Think Science .

Speciation is far more than the result of adapting to environments. It involves mutations in the genome of a population which make them reproductively incompatible with concurrent populations from a common progenitor. (Yes… Environmental adaptations require genetic changes also. However… These are of often the result of changes in gene expression and gene repression. NOT, true mutation to the genome of the species.)

Populations of Humans have never been so reproductively isolated from populations of other humans… for a long enough period of time… for the restrictions in their genetic base to accumulate the number of genetic mutation as to make them reproductively incompatible with other Humans, and therefore be a unique species.

The Races of Homo sapiens sapiens, are more akin to the variations in domesticated animals. Canines have far shorter life spans and have undergone more generations for the time that Humans began to breed them, than have H. sapiens sapiens. Yet…
All breeds of dogs are able to successfully reproduce with others. As they can with wolves and coyotes. Why??

Because there had never been complete reproductive isolation.

H. spaiens sapiens were able to successfully reproduce with H. spaiens neanderthalensis…Who possessed far greater genetic differences and specific environmental adaptations, than do the various Races of Human extant in the World today.

I’ve already covered so many posts on evolution. So i decided to cover some fitness in evolution. Fitness, in evolutionary terms, is the ability of an individual organism within a population to pass its genes to future generations. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. Thus, if a particular variation (long beak or long legs or being faster or slower or more colorful) enables a particular INDIVIDUAL (organism) within a population to reproduce more (thus passing on its genetic structure) it is more fit.
So, if more women want my babies than yours I am the most fit assuming I have no problems with reproducing.

Survival has nothing to do with it. A peacocks bright and showy feathers are deleterious to its survival. However, a peahen will not mate with a bland male. Thus, you could be the last male peacock within a population - surviving because your feathers are less showy and bright. However, if the peahens won’t mate with you your fitness is zero.

The thing to understand is that a significant percentage of the population does consider abortion to be murder, and nothing you can say will change their mind.

Why? Because it’s all 100% arbitrary and not based on scientific facts. Show me one scientific study that determines exactly when a fetus becomes a living being. Not philosophy… an actual scientific conclusion based on empirical data. Can’t do it, can you? You know why? Because there ain’t one.

I, personally, consider a human fetus with a beating heart as a person.
The heart does not begin to beat until about 4-5 weeks. Does this comment mean that an abortion before this period is not murder in your opinion? Does it also mean that abortion at this time period is also murder?

Since there is no empirical conclusion we are left with emotional rationalizations… each every bit as valid as the other. So why bother arguing? Really, I think that is what this conversation should be about - whether it should be considered as murder.

Probably because it’s so misunderstood. Darwin, who is creditted with the theory, got a lot wrong… and there are some who use the adjustments to his theories as reason to throw out the entire concept.

Theologically, there are two main problems with evolution:

1. Timeframe

Human civilization has only been around for about 10,000 years. For this reason, most religions date the age of the Earth (and pretty much the entire universe) at below that number (6000 years is the number given by Abrahamic religions.) Since evolution uses millions of years, it is in direct contradiction to almost all religions.

2. Dominance of Man

AKA, species narcissism. Almost all religions (and even philosophies that are not religious in nature) seek to place Man at the pinacle of species… in other words, people like to think of themselves as the most important thing in the universe. Evolution shows that not only is Man not the pinacle of life on Earth (or anywhere else), Man hasn’t even been around long enough to have any real significant impact.

Heck, even those “crazy leftest” like to give Man more importance than he has. The one thing Chernobyl has conclusively shown is that Nature will do just fine no matter what man does. The nuclear disaster in Chernobyl wiped out everything within miles of the plant… and today (20 years later) not only has the land recovered, it is actually doing better than it was previously. This shows that even Man’s worst nightmare (Nuclear Holocaust which wipes out all mankind) will have very little impact overall… and that only for a very short time.

As we all know, in genetics we normally use TT for tall homozygous genotype, Tt for tall Heterozygous genotype and tt for short Heterozygous genotype.

Now, Suppose we start from two pure breeds.

TT X TT –> TT, TT.. (all tall children).

If we take two heterozygous breeds then.

Tt X Tt –> TT, Tt, Tt, tt.. (three Tall, one short children).

and if we take two short parents.

tt X tt –> tt, tt.. (All short children).

So how is this possible?

Let’s say, for the sake of simplicity, only three genes control our height. We will call them A, B, and C.

Remember that we have two copies of every gene, one from dad and one from mom. Keeping that in mind, we would have 6 copies of these 3 genes. Our final height is then an average of the number of “tall” and “short” copies we inherit.

For an example, let’s take a father whose genetic makeup is AabbCc and a mother with aaBbCc. With 2 “tall” and 4 “short” copies each, both are of below average height.

Which copy of each gene we inherit from our parents is random. In this family, the children will most likely inherit 2 “tall” and 4 “short” copies. Like their parents, they will be of below average height. But this will not always be the case.

There is a smaller chance that their child could inherit 4 “tall” copies, AbC from dad and aBC from mom. This child will be quite tall. On the other hand, dad could pass down abc and mom could pass down aBc. With five “short” copies, this child would be considerably shorter.

Imagine how many possibilities there would be if twenty genes controlled our height!