The Peon

I know someone who, according to BMI standards is verging on morbidly obese (he even got rejected from the police based on this alone) he's pretty much a solid wall of muscle.

 

he is over weight for his height but its pretty much all muscle. he was a soldier and could run 10miles carrying 50kg of stuff through a desert no problem so i'd call him healthy.

 

if you're talking about high fat content and being healthy i'd disagree.

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%.

If you want to maintain a high body mass and have a low proportion of fat on your body you have to eat a high proportion of protein and as little fat as you can get .

 

A balanced diet is the recommended thing to do though for living ' normally ' .

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

 

also what was there blood type and halopgroup.

 

please provide links and references.

 

someone must know

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.

No, it is demonstrably false, homo sapiens did not move out of Africa until around 50,000 years ago, that falsifies your entire premise.

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?

There were no marine dinosaurs Peon, but the marine reptiles often characterized as dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (the ones that made it that at least to the Cretaceous) died off due to the collapse of the marine food chain, the K/T extinction had a profound influence in the sea as well as on land and many marine species both microscopic and macroscopic became extinct as well. Sea turtles are thought by some to be the sole remaining members of the marine reptile groups.

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

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?

Correct. In fact, the virus they resurrected would have had to be an extinct strain (that's even more specific than species, but species is an odd concept for things like viruses that don't reproduce sexually. I don't know if it was extinct at a higher taxonomic level though).

 

Here's a couple articles about this:

http://genome.cshlp....ss/Herv_K.xhtml

news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/11/01-04.html

 

Note that they had to use multiple copies to deduce the original, since any one copy would have been full of mutations.

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

Well one group of scientists recreated one of the retroviruses by putting together the fragments, and it could infect cells.

 

But the more usual way is to compare the sequences to other known sequences and see if they match.

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.

Re: Supermassive Blackholes

 

What are your thoughts on these? I think they are literally fountains of youth for our type of stable star environment. In the early stages of the Universe they quickly coalesced and formed supermassive blackholes, And with a larger event horizen the more hawking radiation would be emitted. These could be massive unimaginable in size jets of raw energy, which helped seed the early universe. You still see supermassives almost everywhere. And I am willing to bet our galaxies are the aftermath of the early, furious quasar like past of our little island. The supermassive now at a more stable size (but still hungry, pulling in unfortunate stars near the core of the galaxy.

Natural is the word.

 

Surly, a simple creationist response to that will be "supernatural", thus you can never "disprove" that one family did not populate the Earth.

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?

Of course we're not just talking about humans. All the animals of the earth would have to have multiplied to their present numbers and diversity from whatever time the Flood happed until now. And the time span from Flood to the first signs of global civilizations would have to be pretty narrow, too. Really none of the archaeological record works with a global flood. I don't think Creationists really realize how much of science their ideas really reject. Every scrap of evidence we have on the emergence of agriculture, of the state, of cities and the settlement of the continents has to be completely wrong. Basically all of prehistoric archeology is horse hockey, and all the major events in human history happened in ridiculously short spans of time.

 

By the way, human 'races' are principally cultural constructs. They don't have much biological meaning as given. That Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid listing you give is more than a bit outdated and has some serious flaws. Not on topic, though.

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).

How successful have you been with your friend in bringing up scientific facts to argue against his omnipotent God? One could argue that even if the wives of Ham, Shem and Japeth were somehow from other races (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), it would still not be enough to create so many different races, especially with so many today having "pure bloodlines" (don't jump on me, this is not scientific thinking, but a creationist might understand it). Above all, you need to avoid giving your friend the opportunity to end the discussion by playing the omnipotence card.

 

I haven't found much success bringing out scientific facts to argue with someone who is more than willing to dismiss all of science in favor of a deity who can defy physical laws with a thought. Maybe you can get better traction arguing that Noah was a terrible father who used black magic on his son when Ham saw Dad's genitals after Noah had passed out drunk in his tent (or... not).

 

Since Noah lived to be 950 years old and only had three sons, it can be assumed that fertility was not increased with longevity. Ham only had four sons in his lifetime so this is further proof that the generations of the time were not supernaturally prolific (in fact, just the opposite; wouldn't you expect more children in a life of almost a millennium? The average Catholic family outstrips this achievement in mere decades).

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.

I would also want to look at genetic recombination which occurs naturally. Its a source of variance, plus you have epigenetics plus even more influential factors. Bottlenecks I think are also evident in our species history, but with that one being much larger then to proposed idea of speciation I would tend to think that seeing such would be all that easier.

 

I mean when you ask such questions, do you mean for instance an “ideal” molecular clock? I could get confused and wonder if you are asking about drift for instance, along with fitness peaks and phenotypes, so is it basically wondering if mutation is the topic at hand.

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?

theres a java simulation on talk.origins somewhere.

 

IIRC it was very generous with breeding ages and lifetimes and assumed that all the women were constantly pregnant from a very young age and it still fell short of the 6billion alive today mark. and way more than half of them were small kids.leaving only around 1 billion adults to do work.

I am more interested in the possibility of the genetic variety we see today, such as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid occuring in only 4,500 years of breeding. Is such a genetic variety even possible in such a "short" amount of time and generations?

Hello SFN community. Long time no post. I have been debating with a creationist friend about the account in the Bible about Noah. I am trying to explain to him that it is impossible that a single man and his wife, 4,500 years ago could have produced the genetic variety and amount of people on this planet today. Am I correct? Would it be even possible for a single family with 3 children 4,500 years ago to produce the over 20 billion (estimated) people who have lived since that time and also the variety in racial features, cultural customs etc?

I know it is most likely improbable, but I want to know is it even genetically possible?

Wow this thread is still alive..