Nialler

I've been asked by a fundie for examples of evolution in humans and whether any adaptations are visible over the last 3,500 years.

Now, I'm aware from some studies and from other anecdotal evidence (the greater width of boats which Eton was forced to adopt because of the increasing size of their crews), but I know that a lot of this will be out down to better diet etc.

I'm wary of assuming any major adaptations in such a short timespan in any event.

What is the biologists' position on this question?

Camaban

None serious.

we've been more or less static for at least 50k years (look at Australian Aborigines... the only two differences I've seen is skin colour, and slightly different nose shape (in general)).

what the fundy thinks is that evolution is something that *must* continually happen to *all* species. when there are many species that it's barely touched for tens of thousands, or even tens of millions of years.

I'm pretty sure that sharks are more or less unchanged, as an example. (more or less)

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Nialler

Thanks, Camaban.

pz

I disagree! Humans are currently evolving at a fairly rapid rate. The difficulty to the creationist mind is that all of the evolution is on a molecular level, within populations -- and what they want to hear about is individuals giving birth to four-armed babies or kids with beaks.

I would also disagree that sharks have been static. Look at existing species and those in the fossil record: there is a great diversity of form.

Peregrine

I agree with pz, human evolution is continuing. The issue is that the Human species is very young and there is a very small variation within the gene pool. As the species ages the variation will increase. And as the variance increases, environmental changes will have a greater and more visible impact on the population.

Biff the unclean

Human evolution seems to be very rapid.
Creationists keep asking for the intermediate (baby) steps in human evolution and they are right in front of our eyes. I noticed on the bus this morning that I was surrounded by people of many different races. But I could tell, just by looking at them, what area their ancestors evolved in. And I could tell with tremendous precision. For instance I could tell by just a glance at their faces whose ancestors came from Ireland and whose from Italy and whose from France. Geographically very close, with separations from a common gene pool being 3500 years or less-hardly any time at all.
If you spend any time in the Polynesia you quickly learn to tell the islands of peoples origins at a glance. There is no mistaking a Hawaiian from a Samoan, based only on their physical appearance. Their stocks would have diverged less than 1000 years ago-only yesterday.
Fundies will scream "Racism!" if you even dare mention this. But the minor, though easily recognized, physical differences in people living in different areas shows that we are (or- rather were-since we are no longer really separated) evolving towards separate species. We just haven't moved far enough from basic human stock for the differences to be substantive yet.

AbbyNormal

I really can not concieve why this would be considered racism. Racism is based on the premise that one ethnic group is intrinisically superior to some other group. Noticing the differences in physical traits is not a judgement of character, it is a statement of fact.

Fundies can be so strange... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

KC

Why 3,500 years? Is that Post-Flood? I thought the Flood was 4500 years or so ago.

Cheers,

KC

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

I think it has more to do with the time that they have been living there.

Neruda

One example of recent human evoluton is that our jaws are shrinking. This is why a lot of people need their wisdom teeth pulled.