All men related

JohnR7 · #21 5th January 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by conradthesort
Well if you have two ... i think it's called middle brown or something colored people they can produce another human being of any skin color today. 

Brown is a coloring or a pigment. If you remove all the coloring that protects people from the sun, you will have white skin, blue eyes and either blond or red hair. Anything other than that is a result of pigment or coloring that is designed to reflect harmful rays of the sun to protect the body.

Or if you go to the Philippines you see a lot of women carry a umbrella to shelter them from the sun, so that they skin does not get darker.

 

Nathan Poe · #22 5th January 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by JohnR7
No one hits the ball ever time they go up to bat. But Underhill seems to prove the theory he is trying to prove 100% of the time. I am usually not skeptical, but every paper he writes, he starts out with a pre existing theory from archology and then his DNA finding always seem to confirm that theory.

Maybe he's been right so far. No one hits the ball every time, but archeology is not just random guessing (despite what you say in other threads). It is a science with carefully reasoned and logically constructed theories, often with a great deal of evidence backing them up.

So Underhill begins with a hypothesis, based on sound archeological theory, then looks at the DNA to confirm the conclusion archeology had already reached. Perhaps this just means that the archeology was right.

If anything, Underhill is playing it safe, confirming theories that are already "proven" as much as they could be through other science.

LewisWildermuth · #23 5th January 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by JohnR7
Brown is a coloring or a pigment. If you remove all the coloring that protects people from the sun, you will have white skin, blue eyes and either blond or red hair. Anything other than that is a result of pigment or coloring that is designed to reflect harmful rays of the sun to protect the body.

Or if you go to the Philippines you see a lot of women carry a umbrella to shelter them from the sun, so that they skin does not get darker.

 

Blond and blue eyed? Are we getting a little Natzish here?

Femove all pigment from a person and you get an albino...

That is pail white/pink skin, pink eyes and white hair.

Not some Arian ideal.

JohnR7 · #24 5th January 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
[b]Blond and blue eyed? Are we getting a little Natzish here?

Just the opposite. The reason Hitler could not breed the perfect race is that the traits he was looking for, blond hair, blue eyes are not really traits. They are caused by a low level of Melanin found in new borns and in people who live north where there is less sun light then they get down south where the rays of the sun are more direct.

Remove all pigment from a person and you get an albino... 

A total lack of melanin or pigment is very rare. But it is very common for babies and animals to be born with low levels of melanin and thus their eyes are blue. Depending on how much melanin is produce their eyes can turn to gray, green, brown or even black. The melanin protects the eye from the sun, so the further south you go, the more the body will produce melanin.

People will try to manipulate this. As I said in the Philippine it is common for the women to carry a umbrella to block the sun so their skin will stay a lighter color. They do not want to look like a farm worker. But in colder areas, it is common for women, in some cases, even asian women will use tanning lights to make the skin a darker color.

It use to be that people would use proxide to strip the coloring pigment out of their hair. Some people would have blond hair, others have red hair with less pigment. But it is thought to damage the hair so now a days they just dye the hair to whatever color they want it to be. Or they will streak it.

A long time ago, I use to soak my comb in peroxide because I worked as a mechanic assistant and the peroide would remove the oil from the comb. But it started to turn my hair red. So I had to quit doing that. But I remember one guy who poured a bottle of peroxide on his hair and it turned him into a red carrot head.

JohnR7 · #25 5th January 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
If anything, Underhill is playing it safe, confirming theories that are already "proven" as much as they could be through other science.

So he is using DNA research to prove something that he pretty much already knows is true from the work of others? He must really be playing it safe to always come up with the results that he is looking to find.

sulphur · #26 6th January 2003, 02:30 AM

Why are ignoring the perfectly correct information from lewis. Is your mind totally closed to reason?

Micaiah · #27 6th January 2003, 08:57 AM

Okay... A prediction made by evolution that is exactly opposite of what the Bible predicts does not help evolution and supports a litteral reading of Genesis how???

I’m unable to unravel this one. Clarification ?

In Gen ch 1 we read about a male and a female that God created on day 6. They were good gathers. Then in Gen ch 2 we read about Adam and Eve, a man and a women who were formed on day 8 and they produced their own food.

Adam's son Seth much have married a women from the first group to be created, because Science tells us that their Eve was quite a bit older than then their Adam.

DNA may tell us about dead people. But the Bible tells us about the Book of life and who is and will live forever.

The account of Genesis 2 relates to the same account given in Genesis 1 but from a different perspective. The account of Creation given in Scripture finished on day 6.

This is a popular misunderstanding about the studies. The studies that produce a "most recent common ancestor" have never implied that that was the only ancestor living at the time. "Mitochondrial eve" is the most recent common female ancestor of our mitochondria. Likewise, with "y-chromosome adam" and our Y-Chromosome. (Also MCE and YCA are not contempory by a long shot.) These in no way imply that there was a bottleneck. In fact, most figures cite that these ancestral humans population were at least 10,000. However, the last common ancestor for some of our genes dates back to before our ancestors split from the other apes.

Your article confirms the report that all men and women have a common ancestry. That is what Scripture predicts. Scripture and science agree.

euphoric · #28 6th January 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Micaiah
Your article confirms the report that all men and women have a common ancestry. That is what Scripture predicts. Scripture and science agree.

Not even close, the scientific analysis shows that our most recent common male and female ancestors lived ~84,000 years apart.  Not to mention the fact that they weren't the only members of their species alive at the time as the Genesis model suggests.

-brett

Micaiah · #29 6th January 2003, 10:16 AM

There is evidence that links the DNA of all people. While this doesn't necessarily disprove the evolutionary position, it is consistent with the teaching of Scripture that mankind comes from one couple. The DNA findings would have been a challenge to Scripture if there had been more than one mitochondrial line.

I view the evolutionary time frame to be pretty plastic. There is evidence to suggest Eve lived around 6000 years ago - (Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998.). That fits in with Scriptures time frame.

kaotic · #30 6th January 2003, 10:32 AM

I view the evolutionary time frame to be pretty plastic. There is evidence to suggest Eve lived around 6000 years ago - (Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998.). That fits in with Scriptures time frame.

What evidence are you talking about? The only evidence from science that I have seen its that "EVE" lived about 120 or 150,000 years ago. And there was more than one "EVE".