I found this rather interesting: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603070187mar07,1,6967465.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

So we are still evolving after all.

Here's the full article if anyone is so inclined (and has the biology Ph.D. it would take to understand it): http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 (WARNING: It's long and contains a lot of crazy scientific stuff)

EDIT: If for some reason you can't read the first link (works fine for me, but whatever), here's the text:



And okay, I'll edit the signature.

First link doesn't work. And your signature is gettin' kinda big there buddy.

Yeah your sig is pretty big. While I did bust up laughing at the SG-1 quote, it adds much to many lines .

Interesting, although the part about natural selection in the article is wrong. I can't say it's surprising that humans are still evolving actually...

I don't like it when people claim that humans in the future will be hairless because hair is a inefficient. That's not how evolution works! Unless hairlessness becomes incredibly sexy (or having hair became dangerous) for hundreds of years, we will continue our hairiness.

Gah.

My hair keeps me warm! (Not that it will be able to for much longer )

Put the rest of your signature RIGHT of the smilie.

and put it in small text like kirbs.

About the artical...whoever said we stopped evolving?

This isn't news to me.

First person to say "Humans evolved from apes" or anything like that gets *****slapped something fierce!

I'm not saying it, I'm just quoting it.


And apparently, we're still evolving.

Examples you ask?

Change in skeletal/muscular formation of thumb due to mobile phones (increased dexterity) could be passed on from the present generation

Human Brain size has increased considerably since the Dark Ages. Cant remember the exact value, but modern skulls are much larger, and the brain area is much bigger.

SUPER HUMAN BRAINAGE!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

My penis also got bigger since the Dark Ages.

FASTGAMERR EVOLVES INTO...

*techno hump*

FASTGAMERRR

lolarium

COMMON ANCESTOR YOU NUMBSKULL!!!!!


You REALLY thing that apes haven't involved since homosapiens have been around? REALLY. I MEAN COME ON.

Common ancestor! They don't teach "Humans evolved from apes" in school damnit, so stop assuming!

whoops, i meant the dark ages thing was an example of how we're constantly evolving.... from DOLPHINS!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I had an evolution midi keyboard once.

I still do.

Dolphins are quite tasty.

Meet my ex girlfriend. Ask her what she thinks of body hair, or lackthereof rather. You go through a lot of razors. I wish evolution were that speedy.

...humans ARE apes.

Common ancestor!

The common ancestor was an ape too, just not a modern ape. If you're going to be pedantic you have to make that distinction. :p

You prefer common incestor you damn bananarama

:0

Oh nice, I just noticed I'm in Bill's sig. Hehehe.

I just thought you didn't know what I was talking about.

Stop insulting apes. They have feelings too.

That's tricky, I never noticed he had quoted you.

Maybe I need eyes

ROLLING STONES eyes

Yeah. Stop insulting obi's mom.

I'm sorry

Mm. We've slowly been losing hair ever since we started wearing clothing, i.e. animal skins.

Eventually, as technology advances, the human race will be reduced to a bunch of pasty little fetuses inside mechanical exoskeletons.

Well, I know I'm not going to be popular in this thread since I do believe in creationism.
I'll just preface this by saying that I'm not an expert and I've not done any kind of extensive research into this topic.
This is just the opinion I've developed from the info I've gathered over the years from both secular and religious sources.

So anyway,
I don't see how this supports the theory of evolution [over simplistic explanation](that all life came from a single cell and evolved into the many species of birds, reptiles, mammals etc.)[/over simplistic explanation]
What is descriped there I've always heard refered to as "micro" evolution.
which evolution with a single species.
"Macro" evolution is the evolution from one species into another, like an anphibian becoming a human.

But just like others have said, this is hardly new information.
Changes within a single species such as hair length, height, dexterity, skin color etc. have been well documented and clearly seen for a long time.

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention I got that from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Something I've never been ENTIRELY clear about:

What part of evolution (let's say, what overlying principle) is it that contradicts creationism in a way that causes creationists to argue against it? It seems like in general, the argument has just been "evolution is impossible, and this is why," and the specific parts of evolution that contradict creationism have not been emphasized.

I've always thought it was the "God created all things as they are" vs. speciation + old earth vs new earth, but many arguments seem to go far beyond just those two, and now I'm finally wondering if I'm missing something

It's misunderstanding, mostly.

When did we stop?

EDIT: I guess Anovis kinda already said it.



So what you're saying is that there is a gene for wearing clothes. And that our hairy ancestors didn't get the ladies.

lol

Ehh, no. The gradual loss of hair is an adaptation. Hair was originally meant for keeping the body warm. We started wearing garments. the body sensed the additional heat, and stopped growing as much hair, thinking it had too much.

Result = modern humans have less hair than, say, neanderthals.
Hey, if we wore skins over our heads for a million years, the norm today would be bald people.

Notice how mammals (who, I might add, usually don't wear clothes) are covered in hair or fur? Okay, except for whales and dolphins. But they have blubber.

As for the article on the Chinese guy, I've heard of that condition before. Yes, I'm referring to it as an abnormality because it is an abnormality, and could've killed him. Read the part about the infected ears?

zomg

the arguments always go far beyond that simply because the bible is decently silent regarding this.
It's generaly accepted that the purpose of the creation story is not to show how it was done but that is was done by God.
A friend of mine, who is a christian, is a science major has been dealing with this.
I don't know his specific scriptural resaons for this, though if you wanted to know I'd be happy to ask him. but he says that because God created everything that all proven science will perfectly line up with scripture because both are under the control and were created by God.

Many secular scientists say that, because of the theorys of evolution and the like, that the bible is proven to be just plain wrong despite these theorys often have just as many holes and unexplained aspects as the bible does.
This obviously doesn't make christians happy.
And you add to that how many christians don't know their bible as well as they should (I'm certainly at fault here) and rely on regurgitating what their pastor or some evangilist said but don't have an acctual understanding of the concept themselves.
And sadly, it's these christians who are often the most vocal or visible and even beyond the stereotypes that are formed, some other who hear them begin regurgitating what has been regurgitated by others who didn't fully understand in the first place.

So you can see that with this regurgitation continuing that very soon you have a large number of very loud people who have no idea what they're talking about but they think they do.
and if you try to point out their mistake, they will accuse you of not have faith.
And thus you have the rather sad condition of a large portion of the christian church today.

All that to say that alot of people who so fervently oppose scientific theorys and will argue to the death over it are doing more harm than good and don't accuratly portay what a "Biblical" christian should be.

Does that clarify anything at all?
I think I just got off on a rant here but the overwhelming principle in evolution that contradicts creationism is God's involvment.
Saying that it all happened randomly, on it's own for no acctual purpose contradicts the biblical teaching that it was all created by God for the very specific purpose that God would recieve the glory due his name through creation.

Anyway, Every response that I think of always leads to other things that seem like they need to be clarified which I guess is the reason that the arguments always go so far off topic.
Christianity has been discribed as water which is "shallow enough for a child to play in but deep enough for an elephant to drown in."
which is why these discussions are never simple.

Does that make sense?

It's possible God engineered the biological system and evolution is one process in that system and that he/she/it/they set it in motion long ago.

Most certainly yes. However, that would be along the lines of the idea that we are evolving now but doesn't settle the argument of origins.
Since the bible does say that God made man and the different type of creatures seperately (bird, fish, reptiles etc.) so the idea that man evolved from a lower form of life would contradict that.
I think it would be safe to say the evolution is occuring now and has been ever since God created life and it wouldn't contradict anything in the bible, that i know of atleast.
It's just the evolutionary origin that causes a problem.

Whoever wrote Genesis didn't have the scientific knowledge about biology we have now so he flubbed up -- there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't take genesis literally. It's very understandable how people in the past came up with inaccurate explanations to describe things they didn't know about -- it happened all the time and the bible is not exempt.