I did Eljay, did you read it? I can't tell you have nothing to offer in refute of it.

Pretend it's my bible and I'm asking you to prove it's not true, with SCIENTIFIC evidence.

GO FOR IT EVERYONE, refute my biblical link.

http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm

WRONG WRONG WRONG can't you people get a clue

Science, you have to refute science with science not this stuff. Where is your reference material?

Décaf.?!?!?!? I'll have you know I'm herbal tea all the way
dear 'spider'!!! But what the heck, congrats on that other 'long jump to conclusion' record!!!

As for your other invitation, 'redy' beat me to the line.

It would be appreciated that you expand on your 'long jump to conclusion' answer: '... this information seems incorrect...' with something other than a web link.

Not that you can't mind you, answer a web link with a web link, but I wouldn't want to be the one to attempt 'the long jump to conclusion' about WHAT exactly made YOU jump to the conclusion that, '... that information SEEMS to be incorrect...'. I am not trained in that demanding discipline, and I wouldn't want to injure myself unecessarily.

So 'spider', please indulge us once more, and tell us, or 'correct us' all on what you seem to find incorrect exactly, in 'redy's submission.


Thank you.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Human_skin_color_-_Research_on_skin_color_variability/id/1486241

Thank-you spider, I will look them up and consider them. I'll get back to you, though don't expect me to race to the 37 minute mark.

I read slow and validate what I read, when I can.

In all fairness, I have to point out that your source's sources are about 10 years old. I have reviewed much of that information before. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole site, but I was disagreeing with one major point, namely that human evolution required long periods of time.

Well, maybe I don't understand and need to be corrected, but so far, I just see a 'long jump to conclusion' mess of confusion.

Let's see where I might be wrong in my understanding of your premise 'spider'.

You suggest with lightning speed, that 'redy' and by extension, the article by Kelley R. Ross, Ph.D. based on HUMAN EVOLUTION, '... that information SEEMS to be incorrect...', and offer a somewhat impertinent, although fascinating in its own right, study on 'HUMAN SKIN COLORATION EVOLUTION' as your principal rebuttal to claim 'incorrect infomation' of the other.

But the 'other' isn't a study on the evolution of skin coloration, and specifically warns of this possible confusing shortfall (skin color evolutiOn vs human race evolution) in the text:

'... Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic wherewithal to make that adaptation...'
(paragraph #8, of the article)

Although the 'long jump to conclusion' you made, remains an impressive feat, could it be, in our attempt to sort out the confusing mess left in its passage, that you simply mixed-up 2 distinct categories of evolution, 'skin colour' and 'human'???

Of course, NOT JUMPING TO CONCLUSION myself, I wouldn't dare try it, but just asking?

I tell you, this 'long jump to conclusion' sure can be a dangerous sport.

You have all my respect and admiration in practicing it so feverishly 'spider'!!!

Redy: I took the first civilization Bantu/Africa

The Iron Age South of the Sahara

African south of the Sahara lived largely in nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups up until 200 BC. As a result, African populations were very sparse. There are several speculations as to why sub-Saharan Africans remained in hunting-gathering groups, but they are all guess-work. Perhaps the most reasonable explanations involve the abundance of resources and the protection that their isolation gave them from invasion and migration pressures.

Still, early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century). The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent.

The instrument of that spread was the Bantu migrations. Bantu is a family of languages that are closely related and represent the largest linguistic family of African languages. Bantu speaking people migrated out of north-central Africa in the last century BC and these migrations continued all throughout the first millenium AD. They migrated south into the rain forest regions around the Congo and they migrated east into the East African highlands. Wherever they migrated, they imposed their language, which mixed with and replaced indiegenous languages. How they managed to impose their language on such a wide range of people across such a huge swathe of territory is anyone's guess. Further migrations in the first millenium then displaced the earlier Bantu immigrants, who pushed farther east and south. These Bantu immigrants would eventually found the civilization of the Mwenumatapa, or "Great Zimbabwe" civilization. Not only did the Bantu spread iron-smelting techniques across Africa, they also were responsible for diffusing agriculture, particularly agriculture of high-yield crops such as yams, bananas, and plantains. The spread of agriculture led to the explosive growth of village life all throughout Africa.

Urban settlement began at a very early date in Africa. The earliest urban settlement were stone-walled towns in southern Mauritania that date back to sometime in the second millemium BC. An explosion of urban settlement in the Sahel region immediately south of the Sahara began between 600 and 200 BC. The Sahel is a hot, dry savannah that can support human agriculture and settlement. The first urban settlements were Sahelian: Jenne, Gao, and Kumbi (later Kumbi Saleh, the capital of the kingdom of Ghana). All of these urban centers grew up in oasis and river regions which could support such large populations.


So there ya go....shot down not that old......try again.

Oh no dear one, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

You haven't shot down a dang thing. I don't even know what you are refernecing?

You copied my post and then began with



What reference is that making to my post? You have in no way addressed the information from the website I gave you. Unless I have failed to see it. Please refer me to the section in the website I gave that discussed Bantu Africa?

Your opinion means nothing in a scientific debate lil girl. Bring on the 'references' let us see from wence the cut and paste you have done derives from.

I have shown you mine, show me yours?

You are confusing two subjects. The author is stating quite plainly that genetic affinity cannot be determined by simply looking at the color of the skin. It was once commonly believed that Aborigines were descended from African origins, but as the first chart on the site shows, they are related to Asians. My point is that the genetic diversity for the human race would have developed more quickly than 200,000 years.

The largest and most genetically diverse group of humans is African. The smaller groups are less genetically diverse, which is easily explained as being the result of smaller groups of humans. A small group of africans moved into Europe and became caucasians, for instance. The MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of humans is believed to have been around 3,000 BC. Since science rejects any belief in Noah's flood, they assume that ancestry dates back much further than 3,000 BC, but all other matriarchal lines died out for various reasons. (If you look at the timeline for Noah's flood, you find that it is estimated to have happened around 2900 BC, which would make Noah's wife the MRCA for all humanity.)

In other words, all humanity has a single ancestor from only 5,000 years ago. Who she was is up to speculation (I have already offered mine). But this is unquestioned science. So my position that human diversity evolved in less than 200,000 years is absolutely correct and supportable from a scientific standpoint. We are separated by only 5,000 years of evolution from one another.

you "both" make your point from non "absolute athority," both point's are moot. Until someone really can produce absolute evidence that is accepted by all - it's a pointless discussion as to who may be right or wrong.

actually redy all my own personal notes.....but please feel free to google Iron Age....or even Bantu.....it will give you plenty.....


and remember also dear that science is only theory and as of yet I have not seen anything given iron clad. They still with it all have to test and none are 100% accurage.

Bantu was in the tree....


Then I went to my notes on the different ages.....like Iron age....and bam there ya have in bantu


I will be more then happy to find where I got the original information......

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM

very interesting

Tribo,

I am referring to scientific authority. Nina Jablonski is the formost researcher on human skin color. The MRCA is commonly accepted to be between 2 and 5 thousand years ago.

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/papers/rohde-mrca-two.pdf


I'm not really sure what your objection is, but I appreciate the polite manner in which your objected.

Hey tribo, take a moment and sort it all out for yourself!!!

The only point I am making, is that 'spider' is using an apple to convince us that an orange isn't of the right colour.

His point is off topic, and you are contributing to the off-topic epidemy!!!

He's using, what is an otherwise interesting paper on skin colour evolution, as a foundation to discredit a human evolution thesis, which clearly claims it not basing any of its findings on skin coloration evolution.

Spider's only point is that 200 000 years+ doesn't agreee with biblical 6 000. And I point out that his information doesn't support that.

If 'spider's point is, as he claims, the biblical 6 000 with nothing else than this 'skin colour evolution' paper, than he is 'off-topic', and should be invited to submit pertinent information for his claim.

That is my point.

voileazur,

This is a classic strawman fallacy, but I believe you have made it accidentally. I have nowhere in this thread, suggested that the earth is only 6,000 years old. My assertion, which is supported by all modern science on the subject, is that human diversity was arrived at much more quickly than 200,000 years. What you seem to be doing is making assumptions about what I believe and assuming that assumption is driving my current argument. That is incorrect and I have supported my statements with scientific research.

Spider I have found the original article that the website you give uses. So I did not read the information on your website, instead I referred to the original article: From Discover, Vol. 22, No. 2, February, 2001. Gina Kirchweger © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Discover. )

Since this information was from 2001 I also did my own research and found a peer reviewed scientific website and the following article:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027&ct=1

What Controls Variation in Human Skin Color?
Gregory S. Barsh

Citation: Barsh GS (2003) What Controls Variation in Human Skin Color? PLoS Biol 1(1): e27 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027
Published: October 13, 2003
Copyright: © 2003 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Public Library of Science Open-Access License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gregory S. Barsh is an associate professor of Departments of Genetics and Pediatrics and an associate investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States. E-mail: gbarsh@cmgm.stanford.edu.



My points are as follows.
It is not known how long it would take for a genetic change in humans to effect skin pigmentation.

That’s why I sited the information above. It would seem that the website you were reading made that assertion. As of 2003, this information was not known.

It seems that science has accepted that there is a pigmentation gene. Like all genes, even the recessive ones, they can be triggered into changing some human trait that has been ‘naturally selected’ to remain as a needed and useful survival tactic.

Now, the theory, VERY SIMPLY, of evolution, while discounting such genetic trait alterations as evolutionary, also uses other factors to account for those changes that create a NEW genetic trait that was not previous a part of our natural selective qualities OR that made a sudden leap in a genetically quantitative way.

Adjusting so greatly a gene, that NEW trait alterations became/become part of the dominant genetics and this usually happens in response to some change in the natural quality of the environment.

So there are two trains of thought about evolution and sometimes it’s important to keep them separate and it’s always important to understand how much testing and research and past knowledge has gone into and continues to push our understanding.

Thanks for giving me something new to look up. I learned more than I thought.

Unfortunately I have to dismiss your information. Here’s the reason why.

All the information I found and verified came from peer reviewed scientific website and in that site were several confirmations of the age of humanity being the generally accepted, current scientific age.

MUCH MUCH OLDER than 6 thousand or even 6 million.

tsk tsk - poorly done dear one, this will never make a passing grade in seminary (OF ALL PLACES)

You mean the notes you made from this website

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM

That begins like this:



I didn't look past the first sentences of YOUR NOTES but I didn't even see a word changed. NOPE not a summary at all.

The truth is that the site above is not even an accptible URL for any kind of research. If this is the way you research for your bible informtion well;

THEN ONCE AGAIN I URGE YOU TO ENROLL IN SEMINARY.

They teach about lying there too, though I don't know if they consider plagerism a lie. I do and the poeple you steale from don't like either.

TRY AGAIN DEB SOMEONE ELSES ARGUMENT HOLDS NO VALIDATION HERE. IN FACT YOU HAVE LOST A GREAT DEAL OF YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY.

(caps for emphisis)

uuhhhhh......

truth?


how about if the scientists say soething without "if" attached, and the "consensus" is, and we "believe"....

oh, that works!!!! D'OH!!!!!!!!



First, let's get the little kiddies that call themselves scentists to prove their guesses and stipulations and conjecture and hypotheticals before we begin to suppose that we need science to dispute science.


Novel thought, eh?


there would be no argument.

end of story.



intelligence is measured by what?

and genius is what?

and badges are wha?


hello???????

a little truth goes a longggggggggggg wayyyyyyyyyyy



but none of what is being spouted as science is anything but inconclusive when it comes to disproving God spoke it all into existence and never will.What science can do is merely observe what God has done, but giving it a time lie and declaring that he was innovsative and resourceful and imaginative in his prototypes and immproved models sounds like Detroit to me

and Madison Ave, and Wall St.


Gee, I really don't hate to burst your bubble, but then again,.......


none of you want the truth.

so keep making it up as you go.


when you are done going in circles, God is still waiting for you right where he has always been.

right under your nose listening to your heart.


In the meantime, do not be surprised and anxious and upset and disturbed that thinking Christians tthat want truth will ever roll over on your fabrications and delusions and hyperbolic rhetoric.


We are way beyond that.

we want to see truth.

no lies, no manipulations, not conjecture.


oh, and by the way, we won't hear i here first.

we will hear it from God.

But what evidence there is of truth representation of observable realities of creation and its mechanics will be on the news somewhere credible and we will sher it with you from there, and YOU will share it with us THERE, in the light of day before all men.


So, suck it up and know we love you.

we really do.

But we won't coddle you.

your dismissives do enough of that.

have a nice day, won't you?

truthfully yours,

a lover of the truth.