How does Genetic Offspring differ from Evolution - Darwin

I think if a Family remains in a specific environment/area for many generations, there will be very little mutation,and genetics would play the major role in everything.

If that same line of people migrated to a totally different climate/environment,then mutation would begin to occur in just a few generations.

A few years ago, I read an article about how pure blood Japanese People's facial structure was changing dramatically.

Japan kept out all foreigners and resisted any type of trade with the outside world until the mid 1850s. Since then the change in the types of foods that they eat has greatly softened their jawline. There were some other things too, but I can't remember all of it.

quote:

---

Who would be more fit in current society -- Man 1 who works 70 hours per week and gets home and is tired, or Man 2 who sits at home on Man 1s dime having babies all day.

---

I understand and appreciate your point but long term if you are an intelligent species the first order of business would be to produce future generations who are smart enough to get your genetic material on other planets to better insure the survival of the species at an ELE.

If dinosaurs had evolved to built space ships they would have survived the meteor strike.

quote:

---

It can be both. A genetic line is subject to adaptation or mutation, but that doesn't invalidate the general predication of genetic traits. You're talking Darwin cum Mendel, not Darwin versus Mendel.

---

The whole post was great, very well said. Whether you agree with this or not it was very well said

Thanks

quote:

---

It can be both. A genetic line is subject to adaptation or mutation, but that doesn't invalidate the general predication of genetic traits. You're talking Darwin cum Mendel, not Darwin versus Mendel.

---

Posters have been illustrating adaptation- rather than mutation-driven evolution. Adaptation-driven evolution is the application of existing genetic characteristics to new environmental pressures. On the other hand, mutation-driven evolution involves a trial and error application of a totally new genetic characteristic to existing environmental conditions.

quote:

---

And, to address a couple replies, survival of the fittest is entirely a question of contextual environment. Just because an organism is fit to survive in certain conditions, that doesn't make it fit to survive in others.

---

Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to the human species, however.

quote:

---

And if the most physically fit individuals are the ones taking the most risks, then the less physically fit ones will be selected to some greater or lesser degree. In senses like that, human social development has actually influenced the progress of evolution.

---

Regarding humans, there are few risks being taken. Certainly none that affect the species at large. All humans, whether physically fit or not, are being selected to live and reproduce. Darwinian evolution has effectively come to a halt. I wouldn't call this progress.

quote:

---

Or, to return to Mendel, he actually influenced natural selection on a tiny scale by choosing which plants to cross and which ones not to cross. The ones he chose for future propagation were, in effect, survivors of that particular circumstance.

---

Mendel's experiments have spawned huge industries. From peas to cows and every size creature in between, humans have seized the controls of evolution and have been manipulating genes to our advantage ever since that great man's efforts proved that we could.

The only creatures that are safe from human-influenced "evolution" are those that don't interest us (and occupy environmental niches that aren't important to us) or which prove too difficult or dangerous to manipulate, such as viruses. If we conquer microscopic organisms with the same efficacy we've shown with larger species, then natural evolution may very well become a thing of the past.

quote:

---

Wife and I discussing this. She says the just as eye traits are inherited and predicted with a degree of certainty, therefore they are not evolutionary changes.

---

Just because heredity traits have a certain likelihood doesn't make them any less random.

Something can be random and still have a probable outcome. Rolling a dice is random, but you still have a 1/6 chance of hitting a five.

quote:

---

Whether you agree with this or not

---

There is no "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with scientific fact. Evolution is a fact, whether you acknowledge it or not.