How We Are Evolving

[CrusaderFrank]

Bacteria NEVER lose their resistance, not in a million generations; Once resistant, forever resistant.

That's actually completely false, which once again shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

In the absence of antibiotics, the bacteria that lose extra genes for resistance can replicate faster, giving them a reproductive advantage. Even if that weren't the case, without an environmental pressure to continue selecting for antibiotic resistance, the resistance gene could still undergo mutation to lose resistance.

Long-term starvation-induced loss of antibiotic resistance in bacteria
Antibiotic Resistance in Reverse
Bacteria and Antibiotics
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml#5

Some of those links are for lay people, and others are the scientific literature you've been demanding and yet not reading anyway.

Once again this is showing that, contrary to your made up belief, evolution is only about survival advantages, and NOT molecules consciously willing themselves to produce genetic upgrades.

"In Pseudomonas sp. strain 133B, there was no apparent loss of antibiotic resistance even after starvation for 340 days.

InE. coli, by day 49 there was a ten-fold difference between the number of cells that would grow on antibiotic- and nonantibiotic-containing plates. However, over 76% of the cells that apparently lost their antibiotic resistance were able to express antibiotic resistance after first being resuscitated on non-selective media."

Some bacteria lost their resistance when resuscitated (meaning they were dead?)

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Some bacteria lost their resistance when resuscitated (meaning they were dead?)

Yes frank, they do mouth to mouth resuscitation on the bacteria and get their hearts beating again.

The point is that bacteria can and do lose resistance to antibiotics when not faced with that environmental pressure over time.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

Sure it does. It means that organisms lose and gain genes based on environmental pressures, in distinction to your erroneous idea that they somehow magically think their way to evolution to get cool superhero abilities.

Let's set something straight though. People don't freeze in the cold because their skin is dark. I've not seen any literature that supports that, and making up reasons should be avoided. However, there IS a vitamin D deficiency in colder climates, whereas lighter skin may be a survival advantage.

Whatever the reason, organisms can and do lose and gain genes based on the environment over time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some bacteria lost their resistance when resuscitated (meaning they were dead?)

Yes frank, they do mouth to mouth resuscitation on the bacteria and get their hearts beating again.

The point is that bacteria can and do lose resistance to antibiotics when not faced with that environmental pressure over time.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

Sure it does. It means that organisms lose and gain genes based on environmental pressures, in distinction to your erroneous idea that they somehow magically think their way to evolution to get cool superhero abilities.

Let's set something straight though. People don't freeze in the cold because their skin is dark. I've not seen any literature that supports that, and making up reasons should be avoided. However, there IS a vitamin D deficiency in colder climates, whereas lighter skin may be a survival advantage.

Whatever the reason, organisms can and do lose and gain genes based on the environment over time.

There's not a single chance in Hell, not one in a quintillion chance that humans "evolved" as proposed: all black when migrating from Africa, then in the short span of 50,000 years "evolving" into white, red and yellow with no blacks anywhere except in Africa.

It's taking the obvious facts that there are different human populations and forcing the theory to agree with the facts no matter how absurd the theory.

The timeline it totally off. I posted here, and I'll post again

Virginia Steen-McIntyre has uncovered evidence of advanced human civilization in Mexico that is 250,000 years old.

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Yatzee is yatzee. You can use any dice game you'd like. I just picked one to show that I don't need to understand the underlying physics of how dice land to understand and use the results in a game. Which brings me back to the underlying point: in direct distinction to your idea, scientists do NOT need to understand the underlying mechanisms of results to draw valid conclusions about them.

We have NO CLUE how many of our medications exactly work today, yet we can prescribe them anyway due to the certainty of the expected results. We have NO CLUE how the underlying mechanisms of the brain work, yet the fields of neurology, neuroradiology, and neurosurgery are alive and thriving. And this is all because valid conclusions can still be drawn based on the reproducible nature of the results, REGARDLESS of the underlying mechanisms.

The problem here is that you are comparing two systems that do not correlate. I think a better analogy would be weather, since metereology is now advanced enough to make accurate weather predictions possible. We had been observing and documenting weather for hundreds of years, but it was not until we understood enough about the underlying physics to make accurate models that actually work. Die rolls are simple, and easily understood, and we knew all we needed to know about the physics involved when Newton articulated his Three laws of Motion.

Biology is a lot more complex, which is why we do not understand how medications work. This despite the fact that modern medicine has the exact same tools available that modern meteorology does. We still do not know why a medicine works, which is why we have to carefully monitor everyone that takes them to see exactly how they react.

We have the science of neurology in order to learn about the brain and how it works, with the potential to understand exactly how to fix problems. At present we rely more on educated guesswork than science, a bit like the first doctors who used blood transfusions. They knew it worked, most of the time, and had no idea why it failed until someone worked out a method of typing blood.

While you are correct that we do not need to understand the underlying science in order to make something work, if it didn't help doctors would not be required to study all the basics before they could start practicing on real people.

And again I ask: what's the practical difference of results? If a die rolls 6 one million times to every roll of 1, the 1 is still important in the statistics. In the real world however, that 1 is useless. It's zero. It's as if it wasn't on the die in the first place. Because you seem to keep forgetting that every time the die is rolled, the probability of rolling a 1 keeps decreasing. It approximates zero.

So this once again comes back to misapplication of statistical ideas onto a biological system. Whereas statistics cares about the very small outliers, biology has a cutoff after which the outliers are seen as..... outliers.

Lets try this again.

If we have a d6 that only rolls 3s or 4s we will end up with a lot more of those numbers than we do if we have a weighted die that is biased toward those numbers, because we would still end up with the other 4 numbers in addition to the ones we are arbitrarily selecting for. You might not see the difference, but it is a real, and both demonstrable and repeatable.

What are the other choices between survival or death?

Which is where you are seriously getting off track. Evolution does not actually care about survival or death, so that is obviously not what we should be focusing on either. It might make a difference to us, but why should it make a difference to the universe?

Mathematic computer modeling is either random or deterministic. You keep going back to the two extremes where either there is a static equation that leads to a specific outcome, or if that doesn't happen, things must be random. That's simply not true. Lack of pre-determination does not equate to randomness. Your next response, for example, is not pre-determined, but I would bet it's going to maintain the same stance you've been having, which is not random. For all I know, you could change your mind and agree with me, but that still doesn't make your answer random or deterministic.

No I don't, you keep trying to force me to make that choice by claiming that this is about life or death. All I am saying is that mathematics clearly demonstrates that a random factor in an equation necessitates a random result. I used to run psuedo-random generators and they all had one thing in common, if you ran them long enough you would eventually reach the point where they stop working. That is what happens when you have a deterministic model in math, its own predictability and lack of flexibility eventually causes it to run down. Psuedo-random systems are deterministic, in that they will always produce the same result, but until all the variables are input the outcome is not necessarily predictable.

On the other hand, something can be random, and still statistically predictable. A simple example of this is a deck of cards. If you name any two cards, say a queen and a 4, I can all but guarantee that they will be within one card of each other in a totally randomized deck. I can also demonstrate that dealing 25 random cards out of that deck will enable me to put together 5 pat hands from those cards more than 95% of the time. (I do not remember the odds exactly, but they are north of 98%.) Completely random, yet predictable.

You seem to think I believe that randomness and predictability somehow cancel each other out, or even that determinism means it is predictable. I have a better grasp of the terms than that, and my opposition to determinism has nothing to do with predictability. It is entirely philosophical, and I will fight it until someone offers conclusive proof that I am wrong.

Evolution has demonstrated an ability to adapt to extremes and continue beyond the point where a deterministic system would fail, in my opinion, why weighs toward it being random. It has also progressed far enough that it is predictable.

Let's make our dice evolutionary. Every roll, the "numbers" on each die change based on a random mutation. For simplicity's sake, let's say that half of our mutations are lethal and they represent 1-3, and the other half allow the organism to survive whatever environment it happens to be in and represent 4-6. We roll a million dice under these constraints, and "kill" all the ones with 1-3. After the first roll, how many dice are expected to be left? What numbers do they show? Will they EVER show 1-3? Well no, because the end point is defined as 4-6 only. It will never even out.

It actually works more like this.

Random Mutation Generator

The watch that gets formed in the end is not pre-determined. In fact they are very different from one another between runs of the simulation. But the results are not random either. Non-random, non-determined variability.

Actually, the fact that they are different proves that they are random. You are just misapplying the term by looking at the result rather than the process. We have a starting set of parts, either the elements of the clock in the experiment you provided, or DNA/RNA in biology. Given a limited set of building blocks the result is also limited, that does not make it not random. It does not matter how many times you shuffle and deal a single deck of cards, you will never end up with a hand that has two Aces of Spades.

This is a great question.

Thanks, I wish I knew the answer.

And yet this example "evens out". It's radially symmetrical. For every pattern that stretches out in one direction there is an equal and opposite pattern. This only goes so far as to be the equivalent of random mutation. And when they placed a very small filter on the fractal, the change that took place was not random. I would go so far as to say that every time a pencil were to be placed on the fractal at the same angle, it would produce the same greater result, while maintaining variability within the visible portions. This can be seen in your video at 2:12 in your video, when the pencil is still. It's a non-random result with randomness within it. But again, I'm looking at the big picture result, and you seem to only focus on the static in between.

What do you suppose would happen if half the fractal were blocked?

It wouldn't matter, because that blockage would still be replicated up, and down, the scale. That is what makes fractals so fascinating, and nature is full of fractals.

Evolution is not a result, it is a process, and it is still ongoing. We tend to forget that when we look around and talk about it, but that does not change the fundamental truth that we are not at the end of evolution, we are in the middle of it. That is why I refuse to look at the end, because I know I cannot see it.

I have to admit i forget that a lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's right, windbag, there are no genotypical differences between human populations. SNPs don't exist, paternity tests are bullshit, and The Journey of Man/The Human Family Tree was all a big conspiracy

Are you completely incapable of answering a challenge to define your position? You seem to think that by challenging you to map out exactly what you are saying, and what it means, that I am somehow rejecting something else. Since the only thing I rejected in this thread has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about, because I have no idea what your feeble mind thinks is its basis for the facts it has, I have not yet begun to refute it.

Please define your position or ignore me and claim victory. I do not care, but stop claiming I am saying things I am not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to "Human Evolution is Not Over" article in Scientific American, we supposedly, all "Evolved" from a common ancestor that migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

Perhaps you missed the countless times I've stated that evolution does not just give what you want, which is why we don't fly, or shoot lasers from our eyes, or have 12 hands.

Evolution is NOT an engineer who just uninstalls and installs genes as needed. If bacteria lose genes for antibiotic resistance, they DIE when they get exposed to antibiotics. They CANNOT just pluck the genes their ancestors had out of thin air at the crucial moment.

You STILL don't understand how evolution works, and you are still dumb enough to keep drawing conclusions about it.

Bacteria NEVER lose their resistance, not in a million generations; Once resistant, forever resistant.

But mankind had this superior gene for handling sunlight and lost it in a geological eye blink, then never got it back.

How is being dark skinned the superior gene? Light skinned people are better adapted to using sunlight to make vitamin D, which can be argued is a superior trait. Evolution does not select for superior traits, it simply changes things and finds all the possible paths that work.

 

[JBeukema]

According to "Human Evolution is Not Over" article in Scientific American, we supposedly, all "Evolved" from a common ancestor that migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

Perhaps you missed the countless times I've stated that evolution does not just give what you want, which is why we don't fly, or shoot lasers from our eyes, or have 12 hands.

Evolution is NOT an engineer who just uninstalls and installs genes as needed. If bacteria lose genes for antibiotic resistance, they DIE when they get exposed to antibiotics. They CANNOT just pluck the genes their ancestors had out of thin air at the crucial moment.

You STILL don't understand how evolution works, and you are still dumb enough to keep drawing conclusions about it.

I'm beginning to wonder whether he can really be that ignorant. Perhaps he's playing stupid?

 

[JBeukema]

[
Bacteria NEVER lose their resistance, not in a million generations; Once resistant, forever resistant.

source?

 

[JBeukema]

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

Of course nothing found in scientific literature has anything to do with something you just made up. What else should we expect?

What orifice are you polling this stuff from?

 

[JBeukema]

y literature that supports that, and making up reasons should be avoided. However, there IS a vitamin D deficiency in colder climates, whereas lighter skin may be a survival advantage.

It's not temperature, but exposure to uv rays. Also, as my link points out, blacks do fine in Maine and the estimated amount of time needed for blacks to get enough sunlight for sufficient vitamin D production upon entering Europe (assuming for the sake of argument that they were still black upon arrival, though that doesn't actually appear to be the case) would easily be met during routine daily actives.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/2666044-post1.html

ScienceDirect - The New Scientist : What's the origin of white skin?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The problem here is that you are comparing two systems that do not correlate. I think a better analogy would be weather, since metereology is now advanced enough to make accurate weather predictions possible.

I was merely proving wrong your assertion that "In order for a scientist to draw a valid conclusion he has to not only understand the results, but as much as possible about how those results came about." This is completely false. My point being that perfectly valid conclusions can be drawn without knowing ANYTHING about the way things work. It's why you can still work the TV with a remote even in someone else's house. You know NOTHING about the "how", but you can still manipulate the system for the desired effect. This is true about ANY system, so claiming I am comparing two that do not correlate is incorrect.

If we have a d6 that only rolls 3s or 4s we will end up with a lot more of those numbers than we do if we have a weighted die that is biased toward those numbers, because we would still end up with the other 4 numbers in addition to the ones we are arbitrarily selecting for. You might not see the difference, but it is a real, and both demonstrable and repeatable.

I understand the difference: statistics cares, biology doesn't. In statistics, those numbers are important. In biology, there is a cutoff where those numbers are not significant. FURTHERMORE, those numbers which are NOT weighted for have a smaller and smaller chance of coming up on each subsequent roll. They approximate zero as time goes on, leaving only the "weighted" numbers anyway, once again showing how your example is static and cares about small less likely rolls, whereas biology is adaptive and removes undesirable genes over time.

The environment only allows for survival. If we truly only had a choice between survival and death then you could claim that natural selection did remove the random factors, but that is not what actually happens.

What are the other choices between survival or death?

Which is where you are seriously getting off track. Evolution does not actually care about survival or death, so that is obviously not what we should be focusing on either. It might make a difference to us, but why should it make a difference to the universe?

Hold on a minute there. You just claimed "if we truly only had a choice between survival and death then you could claim that natural selection did remove the random factors". This implies that natural selection does not remove random factors because there are more choices than survival and death. So please, elaborate on what those choices are.

No I don't, you keep trying to force me to make that choice by claiming that this is about life or death.

Evolution IS about life and death! Or more specifically, the factors that contribute to each.

You seem to think I believe that randomness and predictability somehow cancel each other out, or even that determinism means it is predictable. I have a better grasp of the terms than that, and my opposition to determinism has nothing to do with predictability.

You have a better grasp of the STATISTICS terms. We're not playing with pseudo-random number generators. As I pointed out with this article, statistical randomness requires "no recognizable patterns or regularities". Evolution has both recognizable patterns AND regularities. My clock example showed that. Your example regarding vision also shows that.

It actually works more like this.

Random Mutation Generator

Actually no, it doesn't. Once again you give an example that in no way utilizes selection of any kind. Even the explanation of the program states such. "bad" words are not removed from the sentence, and the fact that you only use one sentence shows it has little to do with evolution, which would more appropriately use a population of parallel sentences as a starting point, which can be duplicated over time to indicate replication, and have bad words removed after each iteration. Again: horrible example.

Actually, the fact that they are different proves that they are random. You are just misapplying the term by looking at the result rather than the process. We have a starting set of parts, either the elements of the clock in the experiment you provided, or DNA/RNA in biology. Given a limited set of building blocks the result is also limited, that does not make it not random. It does not matter how many times you shuffle and deal a single deck of cards, you will never end up with a hand that has two Aces of Spades.

Differences do NOT prove randomness. All it proves is that the outcome was not pre-determined. However the fact that both reach the same function, being a working watch, shows that the results are not random either. You claim my mistake is looking at the results rather than the process. That's something that's very important in statistics. But I'm trying to tell you that in biology, the results are the only thing that matters. Nature doesn't care how an organism can survive an environmental pressure. The only thing that matters is that it does survive.

Since you brought it up, let's use cards, but instead of selecting an impossible outcome as the only possible way to show something as non-random, let's return to the realm of possibility. I suspect you are familiar with the rules of 5 card draw poker.

Let's say I made a computer program where you get random cards, and dealer gets a royal flush every time. Clearly it doesn't take an impossibility such as two of the same cards to see that this is a scenario that is not random. The computer is cheating.

Now let's extend this example to evolution. In this new version, player 1 is dealt 5 cards, discards a random number of them as allowed by the rules, and is given that number of cards back. Player 2, on the other hand, selects from his hands cards that are likely to contribute to a winning hand, discards the other cards, and receives new ones to replace them. In essence, player 1 is getting complete randomness, and player 2 is playing that game as expected.

This is where you get stuck claiming the hands used to win by player 2 are "random". It could be three of a kind, or a flush, or two pair. But you see I'm not looking at the hand used to win. I'm only interested in which player will win, which we both know is not random at that point.

Similarly, nature doesn't care how an organism "wins", regardless of whether it "cheats" as in the first example, or if the competition is maladaptive as in the second example.

What do you suppose would happen if half the fractal were blocked?

It wouldn't matter, because that blockage would still be replicated up, and down, the scale.

In the same way every time just like the pencil? Careful now. It sounds like you're saying a filter can produce a non-random picture despite randomness in the details.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was merely proving wrong your assertion that "In order for a scientist to draw a valid conclusion he has to not only understand the results, but as much as possible about how those results came about." This is completely false. My point being that perfectly valid conclusions can be drawn without knowing ANYTHING about the way things work. It's why you can still work the TV with a remote even in someone else's house. You know NOTHING about the "how", but you can still manipulate the system for the desired effect. This is true about ANY system, so claiming I am comparing two that do not correlate is incorrect.

How valid is a conclusion based on observation alone when we do not understand the causes of what we are seeing?

I understand the difference: statistics cares, biology doesn't. In statistics, those numbers are important. In biology, there is a cutoff where those numbers are not significant. FURTHERMORE, those numbers which are NOT weighted for have a smaller and smaller chance of coming up on each subsequent roll. They approximate zero as time goes on, leaving only the "weighted" numbers anyway, once again showing how your example is static and cares about small less likely rolls, whereas biology is adaptive and removes undesirable genes over time.

There are a lot of math equations that disregard results that fall outside a certain parameters, I have no problem disregarding them. That does not change the fact that they occur, or that they still occur. Even insignificant results make a difference.

Hold on a minute there. You just claimed "if we truly only had a choice between survival and death then you could claim that natural selection did remove the random factors". This implies that natural selection does not remove random factors because there are more choices than survival and death. So please, elaborate on what those choices are.

Darwin described natural selection as being the same as survival of the fittest. When we examine the actual results we can see that this is not what actually happens, as in some cases the two strongest end up eliminating each other, allowing a third, weaker competitor to survive. This proves that natural selection does not eliminate the random factor and select only for the strongest.

Claiming that all that matters is survival is an oversimplification, and ignores that fact that unhealthy and weak sometimes survives. This gives a much larger range of results than simply life or death.

Evolution IS about life and death! Or more specifically, the factors that contribute to each.

Everything dies.

You have a better grasp of the STATISTICS terms. We're not playing with pseudo-random number generators. As I pointed out with this article, statistical randomness requires "no recognizable patterns or regularities". Evolution has both recognizable patterns AND regularities. My clock example showed that. Your example regarding vision also shows that.

You keep missing the point. If we start with a limited set of building blocks we are also limited in what can be built. If Darwin is correct, and so far no one has proved him wrong, we started with one life form from which every living thing on Earth descended. Why do you insist that seeing patterns from such a limited materials proves anything?

Actually no, it doesn't. Once again you give an example that in no way utilizes selection of any kind. Even the explanation of the program states such. "bad" words are not removed from the sentence, and the fact that you only use one sentence shows it has little to do with evolution, which would more appropriately use a population of parallel sentences as a starting point, which can be duplicated over time to indicate replication, and have bad words removed after each iteration. Again: horrible example.

Bad words are removed, you just have to do some work yourself because the program is limited.

Differences do NOT prove randomness. All it proves is that the outcome was not pre-determined. However the fact that both reach the same function, being a working watch, shows that the results are not random either. You claim my mistake is looking at the results rather than the process. That's something that's very important in statistics. But I'm trying to tell you that in biology, the results are the only thing that matters. Nature doesn't care how an organism can survive an environmental pressure. The only thing that matters is that it does survive.

How do you start with the same parts, run the exact same process, and end up with a different result without it being random?

Since you brought it up, let's use cards, but instead of selecting an impossible outcome as the only possible way to show something as non-random, let's return to the realm of possibility. I suspect you are familiar with the rules of 5 card draw poker.

Let's say I made a computer program where you get random cards, and dealer gets a royal flush every time. Clearly it doesn't take an impossibility such as two of the same cards to see that this is a scenario that is not random. The computer is cheating.

Now let's extend this example to evolution. In this new version, player 1 is dealt 5 cards, discards a random number of them as allowed by the rules, and is given that number of cards back. Player 2, on the other hand, selects from his hands cards that are likely to contribute to a winning hand, discards the other cards, and receives new ones to replace them. In essence, player 1 is getting complete randomness, and player 2 is playing that game as expected.

This is where you get stuck claiming the hands used to win by player 2 are "random". It could be three of a kind, or a flush, or two pair. But you see I'm not looking at the hand used to win. I'm only interested in which player will win, which we both know is not random at that point.

Similarly, nature doesn't care how an organism "wins", regardless of whether it "cheats" as in the first example, or if the competition is maladaptive as in the second example.

It is entirely possible to play a perfect hand of poker using the best possible understanding of the odds and still loose to a person who makes decisions totally at random. It is unlikely, but it happens. Over time the person making the smart choices will win, but that does not eliminate the randomness of both hands, and that means that that random hand will end up as a royal flush every 650,000 hands or so, and the smart player will end up with nothing about every 1000 hands or so.

In the same way every time just like the pencil? Careful now. It sounds like you're saying a filter can produce a non-random picture despite randomness in the details.

I honestly don't understand enough about fractals to give a definitive answer, but my understanding is that by replicating the building blocks they build patterns that repeat continuously. Changing one of the blocks simply causes it to replicate up and down the scale.

 

[konradv]

Some bacteria lost their resistance when resuscitated (meaning they were dead?)

Yes frank, they do mouth to mouth resuscitation on the bacteria and get their hearts beating again.

The point is that bacteria can and do lose resistance to antibiotics when not faced with that environmental pressure over time.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

Sure it does. It means that organisms lose and gain genes based on environmental pressures, in distinction to your erroneous idea that they somehow magically think their way to evolution to get cool superhero abilities.

Let's set something straight though. People don't freeze in the cold because their skin is dark. I've not seen any literature that supports that, and making up reasons should be avoided. However, there IS a vitamin D deficiency in colder climates, whereas lighter skin may be a survival advantage.

Whatever the reason, organisms can and do lose and gain genes based on the environment over time.

There's not a single chance in Hell, not one in a quintillion chance that humans "evolved" as proposed: all black when migrating from Africa, then in the short span of 50,000 years "evolving" into white, red and yellow with no blacks anywhere except in Africa.

It's taking the obvious facts that there are different human populations and forcing the theory to agree with the facts no matter how absurd the theory.

The timeline it totally off. I posted here, and I'll post again

Virginia Steen-McIntyre has uncovered evidence of advanced human civilization in Mexico that is 250,000 years old.

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

You have to get out more, Frank. No blacks except in Africa?!?! Have you seen people from southern India and or the Pacific islands of Melanesia? This isn't a racial issue, but one of sun exposure and enhanced survival.

 

[Douger]

You referring to humanity or murkins ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc]YouTube - LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE![/ame]

 

[Samson]

Some bacteria lost their resistance when resuscitated (meaning they were dead?)

Yes frank, they do mouth to mouth resuscitation on the bacteria and get their hearts beating again.

The point is that bacteria can and do lose resistance to antibiotics when not faced with that environmental pressure over time.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the absurd "Blacks freeze in cold weather unless 100% of them turn white and then those whites lose whatever recessive black gene they might carry even when they relocate to the tropics" Theory of Human "Evolution"

Sure it does. It means that organisms lose and gain genes based on environmental pressures, in distinction to your erroneous idea that they somehow magically think their way to evolution to get cool superhero abilities.

Let's set something straight though. People don't freeze in the cold because their skin is dark. I've not seen any literature that supports that, and making up reasons should be avoided. However, there IS a vitamin D deficiency in colder climates, whereas lighter skin may be a survival advantage.

Whatever the reason, organisms can and do lose and gain genes based on the environment over time.

There's not a single chance in Hell, not one in a quintillion chance that humans "evolved" as proposed: all black when migrating from Africa, then in the short span of 50,000 years "evolving" into white, red and yellow with no blacks anywhere except in Africa.

It's taking the obvious facts that there are different human populations and forcing the theory to agree with the facts no matter how absurd the theory.

The timeline it totally off. I posted here, and I'll post again

Virginia Steen-McIntyre has uncovered evidence of advanced human civilization in Mexico that is 250,000 years old.

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

Here is what the article you cite says:

In the 1960s, advanced stone tools were discovered near Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old.

Indeed, the LAYERS may have been 250,000 years old, but that doesn't mean that the "advanced stone tools" were 250,000 years old.

 

[antagon]

You're not making any sense, I mean more so than usual

this is why getting through high school biology and grade school math could be so valuable in an adult discussion, frank. 'the successful black gene' is your mythology which has nothing to do with how skin color is determined in humans. the 600 years since whitey has descended back into the tropics is 1/100th the time whereby selection for pale skin was affected. the expectation that they should snap back to black inasmuch time is indicative of low attainment in the sciences, and poor deductive capacity on your part.

this is why i encourage you to get a GED, frank. you'll feel proud of yourself, and you could share logical conclusions which are based in the facts of life instead of your fantasy world.

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

do elucidate, frank. E=MC^2?

 

[Samson]

You're not making any sense, I mean more so than usual

this is why getting through high school biology and grade school math could be so valuable in an adult discussion, frank. 'the successful black gene' is your mythology which has nothing to do with how skin color is determined in humans. the 600 years since whitey has descended back into the tropics is 1/100th the time whereby selection for pale skin was affected. the expectation that they should snap back to black inasmuch time is indicative of low attainment in the sciences, and poor deductive capacity on your part.

this is why i encourage you to get a GED, frank. you'll feel proud of yourself, and you could share logical conclusions which are based in the facts of life instead of your fantasy world.

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

this is why getting through high school biology and grade school math could be so valuable in an adult discussion, frank. 'the successful black gene' is your mythology which has nothing to do with how skin color is determined in humans. the 600 years since whitey has descended back into the tropics is 1/100th the time whereby selection for pale skin was affected. the expectation that they should snap back to black inasmuch time is indicative of low attainment in the sciences, and poor deductive capacity on your part.

this is why i encourage you to get a GED, frank. you'll feel proud of yourself, and you could share logical conclusions which are based in the facts of life instead of your fantasy world.

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

 

[Samson]

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

Why?

Martians built the Cuban Pyramids, just like they did "The Face" on their own planet.

 

[JBeukema]

Implement bearing layers is the layers they were found it or the layers of materials they were made from?