"Survival of the Sickest"
UC
It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to
stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
UC
Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
Inez
There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I
haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the
Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a
thought.
UC
I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian
selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of
certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American
blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than
African populations from which they are derived because they are
descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in
the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died
of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of
reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of
reproduction.
Kermit
Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen
in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking)
and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a
problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among
those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious
famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced
genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima
Indians of North America).
As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the
genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
Kermit
UC
The explanation has to do with cold, not famine.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined
people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more
Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because
their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The
reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in
the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs
less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which
prevents overdose.
While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
darker skinned population.
But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved
away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that
darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
as was suggested happened in the past.
So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which
means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
species survival.
Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However.
What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change
as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
originate in Africa.
Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
distinction.
I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
selection.
Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection
selecting a species for distinction.
Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
Burkhard
Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday
travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an
airplane?
> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
> species survival.
>
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However.
> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change
> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
> originate in Africa.
>
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
> distinction.
Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of
evolutionary biology, really.
>
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
> selection.
Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a
problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that
selects.
>
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
> African ancestor;"
If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true,
lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species
originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
And wrong about what should be natural selection
> selecting a species for distinction.
>
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only
a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation"
illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist
southern parts of the US. Normally, interbreeding is perfectly
possible, whatever you'v ebeen told.
Second, evolution doesn't have a plan and does not in any meaningful
sens of the word "decide" what traits to select. Certain environemnts
faour certain traits, nothing you said contradicts this.
VoiceOfReason
You have a much bigger problem since a large proportion of African
Americans have interbred with Europeans, Asians and Native Americans.
As a result, African Americans are, on the average, much lighter-
skinned than native Africans today.
To support your assumption, you would need detailed population
statistics taking into account the genetic mix of each individual.
Then you would need to determine what proportion of their "lightness"
was due to genetic mixing with other populations, as well as a metric
to measure the "darkness" of each individual's skin. Then you would
need similar population data from native Africans as a comparison. I
doubt such a study would even be feasible.
> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which
> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
> species survival.
Not sequitur based on unsupported assumption.
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However.
> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change
> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
> originate in Africa.
Not sequitur based on unsupported assumption.
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
> distinction.
>
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
> selection.
Read what you just wrote. If indeed the darker-skinned trait was
selecting against African Americans, and not native Africans, that
would actually support the theory that humans evolved to be lighter-
skinned once leaving Africa.
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
> African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection
> selecting a species for distinction.
Lighter-skinned African Americans do get tans during the summer just
as Europeans and Asians do. I don't know about darker-skinned ones,
but I do know they are susceptible to sunburn as well.
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
Non sequitur. You have no data to support this assertion.
Sapient Fridge
<bd9eb95f-6048-44c9...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
>I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined
>people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more
>Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because
>their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The
>reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in
>the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs
>less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun.
>Which
>prevents overdose.
Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
>While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
>was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
>darker skinned population.
>
>But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
>overproduction of VitD in the body.
Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark
skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not*
vitamin D over production.
>Evolution suggests as humans moved
>away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
>for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
>necessary amount of VitD in the body.
Correct.
> But we have a problem. Now that
>darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
>strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
>as was suggested happened in the past.
Not enough time has passed yet.
>So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
> Which
>means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
>then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
>suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
>selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
>species survival.
But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then
it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem
artificially.
>Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
>of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough
to show an evolutionary change?
> However.
>What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
>skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
>less dark with less exposure.
It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
> So it is clear that skin did not change
>as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
>originate in Africa.
Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
>Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
>VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
>higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
>distinction.
It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations
where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see.
Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
>I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
>people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
>suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
>selection.
This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern
latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since
evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
>Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
>response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
>skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
>to less sun.
Wrong. Black people do tan.
>Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
>African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection
>selecting a species for distinction.
>Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is
your conclusion.
On to more detail:
The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an
equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight.
Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so
is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin
produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is
selected for in low sunlight locations.
Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a
form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a
gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable
amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It
would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II
albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern
latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is
associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the
eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCA2
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=oca2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/wid/11915773?GT1=10914
The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to
spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin"
mutation is SLC24A5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5
Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain
between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African
and White European humans."
So, on to the errors in your article:
1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow
breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since
black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough
for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the
spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a
relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen
in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned
individuals living in northern latitudes:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=black-kids-arent-getting-enough-of-2009-08-03
Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general
population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many
thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will
lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would
expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over
hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them
there.
2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have
a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most
people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the
skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they
tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as
white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
http://skin-nail-care.suite101.com/article.cfm/is_a_tan_ever_safe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from
sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is
broken down if too much is produced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Overdose
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842
"Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not
increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced
production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of
vitamin D and its precursors. "
4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a
population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one
population should affect populations in other locations. You then
point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of
evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that
theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly
researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
Fossil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Genetic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news255.htm
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Ron O
All-screeching-denial, where did you get this argument? Why do you
think that people like you survive in our society? Mental
incompetence wasn't part of the "sickest," but it does relate to what
you write below. It is called relaxed selection where the less
advantaged make it long enough so that they might have a chance at
reproduction.
>
> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined
> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more
> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because
> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The
> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in
> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs
> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which
> prevents overdose.
This is no problem in equatorial regions. It is only a problem where
they wear a lot of clothing and do not expose a lot of skin. The
darker skin in equatorial regions is likely more protection against
the mutagenic effects of the sun rather than to keep the people from
over dosing on vitamin D. It is likely that with the darker skin they
can still get enough vitamin D made in their skin and they need the
darker skin as protection against sunburn and skin cancer.
>
> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
> darker skinned population.
In northern latitudes. A very recent change for these types.
>
> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved
> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that
> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
> as was suggested happened in the past.
It may be that the skin got lighter to produce more vitamin D, and
there is counter selection against the light skin. It turned out to
be either the lesser of two evils or founder effects and the easiest
path to take, though maybe not optimum. There are disadvantages to
having light skin. Asians can have skin that is very pale, but it can
get darker with sun exposer. This would have likely been a better
solution, but it may have been that Asians got more vitamin D from
their diet than Europeans. My guess is that it was sexual selection
for associated characters like hair color. There are some European
populations that darken up pretty well when exposed to the sun, and
other like red haird individuals that have a problem due in part to
the red hair mutation. This leaves them vunerable to sunlight's
negative effects and they have a higher incidence of problems like
snow blindness and skin cancer. Red hair was likely a culturally, or
sexually selected trait, and the negative effects on skin color is
just what those individuals have to deal with.
>
> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which
> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
> species survival.
You don't know that, and as I have indicated above the problem is
complex and mutiple factors are involved. Sexual selection doesn't
have to make sense. It often presents a liability that the individual
that has the trait must be able to overcome in order to survive with
the trait. Peafowl with the larger tails produce progeny with a
higher survival rate to reproductive age. It takes a very fit
individual to haul that big tail around. I once saw a male peafowl
fly overhead with a full train. It was a pretty impressive sight, and
surprised me because I didn't think that they could fly.
>
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However.
> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change
> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
> originate in Africa.
Have you measured it? Since the African population in North America
is racially mixed what is your guess about the average skin color of
that population today, compared to what it was two hundred years ago?
The answer is that it is lighter in regions like Northern California
and darker in the deep south, but not because of the sun light, but
because of less racial mixing. We can tell by their genetics that the
Norther California population is between 40 and 60% European, but in
the deep south like Alabama the % of mixture is much less. There are
just other considerations that you are missing that affect population
dynamics. Traits are under varied selection environments and
pressures.
>
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
> distinction.
Latitude and not elevation. Usually, darker skinned people live at
higher elevations for the most part because of the negative effects of
UV light due to the thinner atmosphere. It isn't a big deal because
they can get the vitamin D in the food that they eat. Check out a
bottle of milk.
>
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
> selection.
Does not logically follow when you consider all the factors. It is a
factor that less developed countries are around the equator, and that
they are under different selection pressures. We might expect the
lighter skinned immigrants to be getting darker. So what? How could
you tell selection from interbreeding? How strong is sexual selection
and mate choice compared to the selection for darker skin by the
intensity of sunlight?
>
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
> African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection
> selecting a species for distinction.
Just think about it for a second. Darker skin is most prevalent
around the equator where the amount of sunlight is constant. Does
that register? Natural selection would not have selected for variable
skin color under those conditions where it wasn't needed.
>
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.-
Biological evolution is consistent with the skin colors that we see
around the world. It is one of the human traits whose selection is
fairly straight forward and observable. There are complcating factors
and the story is not simple, but it in no way invalidates the theory
of biological evolution. In fact, it supports it.
Ron Okimoto
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
So, all humans are able to provide adequate vitamin D for themselves if
they have enough sunlight, but most do not get enough sunlight in modern
culture to do so. That is why we add vitamin D in milk.
>While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
>was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
>darker skinned population.
Does diabetes have anything to do with this? A shortage of vitamin D is
a natural result of spending so much time out of the sun and heavily
dressed.
>But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
>overproduction of VitD in the body.
I don't recall anyone asserting that this was the only reason.
> Evolution suggests as humans moved
>away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
>for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
>necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem.
Yes, you do. You have inserted intent into evolution.
>Now that
>darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
>strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
>as was suggested happened in the past.
How fast do you think this should happen?
>So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
They are, you just don't understand evolution.
>Which
>means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were,
>then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as
>suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be
>selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the
>species survival.
Selection seems to be a concept, along with every other scientific
concept, that you do not grasp.
>Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations
>of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
If you live in a higher elevation, the sunlight is stronger. Presumably
you have confused elevation and latitude.
> However.
>What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their
>skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning
>less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change
>as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all
>originate in Africa.
Now you are confusing a suntan with natural pigmentation.
>Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of
>VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in
>higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for
>distinction.
What kind of distinction?
>I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned
>people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again
>suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural
>selection.
The only species we have here is H. sapiens. You are very confused.
>Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
>response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
>skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response
>to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common
>African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection
>selecting a species for distinction.
Your ignorance has caused you, once again, to make a total fool of
yourself.
>Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
No, as usual, it is you who are wrong.
You seem to have completely missed the basics of evolution, yet have the
arrogance to claim that it is wrong. Your claims are breathtaking.
heekster
No, your lies, misinformation and ignorant bullshit above, is wrong.
Try again, ament
heekster
Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you.
From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced
anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court
unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws
are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in
effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent.
Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such
laws until 1985, some 18 years later.
Where I live in Texas, there are now many so-called interracial
couples. Yet, at the turn of the 20th century, Waco was famous for
lynching blacks. There is, unfortunately, still a Klan presence, but
it keeps a very low profile.
It takes time for a human population to outgrow parentally inculcated
prejudices.
> Normally, interbreeding is perfectly
>possible, whatever you'v ebeen told.
>
Indeed, one of the things about Africa is that European, Arab, Indian
and Oriental men have married and interbred with African women in
Africa, for centuries.
>Second, evolution doesn't have a plan and does not in any meaningful
>sens of the word "decide" what traits to select. Certain environemnts
>faour certain traits, nothing you said contradicts this.
Given that there was a homo near extinction event, that happened
around 75,000 years ago, we are all more closely related than most
realize. This event resulted in the world's human population being
reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a
bottleneck in human evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
For being so inbred, we sure are diverse.
Volcanos seem to be indifferent to plans, even if there were such for
evolution.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <bd9eb95f-6048-44c9-96e5-dbebedf0b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to
> spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin"
> mutation is SLC24A5:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5
>
> Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain
> between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African
> and White European humans."
>
> So, on to the errors in your article:
>
> 1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow
> breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since
> black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough
> for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the
> spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a
> relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen
> in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
>
> Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned
> individuals living in northern latitudes:
>
>
> Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general
> population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many
> thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will
> lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would
> expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over
> hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them
> there.
>
> 2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have
> a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most
> people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the
> skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they
> tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as
> white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
>
>
> 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from
> sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is
> broken down if too much is produced.
>
>
> "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not
> increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced
> production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of
> vitamin D and its precursors. "
>
> 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a
> population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one
> population should affect populations in other locations. You then
> point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of
> evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
>
> 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that
> theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly
> researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
>
> Fossil:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossilshttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
>
> Genetic:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htmhttp://www.trussel.com/prehist/news255.htm
You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and
worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got
adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This
clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could
think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place
FIRST for species survival.
2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker
AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT
happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but
not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they
were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin
dark. This also suggest your theory being wrong about skin tones.
Starting with a created man, that had a "ruddy" complexion (The Hebrew
word Adam (Aw-dawm) comes from the root word Adam (Aw-dam). “aw-dam:
to show blood (in the face).” (Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and
Chaldee, p.8 #119) , this shows that Adam was light complected. Then
as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living
in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of
Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones
as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
Which is just what we see today.
The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
we see today
Boikat
>
> > 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from
> > sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is
> > broken down if too much is produced.
>
>
> > "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not
> > increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced
> > production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of
> > vitamin D and its precursors. "
>
> > 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a
> > population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one
> > population should affect populations in other locations. You then
> > point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of
> > evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
>
> > 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that
> > theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly
> > researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
>
> > Fossil:
>
>
> > Genetic:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htmhttp://w...
>
> You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
>
> 1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and
> worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got
> adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This
> clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could
> think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place
> FIRST for species survival.
Non-sequitur.
>
> 2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker
> AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT
> happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but
> not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they
> were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin
> dark. This also suggest ...
..that you are terribly ignorant.
<snip>
Boikat
Christopher Denney
Well, honestly, just because there were no laws against it doesn't
mean the social pressure didn't continue full force.
There were plenty of places in the south that treated whites who
associated with blacks even worse than the blacks.
Fortunately the followup anti-discrimination laws have helped
alleviate much of the problem. But there are still places you can find
pockets of people who will act significantly differently toward mixed
couples than non.
Christopher Denney
[snip]
>
> You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
lol
> 1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and
> worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got
> adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This
> clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could
> think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place
> FIRST for species survival.
If people were hairy then skin tone was not a factor the hair could
protect from the sun.
But people with darker skin tones could survive with less hair.
Hotter places would make less hair a possible advantage.
I will assume you are totally confused at this point and have no idea
what I'm getting at.
Bluntly: no, not a complex "safety feature" only a designer could come
up with.
> 2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker
> AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT
> happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but
> not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they
You have your facts wrong.
> were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin
> dark. This also suggest your theory being wrong about skin tones.
> Starting with a created man, that had a "ruddy" complexion (The Hebrew
> word Adam (Aw-dawm) comes from the root word Adam (Aw-dam). “aw-dam:
> to show blood (in the face).” (Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and
> Chaldee, p.8 #119) , this shows that Adam was light complected. Then
> as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living
> in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of
> Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones
> as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong.
> Which is just what we see today.
>
> The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
> we see today
lol
Burkhard
I tend to call everything that is "in living memory" recent, and in this
case, heard the stories from someone directly affected, which makes it
in a way even more recent for me. They are friends in Munich, a mixed
race couple and now of course getting a bit long in the tooth, who
settled eventually in Germany precisely because of this. He was a black
GI, she a German girl - in his home town, they would have been arrested,
and the people they had to avoid in Germany were white US MPs who,
according to him, would beat up mixed race couples if they found them
and put the GI's involved in prison for up to six month (and yes, the
irony never escaped them, either).
I go this book from him a couple of years back, it made very interesting
reading (and made my blood boil with respect to both countries - so glad
I'm Scottish these days, where everybody is part black since the 17th
century ;o));
Heide Fehrenbach: Race after Hitler: Black Occupation Children in
Postwar Germany and America Princeton University Press
Burkhard
You know, don;t you, that this reading is only promoted by far right
racist groups like Christian Identity and Aryan Nation?
Even creationists are embarrassed by this nonsense:
http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-7-pseudo-biblical-arguments-refuted
But now that you mention it - wasn't yo linking to racist websites the
reason I killfiled your last nym? Thanks for reminding me!
Then
> as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living
> in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of
> Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones
> as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
Ms Noah must have been quite some woman.
> Which is just what we see today.
>
Only at KKK meetings, really, the rest of us has a somewhat more
diversified view on humanity.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
...
No facts or evidence will ever persuade you that you are completely
wrong when you make silly claims like this:
>The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
>we see today
Black is white. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. The all-seeing-I has
spoken.
heekster
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 10:02锟絘m, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:25:42 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>>
>>
>>
>> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >On 21 Nov, 10:45, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>>
>> >> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to
>> >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>>
>> >> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>>
>> >> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. 锟絀
>> >> > > > haven't. 锟絀 wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the
>> >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>>
>> >> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? 锟絁ust a
>> >> > > > thought.
>>
>> >> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian
>> >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of
>> >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American
>> >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than
>> >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are
>> >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in
>> >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died
>> >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of
>> >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of
>> >> > > reproduction.
>>
>> >> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen
>> >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking)
>> >> > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. 锟絀 don't think it was a
>> >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among
>> >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious
>> >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced
>> >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima
>> >> > Indians of North America).
>>
>> >> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the
>> >> > genetic heritage may be 锟絩esult of fairly recent events.
>>
>> >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined
>> >> people in relation to disease. 锟絋o put it simply, they need more
>> >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because
>> >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The
>> >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in
>> >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs
>> >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which
>> >> prevents overdose.
>>
>> >> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
>> >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
>> >> darker skinned population.
>>
>> >> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
>> >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved
>> >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
>> >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
>> >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that
>> >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
>> >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
>> >> as was suggested happened in the past.
>>
>> >> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
>>
>> >Why not? 锟絋he "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday
Same thing happened in Los Angeles and New York in the 1940s.
And you have spent how much time in the South? And lived in which
Southern States?
>Fortunately the followup anti-discrimination laws have helped
>alleviate much of the problem.
No, the problem was the parental inculcation of prejudicial attitudes.
You snipped what I wrote about it. It might be worth your while to go
back and read it.
> But there are still places you can find
>pockets of people who will act significantly differently toward mixed
>couples than non.
That is true, regardless of where in the world you go. The Japanese,
e.g., are still famous for their xenophobia, and so-called "mixed
bloods" do not fare well there, due to the ostracism. Now, not all
Japanese are so xenophobic. Some cultures are extremely clannish, and
some are open and embracing. The latter are exemplified by the Lumbee
Indians in North Carolina, who have had trouble with the fedgov
refusing to recognize their tribe. Originally Cheraw, seems that they
took in runaway slaves, drifters, and others.
heekster
Never seen a redhead, eh?
> This does NOT
>happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but
>not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they
>were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin
>dark. This also suggest your theory being wrong about skin tones.
>
An illiterate imbecility.
>Starting with a created man, that had a "ruddy" complexion (The Hebrew
>word Adam (Aw-dawm) comes from the root word Adam (Aw-dam). �aw-dam:
>to show blood (in the face).� (Strong�s Dictionary of Hebrew and
>Chaldee, p.8 #119) , this shows that Adam was light complected.
Uh, no. There are several entries in Strong for "adam"
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB1.htm#S127
You just aren't intelligent enough to realize that it means either
RED, or a man, or a city in the Jordan Valley.
Aagin, your massive illiteracy, lack of education, and ignorance is
manifest.
>Then
>as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living
>in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of
>Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones
>as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
>Which is just what we see today.
>
>The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
>we see today
No, the stories are allegorical, and you are a fool for taking then
literally.
Christopher Denney
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:59:31 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
>
>
> >On Nov 21, 10:02 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:25:42 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 21 Nov, 10:45, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>
> >> >> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to
> >> >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>
> >> >> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>
> >> >> > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the
> >> >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>
> >> >> > > > thought.
>
> >> >> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian
> >> >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of
> >> >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American
> >> >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than
> >> >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are
> >> >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in
> >> >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died
> >> >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of
> >> >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of
> >> >> > > reproduction.
>
> >> >> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen
> >> >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking)
> >> >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among
> >> >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious
> >> >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced
> >> >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima
> >> >> > Indians of North America).
>
> >> >> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the
>
> >> >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined
> >> >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because
> >> >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The
> >> >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in
> >> >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs
> >> >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which
> >> >> prevents overdose.
>
> >> >> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it
> >> >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the
> >> >> darker skinned population.
>
> >> >> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the
> >> >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved
> >> >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing
> >> >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the
> >> >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that
> >> >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as
> >> >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute
> >> >> as was suggested happened in the past.
>
> >> >> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
>
I think we agree more than disagree, I was just pointing out that
written law isn't the only bar to "miscegenation".
I personally never LIVED in a southern state, but most of my relatives
live in Oklahoma, and I visit them there. Also I was brought up on
horror stories my mom told from the time she and my dad lived in
Mobile in the early 60s/late 50s time frame. And a couple of years in
grade school in a DC suburb, during the early 70s, exposed me to a few
more choice pieces of information. So I am not entirely ignorant of
what I speak.
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:37:41 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> ...
>
> No facts or evidence will ever persuade you that you are completely
> wrong when you make silly claims like this:
>
> >The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
> >we see today
>
> Black is white. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. The all-seeing-I has
> spoken.
Telling LIES for your science and religion again?
Boikat
Given your usage of the word "lie", were you lying when you said
"trilobite" was an example of a "Cambrian mammal"?
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<ed794514-06e7-4e5c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>>
>> 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from
>> sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is
>> broken down if too much is produced.
>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Overdosehttp://www.ajcn.org/cgi/
>>content/full/69/5/842
>>
>> "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not
>> increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced
>> production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of
>> vitamin D and its precursors. "
>>
>> 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a
>> population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one
>> population should affect populations in other locations. You then
>> point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of
>> evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
>>
>> 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that
>> theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly
>> researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
>>
>> Fossil:
>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossilshttp://www.talkori
>>
>> Genetic:
>>
>>
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htmhttp://www
>
>
>You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
>
>1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and
>worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got
>adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This
>clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could
>think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place
>FIRST for species survival.
So why do you think that this could not evolve naturally?
I explained why each would be selected for in each environment and I
even pointed out the *single* nucleotide mutation that was needed to
accomplish much of the skin colour change.
>2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker
>AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT
>happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter,
Changed your tune I see. Previously you asserted that
"Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in
response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark
skined people."
So it looks like you can be educated after all.
>but
>not as remarkable as with light skinned people.
Only because there skin is already dark, so it's less noticeable.
>This suggest that they
>were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin
>dark. This also suggest your theory being wrong about skin tones.
Perhaps you would like to provide the reasoning behind your
"suggestions" as it's not obvious from what you wrote.
>Starting with a created man, that had a "ruddy" complexion (The Hebrew
>word Adam (Aw-dawm) comes from the root word Adam (Aw-dam). “aw-dam:
>to show blood (in the face).” (Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and
>Chaldee, p.8 #119) , this shows that Adam was light complected.
So Adam was a white man?
>Then
>as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living
>in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of
>Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones
>as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
>Which is just what we see today.
>
>The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what
>we see today
Rubbish. You are providing ad-hoc solutions to observations we make.
I noticed you failed to address the genetic and fossil evidence and
instead gave a fairytale solution without citing evidence. As always.
Ye Old One
>You prove my point
you never have one, at least not a valid one. You are a scientifically
illiterate moron.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
The lies always come from you Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>You know, don;t you, that this reading is only promoted by far right
>racist groups like Christian Identity and Aryan Nation?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/l6tk9x
>
>Even creationists are embarrassed by this nonsense:
>http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-7-pseudo-biblical-arguments-refuted
of course he's advocated the idea that the jews killed christ and that
gays should be executed, so his hatred of blacks, because of
creationism, is no surprise
bpuharic
>
>we see today
really? then why do we know that the exodus never happened? the jews
were never slaves in egypt. there was no moses. there was no escape.
no wandering in the desert...
etc etc etc
so, no, the bible is not historically accurate
sorry creationist
heekster
wrote:
That is an ever expanding set.
> and in this
>case, heard the stories from someone directly affected, which makes it
>in a way even more recent for me. They are friends in Munich, a mixed
>race couple and now of course getting a bit long in the tooth, who
>settled eventually in Germany precisely because of this. He was a black
>GI, she a German girl - in his home town, they would have been arrested,
>and the people they had to avoid in Germany were white US MPs who,
>according to him, would beat up mixed race couples if they found them
>and put the GI's involved in prison for up to six month (and yes, the
>irony never escaped them, either).
>
>I go this book from him a couple of years back, it made very interesting
>reading (and made my blood boil with respect to both countries - so glad
>I'm Scottish these days, where everybody is part black since the 17th
>century ;o));
You aren't fooling anyone. I know you've been on the Whisky Trail,
visiting pot stills, and imbibing with the best of them. ;)
And like I said below, with that near extinction event of 75kya,
everyone is black, whether they know it or not.
>
The wife is German-Scottish. Her GGF taught German language classes
in a girls school in Edinburgh, in the early 20th century, pre- WWI.
Somehow, she managed to accumulate a bit of Aleutian Eskimo into the
German-Scottish mix.
>Heide Fehrenbach: Race after Hitler: Black Occupation Children in
>Postwar Germany and America Princeton University Press
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=b2ypwCL7F9oC&dq=Heide+Fehrenbach:+Race+after+Hitler:+Black+Occupation&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=EqIIS7L-KofGMc-EtcoK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
or
http://tinyurl.com/ydf78hf
I'll check this out. It looks interesting. It is amazing, the stupid
things some people can do.
Free Lunch
You know that the lies come from you.
UC
Can we get back to the book, please?
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
What good is the Bible?
UC
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:11 -0800 (PST), UC
I mean "Survival of the Sickest"