|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Slanted" Eyes in Orientals | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i had heard something like that... but i don't know how conclusive it is. but we should look at the similarities... if the african people who have slanted eyes (i've seen some.. they're so pretty hehe) are from areas near the desert, then it might be an accurate assumption. but what of the middle east? do those people have slanted eyes? i don't think so, even though that desert is prone to windstorms... but they have developed a culture including headcoverings which might account for their survival. but it would seem according to genetic based migration research that these peoples came to the middle east after people went to the far east. they kinda passed straight through and didn't stop. so maybe they came from a different gene line and had to learn to survive the storms but didn't develop the slanted eyes because their culture was advanced enough to make headcoverings. *shrugs*
random theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: Well i base my belief on Gods account of origins and luckily for us the Tower of Babel provides a perfect account of dispersion and change in environment and genetics which would lead to changes in characteristics which then lead to different types of people. This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-18-2004 03:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
the tower of babel only talks about a confusion of language, not about environmental or genetic changes.
it's really sad that you don't care to ask questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Well i base my belief on Gods account of origins and luckily for us the Tower of Babel provides a perfect account of dispersion and change in environment and genetics which would lead to changes in characteristics which then lead to different types of people. Okay, so that is the basis of the difference in your view... But are you saying we still should not study the environmental and genetic differences? I'm not just talking about eyes here; here is a real example: There is currently a class of drugs called EGFR inhibitors in cancer clinical trials in the US, Europe, and Japan. Interestingly, lethal pulmonary fibrosis has been found to be a side-effect only in the Asian patients. Should we study why? Perhaps learn which individuals will sucuumb to the side-effect? It could save many lives (especially if the drug is banned because of the potential side-effects and others don't reap the benefits.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
No it also deals with dispersion. Into different environments around the world which lead to changes in skin pigment and characteristics from changes in genetics. The confusion forced the people to scatter over the earth. All the people groups black Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and others have come into existence since Babel. Once separate languages were imposed not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldnt understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not, they would move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. As these groups migrated away from Babel they encountered new and different climate zones. The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Into different environments around the world which lead to changes in skin pigment and characteristics from changes in genetics. Wow. For some reason I am surprised to hear you being a proponent of reproductive isolation, ecological niche specialization, and above all, natural selection. I didn't take you for an evolutionist, but apparently you are (albeit it in Biblical terms...) But from a previous post it seemed that you were saying we shouldn't study ethnic-based differences in biology - but you use that here, so I must have misread you there, also...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i agree with pink sasquatch.
you have some rather evolutionary ideas... but like i've said before... why couldn't god have instituted evolution? he never exactly said HOW he made everything happen. you know. except the cosmological junk... all big-bang like and stuff. remember though. genesis isn't god writing down what he did, it's moses writing down what god told him he did. why would god relenquish the secrets of the universe to someone who couldn't understand them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PeriferaliiFocust Inactive Member |
definately sexual selection. asian girls fill me with warm fuzzy feelings, i'll be more than happy to help them pass on their genes . . . . except i'm not really that shallow, but just to put tangibility on the idea, i think its fairly easy to understand why hot girls survive. Especially hot girls with slanted eyes . . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
You guys are confused. Things like natural selection are not evolutionary ideas but scientific ideas. Creationists have no problem with natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Things like natural selection are not evolutionary ideas but scientific ideas. Creationists have no problem with natural selection.
Whew! I wonder why it took Charlie Darwin to figure out that natural selection was one of the two drivers behind the changes we see in life over time, then? It seems that some creationist like Moses would have pointed that out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Silly me. Here I thought evolution was a science, and thus evolutionary ideas would be scientific ideas ...
glad that was straightened out. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Of course evolution is science. But just because i believe in genetics someone thought i must believe in evolution. A scientist does not have to believe in evolution to be a scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
You're not an evolutionist? - Alymeda, you have me really confused now. To quote your earlier message:
No it also deals with dispersion. Into different environments around the world which lead to changes in skin pigment and characteristics from changes in genetics. Colonization of new ecological niches leads to specialization and changes in phenotypic "characteristics from changes in genetics," presumably due to selection by the "different environments."
All the people groups black Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and others have come into existence since Babel. New sub-species coming into existence (hopefully I'm not offending by calling ethnic groups sub-species - just trying to make a point; though truthfully other species with the number of differences as a Mongolian and a sub-Saharan African may qualify as separate species or sub-species).
Once separate languages were imposed not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldnt understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not, they would move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. Reproductive isolation due to behavioral differences. (Language differences as you describe them here qualify as reproductive isolation - for example, different cricket species are known that could mate simply based on reproductive biology, but never do because they use different song patterns to attract mates. Hence reproductive isolation.)
As these groups migrated away from Babel they encountered new and different climate zones. Here you bring up natural selection again, by the "new and different climate zones."
The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups. And you close your reply by reiterating the importance of reproductive isolation to the differences we see in humans today. Almeyda, whether or not you choose to admit it, you're laying down the theory of evolution through biblical teachings. Hopefully my line-by-line analysis helps you understand this. I wanted to make sure I wasn't reading into what you wrote, but your line, slightly paraphrased:
Dispersion...into different environments around the world lead to changes in skin pigment and characteristics from changes in genetics. You've basically defined evolution here, right down to the "changes in genetics." After your input I may use the Babel story as biblical proof of evolution in future discussions. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created genetic information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added. That is not evolution.
quote: No im definately not. For evolution to have occured all types of life would have to have been descended by natural on going proccesses from a single life form. But for this to have worked there must be a process that can generate information in living things. This is where the theory of Natural selection comes into play. But natural selection cannot explain new species, natural selection has never achieved progresive additional amounts of genetic information, only a decrease
quote: None of what i said has been proof of evolution, but evidence for creation as animals stay stagnet and in their own kinds (equine,canine etc). Not what evolutionists claim that over millions of yrs one specie changes into another specie. Good luck your Babel is evidence for evolution theory though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Almeyda writes: For evolution to have occured all types of life would have to have been descended by natural on going proccesses from a single life form. I believe you have the definition of evolution quite incorrect. Here is the version given in this forum's glossary:
Evolution - Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead to differences among them. Please think about this definition and reread your comments in this thread - you have supported evolution as scientifically defined.
Almeyda writes: None of what i said has been proof of evolution, but evidence for creation as animals stay stagnet and in their own kinds (equine,canine etc). You've given no evidence for creation yet, only refutation of evolution while apparently unwittingly supporting it. You claim that "animals stay stagnant" as evidence for creation, but above describe the evolution of differences in humans. Perhaps most importantly, if you want to use the term "kind," you absolutely must give a definition of it for this debate to be valid. Without a valid definition we cannot begin to discuss where one kind ends and another begins...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024