The Peon

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-finds-planet-thats-just-life-180545298.html NASA has found a new planet outside Earth's solar system that is eerily similar to Earth in important aspects. Scientists say the temperature on the surface of the planet is about a comfy 72 degrees (22 Celsius). Its star could almost be a twin of Earth's sun. It probably has water and land. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Holy chit!

My question is, why do you feel a low fat diet is beneficial?

Heh I know exactly what you mean. BMI is such a stupid system. Just go off bodyfat, it's a much more accurate measure of health. Average adult should be no more than 15%. It's a little more involved than that, but that is generally correct. Your body needs a certain amount of essential amino acids to build muscle tissue. But protein alone is not healthy either. An average adult male that does not work out does not even need that much food proteins. A body builder however, needs a LOT more protein for muscle growth and repair. I would say a normal person needs no more than 20% protein of their total calories, while a bodybuilder would need upward of 40-50%. It's also unhealthy to ingest little or no fat especially if you are bodybuilding. I would say about 20% of your total calories while body building should be fat. Thus a body builder would need about 40% protein, 40% carbs and 20% fat for a good balanced diet. Ideally the fats should come from nuts and poly and mono unsaturated fats. Your carb sources should ideally be low glycemic inducing high fiber foods like sweet potato, veggies and the like. The average joe could do well with 20% protein, 60% carbs, 20% fat.

Bear in mind that the taller one is, the more massive one tends to be, which means the more energy consumption one has. I tend to think most animals are not larger because environment does not allow it, more so than genetics. In the age of Dinosaurs a few species grew substantially over rather rapid period of time. This was due to an abundant and lush source of vegetation, which in turn allowed prey animals to gain size which in turn finally allowed predators to gain size. The extinction event which happened 65 MYA was primarily due to the collapse of the lush vegetation.

At least you are the only person who has a unique eye color in your entire family with "light brown". If you want to talk genes though I would assume "amber" is considered brown there lies part of your answer no?.

My aunt died of lung cancer when she was 56 from smoking. My uncle was healthy and only 59 and died suddenly a year later. Relatives said he was severely depressed and had no will to live. I am sure there were contributing factors that stemmed from the depression.

Thanks guys you made it pretty clear and understandable.

Check out my conclusions on the matter: Why Europeans may have developed cold adaptation traits sooner than other "races" The best part about that thread is now its proven to be fact that sapiens (out of Africa sapiens that is) contain Neanderthal DNA. Really? I just watched a slew of documentaries about the Africa "exodus" and most put the event at 200,000 years ago. Not to mention Erectus seems to have left Africa almost immediately after arriving on the scene. Why wouldn't Sapien? May I see how this is demonstrably false?

I read that wikipedia article and a few others, but it still does not make full sense to me. Is this correct to assume: The change in atmosphere was sudden and drastic, affecting the plant life and smallest of creatures in the oceans food chain. This in turn caused larger fish and animals to "thin out" and many died off, some species even became extinct. Then since the smaller "game" fish were so few in numbers, the larger predators died off from starvation?

What exactly are the specifics of this collapse? If most land animals died off, how would that affect the seas? Can you give a few scenarios and explanations? I read a lot about the K/T extinction event but all the sources I read touch only on land animals.

I tried doing some google searches and read a few articles as well as doing a search here, but I have not found any info on why marine dinosaurs went extinct. It seems rather odd if it was a meteor impact that it would cause extinction of some fish and not others. Is there any explanation as to why bony fish, sharks and a few other marine animals made it through but marine dinosaurs and other types of marine monsters that existed back then did not?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105811-NASA-Discovers-New-Life http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/18/switzerland.cern.antimatter/

Please tell me I am not the only one who thought of this after reading the OP:

Are human's the only creatures on the earth with such a vast difference in train of thought?

Thank you very much for the answer. It's greatly appreciated *thumbs up*

I assume you mean known retro virus sequences that they are comparing the human DNA to? So technically if that were true, some DNA sequences in humans could in fact be retrovirus that are now "extinct?" and we assume they are normal inherited DNA sequences? Or am I missing something here? I am a bit confused sorry. *edited for slight clarification

It's fascinating to see that years after I made my own opinions on the subject they are finally being validated.

My question is, how do geneticists know that particular sequence of DNA is caused by a retrovirus rather than a normal inherited gene sequence? I read an article that 8% of our genome is retrovirus inscription, and that we share 16 known retrovirus inscriptions in our DNA with Chimps. I was curious as to how scientists know the difference of normal DNA and Retroviral?

Taken from another forum.

But the Judeo-Christian God is a diety of law. Thus he established the laws of genetics and hence if he somehow twisted them to allow for all the races and people today in a mere few centurys he is a law breaker. A better question is, why even do that in the first place? Is having all these different races that important that he would break his own rules?

Excellent points! Using the terms I used was to point out the distinct differences in cranium shape, and of course visual features (such as dark or lighter skin, slanted or round eyes etc).

I am more concerned with the possibility that I am using a flawed argument than convincing him otherwise. I found that most creationists have to learn the truth on their own because it's hard to force someone to see that their beliefs are dilusional. My concern after the fact was that it is possible that the races of humanity could have arisen from a single family in a matter of 4,500 years. OK I don't get all the lingo in this message, excuse me I am not the brightest. But my whole question in a nutshell is if under any circumstances could a single family 4,500 years ago produce all the variety of mankind you see today?

OK So basically there is no way genetically that in 4,500 years all the races of the Earth could have evolved from a single human family? My argument was sound? Or is it even a remote possibility?