Don't like the implications?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. Since you only "hear about" evolution, you should not say positively that evolution is true.

Wauw.

In that case, you can't take anything seriously, since we don't know EVERYTHING about any given subject.

Germs? Nope, we don't know everything about germs. Therefor, you don't need to take it seriously that they can cause desease.

Plate tectonics? Nope, we don't know everything about tectonics, so you don't need to take that seriously either.

Atoms? Nope.

Gravity? A BIG nope.

Relativity? Nope.

Physics in general? An ever bigger nope.

Your particular flavour of religion? Another BIG nope. OEPS!!!



psssst: your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I replied to that one.

I must have missed it.

Post number where you explain specifically how it was "rubbish" and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can tell the difference by all kinds of criteria.

Hahaha, sneaky move of goalposts!!!!

The point is NOT about "being able to tell the difference".
The point is about being able to immediatly identify the geographical location of their roots / ancestry.

I never spoke about being able to tell the difference. The difference is clear. The ACTUAL question is, WHY is there a geographical location associated with it???

How come that we associate a caucasian's ancestry with Europe?
A black person's ancestry with Africa?
An asian person's ancestry with China and its surroundings?
Indians with the Americas?
Aboriginals with Australia?

THAT is the point. Why is this so, if not because of knowledge of the evolutionary past of those ancestral populations???

INDEED, if evolution isn't true, why don't we encounter native black people in south america? Why don't we encounter native indians in Brittain? Why don't we encounter eskimo's in south asia?

Why are we able to tie something like a genetic marker with a geographical location concerning ancestral bloodlines?

But that does not mean they know why are there such differences. I can tell the race by looking at the face. But I do not know why.

You don't know why?
But you do know that it's not because of an evolutionary past?
So, do you believe in the adam and eve story?

How come we can tell by genetic markers where someone's geographical ancestral roots are, if the adam and eve story is true and evolution is false?
Did your god amuse himself by inserting these markers in those populations?

How would evolution explain this?

I already told you and you keep refusing to address it directly. Instead, you continue to handwave it away with one-liners or plain old dodging.

I'll summarize it again for you:
Because genetically isolated populations are on their own evolutionary path. Because mutations that occur in population A stay in population A.

And, that was the question many many posts before this one. Why do you still pause on the same question?

Because you categorically and dishonestly refuse to acknowledge the answer given to you. You handwave it away and you never actually address it.

 

[juvenissun]

In what respect? We know that particular skin colours are specific to particular populations and the degree of pigmentation correlates with their exposure to UV radiation according to their geographic locations, and we also see that the associated genetic variations are consistent with these features evolving in relatively reproductively isolated populations, and that the timescales suggested by the genetic differences between populations are consistent with the estimates for their geographical separation.
.

You don't have to say that again, many people have done that. The question is: there ARE more exceptions than examples. So this explanation is simply not working.

 

[juvenissun]

I must have missed it.

Post number where you explain specifically how it was "rubbish" and why?

Sorry, no patient for doing that.

 

[juvenissun]

Hahaha, sneaky move of goalposts!!!!

The point is NOT about "being able to tell the difference".
The point is about being able to immediatly identify the geographical location of their roots / ancestry.

I never spoke about being able to tell the difference. The difference is clear. The ACTUAL question is, WHY is there a geographical location associated with it???

So, tell me why is east Asia different from France. I asked this question just a while ago and no one can answer it.

 

[juvenissun]

Science never says "positively" about it's theories.

If so, why do you say that evolution is true instead of being probably true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, tell me why is east Asia different from France. I asked this question just a while ago and no one can answer it.

Because the environments in France and East Asia are two different environments, thus forcing the human populations living there to adapt to be better suited to survive in the environment.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution explains it because the various human populations lived in different environments to each other, thus resulting in them adapting to be better suited to their environment. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It is easy, but is not enough.

 

[juvenissun]

Because the environments in France and East Asia are two different environments,

No. they are mostly the same environment.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is easy, but is not enough.

Then what am I missing, since you know oh-so-much about this topic, oh mighty juvenissun?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. they are mostly the same environment.

... no they bloody well are not. Have you been to either France or East Asia?

 

[juvenissun]

Then what am I missing, since you know oh-so-much about this topic, oh mighty juvenissun?

This kind of reply turned me off. Sorry.

 

[Speedwell]

So, tell me why is east Asia different from France. I asked this question just a while ago and no one can answer it.

Different climate is the biggest part of it.

But there is also the contingency factor. There may not be a "reason" for all of the differing characteristics we are talking about. They just happened because of the geographical separation of the populations. If you let a population evolve in Europe over many thousands of generations, you would get a population with characteristics distinguishing them from Asians. If you then wound back the clock and started over you would still get a population with characteristics distinguishing them from Asians, but some of them would be different characteristics--just by chance.
Some of the superficial characteristic differences we are talking about--like melanin levels--have an environmental explanation. Some do not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This kind of reply turned me off. Sorry.

I'm sorry. Then please tell me: what is my answer missing to you, that you only seem to know and no-one else here seems to know?

 

[Speedwell]

This kind of reply turned me off. Sorry.

But you appear to have an explanation of your own that our answers don't measure up to--and you won't tell us what it is. That turns us off.

 

[juvenissun]

Different climate is the biggest part of it.

No. they are in the same climate zone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. they are in the same climate zone.

No they aren't. East Asia is noticeably warmer than France.

 

[Speedwell]

No. they are in the same climate zone.

LOL! "East Asia" is a geographical region which contains the countries of China, Mongolia, the Koreas and Japan. Now you assert that all of these countries have the same climate as France?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL! "East Asia" is a geographical region which contains the countries of China, Mongolia, the Koreas and Japan. Now you assert that all of these countries have the same climate as France?

He has to. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to keep up his contrarian ideology.