Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyway, you continue to dodge the obvious: all of those tall, short, dark, light, blue-eyed and brow-eyed people are still humans who can reproduce with each other. No new species, just change within species.

Yes, natural selection resulted in change.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did you even read that?

I did.

It doesn't support your case for Darwinism at all.

Why do you feel that?

Creationists call that "micro-evolution within kinds."

Evolution. Yes.

Evolution is about speciation.

View attachment 606163


Tall, pale, with blond hair from shorter, darker with dark hair isn't evolution?

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.

Evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is the above a bad definition?

It's a fine definition, if everyone were to go by it.

Under that definition, changes are small, occur within species, are reversible, and do not result in new species. Therefore there is, or may be, another explanation for the origin of species.

If thats what you're saying and you are not trying to prove Darwinism, we have no disagreement.

I've said several times that I'm arguing against Darwinism, not against the obvious observstion that children are not genetic copies of parents. But you persist in trying to prove what I don't dispute.

I think you get distracted when you start typing and forget the topic. So, take a deep bresth and type one sentence that supports Darwinism. Then roll with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a fine definition, if everyone were to go by it.

Under that definition, changes are small, occur within species, are reversible, and do not result in new species. Therefore there is, or may be, another explanation for the origin of species.

If thats what you're saying and you are not trying to prove Darwinism, we have no disagreement.

I've said several times that I'm arguing against Darwinism, not against the obvious observstion that children are not genetic copies of parents. But you persist in trying to prove what I don't dispute.

I think you get distracted when you start typing and forget the topic. So, take a deep bresth and type one sentence that supports Darwinism. Then roll with that.

Under that definition, changes are small, occur within species, are reversible,

Reversible how?

and do not result in new species.

Enough small changes over a long enough time should result in new species. Do you disagree?

If thats what you're saying and you are not trying to prove Darwinism,

What's the difference between evolution and Darwinism?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Under that definition, changes are small, occur within species, are reversible,

Reversible how?

If moving to a sun deprived area caused dark skinned people to evolve to lighter skinned people, they would evolve back to dark skin if their climate became hot and sunny, like from global warming.

and do not result in new species.

Enough small changes over a long enough time should result in new species. Do you disagree?

No, it should result in the same species with lots of small changes.

If thats what you're saying and you are not trying to prove Darwinism,

What's the difference between evolution and Darwinism?

Evolution, by the single definition you posted, is change within species. By another more commonly used definition, it is origin of species By natural selection.

Read Darwin's book. Or just read the title even. Dude just read more!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If moving to a sun deprived area caused dark skinned people to evolve to lighter skinned people, they would evolve back to dark skin if their climate became hot and sunny, like from global warming.

No, it should result in the same species with lots of small changes.

Evolution, by the single definition you posted, is change within species. By another more commonly used definition, it is origin of species By natural selection.

Read Darwin's book. Or just read the title even. Dude just read more!

No, it should result in the same species with lots of small changes.

Enough small changes and they shouldn't be able to breed with the original. Right?

Evolution, by the single definition you posted, is change within species.

Yes.

Read Darwin's book. Or just read the title even.

Or you could post your definitions and we could look for differences.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, it should result in the same species with lots of small changes.

Enough small changes and they shouldn't be able to breed with the original. Right?

Mutations do often lead to sterility. But sterility does not = new species. If an individual is born so mutated that it can't mate with members of its parents' species, who would it mate with?

That is one of several reasons that Darwinian evolution is unlikely. Mutation almost always causes changes that are detrimental to reproduction - the opposite of Darwinian theory. Even If a mutated individual thrives and reproduces, it would be with a non mutated member of its parents' species so the mutation won't always be passed on.

Evolution, by the single definition you posted, is change within species.

Yes.

Read Darwin's book. Or just read the title even.

Or you could post your definitions and we could look for differences.

I'll post it this evening when I'm not on my phone. Its the definition that says "in biology." Here's the gist: in biology "evolution" is the process by which new species occur through mutation and natural selection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mutations do often lead to sterility. But sterility does not = new species. If an individual is born so mutated that it can't mate with members of its parents' species, who would it mate with?

That is one of several reasons that Darwinian evolution is unlikely. Mutation almost always causes changes that are detrimental to reproduction - the opposite of Darwinian theory. Even If a mutated individual thrives and reproduces, it would be with a non mutated member of its parents' species so the mutation won't always be passed on.

I'll post it this evening when I'm not on my phone. Its the definition that says "in biology." Here's the gist: in biology "evolution" is the process by which new species occur through mutation and natural selection.

Mutations do often lead to sterility.

Those mutations aren't passed on.

Even If a mutated individual thrives and reproduces, it would be with a non mutated member of its parents' species so the mutation won't always be passed on.

Usually a 50% chance it'd be passed on.

 

[Hollie]

Mutations do often lead to sterility. But sterility does not = new species. If an individual is born so mutated that it can't mate with members of its parents' species, who would it mate with?

That is one of several reasons that Darwinian evolution is unlikely. Mutation almost always causes changes that are detrimental to reproduction - the opposite of Darwinian theory. Even If a mutated individual thrives and reproduces, it would be with a non mutated member of its parents' species so the mutation won't always be passed on.

I'll post it this evening when I'm not on my phone. Its the definition that says "in biology." Here's the gist: in biology "evolution" is the process by which new species occur through mutation and natural selection.

That's wrong. New species do not occur. All species are the result of supernatural creationerism. It says so in the supernatural creationer "General Theory of Supernatural Creationerism"

 

[Seymour Flops]

Mutations do often lead to sterility.

Those mutations aren't passed on.

Even If a mutated individual thrives and reproduces, it would be with a non mutated member of its parents' species so the mutation won't always be passed on.

Usually a 50% chance it'd be passed on.

If they had anyone to mate with.

If your 50% figure is correct, then it is 50% to be passed to the next gen and so on. Probability of the mutation being passed on ten generations is .50 to the 10th power, which is .00097 or 97/1000 of one percent, which is roughly 10K to one against.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they had anyone to mate with.

If your 50% figure is correct, then it is 50% to be passed to the next gen and so on. Probability of the mutation being passed on ten generations is .50 to the 10th power, which is .00097 or 97/1000 of one percent, which is roughly 10K to one against.

If your 50% figure is correct, then it is 50% to be passed to the next gen and so on.

No. 50% chance that any child inherits it.

Probability of the mutation being passed on ten generations is .50 to the 10th power, which is .00097 or 97/1000 of one percent, which is roughly 10K to one against.

LOL!

 

[abu afak]

The people of America before European exploration were descendants of a large group of people who were isolated for ten to twenty thousand years. Those descendants spread over a large land mass, and founded civilizations including cities with up to five million in habitants. All without trade or any form of communication with people outside of the Americas. There were a wide variety of climate conditions over the large area and across the thousands of years. A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yet, when Europeans landed in the Americas, they immediately began to copulate with natives and they produced large numbers of healthy and fertile offspring. In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place. The Americans had their own languages, cultures, and superficial appearances, but their they were.

Still human. "After their kind," indeed.

This is an embarrassingly STUPID and Ragingly Wrong Thread and Title.
Another Seymour Flops Flop.

Of course, the "Pre-Columbians" came from Asia (and or Pacific Islands) and obviously DID physically changed/Evolve into a different population group/Race.
(and did so in relatively, for humans) short time.

WTF!

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

If your 50% figure is correct, then it is 50% to be passed to the next gen and so on.

No. 50% chance that any child inherits it.

Probability of the mutation being passed on ten generations is .50 to the 10th power, which is .00097 or 97/1000 of one percent, which is roughly 10K to one against.

LOL!

Did they not teach probability in your school?

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is an embarrassingly STUPID and Ragingly Wrong Thread and Title.
Another Seymour Flops Flop.

Of course, the "Pre-Columbians" came from Asia (and or Pacific Islands) and obviously DID physically changed/Evolve into a different population group/Race.
(and did so in relatively, for humans) short time.

WTF!

`

They did not become a new species. So no Darwinian evolution happened.

 

[BothWings]

Right.

So why do you feel none happened?

Maybe it didn't need to.

 

[abu afak]

They did not become a new species. So no Darwinian evolution happened.

They DID change appearance and alot more.
Darwin at work.
They became a race/subspecies.
Subspecies precedes species in genetic separation.
They moved apart because of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection.
Precisely what Evo/Darwin would expect/predict.
One would not expect any more in the short time they were separated from their Asian base.

You made an IDIOT of yourself because you are so BLINDINGLY IGNORANT!

`

 

[Hollie]

They did not become a new species. So no Darwinian evolution happened.

Profoundly ignorant. You don't understand what you're arguing against. Biological evolution is change in populations over time. Populations evolve as a result of heritable characteristics over successive generations. Speciation can take millions of years. Most of us learn about such things beginning in 7th grade.

One would think ID'iot creationers would be embarrassed at arguing against what they don't understand and being wrong about everything but here they are.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They DID change appearance and alot more.
Darwin at work.
They became a race/subspecies.
Subspecies precedes species in genetic separation.
They moved apart because of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection.
Precisely what Evo/Darwin would expect/predict.
One would not expect any more in the short time they were separated from their Asian base.

You made an IDIOT of yourself because you are so BLINDINGLY IGNORANT!

`

How did their appearance change? Not much, is the answer. Asian actors frequently play Native Americans in movies.

Darwinism is about speciation. You would know that if you had even read the title of his book.

Good God, y'all!

Are your libraries still closed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did they not teach probability in your school?

And unlike you, I actually attended the class.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And unlike you, I actually attended the class.

If you paid attention, you would know how unlikely it is for that scenario to play out once, let alone enough times to populate the Earth with millions of different species.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'll post it this evening when I'm not on my phone. Its the definition that says "in biology." Here's the gist: in biology "evolution" is the process by which new species occur through mutation and natural selection.

As promised:

Home

Discover more about DNA, genes and genomes

www.yourgenome.org

I will say, that in searching for a link to the definition that I mean, it turns out that many proponents of evolution are hedging their bets on speciation. It may be that they lost enough arguments with ID proponents that they finally got tired of being sandbagged by their own words.

So, I will make an effort to say "Darwinian evolution," instead of just "evolution," when talking about the idea that species came about via natural selection. Darwinian evolution is about speciation, period, full stop.