Has human evolution stopped?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
all the radiation we encounter on a day to day basis is probably not good for anything except dying/mutation.

---

Think about it a second KP visible light is EM radiation....without it you can`t...a)See...b)Eat (no photosynthesis)...Then theres all that other usefull radiation that the sun throws our way that stops the Earth being a lifeless frozen ball.....So yes it is usefull, nay necessary......

Seems to me that even handed evolutionists do not take the environemtn to the development of inhertiance that is possible but end up speciate the space that is only a electronic relay.

Has human evolution stopped?
What a loaded question!1) Micro-evolution/devolution will continue to the end no doubt, with detrimental mutations eventually causing extreme decay after another century or 2 perhaps.2) Mega-evolution, that proxy term to describe major trans-taxonomic change, is the vital question under this origins controversy. And this seems to have 2 answers:
A) Micro-evolution/devolution will continue to the end no doubt, with detrimental mutations eventually causing extreme decay after another century or 2 perhaps.
B) ‘Freak’ beneficial mutations via diploid (zygote) formation and other chromosomal aberrations are ‘dead-end’, ‘set-in’, ‘finished’, etc. (as if they were already mainstream created via ID).Take the human foot for example: It doesn’t get any better, folks. Flat feet are highly ‘ground’ stable (normal) variants. Highly arched feet are great for running and maneuvering terrain obstacles. Most feet do about 100,000 miles ambulation.
Furthermore, feet cannot and will not sprout wings, flippers, etc. without destroying the ‘set-in’ architecture of the design elements, i.e., the tendo-ligamentous pivots, levers, pulleys, etc. even many that are ‘mouse-trap’ like from their ID/IC mechanical perspective: Time would preclude us at present to discuss the
Innumerable complex‘set-in’
PEDAL BIOMECHANICS of:
1) The triple-faceted sub-talar joint’s spring-locking mechanism at the neutral point of forefoot (midtarsal joint) pronation.
2) The ‘set-in’ double sesamoid pulley orchestration of flexor hallucis brevis, flexor hallucis longus, abductor hallucis and adductor hallucis that permit the maximum possible springing/snapping potential in gait, running, tip-toeing, jumping, and especially stable ambulation tasks.
3) The articulating complexity of the ankle joint: 10-15 degree sagital planar tilt of the talar dome (laterally) allowing frontal plane shock absorption in closed kinetic chain with the harmonious internal tibia rotation (proximal to the plafond) and the simultaneous complex knee and hip motions mechanics. This articulating complexity at the ankle is presently impossible to ‘replace’ artificially.The same holds true for the COMPLEX‘SET-IN’
--VASCULAR STRUCTURES: arteries, veins, capillaries, arterioles, etc with their precise labyrinth-like ‘set in’ complexities in the mainstream foot.
--NERVE STRUCTURES: Vital communicating digital branches for highly specific and extremely complex stimulus-response events, communication with sympathetics, parasympathetics, sacral-lumbar tracks, medullary, cerebellar, cortical, thalamic, basal ganglian, and other SET-IN cerebral pathways.
--LYMPHATIC MECHANICS: their extremely fine tuned pedal response systems, especially in the plantar toes and pulp of the nails
--MUSCULAR SKELETAL STRUCTURES AND THEIR BIOMECHANICS: Too numerous to discuss here (trust me).
--EMBRYOLOGICAL/DEVELOPMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY: Another huge bag of ‘set-in’ complexities: EVERY STAGE IS ANOTHER UNIVERSE OF ‘SET-IN’ COMPLEXITIES.
--INTEGUMENTARY PHYSIOLOGY: The special membranes of the dermis and hypodermis diverse ‘set-in’ complex arrangements cannot be grafted without sacrificing function. (Too complex to discuss on this forum)
--HARMONAL, INFLAMMATORY, METABOLIC (enzymatic, catabolic, and anabolic) SYSTEMS, etc. with their innumerable ‘set-in complexities.Mess with one and you mess with all of these pedal (‘set-in’) complexities (to various extents), etc. so that NO significant beneficial change becomes impossible.CONCLUSIONS:
Because virtually every complexity in the human foot is ‘locked in’, ‘set-in’, with minimal physiological variations being beneficial:
--Only pedal decay seems feasible under the mega-evolutionary model.
--The human foot seems to never have mega-evolved at all.
--An extremely complex ID model seems to be inferred. --Somebody correct my delusions in this matter. Quetzel, you’ve always been a kind and well-versed antagonist ... Did I misuse the term ‘mega-evolved’? I would have said macro-evolved, but then you’d cite lower taxonomic speciation as valid.
(Somebody, anybody, non-geniuses, even you complex geologists I invite you to continue this thread in your peculiar perspective)

Philip,Its not to hard to imagine a few counter-examples to your theory :Imagine if a population of H. Sapien Sapiens were to be stuck in a fresh-water aquatic environment with no land, surviving off floating kelp-like plants, and avoiding the local shark population.First, we would imagine webbed feet would become more prevalent and more pronounced. Such mutations do exist - I for one knew someone with about 1/2 cm flaps of skin between each digit on her feet, barely noticable. People without such flaps would be slower swimmers, and thus likely to be eaten by the sharks, leaving less offspring than the more successful webbed peeople.Second, we would also imagine our feet would slowly move from being perpendicular to our body, to being parallel to our body. We would expect people with slightly shorter Superior Extensor Reticulum (pulls the foot down) and slightly longer Inferior Extensor Reticulum (pulls the foot up). Those with such mutations would get more power with each kick, and thus be less likely to be caught and eaten by the sharks, leaving more offspring etc. etc.Third, once the muscle lengths mention above started to change, our ankle and foot bones would start to accomedate. We would anticipate successful human beings would have smaller Calcaneus (heel bones), streamlining their foot slightly, and Tibia (shin bones) with slightly more mobility in their ankle joint sockets, allowing for more mobility in each kick.All that any of this requires, remember, is classical darwinian gradualism - which inturn requires only three things: genetic variation (slight differences in the size and shape of peoples bones and muscles), what Dawkin's calls 'power' (the ability of the change to affect survival, such as avoiding the sharks), and heritability (that these beneficial mutations can be passed on to offspring via sexual reproduction).And all this is just the beginning - we would also imagine similar changes to our neck, allowing us to look 'up' more easily, greater lung capacity, a more mobile spinal column, inner ears more resistant to pressure, smaller and smaller ear lobes, less hair, more fat and muscle, a strong cardiovascular system ...Evolution is teh roXXor-All anatomy refs courtesy of InnerBody.com

Thanks Daydreamer for your apparently original honest and diametrically opposed feedback. I'll wait for a possible conglomerate of other proto-evo’s before ‘discussing’ your response in depth, if that’s OK.
--Philip

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-02-2002]

Sounds good.

Though I agree with your post, I think for a mutation to get fixed, it is necessary an isolated population. Today no such isolated human population exists. Perhaps a case of sympatric evolution could happen if the hypothetical aquatic adapted humans, also developed some kind of reproductive isolation.
If allopatric speciation is so preponderant as they say, there will be no more human evolution until a little and forgotten population gets isolated in Aldebaran IV

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
well practically every modern device emits a certain level of radiation, as well as the ozone degrading allowing more uv rays and amounts of space radiation. sources of radiation are much more concentrated and abundant; such as nuclear power plant reactors and stockpiles of leaking atomic bombs.

---

I agree thal these situations exist, but what you claimed that the day to day that people are exposed to was somehow much greater and/or damaging than in the past.I went and read up on it and I do not think that this is the case.I don't know that much about this subject so you could rather easily convince me to your viewpoint, but I am going to want to see reliable sources of information that contradict the NRC.

But the construction of any part of any living thing's anatomy is not "set in" or permenant in any way!Ever single person's feet is slightly different from every other person's feet. In the case of my husband and I, our feet are very different. He has very short, flat feet with short toes. I have high arches with long toes, and my foot is longer in length.The bones and muscles are all the same, but their proportions and how they are constructed are obviously different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andor:
Though I agree with your post, I think for a mutation to get fixed, it is necessary an isolated population. Today no such isolated human population exists. Perhaps a case of sympatric evolution could happen if the hypothetical aquatic adapted humans, also developed some kind of reproductive isolation.
If allopatric speciation is so preponderant as they say, there will be no more human evolution until a little and forgotten population gets isolated in Aldebaran IV

---

Are you sure? I thought that there were isolated human populations in which a large portion of the people were deaf or colorblind, for example?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Its not to hard to imagine a few counter-examples to your theory :

---

--Difficult for me to imagine on biomechanical and physiological grounds. The proto-evo’s seem to silently support your imagination here. At least your own imagination portrays some semblance of a mechanism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Imagine if a population of H. Sapien Sapiens were to be stuck in a fresh-water aquatic environment with no land, surviving off floating kelp-like plants, and avoiding the local shark population.

---

--OK, you changed the nitch. We’re now in Water-world! Selection pressures are now ‘extreeeme’ upon this human organism. Assume (as we must) this sophisticated organism must now swim, and swim fast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
First, we would imagine webbed feet would become more prevalent and more pronounced.

---

--Imagine that! Good so far (assuming selection pressures becomes precisely focused here) at least until the interdependent and complex plantar and dorsal digital nerves with their extremely complex distal interdependent communicating branches incrementally select for anatomical altering, and somehow negotiate with one another in an overall ‘drastic’ incremental ‘webbing’ process. He eventually has ideal duck feet. Did everything occur basically normally without ‘freak’ beneficial mutations? No, there would be many abnormal mutations required to overcome normal pedal genetic variations/limitations (as observed in drosphilila studies, etc.).Worse yet, the delicately interdependent digital nerves with their communicating branches are now all twisted up inside the web-flaps or else new neural additions have violated the neuro-architecture altogether with painful neuromos resulting from indirect haphazard selection pressures. (As an ABPMS board certified foot surgeon I have no idea how you can get around this neuroma problem by incremental structural changes)Next the delicately interdependent CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, running essentially parallel with the now web-tightened neural networks requires abnormal mutations to construct a non-gangrenous re-distribution to supply these nerves.BIOMECHANICALLY, you must eventually completely violate all the set-in and delicately interdependent pedal fulcrums, pivots, axial joints, ball-and-socket joints, etc. (as noted above), requiring vast abnormal mutations to render them vestiges. Then they would incrementally reconstruct into fins over millions of years, yet requiring innumerable abnormal mutations in the process. Or by Quetzal’s scheme, some highly variable (‘abnormal’) mutation in the gene pool would preclude the necessity of further abnormal mutations, allowing flexible incremental adaption(s) for an epoch or so. Even more impossible, don’t you think?Meanwhile, the delicately interdependent LYMPHATIC CHANNELS and IMMUNE SYSTEM components must now migrate from plantar to dorsal with ‘new additions’ that somehow interact with ‘new HORMONAL additions’ in the aquatic environment. Numerous other antagonistic aquatic variables require ‘special’ (and abnormal) adaptations to deal with aquatic inflammation, infection, etc. I’d say time would be on your side except that forces of decay will overcome in this multi-tiered hostile aquatic environment.Time fails me to refute the INTEGUMENTARY ToE-nightmares. The CEREBRAL and PSYCHOSOCIAL ToE -nightmares, the delicately interdependent MUSCULO-SKELETAL and OSSEOUS mutations required (all abnormal)? And what about all the innumerable other delicately interdependent BIOCHEMICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, ENZYMATIC, REPRODUCTIVE, EMBRYOLOGICAL, (etc., etc.), complex adaptive pedal changes? These changes would yet require innumerable other abnormal mutations to be occurring simultaneously. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Such mutations do exist - I for one knew someone with about 1/2 cm flaps of skin between each digit on her feet, barely noticable. People without such flaps would be slower swimmers, and thus likely to be eaten by the sharks, leaving less offspring than the more successful webbed peeople.
[/B][/QUOTE]--I’ve seen Lobster feet in my practice, these are freak mutants in every case. You’ve seen normal genetic variations of toe-webs no doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Second, we would also imagine our feet would slowly move from being perpendicular to our body, to being parallel to our body. We would expect people with slightly shorter Superior Extensor Reticulum (pulls the foot down) and slightly longer Inferior Extensor Reticulum (pulls the foot up). Those with such mutations would get more power with each kick, and thus be less likely to be caught and eaten by the sharks, leaving more offspring etc. etc.

---

--Respectfully Daydreamer, the Superior Extensor Reticulum and the Inferior Extensor Reticulum are essentially dorsal pedal fascial-ligaments that stabilize pedal tendons, especially, the pedal flexors (i.e., Tibialis Anterior, Extensor Hallucis Longus/Digitus, and the Peroneals). They do however, as you stated, help stabilize the swimmer’s ‘kicks’.
--I believe you actually meant somewhat longer flexor tendon (dorsal foot muscles/tendons (above) pull the foot up) and shorter plantar muscles (gastroc-soleus, plantaris, etc.) (which pull the foot down) to suggest acral lower extremity becoming parallel.
--I appreciate your calling them ‘mutations’, Daydreamer. My evo-brethren here seem to have a problem with that, as abnormal mutations invalidate the ToE (as yours must be). They are ‘hush hush’ in this matter (as we shall see), preferring to cry out microevo terms like natural selection, normal recombinance, diploidy (in plants), etc.
-- Daydreamer your scenario at this point is so far fetched I believe most of the more honest ‘evolutionists’ on this forum would refute it along with the YECs, like myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Third, once the muscle lengths mention above started to change, our ankle and foot bones would start to accomedate. We would anticipate successful human beings would have smaller Calcaneus (heel bones), streamlining their foot slightly, and Tibia (shin bones) with slightly more mobility in their ankle joint sockets, allowing for more mobility in each kick.

---

--This is logical ToE, assuming all the aforementioned impossibilities are reconciled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
All that any of this requires, remember, is classical darwinian gradualism - which inturn requires only three things: genetic variation (slight differences in the size and shape of peoples bones and muscles), what Dawkin's calls 'power' (the ability of the change to affect survival, such as avoiding the sharks), and heritability (that these beneficial mutations can be passed on to offspring via sexual reproduction).

---

--Sounds good in the pseudo-sciences. Now try your hand at recombinance programming (Dr. Taz, I presume), or even computer programming (Visual C++, FoxPro, etc.), which is less interdependent than life’s genetic codes. More and more you discover the delicate interdependent complexities in your information code that would require extremely focused ID on every level of change.
Thus, only supernatural abnormal beneficial mutations could possibly occur under Dawkin’s blind-clockmaker-scheme before the interdependent bio-complexity evolves incrementally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
And all this is just the beginning - we would also imagine similar changes to our neck, allowing us to look 'up' more easily, greater lung capacity, a more mobile spinal column, inner ears more resistant to pressure, smaller and smaller ear lobes, less hair, more fat and muscle, a strong cardiovascular system ...

---

--Dream on then wake up to the final conclusion:
Regarding our interdependent bio-complexities: You mess with one of us and you mess with all of us. The mega-ToE appears repeatedly impossible, due to high-taxonomic genetic limitations of variance.Note: to other forum members: This concept of INTERDEPENDENT BIO-COMPLEXITIES that restrict change/mutations in the ToE are not IC’s in the Behe sense, right?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-03-2002]

Yes you're right. But I think this is variation not speciation.
I was thinking in the change of species, to Homo sideralis or something like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--Dream on then wake up to the final conclusion:
Regarding our interdependent bio-complexities: You mess with one of us and you mess with all of us. The mega-ToE appears repeatedly impossible, due to high-taxonomic genetic limitations of variance.

​

Note: to other forum members: This concept of INTERDEPENDENT BIO-COMPLEXITIES that restrict change/mutations in the ToE are not IC’s in the Behe sense, right?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-03-2002]

---

Philip,Despite your repeated assertions that evolution on the macro scale is impossible, the evidence contradicts you.More & more phylogenetic analysis, using different data sets, are repeatedly producing highly congruent trees. These trees show relationships that sail right through your objections, above & beyond family level. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/cl.mo.tr.pdf
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=CatarrhiniIf so many phylogenies show humans related to the apes, & apes to OWM in such a congruent way, & representing staggering odds of occurring by chance, how do you make your objections fit in with these evidences? i.e. If humans, apes & monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, then how did their feet/hands evolve for the different tasks that they are called upon to perform? E.g. Arboreal, land living quadrupeds, & bipeds. Also of note, is that that the molecular evidence is congruent with the fossil/morphological evidence.In short, do you have any scientific evidence that says that an arboreal monkey type foot couldn’t evolve into a human foot?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

--I’ve seen Lobster feet in my practice, these are freak mutants in every case. You’ve seen normal genetic variations of toe-webs no doubt.

---

'my practice'? A medical doctor I assume? Podiatrist perhaps?

quote:

---

--Difficult for me to imagine on biomechanical and physiological grounds. The proto-evo’s seem to silently support your imagination here. At least your own imagination portrays some semblance of a mechanism.

---

We shall see.

quote:

---

--OK, you changed the nitch. We’re now in Water-world! Selection pressures are now ‘extreeeme’ upon this human organism. Assume (as we must) this sophisticated organism must now swim, and swim fast.

---

Extreme selective pressures make for more visable and easily predictable results, and no pressure means no evolution outside genetic drift. It was a necessity for the argument I'm afraid

quote:

---

--Imagine that! Good so far [SNIP]

​

Worse yet, the delicately interdependent digital nerves [SNIP]

​

Next the delicately interdependent CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, [SNIP]

​

BIOMECHANICALLY, you must eventually completely [SNIP]

​

Meanwhile, the delicately interdependent LYMPHATIC CHANNELS and IMMUNE SYSTEM components [SNIP]

​

Time fails me to refute the INTEGUMENTARY ToE-nightmares [SNIP]

---

I think I am beginning to understand your problem with evolution - your seeing DNA as a blueprint for an organism, which is fundamentally incorrect. A much better analogy is that of a complex recipe, as Dawkins has pointed out a number of times.Before we get into that, I feel must point out the problems with your syllogic:
(Key: ! = Not; .: = Therefore)
A --> B
!B
.: !A
Becuase your argument is based on the impossibility of something (!B) it is an Argumentum Ad Ignoratium (Argument from Ignorance) and one of the worst (and most common, unfortunately) logical fallacies.Back to work:
The problem with the blueprint analogy is simple - in building a device with such a drawing you have external measurements to which things are compared - lines on the blueprints themselves which correspond to markings made on the ground and on the materials. In an organism, however, no such guidelines exist, and the only structure to which the organism can measure things is itself.Take a snake (stolen from Dawkins of course) for example - each species has a distinct number of bones in its spinal column, along which blood vessels and muscles are strung, and through which their nerves run. According to your reasoning no snake could every mutate to have any more or less vertebrae (sp?) without huge parallel mutations to its blood vessels, nerves, muscules, etc. But in fact, snakes with a different amount of links in its spinal chain do exist, and are not rare, though by no means common.How is this possible? Simple - the 'recipe' for the snake contained in its DNA is highly layered, much like a program written in OO C++ (Object Oriented C-Plus-Plus) (In fact, when a conference was called in the 70's to try and overcome the 2 mil lines-of-code limit on programming, it was from developmental biology where they stole this answer). Hypothetically, something like this (expanding only the 'body' section for simplicity):Level 1: [Snake]
Level 2: [[Head] [Body] [Tail]
Level 3: [[Head] times 12[/b] [Tail]
Level 4: [[Head] [[[Bone] [Arteries and Veins] [Nerves] [Etc.] times 12 [Tail]Because the DNA bit [Body Link] has coded within it all the complexities it requires, the snake would not require a huge change to the genome, merely a single change in the bolded region - the multiplier. Simple, logical, probable, and elegent - evolution at its best."Ah-HA!" You say, "but what does this have to do with feet? This is unrelated to your talk of gradual changes to bone and muscle sizes!"My snake example is intended only to explain Object Orientation in biology - the next step is to apply it to our curret problem. To do this we have to bring in a new concept - heritability, nature's fudge factor. Heritability is a % that ranges from 0-100 and denotes an estimate of how much of a certain trait is determined by genetics, based on how a correlation of the trait between parents and offspring (Essentially 'Nature' in the Nature-Nurture debate, alongs the lines of Nature + Nurture = 100 .: Nature = 100-Nurture). For most traits this is around 70%, though there are known traits near both extremes.What is important to the debate at hand is the Nurture, and what influences it. Although the environment outside the organism is a common source of this factor of difference, an often overlooked feature is the effect the organism can have on itself. For example we have two long arteries in our legs, one in each running from our waist to our feet - and because of this their length is dependent on the length of our legs, as the latter get longer as we mature, so does the former. If it were not so, we could never grow, or for that matter undergo any sort of change. If we apply this fudge factor to our feet, we see that any of the changes I predicted if we were forced into an aquatic environment fall well within our ~30% margin - webbed feet need only a few more centimeters of nerve and bloodvessels to not necrose, longer or shorter muscles and tendons require an equal change and identical change to their arteries, veins and nerves, etc.In short: Because nature not only can use the Object Orientation method of design, but must by necessity, combined with the inherent flexability of organismal development, when a change is made to one part of an organism via mutation the surrounding parts naturally change to compensate. Your argument is baseless, though entirely understandable.

quote:

---

--Respectfully Daydreamer, the Superior Extensor Reticulum and the Inferior Extensor Reticulum are essentially dorsal pedal fascial-ligaments that stabilize pedal tendons, especially, the pedal flexors (i.e., Tibialis Anterior, Extensor Hallucis Longus/Digitus, and the Peroneals). They do however, as you stated, help stabilize the swimmer’s ‘kicks’.
--I believe you actually meant somewhat longer flexor tendon (dorsal foot muscles/tendons (above) pull the foot up) and shorter plantar muscles (gastroc-soleus, plantaris, etc.) (which pull the foot down) to suggest acral lower extremity becoming parallel.

---

I'm no doctor - just a evo/eco bio major - I'll trust your judgement here.

quote:

---

--I appreciate your calling them ‘mutations’, Daydreamer. My evo-brethren here seem to have a problem with that, as abnormal mutations invalidate the ToE (as yours must be). They are ‘hush hush’ in this matter (as we shall see), preferring to cry out microevo terms like natural selection, normal recombinance, diploidy (in plants), etc.

---

This is one of the less intuitive parts of evolution, and both your argument and their inability to answer you well is completely understandable.

quote:

---

-- Daydreamer your scenario at this point is so far fetched I believe most of the more honest ‘evolutionists’ on this forum would refute it along with the YECs, like myself.

---

No, it isn't, as explained above. Thanks for stating clearly your position as a YEC, however, it will help me more clearly udnerstand your arguments in the future.

quote:

---

--Sounds good in the pseudo-sciences. Now try your hand at recombinance programming (Dr. Taz, I presume), or even computer programming (Visual C++, FoxPro, etc.), which is less interdependent than life’s genetic codes. More and more you discover the delicate interdependent complexities in your information code that would require extremely focused ID on every level of change.
Thus, only supernatural abnormal beneficial mutations could possibly occur under Dawkin’s blind-clockmaker-scheme before the interdependent bio-complexity evolves incrementally.

---

I have studied programming, and I am looking into a minor in that field. Learing to fully simulate the blind selectional forces that drive evolution in a computer is, I think, the next logical step for Evolutionary science.And if you would kindly not refer to evolution condescendingly as a pseudo-science and stick to your arguments, I will refrain from calling creationism an senseless act of blind faith. We will only get anywhere if we are both civil with each other.

quote:

---

--Dream on then wake up to the final conclusion:
Regarding our interdependent bio-complexities: You mess with one of us and you mess with all of us. The mega-ToE appears repeatedly impossible, due to high-taxonomic genetic limitations of variance.

---

One of us has put his common sense to rest, to this I assent. The question is, however, which one of us it is.

quote:

---

Note: to other forum members: This concept of INTERDEPENDENT BIO-COMPLEXITIES that restrict change/mutations in the ToE are not IC’s in the Behe sense, right?

---

Depends on how you define a 'system' - but I would say its closely related but not identical.Evolution is teh roXXor

​

[This message has been edited by Daydreamer, 06-03-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Daydreamer, 06-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andor:
Though I agree with your post, I think for a mutation to get fixed, it is necessary an isolated population. Today no such isolated human population exists. Perhaps a case of sympatric evolution could happen if the hypothetical aquatic adapted humans, also developed some kind of reproductive isolation.
If allopatric speciation is so preponderant as they say, there will be no more human evolution until a little and forgotten population gets isolated in Aldebaran IV

---

Lol. I agree - I merely left that part out for the sake of simplicity. That is, BTW, one of the reasons I generally side with with the 'Human Evolution has slowed to a crawl' camp.