Originally Posted by
McBa1n
You make a very good point in regards to 'modern' times, but it doesn't dismiss the fact. I'm no genius, but size is a critical point in survival as it dictates 'dominance' - that's my best argument (if you think about it a bit). Height can also include a larger frame for a human, which is also critical for labor. It wasn't until not too long ago that things like farming or taking down trees became mechanized, 2 things paramount in the survival of the species. I'm not an expert on the topic, I'm sure there are others that know a dickload more, but it makes a lot of sense that things like farming/warfare/labor/climate factors lend themselves to larger or taller humans. Also, the availability of food increased over time as more tools were invented. That likely has something to do with it. If you want to dig deeper into evolution - our best archeological evidence carries the species homo sapien back to Africa. Now, stop and think for a moment. Why are humans not EXACTLY as the first recorded homo sapiens if there's no evolution? Why are brown people differently colored than beigish people? Evolution helps each race of the species adapt to their surroundings. I don't remember reading about Jesus talking about 'native' americans (except in mormonism) that came over beringia and settled the 2 American continents in the bible, yet there's evidence of them being here some 50kish years ago. Do the Europeans that conquered North or South America have any common traits of the natives, other than being humans? Nope. You'd have to prove that air travel or alien intervention was plausible for races to inter-breed prior - that's the only out in the discussion. Natives of the Americas, or Africa or Asia or any non-mediterranean culture (which has tons of human mixed-breeding/sharing of technology/culture - it's no wonder that region dominates history) evolved over a LONG period of time to adapt to their part of the world. Archeology proves the migration of human-kind. So lets break this down. If humankind, going off the best science available, began in Africa - then how come a person born of pure African decent looks nothing like someone of pure Asian decent? Why aren't native N/S Americans identical to pure Europeans? That alone proves evolution exists. Also, the bible does not explain how a person of the nordic regions of our globe developed differently than people than Africa, but environment makes a LOT more sense to why homo-sapiens developed in the way they have. It makes sense that in a region with a longer winter humans need to be bigger - to store more fat for those brutal months - than someone in Africa, whom has a totally different set of food reserves and shelter requirements. Both are efficient based on their environment. Did some god do this? No. It's right in your f'n face. It makes a dickload of sense. It's factual human-kind evidence based on science, not a book that was stolen, perverted and then abused for capital gain. IF we wanted to get back to debating your point, in today's age, human size is not much of a matter, outside of 'dominance'. Money is the new 'dominance', but yet, how many 'short' leaders has the industrialized world, or the US, supported? None in the modern era. Crap, what about powerful women? Humankind has evolved to allow women to be equals of men, in theory (it's still very debatable). Our world make up in the last 100 years has changed so much that evolution will dictate the need for humans to be efficient in their environment - and you know what? None of us will see it. 10 generations of your family won't, either. That's not how evolution works - and it's also why science is EVERYTHING to humans, not money, and that's why we fail. You can't take your poverty or wealth to heaven with you, if such a thing exists. The only thing that matters is survival - and that's why anti-evolutionists fail (not to mention that most anti-evolutionists believe humans walked with dinosaurs, yet there's 0 evidence of that happening via scientific study - actually, that bs is based off of a book, not science - and the book is off over MILLIONS of years). I dunno, not studying science is detrimental to the advancement of humankind. Logic and the ability to put together a thought is much much more powerful than faith, in my opinion. We're a young species, of course we can't fill in all the blanks, yet. That doesn't mean that that faith fills in those blanks. It means we're not advancing enough as a species that has the ABILITY to have the answers, yet we have so many that think because MSNBC reports science that they're obviously full of b.s. and it's some scheme to take away guns and bibles. I apologize for being long-winded, this debate is not twitter-sized. I DO have a question, however, for those that don't believe in evolution. What about the earth's evolution and geology just on the planet earth? How do you feel about plate tectonics and earthquakes and volcanoes and such? I am curious to those views of non-science believers. I really am interested. I can't debate topics if I don't understand where people are coming from. Also, I wonder how this all relates to living in 'god's channel', or if there is such a thing. It would seem that if god did everything, then why? I really am interested. I havn't heard well thought out arguments on these sort of things and I genuinely would love to know.