If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
-This question just crossed my mind and figured the board might have some good input...(I couldn't find the question already posted)
The Origin of Race
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
If you are unwilling to accept any evidence except fossils or DNA that you can actually put your hands on, or being able to travel back in time to observe what life was like in the past with your own eyes, then you should not bother posting on an internet forum.
Post #52
Why not, since all scientists are entitled to "observe" and review the "evidence," first-hand, and to scientifically verify and validate the proffered "evidence" which other scientists claim to be irrefutable proof of the peculiar case they are theorizing about in order to confirm or falsify their "scientific" findings and conculsions?micatala wrote:If you are unwilling to accept any evidence except fossils or DNA that you can actually put your hands on, or being able to travel back in time to observe what life was like in the past with your own eyes, then you should not bother posting on an internet forum.
This is what creation scientists do all the time, but since evolutionary die-hards unduly claim that creation science has not only been falsified and rejected by the "scientific establishment," but also pontifcate that the supernatural is off-limits and out of the limited bounds and dimensions of physics, chemistry and biology, a religious clash between the two factions is inevitable, and where better to discuss such a prediction or prophesy than on the Science and Religion Forum hosted by DebatingChristianity?
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #53
I have seen some of the 'work' the so called 'creation' scientists have done. The difference between a scientist and a 'creation' scientist is that a scientist, if givenjcrawford wrote:Why not, since all scientists are entitled to "observe" and review the "evidence," first-hand, and to scientifically verify and validate the proffered "evidence" which other scientists claim to be irrefutable proof of the peculiar case they are theorizing about in order to confirm or falsify their "scientific" findings and conculsions?micatala wrote:If you are unwilling to accept any evidence except fossils or DNA that you can actually put your hands on, or being able to travel back in time to observe what life was like in the past with your own eyes, then you should not bother posting on an internet forum.
This is what creation scientists do all the time, but since evolutionary die-hards unduly claim that creation science has not only been falsified and rejected by the "scientific establishment," but also pontifcate that the supernatural is off-limits and out of the limited bounds and dimensions of physics, chemistry and biology, a religious clash between the two factions is inevitable, and where better to discuss such a prediction or prophesy than on the Science and Religion Forum hosted by DebatingChristianity?
data that is contradictory to his ideas, must either modify or abandon the idea.
With the 'creation scientist', the exact opposite is true. When faced with data that
demonstrates their ideas are wrong, then the data has to be bad. The information that would lead someone to conclude that the concept of 'Creation' as described in the bible is incorrect is misrepresented, lied about , or denied. THe conclusion came first, and anything that contradicts the conclusion is discarded.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #54
Is this more what you are looking for First Protein Difference Between Humans And Primates That Correlates To Anatomical Changes In Early Hominid Fossil Record......From this the investigators postulated that the first early hominids born with two copies of the mutated MYH16 gene would show many effects from this single mutation--most notably a reduction in size and contractile force of the jaw-closing muscles, some of which exert tremendous stress across and/or cause deposition of additional bone atop growth zones of the braincase. "The coincidence in time of the gene-inactivating mutation and the advent of a larger braincase in some early Homo populations may mean that the decrease in jaw-muscle size and force eliminated stress on the skull, which 'released' an evolutionary constraint on brain growth," says Minugh-Purvis. Indeed, aspects of the evolutionary trend of shrinking jaws and teeth, resulting in the lighter, more delicate structure found in humans today, roughly coincided with the increase in brain size characterizing the evolution of Homo over the past two million years.jcrawford wrote:I saw no evidence of any mutations on the weblink you provided and now ask you why such genetic theories of human evolution should be misinterpreted or understood as evidence or demonstrations of anything other than what evolutionary geneticists believe in and love to theorize about.goat wrote: You ask for specific mutations, I give you one, and you will not bother to look at the very evidence you asked for.
Do you really equate the material on evolutionary websites with the actual observation of human evolution over the course of two million years?
Since your own chosen method for attaining and ascertaining human knowledge is the so-called "scientific method" which is fundamentally premised on the development of hypotheses based on human observation to start with, how can you expect anyone to believe in a so-called natural process which they cannot see for themselves in nature, and for which they have absolutely no substantial evidence or experience of?
Empirical and applied science in modern technology cannot be confused with abstract or purely theoretical science.
Ok Jc. I suspect it will not. Admittedly there are a few ifs and maybes in that one. However the idea of a play off between decrease in bite power and increase in brain power seems to be gaining credence. We've already discussed the place of fuzziness in science. So we can go over that again if you want. The Ifs n Buts in this article indicate a pulling together of ideas consistent with the evidence, though their is some vagueness. What evolutionist need to do is more research and clear away the vagueness. However the hypothesis can be refuted. All that is needed is someone to dig up an skull with an ape size jaw and a human sized brain.
What anti-evolutionist need to do is show how the argument is self inconsistent, or go dig up that skull and jaw.
Post #55
Since creation scientists and evolutionists each offer data and evidence which refutes, falsifies or is contradictory to the researched "ideas" of the other, then both "must modify or abandon the idea."goat wrote: I have seen some of the 'work' the so called 'creation' scientists have done. The difference between a scientist and a 'creation' scientist is that a scientist, if given
data that is contradictory to his ideas, must either modify or abandon the idea.
This is how real science is supposed to, and does work, since scientists on either side of the origins controversy do modify their claims, theories and theories to the extent that they do not have to abandon them altogether until the scientific controversy is resolved to their satisfaction, which may not be for many more years, if ever.
Not at all, since creation scientists are as scientific in their appoach to the study of origins as any evolutionist is, and the inverse of what you claim is true.With the 'creation scientist', the exact opposite is true.
Non-sensical.When faced with data that demonstrates their ideas are wrong, then the data has to be bad.
I see what you are trying to say here, but the fact that evolutionists start with similar presuppositions about the age and origin of the earth based on the vain presumption that they are enlightended and reasonable men, who are more natural and rational than anyone who is foolish enough to believe in Jesus Christ or their supernatural souls.The information that would lead someone to conclude that the concept of 'Creation' as described in the bible is incorrect is misrepresented, lied about , or denied. THe conclusion came first, and anything that contradicts the conclusion is discarded.
Problem with enlightened and "rational" secular thought as developed over the past two or three centuries by various European philosophes is that the rise of national and international socialism and 2 World Wars were the subsequent consequences of it.
Like it or not, creation scientists and Islamic fundamentalists are here, and expect to be around for a lot longer than depraved secular scientists are.
Post #56
Plus one "postulate" and a "may mean," too many. Indeed, I love the way they assume and postulate that "aspects of the evolutionary trend of shrinking jaws and teeth," resulted in "the lighter, more delicate structure found in humans today," and that it "roughly coincided with the increase in brain size characterizing the evolution of Homo over the past two million years."Furrowed Brow wrote: Is this more what you are looking for First Protein Difference Between Humans And Primates That Correlates To Anatomical Changes In Early Hominid Fossil Record......From this the investigators postulated that the first early hominids born with two copies of the mutated MYH16 gene would show many effects from this single mutation--most notably a reduction in size and contractile force of the jaw-closing muscles, some of which exert tremendous stress across and/or cause deposition of additional bone atop growth zones of the braincase. "The coincidence in time of the gene-inactivating mutation and the advent of a larger braincase in some early Homo populations may mean that the decrease in jaw-muscle size and force eliminated stress on the skull, which 'released' an evolutionary constraint on brain growth," says Minugh-Purvis. Indeed, aspects of the evolutionary trend of shrinking jaws and teeth, resulting in the lighter, more delicate structure found in humans today, roughly coincided with the increase in brain size characterizing the evolution of Homo over the past two million years.
Ok Jc. I suspect it will not. Admittedly there are a few ifs and maybes in that one.
Wow. Some evidence.
Gaining credence? Credence? Do you mean to say that credence is nesessary to believe in evolutionary theory, and that the association and correlation of bite power with brain power is some new or recent discovery in evolutionary theory which needs to be believed in?However the idea of a play off between decrease in bite power and increase in brain power seems to be gaining credence.
I read theories of cranial-jaw-bone relationships 20 years ago.
No thanks, my mind is getting fuzzy.We've already discussed the place of fuzziness in science. So we can go over that again if you want.
Hypotheses don't need to be refuted. They need to be substantiated by the theory which is constructed and based on them.The Ifs n Buts in this article indicate a pulling together of ideas consistent with the evidence, though their is some vagueness. What evolutionist need to do is more research and clear away the vagueness. However the hypothesis can be refuted. All that is needed is someone to dig up an skull with an ape size jaw and a human sized brain.
Anti-evolutionists need do nothing other than poke holes in any theory of evolution which is inflated by hot air.What anti-evolutionist need to do is show how the argument is self inconsistent, or go dig up that skull and jaw.
Post #57
While debating the evidence for or against evolution is certainly a legitimate topic for this forum, this particular thread seems to be getting off topic. To remind everyone.
In this thread, we are specifically assuming that evolution is true, and asked to debate what this would imply about the skin color of the original homo sapiens.The OP wrote: If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
-This question just crossed my mind and figured the board might have some good input...(I couldn't find the question already posted)
Post #58
Whether evolution is true or not, there is no way to determine the skin color of the original sapient men who trod this planet, and it is a racial question about human origins to begin with, which if answered on the basis of evolutionary speculation, beliefs and fantasies, constitutes a form of unjustified racial profiling and discrimination.micatala wrote:While debating the evidence for or against evolution is certainly a legitimate topic for this forum, this particular thread seems to be getting off topic. To remind everyone.
In this thread, we are specifically assuming that evolution is true, and asked to debate what this would imply about the skin color of the original homo sapiens.The OP wrote: If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
-This question just crossed my mind and figured the board might have some good input...(I couldn't find the question already posted)
Post #60
We answered your question about the role racial identities play in Darwin's theory of human origins from sub-human African apes in the affirmative.Q wrote:Wow, haven't been back in months. This thread really went off road and kept going.
