Post, exposing "Climate change" HOAX, censored!, why?

[Pandora]

I'm wondering exactly who she's implying...hmmm

Surely...it's not ...you're not talking about ME ARE YOU???


tsk, tsk, that just would be really MEAN & HATEFUL of you!

So... I take it that you know in your heart that you are a moron?

 

[PLC1]

The show was great, one of the thing the dna proved was that we all came from one single woman in Africa. That made some people mad I supose because while looking up this info for you I found lots of links for someone saying the whole thing was true but the woman was not black. I thought that was funny.

The more black you have in you the higher this M-DNA is, thats how they figured it out that we all came from Africa.


Many people in science have agreed with this type of M-DNA but this dna proves we came from a single woman not random evolution.

Of course the woman was black, as white skin evolved later as an adaptation to a cold northern climate with less sunshine.

I'm not sure how tracing the female lineage back to a single individual shows that humans weren't the result of evolution that had taken place some fifty thousand years before the life of "eve", but it does show that the human race was down to only a few individuals at one time.

Much of the hypothesis of why humans are more intelligent than other animals at least partly because the more adaptable individuals survived, while the less adaptable did not.

That, of course, is speculation, but it is pretty likely that the hypothesis that only a few individuals survived at one time is pretty compelling.

 

[Pandora]

Of course the woman was black, as white skin evolved later as an adaptation to a cold northern climate with less sunshine.

I'm not sure how tracing the female lineage back to a single individual shows that humans weren't the result of evolution that had taken place some fifty thousand years before the life of "eve", but it does show that the human race was down to only a few individuals at one time.

Much of the hypothesis of why humans are more intelligent than other animals at least partly because the more adaptable individuals survived, while the less adaptable did not.

That, of course, is speculation, but it is pretty likely that the hypothesis that only a few individuals survived at one time is pretty compelling.

They said that the Mitochondrial DNA found in humans could not have come from any of the bones found in the past. I am no scientist so I am just going with what they said. It was tested against the neanderthal bones we have un covered and no match, was tested against various apes and monkeys and no match.

 

[PLC1]

They said that the Mitochondrial DNA found in humans could not have come from any of the bones found in the past. I am no scientist so I am just going with what they said. It was tested against the neanderthal bones we have un covered and no match, was tested against various apes and monkeys and no match.

If it came from a modern human (homo sapien), then of course it wasn't a match to ape or neanderthal DNA. This "Eve" could not possibly have been the ancestor of other species.

Could it be that one single woman left her mitochondrial DNA in every human on Earth today? It does seem far fetched, but if DNA testing bears this hypothesis out, it could be. The human race must have been pretty much on the brink of extinction at that point.

 

[Pandora]

If it came from a modern human (homo sapien), then of course it wasn't a match to ape or neanderthal DNA. This "Eve" could not possibly have been the ancestor of other species.

Could it be that one single woman left her mitochondrial DNA in every human on Earth today? It does seem far fetched, but if DNA testing bears this hypothesis out, it could be. The human race must have been pretty much on the brink of extinction at that point.

Its kind of strange but yeah that is what they are saying


actually they said everyone today comes from aprox 3 or 4 woman and those 3 or 4 women came from one woman a few thousand years before. They thought people were coming along in a fast pace then something big killed off most of the people and earth was replenished with a few.

If you can find it you should watch it, its very good. Hosted by Danny Glover I think and its called the real eve.

The new set of bones they found called Ardie has not been tested that I know of for the M-DNA but at least till this new finding they claimed we could not have come from any of the groups.

I personally have a hard time thinking who ever the first female human was, she came from something else that we dont know about... pond scum or what ever... the chances of a male evolving the same, and enough to mate with her in her walking distance just seems far fetched to me but I supose what I believe is far fetched for someone else.


either way....


fake documentation is a political thing not scientific

 

[PLC1]

Its kind of strange but yeah that is what they are saying


actually they said everyone today comes from aprox 3 or 4 woman and those 3 or 4 women came from one woman a few thousand years before. They thought people were coming along in a fast pace then something big killed off most of the people and earth was replenished with a few.

If you can find it you should watch it, its very good. Hosted by Danny Glover I think and its called the real eve.

The new set of bones they found called Ardie has not been tested that I know of for the M-DNA but at least till this new finding they claimed we could not have come from any of the groups.

I personally have a hard time thinking who ever the first female human was, she came from something else that we dont know about... pond scum or what ever... the chances of a male evolving the same, and enough to mate with her in her walking distance just seems far fetched to me but I supose what I believe is far fetched for someone else.


either way....


fake documentation is a political thing not scientific

Yes, it is. Are you thinking that the "Eve' story is based on fake documentation?

The NOVA series indicated that early humans were once down to a few hundred individuals. Of course, that's a long way from only one female. It seems likely that any species that depends on only one individual would be in serious danger of extinction.

If the individual human in the Eve story lived about 150,000 years ago, then modern humans would have evolved about fifty thousand years before. That would indicate that there were significantly more of us before that, but some catastrophe killed off a significant portion of the human race.

Fascinating stuff. We may never know all of the answers, which only makes it more fascinating.

 

[Pandora]

Yes, it is. Are you thinking that the "Eve' story is based on fake documentation?

The NOVA series indicated that early humans were once down to a few hundred individuals. Of course, that's a long way from only one female. It seems likely that any species that depends on only one individual would be in serious danger of extinction.

If the individual human in the Eve story lived about 150,000 years ago, then modern humans would have evolved about fifty thousand years before. That would indicate that there were significantly more of us before that, but some catastrophe killed off a significant portion of the human race.

Fascinating stuff. We may never know all of the answers, which only makes it more fascinating.

lol no

i was trying to go back to the thread topic of fake documentation does not belong in science, but in political.

 

[Pandora]

Yes, it is. Are you thinking that the "Eve' story is based on fake documentation?

The NOVA series indicated that early humans were once down to a few hundred individuals. Of course, that's a long way from only one female. It seems likely that any species that depends on only one individual would be in serious danger of extinction.

If the individual human in the Eve story lived about 150,000 years ago, then modern humans would have evolved about fifty thousand years before. That would indicate that there were significantly more of us before that, but some catastrophe killed off a significant portion of the human race.

Fascinating stuff. We may never know all of the answers, which only makes it more fascinating.

the first eve they claim is the first female human. so it would not be a matter of in danger of extinction but instead the start of something new.

they claimed that a few thousand years later most of the humans died, actually all but 3 or 4 women and how ever many men. M-DNA doesnt trace in men from what they said. at that point it would be more a danger of extinction.

 

[PLC1]

the first eve they claim is the first female human. so it would not be a matter of in danger of extinction but instead the start of something new.

they claimed that a few thousand years later most of the humans died, actually all but 3 or 4 women and how ever many men. M-DNA doesnt trace in men from what they said. at that point it would be more a danger of extinction.

If they're trying to say that "Eve' was the first female human, then their timeline is off by some fifty thousand years. Not only that, but there was no "first" female human, but a gradual change from an earlier evolutionary type, most likely a homo erectus. Evolution doesn't suddenly produce one female and one male that is different from all of their predecessors. It produces gradual changes over time. Moreover, a species coming from two individuals would be extremely unlikely due to the lack of genetic diversity. Not only that, but a sudden change from one species to another would have to take place more or less simultaneously in a male and a female individual.

It is highly unlikely that the human race was ever down to a few related females, but not impossible. That it can be traced back to one single individual that was the first is impossible.

But, we digress. The thread is, as you pointed out, about that other controversial scientific theory, climate change.

 

[Pandora]

If they're trying to say that "Eve' was the first female human, then their timeline is off by some fifty thousand years. Not only that, but there was no "first" female human, but a gradual change from an earlier evolutionary type, most likely a homo erectus. Evolution doesn't suddenly produce one female and one male that is different from all of their predecessors. It produces gradual changes over time. Moreover, a species coming from two individuals would be extremely unlikely due to the lack of genetic diversity. Not only that, but a sudden change from one species to another would have to take place more or less simultaneously in a male and a female individual.

It is highly unlikely that the human race was ever down to a few related females, but not impossible. That it can be traced back to one single individual that was the first is impossible.

But, we digress. The thread is, as you pointed out, about that other controversial scientific theory, climate change.

They are saying M-DNA eve is the first human but I do not remember how many thousands of years ago they claim she lived.

 

[PLC1]

They are saying M-DNA eve is the first human but I do not remember how many thousands of years ago they claim she lived.

According to the article you posted, 150,000.

 

[Pandora]

According to the article you posted, 150,000.

I dont know how they got the number except it had something to do with the M-DNA

 

[PLC1]

I dont know how they got the number except it had something to do with the M-DNA

The age of DNA is determined by its diversity. DNA changes at a predictable rate, so it is now possible to date when a species first evolved by its genetic diversity. It is quite amazing what the science of genetics has given us as a research tool.

It is difficult to see how they determined the age of a specific piece of mitochondrial DNA that is common to all humans, as there wouldn't be any genetic diversity in it. Maybe there is another way I'm not aware of.

It looks like the Eve idea is an unproven hypothesis, interesting to think about but far from being backed by solid evidence.

Which still doesn't mean that it won't prove to be true, of course.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Much less stable ice for polar bears, expert says

Survey by ship finds satellite data about thicker Arctic ice was wrong

Jessica Robertson / USGS
A polar bear makes its way on sea ice off the Beaufort Sea in September 2008.

updated 5:56 p.m. CT, Fri., Nov . 27, 2009

Arctic sea ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.
University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding, but the thick, multiyear frozen sheets have been replaced by thin ice that cannot support the weight of a polar bear.
"Polar bears are being restricted to a small fringe of where this multiyear sea ice is. As we went further and further north, we saw less and less polar bears because this ice wasn't even strong enough for the polar bears to stand on," said Barber, who returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea in September.
Barber said permanent ice, which is normally up to 30 feet thick, was easily pierced by the research icebreaker he and his team were on.

The deterioration has far-reaching consequences for the North and its iconic mammal. Polar bears that rely on the permanent ice to survive the summer have fewer and fewer places of refuge, said Barber, who has been studying the Arctic ecosystem for 25 years.
Bears eating bears for food?
Scientists also said Friday that shrinking Arctic sea ice may be forcing some hungry polar bears to cannibalize bear cubs.
At least seven cases of mature male polar bears eating bear cubs have been spotted this year among the animals around Churchill, Manitoba, said Ian Stirling, a retired Environment Canada biologist who specializes in the Churchill bears.

<for the rest of this story> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34176463/ns/us_news-environment?GT1=43001
*****************************************
So not everything viewed from the distance: as in the Satellite data is reliable for exact science of what a hands on researcher will find upfront and personal!

Sad and shocking the deterioration that is taking place!

 

[always]

Yes, but it takes a lot of goading before anyone like Bunz is going to call someone a "moron."

Or, maybe I should say, a lot of proof.

I have filed my complaint with the WEBMASTER concerning BUNZ calling me a "MORON".This is indeed RUDE and is not allowed per forum rules. Just because BUNZ is a "MOD" does not excuse his poor behavior. In fact a "MOD" should be more respectful of the rules . I asked for an apology , not only to me , "Always", but to every member of this forum.