racial differences

[kevin green]

Human race

Scientists have proven that we all came from the same monkeys.
Chimpanzees. Plus they have discovered that there was a great flood and the Humans that were left numbered only about four to seven thousand. That means that we really are all related ,God just gave us a little variety. Thank goodness.

[RobertG]

Re: Human race

Originally posted by kevin green
Scientists have proven that we all came from the same monkeys.
Chimpanzees. Plus they have discovered that there was a great flood and the Humans that were left numbered only about four to seven thousand. That means that we really are all related ,God just gave us a little variety. Thank goodness.

You are such a tard.

No, we didn't come from monkeys. We are apes. Monkeys have tails. We share a common ancestor with chimps, but are not directly related to them. When did scientists prove there was a great flood? There was flooding during the recession of the last ice age. But on a human scale this was likely a gradual process. The sea levels probably rose something like 6" a year. In 20 years of course you're under 10 feet of water, in 200 years, 100 feet. Climate change is not so rapid as to affect global flooding in a few hours time, such as described in the fictional works written by my Hebrew ancestors thousands of years ago. Didn't happen like that.

Yes, some mitochondrial data seems to suggest that the human population went through a bottleneck during the last 100,000 years or so. And yes, this population bottleneck may well have been as few as 5,000 individuals or thereabouts. However, the mitochondrial data has been challenged. Nuclear genes have given different pictures of human evolution. There are reasons for using mtDNA in your studies, but it doesn't always give an accurate picture of the actual course of evolution. The bottleneck may or may not have occurred--and if it did, it was long before the end of the last ice age, and hence any flooding. There had been substantial flooding in the Rift Valleys of Africa during the course of hominid evolution, but you're talking 4 million years ago. I hardly think Australopithicines were passing on their oral history to Homo erectus. So far as I am aware there is no evidence of flooding during the period of the hypothesized population bottleneck in Africa. The "flooding" circa 12,000 BCE or thereabouts--e.g. the gradual rising of sealevels, occurred when humans were globally distributed and in relatively large numbers (for a large primate--as opposed to our current numbers which are more in line with something like rodent populations). These floods would not have caused any global catastrophe. Yes, I am well aware of the flooded ruins along the costs of many continents. These appear to be at best bronze age civilizations, nothing especially advanced (if in fact they are ruins--still under investigation). These people were not wiped out by floods. The water started inundating their land, so the upped and moved their cities. No mass death.

Now, lastly, a "god" did not impart any sort of variation to humans or any other species. Variation is generated via mutation. Well, yes, there are a few subsidiary mechanisms (gene duplication for instance), but we can essentially consider those macromutations. Oh yeah, and lest you Margulis groupies out there get offended, yes, variation is generated via symbiosis and lateral gene transfer. But, these are not mechanisms that require the intervention of beings who there is no evidence for. Mutation is explained just fine without adding additional complications. Sorry to burst your pseudo-creationist bubble.

[kevin green]

O Master where for art thou?

WHAT? Should I thank you or bow O master . I grovel at your feet waiting for more truth to spew from your SHINTO INSPIRED LIPS. hOW CALLOUS OF ME TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT .I WILL SLAP MYSELF WITH MY KNEE PADS TO HELP PAY TRIBUTE TO THE SPIRITS OF JUDO INSPIRED SHINTO CONTESTS!

[Lizard]

Re: O Master where for art thou?

Originally posted by kevin green
WHAT? Should I thank you or bow O master . I grovel at your feet waiting for more truth to spew from your SHINTO INSPIRED LIPS. hOW CALLOUS OF ME TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT .I WILL SLAP MYSELF WITH MY KNEE PADS TO HELP PAY TRIBUTE TO THE SPIRITS OF JUDO INSPIRED SHINTO CONTESTS!

Good, nice to see you show some respect for one of the most intelligent and scientific members of the forum.

Crap! Robert G you know so much about science. I don't even understand you!

Rodents and primates belong to the same group of mammals don't they? I have always thought that people look a bit like mice (especialy the ears)

I even began to think about the lack of hair on humans. Rats do not have any hair on their tails. Could it be that our lack of hair isn't an adaptation at all? That it just happened because of a certain combination of other genes (which gave us adaptations that were useful). We used to think that one gene = 1 characteristic but genes interact with each other (or so I've heard).

[RobertG]

The hairlessness issue is, so far as I am aware, unresolved. I'm not an anthropologist, but the one's I've talked to never have a satisfactory answer. There are two hairless mammals--us and the naked mole rat. The naked mole rat lives in big underground colonies (hence the mole part). All the other "naked" mammals live in the water (dolphins, whales, seals). Its unlikely that hairlessness is an adapatation to living in Africa (since all the other apes are hairy). So you're left with three possibilities--one you mentioned, loss of hair via mutation, and the subsequent fixation of this trait in a small population; the second possibility is that (like the mole rat) hairlessness is an adaptation to living underground and ancestral hominids once spent a lot of time tunneling. That seems pretty unlikely given the lack of other tunneling adaptations. Thirdly, there is the possibilty hairlessness was an adaptation to prolonged time in the water. There is considerable controversy over this hypothesis (the "aquatic ape theory"). However, in its favor, the Rift Valley area was periodically flooded and swampy. So to get around in the forest you basically had to wade around in the swamp all day. You actually see this with modern day bonobos (our closest relative, not the chimp) during the monsoon season. They actually walk around bipedally in the water. David Attenborough actually discussed this (along with video of the bonobos in water) on a recent documentary on primate evolution, so I think the idea has gained some credence. Oh yeah, to keep warm in the water we got fatter. We are way chubbier than other primates (even lean humans). And our fat is bonded to the skin, unlike other terrestrial mammals (but like aquatic mammals).

Anyway, that is probably more than you wanted to know Lizard. I should mention the loss of fuction hypothesis is unlikely because hair is, I believe, controlled by mulitple genes. You'd have to loose several genes for hair--an easier task when its under selection, but a harder task to accomplish under neutral non-selective conditions.

You are correct that the one gene=one trait hypothesis has been discarded. One gene can code for multiple traits. Several genes can interact on one trait. Some genes don't code for anything but regulate expression of other genes.

Anyway, thats more than enough science for a Saturday morning.

[Lizard]

Thanks that was just about the right amount of information I needed. Yes I too have heard about the aquatic ape theory. I like the idea of a mutation and fixation of it in a small population, havn't thought of that before.

Do you think that we should try to make some new kinds of homnids (there used to be lots at one time)? Like crossing humans with other apes to create new species.

Did you ever hear anything about an ape who had human characteristics (could walk on two legs, had whites to his eyes and was bald. Also had a strange face shape.)? They couldn't find any others like him so they thought he couldn't be a missing link. Then they thought he must be a hybrid but he had the same number of chromasomes as a chimp. Then they decided he must be a mutation, but what are the odds of him just happeneing to mutate so he was more like a person? I wish I had seen that program, I love crazy ape/genetics related things like that.

I'm sorry but you have gotten me onto one of my favourite subjects.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by RobertG

Anyway, that is probably more than you wanted to know Lizard. I should mention the loss of fuction hypothesis is unlikely because hair is, I believe, controlled by mulitple genes. You'd have to loose several genes for hair--an easier task when its under selection, but a harder task to accomplish under neutral non-selective conditions.

What I meant was: What if it is geneticaly impossible to have a human with lots of hair? What if there aren't any combinations of genetics that could prodcue a hairy human, perhaps a hairless human with a few patches of hair is the nearest thing.

[kevin green]

Re: Re: O Master where for art thou?

Originally posted by Lizard


Good, nice to see you show some respect for one of the most intelligent and scientific members of the forum.

Crap! Robert G you know so much about science. I don't even understand you!

Rodents and primates belong to the same group of mammals don't they? I have always thought that people look a bit like mice (especialy the ears)

I even began to think about the lack of hair on humans. Rats do not have any hair on their tails. Could it be that our lack of hair isn't an adaptation at all? That it just happened because of a certain combination of other genes (which gave us adaptations that were useful). We used to think that one gene = 1 characteristic but genes interact with each other (or so I've heard).

I have seen some Rats bowing at Judo inspired Shinto worshipping contests and I bet that some of them had tails!

[kevin green]

The american fighting male has lots of hair. If he hasn't worn it off by scraping his head on the mat while bowing. Or from too much friction on the other end you know ,while sticking it up in the air all the time. Have you ever heard the advice "Grow some hair"?

[RobertG]

Our path to hairlessness is not complete. At least among cacausian populations--there are plenty of really, really hairy all over european and middle eastern people. The continuum of hair coverage suggests its a multi-locus trait. There have, actually, been numerous cases of totally fur covered humans. There is a family in Brazil I think that work in the circus. They look like Michael J. Fox in Teen Wolf. Well without the claws. So its possible to get fur covered humans. It could just be a neutral trait. I mean really, the amount of fur the average European possesses wouldn't have done them much good during the ice ages. They'd still need to wrap themselves in mammoth fur. The lack of hair in Africans and Asians in tropical climates isn't necessarily an adaptation to heat. Arabs are hairy and live in the hot desert. Animals on the African savannah are furry and don't have problems with heat regulation. The hair could be totally random and have little effect one way or another. But with the current genes in the human population you can get both nearly hairless humans (I don't know if anyone has been born totally bald) and totally furry humans.

[RobertG]

Originally posted by Lizard
Thanks that was just about the right amount of information I needed. Yes I too have heard about the aquatic ape theory. I like the idea of a mutation and fixation of it in a small population, havn't thought of that before.

Do you think that we should try to make some new kinds of homnids (there used to be lots at one time)? Like crossing humans with other apes to create new species.

Did you ever hear anything about an ape who had human characteristics (could walk on two legs, had whites to his eyes and was bald. Also had a strange face shape.)? They couldn't find any others like him so they thought he couldn't be a missing link. Then they thought he must be a hybrid but he had the same number of chromasomes as a chimp. Then they decided he must be a mutation, but what are the odds of him just happeneing to mutate so he was more like a person? I wish I had seen that program, I love crazy ape/genetics related things like that.

I'm sorry but you have gotten me onto one of my favourite subjects.

Why would you want to cross humans with anything? That is a good way to get our asses kicked. Planet of the apes stuff. Actually I think about a month ago a lab made a human-hybrid embryo. I think it was some sort of rodent or maybe a rabbit. I don't remember off the top of my head. But they destroyed it after a few rounds of cell division. Who knows what this thing would have become? Some idiot is going to do it sooner or later. And then you're going to have animal-human hybrids running around. Tiger-humans, sloth-humans, whale-humans, and, of course lizard-humans....a pandora's box of genetic insanity.

Michael Crichton suggested that there were ape-human hybrids running around in Africa in Congo. Then again it was sort of a racist book. He was essentially suggesting Africans routinely have sex with apes. That and they sell human meat in their markets--from living humans. Of course with some of the crap that is going on in the Congo right now I suppose it wouldn't surprise me. Child armies with machetes are a bad, bad thing. But I digress...

I'm pretty sure that sooner or later someone will willingly give birth to a human-animal hybrid. Granted, 99% of these embryos will get aborted because they'll be so defective in developmental programs. But, all it takes is another wealthy alien cult like the Raelians, and someone is going to be birthing these things. But, all it takes is for them to be irresitabley sexy so everyone wants to have sex with them and they'll outbreed us and that will be the end of humans.

[Lizard]

"I think about a month ago a lab made a human-hybrid embryo. I think it was some sort of rodent or maybe a rabbit."

I don't think we need to worry about them outbreeding us because since they will share alot of our genes, they could never really make us extinct. In fact it would be possible for two hybrids to produce a normal human, or a normal animal).

What I think it really means is more genetic diversity which is usualy a good thing in nature.

It's like saying let's not have children because they might be superior to us and kill us. Although this may be true, it doesn't matter because our genes survive in our children.

Survival is about protecting your genes. If an army of human/gorrilla hybrids kills us then it's ok because they have a set of human genes aswell. As far as evolution is conserned our genes will have survived.

[kevin green]

I think we should take a poll and see how many American fighting men of the negro race think that they should bow. I don't meen just in Judo inspired Shinto contests but in real life on the streets. I think that we should start in South central L.A. and start with the Shotgun Crips.as they are famous American fighting men and also have a national organization kinda like we have in Judo inspired Shinto worshipping contests.
We should maybe ask them to please show us some RESPECT
because we have all these Spirits to help us learn Judo. And the way to show this is by bowing and calling us master!And then we can move on to Chicago and initiate contact with the Gangster Deciples for they too are a famous American fighting man organization. Maybe we can get them to also use this liberating form of showing respect to us by calling us Master and bowing to our Spirits of Judo!

Bow! Wow! I think that maybe our armed forces should from now on bow down to armies from other nations as the Spirits of Judo have just contacted me. As this is "The Highest Form of Respect" I think that this may save thousands of lives and prevent many future wars.

And I think that the time has come to have all N.F.L. players begin bowing to the astroturf,and to the officials and maybe erect a giant Kami ( Shinto Shrine) to kick the football over.
Then we can dispose of the group prayer before the game because the Spirits of Judo would have that handled.

[kevin green]

Originally posted by RobertG
Our path to hairlessness is not complete. At least among cacausian populations--there are plenty of really, really hairy all over european and middle eastern people. The continuum of hair coverage suggests its a multi-locus trait. There have, actually, been numerous cases of totally fur covered humans. There is a family in Brazil I think that work in the circus. They look like Michael J. Fox in Teen Wolf. Well without the claws. So its possible to get fur covered humans. It could just be a neutral trait. I mean really, the amount of fur the average European possesses wouldn't have done them much good during the ice ages. They'd still need to wrap themselves in mammoth fur. The lack of hair in Africans and Asians in tropical climates isn't necessarily an adaptation to heat. Arabs are hairy and live in the hot desert. Animals on the African savannah are furry and don't have problems with heat regulation. The hair could be totally random and have little effect one way or another. But with the current genes in the human population you can get both nearly hairless humans (I don't know if anyone has been born totally bald) and totally furry humans.

see above

[RobertG]