True.
Posted on 07/07/2010 7:19:56 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Some one once pointed out to me that people in the far North and for that matter in the far South, have dark skin and slanty eyes.
I looked around and Behold that was true, I wonder why?
“What we’re gonna do right here is go back, way back, back into time.
“When the only people that existed were troglodytes...cave men...
“cave women...Neanderthal...troglodytes.”
Jimmy Castor Bunch “Troglodyte”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a3gHYiG6zg&feature=related
This is why there’s the sciences. To keep on looking.
No one knows the entire truth and religions/politics often obsure/hide reality/evidence.
True.
“She was a big woman, her name was Bertha, Bertha Butt, one of the Butt sisters...”
Light skin was favored by natural selection in northern climes. Sun strikes skin, forms Vitamin D, which is absorbed and causes better pelvic development for child bearing. It is quite likely that Neanderthals were predominantly fair skinned, blue eyed, redheads. Homo sapiens out of Africa did not do well in the far north until the white gene mutation occurred, perhaps 30 or 40,000 years ago, allowing for more successful childbirth.
The evidence is the large list of real scientists who expose and do not believe in macro evolution. so here is some links with that evidence.
and what you are lieing about is that there is no debate. sorry my friend, even amonst real scientists there is tremendous debate. You simply are not being itellectually honest and are repeating a mantra of you peers...not facts! And I am not upset at all, thank God.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm
Homo sapiens out of Africa did not do well in the far north until the white gene mutation occurred...s/b "got it from the union with the Neandertal." :')
There is no evolutionary transitional fissils of apes into humans because they both evolved from an earlier common ancester. Some of the 4 to 6 million year old fossils indicate that the common ancestor was not as long armed or as heavy browed as our current apes. Apes evolved in one direction, and hominids evolved in several others.
I suspect that the light skin gene of Neanderthals (already named by some the “ginger”, reddish gene) is quite different from the early European homo white gene. I also suspect that the Neanderthal gene was much earlier, since they had such a long history of surviving in the cold, cold north.
Sorry, but any reasonable and commonsense search will show huge holes in macro evolution. It simply is a disproved theory and only lives in the minds of very gullible intellectuals. Many scientists back me up on this!
I doubt very much that either Neanderthals or their homo contemporaries had to choose among their “many” children. I have seen no literature indicating that either group had large numbers of children. Usually, children would be born 4 to 5 years apart as the mothers would be nursing until around that age, and often nursing prevents ovulation. Also, in current primative cultures, it is often taboo for a male to mate with a woman who is lactating.
Sunken Civ has posted several items about the ginger gene which some scientists belive is Neanderthal in origin and is found in large numbers of north western europeans. Regarding northern peoples who were neither blond or redhead, coastal people like Esquimos and Scandinavians had access to fish and other seafood which has a high Vitamin D component especially in the liver. Furthermore, since it was cold, these peoples were not necessarily getting much sun exposure on their fur clothed skin.
Whattajoke: Please see my comment #69 on transitional species versus common ancestors.
Fabian: could you please name some of these scientist you say agree with your thinking.
I sent a previous link that has lists of many of them...there are numerous. don’t be lazy and check it out. I don’t make things up like evolutionists do!
A big hole in this theory: blacks in North America have no problem producing babies no matter where they live, and they aren't eating many fish livers. The evolutionary pressure of vitamin D deficiency is insufficient to explain how suddenly white skin, not just light skin, appeared. My hypothesis is that white skin, blond hair, blue eyes are mostly cosmetic traits, and they are not mostly from sexual selection but from mothers cultivating them in their children. The temporary blond/blue in most European babies is strong evidence for this. The blond hair doesn't disappear until about age 5, when a child is no longer so dependent on mom. Do you have an alternate explanation for this phenomenon? What purpose does it serve other than cosmetic?
Arctic natives have darker skin, but they live TOO far north for skin-synthesis of Vitamin D from sunlight to work, so light skin would have had no survival value to them. In the winter they get little or no sunlight, and all year they are covered up enough that they get minimal sun exposure. They get all the vitamins they need from fish and meat.
This also tends to disprove the vegan contention that vegetarianism is the most "natural" diet for humans. It's really hard for humans to get all the nutrients we need from just plants.
Oh my. Like every creationist on an Internet forum before you, you’ve trotted out yet another poorly constructed website that seeks to argue from authority. The mere existence of such websites speaks volumes about the lack of actual science creationism has produced. Real science has no need for such defensive posturing. They are just concerned with actual science, not apologetics.
At least on your preferred site, after mentioning 10 historical scientists who lived before 1860, they DO actually admit that yeah, well, those guys simply couldn’t have been evolutionists. Then they feel the need to pull out the one who did - Werner van Braun (!), who never read a life science book in his esteemed life. So silly. Can’t you see this ruse for what it is?
I also note that the site you gave us has a distinct lack of any research, hypotheses, studies, published papers or science. Does that not bother you? If I go to one of the many thousands of site with actual research, they don’t spend time whining about how many people from antiquity agree with them.
In reality, there are about 25-30 guys with advanced degrees from real universities in the very science that they now reject. Which amounts to nothing. I’m sure you’re aware of Project Steve, the very real but tongue-in-cheek response to these lists of scientists who reject evolution. When there are ten-fold more real scientists named Steve who accept the fact of evolution than all the creationists put together, I think we’re pretty safe sticking with the theory of evolution.
Okay, let’s say I accept your impressive website that lists a whole bunch of impressive scientists who reject evolution. You win that round. Now let’s get to the real stuff...
A) What type of evidence would you require to make you rethink human evolution, and
B) What type of research has your impressive list of real scientists who reject evolution done that specifically undoes one of the tenets of current biological, chemical, astronomical, physical and geologic thought?
OOGA-CHUCKA, OOGA-CHUCKA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.