Bravo.
Bravo.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Then why are all the different colored skined people found in the same area? If this theory were true, they would be intermixed all over the place, but the blacks were in Africa, Asians in Asia, Arabs in Arabia, Caucasians in Europe, Native Americans in North America, etc etc etc.Originally Posted by RangerGirl
Well, let me just say that my biology class this year is very interesting. Our teacher won't teach from the books on evolution vs. creation... he says it's just a bunch of propaganda. So he gives us both sides' arguments and lets us decide for ourselves.
Anyway, we just talked about this yesterday. Light skin is a recessive trait. So two dark-skinned people could have the trait for light skin. So say Adam and Eve had medium-colored skin. This Punnett square will give you a basic idea of what their children could be:
Genes for skin blend more that others, so if Adam and Eve each had one for light skin and one for dark, they would have a 25% chance of having a very dark-skinned child (DD), a 50% chance of having a child with medium skin (dD, Dd), and a 25% chance of having a light-skinned child (dd). As you see, dark is the dominant trait.
Also, if it were all about recessive traits and such, why is it unheard of for two white parents to give brith to a black childs, blacks giving birth to whites, hispanics giving birth to Asians, etc etc etc
Two dark-skinned people marry. They then have no chance of having a white child because neither of them has the gene for pale skin. don't ask me about albinoes, we haven't gone that far into the curriculum. My apologies.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." ~Adolf Hitler
"you are gay furthermore you like sex with men" ~god
One of the Seven Deadly Sins of PD: Femme Greed
Um. Yeah. That's my point. It's also completely counterintuitive to the point you made about the recessive genes.Two dark-skinned people marry. They then have no chance of having a white child because neither of them has the gene for pale skin.
If they don't have the recessive gene, they can't pass it on.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." ~Adolf Hitler
"you are gay furthermore you like sex with men" ~god
One of the Seven Deadly Sins of PD: Femme Greed
I hated doing those box things in Biology.
I think you're completely missing my point. If Adam and Eve's descendents could have different colored offspring due to recessive genes answer the following:
Why do all the people of a certain color/race congregate in the unique area of the world where those "supposed adaptations" would suit them best?
Why will no two members one one race give birth to a totally different race? For your theory of recessive genes to work, Adam and Eve's kids might have a black kid. Another set of kids might have an Asian kid. The Asian Kid and Black kid get together and have a Hispanic kid. Now and then at least. That is your theory - why has it never ever ever ever ever been documented that a racial anomaly like that is possible to happen?
Oh, I'm sorry. Missed that the first time.
Anyway, I truthfully don't know. Our teacher tells us that this is a strong argument for evolution. If I learn more I will be sure to let you know.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." ~Adolf Hitler
"you are gay furthermore you like sex with men" ~god
One of the Seven Deadly Sins of PD: Femme Greed
Thank God I didn't choose Biology. ^^;
"Why will no two members one one race give birth to a totally different race? For your theory of recessive genes to work, Adam and Eve's kids might have a black kid. Another set of kids might have an Asian kid. The Asian Kid and Black kid get together and have a Hispanic kid. Now and then at least. That is your theory - why has it never ever ever ever ever been documented that a racial anomaly like that is possible to happen?"
I guess the simple answer is that we're all mutants although some mutations are more pronounced than others. An extreme example might be when two "normal" adults have a kid with dwarfism or webbed feet. Something less extreme would be a couple with a similar complexion having a kid with slightly darker or lighter skin color.
Let's say 100,000 years ago there was a small population of very dark-skinned black people living in equatorial Africa. Every now and then, a child would be born with less pigmentation in his skin. Lighter skin would be disadvantageous in a hot climate where the sun is always beating down so his chances of survival are slimmer than those of his darker relatives.
However, if he and his extended family migrated north where lighter skin would not be problematic to his chances of survival, he may very well pass on his genes. Of course, depending on the complexion of his mate(s) most of his kids will likely come out darker skinned than him, probably lighter than his mate(s)'s but the genetic traits will still be more likely to pass on than they would if Mr. Random Light Skinned Mutation died from being unable to handle all that sunlight.
Generations pass and there are more and more lighter-skinned descendants of this guy living amid the more traditionally darker-skinned humans. So how do they become the dominant feature of a population? Maybe something in their environment makes having lighter colored skin more advantageous than darker skin. Or, lighter skin is associated with tales passed down about a common, light-skinned ancestor who was determined to be great desPite having what might have been considered a handicap. A societal preference.
This process goes on forever and that's basically how you get to wear we are today.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Um ... yeah. That's evolution. That proves my point.
Oh, I'm sorry. Was I supposed to portray the creationist's advocate? Ok, um...
That's NOT Evolution! Evolutuion is "supposedly" when two members of a sPecies have deviated so much that they can no longer breed with each other, effectively creating two seperate sPecies! But since tall Africans can have babies with short Eskimos, we're all the same sPecies, just selectively bred for different features over the past 4,000 years which is how long we've existed, you godless swine!
Better?
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Evolution takes place over an enormous scale of time, moreso than humans have existed so far. Things like skin differentials are the beginning of much more massive changes that would take place if different sects of humans were separated in isolated geography for a much longer period of time, but since the human civilization has become very much global, that level of evolution is not possible in the foreseeable future of the world.
That makes no sense. Evolution is a process of change within one species (But evolution can take place with more than one species at the same time).
If a tuna fish has a different tail from a mutation, it might survive better if it gave the fish more speed or power. But if it was a tuna, it would still have tuna genes therefore it will produce tuna offspring, but a few might get the mutation from the parent which will let the offspring survive rather than their 'normal' relatives.
Eventually, all the fish might have the new tail because they survived better, but it would take a very long time.
The foreseeable future holds the key to mankinds destruction. We will not survive on this world long enough to maintain a process of any change in evolution.
ok yojimbo
Nonsense! The Earth hasn't been around more than a couple of days before God created Adam and Eve! Any and all superficial racial differences are God's divine intervention to allow his children to live more comfortably in the Earth's various landscapes and not the result of random mutations!Evolution takes place over an enormous scale of time, moreso than humans have existed so far. Things like skin differentials are the beginning of much more massive changes that would take place if different sects of humans were separated in isolated geography for a much longer period of time, but since the human civilization has become very much global, that level of evolution is not possible in the foreseeable future of the world.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Theoretically, everyone was black at one time. We all descended from one continent, that is certain. And being the most prehistoric continent, Africa is where it all began. Anti Evolutionists can pray their great grannies were all white, but at some point, we all had to be black. And when humans began to migrate to other parts of the world, it was the climate after many generations ( The conflict of the sun's rays on the pigment of one's skin) that faded skin color of some tribes that today gave us a wide variety of colors.
“I’m growing impatient with these malevolent slithering reptiles on this bloody aircraft.”
- Snakes on a Plane (As if spoken by a proper Englishman)
There are christians who concede that evolution took place, and simply argue about how big of a role God had in the process of it. Francis Collins, in The Language of God (2006), seems to think God started the process and didn't intervene until "humans" evolved. Michael Behe, in The Edge of Evolution (2007), agrees that humans have a common ancestor with chimps, but that God intervened and used evolution to create humans; God didn't just watch the process unfold.
I think human variation, like skin color, is simply "natural selection," not evolution. Like others have said, all the genes are there within our species already. They just got selected for over time in certain areas/within certain populations for better adaptation. And by the way, if you believe the bible, all the humans that now live are descended from Noah and his family.
natural election is evolution
It's part of evolutionary theory, but it's not all. Evolution means that natural selection leads to species change. The genes for skin color and other things are all within our species. Natural selection is what is says, that certain traits are naturally picked out of the gene pool for survival in a certain environment. It doesn't necessarily mean that the species has changed, just as some other posters have said. All the domestication that we humans do to plants and animals is the same thing, but we just make the trait come out on purpose instead of it possibly happening naturally over time. Dogs are still dogs and can reproduce, even though we've manipulated the species so that there are chihuahuas and great danes.
Natural selection is what leads to evolution. Evolution is just the result of millions of years of natural selection. Without the concept of evolution, the concept of natural selection could almost certainly not exist either.
Humans have not been domesticating animals long enough to effect natural selection to the point of species change. Who's to say that's not where it will eventually lead after millions of more years of breeding?Dogs are still dogs and can reproduce, even though we've manipulated the species so that there are chihuahuas and great danes.
But there're reasons for having the concept. Yes, the idea is that it leads to the evolution of many species, but we haven't been able to do it ourselves. We can manipulate within species, but we can't make a new species. Perhaps that's coming - who knows. Anyway, we can see that natural selection is a reality and it's what started the theory of evolution, but we haven't seen evolution actually taking place. The second book I mentioned, by Behe, goes into detail about what we know today about genes, proteins, and all that. The whole process of what makes us look the way we do and act the way we do is far more complicated than scientists thought, even just 10 to 20 years ago. It's really amazing.
And supposedly, a third of all Asians are descended from Ghengis Kahn's prolific pecker. There have actually been quite a few blows to the human population over the millenia but I'm inclined toat the idea that we're all descended from 8 humans (5 of whom were related) or that the world's entire animal population begat from single breeding pairs. Not saying there's no truth to Noah's Ark, but I think the bible gave us the dramatic hollywood version.
And regarding the other point...
So God was all like "Hey! I'll create life! Wow this is...boring actually. I'll just leave it to its own devices for a while...doo dee doo doo...Hey! I'll mutate them into something interesting! Golly, why didn't I think of that before?"
Sorry, as a theistic evolutionist myself, I roll my eyes at the school of thought that God just didn't give two shits about the world until he made us. For an infallible being with a master plan, it makes Him sound pathetic and moody. He didn't suddenly intervene, He always planned it this way.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
