Skip to comments.
Evidence Of Very Recent Human Adaptation: Up To 10 Percent Of Human Genome May Have Changed
Science Daily ^
| 7-12-2007
| Cornell University
Posted on 07/12/2007 5:19:43 PM PDT by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
1
posted on
07/12/2007 5:19:52 PM PDT
by
blam
To: SunkenCiv; Coyoteman
2
posted on
07/12/2007 5:20:32 PM PDT
by
blam
(Secure the border and enforce the law)
To: blam
3
posted on
07/12/2007 5:21:50 PM PDT
by
mnehring
(Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
To: blam
“10 percent of the human genome to change in some populations in the last 15,000 to 100,000 years, when people began migrating from Africa.”
Does this mean that those that did not migrate did not evolve leaving them different than those that did?
4
posted on
07/12/2007 5:26:28 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
To: blam
5
posted on
07/12/2007 5:28:38 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
To: babygene
Not withstanding his statement:
“It is important to emphasize that the research does not state that one group is more evolved or better adapted than another,” said co-author Carlos Bustamante, a Cornell assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology. “Rather as humans have populated the world, there has been strong selective pressure at the genetic level for fortuitous mutations that allow digestion of a new food source or tolerate infection by a pathogen that the population may not have faced in a previous environment.”
Do if sense PC-talk?
6
posted on
07/12/2007 5:29:46 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
To: blam
Liberals are proof of recent devolution.
7
posted on
07/12/2007 5:30:03 PM PDT
by
ConservaTexan
(February 6, 1911)
To: babygene
I think it’s been shown through the genome that even those who we consider native in Africa are descendants of the big migration. (ie, same genetic evolution.)
8
posted on
07/12/2007 5:30:53 PM PDT
by
mnehring
(Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
To: mnehrling
Where did you dig that up? Certainly not from the article, it seems to be saying otherwise...
Perhaps you studied that in diversity class.
9
posted on
07/12/2007 5:33:44 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
To: blam
Some of what they're pointing to as "natural selection" may not be natural at all. Things like skin color are likely the result of selective breeding; our ancestors picking mates based on their ideals of beauty. In other words, you look the way you do because your great-great-great-great- ... -great-great grandmother/grandfather thought that fill-in-the-blank looked sexy.
10
posted on
07/12/2007 5:35:25 PM PDT
by
Redcloak
(The 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting goods.)
To: babygene
From a Macroevolutionary viewpoint, Africans would still evolve--as would the new non-Africans.
From the Creationist viewpoint, it wouldn't be 'evolve.' It would be simply natural selection for things such as skin pigmentation (light skin absorbs more vitamin D is sun-deprived areas), and mutations (overwhelmingly detrimental).
11
posted on
07/12/2007 5:43:04 PM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: ovrtaxt
A very interesting article. Your body reacts with it's environment to turn genes on and off. What's such a big deal about that?
Claims of being able to "inherit" such changes I take with a huge grain of salt. They propose no mechanism for such a thing, and I can easily see how environmental issues could be the cause their findings that birth weights were affected by the life experiences of grandma.
Global Warming has more apparent validity that this.
12
posted on
07/12/2007 5:44:13 PM PDT
by
narby
13
posted on
07/12/2007 5:44:43 PM PDT
by
narby
To: Redcloak
"Things like skin color are likely the result of selective breeding; our ancestors picking mates based on their ideals of beauty. In other words, you look the way you do because your great-great-great-great- ... -great-great grandmother/grandfather thought that fill-in-the-blank looked sexy." In Europe light skin became beautiful because the lighter skinned people were healthier than the darker skinned people because they got more sun and made more Vitamin D and had less incident of Vitamin D deficent disease like scurvvy, rickets and etc.
In Africa, Black became beautiful because the lighter skinned people there had skin sores (cancer) and died early, etc.
HEALTHY = Beautiful.
14
posted on
07/12/2007 5:44:52 PM PDT
by
blam
(Secure the border and enforce the law)
To: babygene
Maybe. If you want to see that.
Personally see racist-suggestive stuff coming out of your post 4.
(mildly erased from before racist-suggestive in the above sentence).
15
posted on
07/12/2007 5:46:15 PM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: narby
Claims of being able to "inherit" such changes I take with a huge grain of salt. They propose no mechanism for such a thing, and I can easily see how environmental issues could be the cause their findings that birth weights were affected by the life experiences of grandma.I have my own theory. Organisms can imprint responses to critical life experiences on their genome and pass that to offspring. It explains how inherited behviors orginate better than pure Darwinian evolution.
16
posted on
07/12/2007 5:47:03 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
To: Redcloak
You might have a point for
eye color, but not for skin tone. Eye color just seems pretty. Amount of melanin is useful.
Those in northern climes tend to have lighter skin--this helps them produce enough vitamin D from the limited amount of sunlight they are exposed to (especially considering they also have to put on more clothes as it is colder).
17
posted on
07/12/2007 5:48:58 PM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: babygene
And maybe you picked up your opinion from the Klan or Aryan Nations?
18
posted on
07/12/2007 5:49:59 PM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: blam
19
posted on
07/12/2007 5:50:59 PM PDT
by
blam
(Secure the border and enforce the law)
To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Hmmmm.....
Getting sort of angry after reading a bunch of race-based threads.
Time to bug out of here, anyway.
Will check back later. (for pings and such).
20
posted on
07/12/2007 5:54:46 PM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson