General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2259313

    If we all came from Monkeys, then???


    by jdclyde ·

    For the sake of this discussion, we will ASSUME that evolution is more than the “Theory of”.

    If we are to accept that Man came from Apes (barring the question of why are there still apes then) why are there so many “races” that are so different from one another?

    I understand the idea of life addapting to their environment, but how long does that take, and can it explain the vast differences between the differnt races?

    Why would Japanese be so much smaller, while black and white races average so much taller? Different diet maybe?

    I understand the eskimo body to concerve heat, but most others I just don’t follow.

    And how does this relate to certain races having less of a resistance to certain disease or lower/higher tolerance to booze?

    And with more people moving to different climates, how long does it take to re-adapt to a new climate, even if breeding among other races did not happen?

    And of course if we are all the human race, how can there be so many differenses in our DNA, from race to race?

    If we all started from the same mold, how can we have become so different?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3229452


      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      I have a biologist wife so I’ve been forced to at least have an understanding:

      a) Why are there still apes?

      It doesn’t work that way. That’s like asking why is there still strawberry ice cream if I ate all the vanilla.

      b) Races on the planet aren’t different genetically. We’re all homosapiens. We look a little different on the outside, but genetically we are all the same species.

      c) Adaptation can take a short time (the moth example) or a very long time (humans)

      d) Why are humans different on the outside then? Some of the environment plays into it. Other things as well. Humans are VERY adaptable. We can (and do) live anywhere on the planet. We’re cool like that.

      e) Booze, etc?? Well, this boils down to tolerance. I’m mostly irish, so I can hold my drink 😉 However, native americans didn’t drink until the europeans showed up. Their bodies don’t metabolize it as well. An example would be:
      Go eat a mean you don’t usually eat. Eg: If you eat mostly veggies, go eat a REALLY greasy meal at a BBQ joint. Tell me what happens…

      f) Climatic adapation…I’m not sure I follow…

      We’re all genetically the same species, just different people. I suggest you check out Richard Leaky’s book The Origin of Humankind (

      Keep in mind a lot of people (mostly rasist) want you to believe that humans have slightly different DNA…this isn’t true. If it were we’d be different species (and we aren’t).

      Why are we so different? It boils down to a few things, but honestly genetic diversity is GOOD for the species as you breed out the “bad” things…

      Inbreeding is bad, right? Why? You get kids with flippers and 12 arms…if you don’t inbreed you don’t get that…so it is better NOT to do it…

      • #3229372


        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Misconceptions

        simply makes recessive genes more likely to come out. That recessive trait could be a good one or a bad one. Unrelated people can also have good or bad recessive traits come out. The six fingers thing is just what people say to reinforce a social taboo.

        • #3229939

          What about mental abilities?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Inbreeding

          Is that just “what people say”?

          We always see “in the movies” that the inbreeders (generations after generation) have more defects mentally and physically.

          I have never seen or heard anything to say otherwise to make me question that. Are you saying it isn’t so?

        • #3229924

          If I remember correctly

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to What about mental abilities?

          from the genetics work we did in biology class, regressive traits become more common in a limited gene pool. This is given as the reason for the high incidence of hip dysplasia in many purebred dog breeds.

          What’s truly funny is that I went through basic training with a guy from Tennessee. He was from “up’ar bah three staetes, a coupla hollers aht from Bristol.” As we all did when we were young, he once performed a most egregiously stupid act. When asked “Were your parents cousins?” his response was “Yeah. Why?”

          On further quetioning, we determined that his parents were NOT first cousins nor even second cousins; it was just that family meant a lot up there, so people kept track.

        • #3229862

          Recessive traits

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to If I remember correctly

          also are more common when both parents have the recessive gene. The difference is, in a limited gene pool, there’s a better chance of getting a mate with the same recessive gene. And again, not all recessive genes are bad. Some people have a “defective” t-cell construction that the HIV virus cannot attach to, for example. Meaning they get it, but it doesn’t hurt them.

        • #3229863

          A taboo is a pretty stong thing.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to What about mental abilities?

          In some states it’s legal for first cousins to marry, others it’s not. I’ve not seen any data to suggest that the states that allow it have a higher incidencd of “abnormal children”, though if it were, do you think they would include as “abnormal” any heightened abilities, super-genius, etc.?

          It’s all part of human nature, that’s all… if the abnormality is bad, somebody must have done something wrong to cause it. If the abnormality is good, it’s considered a gift.

        • #3201938

          inbreeding – more clarity

          by ssp@techrepublic ·

          In reply to What about mental abilities?

          I suppose the inbreeding that you are referring to with problems is the ones where blood relations are involved (i.e., a very close relative). When the relationships are not that close, it is ok and not a problem.

        • #3201907

          Sickle-cell, hemophilia, etc.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to inbreeding – more clarity

          are “not a problem”?

        • #3201883

          Isn’t that the definition of it?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to inbreeding – more clarity

          breeding within the same small group? How far out on a limb of the family tree does it have to be?

          As long as “new blood” gets mixed in along the way, how much of a difference does that make?

          [i]”Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives, whether plant or animal. If practiced repeatedly, it often leads to a reduction in genetic diversity, and the increased expression of negative recessive traits, resulting in inbreeding depression. This may result in inbred individuals exibiting reduced health and fitness and lower levels of fertility.

          Livestock breeders often practice inbreeding to “fix” desirable characteristics within a population. However, they must then cull unfit offspring, especially when trying to establish the new and desirable trait in their stock.”[i]

        • #3201879

          I think that is the problem

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Isn’t that the definition of it?

          in the small town I live in. There are too many people and too few daddies..

        • #3201871

          Greeting in Norwich

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I think that is the problem

          Gimme six!

          Sickle cell anaemia is one of the “fuzzy” genetic issues. In areas where Malaria is prevalent, to be a carrier of [b]one[/b] copy of the sickle cell gene will prevent you catching the disease. You have no sickle cell symptoms so it is a pro-survival mutation. Sickle cell anaemia is only seen to be detrimental when both copies of the gene have the mutation.

          Haemophilia continues to be expressed because only males get it and their carrier mothers are asymptomatic.

        • #3201861

          Sounds to me

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I think that is the problem

          like they need an outside “donor”? ]:)

        • #3201858

          And this is the part….

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Isn’t that the definition of it?

          [i]However, they must then cull unfit offspring[/i]

          … that humans have a problem with.

        • #3201823

          Not that far way from that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And this is the part….

          Between people pushing abortion as acceptable birth control AND looking at DNA before a child is born, it won’t be too far off that we “scrap that one and try again” because of the wrong mix of DNA.

          The cull isn’t too far off.

        • #3230887

          Been there, done that

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And this is the part….

          That is already nearly with us with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which is done in addition to traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF). Normally, doctors would select several healthy-looking fertilized eggs from a couple to be implanted into the uterus.

          In PGD, technicians remove a cell from all of the embryos at the 3-day stage and then screen its DNA specific genetic defects like cystic fibrosis or for chromosomal abnormalities like the one that causes Down syndrome.

          Don’t see a lot of difference between that and abortion of an “unfit” offspring according to the “pro-life” moral code.

          At the moment, PGD is only used to look for one or two specific diseases that a family has reason to be worried about. For example, a couple undergoing IVF who has a family history of Huntington?s Disease, may have PGD performed to remove any embryos that have the genetic signs of the disease.

          If that were the case for me then I would certainly opt for PGD as I’d not wish Huntingdon’s on any child of mine. But then I would also be in favour of having an early genetic test on a developing foetus conceived by normal means…

      • #3229941

        Why are there still apes

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Misconceptions

        I just threw that in because it makes me laugh, and wasn’t really a part of the question. 😀

        We hear of studies recently that show different “races” living in the US are more prone to heart failure than others.

        Note: I use the term “race” because that is the accepted term on all government forms, while acknowledging we are all the human race.

        Not trying to say differnt is bad or play joe racist. Just was sitting around the other day and wondered why people physically from subrace to subrace are so different. Hight and shape is what I am looking at, not color. On the road right now, but will check your link later. Thanks.

        • #3229872

          Races and DNA

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Why are there still apes

          So it boils down to certain races have DNA traits that show up more often than others.

          It seems like this is due to:
          A) proximity – breeding in the same proximity means you’ll contain the same traits…that’s why certain traits are being “breed out” now.
          B) evolution to the environment – eg Sickle Cell keeps malaria at bay, but is dangerous to the person.

          I’m no biologist, but it seems like it is simply a matter of evolution and breeding that keeps some things around (good and bad)

        • #3230823

          Micro vs Macro

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Races and DNA

          You?re all still talking about micro-evolution where there are trait changes in the organism that can be attributed to environmental stressors. This does not equate to macro-evolution which is what Darwin was referring to when he suggested that we all descended from a common ancestry. Remember that DNA wasn’t known about during Darwin’s time let alone the complexities or the living cell.

        • #3230785

          DNA and Darwin

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Micro vs Macro

          Then he did a pretty damn good job considering what he [b]didn’t[/b] know. All this time and you religious sorts [b]still[/b] can’t put the old boy away! And it’s not for want of trying, is it?


          Do you [b]really[/b] want to go here again? I’ve only got to cut and paste from EL.

        • #3199596

          Healthy debate

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to DNA and Darwin

          I am more than willing to go there with you my friend. You argue well, are well written and articulate. More importantly you try very very hard not to succumb to childish jibes thrown your way.

          One thing before we begin though. I promise to stay on topic, which is the discussion of the scientific merits of Darwin’s theory of evolution and I would ask you to stay there with me. I am not going to bring up creationism as we have no common ground there. I am not nor will not attempt to refute Darwin’s theory using creationist ideology. I will merely speak to the logic and reason of what is postulated. What say you my friend? Care for some friendly banter?

        • #3283951

          Bring it on

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Healthy debate

          Bacterial flagellum first, I suggest, and then the Bombardier Beetle as dessert. These are the two Holy Evolution Killers and should put me away with nowt but a whimper.

          Set out your stall…


          p.s. I can do jibes but i’ll try and resist.

        • #3229857

          We’re a long way from a total understanding

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Why are there still apes

          There are more things than just DNA that affect heart disease. Diet, amount of exercise, etc.

          There is also a lot at stake. If they found a gene that predisposes one toward an expansive to get illness, it wouldn’t be long until insurance companies started charging more, or refusing to provide coverage for people who had these genes.

    • #3229451

      Hey JD here’s the simple explaination

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      1. Differences in DNA

      Think of races and DNA as being different lanes in the same olympic swimming pool. Each is slightly different to the ones on each side, but all part of the same pool. Some are in the shade, and look whiter, some are in the direct sun, and look darker (due to the reflections stopping you looking into the water).

      2. The differences in skin colour are due to thousands of years of living in environments with different heat, humidity, and sun levels. The darker skinned people were originally in hot dry tundra type climates. The white skinned people were in the cooler winter type climates, with snow. The Japanese were in a tropical type climate with a lot more heat, and humidity, and shade – thus they didn’t need the extra dark colouring. This took place over many thousands of years.

      NB: Some anthropologists now believe that the current race of man is a result of several groups branching off, and then blending back together, and the physiological variations are hang overs form those branchings.

      3. Adaption changes re lightneing of skin due to evolution and the like – most estimate a couple of hundred thousand years.

      4. DNA is so huge, and any one small change makes a change, that a 1% variation gives billions of options.

      5. Many, so called humans, are not that far away from their monkey ancestors – just watch the Australian PArliament question time or the USA Congress and the way any politician behaviour – what a silly bunch of baboons.

      6. The evolution experts recon we all, eveyr living thing on the planet, came from one original single celled bacteria or the like. Aren’t you glad that cell bred a bit. Try typing as a single celled thingy.

      • #3229446

        Now, DE

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Hey JD here’s the simple explaination

        There’s no need for gratuitous insults by comparing baboons to politicians. My neighbor is a baboon and he does NOT appreciate it at all. :p

        • #3229432

          Give him my apologies, but the only baboons

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Now, DE

          I’ve personally met were elected officials so I have no saner versions to compare them with.

      • #3229945

        Actually DE

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Hey JD here’s the simple explaination

        Skin colo(u)r was the least of my wonders. The actual physical characteristics were more of a wonder to me as that would be less easily explained by the sun.

        • #3229767

          A lot of physiology is changed by the environment

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Actually DE

          and the culture – in the long term.

          Some ‘racial’ groups have wider noses, due to high humidity rates in the climate they had lived in for hundreds of thousands of years. Most orientals have a slightly different intestinal system to caucasian as they are used to eating lots of rice while the caucasians are used to lots of red meat – they process at differernt speeds. Live in jungle over enough generations and your average height shortens – survival factor for getting through the jungle. Live in a tundra and height goes up, need height to see further. Sunnier climate and you need deeper eyebrow ridges and eye sockets.

          All the variations, which are less than about 0.000000001% of the DNA, are due to improved survivability in a particular sub-climate ove a looooong period.

        • #3201845

          Necessity is the mother of invention

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Actually DE

          or in this case, mutation. Mutations are always occurring, in a way you could say they are “natural”. The successful ones thrive and become entrenched in their environment. The unsuccessful ones usually don’t survive long enough to breed, and without intervention would eventually be weeded out.

    • #3229445

      Where did the chickens come from then ?

      by ssp@techrepublic ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Hi JD,

      First I must appreciate your questions. Some of them are thought provoking but almost all of them do not account the various milestones in the evolution of Earth (not just humans). You talk about evolution of man from apes etc but where do you think the chickens came from ? (this, considering the fact (?) that chicken came first than the eggs 🙂 ).

      Next, the heat, skin, races etc – as the other two people replied aptly, it is all to do with where u live what u eat and HOW you live (lifestyles).

      Some of your words do not have the proper fact – for example, “if we all started from the same mo(u)ld, how can … so different ?”. Who told you that we all started from the same mould ? You seem to talk like there was a moulding machine in Amazon forest and people were generated and pumped up in the air in to the world. Then what about Chickens, pigs, goats, buffalos, horses etc etc ? They are all living beings too.

      Like the other person rightly said, every single life started from a single cell organism. I would like to add the term mutation in addition to the adaptation that happened over millions of years after the big meteor strike that wiped off the giants from the face of the Earth.

      So tell me one thing – did you actually write this after a good booze ?

    • #3229444

      Because ..

      by aliv4279 ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Hi, your observations are correct – all you need to figure in is that ‘some-one’ did some genetic modification (very good at it, too!). If you take your thought a little further, I’m sitting here looking at my two puppies – and thinking – how come we both have eyes, nose, mouths etc. Different species, but clearly someone was working with systems that they knew and understood!


      Andrew L

    • #3229429

      No, I don’t think so

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Humans didn’t evolve from the apes, they are just a similar branch of the complex construction of DNA that makes up all things. We are what we are from the beginning, maybe adding a few mutations along the way, but are not evolved from the apes. Don’t mean to rattle anyones cage but that’s the path that has been taken. We were human to start and will be to the end. We have just learned to use what we have better than any other bi-pedal species. The creatures in the sea are just as complex and have learned how to master their envirionment just like we have.

    • #3229420

      You are proteus in disguise right ?

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      I’ve done my bit to enhance the booze resistance of our descendants.

      My son can drink me under the table.

      • #3229418

        You lazy uncouth sods – a true gentleman

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to You are proteus in disguise right ?

        can get boozed out of his mind and reach an alcohol content of 0.70 in his blood, while still seated. Now go learn some manner and and teach your son the same. Stop hiding under the table to drink – bloody closet drinkers.

        NB legal limit around here is 0.06 and anything above 0.5 is supposed to be potentially lethal.

      • #3229416


        by gadgetgirl ·

        In reply to You are proteus in disguise right ?

        some of us are still working on it…..

        Only given half a chance, of course!!



        (Pass the gin, please…. :p )

        • #3229932


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Tony

          that sounds GOOD!

          Haven’t had gin in a while! 😡

          How are you today love?

      • #3229371

        God bless you,Tony

        by jck ·

        In reply to You are proteus in disguise right ?

        What doesn’t kill us only makes us stronger…

        or develop cirrohsis 😀

    • #3229405

      Your Premise is Fundamentally flawed

      by mark.barker ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      The theory of evolution does not claim that man evolved from monkeys, only that at some point in the distant past the great apes and humans shared a common ancestor. THAT is why we “still have monkeys”

      • #3229929

        and everyone

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Your Premise is Fundamentally flawed

        goes for the easy out. I was friggen JOKING with that part!

        Got any import on the rest? And NO, not skin color!


        • #3229912

          But that was the easy one

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to and everyone

          All the guys with a serious tan who came North were a bit too visible in the snow and invisible in the caves. So if they managed not to get eaten on the way home, they starved to death when they got there.

          Richard Prior claimed that we turned white because we was hiding in the caves from bears and stuff, so it’s a sort of prison pallor.

          As for the major characteristics like say the epicanthic fold which is apparently an adaption during the ice age, after that you can only imagine they finished up in china and then their population exploded. So they ended up with no one without an epicanthic fold in their starting gene pool.

          That’s the theory anyway. There’s a lot of ifs may bes ,could be’s and shrugs in it though.

    • #3229381

      I think

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Environment does have an effect, which gets reinforced and/or amplified with repeated breeding within that environment. In the dog world they do this on purpose to either breed out undesirable traits and breed in desirable ones.

      Humans unconsciously try to do the same thing when they select a mate. The reason you are attracted to a certain “type” is that you subconsciously think that mating with that type will produce offspring with a better chance of surviving/thriving in this environment. The higher brain function of humans often gets in the way of that, though, when you start looking at things like did they come from the wrong side of the tracks, or what other people would think of your selection, etc.

      • #3230023


        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to I think

        Take a look at Africa.

        In eastern Africa, where there are grasslands and people were herders, people grew up to be tall and thin. Think of all those great runners from Kenya and Ethiopia. In Western Africa, where there is jungle and people were hunters, they grew up stocky and strong.

        Similarly in China, people in the North are taller and thinner, in the south shorter and stockier.

        I cannot help but to think that over the course of many hundreds and thousands of years, geography played a role in shaping this differences.

        I do not believe in race. One biologist once said that the skin colour differences we have are less than the difference between a golden labrador and a black lab. If the old saying about humans and chimpanzees sharing 99% of DNA is true, than how small is the difference between those of different skin colour. Behavioural differnces that are often attributed to race to me are cultural rather than racial.


        • #3229928

          And this was the clostest

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Absolutely

          to answering the question out of them all.

          I figured Neil would have a good answer for me…

          Please see further up for my disclaimer on the use of the word “race”. This was not meant as a devide discussion or politics or any of that other rubbish. Just a “why is he so tall while this other guy is so small”?

        • #3229916

          Sorry, jd, I was trying to avoid another EL

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And this was the clostest

          keepiing my head down this time. A small answer below and I’ll do some more tomorrow.


        • #3229776

          That is why

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sorry, jd, I was trying to avoid another EL

          I put that disclaimer at the top to ASSUME that this was the only explaination. Wasn’t looking for anything but the evolutionist answer.

        • #3229925

          there are only 4 acids that make up DNA.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Absolutely

          The Quoted phrase is Chemistry.

          We share 99% of the same chemistry with slugs too.

          The differences come from the bonding and the sequencing of the acids.

          A Pig is a Pig. A man is a man. We can take a valve from a Pig heart and put it in a man. that doesn’t make the man a Pig. For that manner we can use a whole Pig heart. That doesn’t change the replicating RNA/DNA.

          By the way, the unnamed biologist was full of it. A Yellow Lab and a Black Lab and Chocolate Labs are far mor closely related than mere humans are. (repeated inbreeding to get the desired dog body,shape,nose,type,color.)

        • #3229913

          Cough! cough!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to there are only 4 acids that make up DNA.

          Sorry, but the “four components” aren’t actually acids. They’re the opposit – bases.


        • #3229868

          Well, we have a winner there are bases within DNA

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Cough! cough!

          My textbook was wrong 30+ years ago.

          Adenine was described as a Nitrous based acid…
          but is always a weak base.

          Thymine bonds to a phophorous for a weak phosphoric acid in the structure of the link

          Uracil is a very weak acid. that bonds to the sugar.

          Guanine is a very weak acid, it
          Depending upon where they bond with the sugars, they can actually be acidic or basic…

          That is corrected in newer releases of PDR,and after the 1973 release of
          G. D. Fasman, Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 1975 release has it corrected. Can you guess which one I have and have studied???

          Thanks Neil, Now something make sense, Why a particular compound causes cancer (for example).

          Amazing how incorrect memorized information can haunt you…

          I stand corrected.

        • #3229860

          I can’t…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Well, we have a winner there are bases within DNA

          …remember what I memorized 30 seconds ago. And here you are remembering something you read/memorized 30+ years ago. Hats off to you (or to your brain power).

        • #3229846

          Carcinogens and other fun topics…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Well, we have a winner there are bases within DNA

          No big deal as I was just having a small dig. No offense (well, a very little) meant. 🙂

          One thing, though. As I said to ProtiusX in the Evolution Lie thread, mentioning Uracil is posing. 🙂 Missing out Cytosine…oops! 🙁

          I can’t really post anything wonderful on the mechanisms of carcinogens as the real hows and whys of cancers are still incompletely understood. I could post theories that I’ve read but that’s all that they would be. Mutagen mechanisms is a less complex subject. In the scope of this thread, mutagenicity seems the most likely on-topic. You might want to track down the Evolution Lie thread (DO NOT POST TO IT!) and read all 2500 posts where we covered a lot of this.

          Neil 🙂

        • #3201878

          I am still doing private research, but no funding.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Carcinogens and other fun topics…

          When I crack the code to cure Lupus, and arthritis, I’ll let you know after I get the ribase sugar block quantified.

          (would you believe in mobility for old guys like me!!!)


        • #3201870

          My sister-in-law has Lupus

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Carcinogens and other fun topics…

          Crack that one and I’ll buy you a beer!


        • #3201698

          If I actually find the prevention or a treatment.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Carcinogens and other fun topics…

          I’ll pay for the plane ride for you to deliver the bitters…


        • #3229917

          Taller and thinnner

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Absolutely

          It’s the other way round. Most equatorial races should have a shorter torso and longer arms and legs so that they have more surface area to remove heat. This is the body shape of a lot of black races (win all of the sprints, provide your basketball players). The cooler climes tend to favour people with shorter limbs and stockier bodies (Russian weightlifters and shot-putters) and the middle latitudes win all of the swimming. This is Allen’s Rule in action.

          Skin colour is down to vitamin D and melanoma. Too much sun gives you skin cancer while too little gives you vitamin D deficiancy. Optimum survival is to balance it out. Population mobility is screwing it all up! Without atificially enhanced milk, rickets and osteoporosis would happen a lot more in African-Americans than it does – it’s already higher than whites. Interestingly, the incidence of rickets in African-Americans can be increased by feeding kiddies on “healthy” breast milk – which obviously isn’t fortified!

          Without eating whale blubber, which contains a lot of vitamin D, the Inuits wouldn’t survive as they are quite dark skinned – probably because they haven’t been in the North long enough to select.

          Other climate adaptations to cold are fat distribution to protect vital organs and different blood flow patterns.

          Or maybe God done it?

          Neil 😀

        • #3229906


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Taller and thinnner

          Wow, I keep hearing amazing nutritional facts about breast milk. Are’nt humans the only animals that find it necessary to drink the milk of other animals? Is’nt calcium available anywhere else?

        • #3229886

          I think

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to BM

          it’s because human breast milk is nutritionally designed for baby humans and for the more simple sorts, that obviously equates to “always best”. Most of the time, it is. There are various reasons why women don’t breast feed but what was interesting about the research on breast-feeding African Americans in the USA was that they [b]shouldn’t[/b]!

          One study suggests that the dramatic increase in rickets frequency in Georgia is mainly due to three things: drinking milk substitutes that do not contain vitamin D, the failure to supplement breast milk, and insufficient exposure to sunlight.

        • #3229877


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to I think

          …when you get the chance, can you post a link to the research work. There must have been ample evidence to not recommend break milk.

          Our son’s paediatrician, in India, had recommended early morning exposure to sunlight (funny in India) for 5-10 mintues, for controlling any infant-jaundice that would develop in the first few days/weeks.

        • #3229873

          The article quotes

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Interesting….

          the April 2001 issue of the journal Pediatrics. That’s as close as I can get.

        • #3229771

          and my favorite reason

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I think

          to breast feed. The midnight feedings! ;\ No no, pumps are not natural, and only straight from the tap is good enough for my boys! 😀

          Unfortunately, after a month, the cow dried up…. :0

        • #3229883


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Taller and thinnner


        • #3229842

          Cultural and environmental.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Absolutely

          My sister had to have her gall bladder removed. So did her twin daughters. Some then thought that gall bladder disease must be hereditary, but in fact it was merely because all three shared the same diet!

    • #3229900


      by onbliss ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      JD, allow me to nitpick little bit 🙂

      Your title says “If we all came from Monkeys, then???” and in the content you say “If we are to accept that Man came from Apes”.

      I think we can not just interchange the words monkeys and apes, as they are different from each other.

      And, also apes and hominids (early human ancestors) just shared a common ancestor way back 🙂 It was not that some apes evolved into hominids.

    • #3229869

      A Natural History of Peace – Robert M. Sapolsky

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Here is a very interesting essary that I read sometime back on the subjects of Primates and humans. Though it is not directly connected to any of your questions, I thought some one might enjoy this lengthy essay.


      [b]Summary:[/b] Humans like to think that they are unique, but the study of other primates has called into question the exceptionalism of our species. So what does primatology have to say about war and peace? Contrary to what was believed just a few decades ago, humans are not “killer apes” destined for violent conflict, but can make their own history

      • #3229832


        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to A Natural History of Peace – Robert M. Sapolsky


        • #3229804

          Neither can I :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          I think it is Arabic.

          Don’t the elephants kind of “guard” their injuired for sometime too?

          Oh well, as long as we keep talking about animals we should be on-topic 🙂

        • #3229753

          Birds that mate for life…

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to .

          The most famous bird of love is the dove. Doves have been associated with love and marriage for thousands of years. Their loyalty to each other and their joint care for their family is legendary.

          Canadian Geese
          It wasn’t that long ago that the Canadian Goose was an endangered bird. Now it’s extremely populous and can be found just about anywhere in the eastern US and Canada. Canadian Geese are extremely loyal and if one of a pair is injured, the other will stay with the injured bird and guard it until it’s better. Both will actively protect and care for their young.

          American Bald Eagle
          Bald Eagles have come back from an endangered status and have rebuilt a stable population. Eagle pairs mate for life and build a large nest together high in a safe location. There they tend to and raise the few chicks they hatch each year, training the young eagle in the difficult task of carving a living out of their harsh environment.

          Swans are large birds with long lives, and they are aggressively loyal. They defend each other and their young chicks fiercely, taking over a pond or lake and making it theirs. One of the more famous swans in the US is the Mute Swan, which was introduced in New York in the 1800s.


        • #3229725


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Birds that mate for life…


        • #3201696

          Also Golden eagles, Peregrines,etc.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Birds that mate for life…

          Golden Eagles mate for life, The Female will find another mate if she is still fertile.

          Most Peregrines mate for life… but!

          On rare occasion an older male Peregrine will leave an older infertile mate for a younger fertile mate…

          But then he still “visits” the old mate frequently… In Cleveland, OH Peregrines have made homes on some of the tall buildings.

        • #3201808


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          …for some reason, I always thought Swans to be mythical birds.

        • #3201717


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Swan


    • #3229821

      Here’s my theory…

      by rain.longson ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      We are decendant’s of monkey’s but note that we are not exactly developed to survive on this planet without tools and clothing. The environment is to too much one way or another. We can do a lot of things that most other creatures can do here on earth swimm – not for long. Run/sprint some people better than others but no where near as well as some animales etc.

      My theory goes back, way back to pint in time tousands of years ago. Aliens crash landed on this planet, being stuck here they decided to use the apes they found locally as slave labour (the way we do horses etc). Being lonely out here waiting probably for a very long time for help to come along they probably and most likely did what some shepards have been accused of doing with some of their flock. But in the case of the aliens, they created a ‘hybrid’ species – us after diidling the local help. And that is my theory as to how we came about. When help came they left the planet and all of the mutants which continued to develop into us.

      • #3283829

        And this is based on…

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Here’s my theory…

        What? Science Fiction? I have to admit is more plausible than random mutation over time which caused beneficial mutations in creatures who were able to adapt and change into other totally different creatures all without leaving a trace of the transition from one species to another.

    • #3229760

      Your opening lacks integrity

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      You nearly contradict yourself.

      Why are there still apeas then? There are MANY species of Ape. Just as there are still fish in teh ocean and yet we entertain the Darwin theory of evolution. If fish grew legs why are there still fish? It’s pretty simple minded really.

      Why are there so many races? There are many breeds of Dog, many breeds of Ape, Fish, Birds etc. Why wouldn’t there be many breeds of another evolved being?

      Now to really cast light on realitic thought here, the alternative is that some invisible being, a higher intelligence nobody has even seen nor proven, created the entire universe and created all planets and all life upon them, like some magician with a new wand.

      We have watched species adapt and evolve, we haven’t watch anyone make a species yet though.

      • #3229742


        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Your opening lacks integrity


        • #3229701

          You can’t prove me wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to .

          That’s why the topic will always raise question, there si no proof of anything. We can speculate, we can debate, we can build LOGICAL arguments but nobody will be proven wrong until we prove otherwise.

          On life and death, as someone who has been declared clinically dead and then actually awokenfrom a deep coma to live another (18 years so far) I have a pretty different outlook. I have feelings based on spirituality, I have feelings based onscientific knowledge too.

          When I woke, I noticed how the trees ouside looked superimposed, how air seemed cool and frech, how water actuaally had a thousand flavours, quite honestly it was like a teenage acid trip. Everything wasn’t surreal, it was just REAL.

          No white tunnels, no light to follow, no relatives in white or anything like that, but just a ‘feeling’ that I had seen or realized something I couldn’t see or realize in a/my concious world.

          I am not religious nor do I claim to have had a religious experience, quite the opposite actually.

          FACT: Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
          FACT: Energy always exists but can and does change its form accordingly.

          So based on these simple realities, I feel that it only logical that our bodies do harness an energy that is laterreleased when our bodies die. NOw whether that energy is simply turned into heat (in th ecaseof cremation) or some formof soil nutrient in teh caseof burial, I am not going to imply. But we are simply a walking power plant. Liquids, fat, electicity. We are living batteries, when we die, I feel that energy can take on many different forms. This would also explain dancing lights in the air, energy FELT by a paranormal, hot and cold rooms, closing doors etc. Energy is force, our energy will remain long after our body dies. Sometime that energy is harnessed and won’t leave a specific area, thus we find paranormal activity where people have passed.

          Hey it’s a theory, I didn’t sit down and think it out it was just a realization after being dead myself.

          I have a unique and rather calming view of life, death and human energy.

          I don’t expect anyone to buy into my theory. Why would you if you hadn’t experienced the same things I have? In fact it’s not even a theory really, just a feeling and sudden calmness I found after gaining a new life.

          It is MY faith, and just like everyone else in th eworld, we all have some form of faith, in my caseit’s faith that if I do what I feel is right, I am on the right path to a happy life.

        • #3229694


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to You can’t prove me wrong


        • #3201697


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to You can’t prove me wrong


        • #3201690

          Now THAT is

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to .

          bizarre. How long ago was this?

        • #3201680


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Now THAT is


        • #3201674

          Very interesting

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to .

          What did it change (if that’s not too intrusive to ask)?

        • #3201671


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Now THAT is


        • #3201663

          I’ve never heard of such a thing

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to .

          It’s interesting, though. Ultimately, did the experience have a negative or positive impact on you?

          As far as worrying about what people here think? Who cares? We’re all imaginary anyway..

        • #3201646


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3201643


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to .

          I’s the rest of these yahoos..

        • #3201631

          mae: How do I know…

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .

          “…I’s the rest of these yahoos…”

          How do I know that you don’t only exist in my mind and I had you write that?

          P.S. I haven’t been the same since “The Matrix”. 🙂

        • #3201622

          Neocon (n) : A conservative who…

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .

          Neocon (n) : A conservative who believes “The Matrix” is real.


        • #3231036

          I wouldn’t

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to .

          consider myself close-minded, but I am definitely a skeptic. I would love (I think) to have something paranormal, otherworldly, etc. happen to me so that I could get off the fence.

          It’s not that haven’t had some extremely wierd experiences, but nothing that I can’t explain away later, or convince myself that what happened, wasn’t really what happened. I’ve had two different experiences that were odd. The first isn’t so much paranormal as interesting. My older son (19 now) on 4 different occasions, picked my EXACT thought from my head and repeated it. This happened between ages 3 – 4. And they weren’t coincidental, these were specific, exact thoughts. It was a bit freaky, but all that tells me is that our brain is truly capable of more than we think it is. Either that, or my son was some sort of toddler physic freak. 🙂 The other, well, I’ve convinced myself that it was a trick my head played on me. Just after my son’s first communion, as we were leaving the church parking lot, I saw a man standing in the middle of the street about a block away, wearing an old-fashioned black suit, skinny tie and wide brimmed hat. I turned to my mother and asked her if there was some sort of re-enactment going on, and in the 2 seconds I looked away, he was gone. No where to go, really, unless he flew. The street was empty, no cars, no bushes, nothing to step behind. He was just plain old gone. I’ve since convinced myself that I didn’t see a damned thing, because I just can’t explain otherwise.

          Nothing compared to what you experienced. That HAD to freak you out. I’m going to have to look up ‘time slips’.

        • #3231032


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3231002


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3230893

          It was one of those….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          …movies that I had to watch more than once to like it – The Matrix. I have watched parts of the sequels on TV.

        • #3283738

          NB: Thanks.

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .

          Thanks. I’ll check it out.

        • #3201657


          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .


        • #3201656

          Seriously: Interesting story

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .

          The same logical mind that makes me disbelieve things I cannot touch and feel also makes me not rule such things out. There are plenty of things we all can see that we still cannot explain.

          If that happened to me, I would largely keep it to myself as you have done. And, I would file it away for future use.

          I believe you.

        • #3201640


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Seriously: Interesting story


        • #3201627


          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to .

          I think your experience is just another aspect of nature that we cannot explain. Unfortunately, we live in a world where some people will judge us harshly for conveying an odd experience.

          Let’s find a way to HARNESS that fog and put all of those people in there PERMANENTLY until they knock it off. 🙂

        • #3231083


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3231078

          NB: I think you are a man of sound mind

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to Seriously: Interesting story

          I think you are a man of sound mind. But, please understand if I would prefer to not ride with you driving.

          🙂 🙂 🙂

        • #3231072


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to NB: I think you are a man of sound mind


        • #3231030

          NB: Just in case…

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to NB: I think you are a man of sound mind

          Just in case, you know I was totally joking with you about being a rider. But, it’s no joke about your wife. I’m sorry to hear that. This answers mae’s question. It’s no joke when the unworldly experience produces a real world hurt.

          I don’t think much about unexplainable legends or superstitions. But, I don’t “whistle past the graveyard” if there is logical evidence of a threat. Your experience is illogical, but if it were to repeat for you or others, that WOULD be logical and warrant action/avoidance. If it never happened before or since, I would largely ignore it as you have.

        • #3231028


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to NB: I think you are a man of sound mind


        • #3283962

          There are those who would say that….

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to .

          … you haven’t been able to explain it, so it didn’t happen.

          … you can’t prove it, so it didn’t happen.

          … you’re making it up, so it didn’t happen.

          … it’s never happenned to them, so it didn’t happen.

          But I’m not one of those… 🙂

        • #3209257


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to There are those who would say that….


      • #3229731


        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Your opening lacks integrity

        I am not surprised at all that you would spin off in that direction rather than approach the real questions put forward. Questions that have gotten some decent answers, just not from you.

        Not here to discuss my religion, or your lack of. Maybe next time.

        • #3229699

          WTF are you on?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to actually

          Why even post such a waste of a comment?

          I was responding to your most predictable post. Just your opening comments raised questions yet alone the whole post. My comment was a direct answer to the opening questions you raised. If you weren’t expecting someone to comment on your words, why type them?
          Or is this one of those US conformity posts where everyone just pertends to have the same view and just agree out of fear of being different?

          What’s with YOUR last post anyway? You offered nothing to rebut my comments at all, yet still complained i hadn’t answered “p[roperly”?

          FO, all you did was whine like some little bitch.

          Why evern start a thread if you can take the reply’s unless they fit your predetermined conclusions? What a tool!

          Sometimes you can be such a f****n’ joke, you pretend to be articulate and eloquent then ask idiotic, unanswerable questions and complain about replies? Get a life.

        • #3201948

          the great one has spoken

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to WTF are you on?

          and leaves everyone to quake before him.

          Whatever dude.

        • #3201946


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to the great one has spoken


        • #3201735

          No, that was your bull$hit

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to the great one has spoken

          I commented on the simple minded theory you opened your comments with, which were also an open question.

          If you don’t like the answer I offered to your question, dont place you question in a public forum.

          I don’t see how you can’t get such a simple concept as Q&A. It’s got nothing to do with your spew about ‘the great man speaking’ at all. YOU spoke out against my comments, don’t like it when you get a reply? Too f’in bad.

        • #3201707

          Actually, oh great one

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to No, that was your bull$hit

          [i]”Your opening lacks integrity”
          “It’s pretty simple minded really.”[/i]
          Yeah, those sound like a basis to start a discussion on.
          a higher intelligence nobody has even seen nor proven,[/i][b]
          NOR DISPROVEN.

          Now sod off.

        • #3201681

          Now how about something with substance

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          If you’re capable.

          First of all, your opening DOES lack integrity. As explained in my post. I didn’t say YOU lacked integrity but your opening question is not logical since there has never been any question as to why a breed of apes still exists if WE evolved from apes.

          As for the simplistic part, the comment you offered was far to simple for the complexity of the issue.

          It’s no different than the old Monty Pythons lark where they are pinpointing simple theories. IE; If all fish live in water, then everything that swims is a fish.

          Now as always any comment directed at one of your own must either be anti-american slander, worthy of reporting to Homeland Insecurity, or is a direct slam at your charactyer. As always you just take everything as a personal shot. You are either very insecure, unable to comprehend teh differences or are just flattering yourself by thinking everyone wants to talk about you.

          As for NOR disproven, your point is moot. As there is no proof of existence then OBVIOUSLY there’s no proof of inexistence. That one’s a no brainer.

          But for the sake of argument, or a personal pot shot at your character if you want to read it that way and feel good.

          All we can do is compare reality, fact and logic, it’s the way our brains work. Our fantasies and dreams help ease the wonderment around the unknown. (If you want to discuss human nature and psychology, let me know I can post endless facts to support those findings).

          So what we are left with is comparing what we know to what religion dictates.

          What we know, the structure of the human body is created from cell structuring. Every other thing on Earth also has a form created from cell structure. These cells are PROVEN beyond any doubt to mutate, transform and allow adaptation to surroundings. It is a fact that some animals have changed to suit their environment over time, even different races of humans generate different cell structures in order to adapt to the habitat we live in. Look at the Bhuddist monks that live and sleep at incredible alititude and below freezing temperatures. Somone from New York, even a seasoned mountaineer cannot survive in the same climate. It’s not some act of God, their bodies and cell structures are proven to be different from other humans. They have ‘adapted’ to their environment.

          Fish that live in the dark depths of the ocean grow giant white eyes, these same fish have been said to live in much shallower waters at one time but have since needed to live deeper for food. They have adapted.

          Dogs have many different breeds, some smarter than others, some wollier than others, some able to act in very human ways, some simple and needy like good ole Yeller.

          All in all, there is 100% uncontstable proof that genetic cell structures will adapt as needed over time to create a cell structure able to exsist in a specific environment.

          So how is it so far fetched to see this happening in our own ancestry? This is a conclusion based on real, known scientific fact.

          To suggest God exsists or suggest that Jesus walked the Earth as the son of God, there is no realistic, substantial, scientific proof available. We have ancient scriptures written by far less educated or scientifically aware people. These scripture have been translated into hundreds of different languages. In every translation the end result is interpreted differently. Example: One translation shows that Jesus walked on water. Another translation of the same says thet he walked BESIDE water. Small but VERY important difference. So how many other translations are misinterpreted? When we read the bible it is not written in today’s common English, instead we get a general idea and conclude what was meant from the passages.

          So while we can say that facts lead us to believe otherwise, we cannot say the religion proves otherwise.

          As science has replaced religious faith over time, religion has lost credibility. While at one time both concepts were just speculation, science is startng to prove possibility of the evolution theory while nothing has started to prove religios theory, other than faith and personal belief, whether the Christian God, Allah, Buddha or Britney Spears.

          Your comment in bold, NOR DISPROVEN, doesn’t mean it exists. There is more proof of nonexistence than there is of existence if you realy want to split hairs and prove your pointless point.

          There is far more fact surrounding evolution that there is religion, in fact religion is uncovered as more and more sketchy, contradictory and variable every year. Losing consistency, losing credibility, losing support. Much as you have done here.

        • #3201672

          Actually, Oz…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          not tryin to piss you off, but I have to point out something…

          The cell structures do NOT adapt.

          The mutation of genetic material happens on a chaotic basis through breeding.

          If a mutation causes a new trait which is beneficial to the life surviving in its habitat, its lineage has a higher chance of persistence.

          If a mutation causes a new trait which is detrimental to the life surviving in its habitat, its lineage has a higher chance of extinction.

          The same for a trait which the species has already for both cases as well.

          It doesn’t have to do with cellular adaptation. Your cells don’t change because your genetic makeup does not change, without some undue, unnatural influence such as abnormal radiation exposure which really would not be a natural phenomena on Earth.

          Just wanted to point that out.

        • #3201644

          You are right JCK

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          I am not a geneticist nor claim to be one. I suppose mutation of cells was incorrect, adaptation was more inline. What I mean, and I’m sure you figured it out, was that we adapt to our environment. People that live in different parts of the world have a different structure that others. This proves that just as all apes arent the same, that all humans are different too.

          My focus was that it’s easy to see how we coul dbe derived from apes at one time, and yet many breeds of ape still exist. The point I was countering was just ludicrous. If we came from apes, whey are there still apes? That’s just a retarded thought process. How simplistic and rashly conclusive can one person get? I think some people must actually believe that is a valid theory that discounts evolution, that’s the scary part!

        • #3201623

          And it goes on

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          Let me make this as simple as possible so you don’t have a problem understanding.

          I was not putting out the hows and whys, thus I have nothing that I need to explain.

          I put out a question only to the understanding of a part of the evolution theory, clearly stating that religion had no part of this discussion.

          It is obvious that things addapt to their environment.

          The question was aimed at WHAT about the environment would make some people tall, some short. Why would some people be genetically more prone to medical conditions than others, and so on.

          How long would people have to be in a region for the environment to have a change on their bodies?

          What kind of affect does globalization have, with people now moving to completely different parts of the world?

          This may not be as argumenative of an idea for you, but oh well. I put out an idea to discuss, without the challenge that you have risen to and taken great care to break down. I have stated several times that I was joking when I threw in the “why are their still apes” part, but that seems to have been wasted on you.

          As just about everyone (besides you) joined in on a discussion instead of an arguement, I would venture that it wasn’t me that was losing credibility here. You can call this anyway you wish.

        • #3231037

          Seeing as I wasn’t talking to you

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          And was answering JCK instead, I find it hard thatyou think I am the one looging for argument when you reply to a comment not aimed at yourself, specifically to have your little poke at my comments, which you still haven’t taken in context and feel it was a personal shot at you, that’s either sad or arrogant, I havent figured out which yet.

          What I find really amusing is that after all this tim ehaunting TR, you STILL haven’t figred out that discussions do NOT always go where you want, you DON’T always get the replies you want, you HAVEN’T got any control over what is said.

          But for some bizarre reason, you seem to find it your duty to monitor your discussion as if you had some control or say over what the replies are. Again that is either sad or arrogant also, just not sure which yet.

          Get over yourself, yuo made a comment I feel deemed your entire post unworthy of logical reply.

          Have an issue with that? Go tell someone who cares. There’s no need to interject with my comments to someone else and then sugest I am looking for argument. YOU came looking for argument, I simply dismissed the topic itself based on your opening statements.

          You’ll never be good at selling your ideas unless you learn to carefully phrase your opening statements.

        • #3231035

          look at the level, oh dumbass

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          and you will see I WAS replying to you. You would think that by now, you knew how the max level worked?

          you said [i]”yuo made a comment I feel deemed your entire post unworthy of logical reply.”[/i]

          it was unworthy, but you did anyways. Makes sense to me. But again, that reply was a reply to my original post, thus warrented a direct reply in return. Don’t you remember how that part works either?

          And after all that, I attempt to directly answer your last few posts, and instead you act like your surprised to have a response?

          Quit drinking so early. You have completely lost it.

        • #3230928

          Now I know what Oz evolved from

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          Thank you JD. You help in so many ways.

        • #3230885

          apes, evolution, etc

          by jck ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          To be honest if you think about it, a lot of the supposition and skepticism has been wrong in the past.

          Pteradons and pteradactyls were cast in art (when I was a boy) as being scale or skin covered like a reptile…not with feathered wings.

          In recent years, there was more supposition that birds derived from dinosaurs. But, the detractors said “Dinosaurs didn’t have feathers! We have no proof or evidence of that!”

          Then in the past few years, paleontologists found the missing link in China. Dinosaurs (particularly raptor species) who had 4 feathered limbs and dated from the cretaceous period (124-128 million years ago).

          So no one may be able to say discernably when or why the change happened in dinosaurs…but, it did.

          Hence, I can’t definitively say that humans did or didn’t derive from the same genetic chain that apes did.

          But if I had to make an educated guess after seeing scientific evidence of various research…I would be leaning toward saying that we did.

          The changes in genetics…propagation due to better survivability in our evolutionary chain…etc…makes me think that we did evolve from something less…and hopefully…will continue to develop into something better.

        • #3230839

          jck, that’s my point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          There is a lot mroe scientific evidence now and research uncovering new findings all the time to point towards our evolution.

          though no true and confirme dorigin ahas been found, all info seems to lead toward an evolved and not created species.

          The more science that is uncovered, the more ‘holy’ nyths are put to rest. Whie at one time, nothing was explained and such stories of splitting the red sea or walking on water, making an ark with two of every animal etc. seemed almost plausible, nowadays such tales have been reduced to just that ‘tales’.

          Sure, some peopl esay they found Noah’s ark.. But was it really the Noah’s ark described in the bible or just a big boat to survive a floods period or even move across bodies of water?

          Remeber giants of ancient mythologu? Well it has since been proven that there weren’t actually giants walking the Earth but more likely larger races of people, such as the Tongans. These men would be seen as absuolute giants to the men and women of Europe at the time or Pygmies for example. When the average height for a grown man, and warrior was only abnout 5’5″, then anyone weighing 250lbs at 6’2″ would appear to be a giant. Find that guy while exp[loring the waters and landing on the island of Tonga and you woul dnow have found giants walking in foreign lands.

          Interpretations over time change the world and the way we look at it, including evolution vs religion.

        • #3230837


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          As you have proven you have nothing relevant or logical to say to me, please just refrain from continuing your little hissy fit.

          You said I was attacking you and yet you continue to stick your little two bit pot shots into every post you make, even when I am not addressing you in my comments.

          Readng your posts here I have found them to neither be intelligent, thoughtful or creative. I have nothing more to say to you.

          If you are looking to feel clever, you even have a little minion running around with you now, then feel clever. You are oh so bright and I am oh so lost. Probably why I make the money and you simply work in your dead end trade for a living.

          Have fun with it, enjoy your little spurts of ,what you consider, wit. Think you are clever, have a laugh and look silly. half of what you have offered here is bull and the other half is all $hit.

          Yuo say it’s not about religion, now even after rereading your initial post, there is no way to discuss your post without discounting or comparing to religion.

          It’ slike trying to debate gay marriae without debating whether or not it’s okay to be gay. Impossible unless you want a one sided and nonconstructive discussion.

          But you knew that, your clever comments have proven it, to you anyway.

        • #3230835


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          If you are going to run around the forums and offer your ‘me too’ comments, try offering a logical thought as well.
          ‘Me too’s’ don’t gain much credibility here, they usually just pop in and lose track before leaving TR. If you want to remain somewhat credible and have people understand your position in issues, offer your position on issues.

          Currently, you just look like one of those American sheep that follows qalong and agrees out of fear of independant thought or being different.

        • #3230816

          I couldn’t decide if you had been closer to the Ape than others.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          It was JD who posted your ancestry. I should have known…

          I still can’t believe you have enough medula oblongata activity to go on breathing since you have proven you have a micron thick brain stem. with a peferctly smooth cortex.

          I had been looking up the wrong family tree.

          Fortunately JD directed me to the evolutionary tree that you fell from…

          I suspect Baalams steed is embarassed that you were discovered to be related.

        • #3230788

          OMG where do you get your material?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          Your replies again illustrate just how slow you really are. You even TRY to sound somewhat educated, but really you just prove the opposite. Once again, you have failed to offer a post with ANY substance, ANY intelligent thought, ANY relevant content and from what I have seen you simply hang onto JDClyde like his little ‘yes man’ hoping to gain Brownie points…from JDClyde?
          LOL Now there’s a goal to achieve!

          But hey, since you have proven your sense of humour and ability to rebut a comment is about that of a grade 3 or 4 student (I am being nice about that one too), you will instead simply resort to the same grade school attempts at flames as you have before.

          There’s a place for people such as yourself, actually many of them. Check out the gamer sites, they are full of kiddies trying to flame each other in childish ways, or else Sesame Street may have a forum where you will find like minded individuals, if not, try here for an instant IQ analysis:

          I don’t know whether to credit Max or not on that one, I dragged it from the TR archives. I know he didnt create it but he may have been the first to post it here.

        • #3199727

          Well, aren’t you just a little ray of sunshine?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          Funny Oz, how you are doing exactly what you were crying that I did? Telling people how to post.

          I know you think your a big shot around here, but your just another poster with a huge ego.

          I HAVE noticed that the only time your typing is readable is when your attempting to chastise me. Do I rate more of your attention than your fan club? I am honored that I am worth taking the time to think out your post, and clearly type it in, while your fan club rates only the now famous “Oz type”. I wonder why?

          You have nothing further to say to me, but you do anyways. Sad.

          Just like the mighty OZ in the movie, you make a lot of noise trying to scare people, but in the end it turns out your just a pathetic little man cowering in the corner, no real power, and a total fraud.

          “dead end trade for a living”? If you say so dude.

        • #3199621

          Oz, it had to be at your level.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          If I wrote using concise polysylablic nomenclature, you would never get the joke. You would be looking up every other word.

          It must not be too subtle, or you will not catch it. If I were subtle, it flies so far over your head you don’t hear it’s wings flap. If it has more than two three sylables, you need to look up the words. You are hovever a quadruped of extreme unction.

          Do you get the picture? I really hate fighting 1/2 armed opponents in battles of wits. Call me when you have graduated Med School, BFT,AFT,and boot camp. Then, you may have 1/2 the vocabulary to understand creative insults.

          You are a flying wing with a mid-body propeller.

        • #3283956

          X.marcap -polysylablic nomenclature LOL!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually, oh great one

          Still not impressed in the least, While you attempt once again to appear to be so highly educated you are coming off like a dork still.

          Battle of wits? You are referring to a battle of vocabulary, not wits. If you feel that having a vocabulary full of antiqauted English (polysylablic [i](sic)[/i] nomenclature)makes you witty, you need to read yet another comic book. When you finish reading Archie, try and place ‘nomenclature’ into a sentence where the context fits. Though someitmes used in American English, it is only a person who wishes to sound pompous that would place those two words together. Nomenclature refers correctly to science diagrams, exploded diagrams etc. It refers to the intricate diagram or sequence of build found in science, engineering and mechanics. Though it has been bastardized by some who feel it should also define the build of English words or statements, it is simply misused by snot nosed pukes like yourself who are trying to appear to be more than they really are. I have studied many nomenclatures in my line of work and no I didn’t need to look it up, or spell it.

          If you need a thesaurus at least learn how to put words together and not just find big words and chain them in some sort of unique sentence structure, give up.

          Now while I honestly admit to tying too fast and having poor keyboarding skills, your only excuse for mispelling YOUR big words must be due to your simple misunderstanding of them, or the fact that Americans can’t spell English words anyway.


          To spout off what you consider great personal accomplishments in an attempt to once again imply you are educated and witty is once again idiotic and immature. You are one of those wannabe’s who insist on having his cert acronyms on his business card (You must have missed that discussion), unless of course your company just gives you blanks to write your name on. Generally these people have been losers all their life, have no social skills to get ahead and when they finally get a cert they are so happy to be sdomebody that they add acronums ot their business cards like complete losers. I don’t know how many clients I’ve had laugh these knobs but it really isn’t taken seriously by anyone who actually IS important. It’s typical crap from the insecure as always. Your posts just echo your psychological issues so deeply, you weren’t even included in this part of the thread and yet you have stuck your nose in and now are just trying to have a pissing contest with vocabulary you learned yesterday? Give it a rest and go back to school.

          You’re as sad as that jd loser who feels that IT is actually a career with great future. When I said it was a dead end career he scoffed, proving what little he actually knows about the market he is stuck in compared to the opportunities around him everyone else is persuing. Hey you guys go read a few books, spew your monosyllabic BS here all you like, you are only fooling yourselves or making yourselves feel clever.

          Lastly, while you may think that words make you intelligent, the proof is you couldn’t be more wrong. The most successful, intelligent and highly regarded people in our history have been illiterate, on extremely powerful drugs, dyslexic and mainly uneducated as they don’t have the patoence to sit in school for 12 years while they could be gettign ahead in life.

          The whole premise of your argument is flawed.

          Nobody with any intelligence is going to buy into that immature BS anyway.

      • #3229716

        We’re getting close to “making” a new species though

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Your opening lacks integrity

        We have things like Ligers and Donkeys. We’ve also created (from “nothing”) viruses in a lab environment. Cloning has also come a very long way in a short time…We’ve seen “mixing” of species (although is it a new species??)

        So it is possible, just hasn’t been done yet (on a large scale and introduced to the wild…)

        • #3201928

          New species

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to We’re getting close to “making” a new species though

          New species of virus tends not to impress the God-botherers so we need to demonstrate in something BIG.

          Darwin charted the finches in the Galapagos and the way that isolated populations were developing different traits but these were still not really separate species as they could all breed back.

          The key requirement for something to be a new species is that they cannot mate successfully with the origin species.

          We could do it with, say, dogs (if there was any point) by breeding to change the mating triggers until we got to the point where “dog” wouldn’t know that “nudog” was a potential mate and vice versa. At that point we’d be well on the way.

          New species tend to arise in separated populations of a few individuals where the “no mating with the main gene pool” is enforced initially by geography. When the two populations eventually get together they remain separate because they can’t or won’t mate.

          Unfortunately this only happens in any large scale following some form of major catastrophe that thins out the population to the point that mutations matter.

          Let’s not bother.


        • #3201868

          why not bother?

          by jck ·

          In reply to New species

          Where’s the asteroid!!! 😀

          I know where you are coming from about breeding. However, you can technically breed different species. Dogs and wolves can interbreed and they are totally different species, but same family and genus.

          Got me a cave scoped out. Let the asteroid splash, baby!! 😀

        • #3201860

          Then how do you explain

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to New species

          NZers’ and Sheep? :0

        • #3201854


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Then how do you explain

          The NZ and sheep would be more pertinent to Col.

          For Neil, you need to suggest the Welsh and sheep! :p

        • #3201851


          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to JD

          indeed to goodness, yes, look you!!



          Sorry, Neil, couldn’t resist. Now, stop trying to answer the phone with the iron again, and get on with some work…..

        • #3201740

          So then…

          by jck ·

          In reply to yes

          for the Scotsmen: a MacCallan Bottle?
          for the Englishmen: a Bass bottle?
          for the American: themselves?

          hahaha…sorry… ]:)

        • #3201847

          Cheap sheep shots

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to New species

          do not belong in this serios discussion. Here I am researching on founder groups and polymorphisms and you’re coming at me with SHEEP JOKES.

          Be ashamed!

          You guys are baaaarmy. Why won’t ewe take this seriously. Look, I could pull the wool over your eyes easy as pie and fleece ewe just by spinning a yarn and ewe’d never know it. So don’t go bleating to anyone if I do!


          Ah, burger it. If you can’t bleat ’em…

          There was this really smart sheep down in Mexico who knew how to make butter and buttermilk.

          One night she sneaked across the border and got a job working for a farmer, who set up a roadside stand and told her to try to sell the stuff. Unfortunately traffic was very heavy and the sight of this sheep making butter and buttermilk was so distracting that naturally there was an accident.

          The police investigated and issued the farmer a citation for attempting to make an illegal ewe churn on a busy highway.

        • #3201840

          Oh Neil….

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Cheap sheep shots

          (you guessed it)…

          That was baaaaaaaad!! :p

      • #3230826


        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Your opening lacks integrity

        I can not believe what I am reading!! This is awesome. I could not have put it more succinctly myself.

    • #3201909

      Racial Differences Part One

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      As I’m sitting at home and have nothing better to do, I’ll feed you a few things to chew on. Concentrate, now. It’s not difficult but you will need to think about it.

      The general differences between races of humans comes from the fact that groups seem to have spread out from the original “source” of “modern human” in Africa in different directions at different times in the last 100,000 years or so. There are some indications that there was, around this time, some form of “population bottleneck” where the number of humanity was severely reduced and the subsequent expansion from this small base led to what we see today.

      As the migrating groups were quite small they tended not to carry a full set of all of the racial characteristics and associated genes that were in the origin population. This is called the “founder effect”. In addition, as the migrating founder groups move further apart from other migrating groups and the ancestral population, the probability that mating outside of the founder population becomes much smaller. This then reduces the gene flow between founder groups and ancestral groups and other founder groups and increases the genetic differences between groups.

      Then, other factors also come into play. Genetic drift is the random change in genes over time and is much greater in small populations. The expansion of humans from Africa in small, founder populations meant that these small groups experienced greater genetic drift than the larger original population resulting in new polymorphisms. Polymorphisms are forms of a gene that are too prevalent in the population to be called mutations or even, sometimes, to be regarded as abnormal. Often they confer an advantage in some special circumstance. The polymorphisms resulting from genetic drift that arose in one group were less likely to be transmitted to other groups as gene flow was restricted for the reasons that I outlined above.

      The differences aren’t that big simply because it didn’t happen that long ago in paeleobiological terms. We’ve also tended to stir the mix with war, more migrations and so on. Depending on which theory you belive, different races fanned out from Africa at different times and some are more closely related than others.

      As I said in an earlier post, the selection of populations for pigmented skin was a simple necessity and would have happened pretty quickly. It doesn’t necessarily all come from the original African ancestors, either, as groups that moved north and then back towards the equator would necessarily have selected for dark skin. Selection for light skin, well, there’s a choice. You can either believe those who say that light skin was selected to cut down the incidence of rickets as vitamin D is activated by sunlight or follow the other claim that light skin is just because there was no reason to select for dark skin. Could be both.

      The reasons for different facial features is likely just chance – people mate with people that they like the look of – or genetic drift in a small population “fixed” certain features such as the epicanthic fold of some Asian eyes into a polymorphism.

      what else do you want to know?


      • #3201877

        Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Racial Differences Part One

        What we feel atracted to. You did touch on this earlier, on being attracted to mates with trates for various reasons.

        Kind of odd how different cultures find different traits attractive? Also, how even in a same culture, how the desired trait changes with the times.

        Of course, it is hard NOW to distinguish what we would be attracted to after being told what to be attracted to by TV and the movies. Is anyone really attracted to walking skeletons? :0 pass on the “super” models.

        • #3201862

          I’m with you..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          I don’t understand the attraction to emaciated women. My boss and I had this discussion. He said something about JLo having a big a$$. Now, I don’t think she’s a particularly talented individual, but physically, I think she’s fine. I couldn’t understand why he found her unattractive because of her ‘size’.

        • #3201844

          Well now

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I’m with you..

          when they have a disproportionate amount of padding to the rest of their body…… She looks good EXCEPT for that.

          BUT J’lo doesn’t do anything for me, maybe that has a lot to do with her lifestyle and crowd she runs with. It is like everytime someone does or says something stupid, another mental scar appears and after a while, that is all you see. (yes, the EX is very scarred up)

          Jolie, now THERE is a great a$$ ! ]:)

        • #3201833

          size and attraction

          by jck ·

          In reply to I’m with you..

          First…I gotta address the “J. Lo’s butt” thing:

          J. Lo’s butt looks big on camera when she’s in some really tight pants cause she’s got a really small waist.

          If you are a real man and ever saw her backside in the movie “The Cell” in front of that refrigerator bent over and didn’t like it…you’re just gay. That girl has a nice butt. It’s not boney…it’s not fat…it’s just right 😀

          And I agree…J. Lo is not talented other than as a dancer. She was a dancer on “In Living Color” (Wayans brothers’ show)…and her choreographer was Rosie Perez…another gal with a nice bod that isn’t thin as a rail.

          As for attractiveness, well…everyone has different tastes.

          I’ve never found that I particularly thought any single body type was repulsive other than women who were obviously medically at risk (emaciated or extremely obese). I’ve gone out with girls from the 5’3 97 lb chick, to a girl I got to know for a while who was 6’1 and about 170 (she wasn’t thin, but she wasn’t morbidly obese).

          I tend not to look so much at a woman’s body type, unless it’s obviously WAY out of the norm. I’m more into…well…things like personality, eyes, intelligence…in addition to needing a woman who’s not materialistic or sadistic or narcissistic…as well as it being a bonus having some talent or ability at something…whether it’s knitting or music or art or something.

          Oh…and…well…hehe…I have a girl who I have been talking to recently. I wonder if she’d move to Ireland?????? And no, she’s not thin as a rail before you ask, Mae 😀

        • #3201826


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to size and attraction

          A woman that is Ambulatory would be good! ]:)

        • #3201822


          by jck ·

          In reply to attractiveness?

          several women I have met would have been marriage material…if they’d been mute. 😀

        • #3201818

          Said it before, will say it again

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to actually…

          after 10 years of marriage, the best part of a BJ is the ten minutes of silence! :p

        • #3201816


          by jck ·

          In reply to actually…

          I like a girl that makes noise…

          talk dirty to me, baby!!! 😀 (not you, JD!! :p)

        • #3201811

          How rude!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to actually…

          A real woman knows better than to talk with her mouth full? oh my……

        • #3201809

          oh jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to actually…

          that’s table manners…thought you would have realized the rules of the bedroom are different by now… :p

          or the rules of the shower…or the floor…or the neighbor’s hammock 😀

        • #3201799

          Ok, boys…..

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to actually…


          jd – whose silence? Hers or yours?!
          speaking with mouth full – no, just hum …. (honestly)

          jck – noise – only if the room is soundproofed, or the neighbours are away
          Hammocks are bloody dodgy things. Believe me.



        • #3201742

          dear GG…

          by jck ·

          In reply to actually…

          Hammocks are nothing…

          try the hood of a freshly waxed 77 Lincoln Town Car in a summertime rain storm.

          THAT is dodgy. 😉

        • #3201762

          Jennifer Pagan was the body double in the CELL…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to size and attraction

          Know the body…

          That wasn’t JLO in those shots…

          I can only guess that the real body double must either sound like a harpy, or be too dumb to read lines…

        • #3201755

          getting by on a name

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Jennifer Pagan was the body double in the CELL…

          J’lo got a name that she never deserved and is given more credit than due. that is why she got the part instead of the person with the better body.

        • #3201694

          The girl used was Hispanic and has the same coloration as JLO.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to getting by on a name

          JLO can also speak English…

          Pagan is actually Puerto Rican and American…

          Her reading ability was an issue…

        • #3201821

          [b] [/b]

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to I’m with you..

          I was right…. 🙁

          nobody wants a buxom/rubenesque type midget….

          Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!! :_|


        • #3201817

          oh GG

          by jck ·

          In reply to [b] [/b]

          you’re no midget :p

          The girl I have been talking to…is 5′ tall. She’s got a degree in engineering.

          The Irish gals might lose out. Might have found an American girl to my liking…

          If you’re Irish and want me across the pond, you better send Andrea Corr right away with the dress…hahahaha

        • #3201803


          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to oh GG

          I just [b]knew [/b] you hadn’t clocked the four inch stilettos at the time….. 😀


        • #3201760

          Didn’t know you wore dresses?

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to oh GG

          You and JD in the same boat???

        • #3201725

          not a chance…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Didn’t know you wore dresses?

          I wouldn’t wanna make him jealous of my lovely legs. 😀 I’ll stick to slacks and shorts

        • #3201813

          no so!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to [b] [/b]

          If you had been reading along, you would see that we have been saying we DON’T want the 7 foot tall skeleton woman!

          Come to jd. Will kiss that and that and [b]THAT[/b] to make everything better! ]:)

        • #3201804

          at this precise moment in time…..

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to no so!

          don’t tempt me jd.

          [b] DON’T BLOODY WELL TEMPT ME!! [/b]


        • #3201790


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to [b] [/b]

          I’m sure that if I were so inclined, that I would find you wildly attractive. 🙂

        • #3201788

          Don’t take this personally, Mae – – –

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to GG

          but I’m bloody glad you’re NOT that way inclined!!


          :p 😀

        • #3201786

          be right back

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to GG

          bathroom break…… :0

        • #3201759

          Typo Mae

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to GG


        • #3201734


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to GG

          I don’t do much ‘mildly’.

        • #3201692


          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to type

          Look out Mae is on the prowl!!!

        • #3201688

          Another great big ‘Nope’

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to type

          Not on the prowl. I’m perfectly content. 🙂

        • #3231068

          As in hunting down a mis-information..

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to type

          Not the other type.

          That is why I said mildly 😉

          If my wife prefers me to a Matthew McConaughey, I think she is blind, but she says she might not survive training a man for another 23 years 😉 I’d worry about him!!!

        • #3201855


          by jck ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          I know what I desire right now…this piece of cake on my desk!! 😀

          I don’t like sickly looking girls like Kate Moss.

          Someone get that girl a sammich! 😀

        • #3201839

          Better yet

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to attraction

          she needs that cake more than you do. I agree entirely.

          Naomi Cambel is another one. Pretty, but something about her just creaps me out.

          The bad thing is, I don’t understand how they are able to sell clothing for the REAL women of the world that do that “digest” thing with their food.

        • #3201830

          Naomi Campbell

          by jck ·

          In reply to Better yet

          What’s wrong with her? SHE IS A PSYCHO!

          She not only hit (reportedly) several of her hirelings, but she has twice thrown her blackberry at people (and has been sued).

        • #3201829

          Who was it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Naomi Campbell

          that went nuts on the plane trip?

        • #3201807


          by jck ·

          In reply to Who was it

          Several have…think Naomi Campbell did.

          A while back, she was sued by a former assistant for something…then, by a member of her house staff.

          The girl is a nutter. Should be in prison, no matter how famous or pretty the world thinks she is.

          I think she’s ugly…just like Claudia Schiffer…and Kate Moss.

        • #3201853

          Well, I went off to take a look at that one

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          and it may take some time. I’ve been wandering the Internet for a while and this is what I’ve found so far!

          I first got into pheromones – whether smells are really an attractant (underarms a la Francais, anyone?) but I don’t think that they are for most people. One very strange study though, has women sniff the t-shirts of symmetrical men (see below!) and it seemed to show something. It may be that pheromones have a subconscious effect and these would probably be a racial thing – women would go for someone who had a similar smell to her father?

          Other researchers reckon that a gene mutated 23 million years ago among primates in Africa that are considered to be human ancestors, allowing them to see color. This let the males notice that a female’s bottom turned bright red when she was ready to mate and this decreased the necessity for pheromones.

          It would seem that we all find symmetry attractive in both face and body. Generally, models have symmetrical faces. This applies to all races so it doesn’t answer your question. Some other things that seem to apply to all races and both sexes is a waist to hip ratio between quite narrow limits. This seems to indicate that the potential mate is healthy and not suffering from any diseases.

          I ran across a scientific explanation for one of the oldest theories about attraction. Like attracts like. I do know some married couples who have such a lot in common and – to a certain extent – look the same.

          There have been some studies on married couples genes and their relationship. The study found that, based on a set of inheritable personality traits, having similar genetics plays 34 percent of the role in friendship and mate selection. That would be pretty race-specific and tend to lock the majority of people into searching for a mate within their own racial grouping.

          The main theory that resulted from the study is that some genes evolved to work well in combination with other genes and so you don’t want to break that up too much for your offspring. Finding a mate with similar genes will help you ensure this.

          I don’t know how true this is but the paper went on to say that “If your spouse is genetically similar, you’re more likely to have a happy marriage. Child abuse rates are lower when similarity is high, and you’ll also be more altruistic and willing to sacrifice more for someone who is more genetically like you”.

        • #3201836

          Mini me?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well, I went off to take a look at that one

          So if an offspring is not a close match to the donors, they are more “at risk” of child abuse and neglect? I have NEVER heard that one before. I suppose it could happen.

          I wonder how looks play into that? Everyone loves the pretty people. If you have two children, one is pretty and one isn’t, does the pretty one fair better with the parents? Man, that is just sad to think about.

        • #3201848

          Some amount of Hard-wiring

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          Sometime back I read/heard about a research carried out by a British team that concluded that infants could distinguish between an unattractive and attractive face. I just can not get any link pointing towards that material.

          But looks like there are other studies, that touch this subject – infants’ judgement on attractiveness match the adults’ judgement on attractiveness.

          To my lay mind, it points to some kind of hard-wiring in the brain about universal attractiveness that is not necessarily related to social or cultural factors.

          But here is one link:

        • #3201831

          Interesting link

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Some amount of Hard-wiring

          but it goes back for his study, how do you determine what is atractive and unatractive, to base the study on?

          I have known many stunningly attractive people with all the personality of a spoon.

        • #3201801


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Interesting link

          The study related to just the physical attractiveness. The link that I gave, compared the infants’ judgement against the adults’. Maybe we have to examine with some of what Neil said about the symmetry of faces.

          I guess, we carry the definitions of attrativeness/unattrativeness from our ancestoral groups, way back when humans started to evolve.

        • #3201779

          Often true.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Physical

          If a baby or a dog shows an instant dislike of a person, there’s usually a good reason.

        • #3201827

          I don’t see it from either perspective.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          Nothing turns me off more than a visible ribcage. Nor would that type of body seem to me to be a healthy trait for “survivablilty of the species” purposes.

          I did notice on my HDTV that the setting to make regular 4×3 picture fill the screen does make them more attractive… as long as they are standing up and fully clothed 🙂

        • #3201815

          and don’t forget

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I don’t see it from either perspective.

          got to have a nice joint shot of their shoulder sockets! All part of that skeleton look. A nice sexy collar bone is right there for ya too! ;\

          no thanks. NEXT!

        • #3201793

          Hard to cuddle

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to and don’t forget

          with a sack of sticks 🙂

        • #3201765

          Married a more comfortable size.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Desire. Tell me about desire…. :D

          When I was a young and callow youth, I dated models from Ford (agency). I dated a few of them. Their obsession about weight was insane.

          I later Married (23 years ago) a girl who wasn’t hefty, but looked good in person. 5’8″ 135. I know why models eat ice cream. it is smooth coming back up. I still think she looked better in person than any model I ever saw…


        • #3231034

          Good lord

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Married a more comfortable size.

          5’8″ 135 lbs. isn’t anywhere NEAR hefty. It’s not the same ballpark it ain’t even the same f*cking sport.

          There you go, Neil..another Pulp Fiction quote..isn’t it odd how many situations call for a line from Pulp Fiction? It’s a running joke between me and one of my employees to say “I don’t know if it’s worth 5 dollars, but it’s pretty f*cking good” any time we eat or drink something we like..

        • #3230917

          Mae I said comfortable, not hefty.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Good lord

          Not the same meaning.

        • #3230801

          Mae My wife and I used to skate 3 days a week and work out with weights.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Mae I said comfortable, not hefty.

          We were both young and beautiful. I may even prove she was… I may not have been beautiful, but I was in great shape.

          We used to ballroom dance 3 nights a week, and looked it.

          Ah! My vanished youth…

        • #3231031

          It isn’t 6′ and 115. Sticks

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Married a more comfortable size.

          The sharp points of elbows and knees were less comfortable than a more rounded person…

          My wife is a more comfortable size. She was 155 at that height and proportional when 3rd of 4th kids.

          She is going to get back there as we ride 5-10 miles on bikes together. She hasn’t lost much weight, but is now solid again… She is padded and 80% of my wife.

        • #3230793


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It isn’t 6′ and 115. Sticks

          6′ could push 220 and still look good (Different stokes for different folks though).

    • #3201679

      a fundamental answer

      by jck ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???


      [b][i]”If we all started from the same mold, how can we have become so different?[/i][/b]



      (I can hear the sigh all the way from Michigan.)

      Essentially, all life:

      Adapts (either through migration or mutation or invention)


      Dies (do to the lack of ability and/or willingness to adapt)

      You question why changes occur? Propagation of the species is strongest in those which breed the most able to adapt AND those most suited to the environment in which they exist. Eventually, the characteristics in a breed that are most suited to its environment will be most prevalent after many many generations. It’s what Darwin called Natural Selection.

      It’s why you don’t naturally see polar bears in Panama.

      It’s why you won’t see an alligator in the arctic.

      They have adapted over many many millenia to their environment.

      Now when it comes to humans, we are able to overcome through innovation which makes us unique. However, certain traits of people before the modern era helped shape how humans adapted as well.

      There are tribes in the African desert lands where the peoples’ body stores more water on average compared to other tribes. It is most prevalent in the females where they have a noticeably distended hump above their buttocks which is a part of their body which stores water in the tissue.

      This is an example of adaptation over millenia. These people are a result of their environment weeding out those people who could not survive their conditions, just like the Inuit people (eskimoes) adapted to survival in the cold conditions of the Arctic.

      As to disease and what not, I’m not sure. I do know that when I worked for an indian tribe, I was told by the Lieutenant Governor (a friend of my parents) that a study had been done and that it was proven that indians and blacks have a higher propensity to contracting diabetes. They think part of this has to do with generations of people in their original tribes and which members were able to survive best on the diet available to consume where they lived. But, there’s no conclusive proof.

      As for so much smaller Japanese, that probably has to do with their environment, i.e. the fact that they live on islands.

      If you look at the Mongols and Chinese (both descended from the same base race as the Japanese, called Mongoloid…not the same as the mental retardation of modern medical taxonomy). However, the Chinese and Mongolian people live on the main continent and tend to be much larger on average.

      One theory of this is in line with what paleontologists have found with mammoths around the world. Mammoths that existed on large land masses tended to grow to large sizes. However the pygmy mammoths that grew on an island off the coast of Siberia were disproportionately smaller than Columbia mammoths in North America and those on the Asian continent as well.

      Scientists believe this is caused by the fact that the animals who are larger require more nutrition and without it, they tend to perish faster than those who are smaller and require less. Hence, the environment tends to perpetuate survival of the species which are most suited to it again, i.e.- smaller animals would better survive on a limited land mass.

      As for how long it takes to re-adapt? Don’t know if that can ever be answered…would take 10,000s of years I imagine.

      Anyways…enough evolutionary education. I suggest…watching The Science Channel. 🙂

      • #3201650

        I just figured

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to a fundamental answer

        as there were so many supporters of Evolution, that some would know the basic theories that would have to go with that theory. I admit to not doing much study of evolution.

        As for size, maybe that goes back to what they say about fish. The fish will get as big as the aquarium that you put them in? The more room it has, the more room it will take?

        If nothing else, this has been an interesting conversation instead of a heated debate. A nice change of pace.

        • #3230888

          so the next debate is…

          by jck ·

          In reply to I just figured

          who was better: Nat King Cole or Oscar Peterson? 😀

          or maybe we can go with the Tyson argument…is Pluto really a planet? hahaha 😀

          I can argue them all. 😉

          Thank God I don’t watch all that network TV…I watch Cosmos re-runs and old Channel 4 re-broadcasts of “Whose Line Is It Anyways?”… 😀

        • #3230849

          Network TV

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to so the next debate is…

          When the boys are watching TV I will sometimes sit with them for a bit. Thing one is a horrible channel surfer though, so I can only stand it for short periods. Last show of importance I watched was the “Fairly odd parents”. 😀

          I have not turned a TV on since I was home sick.

          We DO watch the DVD’s from Neil though. Good fun. Will be into the final DVD this coming week!

          If wasn’t for the boys, I wouldn’t even HAVE cable. or a home phone.

      • #3283827

        Micro vs Macro

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to a fundamental answer

        Here again all your examples of “evolution” speak to micro-evolution which is where change occurs in a species through adaptation primarily do to environmental stressors. I don?t think anyone is thick enough to argue that this kind of adaptation doesn?t occur. It has been evidenced in every high school biology class for years. I would ask though if you could please provide an example of Darwin’s theory of evolution by presenting evidence of the mutation from one species to another.

        • #3283821

          Your turn to do some work

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Micro vs Macro

          I spend most of my time searching out rebuttals for your anti-evolution posts. It’s my bedtime so no more tonight and, by tomorrow, I expect an answer to this:

          You accept microevolution is demonstrable and, at the same time, argue that there has been no proof of macroevolution. No mechanism has been described for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution is, in fact, the downfall of the anti-evolution platform. Discuss.

        • #3283816

          Good night my friend

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Your turn to do some work

          I will study on the topic and provide my answer tomorrow.

    • #3230827

      Your opening Pandora’s Box

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Well my friend you must either have a penchant for pain or are just someone who wants to stir the proverbial hornets nest. I broached this subject around a year and a half ago and it reached thousands of responses. Neil and I went round and round (albeit nicely and without banter) and came to the conclusion that we could not agree with one another. We drank to it and went on with our lives. With that said I will post my views ONE TIME ONLY.

      Darwin?s theory of evolution states that over time simple organisms mutated to more complex organisms due to stressors in their environments. In classic terms this is called Macro evolution. If this were true then there would be evidence of this macro evolutionary process in the fossil record. To date there has been no transitionary fossils discovered.

      When one looks at the actual biological process of macro evolution the mathematical probability becomes beyond the absurd. The process of Mutation alone where over 99% of all mutations are disadvantageous to the organism (if not outright fatal) indicates that macro evolution would lead to extinction rather than an improved or evolved organism.

      This can be contrasted to micro evolution which has been duplicated in a controlled study in almost every high school biology class. However, one can not conclude that this micro-evolutionary process can be used to turn the fruit fly into anything else but a fruit fly. Human beings have been mucking around with husbandry for hundreds of years and have yet to produce anything new. One can say ?look at the variety of dogs and cats? and the answer would be yes but they are still and forever will be dogs can cats.

      There have been a great number of studies done and papers published by very reputable scientists detailing that the theory of evolution as postulated by Charles Darwin breaks down at a micro-biologic level. In other words, one need only scrutinize the flagellum of a cell to understand that the sequencing of proteins could not have evolved no matter how much time one cares to contemplate.

      Now, in anticipation of the retorts I will receive from the usual suspects I will state that I have said nothing about religion, creationism or any other such thing. This discussion is about Darwin?s theory of evolution and that is all.

      • #3230822

        A little pain never hurt anyone….

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Your opening Pandora’s Box

        Greetings ProtiusX. Read many of your posts, but you soft of faded out about the time I was coming on.

        I wasn’t trying to discredit any theories, just get people that are believers of the theories to step up and explain some of the finer points of explaining some of the HOWS and WHYS.

        Except for oz, who is after all, oz, everyone else stepped up and put forward some interesting ideas.

        More of a round table discussion than a debate, if you will.

        I don’t see this going anywhere near the tally of EL, although I DO hold second place! B-) It is losing steam fast, or at least it WAS until your post? 😀

        • #3230774

          My point made again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A little pain never hurt anyone….

          And yet you still insist I am having pokes at you?

          One day you’ll make sense, actually I won’t put money on that.

          Funny how I’ve managed to reply to someone else’s logical and relevant thoughts, never yours though. hmmmmm?! Funny how other people email me and say they appreciate my comments for not being the same run of the mill Bs everyone else shares. Funny how only on egroup of people with alternate political beliefs seem to have a problem, but others don’t seem to.

          I’d say, just as I would to most Americans, try looking inward for a change, you may need to live in another country to learn how but it will be to your benefit I am sure.

        • #3230759

          All kneel before the mighty oz

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to My point made again

          Who seems to be the one following me around looking for an arguement? Funny I don’t see anyone else jumping on my posts to inform me on how to post or when. What is the common factor here? You maybe?

          Fine, if it makes you feel better, you are loved and admired by all that have the great pleasure to read the great writings you place here on TR. People around the world hang on your every word and eagerly await your next post.

          I hope you are printing off all of those emails you get and hang them on your wall. Something to help remind you just how grand you really are.

          I am off to look inward, and humbly beg your forgiveness for not having the ability to post as grandly as you . . . . .

        • #3283933

          My point made again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to All kneel before the mighty oz

          Well done, you just get dumber and dumber, your replies more and mroe sensless and without context at all.

          And you REALLY think you are being clever? You aren’t even somewhat good with sarcasm!
          ‘mercun’s, who’da thunk it?!? Yeeehaw!

        • #3283811


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to My point made again

          It just doesn’t matter what you think, as I am not here to impress you.

          You are dismissed.

        • #3283803

          Oh how cool and clever

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually

          You really seem to be the mature adult now. LOL.

          Next time, don’t bother attacking a comment that you don’t agree with. I didn’t post what you had wanted posted….to bad, grow up and get a life.

        • #3283759


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually

          I was all along, you were just too busy beating your chest to notice.

          Is that what this was all about? I “attacked” you and hurt your feelings?

          Seems some of your own advice would suit you well.

        • #3209286


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually

          But you are complaining that I started an argument that you actually started and persued. Even now, you continue to persue it but then complain that I am arguing with you?

          I am teh holy one who must be right? Yet your only resolution is for me to simply lay down and accept what you have said and stop posting to you?
          Thus making yourself the one who has to be right?

          That’s why i dont buy into your BS, you are too much of a hyprcrite while you accuse me of hypicrisy.

          Get a life, go learn something.

        • #3209254

          Proving yourself the A$$ again Oz?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually

          Yes, you are. How quaint. Maybe we found our missing link after all?

          Looking back, it is clear to see [b]you[/b] as the twit following [b]me[/b] through the discussion just for the sake of you jumping up and down on how friggen grand you are.

          Waiting for you to stop posting so you will win? I had already moved on and left your pompus a$$ sitting in the dust. But that is ok. You can CONTINUE to play follow the leader, as long as you realize you’re the only one doing the following.

          Now tell me again how there is nothing I write worth you responding to, and then continue to respond anyways. It really does reflect well on you. Really it does.

          “Sod off”, “sod yourself”, and go “bugger a sheep”. Is that something a “bloody twit” like yourself can understand?

        • #3209202


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually

          What a farce. You guys get lost so easily it’s not funny.

          So let’s follow this again then: I posted a comment to your open forum post.

          You complained about that comment with a retarded flame. Thus you instigated any and all forthcoming flames.

          Try again you freakshow of a loser.

          If only guys like you weren’t so far away, it would be much easier to just knock you teeth down your throat for being a knob and be done with it. Seeing as you get to hide behind your PC, you will play tough guy and pretend to be clever too.

          Haev fun with that; and before you post to insist I am pushing to be correct and have the final say, remember you are posting a rebuttal not answering a question, thus once again YOU are insisting on being correct and having the last word.

          Pansy a$$ed, pu$$y IT dorks, you fit into such a mold it’s not funny. You were the freaks we beat up all through high school for wearing pink polos with those little LaCoste alligators on them or for carrying your Atari 2600 and boatload of games to your other loser friends house after school. Zero social skills, unable ot carry out a conversation without trying to overanalyze what is said, unable to get a date or, heaven forbid, get laid (again due to lack of social skill leaving you at teh bottom of the social chain). No friends, no REAL freinds outside cyberspace that is, no life. Just a bunch of certs, hope for a career in IT (pssst, there are none), marry the same broad that finally didn’t laugh when you asked her out in high school. Just a dork, a loser and someone that should feel sad for what they have not donw with thier wasted life and for raising children with no hope of guiding them to a worthwhile future.

          Now THAT’S sad, and to think you actually had control of your life at one time and CHOSE to have it that way. What a dork!

        • #3209198


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Actually

          I don’t want to get in between the two of you and your little lovefest you have going on..but, I have to make just ONE observation..

          Oz. The geeks didn’t wear the pink Izods, the preppy guys wore the pink Izods, with the collar turned up. The geeks never combed their hair and their clothes didn’t match.

          Please..continue ripping each other to’s very entertaining.

        • #3209192

          Brilliant is good. Wish I could say the same for you

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually

          Here we go again, Oz thinking if he is louder than everyone else, people will cower before him. Sorry, but I am not one of the little kids you used to so proudly beat on for the crime of being a geek. After all this time, you still think that made you cool instead of just the a$$ that you have repeatedly shown yourself to be?

          Accept for being on a computer, the rest of your childish display just doesn’t fit. People around here that do more than listen to themselves know that.

          To make this VERY clear, I will even type slowly and use small words so that even you can follow.

          Go back to the root of this thread and tell me if I am replying to you, or if you are replying to me. It is an easy one, that even a dumba$$ such as yourself will be able to figure it out. Like I said, I had already left your punk a$$ behind and moved on.

          Then after getting frustrated because I won’t play your little game and you see how stupid you are making yourself look to everyone else, you turn this into an attack on every “IT DORK” and “you guys”? Just who else are you ranting about exactly? Was half of the TR Membership the “Pansy a$$ed, pu$$y IT dorks,” that you took such great of pleasure in pushing around? Lets focus now. If you can’t remember it was me you were following around, not every “Pansy a$$ed, pu$$y IT dorks,” then you should “give your head a shake”.

          So if you wish to CONTINUE your punka$$ routine, knock your self right out. If you want to blame me because your such a d!ck, go right ahead. (yes Mae, as I said last week, you are what you eat) And yes, Oz is a d!ck.

          Now scamper along like a good little b!tch and go read your fan mail that is poring in and wank all over yourself. D!ck.


        • #3209191


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually

          Not that he would have noticed the difference throught his stoned haze he has admitted and bragged that he was in most of his life, but being the tough guy he is, he probably beat them up too. As you know, I was in neither of those groups, the preps or the geeks. I surely wasn’t someone that a stoned punk would push around, then or now.

          What a sad, pathetic person Mr Oz_Media has become.

          Really using that “second chance” at life well, huh?

        • #3209185

          In all honesty..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Actually

          the guys who wore the pink Izods probably deserved to be beaten. 🙂

          Now..please continue..I’m making popcorn. This is definitely better than reruns..

        • #3209183

          Sorry Mae

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Actually

          But it is his serve, so we will have to wait for him to finish having gay sex at the local truck stop, so he can come and tell me how even though he is following me around like a dog in heat, it is really me that is keeping things going.

          I will check back later so see what crap comes out of him next. More of the same, or will he try a new insult stereo type to try to push?

          Tune in next time, same bat time, same bat channel!


      • #3230784

        Ooh! Oooh! The flagellum!! The Holy Grail of Creationism

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Your opening Pandora’s Box

        Irreducible Complexity is alive, well and sprung forth fully formed from the fertile minds of Christian Fundamentalist Lawyers (blech! Now there’s a group of people that I wouldn’t like to meet on a dark night!).

        If you would like me to repost my destruction of “The Flagellum as Proof of Intelligent Design” then I will happily do so. You forget, Protius old chum, that ippirate took on your mantle when you pushed off to the Land of the Exploding Camel and I continued to sharpen my claws and teeth. I learned an awful lot fighting against his stubborn trawl and cut-and-paste from every creationist website.


        You said nothing. You implied MUCH! :p

        Seriously, do you want to know about the flagellum? It’s really very interesting. 🙂

        • #3230779

          Hey Neil

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ooh! Oooh! The flagellum!! The Holy Grail of Creationism

          Isn’t (wasn’t) ippirate a chick? Sure as hell whined like a little one anyway.

        • #3199584


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Hey Neil

          Did you say chick!?!? Are you sure your not from my neck of the woods? Dude!

        • #3283926

          Pretty damn close

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Chick!?!?!

          Boudary Bay is just a stone’s throw from where I walk my dog. I am in Seattle every month or so, racing at Em Downs and golf at Tapps Lake. I see far mroe of America than most of these guys do of Canada, as you probably know we are back and forth all the time, business, shipping etc. You go to a mall in the the northwest on a weekend and it’s full of BC plates getting cheap gas and smokes. It used to be so much cheaper there, but even with a low exchange rate and strong Canadian dollar, your prices just aren’t as exciting anymore. A little cheaper on some stuff but pretty much par for most of it. Sorry, segue that went nowhere.

          Have several friends there, Seattle is a lot like Vancouver; same recreational/laid back mindset, similar weather (though it always seems grey in Seattle due to the grey stone skyline). Lanuage is very similar, very little differece in accent etc.

          I was a bit shocked to see the look on a girls face at Subway in Auburn, she had never seen Canadian money and couldn’t take it???? Two hours from the border? 😀

          Oh well, I guess some of us don’t get outside that much.

        • #3283851


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Pretty damn close

          My wife and I see a ton of Canadians when we go to Costco in Burlington which is about 30 miles south of the border.

        • #3283742


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Costco

          I’ve never done a US Costco, that’s probably a good idea.

          I wonder if a Canadian membership card works down there, otherwise how would you get one? Don’t you have to be working for a US wholesale type business?

        • #3199616

          Neil! This is public!!!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Ooh! Oooh! The flagellum!! The Holy Grail of Creationism

          No self flagellation… 😉

        • #3199615

          Flagellum away!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Ooh! Oooh! The flagellum!! The Holy Grail of Creationism

          My interest is peaked. I would very much like to hear (or in this case read) about the Flagellum. Perhaps I would have made an moderately good scientist. I am fascinated by it.

          One thing I must tell you though – My two boys and I were watching the science channel the other day (something we do a lot – I think they’ve developed my interest) and the show was about the wooly mammoths and how they lived and eventually became extinct. My oldest son turns to me and says “How do they know Dad?” Now forget about the answer being deductive science for the moment and ponder the question coming from a seven year old. Young minds aren’t bound by learned prejudices and yet he was able to work out that if the mammoths died off thousands of years ago how can we truly know anything about them. Pretty good huh?

        • #3209239

          I’ll look up that word later…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ooh! Oooh! The flagellum!! The Holy Grail of Creationism

          but off the top of my head it sounds like that stuff that holds a hairball together 🙂

        • #3209238

          Well, I learned something today.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’ll look up that word later…

          Thanks Neil!

      • #3230777

        That’s an interesting point

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Your opening Pandora’s Box

        When you say “One can say ?look at the variety of dogs and cats? and the answer would be yes but they are still and forever will be dogs can cats.” this is very true, and if you compare the similarities between humans and apes we are very similar, I think I’ve heard we are akin to dolphins too, but don’t know where that goes.

        Now cats and dogs, to ua all seem preetty much the same. But there are MASSIVE differences betwen them, whil eone may be very long haired, another may be almost completely hairless (had a friend hwo raised hairless show cats,eeeewwww,it takes a mother to love one but they all have interesting personalities that grow on you if you give them a chance).

        Anyway, some dogs are dumb as hell it seems, others sharp as a tack. Now we must debate just HOW much more advance we are compared to apes. If we lived in the jungle, we would probably be at quite a disadvantage to the apes, they are appropriate for thier environment, in our environment they show extreme inteeligence and learnin abilities, yet still have quite an issue with vocal chords unable to permit human language.

        Between other apes, are there really smart ones and really dumb ones though?

        WE see dogs and cats as ‘all dogs and cats’, yet they are all etremely different by breed. Some are more disease prone, some can fend for themselves while others would starve etc. IN the land of dogs and cats, there must be a similar thing where one breed is seen as completely incapable and unevevolved compared other dogs and cats.

        So the reference is not all that far off at all. the only tim esuch a reference would seem as you intended it, would be if peopl eall saw all dogs and cats as just dogs and cats. Not one breed being more advanced than another, or adapted to its environment.

        Do dogs and cats see humans and apes as one and the same, just as we view them because we can’t differentiate between them?

    • #3199878


      by ontheropes ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???


      • #3199877

        I find it ironic

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to .

        Cut from that article:

        [i]Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. ‘The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicized,’ he says. ‘Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”[/i]

        It seems to me that it is Jon Miller who is politicizing this and is creating a wedge issue from it. If not, why would he say such a thing?

        • #3199874


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I find it ironic


        • #3199873

          just a little objectivity would be nice

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I find it ironic

          and it still amazes me the ignorance of the constitution by many.

          [i]”Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension.”[/i]

          You would think that educated people would know better than to make such a stupid statement?

        • #3199872


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to just a little objectivity would be nice


        • #3199870

          My focus

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          was on the part where he blamed the contention on something that isn’t even in the constitution. The ever famous myth of “separation of church and state”. There is no such statement in the constitution, and the only thing it DOES say is that there will not be a state mandated religion. Neither recognize NOR hinder religion.

          If there is a lack of adults that accept a theory as fact, maybe it is because of a failed school system that was pushing people though regardless of if they could even read or not. If they failed in even the basics, is it really a wonder that they would fail on the more advanced topics?

          as for percentages thrown out of who believes what, I have never trusted them before and am not going to start now.

          I do not know what percentage we share with apes, or any other animal. If we share a majority number with anything but apes/chimpanzees, does that mean we are evolved from them as well?

        • #3199862


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to My focus


        • #3199756

          There is a saying

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          there are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and what really happened.

          We may never find out what really happened.

          An idea about the numbers of people that accept vs don’t accept the Theory of Evolution. As many that say they believe the theory of evolution really don’t know jacksh!t about the theory, they are taking the same blind faith acceptance that people of religion take, only it is in the faith of science instead of God.

          The amusing thing is the way the Evolutionists want to shove this on everyone, much in the same way they complain people of faith try to shove their religion on others. As you saw in EL, people got very worked up on both sides of the issue.


          Does it really put you out if someone doesn’t accept a scientific theory as the answer to all?

          Does it really put you out if someone doesn’t accept your version of a god as the answer to all?

          Why the need to go beyond personal belief as to have to tear down the other persons beliefs in order to justify your own?

          And what is also amusing, a sharing of DNA or the ability for adaptation does not in anyway prove there is no god behind it all. Maybe that god just did a good job?

          Believe what you want, that wasn’t my intention as no one is going to get their beliefs changed by a board on TR unless you really had no beliefs in either camp before.

          I was just looking for ideas to explain what some of the factors are that make people so differnt.

        • #3199698

          jd: Do you want to know why?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to .

          Before we go anywhere, let’s correct one thing in your post. If you go back and [b]look[/b] at the EL thread, what you will see is all of the subthreads headed by ProtiusX, ippirate or MrMiami – opponents of Evolutionary Theory to a man – with those of us defending our position only when attacked. Hardly “shove this on everyone” tactics on our part.

          Now, scientists have established the consistency of the theory of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.

          Because this evidence flatly contradicts all literal religious accounts, religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to get their dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any material or logical support for their position. What we have with Creationism and ID is a PR campaign and Microsoft have shown what you can do with one of those.

          This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullsh:t taught as science.

          Put quite simply, any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs. And we’re not going to see [b]that[/b] are we?

        • #3199696


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3199666


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          I will also confess that I didn’t read even a tenth of the posts in EL. I mostly just read headings and went on with my life.

          Science and Religion. Not a good mix, is it?

          I think the way to approach it would be to just simply say “here are some of the many ways people THINK the world began”. Make it Earth history class instead of labeling it “science” and banning all non-scientific ideas because they don’t fit into the labels that science has put in place.

          Yes, I have no problem with Hindu origins being put forward at this time, as none of them are provable, including Evolution.

          Once THAT is out of the way about the very start, the DNA studies and the addapting to environments fits in will all of the beginnings as it is just as acceptable that a god made beings adaptable as if they were just accidentilly adaptable. No longer a religious discussion one way or the other as far as I am concerned, which is why I TRIED to not bring religion into the discussion.

          Of course, people from each side of this issue are apposed to having any alternative view being taught, as indeed, it does challenge what they are inside.

          Because of anti-religion people, yes, people are trying to get the creationism in as well. I think MY approach better serves everyone than the separationists idea of banning anything that doesn’t fit into your neat little world.

          “How the world MIGHT have begun…..” There are no facts here, only theories and beliefs.

        • #3199647

          jd: strangely, I don’t disagree with you completely

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to .

          One of the things that really ticked me off in the EL thread was that “Evolution” was taken to mean the Theory of Everything, first cause, big bang, first life. These aren’t evolution.

          The origins of the Universe and the origins of life are still undetermined. We haven’t been looking very long, anyway, so I’m not expecting an answer for a while so if you want to lump together the Big Bang with “let there be light” and “Vishnu spoke to his servant, Brahma: ‘Create the world.'” then I wouldn’t like it but I don’t really have a valid objection.

          Evolution as a biological mechanism to explain the diversity of life – as proposed by Darwin and modified by thousands of researchers since – that’s another matter entirely. That’s been codified, demonstrated, explained, honed, tested and – most significantly – used as a predictive tool. You can keep your God-bothering hands off [b]that[/b] bit.

          But you don’t. The difficulty, it seems, is that “Origin of Species” is also contrary to the word of the bible so out goes baby, bathwater, plumbing and sewage systems. The adoption of creationism to describe the origins of first life is painful but within the realms of logic as Abiogenesis is such a young science that it is still gaining credibility. The unthinking adoption of creationism and the negation of Darwinian natural selection would be to destroy the lifes’ works of myriad scientists and researchers over the last 150 years. If you want to do that, then you’d better have something much, much better than “God done it” to justify yourself.

          Neil 🙂

        • #3199632

          JD (Science and Religion. Not a good mix, is it?)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to .

          No, especially when you use the rules of one to try to assess the other. Kinda like trying to prove that art is art.

        • #3199609

          Neil, All I want is evidence of the transition.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to .

          I want that missing link…

          Before you tell me look at either OZ, JD, Max, or a mirror, I have a problem with the chain of evidence. There should be one heck of a lot of evidence that I just can’t find.

          I want to test for the genetic relationship. I want to find the bridge. Where is the “Monkey in the Middle?”

          I am only asking since anthropolgy is a very inexact science, and it is very speculative reconstruction…

        • #3199600

          JD: Science & Religion can be mixed….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          ….to give a heady concoction 🙂 Don’t you think many of the Sci-fi movies and articles freely take things from religion? Matrix series movies are just one example.

          [i]I think the way to approach it would be to just simply say “here are some of the many ways people THINK the world began”. Make it Earth history class instead of labeling it “science” and banning all non-scientific ideas because they don’t fit into the labels that science has put in place.[/i]

          It is akin to changing the definition of Planet to include Pluto into the Solar System 🙂

          I think in the science classes, scientific theories should be the focus. Different religious points of view could be taught under appropriate classes.

        • #3199851

          Why would he say such a thing?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I find it ironic

          Um, perhaps because there’s a significant element of truth in what he’s saying. It’s probably not completely true but certainly forms a basis for discussion on how much of it is.

        • #3199771

          No, that’s not my point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why would he say such a thing?

          It’s just like all the people who go around, criticizing President Bush, spewing their vitriol and anger, flinging accusation after accusation, and so on, and then they call him divisive. Geesh, look in the mirror! Just because a person disagrees with someone else, it doesn’t mean that the other guy is the one politicizing the issue, or that it is he who’s being divisive.

          I’ve observed that the left in America is capable of “bipartisanship” only when you agree with them. Otherwise, it’s always the other guy who’s being partisan or divisive. Just as it takes two to tango, it also takes two to argue. Where is Jon Miller, for example, willing to compromise on this political issue where no middle-ground is apparent? And don’t suggest that it should be a scientific issue, not a political one, as a reason to avoid the question. As long as our government is dictating how the government schools are run, it’s political.

          Jon Miller says. “[i]’Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues.”[/i] Clearly adopted this as a wedge issue? Please support that with solid examples. And as Jon Miller probably won’t read this, and since you, Neil, are arguing on his behalf, perhaps you will step up and support that comment with solid examples. What is it “Republicans” are doing, how is it so clear, and why is it their wedge issue, not yours?

          And on the “denial of evolution” comment. It seems to me that it’s the denial of the possibility of creationism, or intelligent design, or any variation of anything similar that’s equally contributing to the divide, if not causing it entirely. It’s Jon Miller’s way, or no way. Does that about sum it up? And who’s being “divisive”?

        • #3199739

          I said

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to No, that’s not my point

          that there was “some” truth in it. Whilst I know that you are more interested in the “political” implications of the piece, I, who know little about who decides what will be taught and not taught in US schools, am obviously more interested in the scientific. If I fail to satifactorily address the politics, well, I’m British and we [b]never, ever[/b] interfere in other countries’ politics.

          Let’s deal with your last paragraph first as it’s an easy one and then work back. To the best of my knowledge, we “Evolutionists” do not wish to deny the teaching of [b]any[/b] of the [b]many[/b] creation myths but merely wish – rightly insist – that they are taught in classes of comparative religion and not as scientific theories in science classes for the hugely simple reason that they are not science in an way, shape or form. When Creationism and Intelligent Design and any other creation myth are investigated and tested with the same rigour that is used on any scientific theory and when the same criteria of validity is placed on them, at that point they rightfully belong alongside the theory of evolution in science classes. As a side issue, I would guarentee that those who wish the teaching of “Creation” and “Intelligent Design” would pour infinite scorn upon the creation myths of, say, the Hindu religion. That, I feel, displays their agenda.

          You suggest that Miller is at fault for his lack of “compromise (…) where no middle-ground is apparent”. I’m interested as a scientist in what you feel that “middle-ground” could lie in the Creation-Evolution debate. Taking the middle-ground where none could possibly exist was precisely the reason that Intelligent Design was created by a cabal of Christian fundamentalist lawyers. A little bit of diggings displays their intention that ID is the “wedge” to remove Darwinism, Humanism and any other form of non-Christian teaching from US schools. I can’t be bothered to post references, Google “Discovery Institute” – hell, read their Wiki – and proceed from there. Whether these guys are Republicans, have Republican support or whatever, I don’t know and don’t really care enough to find out. You know more than me about the country in which they operate, you tell me.

          Of course I cannot answer for Miller as to Republicans particularly favouring ID as I’ve little knowledge about US though processes that gives rise to crap like ID, anyway. I suppose that the logic is that the creationists are – to a man – Christian fundamentalists and that Christian fundamentalists seem to favour Bush. If that’s not the case then you have more misguided people than I ever dreamed.

          Neil 😀

        • #3199598

          The problem with a PIG in a POKE such as having incomplete evidence is…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I said

          Where is the missing link. (My brother even with a tail would be a homo sapien, I think)

          Without a complete chain of evidence the theory of evolution is as much an “accept these facts” on faith as ID. Where is the breakage in the chain of evidence?

          Even if we found the “Missing Link” could we trust the archaeology field. It has been rife with mistakes and fraud… especially around the turn of the century.

          Can we throw out all the old research and build that bridge to the past? I don’t know…

        • #3199586

          Flawed logic

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The problem with a PIG in a POKE such as having incomplete evidence is…

          Of course I’ll admit that there are gaps in the fossil record but considering what the fossil records actuually IS, it’s doing OK. You’re throwing baby out with bathwater again. Just because the fossil record DOES have gaps there is neither reason nor logic enough to discount the ENTIRE theory and the ENTIRE fossil record to date and replace it with mumbo jumbo. YES! MUMBO JUMBO!

          The theory of evolution can predict what some of these missing records will be. It can also explain what some of the anomalies are. Can any of the god-botherer MUMBO JUMBO mechanisms do either? I don’t THINK so.

          Please feel free to investigate the “missing link” on our behalf and report back with a term paper of at least 15,000 words. I don’t give a bugger if they NEVER find it as it only means something to those who don’t know its significance (not a lot).

          Neil 😀

          Have any of you bods realised that I have the whole of the Evolution Lie thread copied off into WP and I can cut and paste you – with the emphasis on CUT – to PIECES!


        • #3199569

          Neil: I did something similar :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to The problem with a PIG in a POKE such as having incomplete evidence is…

          …the EL thread was active during my inactive days. So recently, I opened it and saved the “print” version to my PC. I read at my leisure some of the posts, obviously not all yet.

          I can peer email the html if soembody wants it.

        • #3283939

          A bigger logical flaw

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The problem with a PIG in a POKE such as having incomplete evidence is…

          is that one excludes the other!

        • #3283875

          It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I said

          Who gets to decide what to teach whom? Or does it depend on what’s being taught?

          Of course, if schools are teaching hate, and espouse killing those they hate, that shouldn’t be tolerated. And if a school is teaching that two plus two equals five, then that, too, should be corrected, since we want our population to be able to balance a checkbook and make proper change in a transaction. Teaching people how to function in a society, however, is not really on the same level as teaching the more “enlightened” kind of things. Whether a person believes in evolution or creationism, or possibly a combination of both, will not matter in how that person functions as a responsible member of society. (And before you extrapolate anything from that, please be genuine enough to take it as it was intended.)

          I’m not exactly a dumb-ass, and neither are you. We’re both reasonably intelligent, and probably both have developed a bit of wisdom over the years we’ve been around. We can both function equally well in society, although we disagree on many matters. One of our disagreements is that we see “the beginning” in totally different lights. You have your version of how life, as we know it, and as it all started, and I have mine. (And others have theirs) Neither can be conclusively proven or disproved. And do you know what? It doesn’t matter.

          So here’s my compromise. You teach your kids whatever you want in that regard, and I will neither try to influence them or try to force you to do otherwise, and you make the same deal with me. (“You” and “me” are to be interchangeable with, and apply equally to all others.) And let the public school system accommodate both (or more than both), since the school system is both paid for by, and in place to serve the public. (The American government serves the people, not the other way around. Remember?)

          But Jon Miller is (apparently) not willing to do that. He wants to force the teaching of one theory, and totally disregard the other. That’s fine for him and his kids, but perhaps it’s not fine for someone else. For him to be astounded that so many people have not bought into the theory of evolution, lock, stock, and barrel, is, by definition, an indicator of his total disregard and dismissal of anything else, to any degree, and by any name. Who’s really driving the wedge in this issue, people who totally disregard one side of the discussion, or those who are open to discussing both?

          I rarely enter into these kinds of discussions, and for good reason, but I have entered into the fray on occasion. Even publicly, I don’t personally enter into the argument, and have elected to simply opt out of the public school system, even though I pay to support it. The mere fact that these kinds of discussions not only exist, but are prevalent in the public school system, is very distasteful to me. It compromises the basic rights all parents have to teach their kids in a manner they deem appropriate, and it actually distracts from providing a well-grounded education. One only has to look at the continuous reduction in test scores over the last few decades to surmise that the politicization of the schools (and irresponsibility of many parents) is squarely to blame. Heaven forbid that some student fails a grade, for fear his “self-esteem” will be hurt, but try to mention the possibility of “creationism” (in any form or by any name, either within or without the realm of “religion”), and all hell breaks loose!

          However, I now dare to tread (very lightly) into the arena, nonetheless. In my estimation, the strict theory of evolution totally discounts the possibility that there is a bigger meaning and/or reason to life and the universe, as we know it to be. The theory of evolution (and the big bang theory) presume and teach that we start from nothing, we live a meaningless life, and then we die and simply cease to be in any form, whatsoever; it all started from nothing, and it will all end in nothing. Quite frankly, I simply don’t buy that. I believe that there’s more to “all this” than we are even capable of imagining, not to mention understanding. I believe there’s more that we don’t know than what we do know. And I believe I owe it to my kids to plant the seeds of such possibilities into their minds. And one thing don’t want is for some public school teacher, or worse yet, administrator, dig up those seeds and dismiss them as nonsense.

          In the final analysis, for any movement, scientific or otherwise, to try to deny teaching such a thing as “there’s more than just evolution”, is just wrong — at least it’s wrong to me and to millions (or even billions) of others. Why do you, or Jon Miller, or any of your ilk presume to force your view onto others? And make no mistake about it, to deny what they do want or do believe, in favor of what you believe, is tantamount to forcing them into your belief system.

          In the United States, we have some rules around here. You may or may not agree with them, but they’re rules, nonetheless. One of them says that [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/i] And by extension, the “rules” that apply in a government school (public school), have their beginnings in the halls of Congress. It seems to be that by prohibiting the teaching of anything in a school, public or otherwise, that might be construed as religious, actually violates the part of the “rule” about [i]prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/i]. I’ve seen no “rule” [i]respecting an establishment of religion[/i] (in public schools), but I’ve sure seen ones that are [i]prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/i].

          I find it very sad that there are those less willing to even mention “creationism” (in any form) in American schools than to allow the unbridled hate being taught in schools of other countries. Priorities are very skewed. And if this is what we’ve evolved into, God help us.

        • #3283869

          Personally, I don’t have a problem teaching it,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          but I do have a problem teaching it “as science”, because it’s not. I would have the same problem if they wanted to teach Art or Literature in science class.

        • #3283863

          Again, you so miss the point that I’m arguing

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          We may be talking completely at right-angles.

          This is not aimed at you, personally, Max. The “you” that I’m addressing are the people who just don’t take the time to find out what they are talking about.

          I have absolutely no objection to you teaching your children whatever you want. You want to teach them half truths, untruths and downright lies than that’s very sad but yours to do as you see fit.

          But please, please don’t try to justify it.

          If it fits your religion or your personal feelings to want to believe in “something more” or you feel that your faith is somehow at risk then simply say so and have done with it. But do not attempt to dress up the desire to find a “meaning” that you cannot find in the pragmatism of Darwinian evolution in the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo claptrap of ID or creationism. Don’t join the band of people weaseling away at the edges of established science trying to poke and prod and nibble their way like maggots into the current theory because it doesn’t fit their beliefs.

          Creationism and ID are religious beliefs. Period.

        • #3283862

          Tony: That caught me unawares

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          I thought that I was alone in the thread. 😀

        • #3283846

          Neil: Creationism and ID being “religious” beliefs? Period?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Sorry, Neil, but not all people who believe in such a “bigger purpose” can be pigeon-holed into something “religious”. In my opinion, where science simply cannot answer the next question (or the “previous” question, in this case), the “what-ifs” prevail. I am not what I would call a religious person, but since I’m not an Atheist, perhaps you would. Is everything so black and white to you, or just this? Is a person either an Atheist or religious? Is there no other possibility? Maybe it’s all relative. In any case, I’m obviously not as closed-minded as you, at least not in this case.

          I also contend that a creator (lower case) doesn’t necessarily have to be The Creator (upper case). But then again, I don’t discount the possibility of The Creator. What does all this make me? It makes me someone who deems such discussions worthy of attention in schools, whether that be in the scientific realm or otherwise. Unfortunately, for people like Jon Miller, they don’t want it anyplace in the public school system, and that’s what I disagree with.

          My dog in this hunt wants parents who pay for public school education for their kids, and are the customers of the public school system, to have the ability to decide what may or may not be taught to their kids — AND on the dime their taxes provide. If a parent wants absolutely no mention of such things, so be it. If a parent does want it, then again, so be it.

          The solution — and the compromise — is school choice for parents within the public school system. And the ones who fight against it are the ones who are using it as a wedge issue — and that’s what started the dialogue between you and me in the first place, the “who” who is REALLY causing the “wedge”! I say it’s Jon Miller and his ilk; you apparently disagree.

          By the way, define “religious”. And what do you call a pure scientist who believes in God? About two-thirds of them do, you know.

        • #3283832

          Tony – I don’t disagree

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          But that’s not what “that side” is proposing. Generally speaking, anything and everything that has any semblance of “religion” or “God” attached to it is literally under attack in our public school systems. And that’s grossly unfair to parents who want it part of their kid’s education.

        • #3283828

          I’m not really arguing with you

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          you either accept what I say or you don’t. You would be on shaky ground if you attempt to argue against the science.

          The original thread was a request by jd for some information on the mechanisms of human differences. How we got how we were where we were. and I was quite happy to answer those on the basis of current scientific thinking.

          Someone the raised the subject of ID – I don’t think it was me – and that just happens to be something that really sets my teeth on edge. Not because of my “closed mind”, as I don’t really think that I have one, but because the way that the proponents of the theory operate.

          As I said to jd elsewhere in this thread, the US idea of “Greater Evolution” seems to encompass first cause, big bang, first life and everything between – including the “something more” that you belive there must be. I am simply attempting to discuss the current evolutionary mechanisms to explain to jd how the epicanthic fold appeared and why the Japanese are shorter than him.

          The current scientific theories on “big bang”, “first life” and the other less obvious aspects of “Greater Evolution” are tentative and unformed – the science is brand new – and have room for everyone to believe what they want and teach what they want. Let’s both play there. I can sit and boggle quietly at just how damn big, complicated and wonderful it is and wait for the amazing revelations and insights that I believe that science will eventually bring and you can teach your children just how damn big, complicated and wonderful it all is and how little we know and that ANYTHING goes. Perhaps we might both agree that those who wish the centre of the Universe to be our tiny little planet are the ones with the closed minds.

          “Darwinian Evolution” is something for which there is more evidence and therefore much less of a justification for anyone to label me closed minded for insisting that it is a true depiction of what happened. Unfortunately, however, it is absolutely threatening to a literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis and therefore lumped into the threat that Greater Evolution is to their narrow faith.

        • #3283822

          Neil – The last time we mentioned the center of the universe

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Mae informed us that it was her. (No, I did not disagree.)

          Okay, I’m outta’ here. Neil, we agree and/or disagree however necessary to facilitate my graceful exit from this monkey discussion. Thanks a lot, jd, for getting me to swing into this!

        • #3283815


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

        • #3283786

          Hey Max

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Thanks for playing along! 😀

          It has been a real barrel of monkeys! ;\

        • #3283725

          Agghh.. quit the monkey jokes…

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          you’re all driving me ape!!! ]:)

        • #3283700

          Again, (Max)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Which is why public schools should all be closed!

        • #3209331

          Center of the Universe :)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          As I understand the theory, Mae [b]is[/b] the the center of the universe (but then so am I, so are you, so is Neil, etc.)

        • #3209285


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Y’all can be slightly OFF center of the universe. That’s fine with me, however, I really don’t want the share the center of the universe spot..

        • #3209276

          Mae – If I’m also “off-center”. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          …..I claim the spot right of center. The ones to the left cause orbital instability.

        • #3209187

          And I proclaim

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          that right of center is Maxwell’s official place in the universe. So it is written, so it shall be.

          (Sorry..having a Ten Commandments flashback)..

        • #3209111

          A possible solution Max

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Have an elective course, with parental consent required.

          I can’t think of a valid objection that could be raised that could not also be raised about other elective courses.

        • #3209091

          Tony, that might solve a small piece of the problem. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          ….however, the issue is bigger than just failing to offer a course or two. Nine hundred ninety nine kids can’t say a prayer at a football game without one (parent) getting his panties in a bunch; the ten commandments can’t be posted in a classroom or a hallway; and the examples go on and on. Some parents don’t want only one class that considers the existence of God, but an all-around education that assumes it. If they’re forced to go outside the public school system to get it, the tax dollars they pay to support public education should follow their kids — or it should be available within that system. It’s tantamount to a select percentage of the population being ostracized because of their religious beliefs, and/or being taxed without reciprocal representation.

          (This is where the anti-religion zealots will cry “separation of church and state”, although I’ve already debunked that claim in previous messages, which they conveniently forget … and round-and-round we go.)

          The parents who make the choice to have their kids and not abort them, should also have the choice on how to educate them with their own tax dollars that are taken from them for that very purpose.

          It’s discriminatory in every since of the word. And it comes from the party of “tolerance”. Yea, right. That party is only “tolerant” only if a person agrees with them.

        • #3209088

          I see what you mean

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          That leaves us with two choices then. A voucher system, where the “per student” tax is given to the parent to use toward tuition in the private school of their choice (and before someone claims that that violates ‘seperation of church and state I’d like to point out that welfare recipients aren’t banned from using that government money for religious purposes), or simply dismantle the entire public education system.

        • #3209057

          Tony – I don’t advocate dismantling the public school system

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          I do, however, advocate restructuring it. There’s no reason why schools shouldn’t compete against one another. Competition ALWAYS brings better quality and/or lower prices. And there’s no reason why parents shouldn’t be able to shop for a superior and preferred product, instead of being forced-fed an inferior one that does not deliver what the parent wants. And there’s no reason why the school education dollars shouldn’t follow the kids that those very dollars are intended to serve.

          Call it vouchers, call it school choice, call it whatever you want. But this “one size fits all” system is both silly and inefficient, not to mention very costly and wasteful, as well as unfair to the public it’s intended to serve.

          The ONLY argument against this that might have some merit is that the kids whose parents don’t care enough (or know enough) might suffer. This may be true, but they suffer, right now, the way it is anyway. And the attempted cure is to make more kids suffer, bringing them all down to (or closer to) the lowest common denominator. In my opinion, the opposite might happen. My preferred system would shine the spotlight very brightly on the problem areas, and it would be easier and more efficient to get a handle on solving it.

        • #3205570

          and perhaps more local control.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It gets to an even more fundamental issue

          Voters can set standards for obscenity within their community, can determine whether or not alcohol can be sold within their community, etc. but cannot say what can be taught in their school… doesn’t make much sense.

        • #3199741

          “element of truth”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Why would he say such a thing?

          Isn’t that the time to watch out the most? The best lies always have that element of truth in them…..

          A general rule, not specific to this case. B-)

        • #3199636

          Yeah, Just wait until

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to “element of truth”

          your ex starts changing history 🙂

        • #3199582


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yeah, Just wait until

          but that is where careful documentation come into play! 😀

          And yes, I do have SEVERAL copies, stored in several LOCKED locations, as well as in digital format in two different physical locations.

          I made her a deal. She walk out of my life, I will not take everything to loverboys WIFE, and/or each and every boytoy she ever brings into the picture to show what she is like and capable of.

          I almost feel like a Ferengi.

          #7) Keep your ears open.
          #40) She can touch your lobes but never your latinum.
          #60) Keep your lies consistent. (she should have listened to that one)
          #76) Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
          #85) Never let the competition know what you’re thinking.
          #94) Females and finances don’t mix.
          #99) Trust is the biggest liability of all.
          #111) # Treat people in your debt like family … exploit them.
          #229) Latinum lasts longer than lust.
          #255) A wife is a luxury … a smart accountant is a necessity.
          #285) No good deed ever goes unpunished.

          I thought for sure there was something about leverage? Oh wait! Cross-threading from the movie discussion where Battlefield Earth came up. 😀

          Anyways, the winner always writes history! B-)

        • #3209084

          #284 may also apply here

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to AHHHH

          Deep down everyone’s a Ferengi.

        • #3199733


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I find it ironic

          the last sentence. Do we do something just because most of the world does?

        • #3199711


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Interesting

          At one time, the rest of the world believe that the earth was flat.

          The rest of the world was wrong?


        • #3199687

          Flat Earth

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Interesting

          No one ever thought that the World was flat. The ancient Chinese knew it was round, the Greeks knew it was round and had a pretty good stab at the diameter! The Egyptians knew it was round and how big it was. the Europeans at the time of Columbus knew it was round and he knew he was sailing “the wrong way” to find the “Indies” but he just didn’t know how big it was and that you lot and the Pacific Ocean were in the way.

          Galileo got his backside warmed by the church for promoting the idea that the Sun was the centre and that the Earth revolved around it and not the simple idea that the Earth was round.

          Information provided by NITS ™ because I’m as pedantic git.

        • #3283942

          not wishing to be pedantic myself, but…

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Interesting

          Was that one “S” too many or not enough? :0

          [i]”because I’m a[b]S[/b] pedantic git.”[/i]

        • #3283913


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to not wishing to be pedantic myself, but…

          My one typo of the week and you’re on it like a ratting terrier. And, yes, it was one ‘S’ too many. I’m British, remember, and we spell it ‘arse’.

          You will pay for this! Oh yes indeedy, Mr “I type with my forehead”!


        • #3283901

          But you already know

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Brutal!

          that I only point them out when they are funny, right? 😀

          And it was so perfectly timed too….. :p

      • #3199876

        I find it ironic

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to .

        Cut from that article:

        [i]Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. ‘The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicized,’ he says. ‘Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”[/i]

        It seems to me that it is Jon Miller who is politicizing this and is creating a wedge issue from it. If not, why would he say such a thing?

      • #3199578


        by protiusx ·

        In reply to .

        The title asks whether we “believe” that man has evolved from animals. Are we asked by any other scientific theory to “believe”? I refuse to apply faith to science. Science should be the one area where things either are or are not. Either we know empirically or we do not know. It is okay to say “I don’t know”.

        • #3199568


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Belief

          but where is your faith? 😀

          This is a point that is NOT suppose to be brought up about the new religion called science. Refuse to bow down at the alter, will you?

        • #3283917

          Picky, picky, picky

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Belief

          scratching at semantics to make your point is not allowed.

          The question was “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?”

          Strange word, believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. I “believe” that Canada exists but, because I’ve never been there, you would say that I cannot “know” that there is a Canada?

          Come, on. Try a little harder! 😀

        • #3283838


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Picky, picky, picky

          The question was “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?”
          The answer is: Inconclusive. We don’t “know” that they did or did not. We might postulate but we may not “know” something unless it is empirically proven to be so. There is a difference between “knowing a thing” and “believing” a thing. The difference is empirical. I can “know” that Canada is there without ever actually having been there because it has been demonstrated to me in fact that Canada exists. Conversely, let us say that there exists a place on Earth that I have never heard of, been to or have had previous knowledge of. If someone tells me of this place I must qualify the information and at that time given that I have no preponderance of data that empirically or emphatically proves the place exists I must “believe” what the person is telling me is truth or not.
          To “know” is to perceive directly or have direct cognition of a thing.
          I “know” Canada exists because of the preponderance of evidence that tells me it is true. I need not “believe” because of the preponderance of evidence. Now if only one can see the evidence of Macro-evolution which is what Darwin’s Theory puts forth. There have been no intermediary creatures found in the fossil record (not one) and the idea that random mutation over time provides beneficial mutation has been proven to be false.

        • #3283823

          Know or believe

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Unknown

          “random mutation over time provides beneficial mutation”

          If we are to have a sensible discussion then I think it necessary for both of us to quote the sources of any sweeping statements so that we can check for bias and provenance.

          Oh, and I [b]still[/b] don’t know that Canada exists. You’re simply not authoritative enough in matters of geography! Belief is a spectrum and total certainty has no real place in science, you know. Real certainty, I find, is only associated with faith.


        • #3209232


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Unknown

          [i]and the idea that random mutation over time provides beneficial mutation has been proven to be false.[/i]

          That particular idea cannot be proven false.

          If a ‘beneficial mutation candidate’ did not thrive and propagate, they would simply claim that perhaps it was not as beneficial as was first thought 🙂

    • #3199720

      you left out GOD

      by gsaravin9 ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Man was created in god’s image & not a monkeys image.God is reproducing himself in man by giving him holy & righeous character through his son Jesus
      & through him whosoever believes on him about the kingdom of god on this earth forever & ever.They will beget righous character & live forever.This is the hope of mankind not evolution.
      ta mick

      • #3199715

        I left God out

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to you left out GOD

        because I already KNOW that side.

        Specifically gave evolutionists the benifit of the doubt for this conversation, to ask about environmental impacts and such without having to argue if it was God or luck that made humans adaptable to their envrionment.

        Thanks for stopping by anyways….

      • #3199710

        Lack of hope

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to you left out GOD

        makes one more suceptible to control.

        • #3199684

          The ability to accept the unprovable as truth

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Lack of hope

          makes one more suceptible to control.

        • #3199638

          Absence of evidence

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The ability to accept the unprovable as truth

          is not evidence of absence.

        • #3199629

          Trite and an appeal to ignorance.

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Absence of evidence

          You can do better than that, Tony.

          When Rumsfeld said it about WMDs I thought it meaningless…


        • #3199563

          Simply that

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Trite and an appeal to ignorance.

          lots of things were at one time unexplained. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist before they were explained. It means that all that the people of the time knew was not all there was to know. The same thing is true today. A truly open mind would realize that… that until something is disproven absolutely, its existence is a possibility.

          Thank God for all of these puzzles he created for us 🙂

        • #3283924

          Ah, but in this case, Tony

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Simply that

          it’s an “either/or”.

          The majority of Christians read Genesis as a metaphor – the last Pope said that it’s not to be taken literally and that “evolution is OK”.

          For the (mostly American) Christian fundamentalist conservatives, however, the Bible is to be taken literally therefore Darwin cannot be allowed as it is contrary to the “Word of God”. By the way, they’re in the company of Muslim fundamentalists who are the other body that won’t have anything to do with Darwin.

          Intelligent Design, although not outwardly “Christian” is an attempt to take the non-existent “middle ground” to weaken Darwinism as a prelude to moving over to “pure” Biblical Creationism. I can produce the evidence that convinces me of the perfidy of the ID proponents but I’ll save it until requested.

          So, you see, we (people like me or the fundys) can’t have both so “absence of proof…” doesn’t hold. So long as Darwinism is an accepted scientific theory then Biblical creation [b]cannot[/b] be a viable explanation.

        • #3283871

          I’ve seen the reference

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Simply that

          to “fundies”, but only in the accusatory. I’ve never actually met one, nor do I know anybody who has.

        • #3283695


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Simply that

          It’s a matter of perspective and, given that I’m pretty damn secular even in a secular country, a “fundy” to me is someone who takes their Holy Book too much as the literal Word of God. there’s lots of other things that they can do as well, but that definition is the most germane for this discussion.

          Trust me, from my perspective, you’ve got LOADS!


        • #3209282

          LOL Fundies!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Simply that

          Fundies are underwear with four leg holes so two people can share them.

        • #3283882

          But if there is no evidence to be found after 60 years of the seeking…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Absence of evidence

          Was the Mom an Idiot, or was Dad. Was it only one positive mutation?

          I just want the same level of proof that is demanded from ID people to be leveled at the evolutionists.

          They are working from speculation to speculation. They demand proof of the unprovable, and not from their own sources.

          Archaeology and antrhopology are creative fictions. I haven’t seen significant differences in their attitude andf the nuttier religious types. The attitude is the same.

          We don’t have the evidence per se. But we have some records that indicate the existance of ______
          you fill in the blank.

          Since Hebrew is not a dead language, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish histories are becoming recognized as more accurate as time goes on… For years Pontius Pilate’s existance was discounted. Now, it has been proven that he lived and was the military governor of the right area…

          Evolution is a theory, not a natural law. I have a theory that has never been proven or disproven. OZ is either insane, or just revealing his genetic inheritance. OZ is decended from Equus Asinus.

          Thanks JD for the point in the right direction.

          Sorry I can’t help but Zing OZ. My favorite target.

        • #3283876

          I refuse

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to But if there is no evidence to be found after 60 years of the seeking…

          to be drawn down in this discussion to the level of total bollocks.

          Evolution is a scientific theory. You [b]know[/b] what one of those is – or at least a person or your claimed medical and scientific training damn well should know – and you know what is involved in the acceptance of such a theory: A self-consistent, internally logical model for describing the behavior of a related set of phenomena, originating and supported by experimental evidence.

          The scientific theory that describes the mechanism of evolution is both systematic and formalised and was proposed by Darwins on the basis of his original observations and modified by all subsequent observations. It is both logical and testable. Above all, and so different from that contrived nonsense of ID, it is predictive.

        • #3209208

          From Mathematics you should be aware of step functions.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I refuse

          For certain values no cooresponding real values exist. Only for example only imaginary ones. square root of -1, etc.

          Perhaps that is the link between the Pre-homo sapiens and the current race of man… Imaginary, or, perhaps it is measurable and quantitative… So if it isn’t speculation but measurable, where is it describable in mathematical terms or by hard evidence? I know Physics and Chemistry, not philosophy, so, I take every assertion with a bag of salt.

        • #3199668

          Were you talking about….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Lack of hope


          Heee heee.. could’nt help myself from sneaking that in here. So out-off topic. Sorry for the digression.

        • #3204711

          I’ve got an answer to this thread read on

          by gsaravin9 ·

          In reply to Lack of hope

          If we all evolved from monkeys then you can all be a monkeys uncle !
          ta mick

        • #3204708

          I scrolled down 300 posts for THIS?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’ve got an answer to this thread read on

          Be ashamed!

        • #3204700


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I scrolled down 300 posts for THIS?


        • #3204693


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’ve got an answer to this thread read on

          only the guys 🙂

      • #3199589

        Not in this discussion

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to you left out GOD

        Your assertions are made from a faith of which those who disagree with you do not share. Their faith lies elsewhere.
        There is a time and place for everything my friend. The author was right not to bring God into the discussion as this would have alienated those who do not believe as you and I do. This is a discussion about a scientific theory put forth by a man who lived in the nineteenth century and if one wishes to stay on topic and not muddy the waters one must not bring religion into the discussion.

    • #3199671

      A good read

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Jd: Look at the depth of googling I (we) have to do 🙂 . So far it has been an interesting read this thread, except for a few sub-threads.

      The above link addresses several of the questions you had raised earlier, regarding climatic adaptations. To my lay mind it feels that wen species were adapting they had to take into account more than just climatic adapations, and thus things get little more complex.

      Neil: If you are reading this post, can you help me understand one thing? I read that Polar Bear has a black skin (I just knew it today) to absorb the Sun’s heat, and that the white fur allows the heat to reach the skin, and provide a camouflage. So why did’nt the people in the colder climates develop darker skins as well to absorb the Sun’s heat? Maybe the human ancestors and the bear’s ancestors had different factors to consider during the evolution.

      • #3199662

        Black skins and white skins

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to A good read

        Definitely, Equatorial races have black skin because they need it to protect from skin cancer, uv damage generally, pore damage, etc. That’s a given.

        As for white skin, two theories. One may be right, both may be right or neither may be right.

        Theory one says northern races have white skin because they have no reason to have black skin so there’s not any reason for selection although that doesn’t work if you factor in the “heat absorption” issue except for the fact that northern humans wear clothes and cover the skin. Hmmmmm. Puts us back where we started, northern humans have white skin because they have no reason to have black skin.

        Theory two says that northern humans have white skin because they keep it covered more of the time so they wouldn’t get enough sunlight-activated vitamin D so what bits they do expose they want to absorb as much sunlight as possible as quiclky as possible. If you don’t get vitamin D, you get rickets and end up with twisted limbs. Not particularly good for a potential hunter-gatherer mate.

        Polar bears (and Inuits, who are relatively dark skinned) eat lots of seal and stuff that has a lot of vitamin D so they don’t have a problem. And, I guess, polar bears probably have different metabolic requirements.

        I haven’t found any other explanations yet but I’ll carry on looking.

        Neil 😀

        • #3199652


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Black skins and white skins

          for looking and answering.

          Theory one, let us call it as NRT (No Reason Theory) for our discussion. If the ancestors of humans came from the equatorial region of Africa, they would have had black skin to begin with. If that is a safe assumption, then there must have been a reason for the skin color to change, right?

          But I doubt if the ancestors of hominids covered themselves much with any kind of material.

        • #3199639


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Thanks…

          Once Humanity – the naked ape – got away from the Equator they would have to cover up or else die from hypothermia. It would seem likely that the diaspora out of Africa which spread humanity happened in the last 100,000 years which is time for some adaptation but not a huge amount. Humanity by this time was reaonably intelligent – probably pretty close or equal to our level – so clothes is a fairly simple invention.

          Anthropologists have given values of between 500,00 and 100,000 years ago for the first clothes. The oldest needle found is 30,000 years old.

        • #3199628


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Coverings

          Kind of makes sense.

          One thing that unsettles me is your point about the humanity (whatever form) that existed 100,000 years being pretty close or equal to our level of intelligence. Based on anthropological evidences, I can see that humans 3000-4000 years ago were pretty much just like us. But 100,000 years?

          edited: clarity

        • #3199620

          Stone tools and stuff

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Yup

          Obviously, I have no first-hand knowledge…

          I’ve seen some reports that say that the human intellect reached modern proportions in some sort of European creative big bang around 40,000 years ago. I do remember, though, reading that some very sophisticated bone tools – detachable projectile points, etc – had been dated to 80,000 BPE or earlier in Africa. The tools would have required considerable investment in effort (thinking ahead) and would have been the product of complex thought processes. The archaeologists also found some several thousand pieces of red ochre – used in all later cultures for decoration – which would seem to indicate symbolic thought processes akin to our own.

        • #3199612


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Stone tools and stuff

          My pet thoery is that language could be used as a measuring technique to judge the advancements. Ofcourse, I conceived this theory without reading any material.
          I started thinking along these lines, when I perceived a relationship between Language and Thoughts. To express complex thoughts, it requires a developed language. Simply put – larger number of sounds and vocabulary in the language.

          So how advanced were the languages 100,000 years ago – would be an interesting question for me to answer 🙂

        • #3209325


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yup

          we certainly have more knowledge today, that does not equate to a greater intelligence.

      • #3199655

        I had wondered that one myself

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to A good read

        Why in the colder climates people are fairer skin, but then I figured it was because,

        1) they are bundled up more, so not exposed to as much direct sun

        2) the sun is not as intense in the colder regions, so again, less likely to darken pigment.

        You would THINK that people in the more arid regions that are also covered most of the time would be of lighter skin than they are?

        • #3199635

          Black skins and white skins

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I had wondered that one myself

          I think the issue is that skin damage occurs however much they show. If you only get skin cancer on your face, you still get skin cancer.

        • #3199567

          skin cancer

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Black skins and white skins

          You mean people got skin cancer before man weakened the ozone layer? Or did that just increase the occurance?

          How far back can we document skin cancer?

        • #3283940

          How far back can we document…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to skin cancer

          Not very far at all, I guess. We do have to make some assumptions that Man way back then wasn’t THAT different to what Man is today. Given that, selection of something like dark skin is all statistical probabilities. We have, say, a thousand men and women of all skin shades in the tropics over a couple of thousand years without much clothing then those who don’t burn, don’t get melanoma, etc would statistically be favoured against those who do. The population would get darker – and not by tanning – by the darker skinned living longer and being less affected by the Sun and so passing on their more favourable genes.

          Simple. If you believe in evolution. 😀

          Oh, and yes they certainly got cancer! The current ozone layer issue mainly affects the Poles but does stray over NZ, Oz and tierra del fuego.

        • #3283866

          I wonder if the apparent

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to How far back can we document…

          increases in skin cancer aren’t partly due simply to people being where they’re poorly adapted to the climate (genetically).

        • #3283857

          Good point

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I wonder if the apparent

          If you compare the colour of the indigenous population of Australia with the immigrant population they’re about as different as you can get.

          Australia, South Africa and the Southern American states all have a very high incidence of skin cancer in their white populations. It’s decreasing in Oz, now, because they have a very aggressive “cover-up” campaign.

        • #3199624

          Intensity of Sun

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to I had wondered that one myself

          I have noticed that I become quite uncomfortable, when the Sun really shines brightly in the summer. Sometimes, I think the summers in India were far better and I could withstand the heat better than now. There seems to be an aggression in the Sun’s rays 🙂 Maybe 1) I am getting used to the colder weather, especially when I have to wear some kind of jacket 6 months each year. 2)Or I am getting older. 3) Or maybe there is something more than that meets the eye.

        • #3199565

          The sun

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Intensity of Sun

          Wasn’t there just talk about the Sun being hotter now than it was 1000 years ago?

          That would make a difference as well?

        • #3283922

          I am talking about….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to The sun

          7 or 8 years ago 🙂

    • #3283506


      by bob_steel ·

      In reply to If we all came from Monkeys, then???

      Education is a wonderful thing folks – please can someone pin this
      post up somewhere, lest we all forget

      • #3200097


        by onbliss ·

        In reply to nnnnngh

        All it needs is someone to keep bumping this thread up :-),

Viewing 18 reply threads