Whoever is procreating, is procreating. Monkeys and apes procreate. Species that are between the apes (hominids) and humans procreate. Humans procreate. My point is, the exact minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, century etc. when something "appears" and we say about this "something," here, there is a human, no longer a hominid - cannot be traced. Evolution is a slow and inconspicuous process that concerns large poulations of individuals (not individuals per se - I do not "evolve," you do not "evolve"; only "we," a very large population of human beings, evolves).
I agree with you that we may slighty change from generation to generation. But before I tell you where I agree and dissagree, I would first like to know for sure what you are saying. So I will repeat what you said in my own words. ok, here it goes:
So from large populations of Monkies procreating for millions of years came the hominids, and through a large population of hominids procreating for millions of years came humans. And no one will be able to trace the first individual hominid and human because we change as groups not as individuals. And since these changes are slow, it will take millions of years to see a huge difference.....from group to group.
Is this what you are saying?
Because these transitions are gradual. And they do not apply to all individual members of a population at once. Rather, within populations, there are various genetic "alleles" (products of genetic mutations). These allelic genes control traits, creating a certain "variance," the existence of very many distinct variants of the "phenotype"(appearence). In a population of, say, 346000 apes some 234 might have a slightly shorter tail, some 65 a slightly more upright posture, some 31 a bigger size of the cranial cavity, etc. The variants that fit their environment better are "reproductively successful," i.e. live longer and have more children. This, plus phenomena like gene flow and genetic drift, cause changes in the populations. For example, in a certain environment the subset of apes with a bigger size of the cranial cavioty may expand, and a subset with a longer tail shrink, etc.
Ok, yeah I agree with all this. Infact, most modern YEC's(Young Earth Creationist)
will as well. We don't see a problem with this. And what you said above is what I was tought in public school. Well, it's what is tought in American public schools in general. I think what bothers YEC's and maybe some OEC's(Old Earth Creationists) is when you use this process to explain the existence of hominids and humans from Apes. But we are in 100% agreement in what you said here.
Why and how the reproductive barriers form is rather difficult to say. Wolves and domestic dogs interbreed. On the other hand, there are populations of birds that look exactly the same, and yet never interbreed.
Understood, and thanks for answering.
There must be certain divergence to account for reproductive barriers, and this divergence might take literally many millions of years. Who knows what would happen with two human populations that are entirely isolated from each other for many millions of years...
Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent.
What about the mutations that are caused by the Sun? The type that damage our DNA? If this happened over millions of years then wouldn't that make everything look different?
It's not a matter of beliefs, actually. I believe that Christ rose from the dead, but I KNOW - not "believe" but KNOW - that genes exist and mutate, that the natural selection and other processes do change the genetic makeup of populations, etc. So I KNOW that life really evolves pretty much like Darwin postulated.
Modern creationists are all over the map when it comes to how Darwin is viewed. Theistic Evolutionists love him and defend him all the time against other creationists. I don't know what modern Old Earthers think of him. I know they had a hard time with it when Darwin first wrote his book. His two professors were Old Earthers, but since then most Old Earthers eventually became Theistic Evolutionists or Atheists and Agnostics. Modern Young Earth Creationism was brought back to life around 1960 something. It existed in the 16 and 17 hundreds, but back then they were mainly arguing over rocks and geology. For the Old Earth Creationists view (at least in the protestant western world) started around the 16 and 17 hundreds. I embraced YEC(Young Earth Creationism) in middleschool....all the way up until a few years ago. I am still a creationist, just no longer a strict Y.E.C.....I guess I am more O.E.C.(Old Earth Creationism) now. But I don't know yet, I am still trying to figure it out and be right on both sides......both Faith/Theology & Science. I think Theistic Evolution gives in too much to whatever the Atheistic and Agnostic scientists say. They don't question everything like the Y.E.C.'s do.
And this is why I liked and embraced Y.E.C. (at one time)
Y.E.C's are not afraid to question every move and every thought of mainstream science.
I see that as a good thing, for if you don't question it then you may accept something that maybe mere speculation.
So in my book, questioning mainstream science can only advance science.....for it will make people look at the details.
No, that's exactly THE problem. Biology is not taught well in the USA. I have kids in my freshman non-major Human Physiology and Microbiology classes who do not understand the difference between a cell and a molecule,
I know the difference. I was tought that in plant bio and chemistry in highschool.....and I had to learn it again in college.
A molecule is a collection of atoms. And a cell is a collection of molecules in the form of lipids, proteins, and uhm? I forgot.......it's been years. But yeah, you are right, some public schools don't know how to teach certain things correctly.....or they teach it to students pretty late. like instead of teaching Geometry in the 7nth and 8th grades, they might do it in the 10nth or 11nth grades. Whereas in other public schools you learn Trig 2 and Calculus in the 11nth and 12th grades. So yeah, it all depends on the public school.
But no, I dissagree. It is not about Biology. It is about certain beliefs we can't see and observe......thus it is about philosophy.
or have no idea what does it mean, "sequence of nucleotides." They do not visualize processes like mutation, allele frequency, etc. No wonder they ask questions of the type you are asking. No foundation in biology. And yes, unfortunately, in the US one can have a higher education without having a secondary school foundation in anything...
Just because they ask the same questions I ask, doesn't mean I don't know about cell division, mutations........ect. I use to know alot about that stuff.
Like I said, the problem is about "time". It's about making dogmatic statements about things we can't see and observe. I don't have a problem with "micro" evolution.
And you don't have to tell me that there is no such thing as "micro-evolution". This term was made up by scientists back in the 1920's. And it is something Y.E.C.'s make use of. It is not a term most secular scientists use today. So I already know. I am only saying it so that you will stop saying that "Biology" is the problem. I believe in mutations. I just reject the idea that I "must believe", must "embrace" monkeys turning into humans over millions of years.
Even you said:"Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent."
So why must I embrace what you and most mainstream scientists embrace if this can be the case for alot of monkies in their environment? You all say that I must make that jump, but I don't see why I must. I understand it. I understand why you believe what you believe, but I don't understand why I must make that leap of faith too.
Why? I can still believe in mutations....even over milllions of years and not make that jump for human beings.
I'm not attacking you for believing the way you do. Nor am I calling you names.
I just feel that "Macro-Evolution" is a theory......and yes, I know that you will say that there is no such thing as "Macro-evolution".
Neither you nor I will live for millions of years to see this "possible" change from one group to the next. So I would just like to see it as a theory........and not as a fact or universal law. 20 years ago.....it was ok for people to call it a theory.....at least in Pittsburgh.....but now.....it seems as if there is pressure to make everyone believe in it as a fact.
And all I am saying is..........no.