Skin color: Handy tool for teaching evolution

Feb 20, 2011

Variations in skin color provide one of the best examples of evolution by natural selection acting on the human body and should be used to teach evolution in schools, according to a Penn State anthropologist.

"There is an inherent level of interest in skin color and for teachers, that is a great bonus -- kids want to know," said Nina Jablonski, professor and head, Department of Anthropology, Penn State. "The mechanism of evolution can be completely understood from skin color."

Scientists have understood for years that evolutionary selection of skin pigmentation was caused by the sun. As gradually lost their pelts to allow evaporative cooling through sweating, their naked skin was directly exposed to sunlight. In the tropics, created darkly pigmented individuals to protect against the sun.

Ultraviolet B radiation produces vitamin D in human skin, but can destroy folate. Folate is important for the rapid growth of cells, especially during pregnancy, when its deficiency can cause . Destruction of folate and deficiencies in vitamin D are evolutionary factors because folate-deficient mothers produce fewer children who survive, and vitamin D-deficient women are less fertile than healthy women.

Dark in the tropics protects people from folate destruction, allowing normal reproduction. However, because levels of ultraviolet B are high year round, the body can still produce sufficient vitamin D. As humans moved out of Africa, they moved into the subtropics and eventually inhabited areas up to the Arctic Circle. North or south of 46 degrees latitude -- Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Western Europe and Mongolia -- dark-skinned people could not produce enough vitamin D, while lighter-skinned people could and thrived. Natural selection of light skin occurred.

The differences between light-skinned and dark-skinned people are more interesting than studying changes in the wing color of moths or, the most commonly used evolutionary example, bacterial colonies, according to Jablonski. Adaptation to the environment through evolutionary change becomes even more interesting when looking at the mechanism of tanning.

"In the middle latitudes tanning evolved multiple times as a mechanism to partly protect humans from harmful effect of the sun," Jablonski told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science today (Feb. 20) in Washington, D.C.

Tanning evolved for humans so that when ultraviolet B radiation increases in early spring, the skin gradually darkens. As the sun becomes stronger, the tan deepens. During the winter, as ultraviolet B wanes, so does the tan, allowing appropriate protection against folate destruction but sufficient production. Tanning evolved in North Africa, South America, the Mediterranean and most of China.

Natural variation in skin color due to natural selection can be seen in nearly every classroom in the U.S. because humans now move around the globe far faster than evolution can adjust for the sun. The idea that variation in skin color is due to where someone's ancestors originated and how strong the sun was in those locations is inherently interesting, Jablonski noted.

"People are really socially aware of skin color, intensely self-conscious about it," she said. "The nice thing about skin color is that we can teach the principles of evolution using an example on our own bodies and relieve a lot of social stress about personal at the same time."

Jablonski noted that the ability to tan developed in a wide variety of peoples and while the outcome, tanablity, is the same, the underlying genetic mechanisms are not necessarily identical. She also noted that depigmentated skin also developed at least three times through different genetic mechanisms. Students who never tan, will also understand why they do not and that they never will.

Explore further: Sea star disease strikes peninsula marine centers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

More than skin deep, tanning product of sun's rays

Jun 21, 2010

People who remain pale and never tan can blame their distant ancestors for choosing to live in the northern reaches of the globe and those who easily achieve a deep tan can thank their ancestors for living in the subtropical ...

Safer suntans through science

Sep 26, 2006

An organic compound that creates a realistic beachy glow while inducing a natural sun block effect in your skin may be just around the corner, as scientists at the University of Kentucky are testing a treatment that enhances ...

Recommended for you

Rare Sri Lankan leopards born in French zoo

2 hours ago

Two rare Sri Lankan leopard cubs have been born in a zoo in northern France, a boost for a sub-species that numbers only about 700 in the wild, the head of the facility said Tuesday.

Japan wraps up Pacific whale hunt

3 hours ago

Japan announced Tuesday that it had wrapped up a whale hunt in the Pacific, the second campaign since the UN's top court ordered Tokyo to halt a separate slaughter in the Antarctic.

Researchers uncover secrets of internal cell fine-tuning

3 hours ago

New research from scientists at the University of Kent has shown for the first time how the structures inside cells are regulated – a breakthrough that could have a major impact on cancer therapy development.

Getting a jump on plant-fungal interactions

3 hours ago

Fungal plant pathogens may need more flexible genomes in order to fully benefit from associating with their hosts. Transposable elements are commonly found with genes involved in symbioses.

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2011
Evolution is a fine and accepted arrow of time. We did not start out this way that we are. What other handy tools, for teaching human evolution, are there, we could ask Charles Murray? Unfortunately his co-author, Herrnstein is not with us to enjoy the continuing controversy.
jamesrm
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
Like
"Some human populations have the right physiological mechanisms for living in cold environments. Eskimos, for example, have a vasomotor reaction that allows their hands to remain warm and useful in performing skillful tasks at low temperatures. The hands of Whites and Blacks, however, become numb and useless at the same low temperatures."

Black skin: structure and function By William Montagna, Giuseppe Prota, John A. Kenney
tiny.cc/qt0hs (
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2011
Skin color doesn't even represent evolution.

Inter-racial people are compatible you morons.
Parsec
5 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2011
Skin color doesn't even represent evolution.

Inter-racial people are compatible you morons.

QC - you crack me up with your continuing and persistent comments indicating that you are so completely in the dark about so many things that you are also even unaware of how ignorant you really are.

Just to clear up your confusion here. Evolution occurs on many levels. Gene evolution in which specific trains are selected for depending on the environment in no way implies that the individuals cannot interbreed. The opposite is also true. Species that cannot interbreed usually retain many identical traits with many of the same or basically the same genes.

For example, consider the homo-box genes shared by worms and people.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2011
Quantum_Conundrum,

You note the continuing confusion between selection for traits and evolution.

Evolution posits that selection will result in diversity of species, etc. But the selection is not itself evolution. All human beings are one species. Differences in people are just that, differences. They do not represent evolution.

All dogs are dogs, though they have been bred for many different traits, color and sizes.

All humans are humans despite minor differences in size, color, etc.

The hard core supporter of evolution will equate selection with evolution, ignoring that selection does not necessarily result in change. A trait can become common and just as easily disappear from a population.

Many traits are also insignificant, such as the ability of some adult human beings to drink milk. In an industrial age where vitamins such as D3 and folate are cheap and available, skin color is insignificant to survival.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2011
Parsec:

It's the same sad story with evolutionists.

Why or how is it relevant that some combination of genes or information is shared between otherwise dissimilar life forms?

any intelligent creator would find modular design and re-usability of structures as a useful methodology in creating life, or for that matter, just about anything.

Human beings designed coffee cups and rockets. Both are cylinders, so in that sense they are "similar," and one might have found useful certain similar units of data or information in sketching a detail of both, such a "pi" and "right angles" and "walls" and "surfaces," but that's about the end of their relationship to one another.

The code that controls this web site has lots of control structures and algorithms, but it is not necessarily related to anything. Games also have for loops and switch structures, and have nothing in common with this web site, not even origin or designer, even though they use many of the same tools.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2011
So you evolutionists create a fallacy in that you believe things are related simply because they have similar genes, or even identical portions of some genes.

I can produce two computer codes that are as much as 99.9999% identical, and yet have very, very different outputs and totally different functionality. One way of doing this would be to use a #define to change the number of iterations of a loop, or change the conditions...just like DNA...

The value and function of data is not even necessarily determined by it's individual member symbols or storage u nits. What I mean by that is in the written and spoken languages context determined by external information completely changes the meaning, value, and usage of the term.

"Share" and "Share" are the same "word" yet, based on context, we see that a "share" is a unit of a stock, whereas we are taught to "share" with others. Based on context, the sequence has completely different, unrelated meanings, depending on those contexts.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2011
And so returning to the DNA example with the #define statement...

With a little tinkering, you could take the exact same sort algorithm for numbers and use it to sort words, and it will be almost completely identical.

They do completely different things with very different "subjects," but coincidentally, they have "common" control structures because concepts such as iteration and recursion are common to both problems.

It doesn't mean that one organism is somehow "descended" from the other, or from an alleged "common ancestor". It just means both happen to have some of the same tools available.
kaasinees
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2011
Why or how is it relevant that some combination of genes or information is shared between otherwise dissimilar life forms?


It is relevent to make a completer picture of the coarse of evolution. Worms and humans possibly share an ancestor just like humans and apes do.

any intelligent creator would find modular design and re-usability of structures as a useful methodology in creating life, or for that matter, just about anything.


Ammino acids?

Human beings designed coffee cups and rockets. Both are cylinders, so in that sense they are "similar,"


Are you really this simple minded? You sound like a child...

The code that controls this web site has lots of control structures and algorithms,


All life forms on earth share the same molecules, and could be seen as syntax.
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2011
So you evolutionists create a fallacy in that you believe things are related simply because they have similar genes, or even identical portions of some genes.


I think you are confusing genes with DNA. Some breeds of dogs have more similar genes to humans, but in DNA are very dissamilar.

I can produce two computer codes that are as much as 99.9999% identical


Yeah and they both exist out of the same registers and instructions, try learning some ASSEMBLY and come back to me.
js81pa
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
This in response to Dogbert and/or Quantum Conundrum...
A species is determined by whether or not it can breed with others of the same type but therein lies the problem because you can have different species, some can mate with others while some can't. Let's take an example. Wolf-A Wolf-B Wolf-C Wolf-D Dog-A Dog-B Dog-C Dog-D. So Wolf-A, B and C and D can mate with each other but Wolf-D can mate with Dog-C (hybridization), so even two separate species can mate, in reality, there is no such thing as a species, it is all convergence (we just like to organize). Almost all organisms that once lived are extinct making the puzzle hard to piece together. Evolution was hard for me to swallow for a long time. It is beautiful, truly; I love the idea. We all are basically a mutated clone of the very first organism(s) with energy being passed on.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2011
js81pa:

Mutaded clone...

You actually bought that lie?

Wow.

Kaasiness:

I do know some assembly.

dogbert
2 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2011
js81pa ,

I agree with you that the term "species" is ambiguous. Try thinking about "species" in relation to organisms which do not breed.

kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2011
As human ancestors gradually lost their pelts to allow evaporative cooling through sweating, their naked skin was directly exposed to sunlight

This is just an evolutionary assumption with no basis in fact. Evolutionists can and will unfortunately dig up some theory based on a guess and soon that guess will turn into a fact - a guess-to-fact as I call it.

As for the article - just because natural selection takes place it does not mean that evolution from one common ancestor to all the varied kinds of life also occurred. This is an exquisite example of equivocation - saying one thing and meaning something else.
One should keep in perspective that first of all evolutionists do not know which/what that first ancestor was.
Secondly there's enormous difficulty in explaining just how that ancestor developed into a multi-cellular organism and eventually into the life-forms we see today.
Thirdly, evolutionists do not know how life arrived on earth in the first place and hence they....
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2011
..cannot make the assumption that it arrived via a single ancestor. The way things currently stand they are making that assumption and going about trying to make everything in biological life support that idea.
All the current physical evidence is better interpreted as pointing to a common designer. The complexity of life itself points to it having been designed and build by superior intelligence and tools, rather than having occurred by chance. Evolutionists do not want to hear about a creator because with that creator comes the responsibility of having to acknowledge and abide by that creator's rules, hence all the billions spent on denying the existence of said creator, even though the physical reality points said creator rather than to NOTHING.
mpwood
not rated yet Feb 21, 2011
I think the tasteful ad halfway through this article solves the whole question. Evolution ?? All down to Skin Cream and as great enterprising free spirited God Fearing Americans we will sell you anything -wether it works,it's potentially dangerous, you need it or not. Frankly I am surprised such 'anti science' fools read this journal. White (enough ?) Male UK.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
You note the continuing confusion between selection for traits and evolution.
Yea he confused about that. You too. Selection IS the key to evolution.
Evolution posits that selection will result in diversity of species
Evolution INCLUDES those things yes.
But the selection is not itself evolution
True. Variation, which mutations produce. WITH selection is the most significant cause of the process of evolution.
Differences in people are just that, differences. They do not represent evolution.
And you know this because? You sure didn't get it from actual science so I guess you must have gotten from Creationists.
All dogs are dogs, though they have been bred for many different traits, color and sizes.
Thus showing the power of selection.
The hard core supporter of evolution will equate selection with evolution, ignoring that selection does not necessarily result in change.
I am fully aware that selection can force a species to stay largely the same.

More
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2011
A trait can become common and just as easily disappear from a population.
Unless there is selection by the environment that is true. However a trait can come to saturate population from the founder effect as well as through selection.
Many traits are also insignificant, such as the ability of some adult human beings to drink milk.
Nonsense. It IS significant for those that raise cattle and oddly enough it is the NON-cattle breeders that rarely have the trait and the it is the cattle breeders that do have it. Another example of evolution in action. So it isn't odd at all.
In an industrial age where vitamins such as D3 and folate are cheap and available, skin color is insignificant to survival.
Indeed. But that is NOW. Skin color EVOLVED prior to the development of the science of bio-chemistry.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
how is it relevant that some combination of genes or information is shared between otherwise dissimilar life forms?
It shows a common ancestor was involved. If it was just now and then it wouldn't mean much but it is prevalent. The more closely species look to be related the more closely related are those chemicals.
any intelligent creator would find modular design
Sometimes species are VERY different and an entirely different chemical could do the job better. In any case that idea is not science as it is indistinguishable with no creator thus it is simpler to assume no creator.
Human beings designed coffee cups and rockets
We MAKE them. They don't grow. The process in no way analogous.
The code that controls this web site has lots of control structures and algorithms, but it is not necessarily related to anything.
Nonsense. They are related to the way we think and the way we built the machines the code runs on and control.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2011
So you evolutionists create a fallacy in that you believe things are related simply because they have similar genes, or even identical portions of some genes.
No. YOU add unneeded complexity as no god is needed for the way life works. There is no fallacy in assuming that an unneeded step should be left out.

The rest of QC post is the exact same FALLACY. He tries to force fit a god where none is needed.
It just means both happen to have some of the same tools available.
Except that they are NOT the same tools. They are similar tools that clearly EVOLVED from an ancestral tool. A branching path based on physical characteristics and fossil evidence will match the branching path of the changes in the chemicals involved. It fits the theory of evolution perfectly without a god. Thus it a YOU that are engaged in poor reasoning.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
I still wonder about the Mongoloid skin color. Their race spans climate from the Arctic to tropics yet the skin color is relatively constant.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2011
Ethelred,

As I said, many claim that selection is evolution when it is only a process which is theorized to result in evolution.

All dogs are dogs and all human beings are human beings despite various traits. Neither have "evolved" into a different species.

Confusing the process which prompted the theory with the theory is not scientific (it is circular reasoning), but it is common among people of faith to repeat claims while not examining the basis of the claims.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
This is just an evolutionary assumption with no basis in fact.
My what a terrible thing to use a proven a theory to understand things.
Evolutionists can and will unfortunately dig up some theory based on a guess
Based on evidence.
soon that guess will turn into a fact - a guess-to-fact as I call it.
And a lie is what I call that.
just because natural selection takes place it does not mean that evolution from one common ancestor to all the varied kinds of life also occurred
It pretty much does as there is nothing to stop speciation from occurring.
his is an exquisite example of equivocation - saying one thing and meaning something else.
I guess you would be the expert on that sort of behavior. I prefer to say what I mean.
One should keep in perspective that first of all evolutionists do not know which/what that first ancestor was.
True. But that doesn't make all the evidence for evolution disappear and there is rather a lot of it. Megatons.

More
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2011
From the article: "Variations in skin color provide one of the best examples of evolution by natural selection"

So where is the new human species that has evolved from this natural selection process?

It pretty much does as there is nothing to stop speciation from occurring.

This has not occurred with humans that we know of.

How does a new species start? New breeds of cattle or dogs start by cross breeding for specific traits and then there is usually an inbreeding step to lock in the genetics. Ever notice that all feral dogs begin to look alike?
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
Secondly there's enormous difficulty in explaining just how that ancestor developed into a multi-cellular organism and eventually into the life-forms we see today.
That too does not make the evidence of the fossil record and the lab experiments go away. That we do not know everything does NOT mean we don't know anything. For instance we know the Flood didn't occur.
Thirdly, evolutionists do not know how life arrived on earth in the first place and hence they....
Which for the umpteenth time does not have anything to do with evolution since that cannot occur until there is life. And what happened to the Egyptians when the Flood drowned them?
..cannot make the assumption that it arrived via a single ancestor.
I can make that assumption based on the fact that all life has the same basic chemistry. However I don't NEED the assumption to see that evolution and speciation occurs.

More
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2011
Will the NAACP fully support using skin color to teach evolution?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
All the current physical evidence is better interpreted as pointing to a common designer.
Rubbish. We have ample evidence that evolution occurs and there is nothing in the evidence that requires a designer.
The complexity of life itself points to it having been designed and build by superior intelligence and tools,
Nonsense. The complexity of life fits the theory of evolution quite well.
rather than having occurred by chance.
Evolution is NOT a matter of pure chance. Selection is not random and this is not new to you. You just keep repeating the same lie time after time. Kind of like you pretending that you are using science.

More
ThanderMAX
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
So you evolutionists create a fallacy in that you believe things are related simply because they have similar genes, or even identical portions of some genes.


@Quantum_Conundrum: Don't equate DNA code with "NORMAL" computer code..
They work differently... You can't even simulate the dog brain with computers (let alone PCs). Loop/switch structure doesn't work with DNA.

Do you know why computer HANGS easily but Humans/animals doesn't ?
Because the level of coding complexity/diversity/robustness in DNA/RNA is beyond your level of comprehension.

Just because you know few (may be max 15 out of 1000+ PC languages) languages doesn't mean you know everything...

Still people are publishing more and more research papers to know more about how things work.

This is why intelligent guys go for Graduation/PhD , unlike you who lack both in degree & knowledge, to separate hays from straw.

PS: The two most common elements in the world are hydrogen and stupidity.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
Evolutionists do not want to hear about a creator because with that creator comes the responsibility of having to acknowledge and abide by that creator's rules,
Nonsense. We don't assume a creator because that is assuming there is no natural path to knowledge and thus there would be no way to understand the world around us. So far that has been working pretty well. Besides it is YOU guys that keep going to jail in comparison to Atheists and Agnostics. So clearly WE don't need a threat to do good.
even though the physical reality points said creator rather than to NOTHING.
Nothing except your religion points to a creator. And that religion shows us a world that is young and we don't live in such a world.

So when was the Flood Kevin? You know so much about everything you must know that. So why do you evade the question?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
We don't assume a creator because that is assuming there is no natural path to knowledge

That was not what early scientists believed.
They believed in a Creator and it was their obligation to use their intelligence to understand the Creation.

Scientists, like William Phillips, Nobel Physics, believe this as well.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
As I said, many claim that selection is evolution when it is only a process which is theorized to result in evolution.
Sorry but your saying so doesn't change reality. It is a theory which matches both fossil evidence, field observation and lab testing. Very much like the theory of special relativity. The bomb blows up and life evolves.
Neither have "evolved" into a different species.
They evolved FROM different species.
Confusing the process which prompted the theory with the theory is not scientific
Nor is it something I do. Perhaps you are confusing yourself with me. I can assure the you are NOT me. The theory of evolution explains how the evolution that we see occur happens. Just as Newton's theory of Gravity explained what was known about gravity. And as GR does today.

More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
(it is circular reasoning),
Which is what you do. You believe because you believe. I UNDERSTAND the theory that explains the evidence. No circularity involved. You really should quit aping science. It looks like devolution. I am not D-E-V-O.
but it is common among people of faith to repeat claims while not examining the basis of the claims.
Let me know when you stop doing that. Aping what you don't understand just makes you look silly.

Oh, and when was the Flood? You clearly are a creationist. So are you a YEC or OEC and do you really believe in that ludicrous flood?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
That was not what early scientists believed.
Early scientists weren't studying evolution. It is a way of thinking about the world that leads to learning about reality instead of going on what someone told you was true based on what someone else told them with no physical evidence to support them.
They believed in a Creator
Some. Some didn't. Darwin did to start with but he changed his mind. No competent scientist makes the assumption 'goddidit so don't think about how it could have happened without a god' yet that is exactly what you Creationists are doing on this thread.
Scientists, like William Phillips, Nobel Physics, believe this as well.
And Noble Prize winner Einstein did not. Nor did a lot of Nobel winners. I am not beholden to anyone's opinion. I am constrained by evidence and reason not belief and wishful thinking.

Then again replying to you must seem like wishful thinking. But I did not write this post for you. As I said I don't go on wishes.

Ethelred
bloodyanarch
not rated yet Feb 21, 2011
I love the intelligent design argument.. yes some super being had 45,000 years to create this...lol what a lovely design.. on the other hand God Man took they same amount of time to change wild wolves into todays dogs... and recently they took 50 years to design wild silver tail foxes into lovely house pets.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2011
It is interesting that many physicists that are studying the origin of the universe don't reject the possibility of a creator.

I am not beholden to anyone's opinion. I am constrained by evidence and reason not belief and wishful thinking.

But you support socialism which is based upon wishful thinking.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
It is interesting that many physicists that are studying the origin of the universe don't reject the possibility of a creator.
Why are you lying like that? I NEVER did such a thing.

However very few physicists believe in YOUR god. And it is only a few for much possibility of A god of any kind.

Wishful thinking is not a good reason to believe in a god. And the god of genesis and Exodus is more of a monster than a god someone rational would wish for.
But you support socialism which is based upon wishful thinking.
That is your uninformed opinion. Considering you took you definition of property from the descendant of a Robber Baron who thought it was OK for her ancestor to steal but not for people to take it back from her. You have no room to cast aspersions at anyone.

And that was BEFORE you told all those lies about the Somalian pirates.

Keep your idiot politics out this discussion and I won't have to bring up the pirates again.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
I love the intelligent design argument.. yes some super being had 45,000 years to create this...lol what a lovely design.. on the other hand God Man took they same amount of time to change wild wolves into todays dogs... and recently they took 50 years to design wild silver tail foxes into lovely house pets.

The producers of Star Trek must believed in ID. STNG had an episode in which the major humanoid species were led to find their common ancestor which seeded their planets.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
From Ethel's diversion above his support for socialism is NOT based upon promoting individual liberty and prosperity.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
This is not political thread. Take your FantasyRandLand to a political thread. I am not going to debate your political idiocy here.

From Ethel's diversion above his support for socialism is NOT based upon promoting individual liberty and prosperity.
You have now joined the Ethelred Sig for the Month Club. You and the long gone Qubitroll are the only winners.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2 said about the Somali pirates.
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.
PaulieMac
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
Evolutionists do not want to hear about a creator because with that creator comes the responsibility of having to acknowledge and abide by that creator's rules


One does not logically follow from the other. Given - purely for the sake of argument - a 'creator' exists, who is to say the it cares a whit for how we behave?

If it did, what rules? There have been thousands of religions over history - all with different 'rules'. Which, if any, should be followed?

If this 'creator' existed, and it had the slightest care about us following some set of 'rules', then surely, it would make unequivocally clear what those rules were?

That aside. The existence of a creator would add precisely what to the progress of science? Do you advocate that scientists, when faced with an unknown, throw up their hands, say 'god did it', and cease trying to understand the mechanisms of our universe? No?

Then what, exactly, is the point of blathering on about it on a science site?
Mayor__Dooley
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
The fools are out in force on this one. All four on rattlebrained form, but I think QC's determined inanity may claim the conical hat from Kevin.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2011
This is not political thread.

Of course it is.
There are many major political groups that are organized based upon skin color.
The article advocates for the teaching of evolution using skin color. That has many political implications.
jjoensuu
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2011
Interesting, flashback to the '30's when skin color was a "handy" evolution teaching tool used by the Nazis as well.
jjoensuu
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
ryggesogn2:
I still wonder about the Mongoloid skin color. Their race spans climate from the Arctic to tropics yet the skin color is relatively constant.

yea because the INHERITED skin color (or should I say, tone) has between [nothing] and [very little] to do with the climate.

You can find at least 3 types of inherited skin tones people living on the equator by looking at people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
jamesrm
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
You should know if you feed the trolls they will multiply, but never evolve that is one of their differences from thinking humans. They have now real intellegence just what I call introlligence that is usually tied into how small they feel being imaginary creatures living in an imaginary world, they are best ignored.

Quantuum Kuntnumbum must be a troll prince with his throng of quisling sockpuppets who worship him
:)

rgds
jms

You can find at least 3 types of inherited skin tones people living on the equator by looking at people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

think climate, flora, fauna etc
bloodyanarch
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2011
My point with the whole we could completely change the Fox in 50 years through selective breeding is that why is it taking so long for the super intelligent designer to finish with the human race.. I would expect that 500 -100 years would make us great pets. Unless the argument is that this is what we are supposed to be. In that case You'd have to say something is really off.

Ultimately maybe I could sell T-shirts, "45,000 years of Intelligent design and all I got was this stupid book" Insert bible or Koran or whatever religious docturine you want. Or "I'm not bad I was just intelligently Designed this way."
panorama
not rated yet Feb 21, 2011
The producers of Star Trek must believed in ID. STNG had an episode in which the major humanoid species were led to find their common ancestor which seeded their planets.


You realize that your argument actually proves the opposite of what you're proposing, right? Of course you don't. I actually just watched that episode of TNG the other day. The common ancestor species mentioned evolution a few times during it's message stored in the artifacts.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
The producers of Star Trek must believed in ID. STNG had an episode in which the major humanoid species were led to find their common ancestor which seeded their planets.


You realize that your argument actually proves the opposite of what you're proposing, right? Of course you don't. I actually just watched that episode of TNG the other day. The common ancestor species mentioned evolution a few times during it's message stored in the artifacts.

The original DNA was planted. How was that DNA created?
panorama
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2011
The original DNA was planted. How was that DNA created?

[sarcasm]
Oh well, since you put it that way, it must have been a ghod. You've open my eyes ryggesogn2, I'm going to go back through all of my science fiction with this new "truth" you've revealed to me.
[/sarcasm]
The DNA was obviously created with the MW Drive the ancestor species had for such purposes. Also, consider that Star Trek had multiple ghod-like entities I really don't think any of them were ignorant enough to subscribe to ID.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
What truth?
You and many others reject, out of hand, alternate hypotheses.

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2011
You and many others reject, out of hand, alternate hypotheses.
Out of a total lack of evidence to support you religious belief. Just pretending an ancient book written by ignorant men is a hypothesis doesn't actually make it one. Any REAL hypothesis has to fit the known evidence and your religion requires:

A Young Earth but the Earth is billions of years old.
A Great Flood that never occurred.
Humans having a single male ancestor 4400 years ago and that we do not have.
Four female ancestors and we don't have that.
Most of life would have just TWO ancestors and we don't have that.
Cultures would have a major break in their history and a sudden change in language and we don't have that.

It goes on and one. There is NO evidence to support you.

The only thing out of hand is you.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2 AKA Marjon on the Somali pirates.
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.

This stays till the end of the month when there is room.
gwrede
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2011
I really don't think this Jablonski character has read her biology book properly.
"In the middle latitudes tanning evolved multiple times as a mechanism to partly protect humans from harmful effect of the sun," Jablonski told attendees.
Anybody with a brain would see that this means that we lost our hair long after we emigrated from Africa. But in the land of creationism, maybe you're free to tweak or even invent a bacground that suits your story. And, of course, her story avoids the embarrassment that follows from us all having been black originally.

Talk about a skin-tone neutral approach to a class about skin color.
As populations began to migrate, the evolutionary constraint keeping skin dark decreased proportionally to the distance North a population migrated, resulting in a range of skin tones within northern populations.
Mzz. Jablonski might start with reading Human_skin_color on Wikipedia. Real Scientific Litterature also diagrees with her view.
gwrede
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
Damn this editing stuff.

The second quote above is from Wikipedia, of course, and not from her.
soulman
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2011
The original DNA was planted. How was that DNA created?

LOL, you're trying to support your indefensible position by making reference to a fictional TV show?

Don't forget to argue for Red Matter in the creation of black holes in the next cosmology thread!
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2011
In the tropics, natural selection created darkly pigmented individuals to protect against the sun.


You do , im sure , have a good understanding of how evolution works; yet, you too blunder into a misstatement: evolution does not CREATE ANYTHING!
It merely allow for the proliferation of individuals possessing 'environmentally advantaged' characteristics.

I'm amazed at how often phrasings such as the author's are used by scientists! How can we ever expect the lay public to comprehend when such inaccurate and misleading things are stated!