evolution ("A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development.") does occur naturally, it's just not the way that man and animals came into being. eskimos have thicker corneas because of the bright reflection of the sun off the snow. it's an adaptation, and using the strict definition of the word evolution, eskimos are slightly evolved. but they have not changed from a human into something different. they're still humans, and still the same species. it's the same as you can cross two breeds of dogs and get a new type of dog, but you can't cross a cat and a dog and get a catdog. the design of our dna prevents it. you can cross certain species that are different, like a horse and a donkey, and get a mule, but, guess what? they always come out sterile!
modified to include definition of evolution i am using
its the case of survival of the fittest, the ones that are strongest and most adept to survivng in that particular habitat - say because of longer legs, or sharper hearing, are the ones who will survive and mate with one another, and consiquently the species will take a slightly different form. Its like with the breeding of dog, they want a dog with floppy ears, the mate two dogs which seem to have particularly floppy ears, and then mate their offspring who have the floppiest ears etc (does that make sense?).
In a number of cases nature does this itself. It is interesting though that what type of a certain species - ie longest legged -may survive best in say a forest, may not survive well on the mountains and hence of each species "strains" will arrise, but they are all inevitably the same species.
I don't thin its evolution or even "adaptation" or "survival of the fittest" as you all have stated. Its called genetic diversity and taking advantage of that diversity. We are all descendents of Noah. When certain families of his offspring bred with eachother and started forming the different races of people, those people moved (After Babel) to an area that suited them. White people didn't go to Africa, because the sun was too strong, and they genetic makeup couldn't handle it. Black people had an advantage over them. Their skin could withstand the bright sun, and their sickle-cells could handle malaria.
What did not happen, but what evolutionists would have you believe is that people got darker in Africa due to adaptation.
well, i'm not sure if i stated it or not in my other comments, but, when i refer to evolution, i refer to this definition:
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development."
I believe that is a valid definition for what both you and i are describing.
so that would make sense... because it never changed into something different... but adaptation to environment, that still sounds strange to me.
As stated before by 9, its all about Darwinism....
yeah, I didn't like where this thread was going. but I don't wanna upset anyone.
Where is it going Dean??
to the garbage!
everyone brought up some interesting points, and i'm glad we talked about it. this whole thing definitely reaffirmed my belief in creatorship, but it also brought up some questions i had never thought about before, especially what ian said about noah's ark and deans comments on genetic diversity. it's mind boggling really.
OK-so most people on the beach are tan. Did they get tan from being on the beach, or were the drawn to the beach because their tans predisposed them to go there?
hahahaha! that actually made me laugh out loud!