Neanderthal Males Had Popeye-Like Arms

Discovery News ^ | Tuesday, July 6, 2010 | Jennifer Viegas

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks gleeaikin.

[SunkenCiv]

LOL!

[Reeses]

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.

Harvard medical researchers claim that 92% of American black children and 80% of Hispanic are currently vitamin D deficient. This has little evolutionary effect, they reproduce pretty well. Vitamin D deficiency has some but not much evolutionary pressure. It is insufficient to explain the sudden appearance of white skin. Wouldn't lighter skin have been sufficient to produce vitamin D more efficiently? Pure white skin is cosmetic, and could not have been primarily driven by a minor issue like vitamin D deficiency. The vitamin D theory is neat, tidy, and politically correct, but insufficient in reality. It is not settled science by any means.

[PapaBear3625]

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.

Milk and other foods get vitamin D added these days.

African Americans still tend to suffer a number of health problems due to vitamin D deficiencies

[PapaBear3625]

Vitamin D deficiency has some but not much evolutionary pressure. It is insufficient to explain the sudden appearance of white skin.

Light-colored skin (nobody but an albino is "white") did not occur suddenly. There is a continuum of skin shades from brown in Africa and southern India, through Mediterranean olive-shade, to Scandinavian lightness.

As humans expanded in a northerly direction, those who were more optimally adapted to their current climate had better health and were more likely to survive, bear children, and care for them into adulthood.

[Reeses]

There is a continuum of skin shades from brown in Africa and southern India, through Mediterranean olive-shade, to Scandinavian lightness.

Light is one thing but white, which orginated at mid-lattidues, is another. Skin color does not have a linear relationship to environmental UV strength in modern humans. White is a cosmetic preference. Some women put white powder cosmetics on their face. You can witness the cosmetic selection process happening now in American black communities, where lighter skin is often a preference, although now it is driven primarily by mate selection than mother cultivation.

[gleeaikin]

Blacks in north America have nothing to do with the ancient argument. Currently we all get Vitamin D added to our milk, because rickets used to be such a problem for everyone. Also, although some black Americans are lactose intolerant, it also can be gotten from sardines, and related sources, as well as liver and onions, and cod liver oil which some parents conscienciously give to their children. I did know one child who at age 4 had a severely swollen forehead from rickets (she had a white mother and black father). Vitamin D deficiency causes more subtle signs such as a narrowing of the face and upper jaw arch with crowding of teeth. My mother and I both suffered from this. I then read about this problem in Adelle Davis’ book “Let’s Have Healthy Children”. My first son’s face was round as an infant, but started to narrow as he reached one year. I then added cod liver oil to his diet and his face subsequently rounded out again. Although he had to have his wisdom teeth pulled, he did not need the thousands of dollars for orthodontic work that I did. Also, as I restricted sweets in his diet to only 4 times a year (Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and his birthday) he at age 40 has never had a single cavity.

The genetics of skin color is quite fascinating. There are actually 4 genes for skin color in each parent. Thus if a WWWW mates with a BBBB, the child will be WWBB. However, if two WWBB’s mate you can have everything from all W or all B to BBBW, BBWW, or BWWW. Regarding the light coloring of children which I have noticed myself, it makes sense that this would have a survival advantage if babies are being kept protected in tents or caves, covered up against the cold, and in general having less exposure to the sun than when they are older and running around on their own.

[fabian]

Some of your questions surely demonstarte your lack of knowledge about which you think you know so much. Evolution is not a tenent of any of those topics you named; it is merely an unproven theory which many university darwists nazis have tried to frame into a fact. Sorry, it is not going to work here. The simple fact of the matter is that the millions of clear transitional fossils of life forms turning into one and other do not exist. If they did the debate would have been over. I understand you believe it is over, but that is in your imagination, not in the fossil record! Facts don’t lie! And here are some amazing scientists of modern times that prove my points better..
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/6c1a001a0f1a2de4953024ae8e74124b-405.html

[BunnySlippers]

Neanderthal women looked like Raquel Welch, obvs ...

[whattajoke]

Fabian, I know nothing I say will ever change your mind – and that’s not my objective. I just like playing this game every few months because you play your hand the same way as almost every creationist that precedes you. That is, you’ve yet to answer a single one of my very straight-forward and simple questions. I am at a loss as to why that is.

Also, I note you show no contrition about some of the “real scientists” who creationists prop up as some sort of defense meme who have falsified educational histories. After playing this game for 10 years, I can count on one hand the number of creationists who have admitted that hucksters like Don Patton, Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, et. al are phonies and liars – even if their message is one of perceived “good.” I see you, too, can’t admit one of your own is wrong.

Why not? Science makes a regular habit out of debunking bad science. Y’know, like those 3 or 4 “frauds of evolution” you surely know about. Frauds that were proven frauds by scientists. Anyway…

Some of your questions surely demonstarte your lack of knowledge about which you think you know so much. Evolution is not a tenent of any of those topics you named; it is merely an unproven theory which many university darwists nazis have tried to frame into a fact.

Whoops! Godwin Alert! It took you a few responses, but you’ve done it. You brought up the damn Nazi’s for some reason. I assure you, in my years as a “university darwist” (sic), I never saw a swastika anywhere. But you knew that. And while it may upset you, evolution is indeed THE major “tenent” (sic) of biology and genetics. Nothing makes sense in either discipline without evolution. Period.

Sorry, it is not going to work here. The simple fact of the matter is that the millions of clear transitional fossils of life forms turning into one and other do not exist. And another thing… theories are never proven in science.

Aha! Is that your tacit answer to my repeated question? You’d need to see “millions of fossils of life forms turning into one and other?” Hm. What, exactly, are you looking for? Kirk Cameron’s “Crocoduck?” Or some other fanciful lizard-dog or human-bird? I can’t help you out there. Evolutionary history isn’t quite that exciting I’m afraid. The transitional forms (of which we have evidence of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands) are slightly less garish. Evolutionary changes are incredibly small and took place over vast amounts of time. (Yes, even in “Punk Eek” world, if you’ve been told lies about that.)

Changes in allele frequencies through time.” That’s all evolution is. The mere fact that we have at least ONE transitional fossil, let alone thousands, should at least cause you to rethink your position. Why does that ONE exist? Did God make a mistake?

If they did the debate would have been over. I understand you believe it is over, but that is in your imagination, not in the fossil record! Facts don’t lie! And here are some amazing scientists of modern times that prove my points better..

Yes , yes, well played. Another call for evidence yields another website touting credentials and trumpeting 17th century scientists who didn’t accept the theory of evolution! (Ex. From the site of creationists: Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler… Great list. 3 brilliant guys who also didn’t accept Germ Theory. I guess that means Germ Theory (the one that says various germs, bacteria, viruses cause illness) is a lie too. THAT is your (and the website you cited) logic. Wonderful. Just think about that for a moment. What sense does that make?!

And this is the stuff you keep responding to me with! No evidence, no hypotheses, no way to falsify creationism, nothing of any merit. Just wishful – and downright odd – thinking.

[P.O.E.]

Lost classic:Neanderthal Man by Hotlegs, a precursor group to 10CC

"I'm a Neanderthal Man
You're a Neanderthal girl
Let's make Neanderthal love
In this Neanderthal world"
Repeat

[SunkenCiv]

The band name doesn’t ring a bell, but those lyrics sound familiar. :’) Thanks P.O.E.!

[fabian]

The evidence of my stance is all over and yours simply does not exist. People reading this can easily find the truth and I did provide some links of very real scientists which you want to judge as not authentic for some reason. Sorry my friend, you just are wrong and the facts are not on your side. And now you are claiming that evolution is beyond the theory that it is but is a tenant of science. This is why I said you act like a darwinist nazi. You claim inaccurate points as though they are true and then go about trying to make my links false. surley you are not a nazi! But in your lost intellect you act like a tryant in framing the debate. Sorry, you just are way too caught up in your mind and it is deceiving you very badly...but feel free. It honestly comes down to the rejection and anger of God which His creation is all about us. It is obvious that we do not see macro evolution today and we do not have fossil evidence of it. Just the facts! Easily seen on the internet by various sources.

[whattajoke]

The evidence of my stance is all over and yours simply does not exist.

Okay. I get it. Creationist "evidence" consists of lists of scientists, some from pre-Darwin days, who were/are creationists. Perhaps solid science like this is why ID failed so miserably in court.

very real scientists which you want to judge as not authentic for some reason.

If you give me the names of a million very real scientists who are creationists, and I could only supply one who accepted the fact of evolution, that doesn't change the fact that you've yet to provide anything in the way of evidence for creationism. Am I not making that point clear enough?

And now you are claiming that evolution is beyond the theory that it is but is a tenant of science.

Last post it was "tenent" and now it's "tenant." Psst, it's "tenet." So I guess I do agree that evolution is not a tenant of science. But it surely IS a tenet.

surley you are not a nazi!

No, I'm not a nazi. And don't call me Shirley. Or surly. Or a nazi. You're getting lazy with all this ridiculous name calling.

It honestly comes down to the rejection and anger of God which His creation is all about us.

Oh. Okay. Whatever dude. I'm a lying intellectual nazi who is angry with God. Right. On that note, FRiend, I wish you all the best in life and bid you and this absurd discussion goodbye. (Unless, of course, you figure out how to provide more than lists of 17th century astronomers who were creationists.)

[colorado tanker]

Did you say Raquel Welch???

Rules . . . must . . . be . . . obeyed.

[colorado tanker]

Did you say Raquel Welch???

Rules . . . must . . . be . . . obeyed.

[fabian]

You are being dishonest in our debate again my friend...the last link I provided had many scientist that are recent also ...not just pre darwin...not that that matters a whole lot.

[fabian]

Here is reference to some pretty amazing evidence of a creator in the dna code. Simply does not make sense that such a code , which is more complex than a computer code, could make itself!
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm