Survival of the fittest.

[lionofjudah60]

Can an athiest please tell me why they get upset when someone takes hostages and kills them or when someone like Islamic State beheads children?

I do not understand you .On the one hand you tell me you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest and on the other you get upset when the species does exactly what darwin says it will do.DISCUSS as bob would say.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

So the human race was created through incest and we are all related?

So how do they explain our different skin types and looks?

---

So, how does evolution explain "our different skin types and looks" ??

---

Adaptation. The earliest humans are thought to have lived in Africa and in a hot climate  dark skins gave you a better chance of surviving. As humans spread out into cooler climates dark skin became less and less advantageuous - it inhibits the absorbtion of vitamin D from sunlight, so obviously those born with a slightly lighter skin had a slightly better chance of surviving to pass on their "light" genes to their descendants.

I'm not sure about looks, but it could be something a simple - and random - as a genetic variation in the first handful of humans to move into Asia.

---

Right - 

If you read the account of Noah, after the flood, it explains which of his sons went where - and which of those sons are fathers to the dark skinned , light skinned etc. EXACTLY the same logic applies - if you accept that evolution can do it you must be able to accept that Creation can do it. 

'it' being - adaption to environment - skin colour changes - so, that answers the question about where all the skin colours come from under Creation. NEXT?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

as far as the incestuous part of the argument -

let's have a look at the evolutionary theory on this thing - the progenitors of man / apes. You don't think that those progenitors were travelling overseas to find a wife, do you? Nope, they would have 'married' their own sisters / cousins etc. within their small family groups.

[***super_nova***]

Yes, as I said before, there are minute mutations in each generations.  When you separate groups of animals they will develop very slight  differences each gneration.  I also used to breed dogs, and 20 years ago I could tell you if a dog of my breed was "American type", "Australian type" or "UK type".   In dogs the changes are faster, and more lasting because their genome i simple and traits do not require large complicated combination of genes.  So if you get a dog with certain trait you like and breed within close group of his relatives, that trait is going to be coming up regularly in the progeny.

In the wild animals it was always the trait that gave the animal a survival advantage that gets to passed on to next generation, because obviously the animals who struggle to survive are less likely to breed and rear their young.  Maybe instead of saying "survival of the fittest" we should say "survival of the best adapted".  But the best adapted animals die out when climate changes, and they are unable to adapt quickly to the new paradigm.

It is not so easy to tell where dog is from now as transport of dogs is so much cheaper, and quarantine regulations much easier, and the populations are not really separate.  Twenty years ago dogs from Europe and USA had to spend close to 18months in quarantine, now it is about week., and many people are importing breeding stock, which is good for genetic diversity. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

If you read the account of Noah, after the flood, it explains which of his sons went where - and which of those sons are fathers to the dark skinned , light skinned etc. EXACTLY the same logic applies - if you accept that evolution can do it you must be able to accept that Creation can do it. 

'it' being - adaption to environment - skin colour changes - so, that answers the question about where all the skin colours come from under Creation. NEXT?

Except that under evolution these skin changes happened over a period of at least 4 million years, while according to the Bible it  took less than 6 thousand. (and all from a gene pool of 8 - Mr and Mrs Noah, three sons and three daughters-in-law.)

[para-slights]

Naturally there would have been some incest (I mean the Royals did it on purpose for generations to keep their bloodlines "pure"). But the advantage we had over say the Neanderthals is that although we travelled in groups we would have communal or common grounds where we would exchange ideas. inventions and even people and dilute the gene pool of any inbreeding, and if you subscribed to the theory that we also breed with Neanderthals then the bloodlines are diluted even more

[myoclon1cjerk]

Noah had a fourth son who was single.During that long cruise he was 'turning Japanese',I really think so.That's how we ended up with Asians. 🙂

[imastawka]

     Nobody tell Russell Crowe about the three sons and wives, FGS

[daydream**believer]