More proof Man does not Cause Global Warming

[XXXTheGoddessXXX]

And I suppose we use our appendices too? Male nipples (on any mammal) are used to breast feed, and you use your brain?

Male humans breast feed? Where are you getting this stuff from?


In the animal kingdom, there are lots of defunct body parts on any animal that have either stopped working from a distant past, or newly created and yet to be of use until future generations.

Of the "lots" of defunct parts, name a few in humans and then name a few "newly created" ones for humans. I will await your response.

I never said the neanderthals did not have the capability to differentiate a wide range of sounds, and produce a huge spectrum of vocal noises for speech to occur, but that they just simply could not understand it in the same way we apply language.

No you just said that a mutation happened that some how made us have language and now we arent in the stone age because of this mutation. You have yet to list exactly what that mutation is, care to explain or would you just like to blow more smoke up our asses?

The neanderthal man had plenty of discoverys that kept them alive. Just as the native Americans fought amoungst themselves I am certain that the neanderthals did as well. Life on earth for humans has changed from survival to material. It is no longer(in America) a necessity to go and hunt food, we go to work. We raise our food and live our lives much more effieciently by having a capitalistic society and laws to keep people in check. Sure it goes even deeper than this, but I dont think I have to explain why we differ from "man" 1,000 years ago.

It is simple to grasp what I am describing because the sounds imitate the shape of the item to some degree. To the neandathal man, yes, he probably would be able to differentiate the sounds and say them, but it would have little meaning to him. All their verbal language would be limited to lip movements imitating the actions and body language (I assume).

Not sure where exactly you are going with this. The point is that your assumption that the neanderthals did not use and/or understand language was just wrong. Science shows that they did have their own language. Body language is still used today, is there something wrong with it? Look at the native Americans they used lots of body language in their communication, and that was less than 500 years ago!!!


And to why this is so important to invention/creativity, I give you far too much credit to even consider going into any detail.

My guess is you dont have a clue how to back track out of this so you just say something stupid like you just did to avoid digging yourself any deeper.

[jeffmann77]

xxxthegoddessxxx said:

It doesnt have anything to do with global warming. It has to do with ray's claim that liberals are engaged in "religious fantasies"
Creationism, a championed idea of the republicans, is just that. Religious fantasy

And yet you cited that 8 out of 10 repub candidates DONT believe in evolution.

I suppose you math skills arent what you claim them to be. 4 thousand years (recorded history of man) is a minute % of 4 billion years.

Sure it is, but can you name one mutation of change that has had lasting effect on the human race in 4,000 years? Give me something like green hair, or fangs, how bout night vision, something. I mean "THINK" about it. Really sit down and think about how many bones, ligaments, teeth, vertabre, hair, etc. Also think about the odds of finding a mate and breeding a certain mutation. Analyze the "eye" and tell me how it formed.

Cancer is techinacally a mutation. And natural selection doesnt work as it should when you live in a society that tries to aid those that natural selection would deem "unfit".

Cancer is a mutation, yes I give you that. It is a mutation from chemical compounds that man has made. No where in history can you find man made chemical compounds being ingested. Hence this mutation is man made, it has nothing to do with nature.

I am not saying evolution or perhaps I should say "adaptation" doesnt exist, I just question the timeframe given all the creatures/vegitation of this planet.

Ill argue with you till the cows come home about the ridiculous stories in the bible, but I cant sit here with my eyes closed when they say we evolved from neanderthals some 24,000 years ago, thats A LOT of changes in a short period of time.

xxxthegoddessxxx said:

From 24,000 years ago as a neanderthal, fast forward 20,000 years and tell me why man of 4,000 years ago looks that same as we do today. Tell me what magical transformations happened in 20,000 years but nothing has happened in the last 4,000 years.

-Cancer has been around as long as human recorded history. Actuall physical evidence of cancerous tumors in humans dates as far back as 2,000 years ago. Cancer is not caused solely by man made compounds and chemicals. True, these things can increase the chances of a person getting cancer, but that in no way means that you can't get it without it's prescence. Cancer is just as easily caused by errors in DNA copying during cellular mitosis, and damage to DNA from loose molecules and atoms interecting with your body, I beleive the term is "free radicals". There is no reason to beleive that cancer has not been around as long as mankind has.

- Evolution is not on a specifically timed scale. Evolution occurs when a species gains something that provides a survival advantage and thus gives it a better chance to pass on its genes to other generations. You don't just get night vision because you want it, it happens randomly and if it gives you a significant advantage, there is a good chance that your ancestors will have higher survival rates and thus pass it into the species genepool. As for the continued evolution of humans, noone knows for sure. Most scientists believe that man is still evolving, thought a few beleive that man has eveolved very little for the past 50,000 years or so. Here is an interesting article on the topic:
www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/mg18925421.300-are-we-still-evolving.html
and another
www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn8812-many-human-genes-evolved-recently.html

- Again, evolution is not a timed event. You can't say here is X amount of years this species should have evolved Y amount. It doesnt work that way. That is why some species, such as sharks and alligators, have seen almost no changes for millions of years, while others have evolved into something so different that they are a completely different species. Changes in the envoronment or in other species can speed this up. That is why the periods of time after the massive earth extinctions shown in the fossil record, species evolved at an extraordinarily fast pace.

- One of the most compelling evidences for evolution is the new discoveries that we have made since Darwin made his theory of evolution and natural selection some almost 200 years ago now. The fossil record agrees with it, where we see creatures with similar characterisics with those that live today and came before them, and point to common linage. The discovery of DNA and genes is probably the most compelling evidence for evolution. Now that we can sequence entire genomes from certain animals we can analyze their genes and actually trace common ancestry. Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 98% identical.

- I don't know how eyes evolved, and I doubt anyone knows for sure. But don't you find it interesting that so many species of animals have them. Why do they all see in almost the same spectrum. Why do some animals that are nearly blind and dont rely on eyes for much of anything (like bats) have them at all? Does this point to common ancestry? Anyways, here is an interesting article and video (i suggest watching it) about the evolution of the eye.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

- Homo Sapiens is NOT a descendant of Neaderthal man. Evidence from fossils and DNA suggests that man and Chimps shared a common ancestor around 5 to 6 million years ago. The first species of the genus homo was Homo Habilus who is beleive to have lived 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago. After him come a series of different variations (homo erectus etc.) that lived for a peroid time and died off as they were replaced, untill homo sapiens first appeared some two or three hundred thousand years ago depending who you ask. Neanderthal man is a another species of the homo genus that arose before homo sapiens, 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. There has been some debate as to wether or not neanderthal and sapiens interbred during this period. DNA and fossil evidence has shown that neanderthal man and sapiens do not share a common ancestor for 4 to 500,000 years. It is certainly possible that sapiens and neanderthal man did interbreed some during this time, but none of their genes has survived with us today. Most scientists beleive that they probably did interbreed, buthaven't for some 100,000 years, when neanderthal man began to disappear.

- Interesting factiod: It is beleive that the "races" of man began to diverge about 50,000-100,000 years ago. Thats an awful long time just to develop different skin pigmentations caused by population isolation

-Next time bring some facts or at least a casual understanding of the material

[XXXTheGoddessXXX]

Evolution occurs when a species gains something that provides a survival advantage and thus gives it a better chance to pass on its genes to other generations.

Well then please tell us what happened in Africa. By design the black race is bigger and stronger than the white Europeans. Black or dark skin would help in hunting at night. I think size, strength, and color have great advantages in survival, why hasnt this race flourished?

Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 98% identical.

Oh I love when people cite this cliche. It tells me that you have heard the same thing that millions of others have heard, yet you truly dont understand what it really means. I think we both understand that a chimp is a far less complex creature than a human. I think we can both agree that both are still carbon based and share a similiar chemical make up. Stretching this even further... since the chimp is "less complex" its only logical to conclude that in "our" complexity that we have pretty much everything the chimp has plus a whole lot more.

btw, did you hear the one about plastic and margarine being 1 molecule apart?

Next.

The genomes of humans and humans in chimpanzees differ by about 35 million single nucleotide substitutions.

Roughly one half of the changes occurred in the humans lineage. Only a very tiny fraction of those fixed differences gave rise to the different phenotypes of humans and chimpanzees and finding those is a great challenge.

Homo Sapiens is NOT a descendant of Neaderthal man.

I dont think I cited them as a descendant, but expounded on another persons assertation.

Next time bring some facts or at least a casual understanding of the material.

What you have cited is so vanilla in relation to the topic at hand, it adds nothing to our debate. btw, can you cite "any" mutation that has had an impact in humans? Anything that can be repeated with normalcy?

[jeffmann77]

"Well then please tell us what happened in Africa. By design the black race is bigger and stronger than the white Europeans. Black or dark skin would help in hunting at night. I think size, strength, and color have great advantages in survival, why hasnt this race flourished?"

Where do you see africans having an advantage in size strength and color? Do you think that these are the only qualities that would help in the survival of modern humans? Are you equating the situation in Africa today to evolution? If you are I dont see how those qualitites would equate to prosperity today?

"Oh I love when people cite this cliche. It tells me that you have heard the same thing that millions of others have heard, yet you truly dont understand what it really means. I think we both understand that a chimp is a far less complex creature than a human. I think we can both agree that both are still carbon based and share a similiar chemical make up. Stretching this even further... since the chimp is "less complex" its only logical to conclude that in "our" complexity that we have pretty much everything the chimp has plus a whole lot more.

btw, did you hear the one about plastic and margarine being 1 molecule apart?

Next."


So its just a coincidence that similar species posess similar dna? What does this really mean, do tell? Is a chimp really technically less complex than man? Probably not actually. It has just evolved into something different. World domination is not the driving factor behind evolution.

" Homo Sapiens is NOT a descendant of Neaderthal man.

I dont think I cited them as a descendant, but expounded on another persons assertation."

You did, and it was 100% wrong. Let me refresh your memory:


"but I cant sit here with my eyes closed when they say we evolved from neanderthals some 24,000 years ago, thats A LOT of changes in a short period of time"
"From 24,000 years ago as a neanderthal, fast forward 20,000 years and tell me why man of 4,000 years ago looks that same as we do today. Tell me what magical transformations happened in 20,000 years but nothing has happened in the last 4,000 years"

"What you have cited is so vanilla in relation to the topic at hand, it adds nothing to our debate. btw, can you cite "any" mutation that has had an impact in humans? Anything that can be repeated with normalcy?

You didnt read the articles I posted above, or watch the video. I also think your idea of mutation is off. Its a bit more subtle than teenage mutant ninja turtles.
Its funny to me that you cite my posts as "vanilla" and "cliche" when you posts are full of 100% wrong information and no explanations for you retorts. Also would you care to comment on the other points and corrections in my above post, or answer any of the questions i asked you?

[whiplash]

xxxthegoddessxxx said:

Well then please tell us what happened in Africa. By design the black race is bigger and stronger than the white Europeans. Black or dark skin would help in hunting at night. I think size, strength, and color have great advantages in survival, why hasnt this race flourished?

By design? Blacks were "designed" to be night hunters? The black race is bigger and stronger?

Have you been to Africa to observe the indigenous population? They are not big and strong in comparison to today's European population.

The black people in the US today are the product of "unnatural selection". They are the descendants of hand picked individuals who were selected for sale during the days of the slave trade. A higher price could be obtained for the larger, huskier black males who would be more productive in the fields and for the buxom, wide females who were thought to be better breeders. The slender, and thought to be more frail, were left behind. The blacks brought to the New World spawned a gene pool that is not representative of the indigenous African population.

[jeffmann77]

whiplash said:

xxxthegoddessxxx said:

Well then please tell us what happened in Africa. By design the black race is bigger and stronger than the white Europeans. Black or dark skin would help in hunting at night. I think size, strength, and color have great advantages in survival, why hasnt this race flourished?

By design? Blacks were "designed" to be night hunters? The black race is bigger and stronger?

Have you been to Africa to observe the indigenous population? They are not big and strong in comparison to today's European population.

The black people in the US today are the product of "unnatural selection". They are the descendants of hand picked individuals who were selected for sale during the days of the slave trade. A higher price could be obtained for the larger, huskier black males who would be more productive in the fields and for the buxom, wide females who were thought to be better breeders. The slender, and thought to be more frail, were left behind. The blacks brought to the New World spawned a gene pool that is not representative of the indigenous African population.

I can't beleive I missed the "night hunter" gem untill I saw whip's post.

Black skin is a trait that gives more protection from sunlight, not hunting at night. Humans are not a nocturnal creature. If we were, we might have developed better night vision as you sighted before. Many nocturnal animals posess more sensitive night vision than humans do.

White people lost their pigmentation because they adapted to less sunlight. The lack of the skin protein that creates darker skin tones allows more absorption of Vitamin D, which is necessary due to less sunlight.

Bring some facts goddess, Next

[JohnnyCash]

"Black skin is a trait that gives more protection from sunlight, not hunting at night."

nooooo...

"umans are not a nocturnal creature. If we were, we might have developed better night vision as you sighted before."

Cat People originated way back in time, when humans sacrificed their women to leopards, who mated with them. Cat People look similar to humans, but must mate with other Cat People.

[Avogadro]

[XXXTheGoddessXXX]

Where do you see africans having an advantage in size strength and color?

Look at sports, is it not obvious? As for color, look to the military and how they paint themselves up to fit into their surroundings, coincidence? Fact is, black or dark skin is not as noticable as white skin, I think its advantages in stalking your prey is obvious as well.

Do you think that these are the only qualities that would help in the survival of modern humans?

When did the conversation switch to modern humans, were we not talking about mutations and how a mutation that helped in survival orevailed?

Are you equating the situation in Africa today to evolution? If you are I dont see how those qualitites would equate to prosperity today?

No im equating blacks/dark skinned people to some of the earliest known people on this earth, and asking why if these 3 things are a positive to survival of the fittest, why hasnt it continued?

So its just a coincidence that similar species posess similar dna?

Yes dear

What does this really mean, do tell? Is a chimp really technically less complex than man?

Yes dear, I dont think I need to expound on it, or is it not obvious to you? We could continue to do your reduction theory all the way to protozoa and why protozoa are as complex as man, but im not biting.

Probably not actually. It has just evolved into something different. World domination is not the driving factor behind evolution.

You did, and it was 100% wrong. Let me refresh your memory:

Ah yes, but somewhere in this thread someone eluded to a 40,000 year old neanderthal man, not sure if it was you or Emiloo, not interested backtracking either.

Also would you care to comment on the other points and corrections in my above post, or answer any of the questions i asked you?

Which questions in particular? I thought if you had any they were rhetorical. Also you never addressed the 8 of 10 repubs and the religious fantasy dilemna.

Gotta run a few errands, will be back to finish...

[XXXTheGoddessXXX]

By design? Blacks were "designed" to be night hunters?

I do not recall me saying they were night hunters, but rather that dark skin would be advantageous to hunting and even more so at night, you disagree?

The black race is bigger and stronger?

Again isn't it obvious? If in America 75% athletes or better are blacks, why is this not happening in Africa? Not all the strong people were sold to slave trading and this country is only 400 years old, those slaves were products of mothers and fathers that bred to live, they had to have children in order to trade and hunt. So its not like they got a fluke child that was Hercules and the rest were Rodrigoms.

Have you been to Africa to observe the indigenous population? They are not big and strong in comparison to today's European population.

The black people in the US today are the product of "unnatural selection". They are the descendants of hand picked individuals who were selected for sale during the days of the slave trade. A higher price could be obtained for the larger, huskier black males who would be more productive in the fields and for the buxom, wide females who were thought to be better breeders. The slender, and thought to be more frail, were left behind. The blacks brought to the New World spawned a gene pool that is not representative of the indigenous African population.

Whip you present my point quite eloquently. The blacks that "were selected" came from??? Africa? That means they were there first and were breeding on their own, why did these genetics not fuel their race to supremacy above all others since in Africa it was "natural selection"? I'm not speaking of what has transpired in the last 400 years, but 1,000's of years before that. Why didn't the strength and size win out over the years?






Black skin is a trait that gives more protection from sunlight, not hunting at night. Humans are not a nocturnal creature. If we were, we might have developed better night vision as you sighted before. Many nocturnal animals posess more sensitive night vision than humans do.

White people lost their pigmentation because they adapted to less sunlight. The lack of the skin protein that creates darker skin tones allows more absorption of Vitamin D, which is necessary due to less sunlight.

OK I'll bite... Black people in America and the rest of the world are the same color, they haven't lost their pigment. Explain to me why this hasn't started? Explain to me where we live under shelter most of our natural lives and demand even less of the sun that this has not been accelerated. Now in your wealth of wisdom, explain to me why only in Africa did we see black people. South America's climate is quite similar to Africa's. Places in North America mirror Africa's climate. Once again in your wealth of infinite knowledge explain why we dint see albinos in polar caps, given your theory this is quite logical.

Check the average sunlight hours in Africa for yourself and tell me that you theory is plausible.

www.naturallyafrica.org/country/madagascar/guide/guide-weather.php

www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/city.shtml?tt=TT001080BBC

The info for the USA is for Boston, a northern city. It appears to get just as much sun on average, but do please come back and change your theory to UV light or something else that you dream up.

Bring some facts goddess, Next

Bring some common sense, I tire of educating you with simplistic knowledge of our surroundings.

[rodrigom]

ure a joke

just one thing - american rap singers now are "strong" cuz they filled up with steroids, so if u refering to them when you saying that american blacks are born strong, you should live in the real world

[jeffmann77]

"Where do you see africans having an advantage in size strength and color?

Look at sports, is it not obvious? As for color, look to the military and how they paint themselves up to fit into their surroundings, coincidence? Fact is, black or dark skin is not as noticable as white skin, I think its advantages in stalking your prey is obvious as well"

As Whip pointed out, American Africans are the result of unnatural selection. Would black skin provide an advantage in a winter environment? What happened to the night hunting thing?

"When did the conversation switch to modern humans, were we not talking about mutations and how a mutation that helped in survival orevailed?"

You claimed that the black race has "not flourished." It did in the past. Considering that most scientists subscribe to the "out of Africa theory", which is the idea that man evolved first in Africa, populated the region, and then spread to other regoins after tens of thousands of years. I'd call that pretty sucessful.

"No im equating blacks/dark skinned people to some of the earliest known people on this earth, and asking why if these 3 things are a positive to survival of the fittest, why hasnt it continued?"

Again, Blacks in africa are not bigger/stronger/better colored than other people. I don't know where you get this from. Have you been there or seen any Africans before?

"So its just a coincidence that similar species posess similar dna?

Yes dear"

I'm glad you have pointed out to us with you vast scientific knowledge undeniable proof that similarities in DNA in species is just a coincidence. We are truely priviledged to have access to such an intellect.

"Ah yes, but somewhere in this thread someone eluded to a 40,000 year old neanderthal man, not sure if it was you or Emiloo, not interested backtracking either."

You are the first person in the thread to mention the term neanderthal.

"Which questions in particular? I thought if you had any they were rhetorical. Also you never addressed the 8 of 10 repubs and the religious fantasy dilemna."

All of them.
Whats to address about the comment I made to ray? He said global warming advocates were engaged in "religious fantasy". I reminded him that 8 in 10 repub candidates were engaged in a religious fantasy called creationism. What do you not understand?


"Again isn't it obvious? If in America 75% athletes or better are blacks, why is this not happening in Africa? Not all the strong people were sold to slave trading and this country is only 400 years old, those slaves were products of mothers and fathers that bred to live, they had to have children in order to trade and hunt. So its not like they got a fluke child that was Hercules and the rest were Rodrigoms."

Just becuase you sat at you computer one day and decided that these traits are the only ones that would prove advantageous to survival does not make it true. Its not happening in Africa because what happened in America is man-made genetic engineering. That is not how natural selection works.

Seems you also backtracked from you original statement that all blacks are bigger and stronger than whites:

"Well then please tell us what happened in Africa. By design the black race is bigger and stronger than the white Europeans. Black or dark skin would help in hunting at night. I think size, strength, and color have great advantages in survival, why hasnt this race flourished?"

"Whip you present my point quite eloquently. The blacks that "were selected" came from??? Africa? That means they were there first and were breeding on their own, why did these genetics not fuel their race to supremacy above all others since in Africa it was "natural selection"? I'm not speaking of what has transpired in the last 400 years, but 1,000's of years before that. Why didn't the strength and size win out over the years?"

You really need to get past this whole size and strenght bit as the only relevant survival trait.

"OK I'll bite... Black people in America and the rest of the world are the same color, they haven't lost their pigment. Explain to me why this hasn't started? Explain to me where we live under shelter most of our natural lives and demand even less of the sun that this has not been accelerated. Now in your wealth of wisdom, explain to me why only in Africa did we see black people. South America's climate is quite similar to Africa's. Places in North America mirror Africa's climate. Once again in your wealth of infinite knowledge explain why we dint see albinos in polar caps, given your theory this is quite logical.

Check the average sunlight hours in Africa for yourself and tell me that you theory is plausible."

1. As I stated before scientists beleive it took 50,000-100,000 years for the races to diverge. Black ppl have been here for 400 years. You still don't seem to comprehend that fact that this is a very long process.
2. Only modern man has lived under shelter for most of his life. The time period is too short to be relevant. Go back just a few hundred years and pretty much every human spent the entire day outdoors.
3. Lucky for me and my wealth of knowledge, I know that humans only began to populate North America about 10,000 years ago. Modern genetics has linked these people to asians. And indeed, their pigmentation did change some, as people living in central and south america were darker than those living in what is now the upper united states and canada.

"The info for the USA is for Boston, a northern city. It appears to get just as much sun on average, but do please come back and change your theory to UV light or something else that you dream up."

Are you aware of the fact that White people didnt come from Boston? Also Madagascar (an island off the southeast coast of Africa) does not depict "average sunlight hours" for the entire african contintinent. Looks like you need a geography lesson now too.

Goddess none of you ideas that you have posted have any scientific merit at all whatsoever. Its almost like you are sitting at you desk and making it up as you go along. You are a joke, and I think the only thing that can help you is to either go back to school or read a biology book. So do tell us, what is the "Goddess theory of creation."?

[XXXTheGoddessXXX]

Gone for the weekend...

[rodrigom]

yy run goddess run

[Don K Hotay]

it's not only how much sunlight we are exposed to that determines pigmentation over time, more significant is how much direct sunlight/uv we are exposed to over time. The farther you move away from the equator, the more ozone/atmosphere and cloud cover the sun's radiation has to travel through, plus it's arriving at the surface at a less than/great than 90 degree angle...it makes all the difference over time.

I must say that Draka argued backward ideas far far better than Goddess. Hell there is no comparison! Ban goddess and bring back Draka please.