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.
If this is what passes for intelligent debate with atheists then we Christians are in real trouble.I have to say that it is downright embarrassing to see stuff like this put forth by theists with the expectation that it is any kind of an intelligent argument.
Sad.Very sad.
Oh, I don't know. I thought it was a quite nice question. Why indeed, don't humans in a old climate adapt to deal with it, say by increasing body hair? After all, that's what natural selection is supposed to do.
In fact, Sans agrees that, yes, natural selection does this, but in ways other that growing more body hair. There's also the matter that we find our own solutions to the problem by utilising the body hair of other animals so there's no compelling need to grow our own.
It was a better question than 'Why don't kids inherit their parents tattoos?' But even that's worth asking as it can be explained that, if it is not part of the genetic make - up that would not be passed on.
And yet, if it was the case that a particular tattoo - say an anchor on the forearm, was a sure-fire advantage in pulling the wimmin, then (rather like the samurai crabs) natural selection should, in a remarkably short time, favour the mutation that produces a natural anchor on the forearm. But there's no way to prove that as yet.
Just a silly thought: perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the people some call Eskimos and others Inuit didn't originally live in that part of the world. (They migrated there across the Bering Land Bridge).
Also, there's a pesky little thing called climatology. At the time of the migration into North America, it wasn't quite as cold up north as it is today.
I'd think Eskimos would likely better be served with a thicker layer of body fat than fur.
In any case, humans' ability to make tools and clothing put everyone's DNA on an equal playing field, so natural selection never became a (major) factor in refining the traits for more body hair or fat.
Icelanders( Finns, Norwegians, Swedes) have light colored skin to help them get vitamin D from the sun. So why do eskimos and inuits have darkers skin? I know that the eskimos are more recent to that climate and area but even after 10,000 years or so they should have begun to noticably lighten. Any ideas on this, anybody?
Oh, I don't know. I thought it was a quite nice question. Why indeed, don't humans in a old climate adapt to deal with it, say by increasing body hair? After all, that's what natural selection is supposed to do.
In fact, Sans agrees that, yes, natural selection does this, but in ways other that growing more body hair. There's also the matter that we find our own solutions to the problem by utilising the body hair of other animals so there's no compelling need to grow our own.
It was a better question than 'Why don't kids inherit their parents tattoos?' But even that's worth asking as it can be explained that, if it is not part of the genetic make - up that would not be passed on.
And yet, if it was the case that a particular tattoo - say an anchor on the forearm, was a sure-fire advantage in pulling the wimmin, then (rather like the samurai crabs) natural selection should, in a remarkably short time, favour the mutation that produces a natural anchor on the forearm. But there's no way to prove that as yet.
The reason Eskimo's didn't grow fur is 1) they migrated up from warmer climes and wore clothes,which negates the need drastically and 2) humans have only been around for a blink of an eye,cosmologically speaking.Adaptation doesn't take place in a few hundred years in species that reproduce a generation every 25 yrs.
Icelanders( Finns, Norwegians, Swedes) have light colored skin to help them get vitamin D from the sun. So why do eskimos and inuits have darkers skin? I know that the eskimos are more recent to that climate and area but even after 10,000 years or so they should have begun to noticably lighten. Any ideas on this, anybody?
Because fish based diets provide adequate vitamin D,so there would not be a major biological response to a nonexistent lack.
Because the Inuit and all other humans came from Africa only about 200,000 years ago.
The arctic is not a human's natural environment. We took a quantum leap in evolution, invented tools to help us survive in different environments (such as clothing) and because of that were able to spread out into the far reaches of the planet. We don't need fur or claws or or big teeth, we have tools and a big enough brain to make them.
Besides, what makes you think they aren't happy? Because they aren't Christian fundamentalists?
Since "eskimos" properly know as Inuit, have only inhabited the area around the arctic circle since the 10th century, I would think that wouldn't be sufficient time for such an extreme biological adaptation despite the fact the they do display certain phenotypic attributes that may represent environmental adaptations, such as shorter and stockier bodies.
another one
men ceased to have thick protective hide around their necks to prevent throat bites.
this is really missed in divorce court.
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.
any suggestions
