Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?


"Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xtyef.683$wf.634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dl8n2m$o3f$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:VY9cf.5963$2y.294@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:dke92q$q8r$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > "Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > news:Xf69f.2302$m81.1529@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > Hmm. If that "norm of reaction" thing has nothing to do with genes being
> > switched on and out, which mechanism is it then?

> It does have to do with that, but the genotype is already THERE. Sun
causes
> an effect in your chemistry (environmental effect on you, your genotype).
> Result is you change color. This looks like a difference, phenotype
> difference - but the genotype has not changed. Remove the sun - and you
> return to original color. All of that is already in your genes, to be
able
> to do that - the norm of reaction would be HOW tan you can get, HOW long
you
> keep the tan after the sun factor is removed, etc. But how fair you are
> without the sun is the starting point in the norm. But move to Africa
and
> get the darkest tan in the world and you are not going to have an African
> looking baby if you marry another white person with a tan. Norm of
reaction
> would be how fair you can get TO how dark you can get - how long the tan
> remains, etc. That would be your norm for "how sun effects you"

So it's the bandwidth of variety that the particular genotype admits.

> >> People say "black genes are dominant" what they really mean is that the
> >> APPEARANCE blacks have seems to stay around, even when there is a lot
of
> >> European in the mix. It has nothing to do with color. It's features.
> >> Seems to me that when that whole set of features is gone - then it's
> >> gone.
> >> If that person and all his descendents no longer marries with blacks
but
> >> all stay with whites - his offspring and their offspring are going to
be white
> >> from then on. I think that whole set of features, like a clade, is
maybe
> >> in ONE gene. It's a set of features that might also come with innate
> >> behaviors. Studies with clades of animals show this, and inserting ONE
> >> gene can change the animal in looks AND behavior. I posted about that
before.

> > I agree that racial appearance is not just about skin color but a set of
> > features.
> > However, I don't think that the whole set is determined on ONE gene
> > because
> > then certain features could only be inherited as a complete set. This is
> > obviously not the case.

> no, it's not obvious. ONE gene has interactions with many other genes -
and
> it might be just ONE gene that affects the entire "package" like a
cascade,
> an interaction. That interaction might be the entire appearance, the
> features, all of it. This was shown in animals (I posted about that
> before). ONE gene inserted was all it took to make that organisms of the
> OTHER clade - not just in appearance, but in BEHAVIOR too!

If it's really just ONE gene which determines black or white features, then
the geneticists will isolate it sonner or later. It's a disturbing vision
somehow.

> If you watch people of countries with a broad
> > variety of races (like in Brasil or Cuba, where at least three "racial
sets"
> > were blended over several generations), you will find every kind of
> > feature - blonde frizzy hair with brown skin, straight black hair with
> > white skin, blue eyes with black skin etc. Variety seems unlimited.
> > To connect body features with behavior is at least questionable for
> > humans, since culture can do a lot to model our behavior.

> Maybe, maybe not. What people's eyeballs see and pretty much identify as
> "you are of THAT race" turns out to be pretty much on target with what
genes
> show. Someone just posted a url to an article discovering that - and I
> commented to her - and PASTED UP the entire article in the post. Do
search
> for my nick - you'll find it. Experiments with foxes.

Yes, I remember your post about that.

> Foxes were selected
> ONLY in terms of behavior - not anything else. The end result was they
got
> tamer and friendly foxes (which they selected for) - and they ALL looked
> like another race of fox - or even maybe NOT a fox if you ever saw one. I
> mean, they looked very different from regular wild foxes. So yes - it
seems
> that behavior AND appearance are part of a package. Foxes are mammals,
like
> us.

But if a certain behavior -eg aggression - were determined by race, then
EVERY member of a certain race would display the same behavior (eg
aggression level). That's definitely not the case.

> >> What I was saying is that it surely appeares to be genetic. The only
way to
> >> really KNOW is to do experiments - and subject the pregnant mothers to
some
> >> kind of EXTREME stress - like the kind of thing white people's
ancestors
> >> must have been subjected to for them to get fair - lack of Vit D?
Yeah,
> >> lots of people would surely die in such an experiment. But someone
would
> >> survive - and what would that person's kid be? Depigmented? Maybe!
> >> But - what else?

> > I'm not sure whether white skin resulted from lack of Vit D, I rather
> > think it was a genetic defect in the first place which turned out to be
of
> > advantage in certain areas with a low sunshine index.

> That would have caused Ricketts on a massive scale - low sun mean low Vit
D.
> Blacks in the USA got ricketts when they moved to Chicago - Vit D was
added
> to the milk due to that. I think Professor Sweet has information on this
> Ricketts thing with "where did whites come from" article. Yeah, he does.

Maybe our ancestors suffered and died of Rickets in large numbers until the
new "light skin" genotype was ready to cope with minimal Vit D input and
minimal sunlight.

> > Anyway, there seems to be a natural range of variey in humans concerning
> > skin tone which leads to adaption within some hundred generations.
> > Just consider American Indians. Given that most of them share a common
> > ethnicity of ancestors who once crossed the Bering strait, you can see
that
> > Native Americans in Canada and the USA are rather light skinned, and
people
> > get gradually browner when you go south to Mexico, and in the high
places of
> > Peru and Ecuador with intense sunlight the indigenous Americans are
pretty
> > dark brown. This is not just sun tan, they remain darker when they live
in
> > temperate latitudes, so it seems to be a long-term adaption which works
> > gradually over many generations.

> Or, they selected for darker and darker people - OR they mixed with
another
> group of people that came there, possibly from Africa (some evidence does
> show this, imo).

Both scenarios are imaginable. I hope future finds in archaeology and
genetics will shed more light on that issue.

> >> > We don't have to do human experiments to get a glimpse on it. We can
> >> > study persons with genetic defects.

> >> Nah, that's like Freud studying insane people and then coming to some
> >> conclusion (ha ha, bull***!).

> > Well, his conclusions were not *all* bull***! :-))

> Freud was thrown in the trash ages ago in favor of neurophysiology. Like
> Damasio.

At least Freud made mind and emotions accessible for scientific research.
:-)

> >> >> >> (I'm not online all that often, so if you reply, it might be
> >> >> >> days before I see it).

> >> >> > I know, you have other things to do as long as the weather's fine.
I
> >> >> > hope you wasn't affected by Katrina and Rita.

> >> >> No, Wilma hit us.

> >> > Sorry to hear that. I hope she didn't hit you too hard!

> >> No, Wilma did me another favor and removed an unwanted tree. :)

> > Hehe, sometimes there's some good within the evil... :-)

> Hell yes, Wilma did me a few other BIG BIG favors I won't mention on here
:)

Makes me VERY curious...:-)


.