General discussion


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 -


by TonytheTiger In reply to It isn't 6' and 115. Stic ...

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

Collapse -

a fundamental answer

by jck In reply to If we all came from Monke ...


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



(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. :)

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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 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?"...

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

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.

Collapse -

Your opening Pandora's Box

by ProtiusX In reply to If we all came from Monke ...

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.

Collapse -

A little pain never hurt anyone....

by jdclyde In reply to Your opening Pandora's Bo ...

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?

Related Discussions

Related Forums