Why are we still alive? If we evolved slowly.

[Christian1234]

Evolution: In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations (influenced by natural selection, genetic drift, or gene flow). The variation (genetic variation) in the units of heredity ("shifts in the allele frequency of genes") and interactions with the environment that increase the survival and reproductive success of this variation is natural selection and it plays a major role in adaptations (and exaptations). Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.

Genetics: Biology. the science of heredity, dealing with resemblances and differences of related organisms resulting from the interaction of their genes and the environment.

Adaptation:
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.

c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

Reproduction: Biology. the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.

So how could I be alive today if Evolution took billions of years to produce a new species? So lets say I was evolving from a 4 legged animal and lost my front legs(and they began to evolve to arms) according to evolution theory, I would've died and not been able to adapt to my environment in time to survive. In order for evolution to work it would've needed to to alter my genes simaltaneous in order for me to have survived my genetic alteration.

I believe we were designed with the capability to adapt in matter of days and were given genetic code to keep us all from looking like are ancestors. I think its ironic for people to say over billion years we developed an upright position and developed a sophiscated brain compacity compared to other animals which inhabit this earth.

Then evolutionist throw in this word CHANCE.. All this happen by chance which I think is more ironic by reading the facts we should've died between monkey and human form.

If evolution were true than if we all started having sex with monkeys for generation to generation for a billion years eventually are genetic code would change and monkeys would eventually get pregenant and pop out half monkey and human babies.. But wait if we all started having sex with monkeys are population would drop and eventually would mean are human species would die off because people would just be having sex with monkeys and monkeys would dominate and we would be dead for our ignorance.

So can someone please explain why genetics adaptation is Evolution.. True Evolution would mean mutation of your own genetic pool resulting in sudden change in spcies but mutation usually leads to death.

[jwu]

This is called adapting not evolution. Its still bacteria not a new lifeform.

Adaptation is evolution. Just on a small scale.

ll humans look different but were still human. Dogs look different but there all dogs same with cats. If we weren't created with a complex genetic code we'd all look the same and be drones walking around with hopeless lives.

Well, then there are things like ring species, which demonstrate that the species concept is rather blurry. And of course there is a plethora of genetic evidence which conclusively demonstrates common descent of humans and other apes.

Its hard for me to believe that all this around me happened by chance!

That is an argument against atheism, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is agnostic and could very well be guided by a deity, it makes no statement at all about that.

[Vladd44]

That is an argument against atheism, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is agnostic and could very well be guided by a deity, it makes no statement at all about that.

True true true. Evolution is about HOW we got here, religion is about WHY we are here, there really is no need for the two not to be able to coexist.

This is called adapting not evolution.

Adaptation is one of the fundamentals of evolution, and IMO far more significant than mutation. Animals vary from one to the other, just as people do.

For example, brown eyes were clearly the original color of human eyes, but the blue recessive mutation has become very prevalent in some places.

People with blue eyes tend to have lighter skin because the same pigment that makes brown eyes also makes dark skin. In places with less sunlight, lighter skin can help the body make Vitamin D, a vital part of avoiding bone diseases like rickets.

Lack of vitamin D was a big problem before refrigeration + vitamin D-fortified milk. So, lighter skin means you are less likely to get rickets.

If you live where there isn’t much sunlight such as Northern Europe you would have a health advantage over dark-skinned people. Which in turn means your more likely to have kids.

Some of these kids will have blue eyes and be healthier as well. Eventually, you end up with many people with a recessive trait such as blue eyes. If in isolation, and given 50k years, who knows what further differences could have happened.

On the other hand light skin allows sunlight to destroy a vitamin called folate. Folate is vital to have healthy babies. If women don’t get enough folate while they are pregnant, the baby can be born with birth defects. And if men don’t get enough folate, their sperm counts are significantly lower.

Making people with blue eyes and light skin living in bright areas less likely to have healthy kids. So the genes for blue eyes would be less likely to get passed on in sunny places.

I bring up eye color because it is a recent modification (20k years or so) in human development that shows how these variants can dominate in one region but not in another. While Chimps and Humans share a common ancestor, the needs of the enviroment molded us to fill two divergent gaps.

Of course the exact causes are subject to speculation, but credible options tend to stem from changes in our eating habits, as prehomo-sapiens moved to coastal areas, food sources were less dependent on seasons, allowing food security and higher nutrient density. DHA and iodine are both vital for healthy brain development, both found in high quantities in sealife.

The average newborn's brain consumes 75% of an infant's daily energy needs. The changes in early human diet allowed the "fattest" babies to fuel this neural demand, improving the brain.

These led to a new set of situations that once again gave one variation an advantage over another, causing further diverging. From out weakened T-cells ( An evolutionary disadvantage most likely allowed to flourish due to eating cooked food, which in turn helped weaker genetic options to continue to flourish in the species), to our improved hearing encouraging the advent of language ( which even further enhanced the importance of individual intelligence) each change was incremental.

Like my previous comments regarding eye color, these changes were small and slow, but eventually the one best suited for the enviroments dominated, causing further "advantages" to arise.

Xian1234, you seem to want to define evolution as something different than adaptation, this simply is not accurate. Adaptation is the building block of Evolution. As some politicians seem to be unable to comprehend, one change typically brings about new unintended changes.

Dietary changes led to different brain development, and different immune systems. A better brain and better hearing led to language, which led to even better intelligence value. Higher intelligence led to tools, bringing a whole new range of advantages and disadvantages to different physical characteristics such as the human thumb.

Eventually we came to more recent changes in our genetics, some as recent as 4-6 thousand years ago. ASPM, the last known change propogated in our species, is now at the high proportion in some populations of near 50%. For this to happen in such a short time, its selective advantage must be very strong, on the order of 5 to 8 percent. In other words, for every 20 children of people without the selected D haplogroup, people with a copy of the allele averaged 21 or more.

For me it is interesting to note that the propgation of ASPM in our species is roughly correlated with the beginning of modern civilization.

What you are trying to define as evolution would be more of a macro evolution, an idea that simply does not hold up to the light of day, but over the course of time, many small changes have a total effect that doesnt look small att all when taken as a sum.

[diggnate]

WOW! No offense, but when you come to a place with a desire to challenge a certain position, it's a good idea to be somewhat informed before doing so.

Ok, genetic variations happen at the reproductive level, that is, during reproduction, organisms mutate. During their life, they are "tested" against natural selection, and when/if they reproduce, they pass on that mutated information. No one has EVER "adapted" mid-life by mutating their own genes.

Secondly, organisms impulsively evolve. There is no foresight. All natural selection does is selects based on what is beneficial for current ecological conditions.

Thirdly, I have no idea what you mean by "why are we still here?" Why would we not still be here? please clarify.

Fourthly, Sex with monkeys. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory, which leads to a regressively ignorant conversation. At no time, ever, did a monkey have a human baby, forcing that human baby to mate with monkeys. That's simply ridiculous. Look up the word "gradient". While your there, find Darwin's book and see why he said that evolution is series of "slight, successive, modifications" and what that means exactly.

Lastly, you've made some pretty obvious assumptions that were just wrong. For instance, you assume that the only 2 beneficial features of a creature would be either 4 legs, or 2 arms 2 legs, and that nothing in between would ever be functional. Look at the ape knuckle walk. Look at the meerkat and how it sometimes stands biped. Many current biological functions have logical intermediates.