[_ Old Earth _] Are there consequences to believeing in evolution?

[Fembot]

 

[Barbarian]

Me, too.

 

[Crying Rock]

I was reponding to your statement:

I recall in history a time where leading scientists taught society that black people weren't humans but in fact monkeys. They went out of there way to show research studies! hhhhmmmm
Does anyone else recall this moment in history. To whoever believed that mess!

I should have been more clear. I just think it's ironic, in light of your comment, that current researchers think the first H.s.s. and Caucasoids to set foot in Europe may have been black. Which seems like a no-brainer because they came from Africa. Obviously, I'm using "Caucasoid" in a skeletal morphological sense, not color.

 

[Crying Rock]

O.K., let me use a better example, since I just discovered Carly is only part black:

http://chora.virtualave.net/ethiopian-girl.jpg

Ethiopian Girl

An interesting blog by Robert Lindsay:

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009 ... sian-race/

 

[Fembot]

I was reponding to your statement:

I recall in history a time where leading scientists taught society that black people weren't humans but in fact monkeys. They went out of there way to show research studies! hhhhmmmm
Does anyone else recall this moment in history. To whoever believed that mess!

I should have been more clear. I just think it's ironic, in light of your comment, that current researchers think the first H.s.s. and Caucasoids to set foot in Europe may have been black. Which seems like a no-brainer because they came from Africa. Obviously, I'm using "Caucasoid" in a skeletal morphological sense, not color.

hmmmm. I don't get what Carly Simon has to do with the discussion, but ok. Yes, it's ironic that people are using proper research to prove evolutionary facts that weren't admitted in the past. Including the fact that we all originated from the motherland. Yet, some people including "well educated" scientists will not admit the obvious.

On your note: Do you think Europeans became lighter because of the lack of sunlight and having to cover from the cold weather conditions? Also, that they no longer needed wider nostrils because of heat and humidity?

It took about 10,000 years staying in the same place for different races to get to the "correct" color: dark for protection from the sun in very hot places, light to generate Vitamin D in very unsunny places, and in between inbetween. The pronounced epicanthic fold, which has been called "almond eyes" (and is typical of only a minority of Orientals) is a response to a dusty environment for those living in desert or semi-desert conditions. Many other things are just random variations, sometimes reinforced by social selection. I read Lee Strobel's Bible study length version of the Case for a Creator. One of the things Strobel talks about extensively is micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is the idea that one species can evolve into another. Micro evolution is the idea that evolution can produce small changes within a species. There is much evidence for micro evolution, changes within a species, but there is very little solid evidence for macro evolution. Within the human animal, much of what we call races was a response to climate conditions.

 

[Barbarian]

There was a lot of talk about human microevolution, where"black="hot and sunny" for example. But we have light-skinned people living in the Sahara, and dark-skinned Inuit. (eskimos) So many of these probably aren't adaptive to environment, but are rather due to sexual selection, and differing ideas of what is beautiful.

And macro-evolution is well documented. The first directly observed speciation was in 1904.

We now have such evidence for common descent of all living things from numerous sources. Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[Fembot]

Sexual selection affects these attributes today. The reason WHY we have these differences is due to several thousands years of living in the same environment.

Yes, learn me

 

[coelacanth]

I am curious about light-skinned people in the tropics, but I always conjectured that Inuits didn't need lighter skin because of the fatty fish in their diet that was able to provide sufficient vitamin D. I don't have any research to back this one up, but I think it makes sense. Thoughts?

 

[coelacanth]

Actually, I just did a google search and came up with this:

The Inuit people of the American Subarctic are an exception. They have moderately heavy skin pigmentation despite the far northern latitude at which they live. While this is a disadvantage for vitamin D production, they apparently made up for it by eating fish and sea mammal blubber that are high in D. In addition, the Inuit have been in the far north for only about 5,000 years. This may not have been enough time for significantly lower melanin production to have been selected for by nature.

Which would add the element of time to the equation as well

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm

 

[Fembot]

Perhaps they migrated there from other regions

 

[Crying Rock]

FB wrote:

On your note: Do you think Europeans became lighter because of the lack of sunlight and having to cover from the cold weather conditions?

I think it's likely. One thing I know for sure is you do not find this heavy of pigmentation among natives (no admixture) except in lower latitudes (intense sun, heat and humidity):

http://lacina.net/photo/keNyA/tUrkaNa/04ke-2482.jpg

http://zoltantakacs.com/zt/im/scan/people/22914-120.jpg

Kenya

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/338 ... b3e04e.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/320 ... a2e0a4.jpg

Ethiopia

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter35/35-size.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _woman.jpg

Thailand

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... couple.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CFHUdGXbbHg/R ... eople2.jpg

Andaman Islands

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ceania.jpg

http://www.bohol.ph/books/nz/img/pl15.jpg

Philippines


Except in Africa and Australia. And, still note that the darkest pigmentations are between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn:

 

[Crying Rock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_o ... _equi3.png

Had to use another post, because of the 10 URL limit per post.

 

[Barbarian]

Sexual selection affects these attributes today. The reason WHY we have these differences is due to several thousands years of living in the same environment.

So sexual selection didn't work thousands of years ago? How so?

I have a document somewhere on common descent. It's a lot of stuff. Let me see if I can get it for you. Otherwise, we'll get started tomorrow.

 

[Fembot]

Sexual selection affects these attributes today. The reason WHY we have these differences is due to several thousands years of living in the same environment.

So sexual selection didn't work thousands of years ago? How so?

I have a document somewhere on common descent. It's a lot of stuff. Let me see if I can get it for you. Otherwise, we'll get started tomorrow.

ok lol...I can wait until tomorrow...

Sexual selection existed, ofcourse, but people were separated for thousands of years on different continents. This affected Europeans and Asians appearances. Middle easterners were probably the only group intermingling with other continents-Africa, eastern europe. Therefore causing a mix of appearances there (as the center of the old world). I may or may not have posted the statement that we developed our slight differences due to staying in the same environment for 10,000 years. Several scholars believe this, so do I. You don't have to believe everything that I do.

In present time, we have had the slave trade, planes, boats, trains, and tv (lol) assisting us in our intermingling of cultures and "racial" features. This was not the case back then.

 

[Barbarian]

Sexual selection existed, ofcourse, but people were separated for thousands of years on different continents. This affected Europeans and Asians appearances. Middle easterners were probably the only group intermingling with other continents-Africa, eastern europe.

What about the Berbers of North Africa, or the peoples of the Horn of Africa, both of which seem to have been mixtures of Europeans and Africans?

And the Finns and Hungarians are surely a combination of Turkic and European peoples. And South Asian genes were quite common in East Africa long before modern times.

And the record now shows South Asians managed to cross the Pacific, and may have become the aboriginal population of the new world, to later be swamped by three different waves of Northern Asians.

Therefore causing a mix of appearances there (as the center of the old world). I may or may not have posted the statement that we developed our slight differences due to staying in the same environment for 10,000 years. Several scholars believe this, so do I. You don't have to believe everything that I do.

It was the central thesis of Carleton Coon, who wrote that humans form several distinct subspecies. His idea, found in his book, The Origin of Races, was once widely accepted as a viable theory. It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation within any human population of any size will be greater than the variation between populations.

In present time, we have had the slave trade, planes, boats, trains, and tv (lol) assisting us in our intermingling of cultures and "racial" features. This was not the case back then.

People get around. And they very much enjoy sharing genes.

 

[Fembot]

Sexual selection existed, ofcourse, but people were separated for thousands of years on different continents. This affected Europeans and Asians appearances. Middle easterners were probably the only group intermingling with other continents-Africa, eastern europe.

What about the Berbers of North Africa, or the peoples of the Horn of Africa, both of which seem to have been mixtures of Europeans and Africans?

And the Finns and Hungarians are surely a combination of Turkic and European peoples. And South Asian genes were quite common in East Africa long before modern times.

And the record now shows South Asians managed to cross the Pacific, and may have become the aboriginal population of the new world, to later be swamped by three different waves of Northern Asians.

[quote:3oqtei63]Therefore causing a mix of appearances there (as the center of the old world). I may or may not have posted the statement that we developed our slight differences due to staying in the same environment for 10,000 years. Several scholars believe this, so do I. You don't have to believe everything that I do.

It was the central thesis of Carleton Coon, who wrote that humans form several distinct subspecies. His idea, found in his book, The Origin of Races, was once widely accepted as a viable theory. It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation within any human population of any size will be greater than the variation between populations.

In present time, we have had the slave trade, planes, boats, trains, and tv (lol) assisting us in our intermingling of cultures and "racial" features. This was not the case back then.

People get around. And they very much enjoy sharing genes.[/quote:3oqtei63]

I think I addressed the Barbers and whatever else you listed when I mentioned that Middle Easterners intermingled with Africans and Eastern Europeans. So, we agree on this , let's move forward.

 

[Crying Rock]

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation within any human population of any size will be greater than the variation between populations…â€Â

I’m calling buffalo chips on this statement.

If I understand you correctly you’re saying there are more differences between individuals of any given Native American population than there are between any individual in that population and any given individual in a Native African population:

Inuits:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high

ca. 90% of Inuits possess mtDNA Hg A2 and ca. 90% yDNA Hg Q1a3a.


Burkina Faso:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/under_the_acacias/4457551/

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZsFQdVqdfQo/S ... ancers.jpg

99% mtDNA Hg L and 100% yDNA Hg ExE3b!

So clearly, in these native populations, the intra-population genetic variation is less than inter-population variation, as far as yDNA and mtDNA go.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation within any human population of any size will be greater than the variation between populations…â€Â

I’m calling buffalo chips on this statement.

If I understand you correctly you’re saying there are more differences between individuals of any given Native American population than there are between any individual in that population and any given individual in a Native African population:

No. There is more genetic variation within Native American populations, than there is between any two "races" you might define. It does not mean that there aren't specific genes that could be found in specific populations and not in others. It means the measured genetic variation within a group is greater than the variation between two groups.

Venter's scientific rival, Francis S. Collins, the head of the genome institute, stood at the podium that day on Clinton's other side -- two male, middle-aged white scientists saying we're all brothers and sisters under the skin. Collins made much of the fact that humans share 99.9 percent of their genome with one another -- and that the remaining 0.1 percent probably codes for variations, like skin color, that are for the most part biologically insignificant. In fact, there is more variation within races than between them.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Problems with racial classification systems
Problem One: Categories do not reflect some natural divisions, but are constructed by humans
Problem Two: There is loss of understanding of the variation present in human populations
Problem Three: Traits do not covary
Problem Four: Confusion of obvious with significant
Problem Five: There is more variation within human "races" than there is between them
Problem Six: Biological Determinism : there are social, psychological, and political values and attitudes attached to the traits used to assign humans to various races
Problem Seven: Race is a cultural, not a biological construct. The concept of race is of limited usefulness for understanding human variation
http://wserver.scc.losrios.edu/~anthro/ ... tline.html

I don't think there's a physical anthropologist left who doubts this. The Human Genome Project finally nailed that down. Notice that there can still be some particular differences that are much more common in one group or another. The point is, that such alleles are swamped by the fact that you could just as likely be a good tissue match for a New Guinea highlander as you could for your next door neighbor.

 

[Fembot]

Collins made much of the fact that humans share 99.9 percent of their genome with one another -- and that the remaining 0.1 percent probably codes for variations, like skin color, that are for the most part biologically insignificant. In fact, there is more variation within races than between them.[/b]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

:yes

 

[Crying Rock]

What you claimed

Barbarian claimed:

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation WITHIN “ANY†HUMAN “POPULATION†of any size will be greater than the variation between POPULATIONS…â€Â

What you cited:

Barbarian quoted:

In fact, there is more variation WITHIN RACES than between them.

Barbarian quoted:

Problem Five: There is more variation WITHIN HUMAN RACES than there is between them

Barbarian quoted:

Collins made much of the fact that humans share 99.9 percent of their genome with one another -- and that the remaining 0.1 percent probably codes for variations, like skin color, that are for the most part biologically insignificant.

So where does the variation between individuals and populations exist: in the 99.9% or the .1%?

Where do you suppose the most intra-population variation exists: large populations that have stayed in the same geographical region for 10’s of thousands of years or small, isolated populations? Which subspecies had the most intra-population variation: H.s.n. or H.s.s.?

Barbarian claimed:

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation WITHIN “ANY†HUMAN “POPULATION†of any size will be greater than the variation between POPULATIONS…â€Â

I’m calling buffalo chips on this statement.

If I understand you correctly you’re saying there are more differences between individuals of any given Native American population than there are between any individual in that population and any given individual in a Native African population:

Inuits:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high

ca. 90% of Inuits possess mtDNA Hg A2 and ca. 90% yDNA Hg Q1a3a.


Burkina Faso:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/under_the_acacias/4457551/

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZsFQdVqdfQo/S ... ancers.jpg

99% mtDNA Hg L and 100% yDNA Hg ExE3b!

So clearly, in these native populations, the intra-population genetic variation is less than inter-population variation, as far as yDNA and mtDNA go.