But that is an evolutionary change though. A change in diet would lead cause an evolutionary change.

"Where did morals come from if not from God?"

I think morals did come from God. I think without morals there would be total anarchy.

Morals are defined as "Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good"

I think The Ten Commandments are a list of morals. Morals are also taught in the Old Testament. I think morals encompass more than just the decision to be clothed or not be clothed.

Changing of traits IS EVOLUTION. Just because it's caused by food and diet doesn't mean it's not evolution.

OK I will give you half credit for that one. But that means when I was leaving in Georgia I evolved to be able to live there and when I moved to Utah I evolved to live there.

Evolution is changes (mutations in layman's terms) in one's DNA over several generations that enable an organism to live better in it's environment. Evolution like you are describing it , and evolution in general, CANNOT happen multiple times like this to one individual. Humans can control their environment to the point where we no longer change because of nature. We evolve because of our own technology, not because our natural environment changes. It takes MANY GENERATIONS in order for a trait to be passed down and become common if it is beneficial to the organism. Changes in diet were obviously beneficial for early humans, so OVER SEVERAL GENERATIONS (some theorize as little as several hundred years) the facial structure of individuals will change. Teeth, however, are one of the slowest changing traits of any organism. They take thousands of years to change as opposed to hundreds of years (this being the extreme of course) for facial features. Moving from Georgia to Utah doesn't change how you live. You still live in a house, with technology and as much food as you need. You eat relatively the same food in Utah as you do in Georgia. Not to be rude, but I don't think you know how evolution actually occurs if you think this is how it happens, Daniel. It takes a major change in diet to change the structure of an organism, and these new traits will only be passed on if they are BENEFICIAL to the organism. If they're not beneficial, then the organism is less likely to find a mate to pass on the traits with. Changing states is not a dramatic change in environment (nothing really is [sans moving to the desert or mountains, etc with nothing more than the clothes on your back] because of how humans control their personal environments) and WILL NOT cause a human to change genetically.

Then why are the japaneese taller if that kind of evolution takes generations?

Japanese and other Asians "seemed" to get taller in the 20th Century because, through trade, they were able to get more protein in their diets. Consider that a first generation Asian in America seems to be shorter. Their American-born progeny will often become taller. It's just the protein and calcium in the diet what helps build muscle and bone. Consider that until the past forty or so years, most Asian cultures (especially poor Asians) subsisted on rice and rice alone (sometimes vegetables), but not a lot of meat and cows milk. International trade has radically shifted this scenario and improved nutrician...

Were they taller as an entire population, or just as certain individuals (sited chart if you could)? Marrying with caucasians could cause them to become taller too (don't know if that happened though). Height is controlled by genetics, and doesn't have a whole lot to do with evolution. Individuals can be taller than other individuals of their same species, but unless the actual allele changes, they're not evolving.

I can't site a chart, I heard this on a news program like ten years ago.

They were talking how the Japanese were having to redesign their houses and buildings because the kids were now too tall for them. The only change cited was the change in food. From rice and fish to beef.

That is different. Protein in the diet helps growth when younger when not enough protein is in the diet growth is suppressed. This is not an evolutionary change, it is reaching their growth potential. It is different.

.

The only group of people in the world were they hieght is determined by genetics are the pygmies in africa. This is due to a genetic defect and interbredding.

Clear proof that we are still subject to evolution.

how so the pygmies have been around for hundreds of years too. And a genetic defect is not evolution.

Actually it is part of evolution.

Changes in genetic structure is what evolution is. If those changes are beneficial, the organism passes them down more easily, thusly leading to a change in the entire population which can cause a new species to form. If the pygmies continue to interbreed they could very well be a new species in a few hundred, or more likely thousand, years.

OK so altimers(spell check) is evolution and we should stop trying to fix it.

Even if they are not beneficial they can be passed on. Just so long as they are not fatal.

In the wild people with altzeimers would die, so the defect would be irradicated, but people have medical houses to put these people in so they can live their lives. We change evolution by allowing people with genetic "defects" to live and reproduce. If we were in the wild, these people would die, so evolution would be driven by beneficial traits, not because we take pity on the disabled people.

Except the dease hits after said person is old and after he/she has passed on the defect. Also we started using disabled people for babysitting jobs if they were capable.

That is irrelevant because in the pre-civilization era humans rarely lived to be old enough to actually suffer through Alzheimer's. Most would die a gruesome death through accidents or other diseases, until the immune system had mutated enough to cope with that disease, and on and on and on.

Yep. I'm fairly certain the average life span of early humans was no more than 35-40 years on average. That's why girls menstruate so early. They needed to be able to give birth to and raise children before they died in merely a few decades. Their 15 is our 40, so to speak.

So, what you’re saying is that if you find that god does not exist, that you go off and start killing people, stealing, and just pretty much be an all around bad person?

This scares the sh** out of me.

They do, and they have. Go read about it or something. And watch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

there is proof all over the internet but im lazy so go look it up yourself

Height is an example of gene-environment interaction. Meaning your environment controls expression of genes, in this case growth regulators. The end all to say all of ones height however, is controlled by ones genes. Even in gene-environment interactions, genes get the final say.

There is not defects in evolution, there simply is traits that increase/decrease or don't change ones reproductive fitness. Alzheimer's isn't/wasn't "weeded" out b/c for most of human history (still today actually) the onset of Alzheimer's occurs after the reproductive phase of ones life.

actually yes a defect isnt evolution but also a defect may not be a defect because thats how we see it but to may people it could be an upgrade

Genetics is important in determining the height of anybody, anytime, anywhere. All you have to do is note that tall parents have tall kids and short parents have short kids. You can get a lot fancier and build regression models that predict kids' heights based on parents' heights, but that simple observation shows the genetics link.

BTW: The name of the statistical "regression" process derives from a study of heights of parents predicting heights of kids. It was noted that the heights of the offspring had a tendency to "regress" toward a central estimate. Dovetails very nicely with the Central Limit Theorem from calculus.
Doug

Sickle cell anemia is evidence humans are still evolving. The malaria parasite provides a strong selective pressure for individuals who are heterozygous carriers of the disease, b/c being a carrier gives one resistance to malaria. So with evolutionary theory we would make the prediction that in areas of the world where malaria is rampant, we would expect there to be a higher number of carriers for SCA.

Its unfeasible to run genetic tests on that many people, so we can make another prediction based upon evolutionary theory and genetic inheritance; In areas of the world where there are many carriers of SCA, we would expect there to be a high percentage of the population who are homozygous for SCA.

Both these predictions turn out to be true. In evolutionary theory we call this heterozygote advantage and it is a great example of balancing selection.

Now that we are on the verge of controlling malaria (if we can actually do it over a large area for a long time), evolution will take a new turn: with the gene no longer providing protection from malaria, cycle-cell will slowly eliminate the double-recessive people from the population. This is about a 25% breeding advantage. In the absence of malaria, it won't take long to wipe out those who carry the gene.

And that is human evolution.
Doug

hey doug!! how many words was that?

lol

There is no such thing as a "defect" in nature. There are things that work and things that don't. Nothing more. Some "defects" (like the cycle-cell gene you mentioned) provide survival advantages under some circumstances (like under malaria attack). The pygmies' small stature is a definite advantage to people living in dense forest (I was a forester for 30+ years and I'm 6'1" and 240 pounds, so I know about the advantage the little guys have in the brush.). And if the genetic characteristic persists from generation to generation, a genetic change has occurred in the population and that is the very definition of evolution.


On the subject of Alzheimer's: it is caused by an "improper" folding of a protein. An alternate folding pattern is like an alternate crystal form of other substances. The "improper" form is biologically inactive; the substance can't be metabolyzed. It just accumulates in the brain where it eventually interferes with nerve function. This is not a directly-inherited condition (The gene that codes for the protein has no control over which form it will take.). I don't konw if there is an indirect genetic influence on the process, but the folding, itself, is not under genetic control, and so, is not "evolution."
Doug

81, counting my name and the two hyphenated words as two each. Doug

A very good point. To add to that, the beneficialness of genes are time/place dependent. What is or isn't a beneficial gene depends upon the environment in which it arose. The combination of genes that cause pygmies to be small flourishes in areas where pygmies live. But put into another environment, such as grass land habitat, the combination of genes may be huge loss to fitness. When talking about genes, remember its also contextual to the population in which they arose as well. In one species a gene to eat larger seeds may make them flourish, while in another species it may prove lethal.

ok i admit was rude of me

If you don't want to hear a number, don't ask a biometrician a question. I just had a good equation for breakfast.

Even in professional meetings, us biometricians are regarded as some sort of alchemists with magic formulas and potions, maybe a little bit dangerous, something good people should avoid.
Doug

That was a little rude.

i totaly admit it was im sorry kinda was in class and really thats not what i was going to write. i was going to say wow 81 still not 40 if you guys remember my last post to doug. i left the comp logged on and i just got on now to find a message so i wanted to correct this error sorry. you all know that not like me sorry doug

No appology needed. I got a good laugh out of it. Doug

no dude if i knew it was there i would have apoligized