I know there was just a thread about it, im starting another because of an article i read. Most of the people on the other thread were mainly on the sid ethat humans were done evolving physicaly, but suposobly that is not the case. They say humans are next going to be losing their little toes. or atleast decreasing in size, due to the fact that we do not rely on them as much because we wear shoes so often. So many people are being born with significantly reduced nail size on their small toe, or even no toe nail at all. This could obviously be very bad for future generations due to the fact that we need our little toes for balance when walking barefoot. I know this for a fact because i know somebody that has lost their small toe in an accident, and cannot walk without help. What do you guys think of this? Are the future humans fucked when walking barefoot? Also, i beleive eventualy there will be no difference in racial color or distinctions. I beleive we will eventually just melt into one human race if we are still moving at the pace we are moving with the blending of cultures and constant migration between areas.
Nicely said; before someone tries to misrepresent one of your words, I have one comment... "trying random things to see what works" Christian fundamentalists in the US very often jump on the word "random" (or any synonym) and flatly misrepresent what's said about the "random" aspect of evolution. They often say that the "theory of evolution" is the belief that we are the result of mere randomness. They may say "dump a ton of car parts from a plane and see if they randomly assemble themselves into a car." While there is some "randomness" (maybe the music term "aleatory" is closer, since only certain facets are random?) in what genes end up being "tested for survivability," there's nothing random at all about which survive in the environment into which they fell. Chance is a factor, but it's not the engine that drives the process... at least as I understand it. I find myself intrigued with Dawkins's view of evolution, with selection at the gene level rather than at the level of the individual. That's something I can understand while reading, but which I haven't fully digested just yet. As a fossil collector, I've even had people stop their pickup trucks at a roadcut to ask if I believe in evolution, so I try to stay "practiced" at discussing it.
Excellent point. Another word fundamentalists jump on you mentioned, too, the word "theory" -- they complain that we teach evolution in schools despite the fact that it's a mere hypothesis or "guess". It's actually not a "theory" in that sense...it's just that science has a tendency to view everything as tentative, since it could potentially be proven incorrect in the future. But, there are plenty of other "theories" no one complains about, like the theory of gravity, or of relativity. Some scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, actually wanted it changed to the "law of evolution" to keep that misunderstanding from occurring. Also, I don't see how anyone could consider the point that life on this planet was formed by millions of years of gradual development and change random. The sheer length of the process should suggest that there's SOME order involved...
Yes, I understood that your initial explanation was abbreviated, and well-done I might add. Another word fundamentalists jump on you mentioned, too, the word "theory" Yeah, I've been trying to get in the habit of using that word only when talking about a formal theory. I've been trying to use other words/phrases when talking about something that's mere conjecture or hypthetical thinking. While my wife and I were out fossil hunting in Northern Kentucky, we happened upon some wacko "Creationist museum." We joked about leaving our bags of fossils hanging on the door
