternatively, I'll wait until the chimp has completed his squeezing, take my tool, and kill the chimp; thus securing his freshly squeezed coconuts for my own use.

[Snorri1234]

Sure, a gorilla could kick your or my ass with a good stretch or a friendly hug, but which of us has been the most successful species? Gorillas are endangered (sure it's our fault, but hey), whereas we have spread all over the world and number in the billions. Heck, chimpanzees are doing pretty well, and they aren't exactly heavy weights.

That's not the point I am making - who is more successful is irrelevant. The point is that I don't think there is any good reason for our muscles to devolve from being as efficient as a gorilla's to being as inefficient as they are now. I am only mentioning "gorilla" because they are supposed to be pretty close, strength wise, to early "man".

Forget the apes. What benefit would we see by our muscles becoming less efficient?

Our muscles didn't become much less efficient, they became smaller. And it's because it costs a lot of energy to maintain muscle-mass just like it costs a lot of energy to keep your brain running.

If we had maintained the same amount of muscles, we would now have to eat about 2 or 3 times as much a day.

I think that is inaccurate. My understanding is that early "man" was as strong as a great ape, pound for pound. Modern man is about 1/7th as strong as a great ape, pound for pound. Do you think our brains actually weigh that much?

Weight has nothing to do with function. Your brains weighs about 2% of your total body mass and takes up 20% of your oxygen-consumption. Oxygen-usage is directly related to energy-usage, so yes your brain does use far more energy than other organs.

Bodybuilders and others who have a big amount of muscle compared to the rest of their body do actually have to consume huge amounts of energy each day. If they had to forage for that (instead of buying it in the store) they would spend the entire day finding enough food (or not even) and would be unable to develop more efficient ways of obtaining food. it would be virtually impossible to keep that up so either you have to sacrifice strenght or brainpower.

You're using a flawed understanding of how our bodies work to justify your view. The bigger you are the more energy you need, our smarter brains have helped us obtain that food more easily. To keep our muscles as "efficient" as a great ape would take more energy.

This is quickly degenerating into a tunnel-vision type of argument instead of a proper discussion with new thoughts and ideas being presented. No offense to anyone in this thread (specifically); that is what happens in this place.

You're ignoring obvious objections to your thoughts by saying you're not talking about that, that's tunnel-vision. You're not thinking about it from all angles.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm convinced that microevolution occurs.

I'm not convinced that macroevolution occurs, or has ever occurred.

The truth is there IS no difference. Creationists have recently made up this term "microevolution", but its all just evolution. Small changes compound upon small changes that, over a very long period of time (long in human terms, in geologic terms, can be quick) wind up becoming large changes. We do see small change compounding. Just carry that out over hundreds or thousands of generations and you have what Creationists deny exists. In fact, right now, we are in a period of EXTREME biologic change and my ecologists assert that we are beginning to see true species differentiation in our lifetimes. This last, that we are seeing species separate right now, is debateable. However, that species are moving in that general direction is not.

To see that it is possible, you only have to look at dogs. Granted, human beings have fully manipulated the breeding of dogs (not talking gene manipulation .. that is only just now, in the past few years, become possible). However, from one basic stock, we know for sure come everything from the poodles to Chihuahas to Great Danes and Doberman Pinchers. Do you really think they would freely mate if they appeared in the wild? A chihuaha is, right now, physically incapable of carrying a 1/2 Great Dane pup. In ability to breed is no longer the 100% firm definition of what makes a species, but it is absolutely important in the distinctions. As I said, these were fully and abolutely manipulated by human beings BUT, in ways that are fully reclicable within nature. For such divergeances to happen in nature, though, requires some heavy driving force. (as a Christian, I will insert "God helps" here, but scientifically that is just irrelevant) This can be isolation.. a landslide or lava flow cutting off some populations, island formation, etc. However, those are only enough to ensure small drifts in isolated populations.

Creationists are correct when they say that for all the differences seen within finches or salamanders, those are changes within a species. What is necessary for the further jump.. into different species, is something that will selectively kill off large segments of the population. Then, two things happen. The remaining populations (those species that still have viable populations) may have survived, but its unlikely that the conditions are truly favorable. So, just as intenst human breeding programs, any young that don't show some sort of traits allowing them a "leg up" die off more quickly. Those that remain produce even stronger young... and the divergeance begins. Exactly like when a breeder selects for a specific trait, only in this case, by "nature" (again, insert "God") and far, far more slowly than with human beings (we think anyway, it could happen quickly in some extreme cases perhaps). In geologic terms, this will be a very, very fast progression, but in human terms ... one "small" change might take longer than our entire history.

The general idea behind evolution is that we adapt and basically become "better". At least, that is my understanding.

This is a very common misconception. In fact, it was part of Darwin's original theory. Partly its sort of like the old saying "the good guys always win... because the winners write the history books" . We are here, we are the "ultimate" acheivement, obviously better than everything around us and so it "makes sense" that everything around us also represents "capstones" of acheivement.

The real truth is that it is more "survival of the luckiest" than "survival of the fittest".
You may be the "biggest baddest" buck, but if you get trapped behind a landslide (or flood, or killed in a volcanic eruption) prior to breeding, your genes won't get passed on. Deer fight for mates and usually the strongest gets the does, but occasionally, while those bigger bucks are off fighting, a scrawny little guy may "sneak in" and "do his thing". Also, most importantly, it could be that those very same genes that help him get bigger and stronger when food is plentiful will hurt him if food is scarce. It could be that he needs to eat more, but the "skinny, weaker" buck is able to survive better.

That last is why evolution primarily happens when things change in the environment. (as explained above) Small changes do occur, even when conditions are good, due to "chance" (note -- this is not true mathematical chance, but more a combination of various factors just too complicated to list or, in many cases too complex even for the best scientists to understand). In some cases those small changes do wind up becoming big changes, enough to diverge species. However, more things like wolves becoming coyotes, etc. For the truly BIG changes, evolutionary biologists look for significant environmental changes.

We are, by-the-way in just such a change right now, which is one reason why we may actually be seeing huge drifts right now.

The "fit" aspect does generally weed out truly unfavorable traits. (for traits to be passed on, something has to breed). BUT, even in that are complications. Malaria and the sickle cell gene represent the classic example in humans. If a child inherents 2 sickle cell genes, they were, until modern times, almost certainly doomed to die fairly young. So, why did the gene persist? Because if you had only 1 set of the genes, it provided a significant resistance to malaria. Malaria killed so many that this benefit from the one gene outweighed the negative aspect of sickle cell anemia. Simple math (which we already know you understand ), and basic genetics show how this works. Each child gets one gene from each parent. Assume that 2 genes = sickle cell=death before having children (as it used to be). Those genes are gone. BUT, two parents each have 1 gene. If all is equal, you will get 1 child with 2 sickel cell genes (sick, no kids); 1 child with no sickle cell gene (neutral) and 1 children with 1 sickle cell gene each. Pure math ALONE is almost enough to explain why some negative traits persist, even if the combination is fatal (or a no-breed situation). HOWEVER, add in that those kids who have just 1 gene are better able to withstand malaria AND given that malaria is a big reason kids die (or used to, historically) from those diseases and it is no mystery that sickle cell has persisted.

Of course, things are not so simple, either in human beings or (other) animals. Genes often work together, so that it could be a gene for height might also be related to something in the digestive system (just to pick something out of the blue.. I can't think of a real example at the moment). Some genes are there, then need some other factor... an enzyme, a hormone or such to "turn them on". (Puberty is a trigger for many such genes).

If this is true, why are we so physically weak? I mean, take the ape-like creatures that we define as early man. Scientists will agree that they were physically much stronger than us. Much more like a chimpanzee or a gorilla. So why, through evolution, would be become weaker? I don't buy the answer of "Because we are smart and created tools to do the work." I'd say that explains why a non-athletic human that works a desk job and doesn't get much strengthening exercise is weaker than a power lifter. But why isn't a human power lifter as strong as a gorilla of the same weight that sits around eating leaves all day? Why would our muscle tissue become so inefficient? Even with tools, I think we work as hard as early man - at least farmers and many construction workers, etc. do. Especially if we go back several centuries. Life was physically hard. So why would, through evolution, we lose our strength?

Those other folks largely answered this.

The real truth is we don't really know, but the evidence suggests some possibilities.

First is the pure "random chance" effect(again, in biology this is not mathematical chance, it is more a term used to mean "a whole bunch of factors we just don't understand and cannot predict"). That whole Darwin's "survival of the fittest" was just incorrect. He was smart, brought us long way, but only knew what he knew and this part he got wrong. Sometimes wonderful traits do die out. Why don't we have tails... seems they might be fun!

Second is, as explained, what has really helped us to succeed is not our brute strength, but our intelligence. I used to work trails. For the uninitiated, this involves a lot of VERY heavy work. You move rocks up and down steep slops, break rocks using sledge hammers, tote sacks of dirt (actually heavier than rock, by-the-way), etc. I am a petite female. I cannot count the number of times some, generally younger, much larger male would come in and try to "help" me because I was "obviously weaker" and therefore "obviously needed help". Well... I outworked most of them pretty quickly. (That they were sent to work with me, I should add was NOT "pure cooincidence. My boss, knew it was the best and easiest way to teach these guys to LISTEN and pay attention to techniques). Why? Because I knew what I was doing. Of course, a big guy who also knew what he was doing could do more, BUT, not as much as you might think. The limits had more to do with our tools and such than brute strength. The same lessons were learned on contruction crews, etc. It really is "brains over brawn" EVEN IN a highly physical, brutal environment.

Also, remember my buck example above? Bigger, more muscular people often need to eat more. The biggest "limiting factor" for humanity historically has been food, not inability to lift things. So, where genetic evolution comes into play is in driving us toward more efficient use of food.

Add in this that human genetics is EXTREMELY complex. When scientists talk about genetic drift and evolution, they are talking about hundreds of thousands of years, not mere hundreds.

In fact, I think most scientists would tell you that (through microevolution) modern man is physically stronger, on average, than men of just a few hundred years ago.

This is due to nutrition. It is far too soon to say if these traits will be passed on through genetics, become an evolutionary trait.

I say that through evolution, we should become stronger, not weaker. And if this is the case....did we really evolve from ape-like creatures?

This is why understanding what evolution actually says and the science behind it is so important and why Creationist scientists just don't have credibility.

Evolutionary science does not dictate what will and will not happen. Paleontologists and evolutionary biologists study what did happen and then go from there. What we think is important often times just is not the case. Scientists feel we evolved from ape-like creatures because the fossil evidence shows this, genetic studies show this, etc.

It is that simple.

Macroevolution means one species evolving from another. Have we ever witnessed this...I mean, actually seen it happen. Honestly, for a species to all concurrently change to such an extent that, all of a sudden, a new species is developed. This means two parents produce offspring that is a new species (and therefore, could not breed with either of the parents' species). And this happens on such a large scale that this new species actually survives!?! This is based on my understanding that no two different species can produce fertile offspring . For instance, a horse and a donkey can make a mule. But a mule is infertile.

Again, what this really shows is that you have never been taught how evolution is really supposed to have happened.

To begin, the timeline involved in special shift is so phenomenally long we would only see it in species that breed very, very quickly. IN fact, this IS what we see in microbes and such. Yes, I know you have been taught that those are irrelevant, but the truth is that all life works on some basic principals. How genes work (overall) is one. Bacteria use genes essentially as we do (that is, what they are is decided by genes .. how they breed, etc differs). Except, because they are far simpler, because they breed so much faster, we can study evolution in bacteria in ways just impossible within higher animals.

Does this compare? Well, in the steps that we can compare, yes. It is sort of like saying that understanding of basic mathematics led to Alegebra which, in turn, leads to Calculus. In many ways it all comes back to that same basis -- 1 + 1= 2, etc. Of course, there are huge differences, which is why looking at Bacteria is not the only reason we think humans evolved from other species. It is merely on small piece in a very, very, very complex puzzle.

You know, I've often heard "This new species has been discovered". But they don't say "and it evolved from this other species." Doesn't anyone ever think "Hey, God, or someone or something else, just made another one!"?

Yes, to your last question. God is simply a religious question. Scientists look at what is, what can be proven. God is not excluded, not at ALL! God is simply not a matter of scientific proof (at least yet).

As for the other .. see above. We don't live long enough.

[PLAYER57832]

I am referring to pure physical strength. You cannot argue that being physically weaker, having less efficient muscular activity, is a positive trait.

You can if the problem is a limited food supply.

And, as I said.. that has been the case for much of human history.

[owheelj]

At what point in our evolutionary past were we as strong as gorillas?

[TheProwler]

Sorry PLAYER, I just don't have the time to read all that. Someone else (elsewhere) has presented a clear explanation of how macroevolution would come about. With a lost less words. No offense, it's just that I don't see any indication that anyone is willing to discuss any new ideas.

I don't think the loss of physiological efficiency of our muscle mass can be explained with evolution. Maybe it can. But I'd like a summary. A fairly short summary.

Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

BTW, I picked muscle efficiency as one fairly obvious attribute. It is not the be all and end all.

Let me ask this: Has science explained how a species (call it Species A) in one isolated area of the world, over a long period of time, evolved into another species (i.e. they could no longer reproduce with their ancestors, Species A) called homo sapien, while in another isolated area of the world, species A has evolved into the same species, homo sapien? I mean, way back in prehistoric times, before we were traveling across the oceans, how did homo sapiens manage to evolve on different continents? Wouldn't you think that, given the geographical differences, Species A might evolve into homo sapiens in one area of the world, but a different species elsewhere? Now, I know Species A might have evolved into several different species (like, a gorilla somewhere and a homo sapien somewhere else), but what are the chances that Species A would develop into homo sapiens, the exact same species, on different continents? I know "orientals" look different than "blacks" who look different than "caucasians"...but isn't it questionable that they are all the same species? Or does science say homo sapiens all evolved in one area and then spread out?

Why do people discount the notion that an earlier species could be used as a "blueprint" to create a new species through alterations to DNA - alterations made by "Creators"? Heck, we are experimenting with altering genetic code - why do we think that this couldn't have happened in the past by "someone" to create certain species?

Everyone seems to think the discussion (argument) between evolution and creation is limited to "Purely evolution" versus "Purely creation". Anyone that discusses creation seems to limit their thoughts to creation all performed in a 6 day period. Couldn't the Bible's version of creation just be one of the, possibly many, occurrences of genetic code alteration to produce a new, better species? Couldn't the story of creating Adam and Eve just be symbolic of a six-day procedure in which an ape/human-like creature was genetically altered to create homo sapiens?

Could we possibly be visited by "God" again someday who will take our DNA and tweak it to create a better "version"? Then the remaining homo sapiens will be eliminated - they will be obsolete. Are the scientists working in stem cell research doing "God's" work? Is "God" among us? Has the DNA tweaking phase been initiated? Are you one of "them"? Am I?

I can tell you this: Resistance is futile.

Was it really me complaining about a long post?