Community

General discussion

Locked

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?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Greeting in Norwich

by neilb@uk In reply to I think that is the probl ...

Gimme six!

Sickle cell anaemia is one of the "fuzzy" genetic issues. In areas where Malaria is prevalent, to be a carrier of one 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.

Collapse -

Sounds to me

by jdclyde In reply to I think that is the probl ...

like they need an outside "donor"? ]:)

Collapse -

And this is the part....

by TonytheTiger In reply to Isn't that the definition ...

However, they must then cull unfit offspring

... that humans have a problem with.

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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...

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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)

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

DNA and Darwin

by neilb@uk In reply to Micro vs Macro

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



Do you really want to go here again? I've only got to cut and paste from EL.

Collapse -

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?

Related Discussions

Related Forums