~ The Evolution Theory! ~

[tango92]

^ but still many mutations must preceed each other, for generations. andmutations in higher level species is rare.

if one mutation occured, it is extremely likely that it would have no benefit to the organism it may infact be detrimental. therefore making it difficult to spread throughout the population. even if it did this reduces the gene pool. and then if for example we want to go from 4 legs to 2 we require more thousands of mutations all in the right sequence. this reduces the gene pool immensely.

 

[Woodrow]

I don't understand what you mean there.

If man and apes et al came from the same gene pool. the gene pool would become smaller as a species formed that could not interbreed with the other's.

In spite of what is spread by old wive's tales and some old fiction movies, it is anatomically impossible for a human to interbreed with any of the Apes. Even if they are both consenting adults. I will not go into specifics as to why it is impossible, if you have a need to learn more about the subject enroll in an advanced comparative anatomy class.

 

[Woodrow]

. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm



.

I have no doubt that they did interbreed. And that means ???? It is a very well established fact that through out history there have been Humans that have interbred with anything where the physical possibility existed. What is lacking is any evidence this changed the genetics or added to the gene pool of the Human population. I have seen the theories that Red Hair and blue eyes were inherited from Neanderthals. but that does not seem to hold much credibility as current findings are those traits in Caucasians did not come about until long after the extinction of Neanderthals. Yes there have been past occurrences of Red Hair and Blue eyes occurring in Australoid and Negroid people, but they never had contact with Neanderthals.

Odd thought: Red Hair and Blue eyes occurred in black skinned people before they occurred in white skinned people.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Really? . . . .didnt know that :-\

 

[Woodrow]

Really? . . . .didnt know that :-\

Not only did red hair and blue eyes occur in Black people before it did in Caucasians so did white skin. The white race and especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind. there is no evidence of a white race existing more than 41,000 years ago. All evidence indicates they came from Persians (Iranians) (Iran is the origin of the word Aryan) and from parts of India. The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and early anthropologist.

Several accounts by Greek writers mention redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini" (probably Udmurts and Permyak located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia) as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to be "tall and terrifying in appearance... a great mass of red hair... over her shoulders." Also, several mythological characters from Homer's Iliad, (themselves purportedly Greek) are described as being "red-haired" including Menelaus and Achilles.

The Roman author Tacitus commented on the "red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia (Scotland)",[5] which he connected with some red haired Gaulish tribes of Germanic and Belgic relation.

Red hair has also been found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. Many of the 2nd millennium BC Caucasian Tarim mummies in China have been found with red and blonde hair

Red hair in Caucasians is no more than 100,000 years old. Most probably the first red hired Caucasians came about within the past 20,000 years.

Origins

Red hair is the rarest natural hair colour in humans. The pale skin associated with red hair may have been advantageous in far-northern climates where sunlight is scarce. Studies by Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza (1976) hypothesized that lighter skin pigmentation prevents rickets in colder latitudes by encouraging higher levels of Vitamin D production and also allows the individual to retain heat better than someone with darker skin.[21] Rees (2004) suggested that the vividness and rarity of red hair may lead to its becoming desirable in a partner and therefore it could become more common through sexual selection.[22]

Harding et al. (2000) proposed that red hair was not the result of positive selection but rather occurs due to a lack of negative selection. In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun would be harmful to fair skin. However, in Northern Europe this does not happen, so redheads come about through genetic drift.[18]

Estimates on the original occurrence of the currently active gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.[23][24]

A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in modern humans.[25]
Extinction
See also: Disappearing blonde gene

A 2007 report in The Courier-Mail, which cited the National Geographic magazine and unnamed "genetic scientists", said that red hair is likely to die out in the near future.[26] Other blogs and news sources ran similar stories that attributed the research to the magazine or the "Oxford Hair Foundation". However, a HowStuffWorks article says that the foundation was funded by hair-dye maker Procter & Gamble, and that other experts had dismissed the research as either lacking in evidence or simply bogus. The National Geographic article in fact states "while redheads may decline, the potential for red isn't going away".[27]

Red hair is caused by a relatively rare recessive gene, the expression of which can skip generations. It is not likely to disappear at any time in the foreseeable future.[27]

SOURCE

 

[glo]

It is anatomically impossible for a human to interbreed with any of the Apes. Even if they are both consenting adults.

That made me chuckle! :giggling:

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Not only did red hair and blue eyes occur in Black people before it did in Caucasians so did white skin. The white race and especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind. there is no evidence of a white race existing more than 41,000 years ago. All evidence indicates they came from Persians (Iranians) (Iran is the origin of the word Aryan) and from parts of India. The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and early anthropologist.

Several accounts by Greek writers mention redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini" (probably Udmurts and Permyak located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia) as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to be "tall and terrifying in appearance... a great mass of red hair... over her shoulders." Also, several mythological characters from Homer's Iliad, (themselves purportedly Greek) are described as being "red-haired" including Menelaus and Achilles.

The Roman author Tacitus commented on the "red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia (Scotland)",[5] which he connected with some red haired Gaulish tribes of Germanic and Belgic relation.

Red hair has also been found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. Many of the 2nd millennium BC Caucasian Tarim mummies in China have been found with red and blonde hair

Red hair in Caucasians is no more than 100,000 years old. Most probably the first red hired Caucasians came about within the past 20,000 years.

SOURCE

Wow MashaAllaah i am impressed. . SubhaanAllaah and shocked that white people didnt exist along time ago . . . Interesting Info Jazakallahu Khayr Brother

 

[Woodrow]

Wow MashaAllaah i am impressed. . SubhaanAllaah and shocked that white people didnt exist along time ago . . . Interesting Info Jazakallahu Khayr Brother

Most people fail to see how few white people are on this planet. Very new group and has spread only in fairly recent times.

Only 8% of the world is white and 92% is non white. SOURCE

 

[Rabi Mansur]

especially caucasians with red hair and/or blue eyes is a very recent development among man kind.

Hmmm...as the human race continues to progress, red hair begins to develop among man.

Maybe those of us with red hair are just genetically superior. ;D

Sorry couldn't resist.

Carry on.


:wa:

 

[Woodrow]

Hmmm...as the human race continues to progress, red hair begins to develop among man.

Maybe those of us with red hair are just genetically superior. ;D

Sorry couldn't resist.

Carry on.


:wa:

Sorry that is rust. Not a sign of progress-- You guys are falling apart.

 

[Rabi Mansur]

Sorry that is rust. Not a sign of progress-- You guys are falling apart.

So the red hair actually reflects Devolution not Evolution. I was afraid of that.

:hmm:

:wa:

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Most people fail to see how few white people are on this planet. Very new group and has spread only in fairly recent times.

Only 8% of the world is white and 92% is non white. SOURCE

MashaAllaah thats really really interesting. . .Jazakallahu khayr

 

[Woodrow]

Now to relate all of this back to the topic and tie it in with a recent post:

When humans evolved it was an entire population changing slowly through each generation as the less well adapted lost over a long period of time. There wasn't just one day 2 humans born from non-humans. So the everyone in that population can breed with each other and probably bred with different populations of 'proto humans' keeping the genetic variation high as happens today. In fact recent research suggests that early humans probably bred with neanderthals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8671643.stm


I don't understand what you mean there.

While there are numerous skin colors, hair colors, eye colors etc among Humans. There is no problem of locating people living today that have the genetic make up of all. There is no intermingling of races to produce a new race, It is there and has always been there in the genes of of the people from whom the diverse "Races" came. there are no actual races among humans. A pale skinned red headed blue eyed girl from Scandinavia has the very same ancestors as a Black skinned black haired brown eye man from South Africa. There is no indication that the genetic pool of humans came from any sources other than 2 original humans.

 

[Skavau]

Now to relate all of this back to the topic and tie it in with a recent post:



While there are numerous skin colors, hair colors, eye colors etc among Humans. There is no problem of locating people living today that have the genetic make up of all. There is no intermingling of races to produce a new race, It is there and has always been there in the genes of of the people from whom the diverse "Races" came. there are no actual races among humans. A pale skinned red headed blue eyed girl from Scandinavia has the very same ancestors as a Black skinned black haired brown eye man from South Africa. There is no indication that the genetic pool of humans came from any sources other than 2 original humans.

This assumes that humans literally came out of nowhere, or were created (as I know you believe). But to simply outright state that there is no indication of any sort that the origins of homo sapiens show no evidence whatsoever of evolution is complete and utter nonsense. For some information (and you've used wiki as a source yourself), click here, here, here and here.

 

[saifudheen]

Assalamu alaikum Akhees and ukthies

 

[Woodrow]

This assumes that humans literally came out of nowhere, or were created (as I know you believe). But to simply outright state that there is no indication of any sort that the origins of homo sapiens show no evidence whatsoever of evolution is complete and utter nonsense. For some information (and you've used wiki as a source yourself), click here, here, here and here.

I do not deny evolution in any species except for in humans. I have seen Hominid fossils that do present a strong appearance of being non-human ancestors of man. Yet no one has been able to provide a provable link between them and man. Most recent notable is Neanderthal Man who for a long time was considered to be man's direct ancestor. The relationship possibility fizzled out in recent years.

 

[Lynx]

I do not deny evolution in any species except for in humans. I have seen Hominid fossils that do present a strong appearance of being non-human ancestors of man. Yet no one has been able to provide a provable link between them and man. Most recent notable is Neanderthal Man who for a long time was considered to be man's direct ancestor. The relationship possibility fizzled out in recent years.

I don't think scientists use any special means of investigation when looking at human evolution than they do when they look at animal evolution. Both use the same methodology and the same type of evidence.

 

[Woodrow]

I don't think scientists use any special means of investigation when looking at human evolution than they do when they look at animal evolution. Both use the same methodology and the same type of evidence.

True they apply the exact same criteria. The scientific method works, but sometimes those who are using it make flawed tests or hypothesis. The interesting thing to note is most scientist use the same original hypothesis when dealing with evolution of any species. Because the hypothesis fits in all cases is erroneously biased because it is assumed to be the only possible hypothesis. How many scientist have ever honestly tried to begin with a hypothesis that assume humans came from a single pair of ancestors. I will agre that model would not work for non-human bipedal life forms and I would not expect it to. I and other theists do believe that the fossil record shows the validity of that model.

 

[Trumble]

How many scientist have ever honestly tried to begin with a hypothesis that assume humans came from a single pair of ancestors. I will agre that model would not work for non-human bipedal life forms and I would not expect it to.

Actually, I suspect a substantial number did in Darwin's immediate wake at least, although perhaps not in the recent past. The reason for their failure is that such a hypothesis has no scientific justification whatsoever, and therefore that any work that assumes it to be true is scientifically valueless as a consequence.

 

[Woodrow]

Actually, I suspect a substantial number did in Darwin's immediate wake at least, although perhaps not in the recent past. The reason for their failure is that such a hypothesis has no scientific justification whatsoever, and therefore that any work that assumes it to be true is scientifically valueless as a consequence.

This is another one of those occasions when I must agree with you. It would have no value at all to the scientific community. Using modern research methods would never be considered cost effective and any individual desiring to prove the hypothesis would not have the means to do so.

Moot point. because of no value to the secular world and not needed for those of us who believe.