Humans change over time, what does that mean?

Yes and no.

It is known that certain environmental factors drive the selection of some alleles over others, even in human beings. People whose ancestors came from the tropics, for example, tend to have better resistant to tropical diseases, such as malaria, then Europeans, which was demonstrated in attempts to colonize Africa. Similarly, Europeans have a better resistance to diseases such as small pox, which was demonstrated when they first came into contact with the tribes of the Americas.

The reason isn't that the people change. Rather, there is always variation within a population. Those people with the alleles that permit them to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their environment have more offspring than others. Repeat this generation after generation, and you end up with populations that have certain traits in common.

For example, if a deadly illness is spreading through the population, those whose immune systems are most susceptible die first. The survivors are those who were best able to defend against it. When they have children, the kids inherit the same genetic resistance that their parents had. Or if there's too much sunlight (such as in the tropics) and the UV rays are breaking up folic acid, those who have adaptations to block the amount of sunlight penetration (such as darker skin tones) are going to be the only survivors.

This is evolution at work. Obviously, we can't observe it over individual lifetimes because we're talking about changes over generations. However, the facts, such as those above, support the case. Those who understand evolution get how it has more explanatory power than almost any other theory in the history of biology, rivalled only by cell theory and the germ theory of disease transmission.

And those who talk about "transitional species" and "missing links" and the like don't understand what evolution means in the first place, and if you don't even make an attempt to get a crude understanding of a topic, you don't have any grounds to form an opinion about it.

The final piece of evolution to take place to human beings which may well be greater or much less shown is blue eyes. i might argue it quite is purely a transformation not a step forward. there have been no documented variations over 2000 years even though it quite is a tiny time-physique. I recommend you go and study some biology rather with connection with everyday distribution. I even have an virtually stunning skill to technique specific forms of guidance. My IQ is over one hundred sixty. this would not mean i'm greater distinctly progressed it purely skill i'm in the direction of the main surprising end of regular distribution for IQ. the comparable may well be mentioned for plenty of your attributes - sharpness of enamel is going to stick to a bell curve besides as is capability and surprisingly lots each characteristic you could degree. it quite is purely while the centre of the bell curve strikes which you will say that there is a transformation and on condition which you have a huge adequate pattern.

MK6 you nitwit, we're still the same species, that's why different races can interbreed. Something is considered a completely different species when it can no longer interbreed with what it originated as. And let me ask you, how can you walk a mile without taking lots of individual steps?

If eskimo's were to continue to develop, over millions of years, the characteristics that make them unique, and africans were too also, then yes - over a VERY LONG TIME they would become different species and no longer be able to interbreed, just because it hasn't happened in the few thousand years that these people have been alive doesn't mean that it doesn't occur

Im a mormon, and although tons of my mormon friends say evolution is not real, all I can say is IT IS REAL!

What would you call all the evidence we have for it?

I believe that the Bible is vague so people can find out exactly how we were formed.

The only thing we havent found is a link between land animals and animals with wings..

@Robert D.: I know that, but we havent found a link between an animal without wings, and a flying animal with wings.

"their bodies had changed slightly to provide them an advantage over their living condition."

"Does this suggest that humans are susceptible to involuntary physical change based on how their bodies react to their environments?"

You make it sound like metamorphism.

Microevolution is supported by actual scientific evidence. No one disputes that. And, microevolution is what you have described.

Macroevolution is the point of contention because it has no scientific evidence.

Humans remain humans. Frogs remain frogs. There are variations and mutations. There is no scientific evidence beyond that. The scientific method does not allow for philosophical arguments as scientific evidence.

Evolution is due to natural selection, not to the 'development' of any adaptation in any individual.

DERP: Plenty of evidence that birds are of reptilian descent. Both anatomical, fossil and genetic.

@DERP again: Plenty of intermediate fossils also.

Reptiles with feathers and primitive arm flaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Eskimos are short and squaty to preserve body heat. Africans have dark skin to protect against UV light and dissipate heat.

Yet all people can mate with any other human-group. Macro-evolution is not substantiated by micro-evolution.

It seems to me to fit in with the evolution thought. People and animals adapt to survive-"Survival of the fittest" and all.

Members of my family survived the Dust Bowl, and as a result, a lot of their descendants have excess wax buildup in the ear that require special treatment.