Is the process of Natural Selection an Evolutionary process?

Question

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning

Answer 1

Darker skin protects you from the sun's uv rays, so it makes sense for ppl to be darker in hotter places.

But I do agree that something can't be created in the DNA that wasn't there before.

Answer 2

Natural Selection doesn't depend on you or anyone else to decide what it selects. That's just silly. And Eskimo's have something that the rest of us don't. A study was done on how they handle the cold temps up there.... while outside in below 0 weather, they found that the Eskimo's faces stayed around 80 degrees... while a guy from New York was getting frost bite. So, um, where do you see that it didn't do something for the Eskimo's? They naturally stay warmer in colder climates than we do. And they have that color of skin from their ancestors... it was not necessary for it change the color of the skin. They don't ignore it... it's not a factor in this case. Only you are making it a factor here.....

And natural selection has a lot more to do with every day life than you think. lol

It can't create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning? Who says the potential wasn't already there? You're speaking as if they know every little thing about DNA.... they don't. They're still studying it.... that's why we see certain theories die out and others hang on.... these things depend on new information. You're speaking as if you already have all of this information. If that is so, why are you here and not in a science lab or something doing something about it?

Answer 3

How ignorant can you get? Eskimos and all the native peoples of the Americas are descended from people who migrated from Asia, probably when sea levels were low enough to allow passage on foot across the Bering Strait. This happened several thousand years ago. A few thousand years is not long enough for traits like dark skin to evolve to lighter skin. And human technology ("clothing") negates natural selection anyway.

Didn't you ever wonder why Eskimos look Asian? It's because they're descended from Asians.

Sheesh.

Answer 4

You misunderstand the processes of natural selection, probably deliberately, and ignore completely the importance of sexual selection. Natural selection is not a single-track process. It doesn't just operate on the lines of "this organism is going to be cold, so it can have fur". The organism adapts IN TOTAL to its environment. And obviously one of the adaptive traits in Inuit is their ability to kill animals for their skins and wear fur. Sexual selection is likely to have resulted in hairless humans in exactly the same way as it has give human females hairless faces and large breasts, and human males large penises (you don't think so? a silverback gorilla boasts a measly one inch).

So remember that natural selection is only one aspect of a complex process that assists the survival of ALL aspects of an organism, not just the ones you can see, and you won't make the same mistake again.

Oh, and this strange remark about things being "created" in DNA that weren't there before - DNA constantly breaks and repairs itself, and mutates - it's why our appearance changes as we grow old: the repairs aren't so good. And mutations in DNA may or may not be useful, but if they are, it is the process of natural selection that brings them to prominence and consolidates them as a useful trait for the survival of the species. DNA is always creating things that weren't there before - mostly not useful, sometimes crucial. See how much you've learned today?

And Michael C schools you yet again. The invoice is in the mail.

Answer 5

You clearly have little understanding of how natural selection works. You are assuming we are all fully evolved at the moment, which couldn't be the case.
Inuits that live north of the arctic circle have darker skin than us because there are times during the year when the sun is up for virtually 24hrs.
Why, do you think, evolution is accepted by virtually the entire scientific community, from biologists to physicists, if it is untrue?
Random mutations are common in DNA. If the mutation gives an animal an advantage. it produces more offspring who are also likely to have the mutation etc etc

Answer 6

That you put a science-related question in this forum tells me exactly how ignorant about evolution you actually are.

Light skin has the advantage of being able to synthesise vitamin D, and is less likely to be sunburnt. Therefore, those closer to the equator have darker skin. Those further away from it have lighter skin, because they can get away with it.

Proving one thing wrong about evolution, does not prove the entire theory incorrect.

Answer 7

If creation were true, wouldn't the Eskimos have been created with fur? And the equatorial people with reflective skin etc etc. So, what you can clearly infer is that creation, too, does not exist. What a dilemma we have.

Answer 8

Your assements here are incorrect. The way that Eskimos demonstrate a superiority over other humans in their climate is that they can survive on a diet in there location that most humans cannot.

Good Luck!!!

Answer 9

well noted ,the scientrists cant understand logic when it has an opposing logic .
thier fixed minds focus on a favoured 'proof' that is implied but conclusively disprooves itself in not remaining consistant ,age old deceitefilled theory bites a bit of gods dust.
will they be humbled by greatness or come out with thier old play of reportage ,and getting too convincing proofs deleted,the trouble is the theory is still evolving and their students think its science fact.

Answer 10

No, it's not. I believe you are talking more about adaptation though. Proving that animals and people adapt to their environments is like proving the sky is blue. It's a fact of life that has nothing to do with macro-evolution. God in His wisdom made us able to adapt to different conditions--simple.