Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:06:57 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
He sounds like my students who, when told that something occurred 2 months
earlier, are incredulous that anyone would ever reference anything that
happened such a long time ago.
[log in to unmask] Pat Barrett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ashley Moran" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: Empirical evidence on what constitutes a "long time"
>I wonder if anyone can point me to any figures or otherwise to support my
>argument. I sit next to a guy at work who is sceptical about everything I
>say about food because he thinks a few thousand years, or even a few
>hundred years is a *really long time*. He also thinks that evolution has
>speeded up since the industrial revolution (!) and I'm trying to explain to
>him the difference between cultural and biological evolution.
>
> Is there any research on how long it has taken humans or other animals to
> adapt to a new environment? I would really like to know how long it
> takes an animal's digestive system to evolve but I suppose that is
> guesswork based on teeth, bone structure and other related things, and
> not something you can see directly from fossils.
>
> I'm hoping to prove to him that 150 years is NOT a long time, and
> certainly not long enough for humans to evolve from a diet of meat and
> veg to a diet of grains, beans and potatoes.
>
> Thanks
> Ashley
>
>
|
|
|