Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas
A row of adoptions can be evolution. Adaptions take place all the time where life exists, humans hardly can be an exemption, its only that you have to consider the cultural development when it comes to humans more than with other animals.
I really can't follow your line of argumentation why it should not be possible to change from a frugivore to an omnivore or vice versa.
|
I'm not saying that it is impossible, what i am wondering is how people can accept adaptation when that theory was discredited. But what i think people may mix up is natural selection anyway. You say adaptation occurs all the time, however it is more likely to be survival of the fittest.
The best example i can give is when fish that are better suited for warmer waters are suddenly put into water that is cooler then normal. Those fish with the genes to survive better in cooler waters will survive, whilst those that do not have the genes will not survive. As these fish give birth (if we assume that the only fish to procreate are those with the genes more suited to cooler waters) then the next generation of fish will be better suited to the cooler waters, except for those that get the dominate/ recessive gene that acclimatises them to warmer water.
However, that is a form of micro-evolution, survival of the fittest, and not adaptation over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas
As I have said already before, I lack expertise in anthropology, but especially this issue should be one that has been quite extensively researched, as the skulls enable scientists to make quite good predictions about the nature of the food the early humans ate.
I am also not sure what you mean by "naturally".
|
I lack the expertise too but that doesn't stop me from wondering (a basic knowledge in the field does this to me) how the evolution occurred from fruigovores to omnivores.