Race, proof of evolution?

Question

Just reading some q & a's and I thought about this... may sound silly but worth a try no?...

the food we eat, the location we live, and all that have effects of how we are, and how we survive (changing physical properties) and mating with the same species/race over and over would keep improving little by little coming more prone/adaptable to your surroundings...

basically evolution right there...

migration- the world had one big continent (maby some little ones I dont know) all of the humans were more than likely almost exactly alike biologically, and physically

and when the continent split into more continents along with the humans on them... some moved closer to the equator thus making it hotter, so the sun made humans whom where closer (also whom where farther) to the equator change in a slight way IE skin color and such...

more to come... running out of space, correct me on my mistakes if you would... I'm just a kid thinking outside of the box

BE NICE please

Answer 1

thats the basic idea of evolution, except when people arose there was no single continent (Pangea), that was from the time of the dinosaurs...

however, this wouldnt be an argument that would convince someone to believe in evolution, because I think creationists believe that all the different ethnicities were "created"

Answer 2

I agree with your logic! I believe that over the span of the thousands of years humans have walked the earth, we have evolved. I feel that in the beginning we adapted to our surroundings, and though we continue to adapt we also advance in new ways. All technological advancements we've made as a human race could be contributed to evolution.

I always find this subject fun to ponder.

Answer 3

i take it that your question relates to racial differences. Scientists have determined that all races can trace their genotypical--the DNA--relationships to one common African ancestor. However, our phenotype--the differences that we see--seemed to occur some time latter. (I am not going to debate creation vs evolution it would take too long and most people believe what they want to believe anyway.) Basically as people moved away from their place of origin, they adapted to the climate and environment. Mutations--new phenotypes occur frequently in all organisms. However if that mutation is beneficial then it will remain present in the organism if they are isolated from others. In the case of people skin color, hair type and facial differences that benefited the environment stuck around. You also have to consider that people walked everywhere they went and it took several thousand years to move a few thousand miles. climatic changes would contribute to skin changes, certain food proteins may make a mutation more likely to occur, and the availability of food (the vitamins and minerals there in) may contribute to certain DNA changes. For example the less intense sun of northern Europe would have interfered with fetal development. The evolution of dark skin is tied with the question of loss of body hair. By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was dark, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein.

Dark skin helps protect against skin cancer that develops as a result of ultraviolet light radiation, causing mutations in the skin. Furthermore, dark skin prevents an essential B vitamin, folate, from being destroyed. Therefore, in the absence of modern medicine and diet, a person with dark skin in the tropics would live longer, be more healthy and more likely to reproduce than a person with light skin. White Australians have some of the highest rates of skin cancer as evidence of this expectation.

Conversely, as dark skin prevents sunlight from penetrating the skin it hinders the production of vitamin D3. Hence when humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and lighter skin colors started appearing. The people of Europe, who have low levels of melanin, naturally have an almost colorless skin pigmentation, especially when untanned. This low level of pigmentation allows the blood vessels to become visible and gives the characteristic pale pink color of white people. The difference in skin color between black and whites is however a minor genetic difference accounting for just one letter in 3.1 billion letters of DNA.

Some scholars argue that based on cave paintings, Europeans may have been dark-skinned as late as 13,000 years ago. The painters depicted themselves as having darker complexions than the animals they hunted. This hypothesis finds support from genetics with the discovery of the SLC24A5 gene in 2005. The mutation resulting in light skin is currently estimated to have originated among Europeans some 6,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Now, the key to your question--this in no way proves that evolution is completely seperate from creation. Even the best and brightest evolutionist cannot anwser the simple questions of where did the very first organism come from. Scientists tell us that life does not occur spontainiously--that is you can't get somthing from nothing. And you would be hard pressed to explain the diversity of all af earth's organisms and the complexity of our plants and animals. It had to start with somthing.

Answer 4

I agree with your basic premise!

As humans, we can only observe our situation for about 100 years, or less. Really noticeable evolution takes millions of years, and at least hundreds of thousands of generations!

We must think BIG, if we are going to even begin, to understand this subject!

So, with carbon-dating, the predictability of DNA drift over time, laboratory experimentation with lesser aniamls, all supported by the occasional fossil records, what we are beginning to see, is EVOLUTION-IN-ACTION, even in our brief lifespans!

Answer 5

It certainly demonstrates that isolated populations change and adapt to new environments.  It doesn't really prove evolution because humans haven't been around long enough as modern humans to branch into new species.  There were no humans when the continents split or even monkeys because the continents split up in the time of the dinosaurs.

Answer 6

I beleive that's called adaptation. Just because we look different doesn't mean we evolved from bacteria. We all generally look around the same.

Answer 7

The problem with "proof" on this subject is that so few people are willing to have an open mind on the subject.  People who believe in evolution start with the premise that the scientific method is the most reliable road to understanding and that if creationism conflicts with the results of the scientific method, creationism should give way.

People who do not believe in it often start with the premise that the Bible is the only reliable road to understanding, and that if the scientific method leads to an opposing conclusion then it must be flawed in some way.

I never hold out any hope for persuasion either way in this this particular area because of this disparity.  

So no, I'd have to say that what you call "proof" may satisfy you, but it would not satisfy a creationist, who would object to it, ultimately, on the basis that it conflicts with the Bible.

Answer 8

One of those sites is very racist. But, there are more differences between races than a lot of people want to admit. Africans were pretty isolated from Eurasia, as was Australia, so genes don't have an unimpeded flow between them.

When humans populated the world, the continents were all in their current positions. the most likely date for an expansion is now over 200k years ago plus, and it's looking more likely that we interbred with the 'primitive' hominids that were around, like Neanderthals.

As far as Creationists are concerned, there will never be proof of evolution, they look that way because god made them so.