NationStates Jolt Archive

recently there has been a lot of huff about darwin theory of evolution and how the american government is rejecting it because it basically says god=impssible. since evolution would naturally take tens of thousands of years to get anywhere i was wondering if anyone had any scientific of modern day evolution within the human race, say from 4000BC to today.

the only thing i have found to support this is the fairly recent increase in so called psychopaths. these people often have very few moral values and cant tell whats morally right from morally wrong. These people are usually abnormally intellegent and above average in physical size and strength.

i was thinking about how many times human emotions and morals have held us back, whether it be cloning or something like a large scale invasion, then i realised that it might just be possible that these people are the next step in the chain, making arguably the 'perfect' soldiers and politicians. surely you would rather you life depend your life on someone who would not think twice about shooting someone percieved to be 'the enemy' or depend your life on the persuasion skills of someone capable of lying through their teeth to get the job done. it has been noticed that these peoples brains function differently in a physical way, so this could be possible. maybe evolution is trying to find an equilibrium with morals that will emphasise instincts and survival but eliminate the possibility of us simply killing ourselves off.

surely such biological advances could drastically improve scientific breakthroughs in areas such as cloning or the 'removal' of others to succeed.

i am looking at the physical embodyment of characters such as Agent 47 in the hitman games or a type of future similar to that of the film Equilibrium.

if there is aything noticeable that as changed since 4000BC, such as longer incisors or increased cranial capacity, it would support the above.

if there is aything noticeable that as changed since 4000BC, such as longer incisors or increased cranial capacity, it would support the above.

we have less hair

I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe that morals were ever involved in the evolutionary development of humans. I think the fact that morality is so varied across the human race shows that.

What was a part of the human development was the power to reason and understand the feelings of other people. When we developed a sense of self, we also became able to project ourselves into other situations, which gave us the power to sympathize, and from that we draw our morality.

we have less hair
This not being due to evolution, but due to the lack of selective pressure based on the resistence against low temperatures.

This not being due to evolution, but due to the lack of selective pressure based on the resistence against low temperatures.

Um, hate to break it to you, but natural selection is the essence of evolutionary theory.

recently there has been a lot of huff about darwin theory of evolution and how the american government is rejecting it because it basically says god=impssible. since evolution would naturally take tens of thousands of years to get anywhere i was wondering if anyone had any scientific of modern day evolution within the human race, say from 4000BC to today.
The US government does not reject evolution. Some members of the public and school boards have asked that evolution not be taught. Unsuccesfully in most places.

Why since 4000BC? That was just 6000 years ago. Is it because you really don't understand evolution or because you have difficulty grasping the concept of 7 million years?
surely such biological advances could drastically improve scientific breakthroughs in areas such as cloning or the 'removal' of others to succeed.

i am looking at the physical embodyment of characters such as Agent 47 in the hitman games or a type of future similar to that of the film Equilibrium.

You know that's fiction, right? And therefore not suitable in an argument about evolution.

Anyway. There's not a higher number of psycopaths, or dements. Just more that can be identified. I don't think the number of intelligent people has varied much, except what can be accounted by nutrition and general health improvements. Society changes are not evolution.

So, no. The human beings haven't really changed that much in 6000 years, or 120,000 years. You have to go further than that.

if there is aything noticeable that as changed since 4000BC, such as longer incisors or increased cranial capacity, it would support the above.

*sigh* Not another one who believes the world was only six thousand years old. :headbang:

Just why don't you get it? Earth is *way older* than that! :mad:

Um, hate to break it to you, but natural selection is the essence of evolutionary theory.

Yeah, that was just my point:
I was taking about the LACK of selective pressure.

*sigh* Not another one who believes the world was only six thousand years old. :headbang:

Just why don't you get it? Earth is *way older* than that! :mad:

He was only asking about modern day humans, which he says (I don't know if he is right) appeared around 6000 years ago.

we have less hair
We're also taller, by-and-large.

Yeah, that was just my point:
I was taking about the LACK of selective pressure.

...which is simply the opposite of selective pressure.

He was only asking about modern day humans, which he says (I don't know if he is right) appeared around 6000 years ago.

Well, i can assure you he's wrong. Modern-day humans exist way longer than that. In fact, it's difficult where to set the border between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. The transition may have occured anywhere between 400,000 and 150,000 years ago. The oldest undisputed fossils of Homo sapiens from Africa are circa 120,000 years old.

Ummm lets see. Agreed that evolution normally takes place over the course of millions of years, but as humans we don't live that long and we tend to think of things on smaller time scales. So I think the shorter period (6000 years) is appropriate for the arguement. And yes the Earth is definatly older than that.
The whole less hair thing, I would agree humans have become less hairier, but that likely has to do with situational conditions. For instance, notice how there is much less hair below the sock line? The presence of clothing for long periods of time makes our bodies need less hair, so we have less. Without clothes we would likely have more hair. So no that is not evolution.
On a different note, it is well documented that over the course of the last 1000-2000 years (i.e. modern civilization) humans have been, on average getting taller. This could be seen as a small scale evolution in the human species, but I don't know what the purpose would be.
I'm sure that there are other examples of "sub-evolution" if you will, but its really not my concentration.

Well, i can assure you he's wrong. Modern-day humans exist way longer than that. In fact, it's difficult where to set the border between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. The transition may have occured anywhere between 400,000 and 150,000 years ago. The oldest undisputed fossils of Homo sapiens from Africa are circa 120,000 years old.

Well, I knew that homosapiens emerged far before that, but he is talking about modern times, since maybe civilization and maybe agriculture (10,000 BCE?).

i do not think that the earth is only 6000 years old, but that it would be impossible to obtain accurate records of humankind before 4000BC. this is approximately early egyptian times and is the start of rational thinking outside of the confies of blaming it on gods and spirits. at this point i think that the earliest of early prototypes for the theory of evolution could have arised.

@ 'the internet tough guy'

i see what you mean but there is still the debate of "do we naturally know morals or are we taught them", if they are somehow naturally embodied in us, such as the process of breathing or your operationg system on a computer. if so evolution could mess with the strength or amount of morals within a human being, it would be a lot less complicated than apes evolving into human and would take only a fraction of the time. because of this, i find people who hold on to strong traditions or religions have 'more' morals than the youth of today where anti-social behaviour is rising.

in the future the likelyhood is that pre-birth psychoconditioning would play a big part in our lives, or that in an attempt to speed up evolution we somehow genocide ourselves.

Ummm lets see. Agreed that evolution normally takes place over the course of millions of years, but as humans we don't live that long and we tend to think of things on smaller time scales. So I think the shorter period (6000 years) is appropriate for the arguement. And yes the Earth is definatly older than that.

Cockroaches have been around for something like 300 million years, and scorpions even longer than that. Both in pretty much the same shape they have now. Evolution is not a matter of how long a species lives or how complex it is. It is about adaptability to the environment, and for 120,000 years human kind has had very little need to adapt. 6,000 years is a blink of an eye.

On a different note, it is well documented that over the course of the last 1000-2000 years (i.e. modern civilization) humans have been, on average getting taller. This could be seen as a small scale evolution in the human species, but I don't know what the purpose would be.
That's not really evolution, but changes in nutrition. Better food means better body development during the growth years. It can be seen even in one single generation.

We are seeing an increase of hereditary problem because what used to kill an individual at an early age can be treated or cured now.

There hasn't been enough time to produce a different human specie.

@ 'the internet tough guy'

i see what you mean but there is still the debate of "do we naturally know morals or are we taught them", if they are somehow naturally embodied in us, such as the process of breathing or your operationg system on a computer. if so evolution could mess with the strength or amount of morals within a human being, it would be a lot less complicated than apes evolving into human and would take only a fraction of the time. because of this, i find people who hold on to strong traditions or religions have 'more' morals than the youth of today where anti-social behaviour is rising.

in the future the likelyhood is that pre-birth psychoconditioning would play a big part in our lives, or that in an attempt to speed up evolution we somehow genocide ourselves.

ITG is my puppet.

I don't believe that morals are innate in any way. I believe that certain psychological traits that can govern the development of morals are innate.

Now, I could see those psychological traits being molded in some ways, but I believe that natural pressures would push them towards being more submissive and conforming than anti-social.

anyone think- evolution is a process by which biological organisms adapt to their environments through natural selection. humans no longer adapt to their environments however, they adapt their environments to suit them. there are few ways that we could improve ourselves that we couldn't instead change our situation. we don't need to be physically stronger or more capable than we are because we have machines. we don't need to be any more logically intelligent because computers (any sort of computing device) can do anything we can faster and more efficient than us. the only monopoly we have is an emotional, spiritual monopoly- ability to sympathise etc, and ability for things like ESP and mysticism, which scientifically are mostly rejected. however, many say that is the next stage of human evolution, a heightened spirituality of a sort. the only other proposed steps forward are genetic mutations better adapted to specific roles in life, but don't humans deserve freedom? and the other proposal is the mind machine interface, combining the logical computing ability of machines with the humanistic emotions and morality of our brains. personally i prefer the spiritual mysticism- just because science is fact, doesn't mean to say we are nothingness; let science and religion be the same thing.

I do not know how you can say that we have become less hairy over the last 6000 years how can you tell we have no really evidence from that time of the hairness of people, you cannot tell by looking at skin or bones and there are very few bodies from that time with hair so how do we know we have become less hairy?

The gradualy growth of our species is probably less to do with any selective pressure for taller people but instead is due to gradually improving nutrition, the greatest periods of growth have occured during times when agricultural technologies have improved, and those in a socity that had better nutrition i.e royalty/priest/merchant etc tended to be taller than the rest.

What will have cahnge is the allele frequency of disease resistant genes. For example blood groups. Areas that were historically infected with typhoid have squed allele frequecies as do areas affected by the plague. We are probably on the surface level very similar to 'us' of 6000 years ago but is near impossible to tell how different we are underneth at a genetic level.

I thinks its important to point out that humans are evolving contstantly, its just that society tends to crush these tiny changes.Hospitals are a good example of society crushing evolutionary advances.

The US government does not reject evolution. Some members of the public and school boards have asked that evolution not be taught. Unsuccesfully in most places.

Why since 4000BC? That was just 6000 years ago. Is it because you really don't understand evolution or because you have difficulty grasping the concept of 7 million years?
surely such biological advances could drastically improve scientific breakthroughs in areas such as cloning or the 'removal' of others to succeed.



You know that's fiction, right? And therefore not suitable in an argument about evolution.

Anyway. There's not a higher number of psycopaths, or dements. Just more that can be identified. I don't think the number of intelligent people has varied much, except what can be accounted by nutrition and general health improvements. Society changes are not evolution.

So, no. The human beings haven't really changed that much in 6000 years, or 120,000 years. You have to go further than that.

I read somewhere that there have been significant changes in human phisiology since the neolithic revolution. Blood type A is most often present in people who are most well adapted to agrarian diets rich in grains, type B is well adjusted to dairy products and type O is most well suited to eating meat, fruit, and vegies, but not much grain or dairy.

These blood types are also most heavily concentrated in the regions that developed these diets. After all, you would probably be less likely to have kids with someone who's sickly and bleary eyed all the time because they can't digest wheat well, would you?

I thinks its important to point out that humans are evolving contstantly, its just that society tends to crush these tiny changes.Hospitals are a good example of society crushing evolutionary advances.

Not to mention conformity. Personality types that may have very many objective advantages might make reproduction prospects dismal if they get you a reputation as a non-conformist. That's where we get all of these primative painful manhood rituals like the Sundance, teenage circumcision, or waiting in line at the DMV.

These blood types are also most heavily concentrated in the regions that developed these diets. After all, you would probably be less likely to have kids with someone who's sickly and bleary eyed all the time because they can't digest wheat well, would you?
Well, yes. And we can also mention skin color (white skin allows more light through to produce vitamin E, black skin protects against ultraviolet rays), epicanthic fold in Asians and other such changes, which evidence evolution. But nothing really too wild or enough to diferentiate us much.

More to the point, nothing that signals to a trend towards future physiology.

More to the point, nothing that signals to a trend towards future physiology.As a species, we're too comfortable. What we need (for certain values of 'need') is something that means that being human as we know it isn't particularly ideal.

With a huge, sloshing mix of 'normal' genes swamping most of the 'civilised' world's gene-pool, we're not moving far as a species, though outliers (e.g. those living in remote mountain regions) might well be developing local traits (for the e.g., better oxygen extraction from the air, beyond that which can be developed by a low-lier even acclimatising from youth).

Human evolution will still happen, but the direction is not clear. It hasn't been long enough to develop specific advantages in the industrial world (never mind the information age), the best localised adaptations we have (now intermixing and losing their definition) are dietry ones based on the historic agricultures of the regions and skin colour based on the geographical aspect of ancestry, both of which have been mentioned. Isolated populations (somtimes by distance, sometimes by tradition) have developed facial characteristics that probably don't give advantage, but are an example of some minor trait pervading the population concerned (e.g. the oriental eyes, Jewish nose, Eskimo/Inuit/whatever rounded face (though that latter may be environmentally beneficial), and what differentiates 'average north-European' from everyone I wouldn't know, because that's virtually all I personally see and it gets buried within the various other variations you get...) without much of a particular advantage, though would be developed in tandem with a propensity (perhaps cultural, perhaps 'mildly' genetic?) to mate with those with such features...

If the human race (or parts of it) get fragmented and isolated for a few millenia under extreme conditions (from surviving pockets of population after a nuclear war to long-term extra-solar expeditionary 'generation ships' and extra-solar colonies, depending on your optimism for the human race) then you never know what might cme along.

The only current pressure I can think of is of AIDs in the 'developing' world. Unlike in the 'west', where AIDS is not yet pandemic and sufferers are discouraged (or not even inclined) to attempt to procreate, it is possible that genes which mitigate HIV/AIDS (much as exist in chimps for SIV) can give some sufferers and their offspring an advantage (though I admit it's a big step that allows a new-born infant to be resistant until age of sexual maturity) and spawn germ-lines of AIDS-survivors (or at least 'tolerators'). The numbers of infected persons are too high at the moment, but if (and I'm not wishing this on anyone) populations and the possibility of viral inter-transmission reduce significantly, a less damaging version of AIDS might indeed evolve (as a form that does not kill its carrier population within a couple of generations) and 'assist' the leap by the tolerant-tendencied population to develop full-resistance (though carriers).

That'd take many generations though, with many wasted lives while it happens, and isn't the most appealing situation to predict a trend for. (Even assuming that the generations survive all the other inflicted disasters - natural, humanitarian and military - that tend to sweep the same regions...)


I personally think that the conditions that will dictate the future direction of humanity hasn't happened yet, but might be based upon one of the many things we are inadvertantly doing to the planet. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 'Greeny', but it's just the most likely outcome of the present extrapolated...)

Evolution happens everytime a baby is born. There has been a trend toward increased height in the US for the last several generations. It's not something that has to be noticeable or special, it's just the effect of population trends over time.

He was only asking about modern day humans, which he says (I don't know if he is right) appeared around 6000 years ago.

The Homo Sapiens Sapiens (or modern day human, if you want) appeared around 300,000 years ago. 6000 years ago, the Egyptian culture was emerging... Just to get the time frame right

Evolution happens everytime a baby is born. There has been a trend toward increased height in the US for the last several generations. It's not something that has to be noticeable or special, it's just the effect of population trends over time.Just to head off the initial objections of non-evolutionists, mutation may occur in the development of that baby and may produce an advantagous trait present in that baby's genes, but until he grows to maturity and engages in his own baby-making then the human race has just one example and has not 'developed' because of it. Even then, the race as a whole (the true entirity of the species including the misnomered 'races' that are negroid, mongloid, caucasian, etc) has two, three, possibly a double-figures number of examples (if our 'Adam' was particularly broad in the spreading of his seed) and there'd still be very little advance from Homo Sapiens to Homo Futurist.

Evolution is about the changes in the allelle frequencies throughout the entire given population, and it'd take several (even many) generations for the beneficial genes to cascade into any significant proportion of the currently extant population, so I''d hold off on saying "evolution" occurs as every baby is born (conceived, even) but otherwise agree that with every infant exhibiting 'genetic drift', the evolutionary status of the human race may indeed be moved along an essentially smooth continuum between "what we were then" and "what we will become", albeit in a 'drunkards-walk' manner.


I don't think we can differentiate any genetic tendencies towards height (the only selection pressures I can imagine are the social ones that can be crudely and over-generalised as"no-one dates a short-arse") compared with diety improvements.

Certainly "the last few generations" haven't been enough to mix a 'height' gene throughout the population of the US (unless Kinsey and the sexual revolution of the seventies were more prevalent throughout middle-class America than anyone cares to believe ;)) although I'll grant you that a tendency in the various 'founding fathers' might well be pretty prevalent throughout a lot of the population. What you need to do is look and see if Afro-American populations (with a very low incidence of "white man's genes" within their society, and any that exists being quite diluted after generations of externally and self-imposed segregation) have or lack the same tendency to height (cross-referenced with the relative poverty indexes, because poor diet might yet be a factor) and maybe check some modern-living yet near-as-dammit pure-bred Native Americans for the same tendencies...

[edit: I forgot to say... I'm British, we also have had an increase in height, as have most 'western' countries and possibly some of the others, and the increase tends to mirror the improvement in diet (particularly post-war) and come about too suddenly to imagine that a tendency to genetic height increase is the factor, even if you stipulate the simultaneous spontaneous creation of heightening tendencies in the centres of various geographic/social population centres...]

We can observe evolutionary adaptation in (as previously mentioned) high-altitude communities, virtually isolated from the rest of the world for quite long periods (and even now, apart from the occasional tourist/explorer) who have developed more efficient oxygen utilisation techniques for the thin air as a number of generations in a small group allowed those with more succesful in that field to permeate their genetic tendencies wider. Not as yet a new species of human and barely a new 'race' (in the incorrect way it is applied to global populations) from their low-land neighbours, but an indication of inherited tendencies wending their way along a path that might (in certain largely unforeseeable circumstanes) result in Homo Altitudiness (or whatever) being developed, as long as the modern world and increased genetic transmission throughout the peoples of the world don't dilute the tendency in the next millenium or thirty...

Evolution happens everytime a baby is born. There has been a trend toward increased height in the US for the last several generations. It's not something that has to be noticeable or special, it's just the effect of population trends over time.

Well, actually, the question is if that's really evolution. Because, it may just as likely be linked to better nutrition. If however there was also some genetic background behind the phenomenon, i'd agree that it is an evolutionary process.

the only thing i have found to support this is the fairly recent increase in so called psychopaths. these people often have very few moral values and cant tell whats morally right from morally wrong. These people are usually abnormally intellegent and above average in physical size and strength.

If you put a rat population (mankind) in a confined space (earth) and let them breed (look at man's development over the last 250 years only) then one of the factors creating those "psychos" is simply stress because there is not enough "private space".


if there is aything noticeable that as changed since 4000BC, such as longer incisors or increased cranial capacity, it would support the above.

Cranial capacity did increase over a couple of million years - the time span between now and the last Ice Age is not long enough to even tell people from then and now apart (well except for their clothing and maybe resilience towards the natural environment).

Since the Middle Ages (more due to progress in producing foodstuff and advances in medicine) the human body is increasing in two values:
life expectancy and body height.

Other than that - with an increasing number to draw examples from, more derivations are encountered at the same time which would have occured sort of one at the time ever once in a while.

Edit:
Last thought: With "civilization" and "culture" dragging along even those not fit to provide for themselves (*), the effects of natural selection as seen in "survival of the fittest" are oftentimes more or less cancelled, thus turning most of humankind into a bunch of softies and allergical delicate creatures.
Most of that is due to technical developments without any knowledge of their aftereffects.

(*) which is what I call moral decency and I'm all for it!

If you put a rat population (mankind) in a confined space (earth) and let them breed (look at man's development over the last 250 years only) then one of the factors creating those "psychos" is simply stress because there is not enough "private space".

Well, we had two world wars, so much for psychos...

Some morals are built in, we inherted them from our ancestors because that it made it easier for a social animal to survive in a group, but a lot of morals are based on individual experiences. The Earth is billions of years old and we have traits that would have taken millions of years to evolve after we split from our ape-like ancestors. There is nothing in the Bible which says you must ignore any advances in human knowledge which conflict with what is written in Genesis.

Ok, the most recent mistake made here was the thinly veiled notion that external factors, like diet, aren't influences on evolution. Part of the reason human beings haven't changed much as compared to a certain moth (can't remember the name) in England is because we're already very adaptable. Like someone else mentioned before me. We adapt our environment to our needs. Evolution isn't something that's readily visible over a generation or two. At the very least, one would have to look at millions of years to see a remarkable difference between antecedents and descendants. However, within the human genome the only things we have to point to is the idea that people have been getting bigger. Consider the 1860's. Abraham Lincoln was considered freakishly tall at 6'7". In fact, his features denote he may have had the genetic condition of giantism. The average height of men of his day was well under 6'. Now, it isn't entirely uncommon to see men 6'+. Perhaps this is partially due to diet, but it's also a tendency demonstrated by recombinant DNA. The next question should be: How much does our artificially-created environment play a factor? We may or may not be surprised that the average intelligence of our population seems to be growing. Is it a result of easier access to more information, or is it because smarter people are breeding more? The only reason why we know about greater numbers of stupid people is because of the aforementioned access more information. On the other hand, a not-so-positive statistic which we keep hearing about is the increase in obesity rates among children. Our social environment has created lots of ways for our children to engage their brains without engaging their bodies. Active play is now something that requires scheduling instead of just sending kids outside to play. These are evolutionary steps, believe it or not.

Well, we had two world wars, so much for psychos...

Actually, WW1 took only place in Europe and around the Mediterranean (the few fights that took part in the African colonies cannot even be considered battles!).

WW2 did include Europe and Asia, but to be able to call something a "real" Worldwide War, fighting would have to take place on all continents.

Even during WW2, North & South America as well as most of Africa and Downunder were not really involved!

Edit:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413219

Edit 2:
Another thought: I like to tease vegetarians that they only developed their conscious decision not to eat meat because "back then" mankind started adding animal protein to their diet!

Actually, WW1 took only place in Europe and around the Mediterranean (the few fights that took part in the African colonies cannot even be considered battles!).

WW2 did include Europe and Asia, but to be able to call something a "real" Worldwide War, fighting would have to take place on all continents.

Even during WW2, North & South America as well as most of Africa and Downunder were not really involved!

Edit:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413219

See, that's why I tend to call WW1 "the great war" (gotta love the brits sometimes).

But most people I know call it WW1, and consider it a world war. Personally I consider the oversea action as colonial warfare (technically the French and British fights in America would qualify as world war then as well...)

But well, we have a nice ammount of psychos, and now we're at 6,000,000,000+ people... Ow...

The whole less hair thing, I would agree humans have become less hairier, but that likely has to do with situational conditions. For instance, notice how there is much less hair below the sock line? The presence of clothing for long periods of time makes our bodies need less hair, so we have less. Without clothes we would likely have more hair. So no that is not evolution.


Actually... that IS evolution... but not a commonly accepted mechanism. I believe this 'theory' of evolution was called Lamarckism - the concept that we acquire situational characteristics, and pass them on to our young.

Evidence suggests that this is not a probable mechanism.

May have come up already... I speed-read the last couple of posts.
How about shoe size over the last few years?? The young generation supposedly have larger feet!

Humans would have to be isolated for tens of thousands of years, for a trait to manifest itself and spread throughout the population. If the population could still mix with the main population, the trait could spread to the entire human race if the contact between populations was reestablished. Because of globalization and all that no population will be cut off and evolution is almost impossible. The high and increasing standard of living (diet, healthcare, silicone implants, dyeing of hair, etc.) will remove all natural selection and thus the only likely evolution will towards be a genome full of genetic disorders. The only solution is genetic engineering.

I don't understand why people seem to think that religion and science (particularly evolution) is incompatible. Many famous scientists were also religious (Eistein for one).

Why do people take the Bible literally, particularly Genesis? Why can they understand that the story in Genesis is a creation story, just like creation stories from ancient cultures everywhere in the world, where people tried to understand the world around them the best that they could. Just like Rainbow serpent stories in Australian aboriginal culture, or dragons in Chinese mythology, or Titans in Greek mythology. With the knowledge that science gives us, we should be able to see now that the creation story in the Bible is not factual, and not to be taken literally.

Ok. A lot of what people are giving as examples are not really evolution. A person being less hairy has been pointed out to be an adaptation. Someone might say that adaptation is the key to evolution, but that's just a theory, not proof of evolution. It's circular logic. Adaptation is the key to survival of species and that's proven. A fact. A couple more facts for you to consider:

Bowling Green University has been running a fruit fly breeding program. Lots and lots of generations in a contained environment for YEARS. Result? No mutations discovered in all those generations.

The result of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a lot of people with thousands of genetic defects. It's a lot of where all our data on radiation exposure comes from. Out of 70,000 children of those people exposed, not one had a genetic defect attributed to radiation exposure. All the mutations were cancelled out within one generation.

Results...inconclusive. *shrugs*

The result of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a lot of people with thousands of genetic defects. It's a lot of where all our data on radiation exposure comes from. Out of 70,000 children of those people exposed, not one had a genetic defect attributed to radiation exposure. All the mutations were cancelled out within one generation.

What's the point you're trying to make? In order for genetic defects to be passed on to the next generation they have to be present in the germ cells. One exposed to radiation could have completly different defects from their offspring.

What's the point you're trying to make? In order for genetic defects to be passed on to the next generation they have to be present in the germ cells. One exposed to radiation could have completly different defects from their offspring.
*sighs* :rolleyes:

What's the point you're trying to make? In order for genetic defects to be passed on to the next generation they have to be present in the germ cells. One exposed to radiation could have completly different defects from their offspring.

Heh, besides, you can't expect comic-style mutant superheroes come from radiogenic mutation. :D

I don't understand why people seem to think that religion and science (particularly evolution) is incompatible. Many famous scientists were also religious.

It's not. Take for example Deism (or look it up in wikipedia). They believe in a creator God, and they firmly believe in a God of Nature. What they do not believe in is "the intervening God", one who actively changes things on earth.

They also believe that the study of science is to get to know God closer, thus they payed reverance to Him that way.