Posted on 06/21/2009 4:26:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
June 17, 2009 — If you are a war-mongering beast who likes to burn things, you’re displaying your evolutionary past. That’s what a couple of news reports are claiming. New Scientist has a review...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Maybe you should go to the review before commenting on what the article is or is not about.
Maybe you should say something.
I read the review and it does not involve “evolution”......in any manner. Use of fire to increase nutrition, altering the physical appearance in ways that better nutrition can and does, has nothing to do with inheritable changes (mutations) in the genetic make-up...the DNA...of a species.
“I read the review and it does not involve “evolution”......in any manner.”
The article quotes the review:
“These fascinating books show how the biological evolution of human beings may
not have been a matter of biology alone, and why, as Wrangham writes, “we humans
are the cooking apes, the creatures of the flame”.”
From the review:
“Anthropologist Frances Burton suggests that taming fire led to the evolution of modern humans. Millions of years ago, our ape-like ancestors may have overcome their fear of fire to pick at found delicacies - maybe an animal accidentally cooked in a forest fire”
and, also from the review that was quoted in the article:
“These fascinating books show how the biological evolution of human beings may not have been a matter of biology alone, and why, as Wrangham writes, “we humans are the cooking apes, the creatures of the flame”.
Maybe you should say nothing.
D’uh.....yes, they talked of “evolution” in a general sense, but this entire nonsense had NOTHING to do with evolution in the scientific sense.....as in.....it had NOTHING to do with inheritable changes in the DNA of the species.
Ya don’t change DNA sequences by building a fire.
As in...this entire article has NOTHING to do with evolution. D’uh....
Yeah....you sure have something to say.
Talking about anything is all that can be done in a printed page, that what a review is: talking. and talking, even in “a general sense” is a “manner”. D’uh
So what you’re saying is that, since you think the article had something...ANYTHING to do with evolution, that you don’t know what evolution is.
Got it....
No, not all. Neither said nor implied. I simply suggested you read the review after this comment:
“This article has nothing to do with Darwinism.”
As for your latest I need only say, “something..ANYTHING” is more than nothing. Yes, I got that and wonder why you cannot.
If you have relevant commentary, why, I’d like to discuss it with you soon.
This article STILL has absolutely nothing to do with “evolution.”
Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t that “evolution” is being talked about. The term is used incorrectly as what he’s talking about is.........not evolution.....in any manner.
“This article STILL has absolutely nothing to do with “evolution.”
Says article:
“Anthropologist Frances Burton suggests that taming fire led to the evolution of modern humans. Millions of years ago, our ape-like ancestors may have overcome their fear of fire to pick at found delicacies – maybe an animal accidentally cooked in a forest fire. Over time, they learned how to keep a flame going by feeding it twigs, how to use fire to thwart predators and how to harness it for heat and light. This familiarity with fire, Burton argues, changed the hormonal cycles that depend on light and darkness: light from nightly bonfires may have caused a change in the nocturnal flow of melatonin. Over time, this changed the rates and patterns of our ancestors’ growth, and the regulation and activation of genes, leading ultimately to us.”
Says I: YOU SAY the term is used incorrectly, even if so, and it's NOT, it is STILL the subject and that IS exactly what is being discussed. (Love those caps).
Now that we have arrived at this point, will you share with us some insult or just go on repeating:
“As in...this entire article has NOTHING to do with evolution. D’uh...”
“I read the review and it does not involve “evolution”......in any manner”
“This article has nothing to do with Darwinism.”
.
.
...and that quote has nothing to do with evolution. Go on...quote something else said that has nothing to do with evolution.
Predictable fare.
“Now that we have arrived at this point, will you share with us some insult or just go on repeating:
“As in...this entire article has NOTHING to do with evolution. D’uh...”
“I read the review and it does not involve “evolution”......in any manner”
“This article has nothing to do with Darwinism.”
And now:
“...and that quote has nothing to do with evolution. Go on...quote something else said that has nothing to do with evolution”
Predictable Darwinist fare.
Ya know, a friend of mine was talking the other day:
“I really want to be an aerospace engineer. The way the fish spawn every year is so cool. The way they change colors during spawning season is beautiful. That’s what I want for my career as an aerospace engineer.”
Is he talking about aerospace engineering?
No......but I don’t think someone of your obvious uber-intelligence will get or accept the analogy because you’re so wicked-smaht you actually think the article was talking about “evolution” when it was talking about something “other than evolution”...something that had nothing to do with heritable changes in the DNA sequence passed on to the next generation. Something that is what y’all might call “adaptation within a kind”....being altered in appearance or behavior by external stimulus.
Yes, a better diet will alter the physical appearance of a person or People. Yes, changes in light-levels received in the eye could alter horomone levels produced in the pineal gland.
...but that is not “evolution” no matter how many times someone says the word or uber-intelligent types like yourself think it is.
Talk about predictable fare. You’re stuck quoting and requoting and requoting “non-evolution” as “evolution” and then ending with a big fat projection.
YEs, predictable fare.
Just as I said in my post #29, Now the insult phase. Next comes the part where you become hysterical in addition to the insults and sarcasms.
I got to tear down a small structure once. It was savagely cathartic.
But I’d rather be a builder.
Still trying to find some shred of them talking about heritable changes in the DNA sequence of early Man due to Man taming fire? Gotta be in there somewhere?
YOUR COMMENT: “no......but I don’t think someone of your obvious uber-intelligence will get or accept the analogy because you’re so wicked-smaht you actually think the article was talking about “evolution” when it was talking about something “other than evolution”...something that had nothing to do with heritable changes in the DNA sequence passed on to the next generation. Something that is what y’all might call “adaptation within a kind”....being altered in appearance or behavior by external stimulus.
Yes, a better diet will alter the physical appearance of a person or People. Yes, changes in light-levels received in the eye could alter horomone levels produced in the pineal gland.
...but that is not “evolution” no matter how many times someone says the word or uber-intelligent types like yourself think it is.”
Read carefully. Then read the article/review.
“Stanford Report, January 16, 2009
Adaptation is key in human evolution
For years researchers have puzzled over whether adaptation plays a major role in human evolution or whether most changes are due to neutral, random selection of genes and traits.
Geneticists at Stanford now have laid this question to rest. Their results, published Jan. 16 online in Public Library of Science Genetics, show adaptation—the process by which organisms change to better fit their environment—is indeed a large part of human genomic evolution.
. Cassandra Brooks is a science-writing intern at the Stanford News Service.
news.stanford.edu/news/2009/.../evoladap-012109.html”
How's that foot taste?
The link to the "review" in the article entitled "What Makes You Human?" does not include the Stanford Report you quoted.
Anyone run around finding all kinds of research reports and journal articles.....but THIS ARTICLE, entitled "What Makes You Human" has nothing to do with evolution (where's the heritable change in the DNA?).
Must've been a slow day with GGG not posting any articles for personal props.
As evidenced by your comments you either cannot or will not understand what was said in any of the material presented to you.
Oh well.
So you found the part of the article entitled “What Makes You Human?” that talked of changes in DNA based on taming fire?
Yes, some time ago, do you need to have me explain it again?
or would you rather read it yourself? If so, come on back if you understand it and have something reasonable to say.
Otherwise I won’t waste my time responding to you.
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.