[Discussion] Evolution Theory

[Belserion]

Is this accurate? XD

[video=youtube_share;BL9S-TUikfg]https://youtu.be/BL9S-TUikfg[/video]

 

[Sagebee]

Maybe you evolved from a retard baby monkey fish frog squirell:bdpf:

 

[Tauren Chieftain]

Ask God ?

 

[LordBlackZetsu]

Evolution is shown over millions of years. We cannot properly see evolution in front us. We can o lynsee natural selection and selective breeding.

 

[Uchihaa Sasuke]

Makes more sense than god.

 

[Lytes]

If evolution is real, then why did we stop evolving after becoming homo sapiens?

 

[AllKnowingShinobi]

It takes thousands of years bro. Also evolution most likely occurs in order for your body to be better adpated to the elements/predators. Only fear/predators that can pose a threat is another human. How are we going to evolve when our biggest challenge is our own race.... sad right

Somone said "the world isnt getting smaller its the things in it"

 

[Umari Senju]

That's why they call it the evolution Theory and not evolutionary fact. It isn't 100% conclusive.

 

[ChicagoJhawk]

If evolution is real, then why did we stop evolving after becoming homo sapiens?

species only evolve when different traits give certain individuals better odds at reproducing. It could be that humans have reached such technological advances that our genes have no effect on our ability to reproduce so evolution for us is harder to come by.

 

[Narushima]

If evolution is real, then why did we stop evolving after becoming homo sapiens?

On the contrary human evolution has only accelerated since the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens and the diversity (subspecies) currently observed in our species would not exist had we stopped evolving.

The common ancestor of Europeans and East Asians lived about 41,000 years ago meaning that Europeans and East Asians are only 41,000 * years old compared to Africans, a subspecies more than 100,000 years old.

East Asians are an adaptation to cold. Their smaller bodies reduce their surface area to volume ratio thereby reducing heat-loss, as does the layer of subcutaneous fat that gives them their yellowish skin; their higher average metabolic rates (ever notice that East Asians put on weight harder than others?) allows for more heat production while the epicanthic fold (the anatomical feature that gives them their eye shape) is protective of the eyes against icy winds.

Europeans surprisingly are more of an adaptation to very low levels of sunlight than cold – while prehistorical Europe was a relatively cold place it was nothing compared to the area East of Russia that the ancestors of East Asians likely evolved in which is why Europeans did not evolve the foregoing anatomical adaptations they did. On the other hand the very low levels of annual sunlight in Northern Europe selected for very light skin colour and even selected for the mutations for light hair and eyes when they appeared (to make vitamin D, the body requires sunlight which melanin attenuates – so the darker your skin, the harder it is to make vitamin D given any constant exposure to sunlight).

*

You must be registered for see links

 

[Brady]

The fact that different races exist is evidence of evolution. I would get skin cancer going to Europe and a European would have the same issue in Africa or the Caribbean. We evolved for different climates. Although, that graph showing us being evolved from a rat like creature sends shivers and hatred down my spine.

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

I remember this episode. Cartman really wanted that Nintendo Wii.

 

[Cornson]

If evolution is real, then why did we stop evolving after becoming homo sapiens?

We didn't stop, we still are, hence why (european have wet ear vax while asian's and africans don't) there are minor gene changes in every new baby that is born, eventually those changes can have changes on a species as a hole if it spreads enough.

That's why they call it the evolution Theory and not evolutionary fact. It isn't 100% conclusive.

Actually it is, or don't you believe in the germ theory or the theory of gravity?

the word theory does not mean the same thing when it's used in science and when it's use by none scientists.

the word scientists use when talking about a laymans "theory is the word "hypothesis" ( a unproven idea. )

 

[HashiraMadara]

On the contrary human evolution has only accelerated since the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens and the diversity (subspecies) currently observed in our species would not exist had we stopped evolving.

The common ancestor of Europeans and East Asians lived about 41,000 years ago meaning that Europeans and East Asians are only 41,000 * years old compared to Africans, a subspecies more than 100,000 years old.

East Asians are an adaptation to cold. Their smaller bodies reduce their surface area to volume ratio thereby reducing heat-loss, as does the layer of subcutaneous fat that gives them their yellowish skin; their higher average metabolic rates (ever notice that East Asians put on weight harder than others?) allows for more heat production while the epicanthic fold (the anatomical feature that gives them their eye shape) is protective of the eyes against icy winds.

Europeans surprisingly are more of an adaptation to very low levels of sunlight than cold – while prehistorical Europe was a relatively cold place it was nothing compared to the area East of Russia that the ancestors of East Asians likely evolved in which is why Europeans did not evolve the foregoing anatomical adaptations they did. On the other hand the very low levels of annual sunlight in Northern Europe selected for very light skin colour and even selected for the mutations for light hair and eyes when they appeared (to make vitamin D, the body requires sunlight which melanin attenuates – so the darker your skin, the harder it is to make vitamin D given any constant exposure to sunlight).

*

You must be registered for see links

I believe right there is ignorance:

subspecies
ˈsʌbspiːʃiːz,ˈsʌbspiːʃɪz,ˈsʌbspiːsiːz/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g. (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris crassa.

 

[Narushima]

I believe right there is ignorance:

subspecies
ˈsʌbspiːʃiːz,ˈsʌbspiːʃɪz,ˈsʌbspiːsiːz/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g. (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris crassa.

The races of man did fit that criteria (complete geographic isolation) perfectly until a few thousand years ago, which is how they came to evolve in the first place. The invention of transport systems that made possible realistic movement of masses of people across significant distance (the chariot was the first) doesn't render the subspecies taxonomy incorrect anymore than moving a few subspeces of fish into the same fish tank suddenly make their subspecies categorization invalid.

 

[Umari Senju]

We didn't stop, we still are, hence why (european have wet ear vax while asian's and africans don't) there are minor gene changes in every new baby that is born, eventually those changes can have changes on a species as a hole if it spreads enough.



Actually it is, or don't you believe in the germ theory or the theory of gravity?

the word theory does not mean the same thing when it's used in science and when it's use by none scientists.

the word scientists use when talking about a laymans "theory is the word "hypothesis" ( a unproven idea. )

It's still inconclusive because we are missing a few specific limks along the evolutionary chain. This is why it is still a theory, not because I'm religious (I'm not)

When (not if) those missing pieces of the puzzle are found and the evolutionary line is updated and presented then we can stop calling it a theory.

 

[HashiraMadara]

The races of man did fit that criteria (complete geographic isolation) perfectly until a few thousand years ago, which is how they came to evolve in the first place. The invention of transport systems that made possible realistic movement of masses of people across significant distance (the chariot was the first) doesn't render the subspecies taxonomy incorrect anymore than moving a few subspeces of fish into the same fish tank suddenly make their subspecies categorization invalid.

Nope, races of mankind would fit if it existed taxonomy ranking below even subspecies. The most bare differences lie in endocrine system at best. The rest are negligible.

 

[Cornson]

It's still inconclusive because we are missing a few specific limks along the evolutionary chain.

there will always be missing links, every single generation is a link to the privious and the next generation, and the fossilization process is rare, it only happens under very specific surcomstances, there are trillion of missing links.

This is why it is still a theory

The heory of evolution is a proven fact, just like the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not flat, we have more evidence for evolution that we have for all the other theories combined, yet i don't see you claiming the theory of gravity is wrong.

not because I'm religious (I'm not)

you religion or lack there of does not change the fact that evolution is true, and you claiming it's just a theory just proves that you are ignorent on the subject.

When (not if) those missing pieces of the puzzle are found and the evolutionary line is updated and presented then we can stop calling it a theory.

you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Umari Senju]

there will always be missing links, every single generation is a link to the privious and the next generation, and the fossilization process is rare, it only happens under very specific surcomstances, there are trillion of missing links.

Spoiler

The heory of evolution is a proven fact, just like the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not flat, we have more evidence for evolution that we have for all the other theories combined, yet i don't see you claiming the theory of gravity is wrong.



you religion or lack there of does not change the fact that evolution is true, and you claiming it's just a theory just proves that you are ignorent on the subject.



you don't know what you are talking about.

Evolution is considered both Fact and theory. I'd go into more detail but I'd end up creating a wall of text.

I'm not being ignorant about anything. You're just being stubborn.

And you speak as if I don't believe in evolution. I do. All I'm stating is that some of the reasons it is called a theory are very reasons you yourself just stated.

That doesn't mean there isn't evidence to back up it's undenying existence.

Again i am not against the evolution theory.