Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,396 Year: 3,653/9,624 Month: 524/974 Week: 137/276 Day: 11/23 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on Mars?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 64 (100165)
04-15-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by 3Hawks
04-15-2004 3:37 AM


If this is true then explain to me the envirnments that would cause humans to have the pigmentations there are.
The farther north you are, the less sunlight you get. Excess skin pigment prevents the manufacture of certain vitamins that require sunlight to form.
If the Indians migrated from Asia, then there would still be Indians there also but there aren't.
They were asians first. When they came to America they became Native Americans. You apparently don't understand yet that it's the environment that's responsible for the adaptations you're referring to as "race".
If caucasions were once black then they would still carry the sickle cell to some degree.
In the absence of malaria, having the sickle-cell gene is maladaptive. So the gene was lost in caucasians, assuming we ever had it - maybe the gene came after the people that became caucasians left Africa.
Natural selection takes miilions of years to happen doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. It's an ongoing process that constantly shapes allele frequencies in a population.
Why aren't we all Negroes?
We are. We just have lighter skin and finer hair.
but my questions are never answered very well.
Are you sure you're not just ignoring the answers, like you just did with me?
Take for example, the sandaled footprints found beside dinosaur prints in 70 million year old rock.
There's no such thing.
The suposition of envirnment doesn't hold up up in the migration theory to me because 50-75 thousand years isn't time enough to change that much.
This is based on what, your advanced degree in biology?
If it were, then by now Chimpanzees and gorillas would be evolved more also and start migrating themselves.
Contemporary chimpanzees and gorillas are considerably more evolved then they were 75k years ago. They're as evolved as everything else.
You seem to have this idea that there's a ladder of "evolvedness" with us at the top. That's simplistic thinking, and it's just plain wrong. Modern primates are as evolved as anything else, including us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by 3Hawks, posted 04-15-2004 3:37 AM 3Hawks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by 3Hawks, posted 04-15-2004 5:42 AM crashfrog has replied

  
3Hawks
Inactive Junior Member


Message 62 of 64 (100173)
04-15-2004 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
04-15-2004 4:12 AM


To make a comment on what degrees I hold was not relevent to my questions. Unlike most well educated people, I'm not blinded by science or religeon. If you take your sunlight answer and think about it, then Eskimos would be black because they live where it's light 24 hrs a day for almost six months. Having Black skin in a sunny envirnment doesn't make sense because darker skin would hold and absorb heat. You would think the further north you go the darker humans would be to help preserve body heat. And, yes the is such a thing as human footprints in 70 million year old rock. Go to Texas so see them in person. it is documented. along with other anomalies as old as that. It is the attitude of most scientists to disregard or outright not believe evidence that is right in front of them because it doesn't fit their doctrines. A case in point would be NASA's constant representations of Mars's envirnment. The Skies of Mars are blue, not pink and the True color of the soil is desert brown not rust red. Think about it... If there were enough iron on Mars to turn the whole Planet rust red then the Gravity would be higher due to more planetary mass. Sorry, I am well educated but I'm not blinded or except things just because someone else says it. Here's a good question for you. When the solar system was younger the sun was hotter. to hot for life to exist on Earth but maybe on Mars it was cooler. Why couldn't Humans have evolved there and migrated to here as the sun grew cooler? It is a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 04-15-2004 4:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 04-15-2004 6:07 AM 3Hawks has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 64 (100175)
04-15-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by 3Hawks
04-15-2004 5:42 AM


If you take your sunlight answer and think about it, then Eskimos would be black because they live where it's light 24 hrs a day for almost six months.
Cmon, dude. You can think better than that, can't you?
The inuit aren't black for the same reason that it's cold in the Arctic circle all year-round - the light they get is so weak and indirect that dark skin would prevent the accumulation of sunlight vitamins.
Having Black skin in a sunny envirnment doesn't make sense because darker skin would hold and absorb heat.
That's the point - the dark pigments absorb harmful rays before they penetrate and damage deeper layers of skin and tissue. Why do you think you get tan from being outside?
You would think the further north you go the darker humans would be to help preserve body heat.
That doesn't make any sense at all. What you would expect is that people in the northern climes would have more sub-skin fat, and that's exactly what you find - which explains the soft features of the Inuit peoples.
And, yes the is such a thing as human footprints in 70 million year old rock.
There are no such footprints. There might be some formations that look like footprints if you squint, but they're not really human footprints. You're either lying to me, or you've been lied to - there are no authentic examples of human and dinosaur footprints together.
it is documented.
So show me the peer-reviewed source that documented them.
It is the attitude of most scientists to disregard or outright not believe evidence that is right in front of them because it doesn't fit their doctrines.
But you haven't shown any evidence. You've just made claims. That doesn't carry much weight around here.
A case in point would be NASA's constant representations of Mars's envirnment. The Skies of Mars are blue, not pink
And you know this because you were there?
Sorry, I am well educated
So why not apply your education? Instead of making rookie mistakes about light levels in the Arctic?
Why couldn't Humans have evolved there and migrated to here as the sun grew cooler?
It's a possibility, but there's no evidence to support such a theory. How did we get here? What made us forget how to make rockets? Where's all the ancient technology? You don't think a hyper-advanced race would have built stuff to last?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by 3Hawks, posted 04-15-2004 5:42 AM 3Hawks has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 64 (186248)
02-17-2005 2:29 PM


Intriguing possibility?
Seems that some NASA scientists think it's possible that life exists today on Mars, based on fluctuating levels of atmospheric methane. From space.com.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024