I guess on a genetic level, I would like people to first consider (no matter how ridiculous this seems), just how solid our knowledge that we are the same species with a common genetic basis is.
The concept of species is not a static and unchanging one. A number of definitions float around current literature. Here's a good study on the matter. 26 Species Concepts.
The case for genetic similarity is still a strong one. Physical characteristics (i.e. skin tone) are not necessarily and in fact rarely correspond with sizable genetic variation. Black people are no more likely to be genetically related to each other than the random white person; in fact the opposite is often the case.
Just something to excite you Strop: The genetic side of race argued on a medical basis.
Lol don't you just love how people automatically assume you A. are related or B. know the other person if you're of the same race. And the article was way above my head, I should probably try taking college lv bio before i try to read that, me thinks.
Mine is my own theory which is based on Hindu idea of Brahma (god). Firstly the big bang happens because my version of god if u will makes it happen all the galaxies form and move apart you know the theory. Then we get to earth Gods puts evolution forward and everything living starts to adapt and develop and because god set things in motion, the living species have some basic instincts that over time develop and then we have humans.
I would talk about my beliefs on emotion and how people work and why they do bad things and act selfishly but i have to take a shower.
Brahma didn't create the universe nor did he create earth he simply created man kind so i don't know where exactly you're getting you're whole evolution by god theory from.
So uh you know. If what the bible truly said was true, and we were descended from 1 couple (Adam and Eve). Doesn't that make us the product of incest? O_O
Heh, I'm at the level of my training where we've already been long exposed to phenotypic and genotypic variations by ethnicity, so it's hardly any surprise. I mean, these things range from, say, Cystic Fibrosis being a purely genetic Caucasian condition, to the thalassaemias affecting anybody except Caucasians (something to do with malaria being important anywhere except whitey countries)...to treatment guidelines: if you have hypertension, and you're over 55 or black, you get a Calcium channel blocker, otherwise you get an ACE inhibitor etc.
The type of evidence relevant to each of the above differs, be it primarily epidemiological or physiological.
Anyway, back to my original point which I have yet to fully delineate. I have yet to see a solid argument about why there necessarily has to be a common source in the case of common genetics or attributes that define a widespread species. Possibly an argument could be mounted on the same premises of commonality to say that similar environmental circumstances will yield similar results (and, in the grand scheme of things, variability of environmental circumstances on the Earth are extraordinarily narrow), such that the evolution we have observed can be thought of as a convergent process. Over 99.9% of species ever recognised to have populated Earth was extinct before any recorded human history.
Note however that I'm not saying that evolution has an endpoint. Pressure yields change, similarly as the circumstances change, so too will the pressures and the dynamics will shift.
I believe that humanity on planet earth was created by evolution. Both the creationist and interventionist theories seem to far fetched to be accountable theories for the creation of humanity on planet earth. There are a lot more questions that remain unanswered such as if spacemen put us on earth why didn't they bother to teach humans anything? And if the creationist theory were accurate why can't God control natural disasters on his planet? He is so clever to create everything known to mankind why doesn't he make the perfect world if he had that much control? There seems to be quite a bit more substantial evidence on earth to support the theory of evolution.
such as if spacemen put us on earth why didn't they bother to teach humans anything?
Maybe they're studying tendencies of intelligent life and they want to see what we come up with on our own. Maybe they've also dropped own other intelligent life on other planets and are comparing us all.
Maybe they're studying tendencies of intelligent life and they want to see what we come up with on our own. Maybe they've also dropped own other intelligent life on other planets and are comparing us all.
Or maybe it was a rhetorical question? Or maybe it is just a theory of Humanity? Or maybe it was both!
I would imagine the divine being a mastermind in mathematics that could set everything in motion and make it so eventually the molecules and stuff would turn into his own form. As what made the big bang in the first place? What made molecules, the main structure of EVERYTHING? What could have done this? A divine being? For this I believe there is no way we evolved from NOTHING, I believe we evolved from something, but not nothing.
Divine creation seems crazy. A god going around touching the ground and everything creates itself fully evolved, or even half evolved. Wouldn't the divine being be more active than that?
This could be debated for eternity. But let's not.
I would imagine the divine being a mastermind in mathematics that could set everything in motion and make it so eventually the molecules and stuff would turn into his own form. As what made the big bang in the first place? What made molecules, the main structure of EVERYTHING? What could have done this? A divine being? For this I believe there is no way we evolved from NOTHING, I believe we evolved from something, but not nothing.
How come the big bang needs a creator but God doesn't?
