Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess the question is "how is it vital". I understand dark skin is protection and that cost energy. How is "white skin" vital as opposed to just not needing "dark skin"?
Light-skinned people are as much as 6 times more efficient at producing Vitamin D in northern latitudes than dark-skinned people.
I guess the question is "how is it vital". I understand dark skin is protection and that cost energy. How is "white skin" vital as opposed to just not needing "dark skin"?
yes, the transition time from "this" to "that" will be/can be, shall we say, "awkward".
You need to do some reading on Vit D, the sun, and skin color. Maybe you can google that.
Thank you for this information. This is interesting.
I'm still trying to figure out why the blue-eyed gene would have come about. Humans adapt to their environment. I do understand this. But, as far as I know, blue eyes do not matter in the environment (of any kind). With current genetics, the brown gene is dominate and the blue is recessive. A mutation in the brown gene could have caused the lessor melanin to occur, but it seems that this mutation would have had to occur twice - one in a male and one in a female - making a recessive pair. Then this recessive pair would only produce blue-eyed off spring. So, this off spring would have to mate with recessive individuals to keep it going, as one brown gene would have made the eyes dark again. One common ancestor with a heterozygous (or a homozygous recessive) gene pair would not have produced a recessive combination with a homozygous dominate partner. This is a lot of "mutating" at the right time in a lot of individuals in order to get the recessive pairs needed for whole groups of people to be recessive - and not related. This is my problem with "we came from apes" and even my problem with "a shared ancestor".
Brown eyes are caused by the pigment melanin. If a mutation occurs that knocks out the melanin gene, that person's eyes would appear blue or green. There is no blue or green pigment. If you have the mutation in one chromosome, and a functional gene on the other chromosome, you can still make enough melanin to have brown eyes. You are only blue eyed if both copies are mutated.
The first person who suffered this mutation, on one chromosome, was brown eyed. He or she passed the mutant gene down to his progeny, who also were brown-eyed. At some point, after several generations (I hope!) two of these heterozygous individuals mated and gave birth to a blue eyed, homozygous recessive child.
These kind of random mutations happen with some frequency and, like blue eyes, may persist if there is no deleterious effect. Now imagine if, at some point, some type of environmental change occured that gave blue eyes a survival advantage. Eventually all of the brown-eyed people would die off and we would say that humans had evolved to have blue eyes. That type of mechanism can explain many of the traits we observe in organisms today.
Ok, Guys, several people have referenced my engine/motor analogy. Sorry. I didn't realize that this was problem. I am answering this here so I don't have to answer it 3 or 4 times.
An engine and a motor are *not* interchangeable. They are two different things. An engine produces its own power and a motor must have an external power source. You can't put an engine where you use a motor and you can't put a motor where you use an engine. The two words are totally different and mean two totally different things. Windshield wipers work off a motor power by the car battery that is stocked with electricity by a generator (now, an alternator). Once you start (the starter is a motor function) your car, you can take the battery out and drive until you turn off the engine (as long as you don't need any motor/battery functions like lights, radio or windshield wipers).
So, back to "one common ancestor" verses "descended from apes".
I had 8 great-grandparents. One of them was a Cherokee. It does not make me a Native American. I "share" a common Native American ancestor with everyone who is a blood relative of that Cherokee. That still leaves me with 7 great grandparents who were not Cherokee.
If all 8 of those great grandparents had been Cherokee, then I would have been "descended from" Cherokees - regardless of what mated with the off-spring of those 8 in subsequent generations.
So, yes terminology - words, semantics, meanings - do make a difference. I stated that my long suit was English. So, I am more picky about semantics than most. I am sorry.
Last edited by Ella Parr; 01-07-2015 at 01:58 PM..
Darn evolutionists... spouting that oh so inconvenient Science!
When did "Evolutionist" even become a word? lol
Well when what you've got are evolution and creation, "evolutionist" and "creationist" seem like the easiest, quickest way to define the two.
As for spouting that inconvenient science: It seems that even science has room for differing opinions. It's usually the "evolutionist" against the "creationist" and vice versa. Here it seems to be the "evolutionists" against the "evolutionists". That is an interesting change.
Well when what you've got are evolution and creation, "evolutionist" and "creationist" seem like the easiest, quickest way to define the two.
As for spouting that inconvenient science: It seems that even science has room for differing opinions. It's usually the "evolutionist" against the "creationist" and vice versa. Here it seems to be the "evolutionists" against the "evolutionists". That is an interesting change.
Creationism is not even on the same playing field (it's not science). Don't even bother to put them on the same level.
Creationism is not even on the same playing field (it's not science). Don't even bother to put them on the same level.
You seem to forget that you are in the Christianity forum. In the Christianity forum Creation is a viable option of belief. I really don't understand why non-Christians come to this forum - except maybe to inflame and argue. This is not a science forum. Never has been; never will be. The original post asked for beliefs of the "creationists" and the "evolutionists". To dismiss Creation as a viable option of belief in the Christianity forum is to be short-sighted at best. It is extremely rude and combative. Always has been; always will be. To interject science into the Christianity forum is, in and of itself, an out of place, misguided, and to a great extent, ignorant premise. In this forum, Christianity, it is the science that is out of place. Christianity is not science based. Christianity, as a belief system, has no relationship to science. It is a totally different premise than science. Creation is one page in a very long book. Whereas there is a conflict with Creation, as the Bible states it, and science, this is not a science forum.
The problem with most non-Christians is that they can not see both sides - even though many say they do. If you have never been a Christian, then you have no understanding of what Christianity is. What it isn't is science based.
One should have the common courtesy not to come into the Christianity forum and dismiss Christian beliefs - even if one thinks the Christian beliefs are wrong. In a science forum, one may dismiss Christian beliefs.
One should remember where one is and act accordingly.
Granted, when I ask for "creationist" opinions, I was hoping that I would get some variations on the Biblical account. Even though, that doesn't negate or eliminate anyone's opinion.
I invited the "evolutionists" into this discussion to hear their opinions. I am hearing their opinions. I am also hearing the "creationists" opinions. I really would like to keep this civil. It seems that the real focus of this discussion is who is capable of being civil and who is not. That is a shame.
You seem to forget that you are in the Christianity forum. In the Christianity forum Creation is a viable option of belief. I really don't understand why non-Christians come to this forum - except maybe to inflame and argue. This is not a science forum. Never has been; never will be. The original post asked for beliefs of the "creationists" and the "evolutionists". To dismiss Creation as a viable option of belief in the Christianity forum is to be short-sighted at best. It is extremely rude and combative. Always has been; always will be. To interject science into the Christianity forum is, in and of itself, an out of place, misguided, and to a great extent, ignorant premise. In this forum, Christianity, it is the science that is out of place. Christianity is not science based. Christianity, as a belief system, has no relationship to science. It is a totally different premise than science. Creation is one page in a very long book. Whereas there is a conflict with Creation, as the Bible states it, and science, this is not a science forum.
The problem with most non-Christians is that they can not see both sides - even though many say they do. If you have never been a Christian, then you have no understanding of what Christianity is. What it isn't is science based.
One should have the common courtesy not to come into the Christianity forum and dismiss Christian beliefs - even if one thinks the Christian beliefs are wrong. In a science forum, one may dismiss Christian beliefs.
One should remember where one is and act accordingly.
Granted, when I ask for "creationist" opinions, I was hoping that I would get some variations on the Biblical account. Even though, that doesn't negate or eliminate anyone's opinion.
I invited the "evolutionists" into this discussion to hear their opinions. I am hearing their opinions. I am also hearing the "creationists" opinions. I really would like to keep this civil. It seems that the real focus of this discussion is who is capable of being civil and who is not. That is a shame.
I am a Christian and I fully believe in evolution.
If I was a creationist I would simply say I believe the bible word by word and stop there. Trying to use science to prove Genesis is futile.
That is why I suggest you simply live in two compartments. This is what Georges Lemaitré did and he was very successful.
You seem to forget that you are in the Christianity forum. In the Christianity forum Creation is a viable option of belief. I really don't understand why non-Christians come to this forum - except maybe to inflame and argue. This is not a science forum. Never has been; never will be. The original post asked for beliefs of the "creationists" and the "evolutionists". To dismiss Creation as a viable option of belief in the Christianity forum is to be short-sighted at best. It is extremely rude and combative. Always has been; always will be. To interject science into the Christianity forum is, in and of itself, an out of place, misguided, and to a great extent, ignorant premise. In this forum, Christianity, it is the science that is out of place. Christianity is not science based. Christianity, as a belief system, has no relationship to science. It is a totally different premise than science. Creation is one page in a very long book. Whereas there is a conflict with Creation, as the Bible states it, and science, this is not a science forum.
The problem with most non-Christians is that they can not see both sides - even though many say they do. If you have never been a Christian, then you have no understanding of what Christianity is. What it isn't is science based.
One should have the common courtesy not to come into the Christianity forum and dismiss Christian beliefs - even if one thinks the Christian beliefs are wrong. In a science forum, one may dismiss Christian beliefs.
One should remember where one is and act accordingly.
Granted, when I ask for "creationist" opinions, I was hoping that I would get some variations on the Biblical account. Even though, that doesn't negate or eliminate anyone's opinion.
I invited the "evolutionists" into this discussion to hear their opinions. I am hearing their opinions. I am also hearing the "creationists" opinions. I really would like to keep this civil. It seems that the real focus of this discussion is who is capable of being civil and who is not. That is a shame.
You are pitting Science against creationism. It is you who is inviting science into the conversation. They are two answers to two questions.
If you want to know about the science, then learn the science but don't pretend that they are on equal footing and then whine when someone calls you out on it.
Christianity is a belief system, Evolution is SCIENCE. You don't answer scientific questions with "God Did It".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
