Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't have an opinion either way. If you have proof either way, I'm waiting for you to stop stalling and present it.

I claimed that pre-Columbian Americans didn't evolve. Which they did not, by the definition of evolution we have been talking about, which is speciation via natural selection.

You want to claim "evolution" just means "change," I'm fine with that. But it sure seems like an abandonment of Darwinism.

But did you really go through all this because you thought I meant that in pre-Columbian America, children were genetic copies of their parents?

Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

Is it hard to see what you're typing through those two little eye-holes?

Nope. Because if I said, "I believe in evolution, but only within species," the Darwinist religious fanatics would roast me - after I explained what that meant. Evolution means evolution, not just "change."

Then present your evidence that species arose via natural selection and mutation.

Who's that?

I don't attack it. I just don't accept it.

Not flailing at anything. I'm happy to leave it alone. It's the Darwinists who get torqued up when someone disagrees with them.

I claimed that pre-Columbian Americans didn't evolve. Which they did not, by the definition of evolution we have been talking about, which is speciation via natural selection.

Your definition.

They evolved. They're different in many ways than the people they left behind,
while still the same species.

But did you really go through all this because you thought I meant that in pre-Columbian America, children were genetic copies of their parents?

They aren't copies? They changed? They evolved to better fit their new environment? Weird.

Then present your evidence that species arose via natural selection and mutation.

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.

lmgtfy.app

Who's that?

You don't know how nature selects for different characteristics?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Why didn't Europeans evolve in the same amount of time?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I claimed that pre-Columbian Americans didn't evolve. Which they did not, by the definition of evolution we have been talking about, which is speciation via natural selection.

Your definition.

They evolved. They're different in many ways than the people they left behind,
while still the same species.

Right, so no new species. No speciation.

Not in ten thousand years.

But did you really go through all this because you thought I meant that in pre-Columbian America, children were genetic copies of their parents?

They aren't copies? They changed? They evolved to better fit their new environment? Weird.

How did pre-Columbian people evolve to fit their new environment. Be specific about what changed and how the new environment brought about that change.

Then present your evidence that species arose via natural selection and mutation.

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.

lmgtfy.app

In other words, you don't have any. Got it.

Who's that?

You don't know how nature selects for different characteristics?

I didn't even know that nature was sentient.

Tell me more . . .

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why didn't Europeans evolve in the same amount of time?

Good point.

I guess there really is no evidence of humans evolving anywhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, so no new species. No speciation.

Not in ten thousand years.

How did pre-Columbian people evolve to fit their new environment. Be specific about what changed and how the new environment brought about that change.

In other words, you don't have any. Got it.

I didn't even know that nature was sentient.

Tell me more . . .

Right, so no new species. No speciation.

Not in ten thousand years.

Right. Which Darwinists claimed ten thousand years was enough?

How did pre-Columbian people evolve to fit their new environment.

Mutation and selection.

In other words, you don't have any. Got it.

There's plenty. Look at it, or don't.

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

I didn't even know that nature was sentient.

Who said it was? Link?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Right, so no new species. No speciation.

Not in ten thousand years.

Right. Which Darwinists claimed ten thousand years was enough?

Abu.

Post #9

Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

How did pre-Columbian people evolve to fit their new environment.

Mutation and selection.

You're just spouting those words.

In other words, you don't have any. Got it.

There's plenty. Look at it, or don't.

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

I didn't even know that nature was sentient.

Who said it was? Link?

If nature is not sentient, how does nature "select?"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Abu.

Post #9

Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

You're just spouting those words.

If nature is not sentient, how does nature "select?"

Abu.

He didn't say ten thousand years was enough.

You're just spouting those words.

LOL!

If nature is not sentient, how does nature "select?"

Natural selection.
The characteristics that are helpful are passed on.
The harmful ones die off. No sentience required.

 

[Hollie]

Good point.

I guess there really is no evidence of humans evolving anywhere.

Bad point. I guess there really is no evidence of intelligence among the Supernatural Designer'ists anywhere.

Genetic Analysis Reveals Ongoing Evolution in Europeans | Genetics And Genomics

The biology of organisms can be affected by environmental pressures through the genome. For example, if a genetic mutation gives the plumage of a bird bett | Genetics And Genomics

www.labroots.com

Researchers have now found fairly recent evidence of evolution in the genomes of European individuals; these genetic changes happened in people that have lived over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years.



The Supernatural Designer'ists could certainly produce their own research data to document how evolution never happens, but as we know, there is no research performed by the Supernatural Designer'ists.

Their intelligence is as limited as their data.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Abu.

He didn't say ten thousand years was enough.

He said 5K to 10K was enough that there would be another species evolved from humans.

You're just spouting those words.

LOL!

If nature is not sentient, how does nature "select?"

Natural selection.
The characteristics that are helpful are passed on.
The harmful ones die off. No sentience required.

Then it isn't selection. It's just what happened. Even when claiming that speciation is random, Darwin botherers can't help but use language implying conscious choices.

If there are no examples of humans evolving into a new species, what are the top three non-human examples?

Give the species that evolved, the species they evolved to, and the proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said 5K to 10K was enough that there would be another species evolved from humans.

Then it isn't selection. It's just what happened. Even when claiming that speciation is random, Darwin botherers can't help but use language implying conscious choices.

If there are no examples of humans evolving into a new species, what are the top three non-human examples?

Give the species that evolved, the species they evolved to, and the proof.

He said 5K to 10K was enough that there would be another species evolved from humans.

I think you misread. Cut and paste where he said that.

Then it isn't selection. It's just what happened.

Yes, natural selection is what happened.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He said 5K to 10K was enough that there would be another species evolved from humans.

I think you misread. Cut and paste where he said that.

Oh sure, I'll get right on that. I'll even make a file of me reading it out loud for you. Anything else?

Then it isn't selection. It's just what happened.

Yes, natural selection is what happened.

No one "selected" anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh sure, I'll get right on that. I'll even make a file of me reading it out loud for you. Anything else?

Yeah, could you get me a beer?

No one "selected" anything.

But nature did. "Natural" selection. It's right there in the name.

Which is why the one in the middle is different than the other two.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yeah, could you get me a beer?

No one "selected" anything.

But nature did. "Natural" selection. It's right there in the name.

View attachment 606112

Which is why the one in the middle is different than the other two.

Did the one in the middle start out short and dark skinned and evolve tall and white or did the other three start out tall and white and evolve to be short and dark?

Either way how and why did "nature select" for that to happen?

Evidence for your answers please. No guesses.

 

[Likkmee]

A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Why do you feel it didn't 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.

Yup.

In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place.

What's "human evolution"? Post the definition.

 

[Likkmee]

No Evolution?
You Constantly are showing your SPECTACULR STUPIDITY.
Humans have races, aka subspecies.
If allowed to stay apart long enough they would become sperate species, and indeed given another 5K or 10K years we would have them. If not already.

Note the mere Semantic Wisecracks/nitpicking, NEVER KNOWLEDGE, you get from Toddster as opposed to my meaty info posts.

As soon as a population separates they start moving apart genetically and morphologically.
We were close.

Chimps have TWO species each with two subspecies/Races
Gorillas have TWO Species with 7 or 8 subspecies among them.
Tho creationists would call them the same 'Kind.'

Only the last 100+ years have let us reintegrate off the inevitable path.
We were very close to having separate species

Who is closer to being separate species morphologically, Us or Chimps, Gorillas, etc
You call this No evolution?


View attachment 605277

`

On the right is Gary Colemans granny

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did the one in the middle start out short and dark skinned and evolve tall and white

Probably.

Either way how and why did "nature select" for that to happen?

I think the change in skin color is related to less sunlight further north of the equator.

Evidence for your answers please.


When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

****

The team also tracked complex traits, such as height, which are the result of the interaction of many genes. They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet.

Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, which is counter to hypotheses that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture.

The paper doesn't specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster's results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don't get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. "What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes," Jablonski says. "This data is fun because it shows how much recent evolution has taken place."

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cute.

 

[Hollie]

Probably.

Either way how and why did "nature select" for that to happen?

I think the change in skin color is related to less sunlight further north of the equator.

Evidence for your answers please.


When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

****

The team also tracked complex traits, such as height, which are the result of the interaction of many genes. They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet.

Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, which is counter to hypotheses that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture.

The paper doesn't specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster's results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don't get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. "What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes," Jablonski says. "This data is fun because it shows how much recent evolution has taken place."

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

After that thorough shredding of the boy, there won't be enough left to sweep up in a dust pan.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Probably.

Either way how and why did "nature select" for that to happen?

I think the change in skin color is related to less sunlight further north of the equator.

Evidence for your answers please.


When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

****

The team also tracked complex traits, such as height, which are the result of the interaction of many genes. They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet.

Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, which is counter to hypotheses that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture.

The paper doesn't specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster's results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don't get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. "What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes," Jablonski says. "This data is fun because it shows how much recent evolution has taken place."

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Did you even read that? It doesn't support your case for Darwinism at all.

"The paper doesn't specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection."

"Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, Which is counter to the hypothesis that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture."

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.

Creationists call that "micro-evolution within kinds." I guess you would also but you would say "within species." I disagree with you and the creationists on that. Evolution is about speciation. Change within species isn't controversial.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you even read that? It doesn't support your case for Darwinism at all.

"The paper doesn't specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection."

"Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, Which is counter to the hypothesis that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture."

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.

Creationists call that "micro-evolution within kinds." I guess you would also but you would say "within species." I disagree with you and the creationists on that. Evolution is about speciation. Change within species isn't controversial.

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.

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?