Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[whar]

They are vestigal in humans.

They are tied to fear responses in animals and in humans. But in humans they serve no purpose since they no longer are tied to standing hair on its end to increase size. Same with the response to cold.

Vestigal means that a structure has lost its ancestral function. The Coccyx is vestigal in human since we no longer have a tail however it is still the anchor for some muscles around the pelvis.

You have to use the word it is defined by biology not as you wish it to be defined.

 

[bambu]

They are vestigal in humans.

They are tied to fear responses in animals and in humans. But in humans they serve no purpose since they no longer are tied to standing hair on its end to increase size. Same with the response to cold.

Vestigal means that a structure has lost its ancestral function. The Coccyx is vestigal in human since we no longer have a tail however it is still the anchor for some muscles around the pelvis.

You have to use the word it is defined by biology not as you wish it to be defined.

goose bumps = Debunked

"Goose bumps in humans, however, have taken on a new role. Like flushing, another thermoregulatory mechanism, they have become linked with emotional responses - notably fear, rage or the pleasure, say, of listening to beautiful music. This serves as a signal to others and may also heighten emotional reactions: there is some evidence, for instance, that a music-induced frisson causes changes of activity in the brain that are associated with pleasure."

Pineal gland = Debunked

And now for your viewing pleasure.....

Human tailbones = Debunked....

Tailbones???

Dr. Menton corrected the erroneous statements of Darwinian scientists that the human tailbone was a vestigial structure and noted that “all true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail” (Menton 1994). Rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the coccyx has no real function in human beings, Dr. Menton points out “that most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum” (Menton 1994).

Next???

 

[bambu]

 

[Bodhi]

Any "race" of human is able to breed with any other and produce fertile offspring. This is because all humans are the same species.

Exactly....

Exactly. So what this:

implies is not true.

The sexual preferences observed in these experiments are easily eradicated by simply treating fruit flies that had been raised on different diets, with antibiotics. In other words no genetic changes that would ensure irreversible reproductive isolation, and hence speciation, have taken place.

I'm talking about speciation which is a result of genetic change, not simply a preference, that occurs in nature, which may be possible to reverse (I'm not sure) but whether or not it's reversible does not matter because it still naturally occurs and that's the main issue.

whatever genetic factors had maintained reproductive isolation would have had to have been found purely through chance alone- a blind walk through genetic space in search of those mutations that would prevent reproduction between some individuals and allow reproduction between others.....

VI. THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

"Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law." — The Kybalion.

you suggest that natural selection is responsible for this "speciation", bucking the laws of the theory of evolution......

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution along with genetic drift, migration and mutation.

All of these mechanisms have a cause; I, too, believe in cause and effect.

I'm not sure where you're going with this or how I'm "bucking" the laws of evolution.

 

[Bodhi]

A HUMAN CAN BE HAIRY ALL OVER BUT THAT STILL is not going to save a human being...NIGGA DONT YOU KNOW the body will overheat with out the cooling system we have

Humans, as they are now, did not just pop into existence.

 

[bambu]

@Roots Oceanic .......

Stop dancing around the questions......

All the fruit fly experiments describe reproductive behavior not the emergence of a new species........

You cannot sit here and claim that humans evolved from reptiles and apes and then act like humans are not continuing to evolve.......

the sterility of species when first crossed, and that of their hybrid offspring, cannot have been acquired…by the preservation of successive profitable degrees of sterility

As he subsequently noted “it could clearly have been of no advantage to such separated species to have been rendered mutually sterile, and consequently this could not have been effected through natural selection”........

So since you suggest that natural selection is responsible for this "speciation", bucking the laws of the theory of evolution......

I am wondering why you hold such egalitarian views about humans.....

Has the theory of evolution excluded humans????

My theory is that whites will become extinct over time.

But that's the same shit white folks say in reverse......

Why should I believe your theory over theirs?????

 

[Bodhi]

All the fruit fly experiments describe reproductive behavior not the emergence of a new species........

I'm not talking about experiments; I'm talking about observed instances of speciation in the wild, like that of mojavensis and arizonae which was not a result of any experimentation.

There are instances of speciation observed in labs, too. But the emergence of a new species comes from a genetic change that affects reproduction so the two are tied, whether in a lab or in the wild.

You cannot sit here and claim that humans evolved from reptiles and apes and then act like humans are not continuing to evolve.......

We are continuing to evolve but as I've told you once before, we are evolving as one species.

But that's the same shit white folks say in reverse......

Why should I believe your theory over theirs?????

As I've said before, I should have worded that better. What I meant was not that one race is inherently superior (which seperates my theory from that of white racism/supremacy) but that melanin in all people will make a "return" so to speak. That does not mean that humans are able to be seperated into subspecies by race, though. That theory might be wrong but if it does turn out to be inaccurate, that does not make evolution false so the comment really has no place here.

 

[Bodhi]

@bambu

I see that you're online and you may have been working on a reply while I was editing my comment. Just want to let you know that I did do some editing so look over it before you comment.

 

[bambu]

The thing is that you claim we are evolving as one species......

But then say whites will lose the evolutionary process.....

While white evolutionists say blacks will lose in this process......

Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......

So if I were to believe the theory of evolution......

Should I subscribe to your theory where whites are defects......

Or the other that says blacks are less evolved????

 

[Bodhi]

You're free to believe what you wish. That's the joy of being an individual.

 

[bambu]

Keep dancing brother............

 

[Bodhi]

Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3

 

[Bodhi]

Keep dancing brother............

I don't dance, brother man. I just pull up my pants and do the rockaway.

 

[bambu]

What I meant was not that one race is inherently superior (which seperates my theory from that of white racism/supremacy)

My theory is that whites will become extinct over time.

Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce

And this process has been used effectively to describe survival of the fittest amongst human beings....

 

[Bodhi]

Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce

And this process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst human beings....

Yeah and all humans are still one species.

By "whites" I mean people with low amounts of melanin; What was being said is that higher amounts of melanin in people will become the norm so in a way, people with low amounts will no longer exist. Again, not necessarily saying that people with more melanin are superior or that people with low amounts are inferior but that higher amounts of melanin will make a comeback.

 

[bambu]

In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....

 

[Bodhi]

In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....

Survival of the fittest exists but not in the way that makes one race superior over another. The "fittest" could be determined by technological innovations, territorial advantage, etc. etc. amongst other things.

 

[bambu]

In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....

Survival of the fittest exists but not in the way that makes one race superior over another. The "fittest" could be determined by technological innovations, territorial advantage, etc. etc. amongst other things.

A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences.

By the definition of fitness, individuals with greater fitness are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce.

 

[Bodhi]

Yeah, fitness:

The quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task

This can occur between any group of people, within or without the same race. It does not make one entire race superior over another.

 

[bambu]

That's not what your European counterparts think.........

You have an extremely egalitarian view of evolution.......

After all.....

Somebody has to lose under this "survival of the fittest"

Your fellow European evolutionists don't share this trait......

"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles

Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To

deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and

White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social

organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ."