shiyacic aleksandar wrote:Humans were always humans whatever the bodies in the past,which were probable not as perfect as nowadays...How will it be in the future?
Well, we won't change, in the foreseeable future unless some major disaster happens to destroy society.
One of the major definitions of evolution is change through natural selection. And in our case, there is none. We have separated ourselves from natural selection.
We control our surrounding environment. Don't like a forest? Cut it down. Don't like the heat? Turn on the air conditioning. Not enough water? Irrigate. Don't like the cold. Turn on the central heating.
Whatever nature does to change our environment, we will find a way to change our surroundings so we don't have to adapt biologically to any changes. This is the gift and curse of technology.
The problem with Creationists is that they don't see a link between microevolution and macroevolution and do not realise that the definition of species was given by a human.
If small changes can happen, why not big changes? The process of microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same, except the latter results in new species. Microevolution does happen. We have evidence for it.
Macroevolution has also been documented to happen, albeit in insects and plants and those animals with short gestation times and short life spans.
The only reason the average laymen does not see evidence is that most scientific evidence is posted in scientific journals, which you have to pay for, and the subscription costs are something the average laymen would not want to pay.
Breakthroughs happen in science all the time. It's just that most breakthroughs are so specific to a certain subject, that most laymen wouldn't understand it if it were printed in the newspapers.
Take this recent article on evolution, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15981200&query_hl=1
Can you make head or tail out of that?
It's evidence for evolution, albeit for sea creatures, and chances are if you don't know anything about sea squirts or even genetics, you aren't going to know what the Heck they're talking about.
I don't know what they're talking about, although I do know that the Pax genes are involved in muscle and neurone development. (I used to work on Pax3, a gene involved in the development of muscle).
Evolution is being proved bit by bit through genetics, but because even in a simple organism such as yeast there's thousands of genes to sift through, each of which creates protein products that may interact with other genes or other proteins, most evidence you get is so specific and "small part of the picture" that no one without a background in that scientific discipline will understand what it means.
Notice how Creationists tend to be mostly religious people and almost never biological scientists? They are the ones that cannot understand the scientific evidence because it uses all sorts of strange jargon and gene names. Not understanding the proof is equal to not having proof.
Of course, I can't blame Creationists for having their point of view. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't say evolution is more correct than Creationism.
It's bewildering, you know. Even I can't keep up with what's going on in evolutionary science. It's difficult to find a study on evolution, because it's all genetics now and the word evolution is being bandied about too often. There's protein evolution, directed evolution of proteins... actually, now that I think about it... the word 'evolution' is used a lot in proteomics...
Also for misspelling the name of the god Speciation who, as we all know, is not responsible for any of this. :wink:
