This is an easily refutable argument. This does not provide any evidence for evolution at all. The hair on our bodies does tighten to try to preserve heat. It is a natural body function even though it does not work as well as it does in other mammals.
Hair has to do with genetics, Hairs sole purpose is to preserve heat. But some people have little hair, and some have alot. This just depends on the genetic layout of a parent or parents. Like, my dad has a lot of hair, so I might be designed to have alot of hair as well, and so on through generation.
In fact our hair can grow just as long as other primate hair, adding to the point that we are a primate. This can happen when someone is especially thin, the body focuses activity in producing more hair to compensate for the loss of insulation due to fat. We having less hair is simply a mechanism developed over time that our bodies developed to save on wasting energy on a pointless activity. Most people can at least in some way can control their local environment (blankets at least!) to ensure that they are not cold and also we have other mechanisms by which we can keep warm that in the long run will save energy as they are only used when needed such as shivering, making in most cases long body hair obsolete. (Funny…..you are starting to sound more evolutionary with your latter comments!
)
And different races losing hair is no evidence of evolution of any kind either. It just suggests that the isolated populace of a species became "less hair dominant" through breeding over the generation, and also, hair falls out, or is shed when it is no longer needed, like a dog shedding its winter coat. Some of you evolutionists claim that we humans lost our hair as we lived in warmer climates. I tell you this cannot be. Genetics doesn't allow for a species to drop a fur coat forever. Genetics show that whatever is programed into us at birth will never change, and any accumulated physical trait aquired over the lifespan of an animal will never make its way into its offspring due to the fact that it is not in its genetic code. Just as dogs which live in the bahamas develope a winter coat even though it is uneeded. So, this theory is quite absurd. If we evolved from fur coated animals, than all babies would be born with, or develope a fur coat at some point in early child hood, but instead, babies and young children have very little hair.
Aahh……Lamarckism again, when will it die! You are arguing against Lamarckism NOT evolution. Don’t confuse the two.
Lamarckism is where for example you say that a giraffe got it’s long neck from stretching to reach the tall branches, the stretched neck being passed on……………….THIS IS WRONG!
Evolution in terms of body hair would apply by saying that those in warmer climates would over time have more probability of surviving in the conditions. Therefore those with the genetic variation/mutation that meant they had less hair would overtime provide the most “breeding stock” as they are the ones who survive. (this is what is meant by survival of the fittest, it does not mean survival of literally the fittest necessarily, it means the survival of the best adapted). As most of the “breeding stock” would have less hair then the majority of the next generation would too and so on until almost all have shorter hair. Oh and btw while it is rare some people still do develop long fur/hair.
Let tell you why different races exist, and why it is not evidence for evolution:
SOME evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.
The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"
Actually, I have never heard so much bull in my life, scientists don’t try and back up evolution by attacking religion, they do it by studying the facts, sorry but your religion isn’t that important. Evolution isn’t “fighting” the religious point of view, as there is no evidence for the Adam and Eve fairytale it so it can’t! Evolution bases itself on what can be studied.
In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.
This is so funny; you have shown yourself to have such a basic knowledge of science that I find it hilarious you can actually say that. I and many of those talking to you know more about genetics and variation than you ever will, in fact I will comment on some of the things you shown yourself not to know later………
The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature.
Two genes? No, they are Alleles, expressions of a single gene, it is an important difference. I don't know why you keep going on about these as they concern mutations in regions of DNA that would not provide many harmful or bebeficial effects and so would not be directly linked to evolution but mutation does occur in other regions as well. Anyway who are you trying to teach? The people here know more than you do about biology.
This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.
However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.
You are starting to confuse alleles with genes again. Actually this process doesn’t apply to all physical characteristics, only to the ones that don’t really affect one’s ability to survive. We have many of the pointless mutations still stored within our DNA that essentially are neither really useful or harmful, and depending on the alleles they will reappear in later generations with some due to their highly recessive nature perhaps almost fading away (such as red-headedness). Not every gene is expressed through variation; they are all interconnected, as there are genes for every different process. A gene doesn’t magically give you green eyes! It allows a chain of chemical reactions that create the green tint of your iris. Some also rely on other genes being present. Actually let me point this out better, genetically speaking you share half of your entire DNA with a banana plant! I doubt I’d see you growing a bunch of bananas would I! Your concept of genes is very basic.
It is not certain that any of the “races” will speciate as such and remember that humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, really short in evolutionary terms. Considering the expansion of humans out of Africa to many different environments that our bodies seemed to cope with would show that there was little pressure to speciate, that by no means means that it could not happen in the (very distant) future different ethnic groups are far from developing into different species yet. What we see as different races is a lot do with variation but simultaneously some genes are being mutated that create different proteins.
Now, granted saying that different “races” are DIRECT evidence of evolution is wrong, but I doubt any scientist has actually said this I would like it if you could provide more than anecdotal evidence of this. The idea however is not however against scientific theory, why? Well that’s because groups that have similar variation will have a similar regions of DNA present (which is why you can identify the ethnic group of a person from their DNA as they will share regions that are very similar). This mean that if a mutation was to occur then, probability wise it is more likely that someone of the same ethnic background will develop the same mutation, hence when finally the time comes when a species is so genetically different they cannot produce fertile offspring then it is more likely that the one’s that will speciate will be the one’s that share similar DNA regions (ie those of the same “race”)
Another arguement for debate sake:
In the time of darwin, little was known about the complexity of a cell, and nothing hardly at all was known about DNA, RNA and every other genetic code. The cell, the earths simplest, yet extremely complex, lifeform, could absolutely not have developed randomly from any mix of non-living chemicals. Some compare the layout and complexity of a cell to that of a large city. This could not have just "formed" from inanimate matter. Life only comes from life. There have only been 3 cases of life coming from non-life:
Frosty the Snowman
Pinochio
Frankenstein
Yeah, real credible eh? To claim that a cell could just form naturally, is just as unthinking to claim that a 747 Jumbo Jet could form naturally by a tornado. Both are impossible, because both require intelligence to design, and/or create. And one last thing, if our bright scientists of today cannot create a living cell, what makes you think that one can form naturally?
And:
Caught you off guard didn't. Whats up with all the exuses for answering the questions? I cell can only survive if it is a full cell. If it is missing any parts, than it will not survive at all. No matter what "form" a cell would be, they are all extremely complex. Life requires complexity.
What cell would that be they are all different! In fact Prokaryotes are extremely simple, they lack practically all the structure that you say the cell must have. All the material in a Prokaryote are “self assembly” molecules, ones that order themselves because of physical laws, a good example the cell membrane:
This is made of phospholipids, a not very noteworthy molecule but is does have one good trait, it is bi-polar, one end is “hydrophilic” (water loving) and the other “hydrophobic” (water hating). It therefore aligns itself into a natural barrier when in fluid (which connects quite well with the water born theory of life!) and basically is responsible for the complex interaction of cells (plus some other molecule located in the layer.
DNA is another molecule (which actually is very simple!), which naturally groups together, the bonding between the different regions of the molecule naturally want to condense into a larger structure.
Anyway, Prokaryotes were the first type of cell to form and it is mainly expressed as bacteria. For the “complex” nature of cells (which aren’t actually complex when you study them) occurred only later in evolution. The cells that make you up are basically prokaryotes with additions, additions that allow cells to do more but aren’t required for it to live. The reason why some cells die when you remove certain parts is because of dependency, cells have evolved to become dependant on the “organelles” so they don’t intrinsically need them.
As the theory goes some prokaryotes engulfed other early organisms that existed for example Mitochondria, organelles that produces a lot of chemical energy. This is actually very sensible in terms of mutualism as the mitochondria gets protection while the cell gets a lot more energy to do more things. The organelles as they were engulfed shared their DNA so that future cells would be able to produce them themselves. Btw, yes many of the cell organelles have their OWN DNA.
The most successful Eukaryotes produced “copies” of themselves that lived in beneficial mutualism and through evolution developed differently into more “complex “ as you put it, life forms. You are not one entity, you are many billions of entities, in fact you are a colony of specialised bacteria, that’s all!
Please come back when you know more about biology.
What exactly are you asking? It is of my belief that life has to have certain conditions to be in existence. It might not have to be oxygen, or carbon dioxide, but there are strict guidelines. Because if there weren't than I would expect life to exist everywhere. I would expect us to be able to live off of eating dirt, instead of nutrient rich foods. See what I mean?
Btw, life must have started without oxygen; it is unstable and is only really created by photosynthetic life, one reason why it is thought photosynthetic organisms were among the first living things.
Life did need certain conditions to be in existence, that’s exactly why it is thought that life appeared when it did because before that the earth was still not stable enough to support life. However remember that the first basic organisms such as what PR said, the Archeobacter were very simple and could survive in a number of conditions that the more complex life could not, it would not be too difficult to get life started as I have already pointed out.
See what you mean, yes, does it make sense, no. Many simple organisms do eat dirt (detritivores) and actually it can be quite rich, it’s called Humus, it’s BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL! They don’t need masses amount of energy anyway.
We don’t eat dirt because as life developed, it was necessary to secure more rich sources of energy, which naturally developed into herbivores and carnivores as “more “complex” life also harbours more energy, therefore life started to feed on each other to sustain larger organisms. Only because we must sustain a whole colony of the cells from which we are made is why we don’t eat dirt.
Mmm….I think that’s enough said!
: I just wanted to expand on what PR said. Are we finished or do you want to carry on with your misconceptions about evolution and biology? Why won't this topic die? It is obvious that the people argueing pro-evolution are the only one's who know anything about biology.
