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.
well actually he did. maybe u ignored VALID observation. it seems the self-inflicted superiority know it all posters are here. i see name calling again. do you really think resorting to such low tactics scare ME to post my POV? you are ignorant in my book too. in fact people who are born in cold climate states prefer to retire to warm climate states if not move permanently. i guess their evolutionary gene was not turned on?
i will have me as an example. i was born and raised in asia. when i moved here, i was excited to live in cold climate. i did not adapt to cold climate coz now i can't stand the cold to the point that i want to move to florida or california. my skin is also still brown. where is my evolutionary gene when i need it?
Sir LEs made a valid point indeed. if evolution as studied and observed by scientists is true. Alaskans need not use fire or animal skin to keep warm. some evolutionary mutation/adaptation to their ALWAYS cold surroundings MUST and should have gone on in their skin to keep them warm. nice one sir les. after all, some insects adapt the color of the tree they are clinging to survive. survival of the fittest. isn't it?
And yet the Aleut people do show signs of physical differences that better adapt them to the cold weather, namely in the genetic layer of fat they tend to develop around their torsos.
Do not forget, a brain capable of imagining and developing tools is an evolutionary adaption.
well actually he did. maybe u ignored VALID observation. it seems the self-inflicted superiority know it all posters are here. i see name calling again. do you really think resorting to such low tactics scare ME to post my POV? you are ignorant in my book too. in fact people who are born in cold climate states prefer to retire to warm climate states if not move permanently. i guess their evolutionary gene was not turned on?
i will have me as an example. i was born and raised in asia. when i moved here, i was excited to live in cold climate. i did not adapt to cold climate coz now i can't stand the cold to the point that i want to move to florida or california. my skin is also still brown. where is my evolutionary gene when i need it?
Evolution does not work on a single individual. If you stayed in the cold weather, your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren might exhibit some new traits related to the cold weather. But you don't grow gills just because you swim in the ocean.
oh another one, why don't we grow gills when we swim? it would really really help us survive and not drown to death isn't it..? i know it is ridiculous but just wondering. after all in an evolution video i recently watched apparently we all came from a fish.
oh another one, why don't we grow gills when we swim? it would really really help us survive and not drown to death isn't it..? i know it is ridiculous but just wondering. after all in an evolution video i recently watched apparently we all came from a fish.
well actually he did. maybe u ignored VALID observation. it seems the self-inflicted superiority know it all posters are here. i see name calling again. do you really think resorting to such low tactics scare ME to post my POV? you are ignorant in my book too. in fact people who are born in cold climate states prefer to retire to warm climate states if not move permanently. i guess their evolutionary gene was not turned on?
i will have me as an example. i was born and raised in asia. when i moved here, i was excited to live in cold climate. i did not adapt to cold climate coz now i can't stand the cold to the point that i want to move to florida or california. my skin is also still brown. where is my evolutionary gene when i need it?
You are describing Lamarckism, not evolution. Maybe you should learn what it is you are slandering.
Well don't waste your time then waiting to see evolution in action. Personally I'm happy that all creatures have and continue to evolve, otherwise we'd probably still be swinging from trees trying to stay out of the reach of sabre toothed cats and giant cave bears, horses would be three toed animals the size of foxes. Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dogs would still be just one more animal with us on the menu. (I love my dog) It took two and a half million years for humans to evolve to the point we are today, and we continue to evolve, but don't hold your breath waiting to see it. That is unless you manage to live for hundreds of thousand of years.
The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historical levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study published today.
By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit.
Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One of the most famous examples is the spread of a gene that allows adults to digest milk.
In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its occurrence over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years.
By examining 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people they have effectively only considered 1/10000000th of all possibilities.. and actually I am being conservative in that number as there is an estimated 106 billion people that have lived in the 6000 years of recorded history while the sample included only 269... If I wanted to make a claim with those numbers about anything else I would be laughed out of the scientific community!
One cannot state there is any change in large stretches of time when there is no proof of that time..
You cannot tell me that you can take a sample from a short span and identify what would happen or did happen over millions of years. That is truly the most unscientific analysis I can think of.
There are only 6000 or so years of recorded history of earth.. right? So even a die hard evolution-believing biologist would tell you that the sample we have is way too small to determine anything that happened in MILLIONS of years.
Our historical sample would have to span at least 1 million years and we cannot produce that. It is all as speculative as creationism.. Both of which I reject.
Clearly you do not understand the use of DNA in evolutionary research. The DNA of mitochondria in the cell, can be used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the human species. Recorded history does not matter.
Quote:
Haplogroups are the mutations of a single family of mitochondrial DNA. For instance, a cluster of haplotypes H,I,J signify people of European descent. These groups form a part of a population and are characteristic of that population wherever it migrates. These tests have established the fact that the recent ancestors of humans were native to Africa, some 100,000-200,000 years ago. It can also be inferred from this test, that none of the features of mitochondrial DNA of the Neanderthal man are found in the present day human. But it is just one gene of the human chromosome that gives us these conclusions.
Clearly you do not understand the use of DNA in evolutionary research. The DNA of mitochondria in the cell, can be used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the human species. Recorded history does not matter.
You say that you reject both creation and evolution as a source of life....How do you think life came about?
Recorded history always has a place. It is through observation that humans figure out the world around them. In fact isn't that part of the scientific method? Yet none of this has ever or will ever be observed.
Tell me, who dated the Neanderthal man? Who created the system that dated the Neanderthal man? Who created the theories and systems used to observe and compare DNA?
Even so, taking just 1 specimen from 10,000 years ago and match it up with one today to compare, do you see that the comparison would not be scientific at all.. That is a limited amount of data to determine something so vast. Perhaps this particular specimen happens to create favorable data but another one would not. The more data the more precise the values will be.
It is my opinion that the human life span is too short to ever have sufficient data to prove one way or the other...so to answer your question... I really have no way of knowing how life came about.. and I am fine with that.
Don't sell DNA short. You too can find out who your long ago ancestors were and where they originated from.... Thousands of people have done this already.
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.
You are describing Lamarckism, not evolution. Maybe you should learn what it is you are slandering.
