Evolution: Human Hair, glitch?

[Michaelangelica]

Any good caveman worth his 'salt' would never shampoo either

see

702 Drive » ABC Sydney

The Great Shampoo Experiment: Is shampoo a ripoff? Richard - and hundreds of listeners - are testing the theory that you can live without shampoo! Read more...

Our picture shows a brave Brave Jean Kittson takes her life into her own hands by putting Richard's No-Shampoo hair to the smell test during the TGIF live show at Parramatta.

[CraigD]

We are evolving so quickly that some of our 'traits' are being activated post womb development....cancer.

 

--In many cases... genX,Y,Z spawned children are devolping too quickly in the womb aswell.

Can you provide any evidence to support these claims?

 

If you can’t, you shouldn’t be making them in a science forum.

[Michaelangelica]

 

(an indecision to choose the right 'trait' ...not enough time to make a decision spawns cancer)

I don't see cancer as a "trait" and can't quite follow your logic. Could you please elaborate?

 

There are many hundreds of estrogenic chemical now in the environment and it is my view that they promote cancers that are sensitive to estrogen (A lot of breast cancers).

Eg chemicals such as Bisphenol-A found in canned food and some vegetables, DDT PCBs etc

Some people believe that men are developing breasts because of these chemicals

See the book "Our Stolen Future" by Colborn, Myers Dumanoski, Little Brown pub, 1996 for more info and studies.

[ErlyRisa]

proof for your hypothesis

 

google "cancer cases rising children".

 

hmm explanation.

 

hypertheory: breasts....

A.

society demands 'bigger' ...some women go to the extent of operating.... subconscience thought process = bigger brest please... body says OK... and tries.. sadly it don't succeed.

B.

post child rearing... teenage starting to 'leave' the home... subconscience 'need' to have 'that feeling' again.

C.

non-child rearer getting closer to inability to rear. ovarian+breast cancer higher probability...(brain tumor also(why can't i find a man))

 

 

explanative? or just hogwash? --u decide.

[maikeru]

proof for your hypothesis

 

google "cancer cases rising children".

 

I find the common problems of increasingly inadequate nutrition, junk food, poor habits, lack of physical activity, sun tanning, and obesity to be pretty good starts to explain a rise in cancer among children. The Google search mentions everything from melanoma to neuroblastomas on the rise. No surprise there.

 

hypertheory: breasts....

A.

society demands 'bigger' ...some women go to the extent of operating.... subconscience thought process = bigger brest please... body says OK... and tries.. sadly it don't succeed.

 

Does not compute. Provide some physiological mechanisms by which this might occur and evidence to back up your claim. How does the body say OK? Does it in a little voice say, "All right, I failed at growing bigger breasts. Sorry, OK? It's not my fault. But you know I really, really tried."

 

B.

post child rearing... teenage starting to 'leave' the home... subconscience 'need' to have 'that feeling' again.

 

I won't go there.

 

C.

non-child rearer getting closer to inability to rear. ovarian+breast cancer higher probability...(brain tumor also(why can't i find a man))

 

Jeez, I really won't go there.

 

explanative? or just hogwash? --u decide.

 

Hogwash with a capital H.

 

 

You might want to create a separate thread on cancer and try your theories there instead of this hair thread. What hair and cancer have to do with each other is beyond my imagination.

[ErlyRisa]

or just plain old pork-methylate!

 

--hmm how to start off ur book?

 

hypothetical exp:

 

grab some kids plants.

 

grow them... one batch with 'normal' lightin conitions.

other...try 'light show' sporadic lighting.

 

-plants that survive and try to 'adapt' to sporadity of lighting conditions (presumed advantage would be limber leaf placement, or multiple smaller leaf growth (whatever I'm sure a darwinist could come up with more imaginative 'torture techniques', and possible outcomes)

-plants that 'mutate' -count succesfull 'new breed'

-plants that die - observe any 'amount of trying' , the plant may have developed traits, but wasn't able to instanciate them affectiviely (cancer)---this is the hidden part of Darwin's works... he didn't tell us about the cross-bread dogs that go rabid, why and wether or not they are trying to fit into the environment post birth/concection.

 

--PS there is starting to become a more avid concnsus that environmental factors not only dictate offspring generative change via 'survival of the fittest' breeding... but a 'want' to develop a trait.

eg. CuttleFish. -there is an inherent 'want' to be able to develop a trait. -this 'want' is (in my opinion) a stronger dictator toward evolutionary development amongst a species, than what Darwin just 'simply' laid out (and to tell ya the truth, it's obvious Darwin somewhat beleived in the 'other' equation to evolution, but knew that it was just too much to swallow - especially so, when he knew not to disturb his own species evolutionary timeline by blurting out something which would have a direct effect'.

 

-So... when will u go Xman?

 

PPS ... asexuality evolutionary timeline for our species has already started.... and it's not a result of 'survival of the fittest' or environmetal factors ---> it's a WANT to change.

statu variabilis!

 

Reading up on Galapogas island petri dish evolution may be enlightening. There are so many offshoot animals thier it's ridiculous...the beuty about how easy it is to prove 'an inherant want' is that the animals can move islands if they wish.

(Lord of the Rings)=> evolution of the species.

[billg]

or just plain old pork-methylate!

 

--hmm how to start off ur book?

 

hypothetical exp:

 

grab some kids plants.

 

grow them... one batch with 'normal' lightin conitions.

other...try 'light show' sporadic lighting.

 

-plants that survive and try to 'adapt' to sporadity of lighting conditions (presumed advantage would be limber leaf placement, or multiple smaller leaf growth (whatever I'm sure a darwinist could come up with more imaginative 'torture techniques', and possible outcomes)

-plants that 'mutate' -count succesfull 'new breed'

-plants that die - observe any 'amount of trying' , the plant may have developed traits, but wasn't able to instanciate them affectiviely (cancer)---this is the hidden part of Darwin's works... he didn't tell us about the cross-bread dogs that go rabid, why and wether or not they are trying to fit into the environment post birth/concection.

 

--PS there is starting to become a more avid concnsus that environmental factors not only dictate offspring generative change via 'survival of the fittest' breeding... but a 'want' to develop a trait.

eg. CuttleFish. -there is an inherent 'want' to be able to develop a trait. -this 'want' is (in my opinion) a stronger dictator toward evolutionary development amongst a species, than what Darwin just 'simply' laid out (and to tell ya the truth, it's obvious Darwin somewhat beleived in the 'other' equation to evolution, but knew that it was just too much to swallow - especially so, when he knew not to disturb his own species evolutionary timeline by blurting out something which would have a direct effect'.

 

-So... when will u go Xman?

 

PPS ... asexuality evolutionary timeline for our species has already started.... and it's not a result of 'survival of the fittest' or environmetal factors ---> it's a WANT to change.

statu variabilis!

 

Reading up on Galapogas island petri dish evolution may be enlightening. There are so many offshoot animals thier it's ridiculous...the beuty about how easy it is to prove 'an inherant want' is that the animals can move islands if they wish.

(Lord of the Rings)=> evolution of the species.

 

Oh dear god I just can't try and argue with anything this confused. There's no hope, no hope at all.

[Boerseun]

Oh dear god I just can't try and argue with anything this confused. There's no hope, no hope at all.

Ditto.

 

ErlyRisa, does your post contain anything resembling a point?

[ErlyRisa]

I guess not?:(

[arkain101]

feel free to repost what it is you wanted to say.

 

Take your time if you like. Add images if you prefer. I got all the time in the world.... :(

[ErlyRisa]

OK - but I want rights to ur book!

 

 

 

which will win? -or will it be the Autosophy computer we create?

[Boerseun]

*Ever so gently nudging the thread back on topic...* :)

[arkain101]

*ouch*

 

*throws this in your face*

 

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

[ErlyRisa]

it would work if we didn't think you have to divide by eons!

 

--it's all happening ALOT faster.

 

-like the monkey reading the newspaper... now if the chimp die tommorow and was analysed archeologically --it would be found that it is nothing more than an ordinary chimp --> but how ordinary is a chimp that reads the newspapaer?

 

---I propose that some scientist have already done the fire experiment and found that it works... but juct as the chimps in the simpsons that came back from space, came back superintellignet rollerskaters -- do we really want to do this?

 

you could also theorise that we are not accurate enough.... for example all 4 legged animals could be classified as 1 species on a relativstic standpiont, where the order of magnitude for scientific alnalysis is not accurate enough to distinguish any turning piont species amongst the group.

 

--then there is the fact that it's almost impossible to theroise about the societal strucure of an extinct species (although in Jurassic park we are reminded that there are some scientist with thier heads screwed on and can make better judgment about, just how it was a species behaved (Neil:flocking birds vs. held dogma of broodng society))

 

I wish I kne the name of the chimp but....

 

their is a Chimp that actually carries boulders from a faraway river, and has setup a nutcracking factory next to a particular species of tree which bears nutty fruit that only a Tucan can open with it's beak. I theorise that the monkies saw the tucan open the nut, and copied thier technique. -this takes 1 smart monkey, and an established society to 'uphold tradition', teaching other monkeys the technique.... are these guys not as human as we are? --I see no distinction between us and them. I would even guess that thier religion is called Tucan, and they worship the boulder.

[CraigD]

The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.

Though often repeated, usually by proponents of creationism, this claim is generally considered a misconception (Source: wikipedia article “transitional form”). Numerous transitional forms appear in the fossil record.

[billg]

*ouch*

 

*throws this in your face*

 

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

 

Even the simplest form of life is tremendously complex rebuttal:

CB010.1: Complex "simple" life

 

Transitional fossils rebuttal:

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

CC200: Transitional fossils

 

Human transitional fossils:

CC050: Hominid transition

 

I suggest you follow the links if you want more information.

[Boerseun]

*ouch*

 

*throws this in your face*

 

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

Are we discussing the oddities of human hair, or the pros and cons of evolution?

 

There are plenty threads dedicated to that, I suggest this conversation be taken to one of them and this thread return to topic.

 

But besides that, your take on the fossil record lacking transitional forms is simply wrong. Evolution has no end in sight, with no specific species being the final product of any particular evolutionary thread. That being said, it is very well true that every single species found in the fossil record, and every single species alive today, are transitional forms to some different shape or form. Even you.

 

But there are different threads to discuss the pros and cons of evolution. There are also threads catering for creationism, if that's your cup 'o tea.