Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even Neanderthal Man), but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a 'hair covered' Primate.
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA Injection (pardon the PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
:-(]
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 05:30:45 AM |
|
|
"The Other Guy" <TheOtherGuy@NewWorldsBeyond.com> wrote in message
news:hkUhf.33134$gK4.1029551@news20.bellglobal.com...
Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even
Neanderthal Man), but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
Do you know what you're talking about?
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a
'hair covered' Primate.
We haven't. We have as much body hair as e.g. chimpanzees - it's simply much
finer. But even if your assertion WERE true - so what? WE wudol have evolved
away our hair the same way we evolved away gills, fins, tails etc. Evolution
implies change, you know..
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA
Injection (pardon the PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
My judgement is you simly don't understand evolution.
:-(]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
27 Nov 2005 10:54:54 PM |
|
|
"The Other Guy" <TheOtherGuy@NewWorldsBeyond.com> wrote in message
news:hkUhf.33134$gK4.1029551@news20.bellglobal.com...
Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even
Neanderthal Man), but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a
'hair covered' Primate.
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA
Injection (pardon the PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
I'll go for 'the aquatic-ape' theory:
During the begining of humanity, all humans were covered in thick hair, head
to toe. Everyone was a happy monkey, and pre-humans (if I may call them
such) propagated and migrated through out the planet.
At some point after the 'happy monkey' stage, environmental conditions on
our planet began changing drastically within a very short time frame, though
not uniformly. These changes (what ever they were) forced some pre-humans
in certain locations to become semi-aquatic. Over time, our hunched over
chimpanzee like spine had less pressure placed upon it by gravity, and after
many generations of breeding, natural selection favoured those who's spine
was more like the humans of today (upright). Also, after many generations
of breeding, the hair on our bodies began to thin out, because we no longer
had need for thick coats of fur to sheild us from cold wind (generally,
water temperature is much more stable than that of the air). That is not to
say out hair dissappeared completely... we still had our heads above water
most of the time (to breath obviously), and thus we retained our head hair
at the same time our body hair became superfluous.
When climatic conditions allowed, the semi-aquatic monkies (pre-humans) came
out of the water, looking much more like what we see in the mirror every
morning.
Not sure about how accurate this page is, but it outlines some similarities
between dolphins and humans that we not share with other apes, which I guess
indicates that at some point, humans might have been aquatic:
http://paulapeterson.com/dolphin_human_connection.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
02 Dec 2005 02:09:48 AM |
|
|
Thanks for an Honest answer 'Aiden'.
I feel that everyone else that responded to this question had a slight 'inferiority' complex
because they where just "Hairy Like An Ape" by nature (or possibly a 'throw back' to an "Early
Stage" of Darwin's theory, and they just didn't know it.).
:- )
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 06:40:18 AM |
|
|
"The Other Guy" <TheOtherGuy@NewWorldsBeyond.com> wrote in message
news:hkUhf.33134$gK4.1029551@news20.bellglobal.com...
Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even
Neanderthal Man), but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a
'hair covered' Primate.
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA
Injection (pardon the PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
You do come up with some doozies there, Kim!
Jane
:-(]
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
27 Nov 2005 01:46:05 AM |
|
|
I find it more interesting to procrastinate than sitting around looking for ways to attack
other posters here (like some of the other people here do).
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Half-Mad" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 03:22:55 AM |
|
|
The Other Guy wrote on 2005.11.26 2:44 AM:
Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even Neanderthal Man), but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a 'hair covered' Primate.
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA Injection (pardon the PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
:-(]
I have hair all over my body. It's just thinned out in places.
If you look closely enough, I expect you will even find very small hairs
on your nose (on, not in).
There are people alive today who have almost no hair at all on their
body. There are others who are covered in hair, and if seen naked from
a distance, you would think he's wearing clothing.
Some men and most women have full heads of hair. Some men and
occassional women are bald. Gee, must be two completely seperate species.
So, if a bald man has sex with a woman who has a full head of hair, is
that beastiality?
In having less hair, and therefore even further from the primates on a
grooming perspective, does this mean that bald people are more evolved
than non bald people? Or perhaps bald people are the product of more
alien tinkering than others? (Whichever way you choose to go) How
about men with little to no hair on their head, but lots of body hair?
You seem to think that any question that science has not yet answered
(well, at least this one) must be due to aliens. I think that qualifies
you as a freakin' loon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 04:26:55 AM |
|
|
Hair-lessness of 'Homo Sapiens' far exceeds that of their Primate counter-parts. (by Darwinian
Standards)
Now that we understand DNA Strands - there does TRULY exist a missing STRAND of DNA.
Reality BITES in the Most Obnoxious Ways..
:-(]
"Half-Mad" wrote in message
The Other Guy wrote on 2005.11.26 2:44 AM:
Darwinism may explain the progression of Primate to Homo Sapien (or even Neanderthal Man),
but
something is still missing !!!
A 'Strand' of DNA is still un-explainable.
How did Man (or Woman) evolve to an 'almost' hairless creature from a 'hair covered'
Primate.
Could it be "intervention" by Grand Design, or just a "Freak" DNA Injection (pardon the
PUN)
by 'visiting' Aliens.
You be the JUDGE (and Jury) on this ONE .
:-(]
I have hair all over my body. It's just thinned out in places.
If you look closely enough, I expect you will even find very small hairs
on your nose (on, not in).
There are people alive today who have almost no hair at all on their
body. There are others who are covered in hair, and if seen naked from
a distance, you would think he's wearing clothing.
Some men and most women have full heads of hair. Some men and
occassional women are bald. Gee, must be two completely seperate species.
So, if a bald man has sex with a woman who has a full head of hair, is
that beastiality?
In having less hair, and therefore even further from the primates on a
grooming perspective, does this mean that bald people are more evolved
than non bald people? Or perhaps bald people are the product of more
alien tinkering than others? (Whichever way you choose to go) How
about men with little to no hair on their head, but lots of body hair?
You seem to think that any question that science has not yet answered
(well, at least this one) must be due to aliens. I think that qualifies
you as a freakin' loon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 05:32:29 AM |
|
|
"The Other Guy" <TheOtherGuy@NewWorldsBeyond.com> wrote in message
news:vIWhf.33149$gK4.1033379@news20.bellglobal.com...
Hair-lessness of 'Homo Sapiens' far exceeds that of their Primate
counter-parts. (by Darwinian
Standards)
Proof?
Now that we understand DNA Strands
What the hell is this suppose dto mean? We most certain HAVEN'T decoded the
human genome. about 96% of it is a total mystery.
- there does TRULY exist a missing STRAND of DNA.
A missing strand? What do you mean?
Reality BITES in the Most Obnoxious Ways..
As I sad, the reality is that you don't knwo what the fuack you'r etalking
about. So bite that..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 04:01:45 AM |
|
|
Totally Agree with what your saying 'Half-Mad'.
But who was this 'hair-less' carrier of this Gene ???
That is the question that I am posing here today.
Workings of The Almighty (Grand Design) or Alien DNA (visitation by Extra-Terrestrials).
:-(]
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 06:14:25 AM |
|
|
"The Other Guy" <TheOtherGuy@NewWorldsBeyond.com> wrote in message
news:VkWhf.33147$gK4.1033097@news20.bellglobal.com...
Totally Agree with what your saying 'Half-Mad'.
...which can only mean you haven't read, or read and understood what HM
wrote..
But who was this 'hair-less' carrier of this Gene ???
That is the question that I am posing here today.
Humans aren't "hairless" you babbling *****-end. If you "totally agreed" with
Half Mad you'd realise that. Our body hair is simply thinner
Workings of The Almighty (Grand Design) or Alien DNA (visitation by
Extra-Terrestrials).
Just a bog standard bit of evolution. I expect a combination of living in
shelters rather than outdoors, developing fire and rudimentary clothing all
lead to thick body hair being less and less of an evolutionary advantage.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism missing the single 'Stand' of DNA |
26 Nov 2005 04:07:56 AM |
|
|
YES, I do realize that Outlook Express's "Spell Check" mis-quoted the ET's full naming.
:-(]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
