Humans change through time, this is measurable. People who lived 2,000 years ago tended to be shorter than people are now, based on archaeological evidence. If you look further back in time to the Paleolithic, they were as tall as us. What I personally read into this is the effect of dietary trends, particularly the addition of grains to the human diet, and more widespread malnourishment as people settled into villages and cities and some had, some had not. I could be wrong. However the fact remains that the general height of human beings changed. I think if you looked you could find other general trends too. People indigenous to northers climates are believed to have stockier builds and wider nostrils because these things benefit those who live in a cold, dry place. Maybe we northerners also developed white skin because that helps us aborb more sunlight, which is weaker here than in the tropics, and sunlight is needed for things like vitamin D synthesis. Another example. Look at all the elite distance runners who come from Kenya. Look at the sherpas in Nepal. These people are highly adapted to living at altitude. They tend to have lungs with a larger capacity. This isn't something that can happen in a lifetime, it is a trait that a race develops which helps it cope better in its environment. I'm sure if you looked within the human species or any animal species, especially those that reproduce quickly, you would find genetic adaptations to the environment. You could say you find this as improbable as you like, but it happens nevertheless.

About a missing link . . . an example of how theories can be adapted. When I was young I remember hearing a lot about the search for a missing link. Most scientists now believe that it is more complicated than that. Waves of various species of the genus homo, and their predecessors, seem to have evolved in Africa and spread out. There were various hominids that evidently were progenitors of apes, or creatures that were more ape-like than human-like. The consensus seems to be, now, that there is no "one" missing link. So how does a creationist credit the other species of the genus homo, are they all hoaxes, or what? What was homo erectus doing over in Asia? It is believed they may have been the first creatures to learn how to use fire. What about neanderthals? It is believed that they wore clothes, had religion, and possibly even language. It is even possible that their disappearance might be explained by interbreeding with modern humans.

It still seems to me that a creationist is a creationist because they want to adhere to what they see as the literal truth of the Bible. I'd really like to see what one of these respected ex-evolutionist, non-religious scientsis has to say. Are there really any?