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've been away for a while... yes, you are right, AGW is not the topic. I will stop flogging the dead horse. The only reason what I say doesn't make sense to you is because you don't understand the arguments. The reason there is a naturalistic fallacy is not because aren't some valid arguments, but because even the science is uncertain or even when it shows things are not getting worse, AGWers still believe it is getting worse. eg. global weirding.
Yet you still keep flogging your dead horse. How about you go learn the basics of climate science and stop flogging your poor dead horse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
Okay, back on topic. Is evolution random? I mean at one time we all lived in Africa, then spread around the world. mutations occurred, that gave us different skin colors, but somehow lighter skinned people live in the north and darker skinned people near the equator (generally). Is this because mutations were more likely to occur there, or was it because white people wanted to move north?
What do you think is meant by evolution by natural selection? How about you go learn the basics of the Theory of Evolution before trying to argue against it.
You should have been easily able to find educational resources like this yourself:
Mutations are not totally random. Some genes mutate more rapidly than others. Some mutations are lethal, and the affected organism does not survive to reproduce.
For example, the Y chromosome is inherited pretty much intact from father to son. Small sections of the Y can exchange DNA with an X chromosome, but genes in the other parts are the same in father and son. However, it is possible for father and son to have less than 100% identical Ys in that stable area because of a mutation in the son's Y.
With your example of skin color, the change happened after the migration. There was no intent of the migrating population to produce offspring with lighter skin. The people who live in areas now where there is a predominance of one skin color are there simply because they continued to live close to where their ancestors lived and there is no advantage to changing the color. Of course, populations are more mobile now, which is why you find folks of all skin colors everywhere.
Of course, if you took a population of folks from Africa with dark skin, moved them closer to the North Pole, and had them live under the conditions that our ancient ancestors did, we could expect that their descendants would gradually develop lighter skin. That would provide a survival advantage, such as greater ability to make vitamin D in the skin.
Did they get lighter skin over time because the dark ones would die off or because the genetic mutations were not random? Is this what you mean by mutations not being totally random? Less vitamin D increases the likelihood of a mutation in favor of lighter skin?
The consensus among scientists has always been that lower levels of vitamin D at higher latitudes — where the sun is less intense — caused the lightening effect when modern humans, who began darker-skinned, first migrated north. But other factors might be at work, a new study suggests. From the varying effects of frostbite to the sexual preferences of early men, a host of theories have been reviewed. Why Did People Become White? | LiveScience
Did they get lighter skin over time because the dark ones would die off or because the genetic mutations were not random? Is this what you mean by mutations not being totally random? Less vitamin D increases the likelihood of a mutation in favor of lighter skin?
What sanspeur said.
Also, some genes just are less likely to mutate depending on the structure of the gene itself. For example, very large genes may be more likely to be damaged by mutations, or genes with certain DNA sequences may be damaged more readily.
We are beginning to understand that vitamin D is very important in more ways than just helping us have healthy bones and teeth. So optimizing vitamin D production would indeed have significant survival advantages.
Also, some genes just are less likely to mutate depending on the structure of the gene itself. For example, very large genes may be more likely to be damaged by mutations, or genes with certain DNA sequences may be damaged more readily.
We are beginning to understand that vitamin D is very important in more ways than just helping us have healthy bones and teeth. So optimizing vitamin D production would indeed have significant survival advantages.
Especially for women....Women are considerably lighter in skin pigmentation than males. Females need more calcium during pregnancy and lactation. The body synthesizes vitamin D from sunlight, which helps it absorb calcium. Females evolved to have lighter skin so their bodies absorb more calcium.
Because "intelligent design" was invented precisely toremove God and creationism from the definition!
Exactly! Now you're finally getting it. ID purports neither God nor creationism. ID does not name a designer, and does not purport everything was created by one.
Creationism: Some dude created the universe. His name is God.
"Intelligent design": Some dude created the universe. I do not know his name.
False.
ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
GMO crops.
Not created by God. Creationism doesn't apply.
Didn't evolve via heritable or spontaneously mutated traits. ToE doesn't apply.
GMO crops, while failing to fit the definitions of creationism or the ToE, fit exactly the definition of ID.
It's how ID proponents themselves define ID. There is no mention of God. There is no assertion that everything, or even anything at all, was created by God.
What you're seeing in this thread is a lot of fear-mongering from people who can't grasp complex concepts. The existence of GMO crops fits neither creationism nor the ToE. They fit exactly the definition of ID. And the shallow thinkers are in a state of panic at having to acknowledge that fact.
ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
GMO crops.
Not created by God. Creationism doesn't apply.
Didn't evolve via heritable or spontaneously mutated traits. ToE doesn't apply.
GMO crops, while failing to fit the definitions of creationism or the ToE, fit exactly the definition of ID.
Im a Mechanical Designer by trade...not a Mechanical Intelligent Designer. Designed by humans is just design. There is no need to add intelligence as a adjective as a definition of what is created by man.
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.
ID purports neither God nor creationism. ID does not name a designer, and does not purport everything was created by one.